Plastics and Health: Preventing False Solutions

As the plastic crisis grows, the petrochemical industry is promoting “so-called chemical recycling” (also called “advanced recycling” by industry, molecular recycling, pyrolysis, or gasification) as a solution to the crisis. These technologies are false solutions; they do not solve the problem but rather add to it. In practice, they convert plastics into fuel that is later burned, or use high heat to create new chemicals, fuels, or more plastics. These processes create significant air pollution and greenhouse gasses, and release toxic chemicals into the air and waste that can cause cancer and birth defects, damage the reproductive system, and lead to other serious health problems. 

• These technologies are not recycling. Investigations by EPA, GAIA and NRDC show that most US chemical recycling facilities are burning plastic, not making new plastic.
• They are financially risky. These facilities require massive public subsidies for construction and ongoing solvency. When they fail, they can leave taxpayers on the hook for cleanup.
• They endanger our health. These facilities produce hazardous waste, and emit toxic air emissions and greenhouse gases.
• Low-income and communities of color are the most impacted. The facilities are disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color exposing these populations to toxic emissions.
• They distract from real solutions. Relying on these toxic technologies allows plastic production to continue and even increase, despite the fact that plastic production is the cause of the problem.

Solutions that reduce the use of plastics, ensure transparency, eliminate toxic additives and promote safer solutions remains the only scientifically supported approach to solving the plastics crisis.

States can stop “chemical recycling” loopholes by adopting policies that:

1. Regulate pyrolysis, gasification, and other waste technologies as solid waste facilities. Attempts to reclassify “chemical recycling” facilities as manufacturing or classify plastic waste as “feedstock” rather than solid waste weakens environmental protections, undermines public oversight and grants access subsidies designed for manufacturing, not waste burning.
2. Accurately define recycling. Ensure that “chemical recycling” is not considered “recycling.”
3. Reject mass balance accounting. Mass balance allows companies to claim “recycled content” in plastic even when the final product contains zero recycled feedstock. This bookkeeping trick enables greenwashing, obscures real emissions and encourages expansion of chemical recycling facilities.  
4. Require full transparency. Any existing facilities should disclose chemicals used, emissions released and waste generated.

Mass balance accounting is the latest scheme the plastics industry is using to convince consumers that a plastic product comes from recycled materials, even though it is highly unlikely any recycled content is in the end product. Through practices that amount to little more than a shell game, virgin material is passed off as recycled through recycled “credits.” It also is a way for the plastics and chemical industry to encourage more “chemical recycling”.

The chemical and plastics lobby is pushing states to adopt recycled content mandates using mass balance accounting schemes and these attempts to enact  false solutions should be rejected.

Learn more about mass balance from our allies at NRDC.

While well-intentioned, minimum recycled content mandates can unintentionally increase toxic chemical exposures.

Plastic absorbs chemicals that it comes into contact with, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, and toxic additives from previous uses. A 2022 global study of recycled plastic pellets found hundreds of different hazardous chemicals. Another study found toxic flame retardants in black plastic, likely from electronics recycling, in food contact items..

States should avoid recycled content mandates especially for food and pharmaceutical packaging.

Bio- based, biodegradable, and compostable plastics are often marketed as environmentally friendly, but most do not solve the plastic or toxics crisis.

• They rarely break down in the real world.  Compostable plastics require industrial composting facilities to fully break down which are not widespread throughout the country.
• They still contain chemical additives. Biobased plastics often contain the same toxic additives (plasticizers, PFAS, bisphenols) found in petroleum plastics, and many contaminate compost.
• Most bioplastic production requires resources including pesticides and fertilizers and has sometimes led to the clear cutting of forests to establish farmland. While there are some new technologies using food waste, algae and mushrooms, these are still emerging and not to scale yet.