On this page
China: a recommended recycling mark, not a national sorting label
China has a standardised system of packaging-recycling marks, but it does not have a law that requires every consumer pack to carry one. GB/T 18455-2022, in force since 1 February 2023, is a recommended national standard: the State encourages its use, and other instruments can incorporate it, yet omission of the mark is not, by itself, a bar to placing goods on the market. The mandatory rules that do bite on packaging — notably GB 23350 on foods and cosmetics — control void, layers and cost. They are not a recycling or sorting label. Environmental claims printed on a pack are advertising, and they are policed as such.
The question this report answers
Readers looking for a Chinese equivalent of France’s Triman, Italy’s Decision 97/129 codes, or Japan’s statutory identification marks will not find one. China has spent two decades building a recycling-mark vocabulary and then declining to make that vocabulary compulsory for every pack. The current edition of the packaging-recycling-mark standard is GB/T 18455-2022 《包装回收标志》, announced by SAMR and SAC on 11 July 2022 and implemented on 1 February 2023. It replaced GB/T 18455-2010. It tells a producer who elects to mark recyclable packaging how to do so. It does not tell every producer that they must.
That result follows from the architecture of Chinese standards law, not from a gap in the catalogue. The Standardization Law divides national standards into mandatory standards (GB), which must be implemented, and recommended standards (GB/T), whose adoption the State encourages. Article 25 of the Law provides that products which do not meet mandatory standards may not be produced, sold, imported or supplied. GB/T 18455 is catalogued as recommended. Failure to print its graphic is therefore not an Article 25 defect arising from that standard. Where the mark is used on a pack that is not recyclable under the assessment the standard presupposes, or where a lookalike graphic is used, the problem sits in standards practice and in the Advertising Law, not in a universal labelling mandate that does not exist.
Two other systems are often folded into the same conversation and should be kept separate. GB 23350-2021 restricts excessive packaging of foods and cosmetics. It is a design and cost control. It does not prescribe a consumer recycling pictogram. China Environmental Labelling — the ten-ring mark administered through certification — is a Type I environmental label. It is available for certified products and is not a horizontal recycling duty. Secondary notes circulating in 2024–2026 that treat GB/T 18455 as becoming compulsory for all domestic packaging from a stated 2026 date are not, on the sources located for this report, primary law.
Legal status at a glance
| Requirement | Status | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| GB/T 18455-2022 recycling marks | recommended | The current national method for identifying recyclable packaging components. In force from 1 February 2023. Binding only where another instrument adopts it. |
| Incorporation by another instrument | mixed | Legislation, a mandatory standard, a certification rule, a procurement specification or a contract can make the 2022 mark obligatory for a defined class of goods. That is not a horizontal packaging law. |
| GB 23350 excessive packaging | mandatory | Foods and cosmetics are subject to limits on void ratio, layers and packaging cost relative to selling price. The standard is not a recycling logo. Tea products were tightened from 1 March 2025. |
| China Environmental Labelling (ten-ring) | certification | A certified Type I environmental label, distinct from the GB/T 18455 material mark. Use is confined to the certified product and the life of the certificate. |
| Advertising Law, Articles 4 and 28 | mandatory | On-pack environmental statements that go beyond mandatory particulars are advertising. False or misleading content, including claims about composition and quality that do not match reality, is false advertising. |
| Compulsory recycling-mark GB | not found | No SAMR/SAC conversion of GB/T 18455 into a mandatory GB, and no State Council decree to that effect, was located as of 21 August 2026. |
Why “recommended” is the whole story
Chinese packaging labelling cannot be read as if GB numbers were all of one kind. Mandatory national standards are the instruments that, under the Standardization Law, condition lawful production, sale, import and supply. Recommended national standards are official, published, and often highly detailed. They are still not, without more, a duty to mark every pack. The “T” in GB/T is not a drafting flourish. It is the difference between a requirement and a method that the State would prefer businesses to use.
That distinction is easy to miss in secondary literature, because GB/T 18455 looks like a labelling law. It has graphics, material codes, placement rules and a predecessor that once was mandatory. The first edition, GB 18455-2001, was a compulsory standard. The 2010 revision recast the instrument as GB/T 18455-2010. The 2022 text remains GB/T. The trajectory is therefore the reverse of the story sometimes told about China “tightening recycling labels”: the recycling mark was taken out of the mandatory tier and has stayed out of it. Anyone treating the 2022 edition as a return to GB 18455-2001 is reading the catalogue number and ignoring the classification.
Recommended status does not make the standard ornamental. It can be adopted by a later mandatory standard, by a certification scheme, by public procurement, or by private contract. In those settings the 2022 graphics and assessment method become the applicable rule for the goods in question. The report’s claim is narrower: there is no general Chinese law, located on the SAMR/SAC record for this verification, that requires ordinary consumer packaging as a class to carry a recycling or sorting pictogram.
The recycling-mark system that does exist
GB/T 18455-2022 is the current national description of packaging-recycling marks. SAMR/SAC National Standard Announcement 2022 No. 8 of 11 July 2022 listed it as item 265, with implementation on 1 February 2023. A six-month transition ran from the announcement to that date, during which either the 2010 or the 2022 edition could be used. Thereafter the 2022 text is the current recommended method.
The standard applies to recyclable packaging of paper, plastic, metal, glass and composite construction. It is a mark for components that can be recycled, not a general “green pack” seal. Before a mark is applied, recyclability is to be assessed under GB/T 16716.1 and GB/T 16716.2. Only if recycling is feasible does the mark go on. That sequence is part of the system’s meaning. A Möbius-style graphic on a component that would fail the assessment is not a harmless extra icon. It is a misdescription of the pack, and it is the kind of statement the Advertising Law already knows how to reach.
The 2022 edition also changed the vocabulary. It deletes the biodegradable-plastic mark that had appeared in the 2010 text. It adds a glass mark — a square graphic with the abbreviation GL — and a composite mark built from C plus one or two primary materials by mass. Plastic marks combine the basic graphic with a resin-code number drawn from GB/T 16288 in the centre and an abbreviation at the bottom. Metal uses Al, Fe or ST. Paper uses a Möbius-style graphic together with characters. Size scales in equal proportion; Annex A supplies dimension examples. Placement is specified in general terms: an easily identified location; on cuboid packs, the front or a side or the bottom; on cylindrical packs, the bottom or base. Separate marks are used for each recyclable component. The system is therefore a material identification language, closer in spirit to a resin code or a Decision 97/129 abbreviation than to a French sorting panel that names a bin.
Scheme rules can make that language practically obligatory without converting GB/T 18455 into a GB. Green Food packaging, for example, has historically been required by NY/T 658 to carry the GB/T 18455 mark. That is a scheme condition. It binds participants in that scheme. It is not a statute that every food pack on a Chinese shelf must satisfy, and it should not be cited as one.
The mandatory regime that is not a label
If there is a Chinese packaging rule that currently has the hardness of a market-entry condition, it is not the recycling mark. It is the control of excessive packaging of foods and cosmetics under GB 23350-2021 《限制商品过度包装要求 食品和化妆品》, implemented on 1 September 2023, and under the Solid Waste Law’s requirement to comply with compulsory excessive-packaging standards.
GB 23350 limits how much packaging may surround a food or cosmetic: void ratio, number of layers, and the cost of the packaging (excluding the contact layer) as a share of selling price. The 2021 core figures include a void ratio of 30 per cent or less where a single item’s net content exceeds 50 ml or 50 g; three layers or fewer for grain products and four or fewer for other commodities; and packaging cost, excluding the contact layer, of 20 per cent or less of selling price. Gift and non-sale items are outside the scope. None of those limits is a pictogram. A pack can comply with GB 23350 while carrying no recycling mark at all, and a pack can carry a GB/T 18455 graphic while still failing the void, layer or cost tests.
Amendments have tightened named festive and tea goods rather than converting the standard into a labelling law. Amendment No. 1, in force from 15 August 2022, reduced mooncake and zongzi packaging to three layers or fewer and, where the selling price exceeds RMB 100, limited packaging cost excluding the contact layer to 15 per cent or less of that price. Amendment No. 2, announced on 25 March 2024 and in force from 1 March 2025, applied a similar cost limit to tea and related products above RMB 200, limited specified tea products to not more than eight times the contents mass, and split necessary-space coefficients. Goods produced before 1 March 2025 that already met the 2021 text plus Amendment No. 1 may be sold through the end of their shelf life. The National Development and Reform Commission has published an official interpretation of this excessive-packaging programme. It remains a programme about how much packaging there is, not about what symbol the consumer is told to look for.
China Environmental Labelling
The ten-ring China Environmental Labelling mark is a different object again. It is conferred through certification against product-specific criteria, administered in the China Environmental United Certification Center system. It is the Chinese Type I environmental label in the ISO 14024 sense: a third-party seal for products that meet a published set of environmental criteria, not a statement that the packaging is recyclable in a named stream.
Because it is a certification mark, its lawful appearance on a pack is confined to the certified product and to the period of a live certificate. A ten-ring lookalike, or the mark on a product outside the certified scope, is not a minor variance of presentation. It is a false indication of certification, and it falls to be read with Advertising Law Articles 4 and 28. The ten-ring mark does not substitute for GB/T 18455, and GB/T 18455 does not authorise the ten-ring mark. A pack may carry both, one, or neither, depending on whether a recycling-mark decision has been taken and whether a labelling certificate is in force.
Environmental claims on the pack
China does not have a dedicated packaging-claims instrument analogous to the United States Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides (16 CFR Part 260). What it has is the Advertising Law. Article 4 prohibits false or misleading advertising. Article 28 defines false advertising, including claims about performance, composition and quality that do not match reality. Extra text and graphics on packaging have historically been treated as advertising, including in SAIC circular 工商广字〔2005〕第173号. An on-pack “recyclable”, “degradable”, “compostable” or “green” statement is therefore not a free-floating sustainability decoration. It is an advertisement, and it is false if the pack does not have the quality claimed.
That is the enforcement route that does exist for environmental wording in the absence of a mandatory recycling pictogram. It is also why GB/T 18455 and the Advertising Law should be read together even though only one of them is a labelling standard. Using the official recycling graphic on a component that is not recyclable under the GB/T 16716 assessments, or inventing a graphic that looks like the official one, is a claim about the pack. The same is true of biodegradable language after the 2022 standard deleted the biodegradable-plastic mark: the deletion is a signal that the recommended recycling-mark system no longer supplies that vocabulary. It is not a licence to replace the deleted mark with informal degradability copy.
What has not been made into law
A recurring secondary claim in 2024–2026 vendor notes is that China will, or already did, convert packaging-recycling marks into a compulsory duty for all domestic packaging, sometimes with a stated date in 2026. This report looked for a SAMR/SAC conversion of GB/T 18455 into a mandatory GB, and for a State Council decree to the same effect. Neither was located as of 21 August 2026. Until such an instrument appears on the official record, those notes are not a source of law and should not be footnoted as if they were.
The same caution applies to treating GB 23350, China Environmental Labelling, or plastic-pollution and solid-waste policy more generally as if they had quietly created a national sorting label. They have not, on the instruments cited here. China has a recommended recycling-mark system, a mandatory excessive-packaging design standard for foods and cosmetics, a Type I environmental label available by certification, and a general prohibition on false environmental advertising. That is a labelling landscape. It is not the landscape of a single compulsory consumer recycling icon.
Primary sources and verification
SAMR/SAC. GB/T 18455-2022 record. openstd.samr.gov.cn
SAC. Announcement 2022 No. 8. SAC
SAMR/SAC. GB 23350-2021 record. openstd.samr.gov.cn
NDRC. Interpretation of excessive-packaging governance. NDRC
China. Standardization Law (CNIPA republication). CNIPA
China. Advertising Law, Presidential Order No. 22. NMPA republication
Chinese-language standards and statutes control. Last verified: 21 August 2026.