CA Commission asks Recycling Label to be removed from CA "super thick" plastic bags

This is the place for general and miscellaneous posts on topics which might extend past the boundaries of any specific region. No non-grocery posts.
storewanderer
Posts: 14379
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 298 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

CA Commission asks Recycling Label to be removed from CA "super thick" plastic bags

Post by storewanderer »

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi ... 021-12-28/

Laughable. The bags are recyclable. You just have to take them back to the store to recycle them.

Trying to reduce plastic waste- then turning around and trying to claim these bags are not recyclable. You really can't make this stuff up. They should be doing an information campaign on how to recycle these super thick plastic bags that stores are distributing and numerous customers are taking and just using one time. It is much more important to recycle these than it was the old thin bags given the excessive amount of plastic used in these super thick bags.

Also appears they do not like the recycling label on the plastic air sheets that various online sellers/shippers are using. Again this is thin film it is recyclable in the store collection bins.

The writer of the article should have contacted the plastic bag manufacturers to find out what they are doing as they are the ones who collect the recycle bins of bags from the stores and repurpose it.

This commission also seems to be forgetting, though the article acknowledges it, that the CA law requires the "super thick" plastic bags to be made of a certain percentage of post-consumer recycled content. Obtaining that recycled content relies on the collection of the recycled bags. Trying to mislead consumers into thinking these super thick bags are not recyclable, will result in the market for that post-consumer recycled content becoming much tighter, causing even more of a price increase for these CA-compliant super thick plastic bags.

If this "commission" was serious about curbing plastic waste they'd eliminate these super thick bags, return to the thin bags, and keep the bag fee on the thin bags to discourage use.
Alpha8472
Posts: 3929
Joined: February 24th, 2009, 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 79 times
Status: Online

Re: CA Commission asks Recycling Label to be removed from CA "super thick" plastic bags

Post by Alpha8472 »

The plastic bags laws began so that plastic bags might be replaced by paper bags which are somewhat more environmentally friendly. Thin plastic bags were blowing in the wind and littering many areas. The thin bags were also mistakenly eaten by sea turtles.

Paper bags would have eliminated some of these problems. However, a loophole in the laws allowed super thick plastic bags which causes more plastic to be thrown into the trash.

Perhaps they should just ban all plastic bags of any thickness. The goal was mainly to encourage Paper bags.
storewanderer
Posts: 14379
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 298 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: CA Commission asks Recycling Label to be removed from CA "super thick" plastic bags

Post by storewanderer »

Alpha8472 wrote: December 29th, 2021, 10:35 pm The plastic bags laws began so that plastic bags might be replaced by paper bags which are somewhat more environmentally friendly. Thin plastic bags were blowing in the wind and littering many areas. The thin bags were also mistakenly eaten by sea turtles.

Paper bags would have eliminated some of these problems. However, a loophole in the laws allowed super thick plastic bags which causes more plastic to be thrown into the trash.

Perhaps they should just ban all plastic bags of any thickness. The goal was mainly to encourage Paper bags.
I think that may be where this is going. But there are supply chain issues (and cost issues, and efficiency issues).

I find those recycling labels on various items to be quite helpful. For example, recently I had a paper ice cream carton I had finished. I have rinsed numerous of these out and put them into the recycling in the past. However I noticed on the package there was the recycling icon with a slash through it saying do not recycle- coated paper.

So maybe that is what needs to happen on these plastic bags and the thin plastic packaging film. They put a recycling label with a slash through it and notate the slash is for single stream/typical then put the recycling icon on it without a slash and then it will say for return to store recycling. Sounds confusing to have a do not recycle icon next to a recycle icon but maybe it would get people's attention to actually read the notes below the two icons.
veteran+
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 2234
Joined: January 3rd, 2015, 7:53 am
Has thanked: 1204 times
Been thanked: 72 times
Status: Offline

Re: CA Commission asks Recycling Label to be removed from CA "super thick" plastic bags

Post by veteran+ »

Well, I am not suggesting this was the best approach but.............................

The recycling industry is a joke. Many of the number symbols for recycling are NOT recycled.

The entire process often does NOT work. Many investigations have revealed this. So much of this stuff ends up in landfills anyway.

Plus, operation budgets have increased and demand and revenues have decreased. There is not enough of a market for recyclables to sustain this "biz" or operation.

The dysfunction has been masked with "feel good" PR campaigns for government and corporations.
Alpha8472
Posts: 3929
Joined: February 24th, 2009, 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 79 times
Status: Online

Re: CA Commission asks Recycling Label to be removed from CA "super thick" plastic bags

Post by Alpha8472 »

Life was better when everything was in paper packaging and most containers at stores were glass. Ketchup, soda, mouthwash, salad dressing, mayonnaise, jelly, peanut butter, syrup, etc. were all in glass containers. They were easily recycled here in the US and provided many jobs. Then plastic recycling moved to China and the jobs disappeared. Then China decided to refuse our plastic recycling. Now the oceans are filled with plastic waste and plastic bits are showing up in the food we eat and affecting people.

We should encourage more paper bags, and paper products as well as glass containers. This would bring many jobs back to the US and help to reduce the growing plastic contamination problem affecting the entire world.
storewanderer
Posts: 14379
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 298 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: CA Commission asks Recycling Label to be removed from CA "super thick" plastic bags

Post by storewanderer »

veteran+ wrote: December 30th, 2021, 7:53 am Well, I am not suggesting this was the best approach but.............................

The recycling industry is a joke. Many of the number symbols for recycling are NOT recycled.

The entire process often does NOT work. Many investigations have revealed this. So much of this stuff ends up in landfills anyway.

Plus, operation budgets have increased and demand and revenues have decreased. There is not enough of a market for recyclables to sustain this "biz" or operation.

The dysfunction has been masked with "feel good" PR campaigns for government and corporations.
That needs to change then. Whatever these efforts are that are holding back the recycling market need to be resolved. Otherwise I guess they also may as well scrap all those "bottle deposit" programs and the retailers having to collect those bottles for recycling if the recycling market is not working as it was sold to the public that it would work back in the 80's and 90's.

But I think it only messes things up more to try and label something that is still made in the US (the bags and the thin film packaging plastic air) non-recyclable that is recyclable and very easily so (collection bin in the store). That is a sure way to kill the recycling.

I think there are some hidden motives with the way the recycling industry has been broken. And I don't think any of those motives translate into more jobs in the US. But a recycling industry that actually worked as intended would absolutely translate into more jobs in the US.

The amount of those plastic air bubble sheets I am getting in online orders is very excessive. It used to all be brown shipping paper. Now I rarely see brown shipping paper; once in a while a Wal Mart order shows up with the brown shipping paper but every order from Target and Amazon, if in a box, is filled with those plastic thin film air sheets.
mbz321
Assistant Store Manager
Assistant Store Manager
Posts: 747
Joined: March 11th, 2010, 7:52 pm
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 54 times
Status: Offline

Re: CA Commission asks Recycling Label to be removed from CA "super thick" plastic bags

Post by mbz321 »

veteran+ wrote: December 30th, 2021, 7:53 am Well, I am not suggesting this was the best approach but.............................

The recycling industry is a joke. Many of the number symbols for recycling are NOT recycled.

The entire process often does NOT work. Many investigations have revealed this. So much of this stuff ends up in landfills anyway.

I've heard that anything above #2 plastic is rarely recycled from household collections, if the lower numbers even get recycled at all. Lately I've just been tossing #5 plastic in the garbage, which unfortunately makes up a large portion of plastic food containers like cream cheese tubs, plastic fast food cups, etc.
storewanderer
Posts: 14379
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 298 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: CA Commission asks Recycling Label to be removed from CA "super thick" plastic bags

Post by storewanderer »

mbz321 wrote: January 2nd, 2022, 8:15 am

I've heard that anything above #2 plastic is rarely recycled from household collections, if the lower numbers even get recycled at all. Lately I've just been tossing #5 plastic in the garbage, which unfortunately makes up a large portion of plastic food containers like cream cheese tubs, plastic fast food cups, etc.
I'm not exactly sure when it happened but at least out in the areas that get supplies from CA, McDonalds has moved to 100% plastic drink cups. They previously were using paper cups for all sizes. Going back 10 years they used a paper cup for all sizes except large which was using a plastic or foam (tea) cup at least out in this region. Now the only paper cups at McDonalds are for hot coffee and McFlurry.

I can reuse those plastic cups quite a few times, so they work out better for me than the paper cups that were truly single (as in a few hours before the seal went) use.

It looks like there needs to be some regulation on these companies that manufacture the containers, to force them to use a higher content of recycled material in their packages. The higher oil price may help motivate this.
HCal
Assistant Store Manager
Assistant Store Manager
Posts: 612
Joined: February 1st, 2021, 11:18 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 67 times
Status: Offline

Re: CA Commission asks Recycling Label to be removed from CA "super thick" plastic bags

Post by HCal »

Many things are theoretically "recyclable", but very few places actually recycle them in practice. When something is labeled "recyclable", people tend to throw it in the curbside recycling bin, meaning they end up in a landfill. Even if these bags are taken to the store, I have my doubts that they are actually being recycled (at most, they might be shredded and used as filler or something.) The word "recyclable" should be reserved for things that can actually be recycled in the real world, meaning a market exists for that product to be recycled.

The state cannot return to the thin single-use plastic bags, because those are banned by Prop 67. The idea was to get people to reuse plastic bags, but in many parts of the state, it seems like far too many people treat them as disposable and buy new ones every trip. I think that long term, switching entirely to paper bags and increasing the cost to 20 or 25 cents might be the best option.
storewanderer
Posts: 14379
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 298 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: CA Commission asks Recycling Label to be removed from CA "super thick" plastic bags

Post by storewanderer »

HCal wrote: January 2nd, 2022, 4:21 pm Many things are theoretically "recyclable", but very few places actually recycle them in practice. When something is labeled "recyclable", people tend to throw it in the curbside recycling bin, meaning they end up in a landfill. Even if these bags are taken to the store, I have my doubts that they are actually being recycled (at most, they might be shredded and used as filler or something.) The word "recyclable" should be reserved for things that can actually be recycled in the real world, meaning a market exists for that product to be recycled.

The state cannot return to the thin single-use plastic bags, because those are banned by Prop 67. The idea was to get people to reuse plastic bags, but in many parts of the state, it seems like far too many people treat them as disposable and buy new ones every trip. I think that long term, switching entirely to paper bags and increasing the cost to 20 or 25 cents might be the best option.
So if that is the case, we shouldn't have the curbside recycling bins either... what is the use of them if it all ends up in a landfill?

AB 2449 from 2006 in CA required the stores to have the recycling bins for the bags and requiring the bags to be recycled upon being collected. Now I see that law was repealed effective January 1, 2020.

So let's get this straight- CA bans thin bags to "reduce plastic waste" then stores switch to handing out these super thick bags with 6-10 times the amount of plastic of each old thin bag. The average customer has to pay .10 for the bag (which at this point is also above wholesale cost on the bags) and the customer using food stamps/EBT receives as many super thick bags as they need/want at no charge. Many customers keep using the super thick bags like they used the old single use bags (one time).

Then in 2020 the state repeals the program requiring the stores to take these plastic bags back and recycle them...

Also in 2020 those super thick bags being distributed in CA are required to have a minimum of 40% "post consumer recycled content." From 2016-2019 it was a 20% post consumer recycled content requirement. If the recycling programs are failing, where are those manufacturers getting the "post consumer recycled content" to manufacture the CA-compliant super thick plastic bags?

To make matters worse more and more online sellers send shipments with the plastic air bubbles in the boxes which need to be recycled in the same manner as the plastic bags, not through usual recycling channels.

Rather than repealing AB 2449 effective January 1, 2020, in light of the various impacted liquor license holding retailers that were already handing out super thick plastic bags and only super thick plastic bags in their CA Stores, not a paper bag in sight (notably- CVS, Rite Aid, Target, and Wal Mart), that collection law should have been continued and perhaps made stronger/enhanced to get this material collected. How do you do this? You probably have to charge 25 cents for the bag then rebate the customer 15 cents for each bag they return, like the bottle deposit programs (what a mess). Or you need to force the curbside programs to take these bags and separate them and turn them over to the groups that will actually recycle them into new bags (which must exist since the CA super thick bags are made from 40% post consumer recycled content)...

Now in 2020 and 2021 I have been into various stores operated by grocers including Albertsons/Safeway/Vons, Grocery Outlet, and some independents who also offer super thick CA-compliant plastic bags and only those (no paper bags in sight). Safeway NorCal does get paper bags into some select stores but at other stores they just don't send them. Something about a paper bag shortage.

This whole thing is nothing but a huge mess. One bad solution after another has been implemented here and it dates back decades. And to think in the 90's they said the thin bags were "better for the environment."
Post Reply