I’m not defending the old system. I’m suggesting the ARL logos are not the sole solution to our recycling needs. If all we are to worry about recycling is the detergent bottle under the kitchen sink or the meat packaging from the butcher, then yes. The ARL logos help.
In which instance if the ARL logo is to be the only tool for consumers to use, why not just have just 2 or 3 simple and significantly different symbols. One symbol for goes in the recycling bin. Yellow lid around here. Another for goes in the general waste, Red lid around here or dark green if an older bin. And perhaps a 3rd for, look to the council for where this item needs to be taken based on what is provided in your area. Better I should be able to take all else to the local waste depot and they should have the bins, facilities etc to take all. In fact that is how it seems to work now. Asbestos based products are the only exception for all the stuff around home that have special needs.
I do think the latest packaging and ARL marking on some items is a big improvement? Especially where there are seperate details for different parts of the packaging. If only the symbols were more prominent and did not need a magnifier to read. There’s plenty of real estate for branding etc, but that for an ARL symbol seems to be an after thought. It makes one ask whether the industry and product suppliers are really in touch with us poor sighted customers.
Or are they just ticking a box and moving on. They have only done half a job IMO. It’s not an argument to be had. The marketers know how to make the “new and improved” style labelling take prominent place. Why not do the same with the ARL logos to better promote the change? The lack of such an obvious promotion tactic only reinforces my previous view that the recycling industry and governments at a higher level are not in touch with consumer reality. Only local councils have to live with that every day.
The SCC advice is dated 13 Oct 2022. Apologies if this seems dated. No amount of ARL logos is going to answer my question on where to take the old 2 stroke mower fuel container, or that 2 pints of old oil based paint, lead content unknown. But the provided guide does.
Hopefully it’s now clear I’m not anti the logos. Recycling needs however are about more than just logos. And yes, it’s just an opinion, backed up by observation.
We are talking about kerbside recycling, not every product known or sold in Australia.
It should become the only solution in the future when all packaging has ARL logos.
As I have stated numerous times above in the transitional period, packaging with ARL logos are to be prepared in accordance with the easy to read and understand. Those without ARL logos, to be managed the same way as they have in the past. Eventually the old system will become redundant and disappear when ARL logos appear on most product packaging.
It is important that those with ARL logos are prepared for recycling in accordance with the logos and not prepared using traditional methods. The traditional or old methods are out of date for such packaging.
I have explained why not above…
An example being is…
where for this particular container, the seal insert from cap is removed and thrown out in general waste, whilst the cap is replaced on the bottle for recycling. Other containers may or may not have seals of different unique unrecyclable materials.
If a one, two or three logo system is used, every bottle cap would have the same logo applied…that the cap is thrown out in general waste. This then makes it harder to achieve the National Waste Policy to minimise waste being disposed, through the throwing out of caps which could be prepared for recycling.
Having more logos allows reuse or waste to energy logos potentially applied. If say Australia introduces a container reuse program like those which existed 40+ years ago, reuse logos can easily be added to containers to give a clear and easy to understand indication that the container is to be returned to store for reuse. Likewise with waste to energy. It future proofs the ARL logo system and allows changes in post consumer use of the packaging. This is a big step forward and advantage over the old/traditional system.
It is a change, and a change in the right direction. It removes the discretion and decision making by consumers using existing Council style guidelines. Such approach hasn’t been overly successful and has resulted in significant contamination of the recycling stream.
Some packaging can’t be recycled. Some packaging will still go to general waste/landfill.
I also anticipate in the future packaging without logos, will also go to general waste stream/landfill.
Imported products in original packaging or other markets - such as in many Asian, Indian etc stores can have ARL logos affixed to the packaging …like that which is done for nutritional labelling. A PREP assessment would however need to be done before any logos can be added.
It isn’t a half job. It has taken many years to decide on a practicable system which has been endorsed by every sector associated with packaging…from the packaging manufacturers to retailers to the recycling industry… without government mandating a policy. I wouldn’t be surprised if ARL logos become mandated in the future. I have heard on the grapevine that there could be pressure for this to occur.
It is worth noting that this is possibly the first time such multi-sector approach has been taken and why there is full support of the program across all sectors. It has been driven by the industry to fix known problems - rather than government trying to tell industry ‘how to suck eggs’.
It has been well thought out and resolves many of the issues with the old or traditional approach. It will, if consumers follow the logos, allow Australia to handle its own recyclables better, provide better quality materials for recycling and move Australia a step closer towards a circular economy.
I have explained this above in relation to the traditional period.
Please read my past posts. In the longer term, the oil packaging bought from the retailer will have ARL logos. As waste oil doesn’t go into kerbside recycling, it is irrelevant to the discussion. ARL logos are about managing kerbside recycling, not any and every product known or sold.
BTW, placing any waste engine oil in the recycling bin is likely to result in the load of recyclables going to a landfill site able to accept such contaminated materials.
Next time when you go shopping, have a look at packaging with the logos. You will then realise why your statement is incorrect. The logos are obvious, simple, easy to read (without a magnifying glass) and easy to understand. Very much so when compared to the old plastic recycling triangles and numbers which can be somewhat hard to find on some packaging.
One has to stop thinking of the past, accept change is underway for the future and start using the ARL logos where they are on packaging for the preparation of the materials for recycling in the kerbside recycling bin.
I have.
Why not read my links to what the SCC provides and suggest what needs if anything to improve their content. I take it was prepared with the cooperation of their waste collection and processing contractor. One of the big 3 nationally.
I can’t see where there is any difference in what should be done. I do read the labels on the packages when they are ready for the bin. And some are indeed very recent. I’ve opened the links provided. Few others appear to have bothered. There remain some differences with what to do with caps and smaller items. It seems easiest just to place these in the waste bin, although metal can and bottle tops are easy enough to trap inside a tin can suitably crushed at the top.
That goes in the waste oil recovery container at the local waste depot. The oil based paint until recently was a long drive to the main waste depot at the coast. Pickup has now been provided at the local depot, but only for the cans with their original legible labels.
Hopefully we’ve encouraged others to look and think about what the ARL logos are all about.
It may have been done a while ago when the original collection contract was awarded. Time has moved on since then. The same contractor is one of parties…
I look forward to the future of recycling rather than clinging to old ways of doing things which didn’t work well in the past. All levels of government, multisector industry stakeholders, environmental groups and other key stakeholders have a similar view.
I’ll take note and if it doesn’t have an ARL logo I might send it to landfill. Not really, but note the new way is still in transition, and limited to just some consumer items. For all else, the old way is the only way.
It isn’t on in consumer items, but packaging. It is also becoming more common than one may think and has been endorsed by Coles and Woolworths for their store branded product packaging. I haven’t checked if Aldi or IGA have followed suit, but it will only be time until they do.
Some branded products also have ARL logos, with more seem to be added to the scheme each time we shop.
I am annoyed by a total lack of any recycle symbol on some packaging. BB - Best Buy - a Foodworks home brand. This confectionery packet has nothing - no triangle, no ARL or Red Cycle, or even a disposal suggestion. It is large enough that space isn’t an issue. Made and packed in Australia. With little effort they could do better.
Hopefully this changes in the future. It is also hoped that packaging materials move away from those which can’t be recycled or problematic to recycle.
The National Waste Policy recognise this aspect as well as there is a target to
Phase out problematic and unnecessary plastics by 2025
