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
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.
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.
There is virtually nowhere on Earth today that remains untouched by plastic and ecosystems are evolving to adapt to this new context. While plastics have revolutionized our modern world, new and often unforeseen effects of plastic and its production are continually being discovered. Plastics are entangled in multiple ecological and social crises, from the plasticization of the oceans to the embeddedness of plastics in political hierarchies.
The complexities surrounding the global plastic crisis require an interdisciplinary approach and the materialities of plastic demand new temporalities of thought and action. Plastic Legacies brings together scholars from the fields of marine biology, psychology, anthropology, environmental studies, Indigenous studies, and media studies to investigate and address the urgent socio-ecological challenges brought about by plastics. Contributors consider the unpredictable nature of plastics and weigh actionable solutions and mitigation processes against the ever-changing situation. Moving beyond policy changes, this volume offers a critique of neoliberal approaches to tackling the plastics crisis and explores how politics and communicative action are key to implementing social, cultural, and economic change.
Editors: Trisia Farrelly, Sy Taffel, Ian Shaw
Contributors: Sasha Adkins, Sven Bergmann, Stephanie Borrelle, Tridibesh Dey, Eva Giraud, Christina Gerhardt, John Holland, Deidre McKay, Laura McLauchlan, Mike Michael, Imogen Napper, Tina Ngata, Sabine Pahl, Padmapani L. Perez, Jennifer Provencher, Elyse Stanes, Johanne Tarpgaard, Richard Thompson, and Lei Xiaoyu.
The Changing Markets Foundation has published 6 reports that together reveal the interconnections between fast-fashion, fossil fuels, plastics, injustice, and pollution. The reports include:
- Synthetics Anonymous 2.0: Fashion’s persistent plastic problem (December 2022)
- Dressed to Kill: Fashion brands’ hidden links to Russian oil in a time of war (November 2022)
- Licence to Greenwash: How certification schemes and voluntary initiatives are fuelling fossil fashion (March 2022)
- A New Look for the Fashion Industry: EU Textile Strategy and the Crucial Role of Extended Producer Responsibility (March 2022)
- Synthetics Anonymous: fashion brands’ addiction to fossil fuels (June 2021)
- Fossil fashion: the hidden reliance of fast fashion on fossil fuels (February 2022)
“Advanced recycling” is not a solution to plastic pollution and isn’t measuring up to industry promises. And by definition, “advanced recycling” is not really recycling at all. Instead, it’s a strategy for fossil fuel and plastic industries to continue delaying real action on plastics. Loopholes, Injustice, & the “Advanced Recycling” Myth Report shows how plastics and fossil fuel industry lobbyists — primarily the American Chemistry Council — work to pressure state legislators to pass laws containing loopholes enabling “advanced recycling,” and perpetuating plastic pollution and injustice.
