Greenpeace “forever toxic” report states plastics have no place in circular economy and urges bolder industry action

25 May 2023 --- Plastics are inherently incompatible with a circular economy, finds Greenpeace in its latest report. However, the American Chemistry Council has hit back, claiming the NGO’s proposal to eliminate instead of recycle plastics would disrupt supply chains and block sustainable development, which Greenpeace calls “deflecting blame.” 

Greenpeace notes that without reducing production, it will be impossible to end plastic pollution and eliminate the health threats from chemicals in plastics. The NGO demands that the global plastics treaty caps and reduces plastic production and establishes a pathway to end virgin plastic production. 

Joshua Baca, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council, argues that if Greenpeace had its way, modern life would be “dramatically different.” 

“People across the world, particularly in developing countries, would have less access to clean drinking water, safe food supplies, sanitary medical and personal care products and renewable energy,” he says.

Baca says if Greenpeace’s demands get enforced, people will have less access to clean drinking water and safe food supplies. Baca warns that the proposals in Greenpeace’s report would disrupt global supply chains, hinder sustainable development and substitute plastics with materials with a much higher carbon footprint in critical uses.

Greenpeace claps back at the accusations saying that the plastics industry must stop deflecting blame for the problems they have created and start taking action to address them. 

“This begins with supporting a plastics treaty that caps production, supports refill and reuse, protects communities and provides a just transition for workers in the industry,” John Hocevar, oceans director at Greenpeace USA, tells PackagingInsights.

“It is the height of hypocrisy for an industry that has no issue burning down the planet and poisoning the people who live on it to criticize efforts to save it. Plastics are made from the fossil fuels that are driving the climate crisis. If left unchecked, this will make our planet uninhabitable for human life,” he states.

Hocevar elaborates that plastic production, disposal and incineration facilities are most often located in low-income Black and Brown communities, which suffer from higher cancer rates, lung disease and adverse birth outcomes associated with their exposure to the toxic chemicals. “This is before we even consider health impacts on consumers.”

“Plastics exported under the guise of recycling, usually from high-income countries to the most vulnerable communities, mostly in low- and middle-income countries, are often dumped or burned, leading to environmental and food chain contamination. These countries are also on the front lines of the climate crisis,” he says. 

PackagingInsights has reached out to the American Chemistry Council for further commentary. 

Is the industry to blame?
In its report titled “Forever Toxic – The Science on Health Threats from Plastic Recycling,” Greenpeace identifies the plastic industry as the key obstacle to material reduction, including fossil fuel, petrochemical and consumer goods companies, which continue to put forward plastic recycling and recycled content as central solutions to the plastic pollution crisis.Plastic production, disposal and incineration facilities are most often located in low-income communities, says Hocevar (Image credit: Greenpeace).

The report details that globally, fewer than 10% of all plastics have been recycled. Greenpeace explains that this number leads governments and other players to promote higher recycling targets as the best way to resolve pollution. 

“The members of the US Plastics Pact lobby for the recycling and ‘circular use’ of plastics, are distracting attention from the need for massive reductions in global plastic production and shifting the burden of dealing with plastic waste away from themselves as the producers and onto the public,” stresses the report. 

It furthermore finds that many consumer goods companies, such as Nestlé, Unilever and Coca-Cola, tout the use of recycled plastic in their packaging as an important part of the solution while failing to achieve significant reductions of overall plastic use – and in some cases increasing plastic use – or meaningful gains in reuse. 

Greenpeace continues that most plastics collected for recycling are never recycled, “and when plastics are recycled, they contain a toxic cocktail of chemicals that makes them unfit for food-grade and other consumer uses. In fact, plastics are inherently incompatible with a circular economy.”

Recycling pathways 
The global NGO warns that dangerous chemicals make their way into recycled plastic materials from various sources. Since nearly all plastics are made from a combination of carbon and toxic chemicals, the most obvious pathway is direct contamination, as chemicals from the original plastic products transfer into recycled plastic.

But chemicals can also enter recycled plastics in other ways due to contamination in the plastic waste stream and the recycling process. Greenpeace identifies the three “uncontrollable poisonous pathways” of plastic recycling as:

1. Toxic chemicals in new virgin plastic materials: When plastics are made with toxic chemicals and then recycled, the toxic chemicals can transfer into recycled plastics. 

2. Leaching of toxic substances into plastic waste: Plastics can absorb contaminants through direct contact and the absorption of volatile compounds. When plastics are tainted by toxins in the waste stream and the environment and are then recycled, they produce recycled plastics that contain a stew of toxic chemicals. 

3. New toxic chemicals created by the recycling process: When plastics are heated in the recycling process, they can generate new toxic chemicals that make their way into the recycled plastics. 

Greenpeace identifies the plastics industry as the key obstacle to material reduction. Reduction, reuse and protection 
To ensure a more environmentally sustainable future, Greenpeace asserts that the global plastics treaty needs to shift its focus away from toxic plastic recycling and prioritize substantial reductions in plastic production, setting a clear path toward ending the production of virgin plastic altogether. 

It furthermore states that emphasizing the transition to refill- and reuse-based economies is essential. By promoting these practices, the treaty can stimulate the creation of new industries centered around reuse and generate employment opportunities. Moreover, it should support established zero-waste practices, setting standards that encourage sustainable consumption.

A just transition for workers across the plastics supply chain is imperative, it finds. Waste pickers responsible for collecting approximately 60% of the world’s recyclable plastic, should be prioritized. 

Meanwhile, the treaty must also advocate for adopting non-combustion technologies for plastic stockpiles and waste disposal. These alternative methods can minimize the release of harmful pollutants and contribute to a cleaner and safer environment.

Implementing the “polluter pays” principle is crucial for effective plastic waste management, notes Greenpeace. Holding responsible parties accountable for the costs associated with health and environmental impacts throughout the entire life cycle of plastics will encourage more sustainable practices and discourage harmful behaviors.

Strengthening regulations, oversight and safety measures for existing recycling facilities is of paramount importance. By significantly improving the standards in these facilities, the treaty can ensure the proper handling and processing of plastic waste, minimizing the risks posed to workers and the environment.

Finally, transparency regarding the chemicals used in plastics is necessary. The treaty should mandate the disclosure of information about these chemicals and strive to eliminate all toxic additives and substances used throughout the life cycle of plastics. This approach is said to help safeguard human health and prevent further environmental degradation.

By Natalie Schwertheim