Plastics and Toxicity Scan - Chemistry Industry Association of Canada

The presence of plastic in the environment has sparked discussion amongst scientists, regulators and the general public as to how industrialization and consumerism is shaping our world. Here we discuss restrictions on the intentional use of primary microplastics: small solid polymer particles in applications ranging from agriculture to cosmetics. Microplastic hazards are uncertain, and actions are not similarly prioritized by all actors. In some instances, replacement is technically simple and easily justified, but in others substitutions may come with more uncertainty, performance questions and costs. Scientific impact assessment of primary microplastics compared to their alternatives relies on a number of factors, such as microplastic harm, existence of replacement materials and the quality, cost and hazards of alternative materials. Regulations need a precise focus and must be enforceable by these measurements. Policymakers must carefully evaluate under which contexts incentives to replace certain microplastics can stimulate innovation of new, more competitive and environmentally conscious materials.

Quote: However, while there are a number of ways to use governance to reduce or shift plastic consumption, use, and disposal practices, for the case of microplastics, it is not clear to us if technical bans are the route to significant reductions of microplastics in the environment. In our view, a major part of the issue can and must be prevented by proper (macroplastic) waste collection, ideally as part of the transition towards a circular economy. (pg. 7)

This article explores five commonly held perceptions that do not correspond with current scientific knowledge surrounding the environmental impacts of single-use plastic. These misperceptions include: (1) plastic packaging is the largest contributor to the environmental impact of a product; (2) plastic has the most environmental impact of all packaging materials; (3) reusable products are always better than single-use plastics; (4) recycling and composting should be the highest priority; (5) “zero waste” efforts that eliminate single-use plastics minimize the environmental impacts of an event. This paper highlights the need for environmental scientists and engineers to put the complex environmental challenges of plastic waste into better context, integrating a holistic, life cycle perspective into research efforts and discussions that shape public policy.

Quote: Improved recycling, circular economy, and zero waste events are necessary steps toward sustainability. Efforts to reduce plastic waste through circular economy principles are part of a suite of interventions to help initiate broader conversations to create a more informed public and leverage public interest in single-use plastic reduction for greater environmental improvement and reduced overall consumption.

Abstract: Governments around the world are introducing single-use plastics bans to alleviate plastic marine pollution. This paper investigates whether banning single-use plastic items is an appropriate strategy to protect the environment. Product life cycle assessment was conducted for single-use plastic and single-use non-plastic alternatives. The life cycle impacts of the two product categories were compared and scaled according to EU consumption of 2016. The results show that a single-use plastics ban would decrease plastic marine pollution in the EU by 5.5% which equates to a 0.06% decrease globally. However, such a ban would increase emissions contributing to marine aquatic toxicity in the EU by 1.4%. This paper concludes that single-use items are harmful to the environment regardless of their material. Therefore, banning or imposing a premium price on single-use items in general and not only single-use plastic items is a more effective method of reducing consumption and thereby pollution. The plastics ban only leads to a small reduction of global plastic marine pollution and thus provides only a partial solution to the problem it intends to solve.

Quote: Alternatives to a single-use plastics ban exist, such as banning or imposing a premium price on single-use items regardless of their material composition, to reduce consumption and thereby pollution. Another promising strategy to reduce plastic marine pollution is to refrain from plastic waste exports into countries with high rates of mismanaged waste. An improvement of the single-use plastics ban would be a stronger emphasis on awareness raising to avoid inappropriate disposal in the EU and a requirement for paper and wood products to be certified to come from sustainable forestry sources. (pg. 14)

Food packaging is an important industrial sector that has great influence on food loss and waste. The search of optimal conditions to minimize the negative impacts of food packaging on the environment must promote the selection of the best available packages. This work has evaluated the environmental impact of the distribution of fruit and vegetables in the Spanish peninsular context using reusable plastic crates and single-use cardboard boxes. Discussion and decision at each phase and step of the methodology were provided, being an example to follow for similar studies in the future. For the analysis, five different impact categories were considered: global warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, ozone depletion potential and photochemical oxidant creation potential. In addition, energy and water consumption were taken into account. According to the results of the analysis, the use of reusable plastic crates should be selected, since the values of all impact categories and energy consumption indicators were higher in the case of single-use cardboard boxes. The sensitivity analysis revealed a robust preference for plastic crates in comparison with cardboard boxes even in alternative scenarios, and only the hypothetic reduction of the quality of the cardboard resulted in significant lower impacts for cardboard boxes in comparison to plastic crates in photochemical oxidant creation potential, acidification potential, and energy consumption. This work demonstrates that plastic packaging should not be totally excluded or banned, since it can be the most environmentally friendly option in certain applications.

Quote: The results showed that reusable plastic crates implied significantly lower environmental impacts than the single-use cardboard boxes. (pg. 12) Therefore, we advocate for a case by case analysis of the appropriateness of using plastics for packaging, acknowledging the situations in which it will be the preferred option over other materials, but also identifying those supply chains in which its use multiples the environmental burdens that may arise. (pg. 14)

Plastics have been on top of the political agenda in Europe and across the world to reduce plastic leakage and pollution. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted plastic reduction policies at the regional and national levels and induced significant changes in plastic waste management with potential for negative impacts in the environment and human health. This paper provides an overview of plastic policies and discusses the readjustments of these policies during the COVID-19 pandemic along with their potential environmental implications. The sudden increase in plastic waste and composition due to the COVID-19 pandemic underlines the crucial need to reinforce plastic reduction policies (and to implement them into action without delays), to scale up in innovation for sustainable and green plastics solutions, and to develop dynamic and responsive waste management systems immediately. Policy recommendations and future research directions are discussed.

Quote: The replacement of the plastics value chain from fuel-based raw materials and energy is already being prioritised as part of international agreements to entail a green and circular economy. Such transition and the decoupling from fossil fuel-based resources needs to be prioritised in a shorter-term, by developing a more supportive legislative landscape and a clear direction. (pg. 5) During COVID-19, the use of SUPs and PPE increased significantly; thus, the need of rethinking and redesigning plastics (i.e., development of eco-friendly and bio-based solutions at an affordable price), along with the improvement of recycling streams to ensure proper end-of-life for those products (during pandemic scenarios), should be at the highest priority. (pg. 6)

Mismanaged plastic waste poses a complex threat to the environments that it contaminates, generating considerable concern from academia, industry, politicians, and the general public. This concern has driven global action that presents a unique opportunity for widespread environmental engagement beyond the immediate problem of the persistence of plastic in the environment. But for such an opportunity to be realized, it is vital that the realities of plastic waste are not misrepresented or exaggerated. Hotspots of plastic pollution, which are often international in their source, present complex environmental problems in certain parts of the world. Here we argue, however, that the current discourse on plastic waste overshadows greater threats to the environment and society at a global scale. Antiplastic sentiments have been exploited by politicians and industry, where reducing consumers' plastic footprints are often confused by the seldom‐challenged veil of environmental consumerism, or “greenwashing.” Plastic is integral to much of modern day life, and regularly represents the greener facilitator of society's consumption. We conclude that it is the product, not the polymer that is driving the issue of plastic waste. Contemporary consumption and disposal practices are the root of much of the anthropogenic waste in the environment, plastic, or not. Effective environmental action to minimize plastic in the environment should be motivated by changes in consumption practices, policies, and product design, and should be informed by objective science and legislation.

Quote: there has also been a huge public worry and a “dash from plastic” that is partly driven by scientific findings that are inconclusive at best. It is therefore vital that academic research and policy do not undermine this unique opportunity to exploit further positive environmental progress. (pg. 8)

“Breaking the Plastic Wave” follows two reports from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation that established the vision of a circular economy, aimed at eliminating waste and encouraging the continual use of resources by reusing, redesigning, and recycling. This concept has garnered unprecedented support across the global plastics system. By highlighting the systemic link between better plastic design, reuse, improved recycling economics, and increased collection incentives, these reports provided a central theme for the challenge addressed in “Breaking the Plastic Wave”: how to apply the concept of a circular economy-along with increased reduction and substitution of plastics, and better waste management-in a way that urgently addresses this serious environmental challenge.

Quote:
System intervention 3 Design products and packaging for recycling to expand the share of economically recyclable plastic from an estimated 21 per cent to 54 per cent by 2040
System intervention 5 Double mechanical recycling capacity globally to 86 million metric tons per year by 2040