California’s SB 343 law creates a new “accurate recycling labels” framework meant to reduce misleading recycling claims and make packaging labels better reflect what is actually recycled in the state. The core idea is that companies can’t use the chasing arrows symbol, or any other recyclability indicator, unless certain criteria are met, and those restrictions apply to products and packaging manufactured after October 4, 2026.
California has lacked specific rules for when the chasing arrows symbol could be used, which contributed to confusion for consumers and inconsistent labeling across products. SB 343, also called the “Truth in Recycling” or “Truth in Labeling” law, was created to address that gap by tying recyclability claims to real recycling behavior in California rather than to marketing language or assumptions.
Unfortunately, California’s penchant for creating liability for manufacturers often results in counterproductive behaviors and unintended consequences, which make the situation worse. We saw this occur with Prop 65 product labeling. Prop 65 was intended to more clearly mark products containing carcinogenic or toxic chemicals, but the liability scheme led to mass Prop 65 labeling of most products in CA, whether they contained hazardous chemicals or not. This rendered Prop 65 labels meaningless. Now in response to SB 343, there are lighting manufacturers intending to remove recycling symbols from all products and packaging to minimize liability, even if the products or packaging meet the requirements of SB 343.
A major part of the law is CalRecycle’s role in publishing data on the types of materials actually collected, sorted, sold, or transferred for recycling in the state. Manufacturers and others must use this information when deciding whether a product can be labeled recyclable, and the law says items cannot be sold as recyclable unless they are regularly collected and processed for recycling in California. CalRecycle also notes that it is not itself certifying whether any specific product is recyclable; instead, it is providing the statewide data needed to evaluate labeling claims.
The page describes two main implementation steps. First, CalRecycle completed material characterization studies of recycling facilities in 2023 and 2024 to identify which materials are commonly handled in the state, published final findings in April 2025, and updated parts of the report later in 2025. Second, CalRecycle updated reporting rules so material management facilities and operations must regularly report how materials are collected or processed and which material types they recover without considering them contaminants, with this reporting starting in 2025.
The timeline for the law’s rollout from 2021 through future updates. After SB 343 became law in 2021, CalRecycle developed the study methodology in 2022, awarded the study contract and conducted fieldwork in 2023, updated reporting requirements and gathered public comments in 2024, and published final findings in 2025. The study must be revised in 2027 and then every five years after that, with the next broad update expected in 2032.
The policy is intended as a consumer-protection and enforcement tool as well as a recycling policy. Its intent is to help vendors and consumers make better decisions and can also support local jurisdictions and the California Attorney General in cases involving deceptive labeling or misleading environmental claims. In practical terms, the law is trying to make recycling symbols mean something measurable: if packaging says “recyclable,” California wants that claim to be backed by what actually gets recycled in the state. Unfortunately, this may become another case of California product liability scheme’s driving counterproductive behaviors by manufacturers.
More information on the law is available here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.