DISCLAIMER: This document is designed as an introduction to California’s Truth in Labeling law and contains summary information. The information provided in this document does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this document is expressly disclaimed.
At a Glance
- SB 343 cracks down on misleading recyclability claims. Packaging can’t display the chasing arrows symbol unless it truly meets California’s recyclability standards.
- Four conditions must be met: The material must be widely collected, properly sorted, successfully reclaimed, and designed according to the APR Design® Guide.
- Labels and packaging components count. Non-recyclable labels, inks, or adhesives can make an otherwise recyclable package non-compliant.
- Deadline: October 4, 2026. Food businesses should audit packaging claims now and plan for potential California-specific labeling.
It seems we’re back here again. California is not done with its sustainability initiatives, including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and labeling laws…and that’s not a bad thing; it’s a fitting approach for a state committed to protecting its environment.
We’re here today to discuss SB 343: California’s Truth in Labeling Law. Is this related to EPR? Not exactly. Should you, as food business owners, care? Absolutely. Like SB 54, this will touch every food business that sends products into the state, and you should be prepared.
What is This About?
You’ve seen them a thousand times: The triangular symbols stamped on the bottom of plastic packaging. Maybe you’ve assumed they mean “recyclable.” Maybe your customers have too. California’s SB 343 is here to tell you that these assumptions have been costing the environment, and this information is vital for your operation.
Inline Plastics has been in the business of packaging fresh food for over 55 years, and we know how regulations can affect companies. Today, we are going to give you a high-level overview of this new bill.
In this article, we’ll break down what SB 343 actually requires, who it affects, the key deadlines, and what food businesses should be doing about it right now. And if you missed our breakdown of SB 54 — the broader EPR law overhauling how recycling gets funded — give that a read too (we promise it’s not filled with legal jargon!).
A Brief History of The Chasing Arrows
Most people recognize the arrows as the “original recycling logo” (Spoiler: That’s what it was then, but no longer) — the famous “chasing arrows” were created during the first Earth Day in 1970 to represent recycling itself.
In the 1980s, plastics manufacturers introduced a new system called the Resin Identification Code. The goal was practical: Help recycling facilities sort different types of plastic. Each container would carry a number (1 through 7) indicating the resin used to make it.
To make the code easy to emboss into packaging, the numbers were placed inside a triangle that looked very similar to the original recycling symbol. The intent was no longer to signal recyclability — it was simply to identify the material.
But to consumers, the difference wasn’t obvious. Over time, that triangle of arrows increasingly came to be interpreted as a recycling promise. A shopper flipped over a container, spotted the arrows, felt like a planet-saving hero, dropped it in the blue bin — and it may have still ended up in a landfill.
SB 343 exists because of that gap between intent and interpretation.
What is California’s SB 343, and What Does It Actually Prohibit?
Think of SB 343 as California’s official crackdown on greenwashing claims. The law prohibits putting the chasing arrows symbol, or any recyclability claim, on packaging unless it actually, genuinely, and probably meets the state’s criteria for recyclability. Not a novel concept, but in practice, it may be challenging. Let’s get into it.
SB 343 specifically targets the chasing arrows — the ones that imply a recyclability promise. If your packaging material can’t back that promise up, California says swap them out for the solid triangle instead.
Now, here’s the plot twist, and prepare to clutch your pearls. This law is California-specific — but roughly 30 other states actually require chasing arrows on plastic packaging. So, if you’re distributing nationally, you could find yourself needing different labeling for California than for the rest of the country. Delightful? (cut to your logistics manager crying in their office). Absolutely not. Worth knowing now rather than in the future? Very much, yes.
Do not be discouraged. While this may seem overwhelming, we need to get into specifics.
What Is the SB 343 Compliance Timeline?
Mark your calendar: October 4, 2026.
That’s the deadline for companies to comply with SB 343’s labeling requirements. Unlike SB 54, which has milestones stretching out to 2032, SB 343’s clock is ticking much faster. If your packaging carries a chasing arrows symbol that doesn’t meet the criteria below, it needs to come off (or be replaced) before that date.
What Are the Four Requirements to Use the Chasing Arrows in California?
Reminder: Do. Not. Panic.
You can still have the chasing arrows on your food packaging. To legally use the chasing arrows symbol on containers sold in California, your product must clear four hurdles. Accomplish all four…you’re golden (like California!). Miss one…no arrows for you! Just a solid triangle.
- Collection: The material type and form must be accepted for recycling by local programs covering at least 60% of California’s population. It’s not enough for some communities to collect it. It has to be broadly accepted across the state.
- Sortation: The material has to be actively sorted into defined streams at large-volume MRFs, or Material Recovery Facilities. Here’s a nuance worth knowing: If your material arrives at a sorting facility and ends up in the “we-have-no-idea-what-this-is” pile, that doesn’t count. It needs an established stream. This is one reason black-based plastics are particularly problematic — optical scanners at sorting facilities often can’t detect them at all (though some can, read more here).
- Reclamation: Sorted doesn’t mean recycled. The material must actually be sent to a reclaimer and successfully reprocessed into new raw material or products. If bales of your material are just sitting in a warehouse with nowhere to go, it doesn’t qualify. There has to be a real market for it. In short, people need to want to buy it.
- Design and Composition: This one hits closest to home for packaging manufacturers and the food brands that choose them. Containers must meet specific material composition and design requirements, and California leans heavily on the APR Design® Guide as its benchmark.
Are There More Specific Considerations?
Under the APR framework, packaging components (think: labels, adhesives, inks, coatings) cannot render the overall package “Non-Recyclable.” Your package needs to be rated as “Preferred” or “Tolerated but Needs Improvement.” The specifics get technical (and eye-crossing) — melting point ranges, intrinsic viscosity, color, bulk density — but the bottom line is simple: The whole package is evaluated, not just the base resin.
Does This Affect Packaging That Someone Else Adds Labels To?
Yes — and this is one of the trickiest parts of SB 343 for manufacturers and brands alike.
A packaging manufacturer might sell a container that is perfectly recyclable. But if a food brand slaps a non-recyclable label on it before it hits store shelves, that label can render the entire package non-recyclable under the APR Design Guide standards.
The practical guidance here: If you’re a food brand buying packaging, know what’s going onto it before you ship it into California. And if you’re a packaging manufacturer answering customer questionnaires about recyclability, note the distinction: The package as sold may be recyclable — what happens to it downstream is a different story.
As for documentation — yes, you need it. Companies are expected to keep records demonstrating they meet SB 343’s requirements. CalRecycle can audit. “We thought it was recyclable,” or “My dog ate my documentation homework,” is not a compliance strategy.
What Are the Penalties for SB 343 Violations?
This is where the stakes become very clear. SB 343 penalties are assessed per unit, per day.
That structure is not an accident, and it is not gentle. If you’re selling hundreds of thousands of packages into California with non-compliant labeling, the math gets uncomfortable fast. The exact enforcement mechanisms are still being refined, but the intent is unmistakable: California is serious about this bill.
What Should Food Businesses Do About SB 343 Right Now?
The October 2026 deadline may feel far away. It isn’t — especially when you factor in tooling lead times, labeling redesigns, and supply chain coordination.
- Audit every package going into California. Check every recyclability claim and every chasing arrows symbol. If you can’t clearly document how it meets all four criteria above, it’s at risk.
- Cross-reference the APR Design Guide. It’s publicly available and material-specific. If your packaging hasn’t been evaluated against it, that’s step one.
- Watch multi-material packages. Films, laminates, and packaging that combine multiple resins are high-risk. If the material can’t be cleanly sorted and reprocessed, it likely can’t carry the chasing arrows or a solid triangle.
- Have the label conversation early. If you’re a food brand, talk to your packaging supplier about what goes on that container before it ships. Labels, inks, and adhesives all factor into recyclability ratings.
- Think about national distribution. If your packaging goes into California and other states that require chasing arrows, you may need California-specific packaging. Yes, that’s a headache. Yes, it’s worth planning for now rather than scrambling in 2026.
SB 343: Where to Go from Here
Those three little arrows have carried a lot of meaning for a long time — much of it possibly misleading. SB 343 is California’s way of cleaning that up, and the food industry is squarely in its crosshairs.
The companies that will navigate this best are those that treat packaging recyclability as a real, documented, verifiable claim, not a marketing default. Because in California, the days of arrows-as-decoration are officially numbered (see what we did there?).
DISCLAIMER: This document is designed as an introduction to California’s Truth in Labeling law and contains summary information. The information provided in this document does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this document is expressly disclaimed.
