Wednesday
October 2, 1991
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Guidance for the Use of the Terms
"Recycled" and "Recyclable" and the
Recycling Emblem in Environmental
Marketing Claims; Notice of Public
Meeting
-------
/~%V4h«l« V *
[EPA/OSW-FR-91-032;SWH-FRU-4018-3]
Guidance for the Use of the Terms
"Recycled" and "Recyclable" and the
Recycling Emblem In Environmental
Marketing Claims
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of public meeting and
request for comments.
SUMMARY: EPA plans to develop
recommendations to the Federal Trade
Commission on voluntary guidance for
environmental claims promoting the use
of recycled materials and recyclable
materials. The Federal Trade
Commission is considering such
guidance in response to petitions from
States and today's notice solicits
comment on a number of options EPA is
considering for the guidance. The notice
also announces the time and location ot
a public meeting EPA will hold to hear
oral comments from interested parties
on the options outlined in this notice.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received on or before December 31,
1991. The public meeting will be held on
Wednesday, November 13, and
Thursday, November 14,1991 from 9:30
am to 4:30 pm at The Rosslyn Westpark
Hotel, Arlington, VA. Requests to
present oral testimony must be received
on or before Monday, October 28,1991.
EPA requests that ten copies of the oral
comments be submitted on or before
Friday, November 8,1991.
ADDRESSES: (1) Public Meeting—The
Agency will hold a public meeting on -
Wednesday, November 13, and
Thursday, November 14,1991, to receive
comments on the options and issues
relating to the options. The meeting will
consist of two days of testimony.
Because of the limited amount of time
available and the desire to hear a range
of views, presenters will be grouped in
appropriate panels and will be allotted a
specified time for statements, which
may be followed by questions from the
panel. Groups with common
perspectives on the questions raised by
these options are urged to select a single
representative.
Written requests to appear at the
meeting should be submitted no later
than Monday, October 28,1991 to: Office
of Solid Waste, Public Meeting Request/
F-91-GPLP-FFFFF, OS-305, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The
notice of participation should contain
the name, affiliation [if applicable),
address, and telephone number of the
participant and the individual presenter,
and a brief statement of the participant's
interest in the matter, and the topic of
presentation. , .*,
If the Agency determines that there
will not be adequate time to hear from
all those wishing to present comments,
the Agency will selept among those
wishing to testify, in order to ensure that
a range of viewpoints and interests is
represented. As time allows, individuals
may also sign up to present comments
during registration time at the; hearing.
The public meeting will be held at The
Rosslyn Westpark Hotel, 1900 North
Fort Myer Drive, Arlington, VA 22209 in
the Rosslyn Ballroom.
(2) Written Comments—Written
statements and additional information
may be submitted at the public hearing
for inclusion in the official record.
Written comments of any length will be
accepted. Commenters must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to: RCRA Docket Information
Center, Office of Solid Waste [OS-305),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Comments must
include the docket inumber F-91-GPLP-
FFFFF. The public docket is located at
EPA Headquarters, room M2427 and is
available for viewing from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. The public must make
an appointment to review docket
materials. Call [202) 260-9327 for
appointments. Copies cost $.15/page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information, contact the
RCRA/SuperfundWotline, Office of
Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (800) 424-9346 or
(703) 920-9810, local in the Washington,
DC metropolitan area.
For information on specific aspects ot
this notice, contact William MacLeod,
Office of Solid Waste (OS-301), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202)
260--i662.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies
of the following documents are_available
for viewing only in the RCRA Docket
— "
Regional Labeling Standards and
Labeling Resolution, the Northeast
Recycling Council.
Petition for Federal Trade Commission
Guides from National Food Processing
Association and other Petitioners.
Petition for Federal Trade Commission
Guides from the Cosmetic, Toiletry,
and Fragrance Association and the
Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers
; Association.
Open Remarks of F. Henry Habicht II,
Deputy Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency before
the Federal Trade Commission,
Hearings on Environmental Labeling,
July 17,1991.
Workplan for the Interagency Task
Force on Environmental Marketing
Claims, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Federal Trade Commission,
U S. Office of Consumer Affairs.
Description of Labeling Efforts, Draft
EPA Report.
Notice Outline
room:
The Green Report: Findings and
Preliminary Recommendations for
Responsible Environmental
Advertising, State Attorneys General
Task Force.
The Green Report II: Recommendations
for Responsible Environmental
Advertising, State Attorneys General
Task Force. |
Recycling Emblem Regulations, State ot
Rhode Island |and Providence
Plantations Regulations.
6 NYCRR Part 368 Recycling Emblems,
New York State Regulations.
I. Introduction
A. Overview
B. Federal Role
C. Purpose of Today's Notice
D Goals and Objectives of EPA Voluntary
Environmental Claims Guidance
II. Definitions
IU. Options for Guidance for Recycled
Content Claims
A. Option 1: Disclosure of Recycled
Materials Content
B Option 2: Minimum Content Standards
C. Option 3: Minimum Content Standards
and Disclosure
D. EPA's Preferred Option
E. General Issues Relating to "Recycled
Content" Claims
IV. Options for Guidance for Recyclable
Marketing Claims
A. Option 1: Minimum Recycling Rate ana
Recycling Rate Disclosure
B. Option 2: Qualified Claims
C. Option 3: Qualified Claims and
: Disclosure of National Recycling Rate
D Option 4: Minimum Recycling Rate,
Qualified Claims, and Disclosure ot
National Recycling Rate
E. EPA's Preferred Option
V. General Guidance
A. Use of Recycling Emblem _
1. Option 1: Limit Use of Recycling Emblem
to Certain Recycling Claims
2. Option 2: Use American Paper Institute
Guidance
3. Option 3: Clearly Label the Recycling
Emblem ,
4. EPA's Preferred Options for the Use of
the Recycling Emblem
B. Separating Claims of Packaging and
Product
I. Introduction
A, Overview
The American public is increasingly
concerned about environmental issues,
-------
and individuals are looking for ways to
do their part to protect our nation's
environment and resources. In the past
few years, public understanding of the
nature of environmental problems has
become more sophisticated. Many
people recognize that large
environmental problems are created not
only by the actions of large companies
and organizations, but also by the
seemingly small actions of millions of
individuals, for example, the generation
of municipal solid waste, or the
generation of "greenhouse" gases that
may contribute to global climate change.
Many individuals are responding by
trying to lessen the impacts of their own
behavior, by car-pooling to work
conserving water at home, and
purchasing consumer products which in
some way offer an environmental
advantage: Energy-saving lighting
fixtures and appliances, products which
contain fewer hazardous constituents, or
products containing recycled materials.
Manufacturers and marketers are
responding to the consumer demand for
environmentally oriented" products by
attempting to make products which do
not contribute to upper atmospheric
ozone depletion, create less solid waste
or fewer adverse impacts on water
quality, etc. They are also advertising
and otherwise highlighting both the real,
and desired, environmental benefits of
these products for consumers.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) views the increased desire for
environmentally oriented" products as
an opportunity to find effective non-
regulatory solutions to difficult
environmental problems which may in
some cases be solved more efficiently in
the marketplace than through
government regulations.
Environmentally informed consumers
making purchasing decisions based
upon accurate and reliable information
about the environmental attributes of
products would encourage
manufacturers to produce goods which
nave fewer adverse environmental
impacts.
To affect a shift toward more
environmentally benign products three
things must occur: First, manufacturers
need to produce products which are
better for the environment; second,
consumers need to be provided
accurate, reliable, and meaningful
information concerning the
environmental attributes of these
products; and, third, consumers need to
preferentially purchase these products
We are starting to see manufacturers
making products with fewer adverse
environmental impacts. In many cases
however, consumers are not being
49993
provided reliable and meaningful
information about the advantages of
these products, partially because of the
lack of national consensus on the
meaning and use of environmental terms
in advertising and labeling. Consumers
cannot know how to interpret and use
the information they receive until
consumers, manufacturers, and
government speak a common language
Our failure to speak the same language
in environmental marketing is creating
problems both for manufacturers who
are producing and attempting to market
environmentally oriented products, and
consumers who are seeking to purchase
them.
Some manufacturers who have made
legitimate attempts to improve their
products by reducing then-
environmental impacts are unsure how
to promote the environmental benefits of
their products. They are concerned
about criticism and liability for false or
misleading advertising if they advertise
environmental benefits in the absence of
clear and uniform standards or,
conversely, they face a potential loss of
market share if they do not advertise
environmental benefits and then-
competitors do.
Meanwhile, because manufacturers
are making claims based upon differing
standards, consumers often do not know
what the claims mean, and this creates
some consumer confusion and suspicion
of environmental claims. Environmental
claims are a special class of claims
because consumers typically lack the
scientific expertise to assess the validity
of the claims that marketers are making
The increasing numbers of
environmental claims bombarding
consumers with information on
competing environmental impacts, e g
( source reduced" or "recyclable" versus
biodegradable," compounds these
problems. Also, some highly aggressive
marketers may make confusing and
even misleading environmental claims,
further adding to consumer confusion.
Initial attempts to address this
situation have come from State
governments; for example, several
States, including New York, California,
and Rhode Island, have passed
legislation or issued regulations which
provide standard definitions or
guidelines for the use of the terms
"recycled" and "recyclable" (and other
terms). While individual State action
has been part of an important first step
to help define and shape the issue, as
well as begin the initial consensus
building process between government,
industry, and consumers, the definitions
and guidelines developed at the State
government level are not necessarily
consistent and compatible with each
other. As more States adopt regulations
or pass laws to address the issue of
environmental marketing, national
marketers or distributors may find
themselves in a situation where they
will either have to target advertising for
each State, which could be prohibitively
expensive, or will stop advertising the
environmental benefits of their products
altogether,
Recognizing the limitations of an
uncoordinated State-by-State response
to the issue, some State organizations
have begun to address the issue of
environmental marketing at national
and regional levels. A task force
compromised of the Attorneys General
from eleven States has formulated
guidance for environmental marketing,
which are contained in the Green Report
II—Guidance for Responsible
Environmental Advertising. This report
not only contains guidance for
environmental marketing, but also calls
upon the Federal government to adopt
national standards for environmental
marketing claims used in the labeling,
packaging, and promotion of consumer
products. At the regional level, the
Northeast Recycling Council, an
organization comprised of State
environmental officials from ten
Northeastern States, has developed
consensus guidelines for the use of the
terms "reusable," "recycled content"
and "recyclable" in product labeling.
These consensus guidelines could be
adopted by all ten of the member States
in an effort to achieve regional
coordination.
If national consensus over the use of
these terms is not reached in the near
future, we face the danger of losing a
valuable tool for educating the public
f and influencing the production and use
of more environmentally oriented
products. Consumers may come to
distrust or ignore all environmental
claims, and national manufacturers and
marketers may become so hamstrung by
conflicting State standards that they
avoid making these claims completely.
B. Federal Role
The U.S. EPA, the U.S. Office of
Consumer Affairs (USOCA), and the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
recognize the opportunity presented by
environmental marketing for improving
the environment as well as the need to
avoid misleading or deceptive
environmental claims. They also
understand the need for Federal
involvement to address this issue at the
national level. These three agencies
have joined to form a Federal Task
Force to provide a coordinated and
-------
Federal Renter / Vol. 56. No. 191 / Wednesday. OctoberJ^1991 / Notices
49994
cohesive national response to the issue
of environmental labeling and marketing
claims. The members of the Task Force
will work together to help ensure that
consumer, advertising, and
environmental issues are addressed
through a coordinated national effort.
The Task Force is intended to
enhance and coordinate, rather than
supersede, environmental marketing
activities currently taking place in each
individual agency. Environmental
marketing claims may potentially be
addressed by one of a combination of
several approaches: FTC industry
guides, FTC case-by-case enforcement,
EPA Guidance for specific terms, and
more general guidance, issued by EPA
or jointly by the Task Force, that applies
to a category of claims. The Task Force
will coordinate agency efforts so the
appropriate mix of approaches is used
to address the commonly used or most
problematic claims.
As an initial step to address a key
subject in this area, EPA is developing
guidance for two terms related to
recycling of materials from solid waste:
"Recycled" and "recyclable," and for
the use of the recycling emblem. This is
a topic of much consumer and business
interest, and these terms are two of the
most frequently used environmental
claims.
The FTC held hearings on July 17 and
18,1991, to gather information to assist
them in determining whether they
should develop industry guides for the
use of environmental marketing claims.
If FTC should decide to go forward with
developing industry guides in the future,
EPA will share the information we are
gathering with them, which may serve
them in the development of the industry
guides. EPA stands ready to assist FTC
in any way possible to ensure that the
environmental policy needs discussed in
this notice are addressed in an effective
and coordinated way by the guides. If
FTC should decide not to develop
industry guides, EPA will publish the
recommendations as its guidance to
industry and consumers.
C. Purpose of Today's Notice
Today's notice solicits comment on
options for guidance to be used by
marketers in product labeling and
advertising promoting the use of
recycled materials and recyclable
materials. EPA will hold a public
meeting to hear oral comment from
interested parties on the options
outlined in this notice.
D. Goals and Objectives of EPA
Voluntary Environmental Claims
Guidance
EPA has two overriding goals in
addressing "recycled icontent" and '
"recyclable" claims: We want to
encourage the trends toward (1) the
increased use of recycled materials in
products and (2) the increased recovery
of materials for recycling. These goals
will be advanced by facilitating the
communication between consumers and
marketers as to which products contain
recycled materials content and which
products are recyclable. By doing this
we will help to'restore consumer
confidence in environmental marketing
claims. (We recognize that improved
labeling practices need to be
supplemented by strong educational
programs' to help the general public
understand and actively participate in
recycling.) We also want to insure that
all companies making "recycled
content" and "recyclable" claims
operate on a level playing field: One
company should not be able to gain a
market advantage over another
company by promoting its product as
something the product is not. This will
help to ensure that companies making
legitimate environmental improvements
to their products will benefit from the
increased consumer demand for
environmentally oriented products,
fostering the desire on the part of
marketers to provide consumers with
more environmentally oriented products
II. Definitions
The following definitions are used in
the notice. These definitions are,
intended to serve as guidance to
marketers and to help educate
consumers. In formulating these
definitions, EPA has reviewed statutory
and regulatory definitions from the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). However, the definitions
stated here may not parallel those found
in RCRA. For example, whereas the
RCRA definition for "post-consumer
material" is applicable primarily to
paper and paper products, EPA has
broadened that definition for purposes
of this guidance so that it is applicable
in more situations. In choosing the
definitions to include in the notice, we
have recognized that many of the RCRA
definitions apply to government
procurement of materials with recycled
content, and procurement policy issues
might differ from the issues we are
addressing in this notice.
The term "home scrap" means those
scrap materials, Virgin content of a
material, or by-products generated from,
and commonly reused within, an
original manufacturing process. _
The term "post-consumer materials"
means those products or other materials
generated by a business or consumer
that have served their intended end •
uses, and that have been recovered from
or otherwise diverted from the solid
waste stream for the purpose of
recycling. '
The term "pre-consumer materials"
means those materials generated during
any step in the production-of a product,
and that have beeii recovered from or
otherwise diverted from the solid waste
stream for the purpose of recycling, but
does not include those scrap materials,
virgin content of a material, or by-
products generated from, and commonly
reused within, an original manufacturing
process.
The term "product" means goods or
commodities that are created by, or are
an end result of, a manufacturing
process. For the purpose of this .
guidance, packaging is included in this
definition.
The term "recycled materials" means
pre-consumer materials and post-
consumer materials, and does not
include home scrap.
The term "recyclables" means
products or materials that can be
recovered from or otherwise diverted
from the solid waste stream for the
purpose of recycling.
The term "recycled content" means
the portion of a material's or product s
weight that is composed of pre-
consumer and post-consumer materials.
The term "recycle" means the series
of activities, including collection,
separation, and processing, by which
products or other materials are
recovered from or otherwise diverted
from the solid waste stream for use in
the form of raw materials in the
manufacture of new products other than
fuel for producing heat or power by
combustion.
The term "recycling rate" means the
percentage by weight of a given product
or material category that is recycled.
We are soliciting comment on whether
the definitions listed in this section are
accurate and complete for the purpose
of this guidance, and will, if commonly
adopted, result in less confusion among
manufacturers, marketers, and
consumers concerning recycled content
and recyclable claims. We are also
soliciting comment on whether we
should include other terms which would
help manufacturers communicate with
consumers concerning the use of
recycled and recyclable materials.
-------
The number of Americans served by
recycling collection programs has grown
rapidly in the past several years. Over
30 million Americans are now served by
curbside recycling collection programs,
and this numb-^ \expected to continue
to growing' \syears. The
success" \lingprograms
deP'" ^ty to collect
ma'. ^se materials.
Whu \ can be the
mosti \ga
recyclin^ otential problem with
C\ ^^ n t" claims concerns
'- vague, potentially
, ide little
$k 'ers. Concerns
* * • ^ «£» ~> *f> 1* broad
state, <2x *2*^ O. ^ ,cn as -Made
- \ecycled
,
Content^
; the
consumers wX*. ^^ '•<&- tion
for the stateme\ • VA
These statements
products containing ^,
to 100% recycled con,
consumers care about
recycled materials in a\
is a likely assumption thav
consumers would also be cK
about the amount of recycled-,
and would generally prefer as\
recycled content as feasible. To\
these concerns, EPA is examining^
following three options for recycled
content claims guidance. \
A. Option 1: Disclosure of Recycled
Materials Content
In order to make statements
concerning the use of recycled materials
more meaningful, EPA is considering
recommending that marketers who
advertise the use of recycled materials
in a product prominently and clearly
state the percentage by weight of
recycled materials in the product. For
example, an aluminum can
manufacturer that uses 50% recycled
materials by weight to produce an
aluminum can could advertise the use of
recycled materials by making a
statement such as "Recycled Aluminum:
contains 50% recycled materials." No
minimum threshold for recycled content
would be set or recommended under this
option.
This option meets two needs. First,
the consumer will be provided with
useful and accurate information. By
placing the percentage of recycled
materials on the product, the consumer
will be informed of the use of recycled
materials, and the relative amount of
recycled materials in the product.
Second, this will provide consumers
with the opportunity to choose products
containing higher amounts of recycled
material, thereby potentially creating
competitive pressures to increase the
amount of recycled materials content in
products in order to meet consumer
demand. ,
One disadvantage to this option is
that it relies heavily upon consumer
knowledge of and demand for goods
produced with recycled materials. If
consumers do not understand the
meaning of the terms used or the
recycled content percentage, then this
information could have little effect upon
the amount of recycled materials used.
EPA requests comment on this issue and
any data concerning consumer
understanding of these terms.
B. Option 2: Minimum Content
Standards
EPA is also considering a
recommendation that marketers should
promote the recycled content of a
product or packaging only if the product
or packaging meets a specified minimum
percentage of recycled content. With
this option, EPA would recommend
Cither (1) a generic minimum content
tndard for all products (e.g., all
*ucts should meet a 25% minimum
'ed content standard before being
••d as containing recycled
nr (2) a series of standards
naterials or product
•?., aluminum beverage
'Id meet a 50% standard,
1 meet a 30% standard).
commend that
\ -rfse standards before
1\ Jse of recycled materials.
\ .-'c)ltl nas several advantages. If
the K xidards were commonly adopted,
it would provide consumers with the
knowledge and assurance of a minimum
threshold of recycled content when they
see content claims. This option could
increase the amount of recycled
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 191 / Wednesday. October 2. 1991 / Notices
materials used, if the minimum
percentages were set sufficiently high
that some manufacturers would need to
increase the amount of recycled
materials they put in products in order
to meet the standards. The option would
solve the major disadvantage of Option
1, because it does not rely as heavily on
consumer knowledge of and demand for
increased amounts of recycled materials
use to determine recycled content levels,
because these levels will be set by the
Administrator.
EPA's Guidelines for Federal
Procurement issued under section 6002
of RCRA provide recommended
standards for government purchases of
goods containing recovered materials.
EPA could use these standards as a
40
£tC£\ UUUiU US1C U1GO& «**»****,**»»«• —
starling point for setting the standards
under this option. (See, for example, 4C
CFR part 250.) EPA is requesting
comment on whether the "Procurement
Guidelines" provide suitable minimum
content standards for this guidance.
One disadvantage with this option is
that it would not distinguish between
products whose recycled content is
barely above the standard and those
products that are greatly exceeding the
standard. Because marketers would not
necessarily state the amount of recycled
materials content, this option also would
not provide consumers with information
they could use to choose products with
larger amounts of recycled materials
content. This option would likely entail
high standard setting costs to EPA, as
well as the need for ongoing evaluation
of the use of recycled materials in
products, and periodic revision of the
guidance in order to encourage greater
use of recycled materials. Also, it is not
clear that a commonly accepted, sound
basis exists for setting content
percentages across many products.
Finally, industry could view the
standard not only as the minimum level
of recycled content, but also as the
ceiling, resulting perhaps in less than
desired recycled material use. This may
occur because industries may have little
incentive to go beyond the minimum
standard.
C. Option 3: Minimum Content
Standards and Disclosure
EPA is also considering
recommending a combination of options
1 and 2 which would [1) discourage
marketers from promoting the use of
recycled materials content unless they
meet or exceed a specified niinimum
content standard, and (2) state the
percentage by weight of recycled
materials in the product.
The advantage of this option is that
consumers would be provided
information concerning the percentage
of recycled materials used in a product,
which would allow thfem to choose
products with higher percentages of
recycled material content, and they
would be ensured a minimum threshold
of recycled content. Ijowever, this
option would have disadvantages
similar to the previous option in regard
to costs, the burden pf ongoing
evaluation, and the difficulty in
establishing optimum minimum recycled
content standards.
D. EPA's Preferred Option
EPA's preferred option for the use of
"recycled content" cjaims is Option 1:
Disclosure of Recycled Materials
Content, whereby a marketer would
prominently disclose the percentage
recycled materials content as part of
any "recycled content" claim.
Unlike the other two options which
require EPA to establish standards, this
option would offer tyw costs to
government, would avoid the need for
EPA to oversee development and
implementation of minimum content
standards, and would not set standards
that could be viewed as a ceiling by
industry or be considered as arbitrary
by observers.
Marketers following this guidance
would provide consumers with
information on the percentage of
recycled content in their products.
Consumers can use this information as
part of their purchasing decision,
potentially creating competition among
manufacturers to meet consumer
demand for recycled content. EPA
believes that many; marketers could
respond quickly to [consumer demand, .
rapidly increasing ):heir use of recycled
materials.
E. General Issues Relating to "Recycled
Content" Claims
In this section we will present two
important issues which cut across all
three of the 'options for guidance that
EPA is considering. EPA is seeking
comment on both of these critical issues.
The first issue relates to the definitions
of "recycled materials" and "recycled
content." In the proposed definitions we
have defined "recycled materials" as
including both pre- and post-consumer
materials. This approach was taken for
three reasons. First, it is not clear
whether consumers understand the
difference between pre- and post-
consumer materials. The broader, more
inclusive definition may be simpler and
thus more effective. Second, some pre-
consumer wastesiwhich are currently
being disposed can be recovered. Efforts
to recycle such materials through
consumer marketing can help alleviate
local disposal problems. Third, it is not
clear whether the distinction between
pre- and post-consumer waste can be
tracked efficiently by producers and
brokers handling a variety of waste
streams. ,
Other parties, however, have made
the case that encouraging use of post-
consumer materials is desirable,
because post-consumer materials are
relatively more difficult to collect,
separate, and process than pre- :
consumer materials have been •-'- y
traditionally recycled more commonly.
For these reasons, they argue that the
recycling of post-consumer materials
should be encouraged more aggressively
than the recycling of pre-consumer
materials, or, at the very least, the
percentage of post-consumer material
content should be specifically stated
when communicating the use of recycled
materials. Some examples of this
position are-the State of California s law
which requires the use of 10% post-
consumer material content before a
claim of recycled content can be made,
the recommendation of the ad-hoc
Committee on Environmental
Advertising of the National Association
of Attorneys General that marketers not
call pre-consumer materials "recycled,"
and the Northeast Recycling Council's
recommendation that marketers
separately label the percentages of pre-
and post-consumer materials along with
any recycled content claim.
EPA would like to receive comment ^
on whether defining "recycled content"
to include both pre-consumer and post-
consumer materials, or to include only
post-consumer materials, will best
promote increased consumer
understanding regarding this issue. EPA
would like to receive comment on
whether a recommendation to state pre-
and/or post-consumer materials content
will lead to increased amounts pf
materials diverted from incinerators and
landfills. Does information exist that
demonstrates the effects on solid waste
disposal of substituting post-consumer
materials for pre-consumer materials?
Will a preference for post-consumer
materials result in the substitution of
post-consumer materials for pre-
consumer materials and not lead to a
reduction in the total amount of
materials destined for disposal? EPA
also solicits comments on the feasibility
and costs of differentiating and
monitoring post-consumer materials
content in various manufacturing
processes.
The other issue for which EPA is
seeking comment concerns the
calculation of recycled content, another
important issue which cuts across all
three options. Several approaches to
-------
calculating recycled content could be
used, the difference between the
approaches largely having to do with the
amount of time over which the recycled
materials use is counted. EPA's
Procurement Guidelines for paper and
paper products are very prescriptive in
this regard, requiring that manufacturers
meet the standards on a batch-by-batch
basis, while EPA's Procurement
Guideline for insulation products bases
the calculation upon a monthly mass
balance of recycled to virgin materials
used. The State of New York calculates
the percentage of recycled materials as
being "that proportion of a package or
product weight that is composed of
recycled materials as demonstrated by
an annual mass balance of all
feedstocks and outputs of the
manufacturing process." EPA is seeking
comment as to what type of accounting
system is most appropriate for consumer
products claiming the use of recycled
materials. Should we be recommending
a batch-by-batch, monthly, or annual
accounting? Are there other accounting
issues that we should be considering?
IV. Options and Guidance for
Recyclable Marketing Claims
As more and more Americans
participate hi recycling programs, the
recyclability of products which they
purchase is increasingly important.
Many Americans want to participate in
recycling programs and do their part to
help reduce the amount of waste sent to
landfills and waste combusters. In order
to participate they need to know which
materials are collected locally and how
these materials need to be prepared for
collection. •
The most reliable source of
information on what materials are
collected locally is the local public or
private organization sponsoring the
program. These organizations, however,
often do not have funds sufficient to
allow them to mount a comprehensive
public education campaign. As a result,
consumers often look for information
wherever they can find it, and some are
looking to product labeling and
advertising to learn whether a product
can be recycled.
Unfortunately for consumers,
recyclability claims are seldom of much
assistance in helping them recycle in
then- own communities, because these
claims are not typically based on
community availability of recycling
programs. Observers have noted that for
many consumers, recyclability is
determined by the availability of
collection programs for the product in
their community; however, marketers
commonly make "recyclable" claims in
order to inform the consumer that the
product, if collected, can technically be
processed and used, without regard to
whether an individual has reasonable
access to programs that actually collect
the product for use. Because of the
mismatch between many consumers'
understanding of "recyclable" claims
and some marketers' use of "recyclable"
claims, we face a situation where some
consumers are losing confidence in the
validity of "recyclable" claims and in
environmental marketing claims in
general.
Guidance can help marketers better
communicate the recyclability of
products to consumers, and can help
avoid a loss of consumer confidence in
the validity of "recyclable" claims. We
believe that communication will be most
facilitated by guidance that helps to
qualify "recyclable" claims, so that such
claims reflect the availability of
collection and use programs for the
product, and provide information that
the consumer can use to recycle the
product.
Guidance can also address the
problem created by marketers making
"recyclable" claims for products which
are recycled at very low rates, creating
a situation where companies that make
commonly "recyclable" products
compete with companies that do not do
so. EPA supports the efforts of
companies which have taken concrete
and productive steps to improve the
recyclability of their products by using
materials that are commonly collected
for recycling, eliminating materials
incompatible with recycling processes,
and supporting the development of
recycling infrastructure. We would like
to see companies who have made
changes or who have supported
recycling reap the benefits of then-
efforts through increased sales and
profits in the marketplace. Ideally,
guidance would facilitate fair
competition between marketers that
would increase the use of readily
"recyclable" products.
The following sections outline the
approaches EPA is considering in
formulating guidance for the use of
"recyclable" claims.
A. Option 1: Minimum Recycling Rate
and Recycling Rate Disclosure
This option has two elements. EPA
would recommend that marketers
promote the recyclability of a product
only when (1] the product is recycled at
a minimum percentage nationally, and
(2] the product prominently discloses the
national recovery rate for the material
or product.
The minimum recycling percentage
rate would be set by the Administrator.
The minimum recycling percentage rate
could be set either at a high level to
aggressively promote recycling or at a
lower level to provide a minimum
threshold to prevent trivial recyclable
claims by marketers of products that are
not widely recycled. The minimum
recycling percentage rate could either be
set on a material-by-material basis (e.g.,
aluminum should meet a 30% standard]
or a product-by-product basis
[aluminunvcans should meet a 50%
standardjfEPA is requesting comment
on the most appropriate method for
setting minimum recycling percentage
rates. We are also requesting comment
on criteria appropriate for setting a
minimum recycling percentage rate.
For products that meet the minimum
percentage, the recycling rate would be
disclosed in product labeling and
advertising in a statement along with
the recyclable claim. For example, the
statement could read: "Recyclable.
Glass containers are recycled at a 20%
rate nationally." EPA would like
commenters to provide information
concerning the availability of reliable,
current national recycling rates for
recycled materials and the feasibility of
using this information on product
labeling and advertising in a timely
manner. Also, what role should EPA or
others play in overseeing the
determination and use of such rates?
This option would help to meet EPA's
objectives of improving communications
concerning environmental marketing
claims. The option helps to ensure that
marketers do not make misleading
"recyclable" claims, by establishing a
minimum threshold before such a claim
could be made. It would also provide
consumers with comparative
information on national recycling rates
which could be used as a basis for
choosing products, and help foster
competition between marketers to
increase the use of highly recycled
materials in products.
EPA acknowledges that unless the
recycling rate threshold was set at a
very high level, this option would not
discourage marketers from labeling or
advertising their products as recyclable
in some communities where the product
or material is not collected. Another
drawback to this option, similar to that
described in the "recycled" options,
would be the difficulty in establishing a
commonly accepted, sound basis for
determining the appropriate recycling
rate standard for any given material,
and the high cost to the Agency of
setting the standard.
B. Option 2: Qualified Claims
"Recyclable" claims are often made
based upon differing definitions of
-------
recycling. "Recycle" as EPA would
define it in section II of this notice,
means the series of activities, including
collection, separation, and processing,
by which products or other materials are
recovered from or otherwise diverted
from the solid waste stream for use in
the form of raw materials in the
manufacture of new products other than
fuel for producing heat or power by
combustion. Therefore, in order for a
material to be considered fully
"recyclable," it must be collected,
separated, processed and used. If
marketers were to link "recyclable"
claims with information on access to
collection and use programs, the linkage
could eliminate much of the confusion
relating to recyclability claims.
With this option, EPA would
recommend that marketers make
"recyclability" claims: (1) That do not
lead consumers to assume that the
product is recyclable everywhere; and
(2) that provide consumers with
information that helps them recycle the
material. "Recyclable" claims meeting
these criteria are claims that EPA
considers to be "qualified."
An example of a qualified claim could
be: "This bottle can be recycled in
communities where collection facilities
for colored HDPE bottles exist. For more
information contact your local recycling
coordinator." Examples of qualified
claims currently exist in the
marketplace. For example, a label on a
plastic bottle claims: "This bottle is
made with PETE. It is the same plastic
used to make soft drink bottles and is
the most commonly recycled plastic. If
your community has a recycling program
that collects all products with a [SPI
code 1] symbol, please recycle this
container. To get more information on
how to encourage plastic recycling,
write us at the following
addressilAddress]." Qualified claims
help marketers communicate with
consumers in a manner that would lead
consumers interested in recycling
products to take constructive steps to do
so. The qualified claims could also avoid
the current situation where "recyclable"
claims often seem to have little meaning
to many consumers because the claims
appear to be nothing more than hollow
advertising.
Use of qualified claims under this
option would not, however, limit the
claims to those marketers whose
products are recycled at high rates.
These claims, therefore, could be used
by marketers of products that are
recycled at very low rates and in a
limited number of locations in the
country. We see this as the major
drawback to this option.
EPA is seeking comment on a number
of issues related to this option. First of
all, are the criteria we have set for a
"qualified" claim appropriate and
sufficient to provide useful information
to consumers? What additional criteria,
if any, should EPA include? Second,
would use of these criteria reduce the
number of misleading claims? Would
they encourage recovery of recyclable
materials?
C. Option 3: Qualified Claims and
Disclosure of National Recycling Rate
This option would consist of two
recommendations: marketers would
make "qualified" claims, as described in
Option 2, and also prominently disclose
the national recycling rate of the product
or material for which the claim of
recyclability is being made. For
example, a glass bottle could make the
claim: "The bottle recycled in
communities where collection facilities
for colored glass bottles exist. For more
information contact your local recycling
coordinator. Glass ;bottles are recycled
at a 20% rate nationally."
This option has all of the advantages
of the previous option. The additional
disclosure of the national recycling rate
is designed to address the major
concern we have With the previous
option: Differentiating the claims of
products commonly recycled from the
claims of products that are not
commonly recycled. While any marketer
could make a qualified claim of
recyclability under this option, it will
encourage marketers who are
considering making claims for a product
that is minimally recycled to think twice
about whether they want to make a
claim that reveals^ how little of their
product is actually recycled.
Aside from the issues related to the
"qualified" claims and the disclosure of
national recycling rate that we
discussed in the previous options, EPA
is seeking comment on whether a
combination of these two options is
appropriate and Would accomplish
EPA's objectives of helping marketers
communicate the ,recyclability of
products to consumers, avoiding a loss
of consumer confidence in the validity
of "recyclable" claims, and assisting
companies who have made changes or
who have supported recycling reap the
benefits of their efforts through
increased sales and profits in the
marketplace.
D. Option 4: Minimum Recycling Rate,
Qualified Claims^, and Disclosure of
National Recycling Rate
This option is a combination of major
elements of Optipns 1 and 3: First, EPA
would establish a minimum recycling
rate as described in Option 1. This
minimum would be a relatively low
level. Marketers would be encouraged
not to make claims of recyclability for
any products that did not meet this
minimal level of recycling. Second,
marketers whose products meet this
recycling rate would be encouraged to
meet the conditions outlined in Option 3.
This option would have the
advantages of the previous option plus it
would set a minimum threshold that
would prevent the most trivial claims of
recyclability from being made.
One disadvantage to this option is.the
difficulty that EPA could have in
defining meaningful criteria to set a
minimum recycling rate. We are
requesting comment on the appropriate
criteria for determining a minimum
recycling rate in the context of this
option. We are also requesting comment
on this option in general, and in
particular whether the use of several
elements in the claim could be confusing
to consumers or difficult for marketers
to apply.
E. EPA's Preferred Option
EPA's preferred option is Option 3:
Qualified Claims and Disclosure of
National Recycling Rate. We believe
this option offers the best match
between ease of implementation and
meeting our objectives of improving
communications of "recyclability,"
avoiding a loss of consumer confidence
in the validity of "recyclable" claims,
and assisting companies who have
made changes or who have supported
recycling reap the benefits of their
efforts through increased sales and
profits in the marketplace.
V. General Guidance ;
A. Use of Recycling Emblem
The familiar recycling emblem (See
Figure 1) was developed in 1970 in a
national contest conducted by a paper
products manufacturer. After the contest
the recycling emblem was placed in the
public domain and is now commonly
used by marketers to represent both
recyclability and recycled content use. It
is recognized by much of the public as
relating generally to recycling. An
immediately recognizable symbol like
the recycling emblem can be a useful
tool in drawing the attention of
consumers to a product that contains
recycled content or that is recyclable;
however, more guidance on its proper
use is needed in order to increase the
effectiveness of its use and to ensure
that consumers understand its meaning.
-------
Federal Re
56, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2. 1991 / Notices
48999
Figure 1: Recycling Emblem
The issue of when and how'the
recycling emblem should be used is
being addressed by some Stat
recommending that the emblem be used
with recycled content and recyclable
claims but the emblem be clearly
identified to reflect whether it
represents recycled content or
recyclability. It is likely that more States
will attempt to address this issue in the
future. In order to provide a consistent
national approach to the use of the
recycling emblem, EPA is offering the
following options for developing
guidance. These options are offered as
adjuncts to the guidance that EPA will
develop for "recycled content" and
"recyclable" claims. That is, EPA
believes that the approach ultimately
recommended for use of the recycling
emblem should be used in conjunction
with approaches ultimately
recommended for the terms "recycled"
and "recyclable," so that the emblem
and surrounding message are viewed as
a consistent claim providing necessary
information.
1. Option 1: Limit Use of Recycling
Emblem to Certain Recycling Claims
The use of the recycling emblem has
expanded to environmental claims
unrelated to the use of recycled content
or recyclable materials. For example,
some marketers have placed the
recycling emblem on a package claiming
"Environmentally friendly product and
packaging," giving one the impression
that the recycling emblem also signifies
an overall "environmental goodness."
While this practice is not yet
widespread, we would not like to see it
spread as it would dilute the meaning of
the emblem. EPA is seeking comment on
this position. Do commenters think that
this emblem should be used for other
uses than signifying the use of recycled
materials or recyclability?
Under this option, EPA would
recommend that the use of the recycling
emblem in product claims and
advertising be restricted to claims
involving the use of recycled content
and recyclability. This option would
limit the number of different messages
that the recycling emblem would
communicate to consumers, avoiding a
situation where the emblem could be
used for so many different
environmental messages as to become
virtually meaningless.
The recycling emblem is not used
exclusively for environmental claims.
For example, community recycling
programs will often use the recycling
emblem in brochures and advertising
notifying the public of the time and
location of recycling collection
programs. Recycling collection
companies use the recycling emblem on
the sides of collection trucks. These uses
of the recycling emblem are entirely
appropriate, and we do not intend for
the guidance to cover them.
Another use of the recycling emblem,
albeit in a slightly modified form, is the
Society of the Plastic Industry's rigid
container plastic resin coding system.
This coding system is meant to help
differentiate between different resin
types and encourage the recycling of ..
plastic containers. Some form of the
resin coding system is required by law
ion over 30 States. EPA does not intend
that its guidance cover the use of the
resin coding system, as long as the use
of the coding is consistent with that of
identification of resin and not an
environmental claim. For example, a
plastic bottle labeled with the code on
the bottom of the bottle would not be
covered under the guidance, but a
plastic cup with the emblem displayed
prominently on the side would be
considered to be making an
environmental claim, and the use of the
emblem in that circumstance should be
in accordance with EPA guidance.
EPA is seeking comment on whether
other legitimate uses besides
communicating "recycled content" and
"recyclability" and those discussed
above exist for the recycling emblem,
what those uses are, and whether this
option should be expanded to include
those uses.
2. Option 2: Use American Paper
Institute Guidance
The American Paper Institute (API)
distributes camera ready copy of the
recycling emblem with the
recommendation that manufacturers use
a version of the symbol consisting of
solid arrows within a black circle to
represent the use of recycled content
(See Figure 2) and another version with
the symbol appearing in outline form to
signify recyclability. (See Figure 3.) With
this option, EPA would recommend that
marketers follow the API guidance and
continue to use the two different
versions of the recycling emblem.
Figure 2: API Recycled Content Emblem
miim
Figure 3: API Recyclable Emblem
An advantage to adopting this option
is that the guidance has been developed
and used for a number of years, and we
would be promoting consistency by not
changing guidance and adding to the
confusion. We must note, however,
because the API guidance promotes the
use of two nearly identical emblems that
the guidance might not offer a solution
to increasing consumer understanding of
the recycling emblem. Consumers might
not be readily able to recognize that one
version of the emblem represents the
use of recycled materials while the other
represents recyclability.
EPA is soliciting comment on whether
adopting the API guidance would
-------
50000
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 191 /.Wednesday, October 2, 1991 / Notices
resolve the problems of consumer
understanding of the meaning of the
recycling emblem. EPA is also soliciting
information that marketers might have
concerning consumer understanding of
the recycling emblem as currently used.
3. Option 3: Clearly Label the Recycling
Emblem
Under this option, EPA would
recommend that marketers clearly label
the emblem with "recycled content" or
"recyclable," depending on the claim
they are making. An example of this can
be seen in Figure 4. This option.is an
attempt to address the concerns we
discussed in the previous section
concerning the ability of consumers to
differentiate between the two different
API emblems.
Figure 4: Clearly Labeled Recycling Emblems
RECYCLED CONTENT
RECYCLABLE
EPA is soliciting comment on whether,
in fact, this option would solve the
problem of consumer differentiation of
the two different claims. We are also
seeking copies of guidance that
organizations have developed to
address this issue.
4. EPA's Preferred Options for the Use
of the Recycling Emblem
EPA's currently preferred options for
the use of the recycling emblem are a
combination of Options 1 and 3. Our
preference would be that marketers use
the recycling emblem only for "recycled
content" or "recyclable" claims, and
that they clearly label the emblem as
pertaining to "recycled content" or
"recyclable" claims,.
This option will help to promote
consumer understanding of the meaning
of the recycling emblem by encouraging
that the use of the recycling emblem be
limited to recycling claims, and by
helping to eliminate the confusion that
consumers are facing hi determining the
difference between-the "recycled
content" and "recyclable" emblems.
B. Separating Claims of Packaging and
Product ',
The labeling and advertising practices
of some marketers do not always
differentiate between claims made
about the packaging and the product
contained within the package. Because
of this, consumers are not able to tell
when recycled content claims refer to
the packaging and when they refer to
the product. EPA is considering
recommending that marketers clearly
differentiate between recycled content
and the recyclability claims made about
the product and the packaging in order
to help reduce consumer confusion. We
request comment on this issue as well.
Dated: September 22,1991.
Don R. Clay,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 91-23709 Filed 10-1-91; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
-------
------- |