It may be known around the world, but some regions are reconsidering the use of the famous recycling logo on products
By
The recycling symbol. Its logo – three ‘chasing’ arrows – is known around the world, a familiar hallmark heralding back to the 1970s. First created to raise awareness about the benefits of recycling, more than fifty years later, some regions are now considering restricting its use. But why?
Arguments have arisen that the symbol – also known as the Mobius loop – is too vague in its usage. In the UK, more than four in five people (81 per cent) dispose of something in recycling that is not accepted.
Enjoying this article? Check out our related reads…
Confusion arises because the symbol doesn’t distinguish between products that are widely recycled and those that are not. If the logo is used on packaging for products that aren’t widely or easily recycled, it often leads people to believe they can recycle them. In fact, one survey found that the vast majority of respondents (71 per cent) find packaging labels and recycling guidance confusing.
According to WRAP, a global environmental NGO, reject rates for mixed recycling collections in England and Wales stand at around 10 per cent, driving up costs for local councils who will need to send this waste to other facilities or landfills. In the US, it is estimated that these costs are around $ 300 million annually.
To put into perspective just how vast contamination is, it is believed that huge bales of paper shipped overseas can contain as much as 30 per cent plastic waste.
But rules are now tightening around the use of the recycling symbol. In California, lawmakers are attempting to pass a law that would limit the use of the logo unless a product or packaging meets specific guidelines. For example, plastic and nonplastic products and packaging may not include any nonrecyclable components, such as inks, adhesives or labels. Additionally, products and packaging should not contain certain intentionally added chemicals. If the law goes ahead as planned in October 2026, the majority of plastic packaging and product categories sold in California could lose the familiar logo.
Supporters in California say that companies have spent years using the symbol as a ‘marketing tool’, even though only a small proportion of plastic is actually recycled. Critics of the law have sued California, arguing that it is vague and violates First Amendment protections.
Regardless of the outcome in California, other states have also made the use of the recycling logo clearer to consumers. In Oregon and Washington, requirements that plastic containers bear the symbol have been lifted.
‘The universal recycling logo is instantly recognisable, but that doesn’t mean its place on packaging is always helpful. Many people mistakenly assume that any use of the logo guarantees a product is recyclable, and this can lead to contamination,’ says recycling expert Mark Hall.
The best practice for packaging labelling, according to experts, is to give consumers as much direction as possible about recycling options and how they may vary between products. Packaging producers should also remind consumers that local recycling rules can differ across the UK.
It’s important to note, though, that recycling isn’t a perfect solution to waste. Ultimately, excessive packaging and single-use plastics need to be eliminated entirely to quash global plastic pollution.
