I'm in the self-care aisle at Woolies, but I'm not here to buy shampoo. I'm on a covert mission
Standing beside me is Manny Manatakis, a chief sustainability officer at Circularise who works with companies such as Wesfarmers Health to help improve their packaging and further sustainability goals.
Our objective is straightforward. Manatakis will pick out items in the lane and I have to identify whether it's recyclable or not.
I'm quietly confident. I'm an avid keep cup user for my daily cappuccino, a frequent opp shopper and owner of quaint compost bin in the corner of my kitchen. This should be easy.
First up is a bottle of Bondi Sands SPF 50+. I'd normally put this bottle straight in the recycling bin, but I check the labels throughout just in case. I spot the Mobius loop – three arrows in a triangle – on the back. It looks like a standard recycling symbol.
'Recyclable,' I say confidently. Manatakis shakes his head.
Next up is a yellow Essano Happy Skin spray. This time I'm cautious. I check the back of the product more thoroughly and see a different loop with skinner arrows and a label that says, 'Please recycle'.
'Recyclable,' I say. I'm wrong again.
Finally, we head to Chemist Warehouse and Manatakis picks out a bottle of MooGoo Natural Milk Shampoo. The shiny packaging is opaque with a sky-blue strip in the middle and a dairy cow in the corner.
'Our bottles are off-white because we use 100 per cent recycled plastic. Please recycle,' the label assures me.
Surely, that means it's recyclable? I anxiously turn the bottle over to check if for a hidden trick. 'Please recycle' another label says on the bottom.
'So would you put that in your recycling bin,' Manatakis asks me. I nod. 'That's fair,' he says. 'I think many people would, but it's not recyclable in Australia.'
Defeated and slightly embarrassed, I head outside with Manatakis so he can explain where I went wrong.
All the 'non-recyclable' examples used a form of opaque polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic packaging, Manatakis tells me.
PET is one of the most highly used plastics across the world and is omnipresent across supermarkets and chemists for food, beverage, shampoo and skincare packaging. In Australia, PET is recyclable – but only when it is clear and transparent.
According to the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), Opaque PET (1) is classified as non-recyclable in Australian and New Zealand kerbside recycling systems. If you place a product with opaque PET packaging in your recycling, it can contaminate a whole load of recycled PET, making it unusable for end markets.
So if opaque PET isn't recyclable, why is it so commonly used in product packaging? And why doesn't the everyday Australian know how to recycle properly?
Manatakis said the challenges and problems within Australia's recycling system were multipronged.
'Firstly, there is a lot of confusion at the household level on what is and isn't recyclable,' he said.
'Then there can be confusion when neighbouring councils have different rules on recycling. The final tier is companies and businesses who don't know if their packaging is recyclable and use incorrect labels.
'The multiple levels of confusion make recycling in Australia a complex problem.'
Opaque PET: The plastic contaminating our recycling system
The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) works with governments and businesses to manage the environmental impact of packaging.
The organisation's 2022-23 consumption and recovery report estimated six million kilograms (6000 tonnes) of rigid opaque PET was in the market.
APCO chief Chris Foley said opaque PET was not recyclable in Australia and described the products as a 'contaminant in the recycling stream'.
So what makes opaque PET so bad for Australia's recycling system?
An APCO spokesperson said the loss of clarity and transparency in opaque PET reduces its sustainability for high-value applications, such as new packaging, ultimately limiting the circularity of PET materials.
In some countries opaque PET is classified as recyclable, but in Australia, opaque PET is difficult for optical sorters at material recovery facilities to detect.
'These sorting systems use infrared technology to identify and separate materials on high-speed conveyor belts,' the spokesperson said.
'If opaque PET is not effectively separated from clear plastics, it can contaminate the recycling stream, reducing the quality, value, and end-use potential of rPET [recycled PET].'
Manatakis said the prevalence of white opaque PET plastic in Australia's recycling system led to frequent dumping.
'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.
Loading
'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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Do Australians have the best possible version of English?
Language students in Britain, it was reported this week, face a challenge because the word 'sorry' is used so often and means so many different things. Sometimes it is a genuine apology, sometimes it means the speaker is not sorry at all ('I'm sorry if you took it that way'), and sometimes it means you simply can't hear what's being said ('Sorry?') Fair enough. The word poses difficulties, both there and here. In this country, though, the complexities of 'sorry' are joined by other linguistic problems which must be overcome by the eager student. In fact, when compared with English English, ours is simply the more complex and nuanced language. For a start, there are the many varieties of the word 'mate', ranging from the convivial to the downright threatening. There's the ALP 'mate', for example, which has several repeats of the letter 'a', as in 'maaaaaate'. It means you are about to lose preselection or be dumped from the Prime Ministership. There's the terse 'excuse me, mate' when someone's blocking the entrance to a building, and the sunny 'thanks, mate' when they finally make way. Meanwhile, 'mate', when used by a mechanic, means: 'I've judged that you are the sort of chap who knows nothing about motor vehicles and so have elected to charge you double.' Sharon is Shaz. Darren is Daz. Aggression is agro. ACDC is Acca Dacca. Breakfast is brekky. Vegetarian is vego. Barbecue is barbie. Could I use that meaning of 'mate' in a sentence? Certainly. Here's the mechanic: 'I've had to completely replace the manifold, the big end and all the grommet pins, so – mate, ah – it comes to $2,497. Let's call it $2,496 for prompt payment.' All he's actually done, you later learn, is polish the tyres. Of course, when used in a workplace or at a neighbourhood barbecue, 'mate' is much less hostile. Instead, it's Australian for 'I've forgotten your name, but I'm still willing to fetch you a drink. So, what will it be, um, mate?' The word 'bastard' is even more complex. As I've previously observed, Australia may be the only country in the world where Hitler is described as 'a bit of a bastard', while your best friend is 'a total bastard.' This is due to the Great Australian Linguistic Deflator (GALD) under the rules of which both praise and criticism must be muted to a stupendous degree (except we'd never use a word like 'stupendous'). Under the principles of GALD, the serial philanderer who abandoned his kids and stole all the wife's money, before running off to Canada with a trapeze artist from Cirque du Soleil, is 'a bit ordinary in the husband stakes'. Dame Joan Sutherland, by contrast, was 'not exactly a slouch when it came to belting out a tune'. Then we come to names. In Britain, the longer your name, the better you are regarded. Call King Charles by his complete handle and you'll be there for some time. He's 'Most High, Most Mighty, Most Excellent Monarch, Our Sovereign Lord, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter'. That's 28 words, and they're just getting limbered up. By contrast, in Australia, success is measured by the brevity of your title. A successful prime minister, such as Robert James Lee Hawke, is known as 'Hawkie', while an unsuccessful one, while an unsuccessful one, such as Scott John Morrison, is known as Scott John Morrison (he tried his best with 'Scomo' but it never took off). Loading Likewise, the singers Barnsey and Farnsey. If only they were a little more successful, they might one day find themselves referred to as simply 'Ba' and 'Fa'. Keep going, lads, and perhaps your time will come. No one, it seems, wants to leave their mouth open for long. Not with this many flies. That's why everything, simply everything, should be shortened.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
Do Australians have the best possible version of English?
Language students in Britain, it was reported this week, face a challenge because the word 'sorry' is used so often and means so many different things. Sometimes it is a genuine apology, sometimes it means the speaker is not sorry at all ('I'm sorry if you took it that way'), and sometimes it means you simply can't hear what's being said ('Sorry?') Fair enough. The word poses difficulties, both there and here. In this country, though, the complexities of 'sorry' are joined by other linguistic problems which must be overcome by the eager student. In fact, when compared with English English, ours is simply the more complex and nuanced language. For a start, there are the many varieties of the word 'mate', ranging from the convivial to the downright threatening. There's the ALP 'mate', for example, which has several repeats of the letter 'a', as in 'maaaaaate'. It means you are about to lose preselection or be dumped from the Prime Ministership. There's the terse 'excuse me, mate' when someone's blocking the entrance to a building, and the sunny 'thanks, mate' when they finally make way. Meanwhile, 'mate', when used by a mechanic, means: 'I've judged that you are the sort of chap who knows nothing about motor vehicles and so have elected to charge you double.' Sharon is Shaz. Darren is Daz. Aggression is agro. ACDC is Acca Dacca. Breakfast is brekky. Vegetarian is vego. Barbecue is barbie. Could I use that meaning of 'mate' in a sentence? Certainly. Here's the mechanic: 'I've had to completely replace the manifold, the big end and all the grommet pins, so – mate, ah – it comes to $2,497. Let's call it $2,496 for prompt payment.' All he's actually done, you later learn, is polish the tyres. Of course, when used in a workplace or at a neighbourhood barbecue, 'mate' is much less hostile. Instead, it's Australian for 'I've forgotten your name, but I'm still willing to fetch you a drink. So, what will it be, um, mate?' The word 'bastard' is even more complex. As I've previously observed, Australia may be the only country in the world where Hitler is described as 'a bit of a bastard', while your best friend is 'a total bastard.' This is due to the Great Australian Linguistic Deflator (GALD) under the rules of which both praise and criticism must be muted to a stupendous degree (except we'd never use a word like 'stupendous'). Under the principles of GALD, the serial philanderer who abandoned his kids and stole all the wife's money, before running off to Canada with a trapeze artist from Cirque du Soleil, is 'a bit ordinary in the husband stakes'. Dame Joan Sutherland, by contrast, was 'not exactly a slouch when it came to belting out a tune'. Then we come to names. In Britain, the longer your name, the better you are regarded. Call King Charles by his complete handle and you'll be there for some time. He's 'Most High, Most Mighty, Most Excellent Monarch, Our Sovereign Lord, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter'. That's 28 words, and they're just getting limbered up. By contrast, in Australia, success is measured by the brevity of your title. A successful prime minister, such as Robert James Lee Hawke, is known as 'Hawkie', while an unsuccessful one, while an unsuccessful one, such as Scott John Morrison, is known as Scott John Morrison (he tried his best with 'Scomo' but it never took off). Loading Likewise, the singers Barnsey and Farnsey. If only they were a little more successful, they might one day find themselves referred to as simply 'Ba' and 'Fa'. Keep going, lads, and perhaps your time will come. No one, it seems, wants to leave their mouth open for long. Not with this many flies. That's why everything, simply everything, should be shortened.
The Age
8 hours ago
- The Age
I'm in the self-care aisle at Woolies, but I'm not here to buy shampoo. I'm on a covert mission
It's 8.40am on a Tuesday and I'm perusing the self-care aisle in Woolies Metro on top of Melbourne's bustling Southern Cross Station. I'm not here to buy shampoo; I'm on a covert mission. Standing beside me is Manny Manatakis, a chief sustainability officer at Circularise who works with companies such as Wesfarmers Health to help improve their packaging and further sustainability goals. Our objective is straightforward. Manatakis will pick out items in the lane and I have to identify whether it's recyclable or not. I'm quietly confident. I'm an avid keep cup user for my daily cappuccino, a frequent opp shopper and owner of quaint compost bin in the corner of my kitchen. This should be easy. First up is a bottle of Bondi Sands SPF 50+. I'd normally put this bottle straight in the recycling bin, but I check the labels throughout just in case. I spot the Mobius loop – three arrows in a triangle – on the back. It looks like a standard recycling symbol. 'Recyclable,' I say confidently. Manatakis shakes his head. Next up is a yellow Essano Happy Skin spray. This time I'm cautious. I check the back of the product more thoroughly and see a different loop with skinner arrows and a label that says, 'Please recycle'. 'Recyclable,' I say. I'm wrong again. Finally, we head to Chemist Warehouse and Manatakis picks out a bottle of MooGoo Natural Milk Shampoo. The shiny packaging is opaque with a sky-blue strip in the middle and a dairy cow in the corner. 'Our bottles are off-white because we use 100 per cent recycled plastic. Please recycle,' the label assures me. Surely, that means it's recyclable? I anxiously turn the bottle over to check if for a hidden trick. 'Please recycle' another label says on the bottom. 'So would you put that in your recycling bin,' Manatakis asks me. I nod. 'That's fair,' he says. 'I think many people would, but it's not recyclable in Australia.' Defeated and slightly embarrassed, I head outside with Manatakis so he can explain where I went wrong. All the 'non-recyclable' examples used a form of opaque polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic packaging, Manatakis tells me. PET is one of the most highly used plastics across the world and is omnipresent across supermarkets and chemists for food, beverage, shampoo and skincare packaging. In Australia, PET is recyclable – but only when it is clear and transparent. According to the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), Opaque PET (1) is classified as non-recyclable in Australian and New Zealand kerbside recycling systems. If you place a product with opaque PET packaging in your recycling, it can contaminate a whole load of recycled PET, making it unusable for end markets. So if opaque PET isn't recyclable, why is it so commonly used in product packaging? And why doesn't the everyday Australian know how to recycle properly? Manatakis said the challenges and problems within Australia's recycling system were multipronged. 'Firstly, there is a lot of confusion at the household level on what is and isn't recyclable,' he said. 'Then there can be confusion when neighbouring councils have different rules on recycling. The final tier is companies and businesses who don't know if their packaging is recyclable and use incorrect labels. 'The multiple levels of confusion make recycling in Australia a complex problem.' Opaque PET: The plastic contaminating our recycling system The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) works with governments and businesses to manage the environmental impact of packaging. The organisation's 2022-23 consumption and recovery report estimated six million kilograms (6000 tonnes) of rigid opaque PET was in the market. APCO chief Chris Foley said opaque PET was not recyclable in Australia and described the products as a 'contaminant in the recycling stream'. So what makes opaque PET so bad for Australia's recycling system? An APCO spokesperson said the loss of clarity and transparency in opaque PET reduces its sustainability for high-value applications, such as new packaging, ultimately limiting the circularity of PET materials. In some countries opaque PET is classified as recyclable, but in Australia, opaque PET is difficult for optical sorters at material recovery facilities to detect. 'These sorting systems use infrared technology to identify and separate materials on high-speed conveyor belts,' the spokesperson said. 'If opaque PET is not effectively separated from clear plastics, it can contaminate the recycling stream, reducing the quality, value, and end-use potential of rPET [recycled PET].' Manatakis said the prevalence of white opaque PET plastic in Australia's recycling system led to frequent dumping. '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. Loading '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.'
