• "Return to Store" instruction is misleading on soft plastic packaging.
    "Return to Store" instruction is misleading on soft plastic packaging.
Close×

Environmental group Boomerang Alliance has argued that the continued use of the Australasian Recycling Label (ARL) on soft plastic packaging has “gone beyond a joke”, as despite the collapse of REDcycle in November 2022, it is still being widely used to promote in-store collections, which do not exist.

As part of Boomerang’s supermarket investigation, the alliance focused on a random list of fresh produce and common items, and products that would have been packaged more recently.

Boomerang found that virtually all still featured the ARL referring to in-store soft plastic collections. Only in some cases were the labels changed to advise consumers to ‘Check Locally’, which simply leads to a local list of recyclers – most of which were found to not accept soft plastics.

According to the qualifying rules of the ARL, for a product to be recyclable, the infrastructure must be available to at least 60 per cent of the population.

Jeff Angel, director of Boomerang Alliance.
Jeff Angel, director of Boomerang Alliance.

“We have had an overwhelming public response to our recent callout of greenwashing using the ARL by major supermarkets and brands,” said Jeff Angel, director of Boomerang Alliance.

“The ARL label is intended to provide consumers with accurate information on how to discard product packaging, but we know there has been no soft plastics collection service available at supermarkets for two years.

“And as for ‘Check Locally’, that is just another attempt at greenwashing customers by the supermarkets.”

Angel did say that the investigation did find some examples, such as Bega Cheese and Smiths Crisps, who had changed their labels to advise that soft plastic packaging now went to the waste bin.

“Not a great outcome, but an honest one from these suppliers at least,” Angel continued.

“Labelling is important and consumers need to have trust in its accuracy and veracity. Producers and suppliers have had ample time to change these labels when a service is not available.

“Is there any wonder that consumers are increasingly skeptical of supermarket and brand environmental claims on their products when this greenwash is allowed to continue.

“And, what exactly are the Commonwealth government and the ACCC doing about this?”

Boomerang Alliance is calling for the immediate removal of labels featuring any in-store collection service if none exists.

The Alliance said this should be the case until there is a re-establishment of soft plastics collections at supermarkets, one that is backed by a more comprehensive collection and recycling scheme.

In response to Boomerang's investigation, Sarah Sannen, head of operations at the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), told PKN that the ACCC has granted a period of two years (by 1 July 2025) for brand owners to transition their soft plastics labelling from the Return to Store to the new Check Locally ARL logo.

"This deadline has been communicated widely to all ARL program members and many are in the process of changing their labelling," Sannen explained.

“Following the closure of the REDcycle program, many brands were left with large amounts of existing stock containing the Return to Store logo. Simply sending this stock to landfill will result in significant environmental and financial impact and isn't a viable option.

"It is essential that businesses remove the outdated label as soon as possible. However, this process takes time and requires brands to assess their packaging against the new soft plastic thresholds, update the existing artwork, and apply the new label on-pack."

Currently, APCO is working with brand owners and retailers throughout this process to meet the new Check Locally labelling requirements and the ACCC’s deadlines.

The Check Locally logo was launched in July 2023 and was designed to be a future-proof label, minimising changes to packaging labelling by directing consumers to the ARL website online database with kerbside and drop-off services specific to each council area in Australia.

The database is regularly updated as new infrastructure and recycling pathways for hard-to-recycle items become available. Additionally, the ARL program requirements for soft plastics were revised last year and all of our members have been informed that any packaging that does not meet the new thresholds must be labelled with the Not Recyclable logo. 

“APCO has been engaging with the ACCC regularly throughout this process to establish an aligned approach and to ensure there is clarity and transparency for consumers about soft plastics disposal," Sannen added.

“Additionally, looking to the future, APCO has been working with industry to identify and scale up end markets to make it economically viable to capture and re-process all soft plastic material.

"We are already seeing progress being made by industry. The new soft plastic recycling facilities opened by Close the Loop and CRDC have increased local recycling capacity, and this has enabled the Soft Plastics Taskforce to roll out soft plastic recycling trials in select Melbourne supermarkets. We hope to see additional soft plastic recycling facilities open over the course of the next year.”

Food & Drink Business

A national network for young grape and wine professionals has been launched, set to foster the next generation of winemakers, viticulturists, cellar door staff, wine judges and other roles in Australia’s wine sector.

A new bill was introduced to Parliament on 19 November, which offers a framework for regulating the sale or importation of organic goods in Australia, and stronger opportunities for exporting organic products.

The Senate Economics Committee has rejected the Food Donations Bill that proposed a tax offset for companies donating excess food to food relief agencies rather than dumping it. While the bill had the potential to deliver the equivalent of 100 million meals to food relief organisations, the committee said it had “serious concerns” including the bill’s “generous” tax concessions. Food relief agencies and social welfare organisations have questioned the committee’s decision to reject the bill outright rather than make recommendations for amendments.