A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.
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. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations 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.”
The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.
The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”
Advocates of reducing the use of plastic 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. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First 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, issued a report showing 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 #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 #1 plastic, are getting recycled.
Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.
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.
A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.
According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.
Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.
“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said 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.”
