Who said recycling was green? It makes microplastics by the ton

Research out of Scotland suggests that the chopping, shredding and washing of plastic in recycling facilities may turn as much as six to 13 percent of incoming waste into microplastics—tiny, toxic particles that are an emerging and ubiquitous environmental health concern for the planet and people.

A team of four researchers measured and analyzed microplastics in wastewater before and after filters were installed at an anonymous recycling plant in the United Kingdom. The study, one of the first of its kind, was published in the May issue of in the peer-reviewed Journal of Hazardous Material Advances.

If the team’s calculations are ultimately found to be representative of the recycling industry as a whole, the scale of microplastics created during recycling processes would be shocking—perhaps as much as 400,000 tons per year in the United States alone, or the equivalent of about 29,000 dump trucks of microplastics. The study suggests that rather than helping to solve plastics’ contribution to what the United Nations has described as a triple planetary crisis of pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss, recycling could be exacerbating the problem by creating an even more vexing conundrum.

Other scientists are finding microplastics in human blood, human placentas and in virtually all corners of the planet, and the United Nations has warned that chemicals in microplastics are associated with serious health impacts including changes to human genetics, brain development and reproduction.

The paper was published as United Nations delegates prepare to hold their second meeting to negotiate a potential global plastics treaty later this month in Paris, with one potential outcome being more plastics recycling as the chemical and plastics industry presses governments to keep plastic in the global economy.

“It seems quite backward to me,” said plastics researcher Erena Brown, who led the research while she was a graduate student at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. “With plastic recycling, we have designed and initiated it in order to start protecting our environment. I think this study has shown that we have ended up creating a different if potentially slightly worse problem.”

The recycling plant allowed researchers to measure microplastics in wastewater before and after the plant installed filters, which Brown said definitely helped to reduce microplastics.

But even with filters, the study found that the mechanical recycling process that produced plastic pellets to make new plastic products could still allow as much as 75 billion particles of microplastics in a cubic meter of the plant’s wastewater.

In all, they calculated the plant would annually release as much as 3 million pounds of microplastics with filtration, and up to 6.5 million pounds without filtration. 

The study measured microplastics down to a size of 1.6 microns, which Brown said was smaller than two other similar studies that the researchers found. Still, she said, with the widespread prevalence of even smaller micro and nano plastics, smaller than the study’s size limit, the researchers believe their findings underestimate the problem.

“We assume that there are many, many, many particles in sizes smaller than this,” she said.

The researchers also detected microplastics in the air at the recycling facility and suggested that such air emissions should be the focus of additional research since breathing microplastics is a risk to lung health.

Recycling Could Create a ‘Ridiculous’ Amount of Microplastics

The plastics and packaging industries have pushed recycling and consumer responsibility for decades. But plastics are made with thousands of chemicals including additives designed to give them special properties including clarity, strength, color and flexibility. Many of those chemicals are toxic, and increasingly, scientists and environmental advocates have been warning that the complicated chemical nature of so many different types of plastic is what has helped make them so difficult to recycle.

The world is making twice as much plastic waste as it did two decades ago, with most of the discarded materials buried in landfills, burned by incinerators or dumped into the environment, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group that represents developed nations. Production is expected to triple by 2060. Globally, only 9 percent of plastic waste is successfully recycled, according to OECD.

In the United States, the recycling rate could be less than 6 percent, according to a 2022 report by the environmental groups Beyond Plastics and The Last Beach Cleanup.

Kara Pochiro, a spokesperson for the Association of Plastic Recyclers, a trade group representing the recycling industry, said “recycling is an industrial process regulated like any other industrial process in the U.S. Recyclers must conform with national, state, and local regulations regarding all aspects of the business including environmental laws.”

However, Brown said she’s not aware of any requirements anywhere that recyclers must track or limit the number or amount of microplastics in their wastewater effluent. And in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency does not specifically regulate microplastic discharges from wastewater treatment plants, wastewater experts said this week. 

The EPA did not respond to a request for comment.

Environmental advocates expressed alarm at the research findings.

The research suggests that recycling plants in the United States could be “creating ridiculous amounts of microplastics,” said Jan Dell, a chemical engineer who has worked as a consultant to the oil and gas industry and founded The Last Beach Cleanup, the nonprofit that fights plastic pollution and waste.

Dell said the study highlights a problem she said she has “been yelling about for years,” what she calls the “material waste rate” for plastic recycling, “but no one pays attention.” Her own calculations based on industry data she cited in her group’s report last year with Beyond Plastics estimated a 30 percent material loss for recycling PET plastic bottles, commonly used by beverage companies. “To make 100 bottles out of recycled plastic, 143 bottles have to be collected and processed,” she said.

The Association of Plastic Recyclers estimates there are more than 100 post-consumer plastic recycling operations in the United States and Canada. Many are likely sending their wastewater to municipal wastewater treatment facilities.

Generally, treatment plants are supposed to comply with rules that limit solid particles in their effluent. So regulations would capture some, but not all, microplastics—and what gets through would be the smaller and more dangerous particles, Dell said.

Microplastics captured in treatment end up in a plant’s biosolid byproduct, or sewage sludge, which is often spread on land as a fertilizer, allowing microplastics to contaminate the soil and wash into waterways during rain, according to a March report produced by the Minderoo-Monoco Commission on Human Health, a body of scientists assembled by the Australian-based Minderoo Foundation, and published in the Annals of Global Health, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

In fact, more microplastics are estimated to enter the soil from the use of wastewater sludge for agricultural purposes each year than microplastics entering the ocean or freshwater sediments, the commission study found. 

“The presence of (microplastics) in sewage sludge poses a threat to soil health and productivity and could cause harm to soil-dwelling biota,” the Minderoo-Monoco group found.

“Microplastic has to go somewhere,” Dell said. “It doesn’t disappear.”

Study Adds to UN Plastics Debate

California is at the forefront of microplastics regulatory investigations and potential actions, and is weighing options to limit microplastics in water bodies, said Shelley Walther, an environmental scientist at the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. She’s also leading a task force on microplastics with the Water Environment Federation, an industry group for wastewater professionals.

A 2016 study in Los Angeles found that wastewater treatment designed to collect “suspended solids” are more than 99 percent effective at capturing microplastics, she said. But she also said that the study did not include the smallest of the particles.

Walther said that among the challenges of curbing microplastics is that they are hard to measure. “There’s still not a lot of great technology,” Walther said.

Keep Environmental Journalism AliveICN provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going.Donate Now

McDonald’s new battle over the way the Big Mac and fries are packaged

EVOLVE GLOBAL SUMMIT 2022
Evolve Events

McDonald’s Big Mac made the move to paper packaging in 1990 and the fast food chain is making progress on more recent goals to have 100% of products in recycled or renewable materials by 2025.
But shareholder activists focused on environmental and climate issues want McDonald’s to go further, and focus on reusables, now mandated in some countries including France.
The restaurant giant says it will study the economics of reusables, but isn’t convinced it makes more sense than current sustainability practices.

S3studio | Getty Images News | Getty Images

In 1990, McDonald’s ditched the styrofoam home for the Big Mac, and its signature burger has been served ever since in paper wrap. Reusable packaging may be next. 
McDonald’s is making some progress on a goal it set in 2018 to use recycled or renewable packaging in 100% of its restaurants by the end of 2025, but activist shareholders are moving onto the next big target: pressing the fast-food giant for more focus on reusables. 

While there were hundreds of environmental and climate measures introduced by shareholders this spring for annual meetings, one that got dropped in March was at McDonald’s, which reached a deal with shareholder advocacy non-profit As You Sow to withdraw a proposal in exchange for the company agreeing to produce a report on the implications of switching to reusable packaging. 
The battle between McDonald’s and environmentally minded shareholders goes a long way back, starting in the 1980s when multiple grassroots organizations and broader public awareness about the lightweight plastic material known as polystyrene led to the change in the packaging of the Big Mac and other sandwiches. But it wasn’t until 2018 that McDonald’s completely eliminated styrofoam across all of its global markets.
McDonald’s biggest reusable packaging changes are outside US
McDonald’s has made several big packaging changes in recent years, mostly coming from outside the U.S. and following governmental action. The European Commission banned certain single-use packaging, including straws, plates and cutlery, and required all packaging in these categories be designed for reuse as of July 2021, the first time the EU targeted reuse specifically. And at the end of last year, McDonald’s France launched a reusable plastic food container in its signature red color – though not without initiating a new controversy over the decision to not use all glass or metal. 
There are many challenges that come with reusable packaging, and McDonald’s has looked to highlight that as it agrees to conduct more research on the reusables economy. Last month, McDonald’s released a report it commissioned from consulting firm Kearny — with the headline “No silver bullet” — detailing several reasons why reusables may be too expensive to be a sole solution. The report suggests the balancing act the fast food giant is trying to pull off — responding to changes in European regulation when required, but also arguing that it is a mistake to see reusables as the only model for responsible packaging in the future.

A meal tray with reusable dishes and containers is photographed at a McDonald’s restaurant in Levallois-Perret, near Paris, on December 20, 2022. – From January 1, 2023, within the framework of the anti-waste law, fast food restaurants must use reusable dishes for on-site orders.
Julien De Rosa | Afp | Getty Images

High upfront costs, required kitchen and infrastructure changes – whether on or off-site dishwashing capacities – and rises in energy and water use all pose challenges to the operations of reusable packaging, the report said. The report quoted the European Paper Packaging Alliance, which estimated that water consumption for a reusable system with 100 reuses would cost 267% higher than a paper single-usage model.

The report also touched on the potential negative impact to consumer experience and food safety.
“In some circumstances, plastic is the right option to keep things safe and properly contained, let alone making sure that the food you love is tasty and the experience is what you are hoping it would be,” a McDonald’s spokesperson told CNBC.
Food safety measures that could be compromised include the chemicals that can come from color coatings on reusable plastics and the potential for microbiological growth and accumulation if the packaging is scratched – in addition to whatever consumers do with the packaging before they return it.  
“In a climate where it seems that there needs to be an all-or-nothing approach, what’s been missed in reporting on reusables to date is just the actual open scale of it,” the McDonald’s spokeswoman said.

The economics case for reusable packaging

Advocates for reusable packaging argue that the economics will work.
Multinational corporations need to have reusable packaging strategies in place as part of risk management, according to Kelly McBee, circular economy senior coordinator at As You Sow, to comply with a Global Plastics Treaty deemed by the United Nations aimed to end single-use plastic production and usage by 2024 under an international legally binding agreement.
The reusable packaging efforts that McDonald’s has already undertaken in Europe show that a strategy around reuse in the U.S. is possible, McBee said, adding that she expects McDonald’s future report on the topic to “discuss how, when and to what extent the company could pursue reusable packaging in the U.S.”
Furthermore, she says other studies of reusable packaging show that, over time, businesses will save money that otherwise would be spent on disposables.
McBee cited research from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which found that replacing 20% of single-use plastic packaging with reusable alternatives offers an opportunity worth at least $10 billion by weight cost, saving six million tons of material. 
McDonald’s, however, is sticking to its broader sustainability message in packaging.
“There’s unintended consequences of reuse in a world and in a system where we’ve made so much progress. While reuse has been kind of a bright flashy object as of late, McDonald’s has been invested in studying this for a decade,” the company spokeswoman said.
For example, there has already been discussion of converting existing packaging to primarily fiber-based options. Since 2018, McDonald’s has reduced virgin fossil fuel-based plastic in Happy Meal toys by 24.4% globally, and has committed to 100% of sourcing for materials used in Happy Meal toys will be made from more renewable, recycled, or certified materials like bio-based and plant-derived materials and certified fiber by 2025.
Fast-food rivals such as Burger King are testing reusables
Fast-food rivals have been testing reusable packaging options, including Burger King, which worked with Loop, a global recycling company, on pilot programs to create a reuse system at its restaurants in 2020. In New York City, Tokyo, and Portland, Oregon, customers could return reusable cups and containers to participating chains in exchange for a small deposit.
McDonald’s also worked with Loop on a pilot in the U.K. for reusable coffee cups. For a £1 (currently $1.24) deposit, customers could opt into using a returnable Loop cup and could even receive a 20p ($0.25) discount on their purchase. When returned in store, customers could receive their deposit back in the form of cash, a voucher, or a new reusable cup for their next drink. At kiosks, customers could get a voucher or their money returned through the Loop app.
Both the Burger King and McDonald’s pilot programs were live until mid-2022, and the fast food chains are now “assessing the development of the platform,” according to a Loop spokesperson.
Clemence Schmid, general manager at Loop Global, said consumers want reuse and will reward companies that do it, but added that the use of reusable containers and cups “has to make sense to the consumer and be kept affordable, meaning the deposit is reasonable.”
Alluding to McDonald’s concerns, she said the company has to ensure there is enough scale and volume for the usage of reusable products to make economic sense.
Burger King hasn’t made a permanent decision and it did not provide many details on the results of the test.
“The pilot program has now concluded, and we are using key learnings about guest adoption and operational effectiveness in identifying long-term solutions for reusables,” a spokeswoman at Restaurant Brands International, the fast food holding company that owns Burger King, wrote via email.

Matt Prindiville, the former CEO of reuse non-profit Upstream Solutions who recently moved to redeemable container company Clynk, said there is “a sweet spot of finding the right incentive to motivate behavior without discouraging participation or creating an undue burden.”
Whether that be through a deposit incentive or an added discount, Prindiville said that reusable packaging can not only be cost-effective, but also create a better environmental profile for McDonald’s and be a better experience for the customer.
“We generally like eating and drinking out of things that aren’t disposable. It’s not a great experience to drink out of something that you are just going to throw out in the garbage a few minutes later,” Prindiville said.
While moving in the direction of reusable products would require capital improvements and staff training, Prindiville highlighted a recent Upstream Solutions report that saw 100% of 121 businesses and 11 institutional dining programs save money when switching to reusables, factoring in the costs of new labor, products, and increased dishwashing. But there is a need for standardization at scale in order for McDonald’s and other fast food chains to be cost-effective when it comes to reusable packaging, he said. 
Three decades on from the shift away from foam Big Mac packaging, McDonald’s and its franchisees have moved to renewable, recycled, and certified sources in many product areas and across many countries. But the question remains how feasible it is for the company to make the bigger shift to reusable products, a question its recent deal with As You Sow stipulates the company provide an answer to by the end of 2024.

‘The poison plastic’: why calls are growing for a ban on PVC

A toxic train derailment in Ohio has forced an uncomfortable conversation in the US. The pollution and response to the accident was bad enough for local residents, but black and lower-income communities face the effects of America’s dirty plastic industry on a daily basis.

Dramatic images of the Ohio train derailment and its aftermath gripped the world’s attention in February: a huge plume of thick, black smoke towering into the atmosphere; the blackened carcasses of railcars on their sides, scattered in an unnatural formation; a land scorched and scarred from 50 rail cars, many carrying toxic chemicals, coming off the tracks.
Scientists have told E&T that it could be decades before long-term health impacts of the accident are fully understood. They are concerned about the release of carcinogenic chemicals into the atmosphere, as well as into the soil and potentially, the food chain.
However, the Ohio derailment was more than a one-off environmental disaster. The accident has lifted the lid on policies around hazardous chemicals, as well as corporate responsibility and environmental injustice.
Mike Schade, an expert from the group Toxic-Free Future, has been warning about the whole lifecycle dangers of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, for years. “PVC releases highly hazardous chemicals, and it has had devastating impacts for communities and workers for decades. We call it the poison plastic,” he says.

The Polluted Mermaid: Oceans shows worrying view of ‘The Little Mermaid’ to raise awareness of marine pollution

EDITORIAL USE ONLY
Oceans Little Mermaid. Picture date: Wednesday May 3, 2023. PA Photo. Picture credit should read: Owen Humphreys/PA Wire,
Sustainable toilet paper company Oceans has created waves with striking images that demonstrate the potentially devastating impact of marine pollution ahead of the 2023 live-action remake of The Little Mermaid (May 26).
As ocean advocates and supporters of UK charity, The Marine Conservation Society, the brand manufactures 100% plastic-free kitchen roll and toilet paper.
With many British coastlines being negatively impacted by contamination and pollution, Oceans has collated data to underline the ten most polluted beaches across England*, with Blackpool Central and Scarborough South Bay featuring among the worst affected.
Also on this list is Cullercoats Bay, a North Tyneside beach in the North-East of England, where Oceans organised the shoot of ‘The Polluted Mermaid,’ which featured the mythical sea creature washed ashore along with plastic bottles, waste and harmful chemicals.
The campaign reveals the harsh realities that human activity has on our oceans and the wider planet. Oceans hopes to drive better awareness of the conditions of our coastlines with the timely release of these images ahead of the live action Disney adaptation of The Little Mermaid, which launches in the UK this month.
Aligned with its Sky Ad Smart campaign message, ‘Nature’s had enough’, the stunt aims to encourage people to switch their everyday lifestyle habits and begin using household products that are more environmentally friendly.
Jordan Kelly, brand marketing manager at Oceans, said: “This campaign has been a long time coming and we’re delighted to have finally fulfilled our plan. We’re huge advocates of protecting marine life, and we felt this was an opportune time to get such a serious message across.
“At Oceans, we’ve made it our mission to create sustainable, affordable alternatives to often overlooked household essentials, including plastic free toilet roll and kitchen roll.
“Each person who joins us on this mission will help protect the marine life…even the mermaids!”
Jordan added: “Oceans is no stranger to being at the forefront of raising awareness of marine pollution, and this latest campaign is a breath of fresh air not only for the brand, but for the UK audience.
“Continued lack of ocean protection and ignorance will accelerate climate change beyond repair; and with The High Seas Treaty aiming to help place 30% of the seas into protected areas by 2030, this campaign has the potential to be an imaginative solution that truly makes a splash.”

Related

Maryland calls on EPA to address microfiber pollution

CBS News Live

CBS News Baltimore

Live

BALTIMORE — Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown has joined a coalition of 16 states urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address microfiber pollution, the Attorney General’s Office announced Monday. In a letter, the states urge the EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to evaluate their authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate microfiber pollution.”The United States needs to join other countries that are already helping prevent plastic microfibers from choking our environment and public health,” Attorney General Brown said.      The Attorney General’s office said 640,000 to 1,500,000 plastic microfibers are shed from synthetic clothing during wash cycles, making them a main source of microplastic pollution in the world’s water. The state also said microfibers are a harm to human health.  “Microfibers can be associated with hormonal cancers, reproductive problems including infertility, metabolic disorders including diabetes and obesity, asthma, and neurodevelopmental disorders including autism,” the Attorney General’s office said. 

The letter urges the EPA and NOAA to invest funding into research into the harms of microfibers to human health, and invest in microfiber capture technologies, such as washing machine microfiber filtration systems.  The Attorney General’s office said these technologies have already been acknowledged as potential solutions by the EPA, and that the agency should “act on its own recommendations.” 

Oregon bans plastic foam and PFAS in food containers, promotes reusable alternatives

Oregon on Monday became the 10th state in the U.S. to ban polystyrene foam food containers, dealing another blow to a plastic whose chemical components have been linked to cancer and nervous system damage.

Starting in 2025, a new law signed by Governor Tina Kotek will ban the production, sale, and distribution of polystyrene foam cups and takeout food containers — as well as coolers and packing peanuts — anywhere in Oregon. It’s part of a broader legislative effort in the Beaver State to replace single-use plastics with reusable alternatives.

The polystyrene law also bans toxic “forever chemicals” in food packaging, and a second bill signed by Kotek will make it legal for consumers to bring their own reusable takeout containers to restaurants. 

The legislation was “a long time coming,” said Oregon state Senator Janeen Sollman, a Democrat who cosponsored both bills. Banning polystyrene foam, in particular, had been a longtime priority for her, and she said it took a bipartisan coalition of legislators to finally push the measure through.  

Polystyrene foam, a kind of plastic made from fossil fuels and synthetic chemicals, has long been considered a scourge to public health and the environment. Its primary building block, styrene, is a probable human carcinogen that can leach from the material over time, or when polystyrene is exposed to high heat. Because polystyrene foam is nonrecyclable, it often winds up on beaches or in the ocean, where it breaks into smaller fragments called microplastics that can harm marine life.

Hundreds of cities across the country have already banned polystyrene foam — including Portland, Oregon, where the material has been outlawed since 1990 — and state-level restrictions have gained steam in recent years. Besides Oregon, nine other states and the District of Columbia have banned polystyrene foam food containers, and Hawai’i and California have de facto bans. Many of those bans, like Oregon’s, also include coolers and polystyrene packing peanuts.

Oregon’s legislation also goes beyond polystyrene to prohibit per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, from being intentionally added to plates, bowls, cups, and other foodware. Tara Brock, Pacific counsel for the nonprofit Oceana, said this was important to ensure that polystyrene isn’t replaced with “regrettable alternatives,” since many foodware products made from paper or other types of plastic are treated with PFAS to give them water- and oil-repellent properties. PFAS, known colloquially as “forever chemicals,” do not break down naturally over time and have been found in the bloodstreams of 97 percent of Americans and hundreds of nonhuman animal species. They’ve been linked to cancer, high blood pressure, and elevated cholesterol.

Oregon is now the 12th state to ban PFAS from food packaging, following Washington, California, New York, Vermont, and others. 

Under Oregon’s law, people who sell or distribute polystyrene packing peanuts or foodware treated with PFAS after January 1, 2025, may incur a civil penalty of up to $500 a day. Food vendors distributing polystyrene foam food containers will be liable for a smaller penalty of up to $100 a day. 

Oregon state Representative Maxine Dexter, a Democrat, said the bans on PFAS and polystyrene are part of a more holistic effort to move beyond single-use foodware altogether, since most plastic is not recyclable and disposable alternatives made of paper or metal come with their own environmental impacts. The second law signed by Kotek directs the Oregon Health Authority to adopt rules by June 30, 2024, allowing consumers to bring their own containers to restaurants so they can be filled with food. The state’s Department of Agriculture adopted similar rules for grocery stores, which often sell staples like rice and beans in bulk bins, in February.

“We can’t recycle our way out of this issue; we absolutely have to use less,” Dexter told Grist. A big part of that is reduced plastic production, which Oregon is pursuing through a 2021 law that will make companies financially responsible for the waste they generate starting in 2025. But Dexter said new laws are also needed to shift consumer behavior, encouraging more people to carry reusable containers with them on a daily basis.

Oregon’s new reuse law could also protect those who are already familiar with refilling their own jars, tins, and tubs. “A lot of Oregonians have been doing this reuse behavior” and didn’t know it wasn’t allowed under the health code, according to Brock. “I’ve always been that person who brings my old yogurt container to the restaurant to take home my leftovers … We just want to make sure we’re doing it in a way that is safe for consumers.”

Brock said she’s eager for more states to follow Oregon’s lead, and potentially for federal lawmakers to take action to reduce single-use plastics — an objective that’s supported by three-quarters of American voters, according to a recent Ipsos poll conducted for Oceana. The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, a bill proposed in 2021, is the strongest example of such a federal policy, and it’s expected to be reintroduced this legislative session. If passed, the act would ban most single-use plastics and place a moratorium on new or expanded plastic production facilities.

‘A different way of doing a festival’: Imagine Zero Music Festival debuts in Brandon, Vermont

Most live music fans have no doubt had the experience: you’re enjoying a concert or festival, only to get that guilty feeling at the end as trash is sprawled everywhere.“It doesn’t need to be that way,” says Ben Kogan, a Woodstock musician and founder of Reusable Solutions, an outreach organization focused on eradicating single-use plastic and combating climate change.

Oregon State House declares war on modern plastics

PFAS or “forever chemicals” has been found in the blood of nearly every American, including newborn babies. Senate Bill 543 and Senate Bill 545 are significant steps forward in reducing plastic pollution.The Oregon state House passed two bills with bipartisan support to address the growing environmental and public health impacts of single-use plastics. Both bills now head to Gov. Tina Kotek’s desk for her signature. Senate Bill 543 will phase out polystyrene foam foodware, packing peanuts and coolers and prohibit the use of PFAS, the toxic substances nicknamed “forever chemicals” because of their longevity, in food packaging starting January 1, 2025. The legislation passed the House by a vote of 40-18.Senate Bill 545 instructs the Oregon Health Authority to update the state’s health code to make it easier for restaurants to provide reusable container options. This bill cleared the House by a vote of 38-18.On February 2, 2023 the Oregon Department of Agriculture officially adopted new rules enabling grocery stores, small co-ops and other retail establishments to offer sanitary reusable containers and refill systems.Senate Bill 545 directs the Oregon Health Authority to undergo similar rulemaking to allow Oregon restaurants, and their customers, to do the same.Although the subject may appear to not have any relation with fishermen and the fishing industry, it does: according to Tara Brock, Oceana’s Pacific counsel based in Portland, “plastics are overwhelming our oceans, killing marine life, and devastating ecosystems. The only way to head off this crisis is to start reducing the amount of plastic we create, use and throw away, and to start doing that as quickly as possible.”From the Ocean to your tableHere is one example of the “path” taken by plastics: when the  Stockholm University study measured the level of chemicals found in women in the Faroe Islands, a remote location far from industrial or chemical pollution, they found unusually high concentrations of toxic industrial chemicals in their breast milk. According to a story published by The Guardian, “The chemicals were coming from the ocean or, more specifically, from the pilot whales that make up an important part of the islanders’ diet.”According to the article, “Inuit living in the Canadian Arctic have also been found to have higher POP levels in their blood than the general population of Canada, predominantly due to their diet of fish and marine mammals such as walrus and narwhal.” Senate Bill 543 and Senate Bill 545 aim to put an end to this cycle, which, in the end, is killing us. Several legislators and advocates celebrated the passage of the two bills as significant steps forward in reducing plastic pollution:“Products that have a ‘forever’ impact on our planet, like polystyrene foam, which doesn’t biodegrade, and PFAS forever chemicals that build up in our bodies and environment, should be eliminated,” said Senator Janeen Sollman (SD-15). “As we move away from these wasteful and harmful plastic products, we should make it easier for Oregon businesses to offer reusable options to help make the zero waste future we are working to build a reality. I am thrilled to see both of these bills pass today and look forward to Governor Kotek signing them into law.”Bills get bipartisan support“I am dedicated to working to preserve the health of our beautiful state, our wildlife and our people. Plastic pollution is harmful and we cannot recycle our way out of this significant problem,” said Representative Maxine Dexter (HD-33). “Today, with the passage of SB 543 and SB 545, we took critical steps toward prioritizing the health and beauty of Oregon above convenience by phasing out the availability of wasteful and toxic single-use plastics.”“Nothing we use for just a few minutes should pollute the environment for hundreds of years,” said Celeste Meiffren-Swango, Environment Oregon’s state director. “The two bills passed by the Oregon legislature today will help Oregon eliminate toxic and wasteful products, shift away from our throwaway culture and build a future where we produce less waste. Thanks to the Oregon legislature for passing these bills. We look forward to seeing them signed into law.” “It’s time to take out the single-use takeout! Senate Bill 543 and 545 aim to help Oregon improve on a one-way, throwaway food service economy. Businesses spend $24 billion a year on disposable food service items. As one of the top items we find on Oregon’s beaches and throughout the environment, millions more each year is spent cleaning this stuff up,” said Charlie Plybon, Oregon Policy Manager with Surfrider Foundation. “With SB 543 Oregon has the chance to become the 10th state in the nation to ban foam foodware, one of the most commonly found single-use plastics polluting beaches worldwide according to Ocean Conservancy data,” said Dr. Anja Brandon, Associate Director of U.S. Plastics Policy at Ocean Conservancy. “Meanwhile, SB 545 will help ensure that as Oregon moves away from toxic single-use plastics like foam we have better access to sustainable and reusable alternatives. These bills are complementary and crucial to tackling the plastic pollution crisis, and we look forward to Governor Kotek signing them into law. Let’s hope that legislatures around the country and in Washington, D.C., are paying attention.” “In recent years, our staff have knocked on tens of thousands of doors in Oregon about the need to move beyond polystyrene foam and the overwhelming response was ‘It’s about time!’,” said Charlie Fisher, state director with OSPIRG. “These bills move Oregon further towards a world where we reduce and reuse instead of use once and throwaway, and we’re happy to see them headed to the Governor’s desk.”“Not only is styrene toxic for human and environmental health, but so is PFAS in foodware,” said Jamie Pang, Environmental Health Program Director at the Oregon Environmental Council. “PFAS has been found in the blood of nearly every American, including newborn babies. Phasing out PFAS in foodware is a common sense way to eliminate a significant source of exposure to cancer-causing and endocrine disrupting chemicals that pollute our bodies and waterways.”

Living and breathing on the front line of a toxic chemical zone

Juan López had just returned home from his job supervising the cleaning of giant tanks that hold toxic chemicals produced along the Houston Ship Channel, one of the largest petrochemical complexes in the world.He was ready to sit down to dinner with his wife, Pamela López, and their four school-age children at their small house across the highway from the plants.But as the family gathered, the facilities were still burning off chemical emissions, sending clouds of leftover toxics toward their two-bedroom home, hitting them on some days with distinct and worrisome smells — and leaving Mr. López concerned about the health of their children.“I make good money where I’m at,” he said. “But I always felt like it was only me that was getting exposed, because I am working in the tanks with the chemicals. When the smell comes, all we can really do is try to keep everyone inside. Is that enough? I just don’t know.”He has reason to worry. Two recent assessments, by the Environmental Protection Agency and city officials in Houston, found that residents were at higher risk of developing leukemia and other cancers than people who lived farther from the chemical plants.These same worries afflict households in Illinois, Louisiana, West Virginia and other spots around the United States where families live near manufacturing facilities that make or use these cancer-causing chemicals.“Sacrifice zones — that’s what we call them,” said Ana Parras, a founder of Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, which sued the E.P.A. starting in 2020 to push for tighter rules on toxics. “These areas here are paying the price for the rest of the nation, really.”The chemical plants were still burning off emissions as the López family ate dinner.Meridith Kohut for The New York TimesPamela López, 32, comforting her 9-year-old daughter, Mahliyah Angelie, who had a headache.Meridith Kohut for The New York TimesWaves of toxic chemicals drift toward the López family home at unpredictable moments, day and night.Meridith Kohut for The New York TimesAfter years of only intermittent action by the federal government and opposition from the industry, the Biden administration is racing to impose restrictions on certain toxic air releases of the sort that plague Deer Park, while also moving to ban or restrict some of the most hazardous chemicals entirely.The proposed measures would significantly cut releases of a number of cancer-causing chemicals from plants in Texas, including four of those across the highway from the López family.Companies from a variety of industries, including those that produce the substances and those that use them, are pressuring the administration to water down some of the rules, saying the repercussions of a ban or new restrictions could be economically crippling.Few communities are at greater risk than Deer Park, and few people experience the trade-offs between economic considerations and health more than Mr. López, for whom the petrochemical industry is both the source of his family income and a threat to their health.Mr. López, 33, did not graduate from high school and is proud of how much he is paid to supervise the cleaning of the chemical tanks, which his crew climbs into and scrubs from the inside, an extremely dangerous job.But he suggested that the job did not blind him to the risks the plants pose to his family, saying that “just because you help me make a paycheck does not mean you are doing everything right.”Waves of toxic chemicals drift toward the family home at unpredictable moments, day and night. Mr. López wears protective gear at work. But there are no such measures at the house, where the children ride bikes in the driveway and play with a puppy named Dharma. From the swing set in their backyard, they can see the flares from the nearby plants.

Design advice for a less toxic life

Advice on healthy candles, purging kitchen plastic and the art of dyeing fabric naturally.This article is part of our Design special section about making the environment a creative partner in the design of beautiful homes.I’ve heard some candles can create indoor air pollution and even be harmful. Are there safer alternatives?Paraffin, the wax from which many candles are made, is derived from petroleum. When it burns, it emits toxic fumes. These irritate some people’s eyes and can also exacerbate asthma and other respiratory conditions. Synthetic fragrances and colors can also produce irritating fumes. On top of that, some wicks contain lead (to make them firmer), which is released into the air.Alternatives include beeswax as well as waxes made from soy, coconut, rapeseed and other oils. Some vegans do not support the use of beeswax because it is an animal product, and some feel the beekeeping industry is not cruelty free. Soy wax is certainly more sustainable than petroleum, but its possible negatives include the use of pesticides. (Look for organic soy wax.) The other vegetable waxes mentioned are relatively clean.Be sure to read the fine print. I was recently lured in by a candle from a well-known brand that was “formulated with vegan-friendly ingredients” only to find it also contained paraffin. So make sure you’re getting 100 percent of whatever alternative wax you seek. Also, check to see if artificial scents or other chemicals have been added. (Choose candles scented with nothing but essential oils.) Look for wicks that are made from cotton, wood or hemp — and glass containers that can be recycled or reused.Organic Savanna candles, poured in Kenya, are handmade from organic soy wax and locally sourced ingredients. One hundred percent of profits from the sale of the candles helps create jobs for Kenyan women and fund children’s education. Les Crème candles have pure organic coconut wax and cotton wicks. Hive to Home candles incorporate locally sourced beeswax, organic coconut oil, cotton wicks and sustainable packaging. Rapeseed wax candles are harder to find, especially in the United States. But plenty of places sell the wax itself if you’re a candle maker.Klas FahlenMy kitchen feels like a toxic waste dump filled with plastic bags and storage containers, plastic wrap and more. Are there better choices?Indeed there are. Plastic containers have gotten a lot of negative press, especially those that contain Bisphenol A, or BPA, which has been discovered to be an endocrine disrupter linked to all kinds of potential health issues and is banned in many states. Now we are swimming in BPA-free plastics. Unfortunately, these can contain Bisphenol S (BPS), which is chemically similar.An alternative is glass or metal storage containers with silicone lids. (Silicone isn’t perfect because many communities don’t recycle it, but it is primarily made from a naturally derived material, silica, and lasts much longer than plastic.) Brands include Ikea, Pyrex, and Public Goods.You can also reuse screw-top glass jars. (If the original housed something aromatic like garlicky dill pickles, you’ll want to run the lid through the dishwasher first.)Plastic wrap and even some wax paper also contain materials derived from petroleum. Also, they are (generally) one-time-use products, so they keep your bowl of guacamole fresh for a day before off to the landfill they go.But there are plastic-free wraps, typically cotton fabric coated with some sort of wax, that can be used repeatedly to cover a jar or bowl, or wrap a piece of cut fruit or a wedge of cheese. They don’t last forever but they are typically compostable (or can be used as fire starters). I find they sometimes pick up odors, but a thorough wash in cool water and mild soap, followed by a thorough air dry freshens them. Bee’s Wrap has two versions — one coated in beeswax, the other in a vegan-friendly soy-coconut wax blend.Another clever product is Food Huggers, which are a set of five sizes of colorful, stretchy discs made from food-grade silicone. They are dishwasher, freezer, and microwave safe. You can use them as jar lids or slide them over the cut end of a lemon, onion, apple or other produce. The company also makes silicone “Hugger Bags” that take the place of plastic food storage bags.Klas FahlenI’m interested in trying natural fabric dyeing but am afraid it’s really complicated. Where can I find out more?Making dye from plants and animals goes back to ancient times and has been done by nearly all cultures. Today there is a community of dyers you can tap into for information, ideas and supplies.I’ve long been a fan of indigo, a plant in the bean family whose leaves — when soaked and fermented — produce a beautiful deep-blue dye. Other colors can be produced using flowers, roots, berries, fruit and vegetable peels, wood, and even insects.The Bible mentions a particular blue dye color, called tekhelet, whose exact formulation has been lost but is thought to have come from a secretion of sea snails.But you’re right. It’s often more complicated than simply boiling some flower petals and dunking in a piece of fabric — especially if you want the dye to be durable and stay uniform over time.Botanical Colors, based in Seattle, offers education and natural dyeing materials. They support farmers and organic and regenerative farming, organizing workshops locally and sometimes in other parts of the country, on topics including dyeing with mud, indigo, persimmon tannins and more. They also have a biweekly online show called Feedback Friday, which began during the pandemic. The group’s president, Kathy Hattori, and sustainability and communications director, Amy DuFault, speak with artists, writers and scholars about natural dyeing and color.Maiwa, based in Vancouver, sells a large range of materials for the natural dyer as well as downloadable instructions (“How to Dye With Indigo,” for instance), books, and fabrics. They promote “Slow Clothes,” or the contributions of hand spinners, hand weavers and natural dyers as an antidote to mass production. They also offer classes, many of them free, through their School of Textiles.Readers are invited to send questions to designadvice@nytimes.com.