California's 'Truth in Recycling' Law Blocked by Judge (yahoo.com)
(Sunday July 19, 2026 @05:04PM (EditorDavid)
from the re-recycling dept.)
- Reference: 0184512232
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/07/19/210221/californias-truth-in-recycling-law-blocked-by-judge
- Source link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/key-california-law-recycling-symbols-192558743.html
An anonymous reader shared [1]this report from the Los Angeles Times :
> A federal judge has halted California's groundbreaking " [2]Truth in Recycling" law , which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled. [Originally planned to take effect October 4th], California's recyclable packaging law prohibits manufacturers from using a "chasing arrows" recycling symbol on products or materials unless they are actually being recycled in a meaningful way, which the law quantifies...
>
> A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations [3]sued the state in March , arguing the law violates their right to free speech. They argued that Senate Bill 343 operates as "government-imposed censorship." Judge William Hayes agreed that their challenge has merit, and on Tuesday ordered California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the defendant in the case, to pause enforcement of the law "until further order of the Court...." Advocates of reducing plastic use disagreed. "The court got it wrong, and I'm confident that the state will ultimately prevail," said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste. "S.B. 343 does not violate the 1st Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the 1st Amendment protects misleading environmental marketing is inconsistent with the basic principles of consumer protection that states like California have implemented for decades."
>
> In January, CalRecycle, the state's waste agency, reported that less than 10% of most single-use plastic materials in the state were being recycled. Even yogurt containers and margarine tubs — made of ubiquitous polypropylene, or No. 5 plastic — are being recycled at a rate of only 2% in the state, the report said. Only 5% of colored shampoo and detergent bottles, made from polyethylene, or No. 1 plastic, are getting recycled...
>
> Plastic materials that can't be recycled are typically sent to landfills or sometimes illegally shipped overseas, where they are burned or end up in landfills, rivers and waterways.
The bill's author told the Los Angeles Times "All you have to do is look at the numbers. These products are not getting recycled, despite what the industry is claiming. They are just confusing consumers, clogging the waste stream, polluting the environment, leading to higher and higher prices for local governments and ratepayers." He argues the symbols shouldn't be used to "confuse people who see the symbols [on products] and assume they can be recycled."
The article also quotes Judith Enck, former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator and president of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics. "Given the long history of the plastics industry deceiving the public about plastics recycling, this is an especially bad outcome. It is a reminder that the plastics industry has enough money to fight even the most modest policy designed to protect people and the planet."
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/key-california-law-recycling-symbols-192558743.html
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/05/16/0544201/california-law-limits-recycling-logo-in-new-attack-on-plastic-waste
[3] https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2026-03-18/industry-groups-sue-california-over-truth-in-recycling-law
> A federal judge has halted California's groundbreaking " [2]Truth in Recycling" law , which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled. [Originally planned to take effect October 4th], California's recyclable packaging law prohibits manufacturers from using a "chasing arrows" recycling symbol on products or materials unless they are actually being recycled in a meaningful way, which the law quantifies...
>
> A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations [3]sued the state in March , arguing the law violates their right to free speech. They argued that Senate Bill 343 operates as "government-imposed censorship." Judge William Hayes agreed that their challenge has merit, and on Tuesday ordered California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the defendant in the case, to pause enforcement of the law "until further order of the Court...." Advocates of reducing plastic use disagreed. "The court got it wrong, and I'm confident that the state will ultimately prevail," said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste. "S.B. 343 does not violate the 1st Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the 1st Amendment protects misleading environmental marketing is inconsistent with the basic principles of consumer protection that states like California have implemented for decades."
>
> In January, CalRecycle, the state's waste agency, reported that less than 10% of most single-use plastic materials in the state were being recycled. Even yogurt containers and margarine tubs — made of ubiquitous polypropylene, or No. 5 plastic — are being recycled at a rate of only 2% in the state, the report said. Only 5% of colored shampoo and detergent bottles, made from polyethylene, or No. 1 plastic, are getting recycled...
>
> Plastic materials that can't be recycled are typically sent to landfills or sometimes illegally shipped overseas, where they are burned or end up in landfills, rivers and waterways.
The bill's author told the Los Angeles Times "All you have to do is look at the numbers. These products are not getting recycled, despite what the industry is claiming. They are just confusing consumers, clogging the waste stream, polluting the environment, leading to higher and higher prices for local governments and ratepayers." He argues the symbols shouldn't be used to "confuse people who see the symbols [on products] and assume they can be recycled."
The article also quotes Judith Enck, former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator and president of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics. "Given the long history of the plastics industry deceiving the public about plastics recycling, this is an especially bad outcome. It is a reminder that the plastics industry has enough money to fight even the most modest policy designed to protect people and the planet."
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/key-california-law-recycling-symbols-192558743.html
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/05/16/0544201/california-law-limits-recycling-logo-in-new-attack-on-plastic-waste
[3] https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2026-03-18/industry-groups-sue-california-over-truth-in-recycling-law
Recycling Plastic Is a Dangerous Waste of Time (Score:2)
by fjo3 ( 1399739 )
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] It was never meant to be recycled, most can't be recycled, and it generates immense amounts of microplastics, even in the most modern plastic recycling facilities.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJpkRSSM_OQ
Re: (Score:1)
by Tablizer ( 95088 )
I wonder if it can be diced up and used for amalgamation plastics where esthetics don't matter much.
Preliminary injunction? (Score:2)
by LindleyF ( 9395567 )
The summary calls it a ruling but some of the wording makes it sound like a preliminary injunction. If so, that makes sense. It just means "delay changes until the case can be heard."
Re: (Score:2)
by RitchCraft ( 6454710 )
Plenty of soup in the kitchen though!
Bullshit. (Score:3)
by Gravis Zero ( 934156 )
> "government-imposed censorship."
It's government protection from predatory and false advertising. If it's on the product or packaging the the maker is advertising that the product is recyclable.
Sue again (Score:2)
by manu0601 ( 2221348 )
With only 2% of polypropylene and 5% of polyethylene recycled, the ones that claim plastic is recycled should be sued too.
Oh goody (Score:3)
We are a fundamentally breaking down the most basic consumer protection laws in existence. I can't see how this could possibly end poorly for anyone....
The difference is really simple. You cannot lie for money. False advertising is not free speech. Or didn't used to be. Since we've become a kleptocracy and kekistocracy all bets are off.
On the off chance that there is anyone out there who votes republican, and realistically this is being driven by the republicans, they are going to come for your property. It's not a bunch of blue haired college girls telling you to pay for school lunches for hungry kids that are going to take your property. It's the same ghouls and psychopaths we've been dealing with for thousands of years and that we now call the Epstein class.
And if you're still voting Republican in this day and age then you don't have any problem with child sex slaves and a few of you are probably just upset you didn't get an invite to the island. Which is why you need to wake up and realize that they're going to take your property. Because that's probably the only thing you care about.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the next step seems to be claiming that mandatory nutrition labels on food is a violation of free speech.