A few months ago, I wrote: “Let’s Give Americans What They Want.”
At the time, a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers (led by Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-NY) had just introduced the Recycled Materials Attribution Act (RMAA), which is designed to increase recycling. It would establish federal standards for recycled-content marketing claims, helping manufacturers use more recycled content in their products and giving Americans clear, consistent information about recycled content in products they’re buying.
Now, as a lawyer and lobbyist, it’s common to fall in love with your own position. And for that reason, perhaps I was a bit brazen in asserting that I know what Americans want. But after reviewing a new survey, it turns out that I was pretty darn close. 😀
In July 2026, a Professor Emeritus at the George Washington School of Business surveyed Americans who say they consider recycling when making purchasing decisions.
He asked them: Is this recycling?
“Plastics are chemically broken down into smaller molecules, which are used to make plastic pellets to produce new plastic products.”
93% said yes, this is recycling.
If you don’t already know, the language above describes one of the many types of advanced recycling of plastics (more on advanced recycling here). So basically, 93% of the respondents believe that this type of advanced recycling of plastics = recycling.
The professor also wanted to understand what respondents thought about different approaches to indicating recycled content in packaging or products. As I wrote in Let’s Give Americans What They Want, Americans are confused over recycled content claims and want clarity.
He asked them: How appropriate is this approach for labeling recycled content?
“Plastic waste can be broken down into smaller molecules that are the same as those made from fossil fuels. If a production process mixes four pounds of molecules from plastic waste with six pounds of molecules from fossil fuels, only four pounds of the new product could be labeled recycled content. It is labeled this way because the materials are blended together and cannot be separated.”
79% of respondents said this approach is completely or somewhat appropriate.
And if you don’t already know, the language above describes what’s known as a “mass balance” approach for labeling recycled content (more on mass balance here). So basically, 79% believe that a mass balance approach is appropriate when recycled plastic materials are mixed with virgin materials to make new products.
Makes sense. Many industries have used mass balance for years to track sustainability claims of a wide range of products. Cocoa. Renewable energy. Orange juice. Coconut oil. Forestry. And more. It’s a very common way to account for integrating sustainable material with virgin material. As the Rainforest Alliance says, “All major international sustainability initiatives use mass balance in one form or another.”
The survey also found that respondents see lots of benefits in recycling. The most popular benefits: converting waste into new products or materials (71%) and reducing waste sent to landfills and incinerators (70%).
So…
- Americans see the benefits of recycling.
- They agree that advanced recycling of plastics is recycling.
- And they agree that mass balance is an appropriate approach for labeling recycled plastics.
That’s what the RMAA is all about (more on RMAA provisions here). This survey gives Congress another good reason to pass the RMAA and help give Americans the recycling system they want.
I’m frankly surprised that 93% of Americans — or even 79% of Americans — agree about anything. Those are some really strong numbers in a country that has difficulty agreeing on important issues.
It’s time for federal policy to align with this consensus on plastics recycling.
