Environmental advocates have lodged a complaint with Australia's competition watchdog about the terms "ocean plastics" and "ocean-bound plastics", alleging they are a greenwashing marketing tactic.
If your favourite yoghurt tub, bank card, rubbish bags or shampoo bottle is claiming to be made of recycled ocean plastics, you might think it was created from plastic recovered from the sea.
But some environmental advocates believe the supply chain of products labelled as ocean or ocean-bound plastics are impossible to verify and the term may mislead consumers.
Both of those terms can be used interchangeably to include plastics collected as far as 50 kilometres from the coast.
Most of this recycled plastic is sourced from overseas, including south-east Asia.
An environmental organisation has lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), alleging the terms are used to greenwash products.
Greenwashing is when statements misrepresent the extent to which a product is environmentally friendly, sustainable or ethical.
Even experts in the field are confused by the labels.
Charlene Trestrail is a researcher with the Sydney University of Technology, who examines the impacts of plastic pollution on aquatic environments and animals for a living.
Her research has found when animals consume degraded plastics it can be toxic, even fatal, or impact animal growth and reproductive health.
"When I hear 'ocean plastic', as a marine researcher, to me that sounds like plastic in the ocean, or at the very least, in a beach coastal environment," she said.
"On the surface, that sounds really great because we are all very passionate about reducing plastic pollution and the effects it has.
"But I was starting to wonder, how this is technologically possible?"
In its complaint to the ACCC, the Tangaroa Blue Foundation argues that in their experience is it not.
The Australian not-for-profit, which works to prevent and clean marine debris waste, lodged its complaint alongside lawyers from the Environmental Defenders Office.
"We've been working with Indigenous communities in Cape York, out on Christmas Island, Cocos Island, Northern Territory for more than a decade, and we've been removing up to 1 tonne of marine debris per kilometre from there," chief executive and founder Heidi Tait said.
"None of the stuff that we've removed, has a way to be recycled, because it's degraded … it either gets burnt or buried.
"If there was a true credible way of doing this, why hasn't it been created in Australia?"
In its complaint to the ACCC, Tangaroa Blue said claims around ocean plastics were often accompanied with imagery of marine debris and turtles, even though they alleged there was no evidence buying products made from "ocean plastics" removes debris from the ocean or benefits wildlife.
Their complaint has been backed by other green groups, including Sea Shepherd Australia.
"It is nearly impossible for your average consumer to be able to scrutinise the environmental credentials of these companies who claim their products can clean up the ocean," Sea Shepherd marine debris campaigner Neils Glahn-Bertelsen said.
Tangaroa Blue Foundation project manager Brett Tait believes brands using the labels were greenwashing their products and making their customers feel better about buying more plastic.
"Their motivation is to buy the cheapest material with the highest marketing value," Mr Tait said.
"The countries that these materials are coming from have no regulatory oversight, no international standards."
Bunnings removes 'ocean-bound plastic' item from shelves
The complaint to the ACCC references different products claiming to be made from ocean plastics or ocean-bound plastics, including a crate sold at Bunnings.
The crate claimed to be made from ocean-bound plastic.
Bunnings removed the product from its shelves after concerns were raised about that claim.
"While we were satisfied the product contained recycled material, we weren't satisfied with our supplier's claim it was ocean-bound," Bunnings director of merchandise, Jen Tucker, said.
"We removed the products from sale during the review, and worked with the supplier to restock them once the claim was removed from the label."
Bunnings is not the first company to raise concerns around around ocean plastics.
In 2020, haircare brand Kevin Murphy apologised when it was unable to prove its "100 per cent ocean waste plastic" bottles lived up to the claim.
Yoghurt company named in complaint
Another product referenced in the ACCC complaint is Moo Yoghurt, a South Australian yoghurt brand sold at major supermarkets.
The yoghurt packaging is labelled "100 per cent ocean-bound plastic", accompanied by claims like "Moo's 100 per cent ocean-bound plastic tubs are helping keep our seas plastic free".
Responding to the ABC, Moo Premium Foods said its tubs were made from 100 per cent ocean-bound plastic.
Moo Premium Foods said it was aware the ACCC was looking into the topic but was not concerned that its use of the term was misleading or confusing consumers.
"We are aware that the ACCC are requesting information from a number of companies," a spokesman for Moo Premium Foods said.
"This has not resulted in any changes to our packaging, marketing or branding."
It said the containers were made by an Australian manufacturer, Techno Plas, with ocean-bound plastic sourced from Malaysian recycling firm Heng Hiap Industries.
Techno Plas, a South Australian company that manufactures food-grade packaging, declined to answer the ABC's questions.
Heng Hiap Industries said its ocean-bound plastic products adhered to a definition developed by international NGO Zero Plastic Oceans, which refers to abandoned plastic waste located within 50 kilometres from shores where waste management is non-existent or inefficient.
The company said it collected used plastics via a network of aggregators, yard owners and collectors, and also worked with local NGOs to organise collection activities.
According to Heng Hiap industries, sub-categories of ocean-bound plastic are used, such as potential ocean-bound plastic and ocean-bound plastic collected from shorelines and waterways.
It said potential ocean-bound plastic was used for products that needed to be food grade, because it was "usually intercepted by collectors before it is exposed to the river or ocean".
Research continues into use of ocean-bound plastics with food
Mr Tait questioned Moo's claim its tubs were made from 100 per cent ocean-bound plastic because of the difficulties in making food-grade plastic products with 100 per cent recycled content.
"Food-grade plastic has to be virgin, you can't be mixing ocean plastics with it, it's too contaminated," he said.
He said there were international standards around the manufacturing of food-grade packaging, which was why recycled plastic content generally ended up in things like plastic furniture and polar fleeces, rather than food containers.
The United Kingdom's food standards authority has been monitoring the use of ocean-bound plastic in food packaging and its research is still ongoing.
Last year it said there was not enough evidence to prove levels of substances that are carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction in ocean plastics "would be sufficiently low to allow its use in food contact material applications".
It found other applications of the material would "pose less risk to human health".
That theoretical risk depends on whether ocean plastic was actually used.
Australia's food standards regulator said it has previously found potential chemical exposure from packaging to food is low and not of concern for human health.
It did not respond to specific questions about ocean plastics.
The ACCC has flagged greenwashing as one of its priority areas for this year.
It would not confirm what if any action it had taken in response to the Tangaroa Blue Foundation complaint about ocean plastics, as it is unable to comment on potential investigations.
