EU proposal targets microplastic health hazards but scientist highlights “no credible evidence”

02 Sep 2022 --- The European Commission (EC) has released a long-awaited draft proposal on restricting intentionally-added microplastics from various packaging, cosmetics, sports pitches and other general materials. While environmental officials are cautiously celebrating and calling for more stringent guidelines, some polymer experts say the move has zero scientific basis.

The proposal contains 58 points relating to microplastic additives in a wide range of products. The overarching intention of the proposal is to create a harmonized European policy on phasing out plastic particles that will avoid the emergence of disparate national approaches – something that could threaten the Single Market. 

In 2019 the European Chemical Agency estimated that more than 42,000 metric tons of intentionally-present microplastics are eventually released into the environment every year. 

In a statement, the European Environment Bureau (EEB) described the proposal as a “relief,” adding that “It’s crucial that this draft becomes the strongest law possible if we are to stop microplastics pollution. It’s now up to member states to take on that responsibility.” 

“Intentionally-added microplastics are the most preventable source of microplastic pollution. One additional year without a restriction on microplastics could see levels of pollution equivalent to 1.6 billion plastic bottles released into the environment.”

Make-up items would be allowed up to 12 years to phase out microplastic content, according to the proposal.Fake news?
Despite the EEB’s perspective, the science surrounding microplastics and the threat they pose to human and environmental health is hazy. The draft proposal alludes to the “possibility” of danger emerging from plastic particle pollution, and notes the increasing public alarm at this potential. 

However, chemist and polymer scientist Dr. Chris DeArmitt, who heads US-based consultancy Phantom Plastics, tells PackagingInsights the statements made in the EC’s document are “fiction,” and asserts there is no credible evidence for the proposal’s claim that microplastic have a “devastating” effect. 

The proposal also notes that the ubiquitous presence of tiny fragments of synthetic or chemically-modified natural polymers, which are insoluble in water, degrade very slowly and can easily be ingested by living organisms, “raises concerns about their general impact on the environment and, potentially, on human health.”

“So, they are worried that [microplastics] don’t degrade and will accumulate when in fact we know that plastics degrade more rapidly than most materials we use and the smaller the particles are, the more rapidly they degrade. So the EU fear is unfounded,” DeArmitt responds. 

Industry response
Industry associations European Plastics Converters and Plastics Europe provided a statement on the draft proposal that takes note of their joint efforts to tackle microplastic pollution emerging from pellet loss through Operation Clean Sweep (OCS). 

“We take note of the recently published proposal for restriction of intentionally used microplastics and the reporting obligation to the European Chemicals Agency for industrial uses. In line with our commitment towards sustainable production, and ongoing action against pellet loss, we anticipated the EC’s proposal for mandatory annual pellet loss reporting.”

“Containment of production pellets is at the core of the plastic industry’s OCS program which is working towards zero pellet loss. In line with this commitment, Plastics Europe members and EuPC have developed methodologies and techniques to estimate pellet losses at pellet handling sites.”Dr. Chris DeArmitt says there is no evidence microplastics pose any risk to people or the planet.

“Under the OCS performance certification scheme that is set to launch later this year, OCS signatories will commence their audits early next year along with annual reporting obligations of estimated pellet losses to the environment.”

Not far enough? 
The EEB also voiced reservations about the stipulations made in the EC proposal, centrally that the suggested transition phase for banning microplastics is in many cases too long.

“Transition periods for companies to adapt to this new law would be exceedingly long according to this draft proposal – up to 12 years for some make-up items. That’s unacceptable. Reporting requirements for companies supplying microplastics used at industrial sites also need to be rock solid, which is not the case in the draft proposal,” it highlights. 

The proposal notes that make-up items like lip and nail “leave on” products, which often contain added synthetic polymers, are relatively low in concentration and can therefore acceptably take longer to phase out. The potentially damaging impact to the personal care industry is also taken into account. 

However, DeArmitt again dismisses the basis of the EEB’s concern and the need for any legislation on this matter in the first place. He cites several recent studies finding microplastics to cause no harm, including one on synthetic turf fields – the material containing the largest amount of added microplastics – that debunks the myth they cause cancer to adolescents. 

“Microparticles are everywhere. We call it dust. Plastics are 0.03% of dust and proven to be harmless. The rest of the dust includes 25% quartz, proven to cause cancer in humans as well as toxins like heavy metals, dead skin cells, bacteria, spores and much more. Even wood dust is known to cause cancer but no-one seems to mention it,” he says. 

The draft proposal will now be debated at the REACH Committee on September 23.

By Louis Gore-Langton