What goes wrong

Our Recyclable field was trusted

On this page14

The field was read as an assessment A blank was read as not recyclable Which is the failure the liner field avoids And the Yes was repeated onto a label The 60 percent threshold was not checked Which is a geographic question, not a material one The resin was treated as the answer And clearly and prominently was skipped We should not have a one-valued claim field The fix is a field change Until then, read the material And the field was read as covering the shelf And do your own availability research References

803 rows and every one says Yes.

The field was read as an assessment

It is a single-valued field. Yes on all 803 rows that carry it, and no other value anywhere in the catalog.

A blank was read as not recyclable

It means we did not record anything. The field has no way to express a negative, so the two cannot be distinguished.

Which is the failure the liner field avoids

There, No Liner and a blank are different values and the pages say so. Here there is no No.

And the Yes was repeated onto a label

Which turns our unqualified claim into the buyer's unqualified claim. The guidance addresses the marketer who makes it.

The 60 percent threshold was not checked

Substantial majority means at least 60 percent, and the question is whether programs and collection sites are available to that share of consumers.

Which is a geographic question, not a material one

Our field records a product attribute. Availability is about where the product is sold and what is collected there.

The resin was treated as the answer

All four materials on this shelf are recyclable as materials, and that is not the test the guidance sets.

And clearly and prominently was skipped

A qualification in small print is not a qualification. The type size properties in this library set out what prominence usually costs in space.

We should not have a one-valued claim field

Which is the finding, and it is recorded as a flag against our own site rather than left on a page.

The fix is a field change

A qualified value, a removal, or a per-resin statement that claims no availability. All three are catalog work.

Until then, read the material

Which is published on every container here and is the fact rather than the claim.

And the field was read as covering the shelf

It is present on 39 of the 83 containers in this group, so fewer than half carry it at all. Absence is the commoner case and it means nothing.

And do your own availability research

Because the claim is about your market area and nothing in our data reaches it.

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.