Hi world! Happy Day!
As alluded to in previous posts, I have received various inquiries from friends in the industry, asking what Dordan was doing in the way of the SPI "chasing arrows" recycling code it uses on its aluminum tools. For some time now, the chasing arrows symbol of the SPI resin ID code has been debated; it has been argued that it confuses the consumer, implying a packages' recyclability, not the resin from which it was manufactured, which is the stated intent by SPI. In June 2013 Plastics News reported that the ASTM--the governing body of the code--decided to replace the chasing arrows recycling code with a solid triangle, hoping to eliminate any confusion pertaining to the resin code and recyclability. Read more here.
Anyway, it has obviously almost been a year since this article was published and the "official" change to the SPI code announced yet little change has been observed in the market. Do we or do we not use the solid triangle instead of the chasing arrows for new thermoform part projects?
My friend at CalRecycle, the environmental arm of the CA state government, directed my inquiry to the Supervisor of the Sustainable Materials Research Unit, who basically knew everything about everything when it came to resin code labeling. Check out her email:
Hi Chandler-
Robert Carlson forwarded your question to me regarding plastic resin codes labeling. I can provide you with some information that may be helpful, but it is not clear to me what types of plastic products you are producing. CalRecycle oversees two programs where labeling plastic containers in accordance with the Resin Identification Code (RIC) #1-7 applies:
1. Beverage Container Recycling Program
2. Rigid Plastics Packaging Container Program
Specifically, Public Resources Code Section 18015 requires labeling in accordance with the RIC- which was established over twenty years ago and has been adopted by 39 states.
Currently the ASTM International Subcommittee on the Resin Identification Code D 20.95.01 is considering a ballot to modify the RIC (following five years of discussion). A vote will take place on Feb 26th. This was the subject of the article you read in Plastics News. Per the ASTM’s consensus-building protocol, any negative votes and comments registered on this ballot must be addressed/considered. Thus, the proposed RIC standard may be further revised based on comments received and another ballot may be required at the subcommittee level. Once approved by the subcommittee, the proposed standard revising the RIC will be forwarded to the D 20 Plastics Committee for balloting and the same voting process will take place. This typically requires a few months for each ballot measure – particularly when substantive changes are being proposed.
It’s important to note that the ASTM develops voluntary standards that may or may not be adopted by individual states through the legislative process. In other words, a new standard for labeling plastics developed by ASTM will not automatically be adopted into California law – it will require the passage of legislation by the California State Legislature. This process usually requires a minimum of one full calendar year, unless an urgency statute is included in a bill (which would not be likely in this case).
You may also be interested in these plastic product labeling requirements and guidelines as well:
California Public Resources Code for labeling of plastic products
Federal Trade Commission Green Guides
I think I have may found a new favorite resource for all things governmental regulation and packaging related; oh boy!
A special thanks to my peeps at CalRecycle for sharing their knowledge and allowing me to post our exchange on my blog.
Until next time!