Recycling Symbol Risks Under California SB 343 – U.S. Correspondence by Jay Lee (172)

California Declares War on “Greenwashing”—Packaging Design and Marketing Strategies Must Change

Specific Numerical Standards Aim to Prevent Deceptive Environmental Claims

Violations Could Trigger Not Only Penalties but Consumer Class-Action Lawsuits

Terms Commonly Used in Korea, Such as “Biodegradable,” Can Be Risky Without Scientific Support

By Jongchan Lee, CEO of J&B Food Consulting

California, often regarded as a regulatory bellwether for the U.S. market, has declared war on greenwashing.

SB 343, which restricts environmental marketing claims related to recyclability and is scheduled to take effect this October, is not simply a matter of changing a logo. It represents a significant regulatory hurdle that may require companies to reconsider everything from food packaging design to their marketing strategies.

Previously, California law took a relatively broad approach to the use of terms such as “recyclable.” SB 343, however, establishes much more specific criteria intended to prevent deceptive environmental claims. At its core, the law requires packaging to satisfy certain conditions before companies can use recyclability claims or symbols such as the chasing-arrows symbol.

First is accessibility. Recycling programs capable of collecting the packaging must be available to at least 60% of California’s population.

Second is sortability. Once collected, the packaging must be capable of being effectively sorted from other waste at recycling facilities.

Third is marketability. There must be an actual end market for the sorted material, allowing it to be processed and sold for use in new products or as raw material.

One of the most common areas of confusion for Korean companies involves the Resin Identification Code (RIC)—the number commonly found inside a triangular symbol on the bottom of plastic containers. Korean companies often ask whether the number must appear inside chasing arrows because the packaging material needs to be identified.

Under SB 343, however, the chasing-arrows symbol itself may be interpreted as a strong representation that the product is recyclable.

If a particular material—such as No. 3 PVC, No. 6 PS, or certain multilayer films—does not satisfy California’s recyclability standards, simply displaying the chasing-arrows symbol could potentially be considered misleading to consumers and expose a company to civil litigation or state enforcement action. Companies may therefore need to shift toward alternatives such as displaying the resin identification number without chasing arrows, using a solid triangle, or identifying the material through text alone.

The United States is a highly litigious market. The risks associated with SB 343 may therefore extend well beyond government penalties. When combined with California’s consumer protection laws, recyclability claims could become targets for plaintiffs’ law firms seeking to bring consumer class-action lawsuits.

The same caution applies to terms frequently used by Korean companies, such as “Biodegradable” and “Compostable.” Without scientific evidence demonstrating compliance with applicable ASTM standards and showing that the material can actually be processed through relevant facilities, these claims can become particularly vulnerable points in litigation.

Korean food companies should therefore identify the packaging materials used across all products currently exported to the United States and determine whether each material meets California’s recyclability requirements. When compliance cannot be clearly established, removing recyclability symbols or claims may be the safer approach.

As more U.S. states introduce their own food, packaging, and environmental regulations, exporters can no longer focus solely on federal requirements. State-by-state regulatory risk assessment has become an essential part of doing business in the U.S. market.