“When you put opaque white-coloured PET in your recycling, the high-speed sorting machines cannot sort white from clear, so someone has to be carefully studying and removing any white bottles from that strain,” he said.
“Now, if a white bottle gets through the system and it gets shredded, a white blotch appears in the new recycled bottle.
“The moment a recycler sees a white splotch, the alarm bell goes off and they need to dump the whole load.”
‘Dog’s breakfast’: Aussie customers confused by recycling labels
In 2020, an audit commissioned by the Australian Council of Recycling found consumers were confused by different logos and incorrect or non-existent labelling on products.
The audit found 88 per cent of packaging on 150 sampled products was recyclable, but only 40 per cent had a label indicating it could be recycled.
Then chief executive officer Pete Shmigel referred to Australia’s recycling labels as a dog’s breakfast and called for mandatory uniform labels on every product and packaging type sold into the Australian market to remove confusion.
Five years later, new Australian Council of Recycling chief executive officer Suzanne Toumbourou, said nothing had changed.
“I’m sad to say that the situation has not much improved,” she said.
“I’m optimistic about a broad industry commitment to improvement – the problem is that we don’t have the mandatory levers to support that investment.”
Toumbourou is referring to APCO’s Australasian Recycling Label (ARL) – the only evidence-based labelling program in Australia.
Companies that want to use the Australasian Recycling Label must use PREP – a packaging assessment tool that determines the recycability of their packaging based on shape, weight, size, inks, adhesives and materials.
Sounds good, right? The only problem is: the label is not mandatory.
In 2024, the Department of Climate Change and Energy hosted a packaging regulatory consultation, which found there was strong support within the industry for mandatory on-pack recyclability labelling obligations.
But currently, Australian companies are not required to join APCO and can elect to use the Mobius loop – an internationally recognised but unregulated symbol, meaning any brand can use it regardless whether their packaging is recyclable.
Many companies also use resin code symbols, which identifies the type of plastic resin used but is often mistaken for a recycling label.
APCO’s report found that of the total packaging in the market between 2022 and 2023, 86 per cent had good recycling potential but only 56 per cent was recovered.
Toumbourou said the absence of a national mandatory labelling system in Australia meant businesses could “slip through the cracks”.
“There’s a lot of questionable environmental claims made relating to recyclability by those who are putting products on the market in relation to their packaging, which further distorts and confuses and lowers people’s confidence in recycling,” she said.
Renata Daudt is a packaging engineer at AWEN Packaging Consulting, a firm that helps businesses comply with the Australian packaging standards and global regulations.
This masthead sent Daudt images of several products at Woolworths and Chemist Warehouse that used the unregulated Mobius recycling symbol or had “please recycle” labels.
She conducted a PREP assessment on each of them and confirmed Essanno and Bondi Sands used opaque PET, rendering it non-recycable in Australia. MooGoo used opaque rPET (recycled PET), which is also non-recycable in Australia.
“Big companies send their products all over the world but recycling is different in every country,” she said. “Opaque PET is recyclable in Germany using a separated stream, but not in Australia. That’s why it’s so important we have a mandatory, national and regulated labelling system.”
“If you’re labelling your product as recyclable when it’s not, then you’re misleading customers.”
This masthead approached MooGoo, Bondi Sands and Essano for comment.
A Bondi Sands spokesperson said the company was conducting a comprehensive review of its packaging and labelling to improve consumer eduction.
“This ongoing review has brought to our attention a discrepancy in the recyclability labelling on the packaging of our SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen Lotion 500ml sold in Australia,” the statement said.
“Pending completion of the review, we are taking immediate steps to address this discrepancy.”
A spokesperson from Vitality Brands, which acquired Essanno last year, said the company was undergoing a packaging audit process across the 250-plus stock keeping units in its portfolio.
“We are transitioning the packaging on products that do not meet the Vitality Brands standards or ethos over the next three years,” they said in a statement.
“Vitality Brands is a member of APCO and to ensure we actively address recyclability we have set clear targets to improve the sustainability of our packaging across product lines.”
Melody Livingstone, chief of Australian brand MooGoo, said she acknowledged opaque rPEt was “not always accepted or effectively processed by local in recyclers in Australia”.
“In contrast, rPET — including opaque — is more widely accepted in places like the UK and USA, where our products are also sold,” she said. “The UK is one of our biggest markets…
“Because MooGoo products are sold internationally, our labelling reflects the recyclability of the material in a global context, not solely based on any one country’s infrastructure.
“However, we recognise that this can lead to confusion in regions like Australia where recycling access is inconsistent, and we are actively reviewing our labelling to provide clearer guidance for Aussie consumers.”
So why doesn’t Australia process opaque PET when other countries say they can?
Toumbourou said the answer is complicated, but noted many countries in Europe have mandatory extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes. These environmental policies ensure manufacturers are responsible for the end-of-life management of their products, including collection, recycling and disposal.
“Places like Europe have EPRs that help to fund the process of recycling and therefore make it more feasible to do so,” she said. “So Australia’s inability to recycle opaque PET isn’t just about technology, it’s about investment.”
“Compared to Europe, we are behind.”
What are the consequences for labelling a non-recyclable products as ‘recyclable’?
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is responsible for enforcing legislative requirements and holding businesses accountable for breaching its guidelines.
The consumer watchdog collaborates with APCO to ensure a “unified approach” and to provide “clarity and transparency” for brand owners regarding packaging labelling requirements.
In response to questions from this masthead, an APCO spokesperson said while many organisations were committed to making responsible choices, some may “inadvertently mislead consumers by making inaccurate recyclability claims”.
“If a company labels packaging made from opaque PET as recyclable, it risks misleading consumers about the product’s environmental impact,” the statement said.
“While APCO does not determine whether a claim breaches ACCC guidelines, we play a critical role in helping businesses understand the recyclability of their packaging and avoid making misleading claims,” the statement said.
In response to the questions around opaque PET’s prevalence on the market, an ACCC spokesperson said businesses must have a legitimate basis for making recyclablity claims.
“When making claims about recyclability, businesses should not only consider whether the product is technically recyclable, they should also consider whether there are sufficient facilities available to recycle the product, including how accessible those facilities are to ordinary consumers,” the statement said.
In April this year, Clorox Australia – the manufacturer of GLAD Wrap waste disposal and food storage bags – was hit with an $8.25 million federal penalty for incorrectly making claims a product was partly made from recycled “ocean plastic”.
Toumbourou was glad to see regulators cracking down on greenwashing – which involves making false or unfounded claims about sustainability and climate action.
However, she’d like to see greater scrutiny on claims relating to recyclability.
“If you’re misleading the public about recyclability, what you’re ultimately doing is undermining their confidence in a real recycling outcome, and they’re also undermining the investment that the recycling sector has made in delivering those outcomes,” she said.
Manatakis agreed and wanted to see the watchdog impose stricter penalties on brands incorrectly advertising their product’s packaging as recyclable.
“The average Australian customer want to do the right thing,” Manatakis said. “They want to be sustainable and recycle properly, but in order to do so, companies, watchdogs and governments need to fix the flaws within the system.”
