Recyclable

Our own field has one value

On this page13

What we publish And the value is always the same Which has two consequences, and both are bad The first is a reader problem Which is the same failure the liner field avoids The second is a claim problem A bare Yes qualifies nothing And this is a flag against our site, not against a buyer Nothing in our data supports a qualification either So the field is doing more than it can support The fix is a field change And it is recorded as a flag References

There is no other value in the field anywhere.

What we publish

A Recyclable specification on 803 rows catalog-wide. On this group's shelf it appears on 39 of the 83 containers.

And the value is always the same

Yes, on all 803. There is no No, no Check locally, no qualification and no other value anywhere in the field.

Which has two consequences, and both are bad

A blank cannot be distinguished from a negative. And every populated row carries an unqualified claim.

The first is a reader problem

Somebody looking at a product with no Recyclable line cannot tell whether we assessed it and said no, or never recorded anything.

Which is the same failure the liner field avoids

There, No Liner and a blank are different values and the pages say so. Here the field has no way to express a negative at all.

The second is a claim problem

The guidance says marketers should clearly and prominently qualify recyclable claims to the extent necessary to avoid deception about the availability of recycling programs and collection sites to consumers.

A bare Yes qualifies nothing

It names no program, no geography and no condition. It is the unqualified form the guidance addresses.

And this is a flag against our site, not against a buyer

We put the field there. Publishing the measurement is the only honest thing to do with it.

Nothing in our data supports a qualification either

We record no program availability, no collection site information and no geography. A resin and a capacity do not reach the question.

So the field is doing more than it can support

Which is the shape of the problem rather than a conclusion about any container. Whether a given item is recyclable is not stated here.

The fix is a field change

Either a qualified value, or a removal, or a per-resin statement that does not claim availability. All three are catalog work rather than writing.

And it is recorded as a flag

Because a finding about our own published claims belongs in the task list as well as on a page.

References

The Davis Pack Supply catalog, measured 19 October 2026. A "Recyclable" specification is published on 803 rows catalog-wide and the value is "Yes" on all 803; there is no other value in the field anywhere. On this group's shelf it is present on 39 of the 83 containers, all of them Yes. So a blank cannot be distinguished from a negative, and a bare Yes is an unqualified recyclable claim. Nothing in our data says which programs or collection sites are available to anyone.

16 CFR 260.12(a): "It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is recyclable." (b): "Marketers should clearly and prominently qualify recyclable claims to the extent necessary to avoid deception about the availability of recycling programs and collection sites to consumers." The section states that "The term 'substantial majority,' as used in this context, means at least 60 percent." law.cornell.edu

Written from 16 CFR 260.12 and 260.14 and from the catalog as it stood on 19 October 2026. Our own Recyclable specification has exactly one value, Yes, on all 803 rows that carry it, which means a blank and a negative cannot be told apart and a bare Yes is an unqualified claim. Nothing here states whether any container is recyclable or whether programs are available anywhere. The Green Guides are guidance on claims and nothing on these pages describes the rest of them, nor state recycled-content or labeling statutes.