Dangerous chemicals make their way into recycled plastic materials from a variety of sources. Since nearly all plastics are made from a combination of carbon (mainly oil/gas) and toxic chemicals, the most obvious pathway is direct contamination, as chemicals from the original plastic products simply transfer into recycled plastic. But chemicals can also enter recycled plastics in other ways, due to contamination in the plastic waste stream and the recycling process itself. This Greenpeace report shows us why plastics do not have a place in the circular economy, and in fact poison the circular economy.
Forever Toxic: The science on health threats from plastic recycling
With current plastic production and the growing problem of global plastic pollution, an increase and improvement in plastic recycling is needed. There is limited knowledge or assessment of microplastic pollution from point sources such as plastic recycling facilities globally. This pilot study investigates microplastic pollution from a mixed plastics recycling facility in the UK to advance current quantitative understanding of microplastic (MP) pollution release from a plastic recycling facility to receiving waters. Raw recycling wash water were estimate to contain microplastic counts between 5.97 106 – 1.12 × 108 MP m−3 (following fluorescence microscopy analysis). The microplastic pollution mitigation (filtration installed) was found to remove the majority of microplastics >5µm, with high removal efficiencies for microplastics >40µm. Microplastics <5µm were generally not removed by the filtration and subsequently discharged, with 59-1184 tonnes potentially discharged annually. It is recommended that additional filtration to remove the smaller microplastics prior to wash discharge is incorporated in the wash water management. Evidence of microplastic wash water pollution suggest it may be important to integrate microplastics into water quality regulations. Further studies should be conducted to increase knowledge of microplastic pollution from plastic recycling processes.
Increased recycling rates is a proposed solution to the current health and environmental crisis that is caused by the massive overproduction of plastics. However, almost all plastics contain toxic chemicals that are not removed during recycling but are carried over to the new products, and the recycling process can even generate new toxic chemicals such as dioxins. The increased recycling is intended to contribute to a so-called circular economy, but plastics containing toxic chemicals should not be recycled. Instead, they should be considered non-circular materials.
This IPEN study aimed at increasing the amount of information available about toxic chemicals transferred from plastic waste into recycled plastic pellets globally. Therefore, pellets made from recycled high-density polyethylene, intended for use in new products, were purchased from 24 recycling facilities in 23 countries. The pellets were analyzed to determine the presence of 18 substances, representing three types of toxic chemicals: 11 brominated flame retardants, 6 benzotriazole UV stabilizers and bisphenol A. None of the samples were free from all the targeted chemicals, and 21 samples contained all three types of chemicals. More than half of the samples contained 11 or more chemicals, and 17 samples contained five or more endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Investigate Europe research lays bare Europe’s problem with plastics. The investigation exposes failings in EU efforts to achieve a circular economy and details how unchecked production and use is creating a plastic waste crisis across the continent.
The executive summary “How Plastics Poison the Circular Economy,” produced by IPEN, encompasses three reports and provides context and overviews of the ways in which the chemicals studied poison recycling streams and stymie the promise of a healthy and environmentally sustainable circular economy.
The reports include:
• A Call to Action: Free Children from BPA’s Toxic Legacy
• Brominated Flame Retardants in Plastic Products from China, Indonesia, and Russia
Available in English, Baha Indonesian, and Chinese languages.
Since the 1960s, researchers have been searching for “bioplastics” — alternatives to petroleum-derived plastics that can replace conventional plastics. Research shows why these alternative materials do not address the core problem driving plastic pollution—the wasteful use of resources to create “throwaway” products—and instead how they perpetuate the problem. Biodegradable plastics have numerous drawbacks, including raw material needs, dubious ability to actually biodegrade, and high economic costs. No matter how many bioplastics or “environmentally friendly” materials there are, if we do not reduce the production of these types of materials and consequently their waste, there will be no real solutions. We need to be aware of what we consume, support initiatives that promote environmental care and demand the commitment of governments to legislate and enforce laws, as well as encouraging businesses to change their materials and production processes.
