The Vinyl Analysis

That plastic you’re recycling may be on its way to a landfill

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Next to John Travolta, no career comeback has been more surprising than that of plastic. Back in the ’80s, plastic was considered the environmental villain of the material world. But today’s consumers feel good about choosing products made with plastic because they think most plastic is being recycled. Nothing illustrates this change of heart better than shoppers’ responses to the “paper or plastic” question: In 1996, four out of five people chose plastic, as compared to one out of six in 1984.

What Americans may not realize, though, is that the plastic industry has merely recycled its image. The American Plastics Council (APC)—which represents “virgin” plastic producers—spends close to $20 million per year on advertising campaigns exalting plastic’s benefits (such as the recent “Plastics Make It Possible” TV ad, in which a little girl floats heavenward on the handles of a plastic bag).

And a few blemishes have been concealed in the media makeover: The plastic industry is second only to the chemical industry in its generation of ozone-depleting substances; some of the chemicals and metals in plastic can cause health problems (see this issue’s Theo Colborn interview); and despite the industry’s claim that close to 80 percent of Americans have access to a plastic recycling program, most plastic ends up in landfills.

A recent Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) study shows that less than 10 percent of plastic packaging was recycled in 1996. According to APC spokeswoman Susan Moore, some of the blame lies with consumers who “have gotten a little lackadaisical about recycling.” But others point the finger right back at manufacturers, saying they have done little to create a market for recycled plastic. Two-thirds of the national recycling companies that used to recycle plastic have stopped doing so. And many cities have been forced to drop plastic from their recycling programs, saying it’s not economically viable.

Meanwhile, the production of new plastic is on the rise. According to the EDF, in the last eight years manufacturers have produced 13 times more virgin plastic packaging than has been recycled. And of the half-dozen types of consumer plastic currently in use in this country, only two are recycled in large quantities by most communities—and those mostly end up in products such as lumber, clothing, and carpeting, all of which are not recyclable.

The industry claims that packagers need several different kinds of plastic for different applications. However, while shampoos are still bottled using four different kinds of plastic, other industries have made efforts to standardize their packaging. Some have even encouraged companies to redesign with recyclability in mind. For example, the paper industry has suggested using labels made with water-soluble adhesives in order to make paper products, such as envelopes, easier to recycle.

“That’s the kind of thing that’s not happening in the plastics industry,” says Richard Denison, an Environmental Defense Fund scientist.

“Some recyclers don’t believe that the virgin plastic producers support recyclers,” says Robin Cotchan of the Association of Post-Consumer Plastics Recyclers. Others say the only thing that could save plastic recycling is government regulation. But the plastic industry actively lobbies against state legislation requiring post-consumer recycled content in new packaging.

Even if the plastic industry isn’t “making it possible,” you can still help: Contact your local recycling program and find out exactly what they recycle; after you buy products in recyclable containers, don’t forget to actually schlepp them out to the curb or drop-off zone; consider reusing plastic containers; stay away from single-serve packaging and try to buy in bulk; if you’re really feeling frisky, call companies and tell them you want to see recycled content in their packaging; and, finally, when the next PR blitz hits, don’t believe the hype.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate