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 Alive

ICN provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going.

Donate Now

She also cited ongoing uncertainty over the health threats from microplastics, pointing to a World Health Organization report from last year that called for more research to get to the bottom of concerns about microplastics. What’s needed, she said, are “data quality objectives and standardized methods” that will produce believable findings.

The World Health Organization study found that there was limited data to prove that nano and microplastic particles have “adverse effects in humans.” But, the WHO, which has called for a stop in the increase of plastic pollution worldwide, said its findings do not imply that exposure to microplastics is safe. And, the health body concluded, “there is increasing public awareness and an overwhelming consensus among all stakeholders that plastics do not belong in the environment, and measures should be taken to mitigate exposure” to them.

The Minderoo-Monoco Commission on Human Health report, however, took a broader look at plastics throughout their lifecycle and found health and environmental impacts from production to use and disposal, including from microplastics. While acknowledging “gaps remain in knowledge about plastics’ harms to human health and the global environment,” the report identified many of the chemicals used in plastics as known toxicants. 

One of its lead authors, Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, a pediatrician, epidemiologist and director of Boston College’s Global Public Health Program and Global Observatory on Planetary Health, said he believes the health debate over plastics is largely resolved. 

“There are still details to be worked out about the exact magnitude, but there is no doubt whatsoever that plastic causes disease, disability, premature death, economic damage and damage to ecosystems at every stage of its life cycle,” he said in March.

At the United Nations, countries are working to develop a treaty or agreement aimed at ending plastic pollution by 2040. Some countries are pushing to reduce and cap plastic production, which could double over the next 20 years, while others are focusing on waste management solutions, such as recycling.

For their part, the authors of the recycling plant study on microplastics concluded their report provides insight into the potential for plastic recycling facilities to be significant sources of microplastic pollution and considerations for ways to reduce that pollution through filtration. More research is needed to determine whether their findings are typical and can be extrapolated across the industry, Brown said.

But Brown said there could be another potential solution. 

It is clear, Brown said, that “we don’t know what to do with (microplastics) once we find them.” But the recycling study “highlights to me that we just need to be making so much more effort in reducing our plastic production and consumption, instead of focusing on recycling.”

James Bruggers


James Bruggers

Reporter, Southeast, National Environment Reporting Network

James Bruggers covers the U.S. Southeast, part of Inside Climate News’ National Environment Reporting Network. He previously covered energy and the environment for Louisville’s Courier Journal, where he worked as a correspondent for USA Today and was a member of the USA Today Network environment team. Before moving to Kentucky in 1999, Bruggers worked as a journalist in Montana, Alaska, Washington and California. Bruggers’ work has won numerous recognitions, including best beat reporting, Society of Environmental Journalists, and the National Press Foundation’s Thomas Stokes Award for energy reporting. He served on the board of directors of the SEJ for 13 years, including two years as president. He lives in Louisville with his wife, Christine Bruggers.

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

Evolve

  • 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.

CNBC Evolve Livestream - Sustainable Future with Loop & TerraCycle' Tom Szaky

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 Ohio train derailment saw 38 cars derailed, including 11 containing hazardous materials, forcing hundreds of local residents to evacuate for several days

The Ohio train derailment saw 38 cars derailed, including 11 containing hazardous materials, forcing hundreds of local residents to evacuate for several days

Image credit: Gettyimages

Many vinyl chloride and PVC production facilities in the US are in Texas, Kentucky and along an 85-mile stretch of the Mississippi River in Louisiana, where local residents are predominantly black and low-​income. Rates of cancer in the area are so much higher than the rest of the country that this corridor is now known as ‘Cancer Alley.’

“Communities of colour and low-income communities face pollution as well as serious risks associated with accidents and explosions day in and day out in places like Cancer Alley. Sadly, they don’t get quite the attention this derailment has gotten,” says Schade.

The accident has also brought issues surrounding rail safety into sharp focus. On average, there were three train derailments a day in the US last year – E&T has previously revealed concerns that profits were being prioritised over safety in the rail sector. However, for Judith Enck, president of campaign group Beyond Plastics and former regional administrator at US environment regulator the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), says there is still not enough focus on “why we are transporting toxic vinyl chloride all over the country on a rickety rail system” in the first place.

The production of PVC involves combining chlorine with ethylene, which is obtained from oil, to form vinyl chloride monomer (VCM). Molecules of VCM are polymerised to form PVC resin, and additives are incorporated to give the PVC certain properties.

The two-mile long 32N train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, on 3 February. It was carrying vinyl chloride from a chemicals plant in La Porte, just outside Houston, Texas, run by Oxy Vinyls, the chemical arm of Occidental Petroleum, according to shipment records released by the EPA. The chemicals were on a 1,600-mile journey from Oxy Vinyls’ plant in Deer Park, Texas, to its facility in Pedricktown, New Jersey, which makes plastic used in PVC flooring.

Vinyl chloride can be devastating for human health. According to a 2020 report published in the academic journal Cancer Spectrums, acute exposure to vinyl chloride can cause loss of consciousness, lung and kidney irritation, and, after sustained exposure, a rare form of liver cancer. The study also found that those living within 10 miles of a petrochemical facility face an increased risk of cancer as well as other health issues.

Emergency responders at the scene chose to incinerate the vinyl chloride to avert a wider explosion, but Enck questions whether it was “smart” to ignite over 100,000 gallons (around 440,000 litres) of vinyl chloride, which, when heated, can form phosgene, a chemical weapon used in World War One.

While US public health agency the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says it is possible to incinerate the chemical safely at a specific temperature in a controlled setting, experts have pointed out that it would have been impossible to control the burn completely. Enck says the more responsible option would have been to use vacuum trucks to remove the chemicals from the train cars.

Enck and Schade share concerns about why the EPA was originally slow to test for dioxins, which are formed when chlorine is burned – a common industrial process in the production of PVC. The chemicals are highly persistent and can accumulate and stay in the environment or human bodies for years. The compounds are linked to illnesses including diabetes, heart disease and nervous system disorders. They are also notorious for being the primary contaminant in Agent Orange.

“When you burn chlorinated chemicals and materials, especially in an uncontrolled environment like we saw in East Palestine, that’s really a perfect recipe for dioxins,” says Schade.

Enck believes the EPA has “a culture as an agency to defer to states. They probably deferred to Ohio EPA, and I don’t think Ohio EPA was well-equipped to make this decision.”

The EPA told E&T the local fire chief made the decision to burn the chemicals in consultation with the train operator Norfolk Southern, local law enforcement and response officials from Ohio. The EPA says its own personnel were present during meetings leading up to the burning of the chemicals, but “were not consulted about the controlled vent and burn during these ad hoc meetings”.

Enck also questions why the EPA waited until a month after the derailment to direct Norfolk Southern to test for dioxins. She also thinks it is “troubling” that the EPA directed the train operator to carry out the testing rather than doing it themselves.

The EPA says it is providing direct oversight of the monitoring and is carrying out some of its own tests to compare results for soil sampling with those reported by Norfolk Southern’s contractor. However, the EPA acknowledges that Norfolk Southern is not using the same real-time sampling technology the EPA has access to. The EPA says the operator has mobilised “some additional real-time sampling resources, which are being evaluated for effectiveness”.

The EPA says preliminary test results show dioxin levels in East Palestine are below the federal action thresholds, “although a few samples taken in public-rights-of-way have elevated levels of compounds”. However, Schade thinks testing the food supply chain will be vital.

“They need to be looking at other environmental media. For example, we know there are farms downwind of the derailment that could have been impacted,” he says. “They should be looking for dioxins in chickens, chicken eggs, cows, dairy products… because dioxins are extremely persistent and bioaccumulative – they build up in the food chain.”

Officials have recognised this possibility. At the beginning of April, the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) and The Ohio State University (OSU) announced they would begin collecting plant tissue samples from farms in the area.

Community

Mossville

Mossville was an African-American community founded by Jack Moss, an ex-slave, in 1790. The town was settled by former enslaved Africans, who were granted the land through a ‘fee-simple title acquired by squatters’ rights’. In this manner, anyone who agreed to improve the property while residing for a specified number of years could attain ownership.

Petrochemical and industrial plants moved into the area in the 1940s and ’50s and in 2000, South African petrochemical giant Sasol moved its operations there. The Sasol industrial complex is over three square miles with an estimated value of $8.1bn. Sasol swallowed up swathes of old Mossville through a controversial voluntary land purchase programme, deforested the land and expanded its production.

Large portions of Mossville’s population also had to be relocated in the 1990s after the groundwater was found to be contaminated, notes Schade.

“It is a classic case of environmental injustice and racism,” says Schade. He notes that studies of Mossville have documented that residents were exposed to elevated concentrations of dioxins, while dioxins were also found in the food supply chain.

 

 


mossville

Mossville

Image credit: Alamy

Following the derailment, according to the Ohio Department of Health, East Palestine residents reported headaches, coughing, fatigue, irritation and burning of the skin. A whole month after the derailment, seven CDC investigators that had formed part of a team conducting house-to-house interviews in the area also became ill.

Monica Unseld, a biologist and executive director of Louisville-based non-profit Until Justice Data Partners, says response from authorities is part of a systemic problem. “In the US, we don’t typically test chemicals for safety before we put them on the market. Americans are born with hundreds of chemicals already in their bodies,” she says.

Unseld says whatever testing that is done often looks at chemicals one at a time, “so we’re not testing for mixture. When we test the water, we don’t perhaps see vinyl chloride, maybe we are seeing vinyl chloride broken down and its elements are combined with something else…this could be a reason we are not finding high levels of the chemical in the environment,” she explains.

Dioxins can also act as endocrine disrupters, which can interfere with the body’s hormones, notes Unseld, “and a lot of them have not yet been well studied, so it’s difficult to say with any certainty that the soil is safe”.

Unseld thinks that, given the uncertainty around testing, authorities should take symptoms in the community seriously. “We don’t have the appropriate testing in place, and we can’t really talk about health thresholds because we don’t talk about lived experience data,” she says.

It is not just during the production phase that PVC is dangerous. The use of PVC products also pose health risks to consumers. “PVC plastic is often filled with a witches’ brew of toxic additives such as lead, cadmium, phthalates,” says Schade.

Phthalates, which are endocrine disrupters, give the PVC a flexible property. They are found at elevated concentrations in products such as vinyl shower curtains. The quintessential children’s bathtime toy, the rubber duck, is also made of PVC.

Unseld says exposure to these chemicals is often gradual. “PVC is used in building materials and water pipes, so it can leach into your drinking water, but it is also in our credit cards. With endocrine disruption, we look at long-term low-dose experience; most tests don’t look for endocrine disrupters because they are such low doses.”

The CDC says more research is needed to assess the human health effects of exposure to phthalates. However, it has carried out research which indicates that phthalate exposure is widespread in the US population. The CDC says black populations had higher levels of exposure compared to the average.

There is no safe way to dispose of vinyl plastic materials, according to Toxic-Free Future. In the research report ‘Vinyl chloride and toxic waste’, the non-profit found that vinyl chloride and PVC plastic plants sent more than 20 million pounds (9,000 tonnes) of chlorinated waste to incinerators in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas in 2021. The incineration of chlorinated chemicals and materials can lead to the formation and release of dioxins. Dioxins are also released during accidental building and landfill fires involving PVC plastic.

“From production, to use, to disposal, PVC is an environmental nightmare,” says Schade.

Toxic-Free Future’s report found that, of the 373,262 US residents that live within three miles of a vinyl chloride, PVC manufacturing or PVC waste disposal facility, 63 per cent are people of colour. The report also found that these residents earn 37 per cent below the national average and 27 per cent are children, compared to the national average of 22 per cent – infants and children are particularly vulnerable to exposure to toxic chemicals.

“None of this is coincidence, it’s not an accident,” says Unseld. “Even here in Louisville, Kentucky, in an area known as ‘Rubbertown’, we have about a dozen high-risk facilities planned – these are the most dangerous types of facilities you can have.” There are already around 20 high-risk facilities in Rubbertown, which is made up of predominantly black communities. “People that live around Rubbertown live at least 12-13 years less than people that live less than 20 minutes away. There are higher asthma rates, higher cancer rates. This is happening all over America,” says Unseld.

Over the years, whole communities have been uprooted. Residents in at least four different communities in the state of Louisiana alone – Reveilletown, Morrisonville, Plaquemine and Mossville – have been forced to relocate due to vinyl chloride and contamination from vinyl/PVC plants.


There have been at least 40 chemical incidents worldwide involving vinyl chloride and PVC since 2010

Map of vinyl chloride disasters since 2010. Source: Material Research L3C

Image credit: Map of vinyl chloride disasters since 2010. Source: Material Research L3C

Oxy Vinyls has a history of accidents and near misses. Only in January, a tornado moved through the heart of the petrochemical industry east of Houston, with Oxy Vinyls’ VCM plant being in the storm’s path as charted by the National Weather Service.

A fire at the same plant last year raised concerns about the potential release of ethylene oxide, but no ‘protective measures’ for the community were advised by officials. And in 2012, a train carrying vinyl chloride – bound for the same plastics plant in New Jersey that was the destination of the Ohio train – derailed and plunged into a creek, releasing 23,000 gallons of the chemical and prompting evacuations of nearby homes.

A recent analysis by the low-profit open-access data company Material Research for the non-profit Coming Clean found that, since 2010, there have been at least 40 chemical incidents worldwide involving vinyl chloride and PVC. These have occurred at 29 facilities globally, almost half of which are in the US. Fires, leaks and explosions killed at least 71 people worldwide and injured 637 in the 40 incidents.

Yet petrochemical companies are ramping up the production of PVC. According to its regulatory filings last year, Oxy Vinyls plans to spend $1.1bn (£0.9bn) to expand and upgrade its La Porte plant in Texas. Shintech, the world’s largest producer of PVC, and whose shipments also burned in the Ohio disaster, is spending more than $2bn (£1.6bn) to expand operations in Texas and Louisiana.

An April report from campaign group Toxic Free Future found that Oxy Vinyls reported it released 59,679lb (27,070kg) of vinyl chloride into the air at its chemical plants in Texas, New Jersey and Niagara Falls in 2021. Shintech reported it released 45,250lb (20,525kg) of vinyl chloride into the air at its plants in Louisiana and Texas. The US’s top emitter of vinyl chloride, Westlake Chemical, reported releasing 185,807lb (84,280kg) of vinyl chloride into the air from its chemical plants in Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi in 2021.

Meanwhile, according to data from the Association for American Railroads, rail shipments of chemicals used in plastic production grew by about a third over the past decade. Chemicals have become a particularly important business for railways because one of their traditional mainstays, coal transportation, has fallen steeply with the decline in the mining and burning of coal. This is during a time where fears over rail safety have increased, with unions claiming more frequent disasters are likely while private rail companies continue to prioritise profit over safety.

Norfolk Southern and Oxy Vinyls failed to respond to requests for comment.

Insight

Fenceline communities

Communities that live adjacent to petrochemical facilities are known as fenceline communities. According to Unseld, people that live here are “more likely to be renters, and more likely to get a horrible mortgage deal with the bank”.

“When my ancestors were enslaved and you had the big plantation houses, they were out in those wood shelters – if they had any shelters at all – crammed in and living among the pigs and wildlife and the droppings.” Unseld says it is that “normalisation of people of colour not having clean, healthy stable shelter”, that is still present today with fenceline communities.

Unseld says tied up in the PVC problem is racism, classism and monopoly capitalism. She points out that many of the big US stores only sell bedsheets that contain plastic, meaning many people on lower incomes do not have a choice over the chemicals they expose themselves to. Then, she adds, “you have the fact that these chemicals should not be on the market anyway”.

There is a growing movement to reduce the harm done by PVC. Enck’s organisation, Beyond Plastics, launched a petition in March calling for the EPA to ban the material. “The toxic train derailment should be a wake-up call to the American public: vinyl chloride is an unnecessary and dangerous threat to our health, and it’s past time for the EPA to ban this known carcinogen from drinking-water pipes, packaging and toys our children chew on,” she says.

Some companies have already said they will eliminate the use of PVC in their products. In January 2022, the US Plastics Pact, a group endorsed by 100 major consumer companies, including Walmart, Target and Unilever, made a voluntary commitment to stop using PVC in their plastic packaging by 2025.

Where voluntary agreements fail to work, legislators will need to step in. Some cities in the US, including New York, Boston, Seattle and San Francisco, have adopted policies aimed at phasing out the use of PVC, limiting public purchases and mandating alternatives. A handful of countries, including Canada, Spain and South Korea, have restricted or banned the use of PVC packaging, and legislators have pursued a similar ban in California. Sweden, which adopted restrictions on PVC use almost three decades ago, is phasing out its use altogether.

Unseld adds: “Every step of the fossil fuel plastics lifestyle is deadly, so bans on individual chemicals and products won’t be enough because they’ll just replace it with something else. That’s why they moved lead out of paint into plastic toys.” She says fossil fuel companies will continue to scrape the barrel for chemicals – especially once energy is decarbonised – to create plastic.

There is only one solution, she says: “Just keep fossil fuels in the ground.”

Sign up to the E&T News e-mail to get great stories like this delivered to your inbox every day.

Best Plastic-Free Home Cleaning Products

plastic-free home cleaning products

In our effort to reduce plastic waste, many of us have started looking for plastic-free alternatives to everyday household items, including cleaning products. Choosing eco-friendly cleaning products that are not only plastic-free but also ethical, non-toxic, cruelty-free, and climate-neutral can make a big impact both on our health and on the environment – but they can be hard to find.

In this blog, we’ll recommend five brands that offer household cleaning products that are ethical, plastic-free, and eco-friendly, and that actually work.

How We Chose Our Recommendations

To help you in your search for plastic-free household cleaning products, we’ve selected our recommendations based on the following criteria:

  1. Plastic-free packaging: All the brands we recommend use recycled plastic or plastic-free packaging that is either compostable or refillable.
  1. Ethical ingredients: We’ve chosen brands that use ingredients that are non-toxic, biodegradable, cruelty-free, and safe for the environment.
  1. Climate-neutral: We’ve selected brands that are committed to reducing their carbon footprint and using sustainable practices in their production and shipping.
  1. Effective: All of the products we recommend are effective cleaners that will get the job done, regardless of their packaging and ingredients.

5 of the Best Plastic-Free Householding Cleaning Brands

After extensive research, here are our recommendations for the best plastic-free cleaning product brands:

Tru Earth

Source: Tru Earth review by Helen M

Tru Earth is a company that offers a range of eco-friendly cleaning products with a focus on reducing plastic waste. All of their cleaning products come in the form of dissolvable strips, so all you have to do is drop them in hot water in any reusable container you choose. 

Furthermore, their entire product line is packaged in compostable materials made from paper and are much lighter and more compact than traditional cleaning bottles, which allows them to take up less space. All of their cleaning strips are also made with non-toxic ingredients that are gentle on clothes and skin while being safe for the environment.

Pros

  • Compostable packaging made from paper, which reduces plastic waste
  • Tru Earth’s products are made with plant-based and biodegradable ingredients, making them more eco-friendly.
  • Their products are convenient and easy to use, making them a great option for busy households.

Cons

  • Tru Earth’s product range may not meet all of a customer’s cleaning needs, as they specialize in laundry products.

Dropps

Source: Amazon review by Conscientious Shopper

As another company that specializes in eco-friendly cleaning products, Dropps offers laundry and dishwasher detergent pods made from natural, plant-based ingredients, which are gentle on clothes and dishes, yet tough on stains and grime. The ingredients in Dropps products are up to 60% bio-based, with their major plant-derived ingredient being glycerin. 

These products are delivered in recycled and compostable cardboard packaging, and the pods themselves are made of a plastic-free, polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) film, which is designed to dissolve upon contact with water so there’s no need to worry about plastic waste. 

Dropps also offers non-toxic hand soap, dish spray, and a revitalizing air and fabric freshener, all of which come in a refillable, recyclable glass container – just order some dissolvable refill pods, drop them in some water and you’re good to go! Glass is also infinitely recyclable, which helps reduce waste and the need for single-use plastic packaging.

Pros

  • Compostable packaging is made from plant-based materials which reduces plastic waste
  • Dropps uses natural, plant- and mineral-based ingredients that are non-toxic in their products.
  • Their hand soap, dish spray, and air and fabric freshener come in refillable, recyclable glass containers

Cons

  • We noticed that the detergent pods may not fully dissolve in shorter cycles

Cleancult

Source: Amazon review by AnitaAZ

Cleancult is a company that offers a range of cleaning products that are designed to be eco-friendly while remaining effective, including laundry detergent, all-purpose cleaner, dish soap, and hand soap. We love their refillable containers, which are glass with a shatterproof silicone sleeve. When you run out of a product, you can simply order a refill (which comes in a recycled, paper-based carton) and reuse the same container. 

In addition to their refillable containers, Cleancult’s cleaning products are also formulated with climate-neutral, non-toxic ingredients that are safe for your family and the environment. All of their products are made without any phthalates, phosphates, petroleum-based ingredients, dyes, SLS, or SLES.

Pros

  • Cleancult’s refillable containers and refill system are eco-friendly and reduce waste
  • The glass containers with shatterproof silicone sleeves are durable and long-lasting
  • The use of climate-neutral, non-toxic ingredients makes their cleaning products safe for both human health and the environment
  • Arrives in recycled shipping packaging

Con

  • The refillable system may not be as convenient for some customers who prefer to just buy a new product when it runs out. However, it helps reduce the amount of product packaging required.

Meliora

Source: Amazon review by Christopher Podlewski 

With their biodegradable and recyclable packaging, Meliora has prevented over 1 million plastic bottles from ever existing. They offer dish soap, hand soap, and laundry detergent, which are all vegan-friendly, dye-free, preservative-free, brightener-free, and synthetic fragrance-free.

Meliora’s commitment to ethical business practices extends beyond their product formulations and packaging. They also prioritize transparency and disclose all of their ingredients on their website. Their products are made with natural, plant-based ingredients that are free from harmful chemicals like phthalates and parabens.

Pros

  • Their commitment to sustainability includes biodegradable and recyclable packaging that reduces plastic waste
  • Transparency about their ingredients allows consumers to make informed decisions
  • Great for those with sensitive skin and allergies. 
  • We also love the way their scented products smell

Con

  • Limited product range with only dish soap, hand soap, and laundry detergent available means they may not meet all of a customer’s cleaning needs

The Unscented Company

Source: The Unscented Company on Amazon

The Unscented Company is a brand that strives to reduce the use of single-use plastics. Their range of household cleaning products, laundry detergent, and personal hygiene products are packaged in biodegradable materials, which eliminates single-use plastic. Instead of selling individual portions of these products, they sell refill boxes which allow you to use any non-plastic container that you have on hand. Each box saves two to eight plastic bottles from ending up in a landfill.

Furthermore, the entire product line of The Unscented Company is, as the name suggests, free of any fragrance chemicals. Fragrance ingredients can sometimes irritate sensitive skin, so people with skin sensitive to those additives who choose The Unscented Company can be confident their products won’t cause redness, itchy skin, or hives. With their biodegradable packaging and bulk products, The Unscented Company is an excellent choice for anyone who wants to keep their home clean while practicing eco-friendliness.

Pros:

  • The brand is committed to reducing plastic waste by using of biodegradable packaging
  • Refills come in large quantities, which will last you a long time

Cons:

  • While the feedback is positive, this brand has fewer reviews than any other on this list
  • Lack of transparency in the ingredient list

Top Picks for Plastic-Free Household Cleaning Products

Here are our top picks broken down by a few categories:

Widest Range of Products – Dropps

Dropps can be the one-stop shop for most of your eco-friendly cleaning supplies. With a wide range of laundry and household cleaning products, Dropps has you covered no matter the job you need to get done.

Most Environmentally Friendly – Meliora

Meliora is a Certified B Corporation that is committed to creating products that are healthy for people and the planet. All their products are cruelty-free, MADE SAFE Certified, and they have received an A from the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Using Meliora products will keep your conscience, and your home, clean.

Best Overall – Dropps

Dropps not only offers the widest range of products on this list, but we believe they also offer the highest quality while still being much more environmentally friendly than any of the big store names. On top of their plant-based and non-toxic ingredients, they deliver their products in biodegradable and recycled packaging.

A Complete Guide On How to Reduce Plastic Usage at Home

Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. With approximately 400 million tons of plastic waste generated globally each year, the impact of this waste is far-reaching and devastating, affecting our ecosystems, wildlife, and human health. 

While plastic seems to be everywhere in our modern lives, many of us are taking concrete steps to reduce the amount of plastic we use day to day. In this article, we will discuss effective strategies to reduce plastic usage at home and encourage sustainable living practices that benefit our lives and the environment.

Why Is it Important to Reduce Plastic Usage at Home?

Reducing plastic usage at home can bring numerous environmental and personal health benefits.

By reducing our plastic usage, we decrease the demand for it. This, in turn, can result in a significant reduction in plastic production, leading to less plastic waste generated that would otherwise end up in our oceans and landfills. Plastic waste takes centuries to decompose in landfills, releasing harmful chemicals into the environment during the decomposition process. Plastic waste that ends up in the oceans poses a threat to marine life and ecosystems, and it can even find its way to our food chain. Therefore, reducing our plastic usage is essential to safeguarding the health and biodiversity of our planet.

Secondly, minimizing plastic usage at home can have a significant impact on mitigating carbon emissions. The use of plastic products is directly linked to the production of plastic, which requires a substantial amount of fossil fuels and energy, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The more households rely on plastic products, the higher the demand, and the greater the environmental impact. By reducing plastic usage at home and switching to sustainable alternatives, we can help to lower the demand for plastic production and, consequently, reduce our carbon footprint. These changes can go a long way in conserving natural resources and protecting the planet’s delicate ecosystems.

Lastly, reducing plastic consumption and switching to sustainable alternatives can have a positive impact on personal health. Plastic products are known to contain harmful chemicals such as BPA and phthalates, which can leach into food and beverages, increasing the risk of health complications. By replacing plastic products with safer alternatives such as glass or stainless steel water bottles and containers, we can significantly reduce our exposure to these harmful chemicals. Making the switch away from plastic food and beverage containers can promote personal health and well-being while also contributing to a more sustainable lifestyle.

How to Reduce Plastic Usage at Home

To reduce plastic usage and create a more sustainable home, there are a few simple steps you can take. Here are some actionable tips to help you get started on making your home plastic-free.

Assessing Current Plastic Usage

One of the crucial first steps toward reducing plastic usage in your household is to assess your current usage. This involves identifying the common areas where plastic is used, such as food storage, cleaning products, and personal care. Once you have identified these areas, quantify your plastic usage in each of them, including the type and amount of plastic products you use. This information will help you determine which areas can be reduced or eliminated completely. For example, you may realize that you use a lot of single-use plastic bags or water bottles, which can be replaced with reusable alternatives. By taking the time to assess your plastic usage, you can make informed decisions and take concrete steps toward reducing your plastic footprint.

Implementing Plastic Reduction Strategies

Once you have assessed your current plastic usage, the next step is to implement effective plastic reduction strategies. Here are some recommendations on how you can reduce your plastic usage in different areas of your home. 

Kitchen

  • Bring your own reusable shopping bags to the grocery store and bulk food store to avoid using plastic bags and containers.
  • Purchase products that have minimal plastic packaging. For instance, you can choose to buy loose fruits and vegetables or those wrapped in paper. Additionally, you can use a reusable produce bag, which can serve as a storage solution for your fresh goods in the kitchen.
  • Use plastic-free refillable water bottles instead of buying disposable bottled water.
  • Use plastic-free alternatives in your kitchen, such as silicone baking mats or parchment paper instead of disposable baking sheets. Opt for stainless steel or glass food containers instead of plastic ones to further reduce your plastic usage.
  • If you’re a coffee lover, consider switching to a reusable coffee filter instead of disposable ones, or opt for plastic-free coffee pods instead of the regular ones made from single-use plastic.

Bathroom:

  • Choose personal care and beauty products that come in glass, metal, or paper packaging instead of plastic. You can also use plastic-free personal care items like bamboo toothbrushes and paper-based cotton swabs.
  • Use a metal safety razor instead of disposable plastic razors.
  • Buy plastic-free cleaning products or you can make your own DIY cleaning products using natural ingredients, and store them in glass containers.

Bedroom:

  • Use natural fiber bedding and clothing, such as cotton, bamboo, or linen, instead of synthetic fabrics that shed microplastics.
  • Avoid using single-use plastic packaging when buying products online, or consider purchasing items in bulk orders to minimize plastic packaging waste.
  • Use a reusable shopping bag when buying clothes or other bedroom items.

Living room:

  • Choose furniture made from natural materials, such as wood or bamboo, instead of plastic or synthetic materials.
  • Consider choosing home appliances that are free from plastic whenever possible and available.
  • Use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones.
  • Choose books, magazines, and other reading materials made from paper instead of plastic-coated or laminated materials.

Another way to reduce plastic waste at home is recycling, one of the most important steps in minimizing plastic waste. You can start by separating plastic items from other waste materials and disposing of them in designated recycling bins. Check with your local recycling center to get instructions on how to sort your plastics, as some cities have specific rules about what types of plastic can be recycled.

Repurposing old home items into new useful things is another way to reduce plastic usage. For example, you can upcycle old plastic containers into a plant pot in your garden or use old plastic bottles as bird feeders. Additionally, consider composting food waste instead of throwing it in the trash, as this can help reduce the amount of plastic waste in landfills.

For more tips on reducing plastic usage at home, read: 25 Easy Ways to Reduce Your Plastic Use

Maintaining Plastic Reduction Habits

Once you’ve begun making efforts to reduce plastic, it’s important to actually keep up the habit – something that’s often easier said than done. To overcome obstacles, remind yourself of the benefits of reducing plastic consumption, such as reducing waste and preserving the planet’s natural resources. 

One way to encourage others in the household to adopt plastic-reduction practices is to lead by example. Show them how to recycle properly, reduce plastic packaging waste, and use reusable containers. You can also engage in educational activities such as watching documentaries about the effects of plastic on the environment. 

Celebrating successes and progress can also be a helpful motivator. Keep track of your plastic-reduction efforts, and take time to acknowledge and celebrate the small changes you make along the way. Ultimately, maintaining plastic reduction habits is a collective effort that requires the cooperation and dedication of all members of the household.

Final Thoughts

Cutting back on plastic usage at home is an essential measure in creating a sustainable future and safeguarding our planet. By evaluating our current plastic usage, adopting practical strategies for reducing plastic, and keeping up with these habits, we can make a substantial difference in reducing our ecological footprint, preserving natural resources, and enhancing our personal health and well-being. 

Though the journey towards a plastic-free household may appear overwhelming, it’s crucial to keep in mind that every small adjustment is valuable. By implementing these straightforward changes, we can make a meaningful impact from our homes that could help to establish a better world for generations to come.

Microbes discovered that can digest plastics at low temperatures

Microbes that can digest plastics at low temperatures have been discovered by scientists in the Alps and the Arctic, which could be a valuable tool in recycling.

Many microorganisms that can do this have already been found, but they can usually only work at temperatures above 30C (86F). This means that using them in industrial practice is prohibitively expensive because of the heating required. It also means using them is not carbon neutral.

Scientists from the Swiss Federal Institute WSL have found microbes that can do this at 15C, which could lead to a breakthrough in microbial recycling. Their findings have been published in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology.

Dr Joel Rüthi from WSL and colleagues sampled 19 strains of bacteria and 15 of fungi growing on free-lying or intentionally buried plastic kept in the ground for one year in Greenland, Svalbard and Switzerland. They let the microbes grow as single-strain cultures in the laboratory in darkness at 15C and tested them to see if they could digest different types of plastic.

The results showed that the bacterial strains belonged to 13 genera in the phyla actinobacteria and proteobacteria, and the fungi to 10 genera in the phyla ascomycota and mucoromycota.

The plastics tested included non-biodegradable polyethylene (PE) and the biodegradable polyester-polyurethane (PUR) as well as two commercially available biodegradable mixtures of polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) and polylactic acid (PLA).

None of the strains were able to digest PE, even after 126 days of incubation on these plastics. But 19 strains (56%), including 11 fungi and eight bacteria, were able to digest PUR at 15C, while 14 fungi and three bacteria were able to digest the plastic mixtures of PBAT and PLA.

Rüthi said: “Here we show that novel microbial taxa obtained from the ‘plastisphere’ of alpine and arctic soils were able to break down biodegradable plastics at 15C. These organisms could help to reduce the costs and environmental burden of an enzymatic recycling process for plastic.”

He said it was surprising that a large fraction of the tested strains were able to degrade at least one of the tested plastics.

The scientists also tested for the best performers and found that they were two uncharacterised fungal species in the genera neodevriesia and lachnellula, which could digest all of the tested plastics except PE.

While plastics have only been in wide use since the 1950s, microbes can degrade polymers because they resemble some structures found in plant cells.

skip past newsletter promotion

Dr Beat Frey, one of the study authors, explained: “Microbes have been shown to produce a wide variety of polymer-degrading enzymes involved in the breakdown of plant cell walls. In particular, plant-pathogenic fungi are often reported to biodegrade polyesters, because of their ability to produce cutinases, which target plastic polymers due their resemblance to the plant polymer cutin.”

The scientists only tested the microbes at one temperature, so have not yet found the best one to use. Nevertheless, they say it works well between 4C and 20C.

Frey said: “The next big challenge will be to identify the plastic-degrading enzymes produced by the microbial strains and to optimise the process to obtain large amounts of proteins. In addition, further modification of the enzymes might be needed to optimise properties such as protein stability.”

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.”

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.

Recycling plants release microplastics into wastewater

An unsettling report released barely a year ago painted a grim picture of the plastics industry—only about 5 percent of the 46 million annual tons of plastic waste in the US makes it to recycling facilities. The number is even more depressing after realizing that is roughly half of experts’ previous estimates. But if all that wasn’t enough, new information throws a heaping handful of salt on the wound: of the plastic that does make it to recycling, a lot of it is still released into the world as potentially toxic microplastics.

According to the pilot study recently published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances focused on a single, modern facility, recycling plants’ wastewater contains a staggering number of microplastic particles. And as Wired explained on Friday, all those possibly toxic particulates have to go somewhere, i.e. potentially city water systems, or the larger environment.

The survey focusing on one new, unnamed facility examined its entire recycling process. This involves sorting, shredding, and melting plastics down into pellets. During those phases of recycling, however, the plastic waste is washed multiple times, which subsequently sheds particles smaller than 5 millimeters along the way. Despite factoring in the plant’s state-of-the-art filtration system designed to capture particulates as tiny as 50 microns, the facility still produced as many as 75 billion particles per cubic meter of wastewater.

[Related: How companies greenwash their plastic pollution.]

The silver lining here is that without the filtration systems, it could be much worse. Researchers estimated facilities that utilized filters cut down their microplastic residuals from 6.5 million pounds to around 3 million pounds per year. Unfortunately, many recycling locations aren’t as equipped as the modern plant used within the study. On top of that, the team only focused on microplastics as small as 1.6 microns; particles can get so small they actually enter organisms’ individual cells. This implies much more plastic escapes these facilities than previously anticipated.

“I really don’t want it to suggest to people that we shouldn’t recycle, and to give it a completely negative reputation,” Erina Brown, a plastics scientist at the University of Strathclyde, told Wired. “What it really highlights is that we just really need to consider the impacts of the solutions.”

Most experts agree that the most important way to minimize coating the entire planet in microplastics is to focus on the larger issue—reducing society’s reliance on plastics in general, and pursuing alternative materials. In the meantime, recycling remains an important part of sustainability, as long as both facilities do everything they can to minimize microscopic waste.