Plastic Resin Identification Codes 1-7: What B2B Buyers Need to Know

The chasing arrows triangle with a number inside, stamped or molded onto plastic packaging, is one of the most familiar and most misunderstood symbols in consumer product packaging. Most consumers and many B2B buyers interpret the symbol as “recyclable in this category.” That interpretation is wrong, and the wrongness has consequences for procurement decisions, customer-facing claims, and increasingly for regulatory compliance. The Resin Identification Code (RIC) system was designed to identify the polymer chemistry of plastic items for the benefit of recyclers, not to communicate recyclability to consumers. The chasing arrows graphic has been changed in recent years specifically to address this misinterpretation. Several US states have passed laws restricting how the codes can be used. The bioplastic and compostable industries have added their own complications.

For B2B buyers procuring packaging — including compostable packaging, where the codes intersect with compost-stream contamination and end-of-life claims in nuanced ways — understanding what the codes mean, what they don’t mean, and how regulations are reshaping their use is necessary procurement knowledge. This guide covers the seven RIC codes, what each chemistry actually does in waste streams, how bioplastics fit (or don’t fit) the system, current regulatory developments, and procurement specification implications.

The Origin and Original Purpose of RIC

The Resin Identification Code system was created in 1988 by the Society of the Plastics Industry (now Plastics Industry Association, or PLASTICS). The original purpose was to give material recovery facilities (MRFs) a quick visual identifier for sorting different plastic chemistries so they could be processed into appropriate recycling streams. The codes were designed for industrial use, not consumer communication.

The chasing arrows triangle was adapted from the recycling symbol, leading to the persistent confusion. From the start, RIC marking did not mean “this product is recyclable.” It meant “this product is made from polymer chemistry X.” Whether that chemistry is recyclable in any specific location depends on whether the local MRF accepts it, whether end-markets exist for the resulting recycled material, and whether the specific product (bottle, film, multi-layer container) is processable in the available equipment.

In 2013, ASTM International took over the standard from the trade association and renamed it the “Standard Practice for Coding Plastic Manufactured Articles for Resin Identification” (ASTM D7611). The 2013 update changed the chasing arrows to a solid equilateral triangle without the chasing-arrows motif, specifically to reduce consumer confusion about recyclability. Many products still use the original chasing arrows graphic because tooling changes are slow, but new products produced under updated standards increasingly use the solid triangle.

For procurement, the historical context matters because the symbol’s appearance on a product carries varying levels of authority. A modern solid-triangle code under ASTM D7611 is consistent with current standards. A chasing-arrows code is still valid for resin identification but uses obsolete graphics. Either way, the code identifies polymer chemistry — not recyclability.

What Each Code Means

The seven codes correspond to specific polymer chemistries with specific applications, recyclability profiles, and end-of-life pathways.

1 — PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate). Used for clear water bottles, soft drink bottles, salad dressing bottles, peanut butter jars, and many clear food containers. PET is highly recyclable in established curbside recycling streams. Most US municipalities accept PET 1, and end-markets exist for clear PET (recycled into bottles, fiber, strapping). PET is the most widely-recycled plastic globally. PET 1 is generally the most recyclable plastic for B2B foodservice procurement when conventional plastic is the chosen material.

2 — HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene). Used for milk jugs, detergent bottles, shampoo bottles, oil bottles, and some food storage containers. HDPE is highly recyclable in established streams; most US municipalities accept HDPE 2. End-markets exist for both natural (translucent) HDPE and colored HDPE. HDPE 2 is the second-most-recycled plastic.

3 — PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride). Used for some clear bottles (older designs), squeeze bottles, blister packs, food wraps, and many non-food applications (pipes, vinyl flooring). PVC has limited curbside recycling acceptance. Many MRFs specifically exclude PVC because chlorine releases during processing complicate recycling. PVC is rarely used in modern foodservice packaging because of recycling difficulty and food contact concerns. B2B buyers should generally avoid PVC 3 in new foodservice procurement.

4 — LDPE (Low-Density Polyethylene). Used for grocery bags, sandwich bags, dry cleaning bags, plastic film, squeezable bottles, and some bread bags. LDPE is recyclable but rarely accepted in curbside streams in flexible film form (the film clogs MRF equipment). Store drop-off programs accept LDPE film at major retailers. Rigid LDPE is more curbside-recyclable than film LDPE. B2B procurement should match LDPE products to appropriate recycling pathways.

5 — PP (Polypropylene). Used for yogurt containers, hummus tubs, butter tubs, microwaveable containers, hot food containers, condiment cups, drinking straws (conventional), and bottle caps. PP recycling has improved substantially since 2015. Most US municipalities now accept rigid PP, and end-markets exist. PP 5 is increasingly the second or third most recycled plastic in many regions, after PET 1 and HDPE 2.

6 — PS (Polystyrene). Used for foam cups, foam plates, foam food containers, foam packaging peanuts, hard plastic CD cases, and some clear food containers. Foam PS (commonly called Styrofoam, though that’s a trademark) is rarely curbside-recyclable. Hard PS may be accepted in some streams. PS recycling has declined as foam phase-outs have accelerated. B2B procurement of PS in foodservice has substantially declined as foam bans, customer preference shifts, and recyclability concerns have all reduced PS share.

7 — Other (including bioplastics). A catch-all category for any polymer chemistry not covered by 1-6. Includes polycarbonate (PC), nylon (PA), various co-polymers, and importantly, most bioplastics including PLA, PHA, PBAT, and starch blends. The “Other” category is the broadest and most ambiguous. Recyclability varies entirely by specific chemistry, and most curbside recycling streams do not accept Code 7 plastics because of mixed-stream contamination concerns.

For B2B procurement, the codes provide a quick chemistry identifier for understanding what’s being procured. They do not, however, communicate recyclability — that requires separate verification of local infrastructure and acceptance.

The Bioplastic Code 7 Problem

The most significant complication for compostable packaging buyers is that virtually all bioplastics fall into Code 7 (Other). PLA, PHA, PBAT, starch blends, cellulose-based materials — all are coded 7 because they don’t fit the original 1-6 categories.

This creates several problems.

Code 7 is associated with non-recyclability. Curbside recyclers see Code 7 and reject it because the category is too heterogeneous to process. A PLA cup with Code 7 may be discarded into landfill via the recycling stream simply because it’s coded 7, even though the cup might be industrially compostable in the right facility.

Customer confusion. Consumers may interpret the chasing arrows on a Code 7 bioplastic as recyclable, contaminating recycling streams with bioplastic that should have gone to compost. This is one of the most common waste-stream contamination issues in markets where bioplastic adoption has grown.

Contamination of plastic recycling streams. Even small amounts of PLA in PET recycling streams can degrade the recycled PET because of chemical incompatibility. Material recovery facilities are sensitive to bioplastic contamination because the contamination affects the value of recycled plastic.

No bioplastic-specific code currently exists. ASTM has discussed adding codes for specific bioplastics (e.g., PLA-specific or PHA-specific) but has not yet implemented them. The result is that all bioplastics share Code 7 with unrelated chemistries.

For B2B procurement, the bioplastic-and-Code-7 issue means that compostable products labeled with the standard RIC may inadvertently confuse customers and end-of-life sorting. Several mitigation strategies are being adopted by compostable suppliers and buyers:

Use of compostable-specific labeling. BPI Certified, TÜV OK Compost, and similar logos communicate compostability directly without relying on RIC. Many compostable products carry these logos prominently and treat the RIC as secondary chemistry identification.

Distinct compostable graphics. The ASTM D7611 update allows producers to add compostability indicators alongside the RIC. Some products use a separate compost icon or text near the RIC to signal proper end-of-life.

Color coding. Some markets are adopting color schemes that visually distinguish compostable from conventional plastic. Green text or borders signal compostable; conventional black-on-white indicates the RIC alone.

Avoidance of RIC entirely on compostable products. Some compostable suppliers have begun omitting RIC from products that don’t legally require it, relying instead on compostable certification logos to communicate end-of-life. This can be appropriate where customers are well-trained but may create labeling questions for buyers in jurisdictions that mandate RIC.

The ongoing debate about how to evolve labeling for compostable and bioplastic products is one of the active regulatory conversations in the field.

State-Level Labeling Regulations

Several US states have passed laws that change how the chasing arrows symbol can be used, particularly for products that are not actually recyclable in the local stream. These laws affect procurement specifications.

California SB 343 (effective 2024). Restricts use of the chasing arrows symbol or other recyclability claims to products that meet a defined recyclability standard. Products that don’t meet the standard cannot use the chasing arrows even if the resin chemistry is technically recyclable elsewhere. This is the most influential of the state laws because of California’s market size.

Washington Plastic Packaging Bill. Includes provisions on labeling and recyclability claims, with similar intent to California SB 343 in reducing misleading recyclability messaging.

New York Packaging EPR (forming). New York’s Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act includes labeling provisions. The implementation rules continue to evolve.

Several other states. Oregon, Maine, Minnesota, and Connecticut have passed or are considering similar labeling restrictions tied to broader EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) frameworks.

For B2B procurement, state-level labeling laws mean:

• Products sold in California must comply with SB 343’s recyclability claim restrictions, which may require label changes for products previously using chasing arrows.
• The chasing arrows graphic in particular faces legal risk in California unless the underlying recyclability claim can be substantiated under SB 343 criteria.
• Compostable products generally don’t carry “recyclable” claims, so they’re less affected by these laws — but should still comply with general truth-in-advertising standards.
• Mixed-state distribution programs need to check label compliance across all destination states.

The trend is toward stricter labeling standards. Procurement specifications increasingly include labeling compliance language that obligates suppliers to maintain compliance with state-level requirements, with re-labeling responsibility falling to the supplier when laws change.

RIC Codes for Specific Foodservice Categories

Different foodservice categories have characteristic RIC distributions that buyers should understand.

Cold cups. Predominantly PET (Code 1) for clear conventional cups, PLA (Code 7) for clear compostable cups. PP (Code 5) for some translucent cold cups. The clear PLA cold cup category at https://purecompostables.com/compostable-cups-straws/ is dominated by Code 7 PLA.

Hot cups. Predominantly paper cups with thin polymer linings — the linings may be PE (LDPE/HDPE family), PP, or PLA. Hot cup lids are often CPLA (Code 7) for compostable, PS (Code 6) for conventional foam-style, or PP (Code 5) for conventional plastic. The hot cup category at https://purecompostables.com/compostable-paper-hot-cups-lids/ primarily uses paper substrates with PLA linings, marked Code 7 if any RIC marking is present.

Food containers. Wide range. PP (Code 5) for many conventional rigid containers, PET (Code 1) for many clear takeout containers, PLA or fiber-based for compostable. Compostable food containers at https://purecompostables.com/compostable-food-containers/ may be coded 7 for PLA or have no RIC for fiber-based products.

Bowls. Mostly fiber-based (bagasse, wheat straw) for compostable — these may not carry RIC because they’re fiber rather than polymer. PP for conventional rigid bowls. PLA-coated bowls may carry Code 7. The bowl category at https://purecompostables.com/compostable-bowls/ is dominated by fiber materials with limited or no RIC marking.

Bags. LDPE (Code 4) for conventional bags, PBAT or PBAT-PLA blend (Code 7) for compostable bags. The bag category at https://purecompostables.com/compostable-bags/ is mostly Code 7 chemistry.

Utensils. PS (Code 6) or PP (Code 5) for conventional, PLA/CPLA (Code 7) or wood/bamboo (no RIC) for compostable. The utensil category at https://purecompostables.com/compostable-utensils/ spans Code 7 and non-coded options.

Straws. PP (Code 5) for conventional, PLA (Code 7) for compostable PLA straws, PHA (Code 7) for PHA straws, paper (no RIC) for paper straws. The straw category at https://purecompostables.com/compostable-straws/ spans Code 7 and uncoded materials.

For B2B buyers, knowing the typical RIC distribution helps in supplier conversations and label compliance reviews. Buyers shouldn’t be surprised when compostable products carry Code 7 and should ensure that customer-facing communication addresses the compost-not-recycle pathway clearly.

Procurement Specification Language for Labeling

Buyers can write specification language that addresses RIC and labeling clearly. Several useful templates:

Chemistry disclosure. “Suppliers shall disclose the polymer chemistry of all packaging components by specific chemistry name (e.g., PLA, PHA, PET) in addition to RIC code. Disclosure shall be at the SKU level for each product line.” This avoids the ambiguity of relying on RIC alone for chemistry identification.

Labeling compliance. “Suppliers shall maintain product labeling in compliance with [California SB 343, Washington labeling requirements, etc.] for all products distributed in covered states. Supplier shall update labeling within 60 days of any material change in applicable regulations and shall bear all costs of compliance updates.” This places labeling compliance burden on the supplier.

End-of-life claim accuracy. “All end-of-life claims (recyclable, compostable, reusable) on supplier packaging shall be substantiated by certification or applicable testing per [BPI/TÜV/local standards]. Supplier shall provide certification documentation for each claim and update as certifications change.” This requires evidentiary support for claims.

Compostability indicator preference. “For compostable packaging, supplier shall include both compostability certification logo (BPI, TÜV) and any required RIC code. Supplier shall avoid using chasing arrows graphics on compostable packaging that cannot be substantiated under applicable recyclability laws.” This addresses the bioplastic-Code-7 problem directly.

Buyer-facing labeling consistency. “Custom-printed packaging shall include consistent end-of-life messaging across SKUs, with text specifying ‘industrial composting’ or ‘home composting’ as appropriate. Supplier shall not include ‘recyclable’ or chasing arrows graphics on compostable packaging.” This ensures branded packaging communicates accurately.

For procurement teams supporting customer-facing marketing, the labeling specifications should align with the brand’s broader sustainability claim policies. Inconsistent labeling across packaging components weakens overall claim integrity.

Future of Plastic Identification Codes

The RIC system faces ongoing evolution as bioplastic and compostable adoption grows, regulatory pressure intensifies, and recycling infrastructure changes.

Possible new codes. ASTM has discussed adding bioplastic-specific codes (PLA-specific, PHA-specific, etc.) to better identify these materials. The change would clarify the bioplastic-and-Code-7 problem. Adoption depends on industry consensus and update of ASTM D7611. The change has been discussed for years without implementation.

Digital labels. QR codes, NFC tags, and digital watermarks are being developed as supplements or replacements for printed RIC. Digital systems can communicate richer information (specific chemistry, end-of-life pathway, manufacturer, certification details) than a single number. Adoption is early but growing.

Compostability-specific identification. Some industry groups and certifiers are developing compostability-specific identifiers that don’t use RIC. These could include compost-specific symbols, color schemes, or certification logos that visually distinguish compostable from recyclable.

Regulatory mandate convergence. State-level labeling regulations are converging on similar principles (truthful end-of-life claims, restricted chasing arrows usage). Federal-level harmonization may eventually emerge, simplifying compliance.

Brand-specific labeling systems. Some brands have adopted internal labeling standards that supplement RIC with brand-specific guidance. These help customers understand specific products even when RIC alone is ambiguous.

For B2B procurement, the practical implication is that labeling will continue to evolve, and procurement specifications should be flexible enough to accommodate changes. Labeling compliance updates should be expected during multi-year contracts. Suppliers who actively adapt to labeling evolution are easier to work with than those who resist change.

Conclusion: RIC as Chemistry Code, Not Recyclability Indicator

The Resin Identification Codes 1-7 are a chemistry identification system, not a recyclability or sustainability label. Buyers who treat them as recyclability indicators make procurement decisions on incorrect information. Buyers who treat them as polymer chemistry shorthand have a useful but limited tool.

For B2B foodservice and packaging procurement, several actionable takeaways follow. First, procurement specifications should require polymer chemistry disclosure beyond RIC, capturing the specific resin grade and any blend components. Second, end-of-life claims should be substantiated by certifications appropriate to the claim (BPI for compostable, recyclability acceptance research for recyclable). Third, labeling compliance should be a contractual obligation of the supplier, with cost responsibility for compliance updates as state laws evolve. Fourth, customer-facing communication should match actual end-of-life pathways, not assumed pathways based on chasing arrows interpretation. Fifth, the bioplastic-and-Code-7 issue should be addressed deliberately in any compostable program — through certification logo prominence, customer education, or supplemental labeling that distinguishes compost from recycle.

The codes themselves are imperfect but the procurement discipline around them can be excellent. Buyers who develop labeling fluency — understanding what RIC means, what current laws require, and how compostable claims interact with traditional recycling labeling — operate confidently in the multi-state, multi-claim environment that B2B procurement now requires. The discipline matters because customers and regulators are paying more attention to packaging claims than they did a decade ago, and that attention will only intensify.

Background on the underlying standards: ASTM D6400 defines the U.S. industrial-compost performance bar, EN 13432 harmonises the EU equivalent, and the FTC Green Guides govern how “compostable” can be marketed on packaging in the United States.