Unintentional PFAS in products: A “jungle” of contamination

Toxic PFAS are often added into consumer products to make items stain- or water-resistant. But mounting evidence indicates that many products made without the intentional addition of PFAS are also contaminated.

Researchers say these products may unintentionally become contaminated with PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, during the manufacturing or distribution process, raising concerns about entry points of PFAS into the supply chain that are not yet fully understood.

PFAS are linked to negative health outcomes including some cancers, reproductive problems, and birth defects, among others. Some manufacturers, such as cosmetics companies, will disclose the addition of the chemicals so consumers can determine their own exposure.

What’s harder to avoid, however, are those products that contain PFAS even when the manufacturers themselves may not know. Because of the widespread use of PFAS across industries, there are many ways that these “forever chemicals” can contaminate consumer goods—including manufacturing lubricants and coatings, misidentified raw materials, pesticides, personal protective equipment, and plastic packaging.

Marta Venier, an assistant professor at Indiana University who studies the transport of PFAS, told EHN that the high number of uses of PFAS in manufacturing means that products move through a “jungle” of possible contaminations before reaching the consumer.

PFAS contamination during manufacturing

Venier said it’s possible that coatings or lubricants used on manufacturing equipment or in factories can contain PFAS, which then transfer to the products made in such facilities. In such cases, the level of PFAS that is transferred to the product is low, but detectable, said Venier. Venier and Miriam Diamond, an environmental chemist at the University of Toronto, mentioned conveyor belt lubricant as a possible PFAS source.

Rainier Lohmann, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Rhode Island, also pointed to the possibility of contamination from slip agents—substances used in manufacturing to help mass-produced products slide easily out of molds.

In order to manufacture plastic goods, plastic pellets are melted, then extruded through a nozzle into a mold. Justin Boucher, the operations director of the Food Packaging Forum, thinks this could also be an entry point for PFAS. “To keep the plastic from gunking up these nozzles, they’re adding some kind of additives that contain PFAS,” he told EHN.

“You can basically go through almost the entire manufacturing chain and find several instances where you have this possibility that somewhere, PFAS has contaminated a product,” Lohmann told EHN. “It’s very difficult to figure out where that’s from, because they’re so ubiquitous.”

In other instances, said Venier, manufacturers may unknowingly create products with raw material that contains PFAS. “[Some] manufacturers buy their chemical products from intermediaries,” she said. “So they think that they are buying intermediary products that are PFAS free, when, in reality, they are not.”
There can also be PFAS in personal protective equipment or clothing that workers in manufacturing plants or food processing plants wear, particularly in gloves, which Lohmann and Venier said could be a possible area of concern.

To understand how PFAS in worker clothing and on equipment can accidentally contaminate products, Lohmann uses the analogy of a muffin tin with non-stick spray. Before baking, one sprays the muffin tin; after baking, the muffin is removed—with an oily sheen coating the bottom.

That ease of transfer makes it difficult to determine exactly how products get contaminated.

Incidental PFAS in food products

A 2017 study by the Green Science Policy Institute tested about 400 pieces of food packaging and found indications of PFAS in 40% of the items. (Credit: hewy/flickr) Because PFAS bioaccumulates in mammals, unintentional contamination can be a concern in animal products as well. A 2019 study at the U.S. Department of Agriculture examined levels of PFAS in the blood and tissue of cattle in a New Mexico herd that was accidentally exposed to the toxics in contaminated water. Given the widespread nature of PFAS contamination in water, it is likely that similar unintentional exposure is a concern for animal agriculture across the country, said Venier.PFAS are also used in different parts of agriculture and land management. PFAS in pesticides that contaminated water in Pepperell, Massachusetts, last May came from a liquid-repellent coating on the inside of the container used to store the pesticides. There is not always proper communication between companies in the chemical supply chain, said Boucher, which can make it impossible to know whether PFAS exist in certain agricultural inputs. PFAS can also unintentionally contaminate food through packaging, specifically when packaging is made from recycled materials. Because PFAS are such persistent chemicals, they can accumulate in recycled paper or wood pulp, either because the recycled material was coated in PFAS or came into contact with PFAS unintentionally.A 2017 study by the Green Science Policy Institute tested about 400 pieces of food packaging and found indications of PFAS in 40% of the items. If recycled, such PFAS-containing food packaging products would be reconstituted into other PFAS-containing products, perhaps without the knowledge of the manufacturer. “So if you’re allowed to use recycled pulp in food contact, paper, and board packaging, and you don’t have total control or oversight over what material was recycled, you don’t always know what chemicals were present,” said Boucher. Whether or not manufacturers are able to monitor the levels of PFAS in wood or paper pulp they are buying, he said, is unclear.

What manufacturers can do about PFAS contamination 

Testing products for PFAS is still a relatively new field of science. However, some studies have indicated that non-intentional contamination is a growing problem.A 2021 study that tested hundreds of cosmetic products for PFAS found the chemicals in many products that didn’t list fluorinated compounds (an indicator of PFAS) in the ingredients, while other research has indicated that food packaging and paper products can contain non-intentionally added chemicals by way of certain inks and adhesives.In addition, recent testing by the wellness site Mamavation, partially supported by EHN.org, has found evidence of PFAS in makeup and clothing, including in many brands that are marketed as PFAS-free.The main problem, said Lohmann, is not necessarily manufacturer negligence but lack of awareness. Once manufacturers are aware that they are using PFAS in their manufacturing process, they can switch to alternative processing agents, like PFAS-free lubricants. There’s ample motivation for manufacturers to do this: “Being associated with PFAS is not something that most brands want to have these days,” he said. Boucher said manufacturers are “looking, and in some cases they’re finding, alternatives. My thinking is that the demand is going to grow for these PFAS-free alternatives across the whole processing chain.” While unintentional contamination usually results in low levels of PFAS on the consumer end, recognizing possible non-intentional entry points still provides an opportunity to limit exposure, which is especially important for people already experiencing high levels of PFAS. Additionally, said Diamond, the wide use of PFAS in manufacturing is already a concern for worker health. “We don’t spend enough time considering how the people who make our stuff are exposed,” she told EHN.From Your Site Articles

The UN is finally, maybe, doing something about plastic pollution

The UN has just signed a landmark agreement to reduce plastic pollution, in what some are calling the most important international environmental deal since the 2015 Paris agreement that targeted climate change.On Wednesday, marked by a gavel made from recycled plastics, representatives from 175 nations endorsed the agreement, which will act as the framework for discussions over the next two years. Worldwide, we produce 400 million tons of plastic a year, and that’s expected to double by 2040. If countries can stick to their commitments, it could lead to a massive reduction in single-use plastics, production levels, and ocean pollution.That’s a big “if”—while a lot of groups are cautiously optimistic, just like the Paris agreement, there are loopholes that countries could exploit. Here’s what you need to know about the agreement. What did the 175 countries actually agree to? “End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument” is a series of loose resolutions promising to address the full life cycle of plastic products.It creates an intergovernmental negotiating committee, which will spend the next two years hashing out exactly how to tackle the plastic problem. Resolutions called for promoting sustainably designed products and materials, environmentally sound waste management, and financial support for developing countries.At the next UN Environment Assembly in 2024, the committee will finalize the agreement. “What we laid out was, in the easiest terms, a plan for a plan,” said Erin Simon, head of plastic waste and business at the World Wildlife Fund. But, she warned, “There could be plenty of time for countries to back off what they committed to.” What can we expect to see in the treaty? A lot could happen over the next two years. Right now, similar to the Paris agreement, the deal allows for countries to take voluntary approaches—meaning it will likely not be mandatory for them to meet their commitments. It also contains an open mandate that allows the intergovernmental negotiating committee to change the treaty before it’s signed, potentially watering it down. While the open mandate could present a potential loophole, Jane Patton, the plastics and petrochemicals campaign manager for the Center for International Law, said it allows the committee to improve the draft’s language, making issues like plastic’s toxicity to human health more explicit. “It’s about setting up a framework that countries feel empowered to take action on,” Simon said. “They are likely to take action if they have the opportunity to inform the process.”What can possibly go wrong?Just like with the Paris climate agreement, if the U.S. doesn’t uphold its end of the bargain, the rest of the world could follow suit. The U.S. is the largest plastic waste producer in the world, shipping off its unwanted garbage to developing nations.Plastic policy can sometimes gain bipartisan support, however. Even well-known environmental curmudgeon Donald Trump signed the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, designed to fight coastal plastic debris, into law in 2020. Fortunately, the fact that plastic pollution is so visible is speeding up efforts to address it. “It’s something a bit more tangible as a problem than climate, because you can’t see greenhouse gases in the air, but I can see plastic pollution in the streets outside my house,” Patton said. Are the worst culprits finally going to be held to account? We’ll see. Plastics are derived from fossil fuels and chemicals, and, unsurprisingly, oil and chemical industries have been less enthusiastic about the treaty.Their strategy focuses on recycling, which diverts the conversation away from reducing plastic production and usage. With a recycling approach, consumers who lack access to proper recycling resources are held responsible for their plastic waste, while plastic producers can continue business as usual. Plus, if the resolution’s terms aren’t mandatory for governments, companies might not face meaningful restrictions, either.Perhaps surprisingly, companies that have been ranked as the world’s top plastic polluters, including PepsiCo, Nestlé, and Coca-Cola, have joined with dozens of others in a pre-UNEA statement supporting the treaty, using snazzy buzzwords that called for “a holistic, coordinated international response,” a “circular economy for plastics,” and a “robust governance structure to ensure countries’ participation and compliance.” Although the global agreement doesn’t enforce plastics restrictions yet, some companies have already made sustainability pledges. Nestlé commits that 100 percent of packaging will be recyclable or reusable by 2025. It may sound like progress, but environmental experts are skeptical.“Recycling doesn’t get to the root of the problems with plastic production,” said Jim Walsh, policy director at Food and Water Watch. “When you focus simply on issues of recycling and packaging management, you ignore all of the impacts of the petrochemical development and pollution that comes along with that.”The companies’ support could be due in part to a growing anti-plastics movement over the past two years. A 2021 Ipsos poll of more than 20,000 people in 28 countries found that 88 percent of respondents believe a global plastics treaty is important and 85 percent want manufacturers and retailers to be held responsible for plastic packaging. Over 2 million people signed WWF’s petition for a global plastics agreement ahead of negotiations.What’s so bad about plastic?Plastic pollution is an environmental nightmare. Annually, reports estimate that between 9 to 11 million metric tons of plastic are tossed into oceans, the equivalent of dumping a garbage truck full of plastic every minute. Forty percent of plastic produced is single-use, and disturbingly, after over a hundred years of production, only 9 percent of plastics has ever been recycled.Plastic garbage doesn’t really decompose—rather, it breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces, eventually becoming microplastics the size of sesame seeds. These synthetic crumbs act like magnets for surrounding chemical pollutants, attracting floating environmental contaminants and depositing them to unsuspecting hosts.That’s a major problem for humans. Besides the health effects from eating the plastic itself, humans are getting exposed to a host of hormone disruptors, carcinogens, and pollutants in our food, water, salt, beer, and seafood dinners. These toxins lead to serious health issues, including cancer, birth defects, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, auto-immune conditions, neuro-degenerative diseases, and stroke. Fifth UN Environment Assembly President Espen Barth Eide told the committee on Monday his blood tests showed plastic compounds and chemicals in his body.Plastics also fuel climate change. A 2021 report from environmental group Beyond Plastics found that plastic is currently slated to outpace coal’s greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by 2030.“The fact that that isn’t addressed right now in any of the global multilateral environmental agreements is a significant issue,” Patton said. What happens next? Signing the treaty was a major step for taking some plastic out of the equation. “I wanna say I have all the hope,” Simon said. “The fact that we have come to consensus on the draft resolution so far showcases a collective desire to solve the plastic pollution crisis together.”But nations, companies, NGOs, and consumers shoulder greater responsibility to make good on its promises over the next few years. Several of the member nations have already started to take action. In 2019, the European Union began limiting certain single-use plastics, restricting their sale when sustainable alternatives were easily available. Kenya, the UN host country, banned single-use plastics in protected natural areas in 2020. “This is a problem that the world cannot ignore,” Patton said. “It is a problem that has urgent implications for human health and the environment, and we have to move quickly on this issue.”

How a new treaty could clean up plastic waste

The new pact would be legally binding and could go beyond cleaning up plastic waste to curbs on future production.With the bang of a gavel made of recycled plastic and a standing ovation, representatives of 175 nations agreed on Wednesday to begin writing a global treaty that would restrict the explosive growth of plastic pollution.The agreement commits nations to work on a broad and legally binding treaty that would not only aim to improve recycling and clean up the world’s plastic waste, but would encompass curbs on plastics production itself. That could put measures like a ban on single-use plastics, a major driver of waste, on the table.Supporters have said that a global plastics treaty would be the most important environmental accord since the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, in which nations agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Negotiators are now set to meet this year for the first of many rounds of talks to hammer out the details of treaty on plastics, with a target of sealing a deal by 2024.“We are making history today,” said Espen Barth Eide, Norway’s climate and the environment minister and president of the United Nations Environment Assembly, which took place for the past week in Nairobi, Kenya. In an earlier interview, he said that, given Russia’s war in Ukraine, it was particularly significant that “this divided world can still agree on something, based on science.”The sheer volume of plastics the world produces is difficult to comprehend.By one measure, the total amount ever produced is now greater than the weight of all land and marine animals combined. Only 9 percent has ever been recycled, the United Nations Environment Program estimates. Instead, the bulk is designed to be used just once (recycling symbols are no guarantee of recyclability) after which it ends up in landfills, dumps, the natural environment, or is incinerated.Scientists say plastics cause harm throughout their life cycle, releasing toxic as well as planet-warming greenhouse gases during production, landfill and incineration. Plastics, which are manufactured from fossil fuels, caused 4.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2015, one recent study estimated, more than all of the world’s airplanes combined.Wednesday’s agreement drew heavily from a joint proposal submitted by Peru and Rwanda, reflecting how, in recent years, developing nations have been at the forefront of efforts to tackle plastics pollution. Rwanda, for example, more than a decade ago adopted strict bans on the import, production, use or sale of plastic bags and packaging.“Plastic pollution is a planetary crisis, a threat that affects all of us,” Jeanne d’Arc Mujawamariya, the Rwandan environment minister, said at the meeting. “The real work now begins.”Espen Barth Eide, the Norwegian environment minister, at lectern on left, addressed delegates in Nairobi on Monday.Daniel Irungu/EPA, via ShutterstockIn much of the world, the task of collecting, sorting and recycling plastics often falls to informal waste pickers who work among fires and toxic vapors for little pay. In a landmark move, the agreement in Nairobi for the first time formally recognized the importance of waste pickers in the plastics economy.“We waste pickers have to be involved in this process,” said Silvio Ruiz Grisales of Bogotá, Colombia, who began working at dump sites at the age of 12. Now he is a leader in the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Waste Pickers, a group that advocates for better pay, working conditions and recognition.“We work the trash 12, 14 or 16 hours a day,” he said. “It’s a poverty trap.”Among other requisites, Wednesday’s agreement specifies that any global treaty must be legally binding, and that it must address the full life cycle of plastics, from production to disposal, recycling and reuse. Delegates said they hoped to model the treaty on the Paris climate accord, under which countries set binding targets but are able to meet those goals using a range of different policies.The treaty must also address packaging design to cut down on plastic use, improve recycling and make technical and financial assistance available to developing nations. According to Wednesday’s agreement, it must also address microplastics, the tiny plastic debris created by the breakdown of plastics over time. Microplastics have been detected by scientists in deep ocean waters, shellfish, drinking water and even falling rain.In the course of negotiations, some of those points faced objections from countries including the United States, Japan and India, according to three people close to the talks who were not authorized to speak publicly about negotiation details.Japan had initially submitted a competing resolution focused on marine plastics. India threatened to derail negotiations on the final day, urging that any action needed to be on a “voluntary basis,” according to a list of demands privately submitted by India’s delegation and reviewed by The New York Times.A demonstration at a dump in Nairobi on Tuesday. “We waste pickers have to be involved in this process,” said Silvio Ruiz Grisales, center left with microphone.Daniel Irungu/EPA, via ShutterstockA reference to concern over chemicals in plastic was taken out of the agreement after objections from delegations including the United States, the three people said. But in a victory for supporters of stronger policies against plastics, Wednesday’s agreement mentions the importance of considering plastic pollution’s risk to human health and the environment.Understand the Latest News on Climate ChangeCard 1 of 4A global plastics treaty.

Take a toxic tour to learn about pollution from locals

Toxic Tours, a new initiative by #breakfreefromplastic, is giving people an inside look at some of the planet’s dirtiest secrets. Instead of your typical tour that focuses on history or scenery, Toxic Tours takes you via video to the epicenters of nasty air, water and soil pollution.

Continue reading below
Our Featured Videos

Conceived by environmental justice organizations, Toxic Tours raises awareness on the toxic impacts of plastic production on frontline communities, according to #breakfreefromplastic consultant Estelle Eonnet. Frontline communities are often composed of low-income residents and/or people of color who bear the first and worst consequences of climate change.
Related: Innovative biomaterials to help the world replace plastic
“Toxic tours have been organized in person by local organizations and communities for decades,” Eonnet said. “The goal of the project was to amplify these local stories at a global level. On the Toxic Tours platform, frontline communities can directly share their stories and map the petrochemical build-outs around their homes.“

Thank you! Keep an eye out for our weekly newsletter.
Join Our Newsletter
Receive the latest in global news and designs building a better future.

SIGN UP

SIGN UP

This isn’t poverty tourism, where outsiders gawk at the poor locals. Instead, all Toxic Tours footage is filmed by community members and local environmental justice groups who want to raise awareness of the conditions forced upon them.  

International tour of the website
The Toxic Tours site launched on Jan. 27 and provides interpretation in English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Filipino, Mandarin and Hindi. From the homepage, you can click on Asia, Europe, Africa, USA or Latin America, which takes you to a map of the region. Featured cities are clearly marked.
For example, click on Manali, India. You’ll learn that the country’s Central Pollution Control Board has categorized the area as critically polluted for almost a decade. You can see a video about the petrochemical cluster stretching from North Chennai to Manali, which is the site of more than 30 polluting industries. Resident M.K. Elampazhuthi talks about the sewage and petroleum waste in the Buckingham Canal of Chennai, and local youths model awful face masks they made to help them breathe outside. They look like homemade gas masks.
In Turkana County, Kenya, you’ll learn about the lands rights and health risks issues created by new oil extraction activities. Julius Loyolo shows a public latrine that multinational oil company Tullow built for the community. Nice to have toilets, but the company still hasn’t addressed worries about land ownership, employment and health.
“Environmental justice organizations work closely with community members to capture the pressing issues that the communities face, due to the petrochemical build outs,” said Eonnet. “The Toxic Tour platform remains open to members of frontline communities, who continue to pin their stories to the map.”

Toxic U.S.
The U.S. also gets its star turn on the Toxic Tours platform. In fact, instead of having a North America section, there’s just USA. The platform features “Cancer Alley,” an 85-mile corridor along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana.
Cancer Alley is known for the country’s highest concentration of petrochemical plants and refineries. It also has the most particulate pollution and highest cancer rates. The EPA determined that the risk of getting cancer from air pollution here is 95% higher than for people living in other parts of the country. Most of Cancer Alley’s damage is in predominantly Black and low income communities.
In California, Diego Mayen leads a toxic tour of West Long Beach.
“My community is affected by the petrochemical industry at every stage of the production of plastic,” he said. “From the extraction of oil, there are oil drills next to people’s homes in Wilmington and also in Long Beach.”
Residents also contend with 40% of the nation’s goods transiting through their neighborhood, multiple refineries operating 24/7 and incineration.
“We live next to one of two incinerators in California that burns trash from over a thousand cities, including more affluent communities,” Mayen said in his video. In his 21 years, he’s experienced health impacts such as headaches and nosebleeds linked to incinerator fires. Lots of his friends have asthma. “I don’t think it’s fair that our community should have to wonder if it’s safe to go outside.”

Toxic Tours’ vision
Toxic Tours aims to elevate local voices and ensure that community fights are amplified.
“We need robust regulations for the petrochemical industry, structured by a global treaty on plastics,” Eonett said. “With the Fifth Session of the United Nations Environment Assembly taking place in Nairobi end of February, it is a crucial time for the public to uncover the negative impacts of plastic production and call on policymakers to support a resolution for a plastics treaty that covers the whole life cycle of plastics.”
Via #breakfreefromplastic

'Failure' or solution? EPA weighs plastics recycling plan

An emerging and controversial vision for reusing plastics poses a regulatory dilemma for EPA as it struggles to tackle plastic pollution woes amid a growing acknowledgment that traditional recycling will not be able to solve the problem.
Facing an onslaught of public outrage over plastics pollution, companies are increasingly turning to new avenues to address the problem, including “chemical recycling.” But their solution has alarmed environmental advocates and ignited environmental justice concerns, placing EPA under pressure.
While simultaneously grappling with mounting pollution realities, EPA is now scrutinizing technologies that convert plastic waste into new products. Industry backers of chemical recycling say it should be regulated as manufacturing. Environmental groups, however, counter that the process is actually a form of incineration and poses environmental and human health hazards.

Advertisement

“I believe the general public has every right to be both skeptical and concerned,” said Denise Patel, a program director with the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, or GAIA, whose organization feels chemical recycling has hidden health costs.
Chemical recycling takes single-use plastics and strips them down to their chemical state, creating products like fuel or other new plastic items. This has concerned environmental groups, who argue plastics are already largely an oil and gas product. Their use in fuel does not fit in with the pivot toward renewable energy that advocates envision.
Meanwhile, industry support for chemical recycling comes as oil and gas companies face increasing pressure over climate change.
Proponents like the American Chemistry Council assert that chemical recycling is critical for solving the conundrum posed by plastics, which are lightweight — a factor in climate considerations — since they are better for energy efficiency purposes. And a large group of backers, including major consumer brands, have thrown their weight behind chemical recycling. Many insist the technologies are essential for meeting recycling goals. Mars Inc., for example, has said its 2025 sustainable packaging plans hinge on the “advancement of chemical recycling at pace and scale and alignment of food safety regulations.”
While EPA’s power is limited, a clear regulatory decision could be a major factor in how chemical recycling evolves. In September, the agency issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for two technologies, weighing whether pyrolysis and gasification units should be regulated as solid waste incineration (Greenwire, Sept. 7, 2021).
Industry members oppose that framing. “It’s a very flawed way of thinking about it,” said Joshua Baca, ACC’s vice president for plastics. “This is a process that breaks down material back to the molecular building block. Incineration implies that it’s the end of the life of a material.”
EPA’s recycling plan shows the agency sees potential value in the technologies (Greenwire, Nov. 15, 2021). But groups who disagree are escalating their pressure on the Biden administration, arguing chemical recycling is at odds with environmental justice.
Waste or manufacturing?
Incineration is regulated under the Clean Air Act, but how those rules apply to facilities using pyrolysis and gasification is a point of contention. Pyrolysis, the main focus for industry members, occurs largely in the absence of oxygen — a key point of distinction from typical incineration.
Under the Trump administration, EPA sought to drop pyrolysis from municipal combustion regulations. The Biden administration is now seeking more information, observing that “recent market trends, especially with respect to plastics recycling,” have spurred requests for clarity.
For industry members, the argument is straight-forward.
“We don’t collect, sort or process the material,” ACC’s Baca said. “We are not in the waste management process, we are buying feedstock.”
Critics maintain that approach allows sites to evade oversight from regulators. “Part of the problem here is, in the absence of federal regulation, the burden has fallen on the state environment agencies,” explained GAIA’s Patel, adding those entities “generally don’t have enough resources to manage all of these things.”
Jim Pew, a senior attorney with the group Earthjustice, said EPA’s notice could help settle whether chemical recycling facilities in fact use incineration. He believes they do.
“The term ‘incinerator’ is defined in the Clean Air Act. This is not a situation where it’s loosey-goosey,” he said.
How many chemical recycling facilities even exist is unclear. In its notice, EPA listed 40 sites, but only eight of those deal with mixed plastics. Closed Loop Partners, an investment firm, published an inventory in 2021 showing around 20 U.S. facilities are beyond pilot or lab phase. Of those sites, most produce a pyrolysis-derived oil product, which Matthew Kastner, an ACC spokesperson, said could be used for either fuel or recycled plastic.
“The existing announcements for new advanced recycling facilities favor plastic-to plastic operations,” Kastner said, adding the projects have the potential for recovering nearly 11 billion pounds of plastic annually.
But the industry has faced setbacks. A 2021 Reuters investigation found at least four chemical recycling projects globally were either indefinitely delayed or dropped entirely over viability concerns. Of 30 projects analyzed, most were agreements between small firms and larger oil or consumer brand companies. All were operating either on a small scale or had closed down, often facing the same issues mechanical recyclers have: The challenge of collecting and sorting material, coupled with contamination.
Judith Enck, an Obama-era EPA regional administrator who runs the group Beyond Plastics, noted the embrace of chemical recycling has come amid growing acknowledgment that mechanical recycling of plastics has largely failed. But Enck pushed instead for reducing single-use plastics.
“There are too many different polymers, too many different colors, too many different additives [to] allow this to move from the lab to real life,” she said. “They will not scale up.”
Nomenclature and justice concerns

Some groups have panned the use of the term chemical recycling, which differs significantly from mechanical recycling. ACC meanwhile prefers “advanced recycling,” an approach Kastner explained by noting the moniker encompasses many processes including depolymerization, methanolysis and others.
Communications involving EPA staff and obtained by E&E News through a public records request show phrasing has been a challenge. Emails and meeting notes sent between 2018 and 2020 reveal members of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s Multi-Material Flexible Recovery Collaborative, including industry and EPA representatives, debated the optics of terms.
In one set of meeting notes, ACC’s Prapti Muhuri cited “a lot of stakeholder outreach” as a reason behind the switch from “chemical” to “advanced.” Some participants still disputed the inclusion of the word “recycling,” particularly when the end product was fuel, while others worried about overall framing.
“The [nongovernmental organizations] will turn ‘chemical’ against the industry,” read comments attributed to a consultant for the plastics recycling industry. “But there is also a media narrative that plastics recycling is ‘failing.’ We don’t want the impression that the need for ‘advanced’ recycling is partially due to that supposed ‘failure.’”
Multiple advocates meanwhile told E&E News they felt the process should simply be called plastics incineration. They said those facilities pose an environmental justice issue, as low-income communities of color disproportionately live near incinerators. Baca countered by citing an ACC-commissioned report that found low air emissions at a few relevant sites. EPA, meanwhile, told E&E News last fall it “does not have adequate data” regarding those emissions.
Direct emissions aren’t the only issue at hand. In December, the Natural Resources Defense Council noted data collected under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act shows some chemical recycling facilities are sending significant amounts of hazardous waste nationwide.
For example, one plant run by the companies Agilyx and AmSty sent more than 500,000 pounds of hazardous waste to various incinerators and disposal sites in 2019, including significant amounts of benzene, a known carcinogen. One destination for the company’s waste is Tradebe Environmental Services’ facility in East Chicago, Ind. EPA toxics release data shows that site has repeatedly been among high emitters, ranking 17th out of 208 Toxics Release Inventory facilities in the hazardous waste industry sector in 2020. EJScreen, another agency tool, indicates the surrounding area near that site is more than two-thirds nonwhite and non-Hispanic, while nearly half are low-income.
Meanwhile, comments submitted last fall in response to EPA’s notice included significant industry and state support, but they also revealed alarm from communities.
“This is our air, our water, our lives,” wrote Denise Lopez, a community organizer from Rhode Island who has opposed a pyrolysis plant in her state over health concerns. “If your governing body doesn’t do more to help protect us, who will?”
Eyes on states, Congress
At the state and local levels, officials haven’t waited on EPA.
ACC said that 15 states have designated chemical recycling as manufacturing rather than incineration, with others on the horizon. The trend is also advancing at the local level; in February, Houston became the first U.S. city to begin a chemical recycling program.
Chemical recycling also has bipartisan attention on Capitol Hill. The technologies have come up repeatedly in hearings devoted to tackling plastics, bolstered by interest from lawmakers like Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) (E&E Daily, June 25, 2021).
But there are also vocal opponents. In the last Congress, the “Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act,” for example, would have placed a three-year moratorium on chemical recycling facilities (E&E Daily, March 25, 2021). Advocates are hopeful that such legislation will pan out.
“It’s not in the hands of the EPA to outright ban, their power is really regulatory,” said Patel. “It would take an act of Congress.”
Either way, officials face tremendous pressure to take action. Veena Singla, an NRDC senior scientist, said she understood the push toward chemical recycling but felt there were too many drawbacks based on what she has seen.
“I feel like the plastic waste crisis is so visible and so horrifying,” she said. “People really want answers and solutions. But our research really demonstrates that this is a false solution.”

Plastics could be creating a surge in waste-to-energy plants’ emissions

Our FREE newsletters provide a daily roundup of the morning’s top headlines. Subscribe today!

This article is co-published with the Maine Monitor.

How much does household waste fuel the climate crisis? Official numbers suggest a small role, but the full contribution is not yet known — even by regulators and scientists.

As New England states work to curb greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and heating, little attention goes to landfills and municipal solid waste, or “waste-to-energy,” incinerators. Combined, those sources typically represent 5% or less of each state’s total emissions, and they get scarce mention in climate action plans. 

But growing volumes of plastics in the waste stream complicate incinerator emissions accounting. Less than 9% of plastics are recycled, and global plastic production is expected to double by 2040. 

Plastic combustion produces many more byproducts than the three greenhouse gases that most incinerators report annually to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide and methane.

Some chemical compounds in plastics don’t appear to degrade during incineration, while others break down partially and recombine, potentially forming potent and enduring greenhouse gases — compounds that are thousands of times more effective at trapping heat than CO2  and can linger in the atmosphere for millennia. 

Scientists do not yet know the scale of the problem, but a growing body of research suggests that even small amounts of these powerful warming agents could have a significant impact.

Tesco to stop selling baby wipes that contain plastic in first for UK supermarkets

Tesco to stop selling baby wipes that contain plastic in first for UK supermarketsRetailer is also Britain’s biggest seller of wet wipes, with customers purchasing 75m packs a year Tesco is to become the first of the main UK retailers to stop selling baby wipes containing plastic, which cause environmental damage as they block sewers and waterways after being flushed by consumers.The supermarket said it was stopping sales of branded baby wipes containing plastic from 14 March, about two years after it ceased using plastic in its own-brand products.The UK’s largest grocer is also the country’s biggest seller of baby wipes. Its customers purchase 75m packs of baby wipes every year, amounting to 4.8bn individual wipes.Tesco said it had been working to reformulate some of the other own-label and branded wipes its sells to remove plastic, including cleaning wipes and moist toilet tissue. It said its only kind of wipe that still contained plastic – designed to be used for pets – would also be plastic-free by the end of the year.Tesco began to remove plastic from its own-brand wet wipes in 2020, when it switched to biodegradable viscose, which it says breaks down far more quickly.Sarah Bradbury, Tesco’s group quality director, said: “We have worked hard to remove plastic from our wipes as we know how long they take to break down.”Tesco is not the first retailer to remove wipes from sale on environmental grounds. Health food chain Holland and Barrett said it was the first high-street retailer to ban the sale of all wet-wipe products from its 800 UK and Ireland stores in September 2019, replacing the entire range with reusable alternatives. The Body Shop beauty chain has also phased out all face wipes from its shops.It is estimated that as many as 11bn wet wipes are used in the UK each year, with the majority containing some form of plastic, many of which are flushed down the toilet, causing growing problems for the environment.Wet wipes ‘forming islands’ across UK after being flushedRead moreLast November, MPs heard how wet wipes are forming islands, causing rivers to change shape as the products pile up on their banks, while marine animals are dying after ingesting microplastics.They are also a significant component of the fatbergs that form in sewers, leading to blockages that require complex interventions to remove.Tesco said any wipes it sold that could not be flushed down the toilet were clearly labelled “do not flush”.Nevertheless, environmental campaigners and MPs have long called on retailers to do more to remove plastics from their products and packaging.The supermarket said it was trying to tackle the impact of plastic waste as part of its “4Rs” packaging strategy, which involves it removes plastic waste where possible, or reducing it, while looking at ways to reuse more and recycle.The chain said it had opened soft plastic collection points in more than 900 stores, and had launched a reusable packaging trial with shopping service Loop, which delivers food, drink and household products to consumers in refillable containers.TopicsTescoPlasticsPollutionRetail industrySupermarketsnewsReuse this content

Scientists: US needs to support a strong global agreement to curb plastic pollution

On Monday, world leaders will gather at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi to negotiate a global treaty to address plastic pollution. Scientists and at least 60 of the member states support a version of the treaty that could put caps on the world plastic production in addition to other policy interventions. A recent survey also found that three-quarters of 20,513 people polled from 28 countries endorse a swift phase-out of single-use plastics. The exponential rate at which global industries extract fossil fuels and produce new plastics and associated chemicals outstrips governments’ ability to regulate their safety, manage waste, and mitigate harm to people and the environment.The total mass of plastics produced exceeds both the overall mass of all land and marine animals and the planetary boundary for these novel substances, moving us out of a safe operating space for humanity. Yet industry continues to project growth, investing billions of dollars in new infrastructure and opposing national and now international efforts to curb both plastic production and pollution.

Get our FREE Plastic Action Kit

Reducing plastic pollution

Pew Charitable TrustsAs reported by Reuters, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a powerful trade organization representing a consortium of plastics and petrochemical interests, is lobbying against production restrictions to be negotiated during the UNEA meetings, which run through March 2. The ACC’s strategy is to undermine proposed production limits on newly produced plastics by convincing politicians and regulators that plastics provide a net benefit to society and can be readily managed through long-failed downstream methods such as waste collection, recycling, and waste-to-energy conversion or yet unproven chemical or so-called ‘advanced recycling technologies’. The industry’s strategy moves against science-backed efforts to curb plastic pollution, including the recent NASEM report, requested by Congress, and the proposed Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, which aim to address plastic’s impacts on climate, environment and health. As such, their efforts comport with the well-documented disinformation tactics deployed previously to undermine science-based environmental governance.Plastic pollution is a multifaceted problem requiring curtailment of both production and use, as proposed by Rwanda and Peru. Furthermore, the Rwanda/Peru resolution recognizes the transboundary nature of plastic pollution and the need to address it at its root. By contrast, the Japan resolution narrowly focuses on marine plastics, which, while important, is but one facet of the complex problems plastics pose.

Plastics’ harms

The proliferation of plastic debris is indeed problematic. It collects along the coastlines, clogs sewers, and causes destructive flooding in cities with insufficient waste management like Mumbai and Nairobi. Waterways stagnant with plastic and sewage are a breeding ground for disease vectors that spread cholera and malaria. Plastic waste also has negative repercussions on livelihoods. In Rwanda, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, and Niger, plastic ingestion by livestock has led to cattle death, impoverishing subsistence communities. In Ghana, where fishing supports most coastal-dwellers, water-borne plastic pollution threatens both jobs and food security.The volume of plastic debris also perpetuates existing social disparities. The export of plastic and waste from high-GDP countries in Europe and North America into the African and Asian nations since 1990has led to massive accumulation and widespread impacts. This ‘waste colonialism’ unfairly exploits environments and people in these regions. The promise of value generation through local recycling proved farcical due to the insufficient infrastructure and markets for recycled products. New plastics are cheaper than products made from recovered resin. Citizens in African nations have pushed back on the Global North’s extractive agenda, resulting in bans and restrictions on certain plastics. Re-introducing plastic under the guise of ‘improving people’s lives’ would undermine their political will, environment, health, and economies.Plastics cause harm throughout their entire lifecycle, shedding microplastic particles into our food, water, air, and soil, releasing greenhouse and toxic gases during production, landfill, and incineration. Toxic additives leach from everyday plastic products such as foodware, textiles, and car tires. Evidence for human exposure to chemicals from plastic and microplastic particles has grown exponentially in recent years. Microplastics have even been detected in human placenta. Continuous exposure to plastic chemicals disrupts development, growth, metabolism, and reproduction for organisms and humans alike. Factory emissions diminish air and water quality, violating the health and human rights of the predominantly low-income communities and communities of color who live along the fenceline. And without reduction mandates, plastics’ CO2 emissions will amount to 6.5 gigatons by 2050 eating 10–13% of the remaining CO2 budget, accelerating global heating. While the Rwanda/Peru resolution reaffirms the importance of addressing plastics toxic and climate implications, such provisions were specifically erased in the Japan resolution.

UN plastics treaty

UN Environmental Program, via TwitterScientific evidence highlights the need for unanimouspolitical support for an ambitious global treaty regulating plastics during their entire lifecycle to account for their impacts to climate, humans, and ecosystems. Such a treaty will need to include caps on production of new plastic to prevent further irreversible global damage. The Rwanda/Peru resolution includes language to address plastics’ impacts from extraction of raw materials to production and end-of-life. It goes beyond dealing with plastic as a waste problem and considers systemic solutions to reduce, replace, reuse, and recycle plastic effectively. Voluntary, optional or market-led solutions will not suffice to solve this complex, global problem. To truly address the impacts of plastics on the environment, society and health, in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and call for nations to protect clean and healthy environments as a human right, the resolutions must be binding. Voluntary, optional or market-led solutions will not solve these wicked problems. There is no time for lengthy negotiations aimed at delaying and diluting urgently needed action.

Co-authors

The authors thank five expert colleagues for their help in the preparation of this OP-ed: Dr. Rebecca AltmanDr. Susanne BranderDr. Tridibesh DeyAnja KriegerDr. Tony R. Walker

About the authors

Prof. Bethanie Carney Almroth is an ecotoxicologist at the University of Gothenburg. She researches the effects of chemicals and plastics in marine and freshwater animals, and works to find means for sustainable development, She also coordinates the Gesamp working group on plastics, providing scientific advice to UN organizations. @BCarneyAlmroth, email: bethanie.carney@bioenv.gu.seDr. Melanie Bergmann is a polar marine biologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research who has researched and published on plastic pollution since 2012. She edited the textbook Marine Anthropogenic Litter and runs the online portal Litterbase as well as a pollution observatory in the Arctic. She is part of the AMAP Expert Group on Microplastics and Litter providing scientific advice to the Arctic Council. @MelanieBergma18, email: Melanie.Bergmann@awi.deDr. Scott Coffin is a research scientist at the California State Water Resources Control Board, who has researched plastic pollution since 2014. He leads California’s efforts to monitor and manage microplastics pollution in drinking water and the environment. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any government agency or institution. @DrSCoffin, email: scott.l.coffin@gmail.comDr. Rebecca Altman is a Providence-based writer and independent scholar working on an intimate history of plastics for Scribner Books (US) and Oneworld (UK). Recent work has appeared in The Atlantic, Science, Aeon and Orion. She holds a Ph.D. in environmental sociology from Brown University. Dr. Susanne Brander is a professor and ecotoxicologist at Oregon State University, co-lead of the Pacific Northwest Consortium on Plastics, and recent co-chair of a California Ocean Science Trust advisory team on marine microplastics. Her primary focus is on the effects of stressors such as emerging pollutants, including micro and nanoplastics, on aquatic organisms; and her research and teaching span both ecological and human health impacts. Anja Krieger is a writer and podcaster from Germany working in science communication. She’s reported as a freelance journalist for over a decade in media outlets such as Ensia, Undark, Vox News, PRI The World, Deutschlandradio, and Die Zeit. Anja is the creator of the Plastisphere podcast and co-producer of Life in the Soil. A cultural scientist by training, she’s completed the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Tridibesh Dey is a South Asian anthropologist generating theoretical knowledge about plastics from long-term engaged fieldwork with communities and landscapes most affected by these materials. Having trained originally in the natural sciences with professional experiences in sustainable development, Dr. Dey offers practice-oriented multi-disciplinary perspectives on the complex social entanglements of the material one might call ‘plastic’. Dr. Tony Walker is an Associate Professor at Dalhousie University. He has studied impacts of plastic pollution for nearly 30 years and was invited by the Deputy Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada to to help develop the Ocean Plastics Charter for Canada’s 2018 G7 presidency. He participated in the Canadian Science Symposium on Plastics to inform Canada’s Plastic Science Agenda, and represented Canada at the G7 Science Meeting on Plastic Pollution in Paris, France in 2019.The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect those of Environmental Health News or The Daily Climate.Banner photo of plastic garbage next to the sea by Antoine Giret/UnsplashFrom Your Site ArticlesRelated Articles Around the Web