Breaking News Stories

Behind the debate about the recycling label on your milk carton

In Sacramento, there’s an ongoing debate about whether various drink cartons—like those used for milk, juice, soup, wine, and even egg whites—should be allowed to display recycled labels featuring the chase arrows.

Earlier this year, CalRecycle, the state’s recycling authority, decided that cartons likely weren’t eligible because most waste companies in California do not sort and recycle them.

However, just three months later, the agency changed its stance.

This label is crucial for manufacturers and packaging firms looking to sell their products in California, especially since the state’s disposable packaging laws are in full force. By 2032, the goal is to recycle or compost all disposable packaged products; if they can’t be recycled, they can’t be distributed.

The shift followed data from the North American Carton Council, an industry group, as seen in internal emails and industry press releases. They also announced plans to invest in a recycling facility in Loddy.

This 180-degree turn has upset many waste experts, anti-plastic advocates, and environmentalists who argue that cartons undermine real recycling efforts. They claim the new facility in Rody is just a front and point out that similar businesses have failed across the country. They argue that CalRecycle’s decision is based on flawed practices that could easily be misused.

Some believe this reflects a broader trend of Governor Gavin Newsom and CalRecycle moving away from the state’s strong single-use plastics regulations, which they previously championed.

“The reality is that the governor and CalRecycle are creating loopholes,” said Jan Dell, a chemical engineer and founder of an anti-plastic organization called Last Beach Cleanup. “It seems they want to project an image of being leaders in recycling, but in reality, many of these materials aren’t recyclable.”

Others contend that the law is actually designed to encourage plastics and packaging companies to create recyclable materials and invest in the necessary technology.

“We are pleased to see the Carton Council making these investments and showcasing that recycling is feasible with genuine commitment from the industry,” said Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who has a hand in California’s labeling and single-use plastics legislation. “Californians have often been led to believe that what goes in the blue bin can be recycled effectively, but unfortunately, that’s not always the case.”

Melanie Turner, a representative from CalRecycle, noted that the agency doesn’t decide which products receive recycled labels. That responsibility falls to manufacturers. CalRecycle’s role is just to guide manufacturers regarding the recyclability of products in California.

Chase Arrow Labels are becoming more significant as the state’s single-use plastics laws take effect, also helping consumers who wish to reduce their environmental impact.

On the surface, most milk cartons seem to be mainly paper, but they’re actually made of alternating layers of paper, plastic, and sometimes aluminum. This blended composition enhances shelf life but complicates recycling.

According to Robert Reed, a spokesperson for Recology—a large waste management company—this mixed material poses challenges for both commercial and residential waste services.

Currently, there are very few buyers for these milk-soaked cartons (data shows they’re getting $0 in the recycling market), and they risk contaminating more valuable recyclables. For instance, if cartons are present in more than 2% of mixed paper bales, it lowers the entire batch’s worth.

In 2024, over 106,000 tons of used milk, juice, and soup containers ended up in landfills.

The North American Carton Council indicates that there are five facilities across North America attempting to recycle cartons. Four of them claim they can extract paper fiber from the cartons and sell it to tissue and toilet paper manufacturers in places like Wisconsin, Alabama, Canada, and Mexico—areas more than 2,000 miles away from downtown Los Angeles.

The fifth facility, located in Waterbury, Connecticut, processes the mixed materials by melting the plastic layer and using it as adhesive, layering it with fireproof material to create roofing products.

It remains unclear if any of these facilities pay waste operators for used cartons or if they simply accept them at no cost. None of the companies operating these facilities responded to inquiries.

The Carton Council has announced investments in two new facilities aimed at turning used cartons from Rody into roofing materials.

However, similar initiatives have often failed in the past. For instance, in 2022, a national waste management company invested in a carton-to-roofing materials facility in Des Moines, Iowa, only for it to shut down two years later without any explanations.

A consortium called RECB, formed by the Carton Council and two corporate partners, recently bought the idle factory in Des Moines. According to RECB’s Managing Director Jan Rayman, the facility has been operational around the clock since June.

The consortium also includes Elof Hansson USA, a global trading company, and Upcycling Group, co-founded by Rayman, which produces construction materials.

“Our process doesn’t use chemicals or adhesives, and we don’t use water either. We’re essentially leveraging the properties of the carton to create high-performance building materials,” Rayman explained.

He stated the Iowa facility intends to pay for used cartons instead of taking them for free. However, recent data indicates that the market value for used cartons in the Midwest has been $0 since January, mirroring trends from as early as 2013.

Showcase Facilities

The Loddy facility, part of the consortium, is located in a leased warehouse at the north end of the city and is not yet operational. Rayman mentioned they are awaiting city approval.

On a recent afternoon, new bright blue cutting lines imported from the Czech Republic were observed, designed to chop, heat, and press cartons. Nearby, piles of old milk, juice, and soup cartons attracted flies.

According to the Carton Council, if the facility becomes fully operational, it could handle around 9,000 tons of cartons yearly—about 8.4% of what currently ends up in state landfills annually. Rayman noted this would just be the beginning, with plans for expansion as demand for their roofing products grows.

However, given past performance and concerns raised by Dell and others, the way CalRecycle has approved the recyclable label continues to be a contentious issue.

California law requires CalRecycle to verify whether local waste operators sort materials at their facilities. If less than 60% of the state’s population has access to recycling, materials do not qualify for the recyclable label.

In April, CalRecycle found that only 47% of Californians in 16 counties have access to recycling for cartons from the waste stream.

Inevitably, the assumption is that if a single waste provider in a county accepts certain materials, then the whole county is accessible.

In this view, if just one of the 17 mechanical recycling facilities in Los Angeles opts to separate food and drink cartons, it could suggest accessibility for a county of nearly 10 million residents—making up about 25% of the state’s population.

“It’s akin to saying that every school has air conditioning because one out of over a thousand in LA does,” Dell remarked.

Data from the state’s recycling and disposal reporting system indicates only one of California’s 74 waste sorting operations processes cartons for recycling.

National estimates showed that cartons did not qualify for recycled labels.

However, in the days following, the Carton Council supplied CalRecycle with new data, claiming that over 70% of Californians in 23 counties can access recycling services. This claim resulted from new sorting technology provided by the Carton Council.

“Touting false recycling labels inflates consumer costs and ultimately contributes to pollution in bins. By granting misleading labels to carton packaging companies, California taxpayers have seen recycling expenses continue to climb annually due to unfounded promises of recyclability,”

Share this post: