Two bipartisan bills advancing through Congress could offer the consumer packaged goods industry relief from a patchwork of state-level packaging sustainability laws, but the push for a single national framework is exposing divisions about how “recyclable” and “recycled content” claims should be defined and substantiated.
On Tuesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee advanced by a voice vote the Packaging and Claims Knowledge (PACK) Act (HR 6832) and the Recycled Materials Attribution Act (RMAA, HR 7502) to the applause of CPG industry groups and criticism of environmental advocates.
The bills would establish federal standards for claims including “recyclable,” “compostable” and “reusable,” and create a national framework for recycled-content claims that would recognize mass-balance accounting – a controversial system that allows recycled material used in a manufacturing process to be credited toward products made in that system, even when the recycled material cannot be physically traced to a specific product.
What is wrong with the current system?
The legislation comes as CPG companies are working towards increasingly ambitious sustainable packaging goals, but also navigating an increasingly complex patchwork of federal and state laws with different definitions for key terms, such as recyclable and recycled content.
According to a letter the Consumer Brands Association sent to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, many of the current laws not only cause confusion, but are outdated and “no longer reflect how products are made or used today – especially when it comes to plastics.”
At the same time, industry faces an expanding array of state-level extended producer responsibility requirements, adding to the complexity of complying with different packaging rules and recycling systems. The stakes for non-compliance are high, including significant fines. For example, under California’s SB 54, failure to register, report and pay dues could trigger penalties of up to $50,000 per day. In Oregon they are $25,000 per day and in Minnesota, $100,000 per day.
What the bills would change
The PACK Act and RMAA offer industry some relief, according to the Plastics Industry Association, which notes the proposals “would establish national definitions and standards for recycling, recycled content and recycling claims” and “support clearer consumer information, stronger recycling markets and continued investment in recycling and manufacturing.”
The PACK Act, introduced by Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, would standardize voluntary recyclable, compostable and reusable claims under the oversight of the Federal Trade Commission and Environmental Protection Agency, require third-party certification to ensure claims are accurate and meet recognized standards and establish federal preemption over conflicting state-level labeling regulations. It also would allow companies to choose whether or not they want to make sustainability claims.
“Whether you’re making a product, stocking a grocery store, or trying to figure out what in the world a label even means, you shouldn’t need fifty different rulebooks,” said Weber in a Sept. 1 statement lauding the bill’s advancement.
He added: “The PACK Act cuts through the confusion and brings some good old-fashioned common sense back to the process. If a business chooses to make a recyclable, compostable, or reusable claim, they should have one clear, voluntary federal framework to follow, not a regulatory maze that changes from state to state. That means more certainty for businesses, clearer information for consumers, and fewer costs passed down to hardworking families.”
Likewise, RMAA, introduced by Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-NY-23, would establish federal standards for recycling and recycled-content marketing claims and make it illegal to make misleading recycled content claims in advertising, marketing and selling of products. The act also would allow innovative non-mechanical recycling technologies to count as ‘recycling,’ which the CBA argues would contribute to American manufacturing and sustainability.
“The RMAA is a rifle-shot effort to ensure consistent consumer protection obligations and enforcement, while also supporting economic growth and US competitiveness by encouraging American innovation and investment in domestic manufacturing, decreasing reliance on foreign inputs, ensuring domestic supply-chain resiliency, and creating good-paying jobs,” according to CBA.
The trade group advocated for the bills advancement on the ground that they “work in tandem to reduce consumer confusion and plastic waste while providing much-needed clarity to support new domestic innovations and investments,” according to the letter.
The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers trade group reiterated Weber’s point that multiple definitions for recyclable “confuses consumers and freezes investment in recycling and waste collection technologies, holds back innovative waste-reduction partnerships and invites frivolous lawsuits.”
Environmentalists and consumer advocates push back
While the problems that the bills address are generally agreed upon, not everyone agrees they offer the best solution.
The National Resources Defense Council argues the bills “would increase consumer confusion” by allowing companies to make misleading claims about recycled content and the recyclability of plastic packaging.
One of its main concerns centers on the use of mass-balance accounting, which it says is “convoluted and deceptive” and “breaks the link between actual recycled materials and marketing claims about the products.”
Under the approach, recycled material used in a manufacturing system could be credited toward a product even when that recycled material cannot be physically traced to the package carrying the claim.
The group also objects to the bills’ federal preemption provisions, arguing that a national standard should not prevent states from adopting stronger requirements for packaging claims.
Consumer advocates raised similar concerns during a July hearing about the bills. At the hearing, the National Consumers League argued the PACT Act would preempt state labeling standards and RMAA would legitimize mass-balance accounting.
What happens next?
The bills have a long way to go before potentially becoming law.
While they cleared the first meaningful legislative hurdle this week, they still must pass the full Energy and Commerce Committee, where the core conflicts will likely remain contentious.
They also must pass the Senate, where they could bump up against other legislation proposed by Sen. Jeff Merkley and Rep. Lou Correa. The Truth in Labeling Act, introduced last month, addresses similar labeling issues by directing the FTC and EPA to create strict, legally enforceable definitions of recyclable, compostable, reusable and refillable. It also would crack down on the chasing arrows, which have been used to suggest recyclable without consideration of whether the packaging is genuinely collected and processed at scale.
It also would require that manufacturers must prove a package skips “disruptive inks” and adhesives that could hinder recycling and that at least 60% of consumers in regions where the product is sold can recycle it.
The competing proposals underscore the question now facing lawmakers: whether the answer to a fragmented packaging-claims landscape is one national standard or a tougher federal standard that sets a higher bar for what companies can claim.
