top of page

Posts List

Every day, we’re surrounded by plastic—it's in our homes, streets, and oceans. The global community has recognized the need for a change, and world leaders are coming together to finalize a groundbreaking treaty aimed at addressing plastic pollution. But reaching an agreement is proving to be more complicated than expected. Why the World Needs a Global Plastics Treaty Plastic pollution is not just about litter; it's a serious environmental, social justice and health threat. Most plastics are made from fossil fuels, and the production process contributes to climate change .  Paper from the Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research reveals that every increase in plastic production results in the same increase in plastic pollution ​. Another study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory warns that projected increases in plastic production could consume up to 26% of the world's remaining carbon budget​. That’s why in 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) launched negotiations to create a binding Global Plastics Treaty . The aim is to address plastic's full lifecycle—from production to disposal. Key Priorities in the Treaty The treaty negotiations focus on several crucial areas: Reducing Plastic Production : Many countries and environmental groups are pushing for limits on how much plastic can be produced. The goal is to cap and then phase down plastic production, but not all countries agree. Chemicals in Plastic : Plastics contain thousands of harmful chemicals , some of which do not break down during any form of recycling, making them dangerous for both people and the environment. The treaty aims to ban or limit these toxic substances. Product Design and Waste Management : Improving how plastic products are designed can make them easier to recycle and reduce the amount of waste they generate. More effective waste management is another goal​. Microplastics : Tiny plastic particles, known as micro or nano plastics, have been found in the ocean, soil, food and water, and every part of our bodies. Tackling this invisible form of pollution is another priority for the treaty. Support for Affected Communities : Indigenous communities and those living near plastic production sites are often hit hardest by pollution. For example, Canada’s Aamjiwnaang First Nation (image above) suffers health issues due to emissions from nearby plastic facilities. The treaty seeks to support these communities and ensure a " Just Transition " for workers in industries dependent on plastic. Challenges and Industry Opposition Countries like France and Denmark have been champions of reducing plastic production, but they face opposition from nations with large petrochemical industries, like Saudi Arabia. At the most recent meeting in Ottawa, nearly 200 representatives from the fossil fuel and chemical industries showed up to lobby against measures that would limit plastic production. The debate has split countries into those pushing for stronger measures and those opposing restrictions on production. Civil society groups and environmental advocates are working hard to ensure that the treaty includes strict production limits. Meanwhile, over 30 countries have signed the " Bridge to Busan " declaration, which calls for a strong commitment to cutting plastic production. Getting more countries on board is an urgent priority. What’s Next? The final round of negotiations is set for Busan, Korea, starting end of November. This will be the last chance to shape the treaty before it becomes legally binding. The stakes are high—if countries can agree on strong measures, it could drastically reduce the world’s plastic footprint and protect the environment for future generations. However, disagreements remain, and if these issues aren't resolved, some fear that the treaty could be weakened or delayed. On the other hand, there’s hope that countries committed to change will push through a strong agreement, even if it means some nations don’t sign on immediately. Why It Matters This treaty has been compared to the Paris Climate Agreement because of its potential to reshape industries and protect the planet. But unlike climate change, plastic pollution is something we all see and interact with daily. The food we buy, the packaging we throw away—all of it contributes to the growing problem. That’s why it’s crucial to stay informed and support global efforts to reduce plastic pollution. In the end, this treaty isn’t just about governments—it’s about all of us. By pushing for change , we can ensure a healthier, plastic-free future. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Contact details for UK delegates here Thanks also to: Dialogue Earth: Plastics Treaty’s Penultimate Talks: Five Takeaways ​ The UN Global Plastics Treaty: INC5 and opportunities ahead Images GPT INC2 Greenpeace projection - Image by Greenpeace Tokyo  (ST ref: 1324) Canada’s Aamjiwnaang First Nation Intervention - Image by CIEL (ST ref: 1325) Coca Cola Bottle Waste - Image by  John Cameron (ST ref: 1224) Girl holding plastic recycling - Image by Wayhomestudio (ST ref: 1230)

The Global Fight Against Plastic Pollution

Every day, we’re surrounded by plastic—it's in our homes, streets, and oceans. The global community has recognized the need for a change,...

Read More

Legislation

In April 2024, Coca-Cola, the largest beverage manufacturer in the world, launched an eye-catching campaign titled ‘ Recycle Me ’ in Latin America showing aluminium coke cans, (as opposed to their plastic bottles) being recycled. The manufacturer, which aims to make all of its packaging 100% recyclable by 2025, is one of the many consumer businesses who have touted recycling as the solution to the plastics pollution crisis. The data , however, does not support this proposed solution, with less than 10% of the plastic produced making it to the recycling phase. Coca-Cola itself has failed to meet its recycling targets  year after year, gaining the notorious title of the worst plastic polluter in the world . The plastics industry also fails to highlight one of the most important drawbacks of this ‘circular use of plastic’ through recycling: reports  have shown plastic to be damaging for our health as it causes cancer, increases the risk of prematurity and stillbirth in children while also contributing to the spread of transmitted diseases like Malaria.  The Circular Use of Plastic:  A ‘circular economy’ is a sustainable model of production where products are kept in circulation within the market through recycling and reuse. Plastic, however, has been shown to be incompatible with this production system. Apart from doubts about plastic's recyclability , any toxic chemicals in its original composition can transfer onto the recycled plastics.  A report by Greenpeace, titled ‘Forever Toxic: The Science On Health Threats From Plastic Recycling ’, presents the three pathways through which dangerous chemicals enter recycled plastic.  Firstly, it found that some of the toxic chemicals in the material do not break down during the recycling process, and so are passed along to the recycled product.  Secondly, toxic chemicals enter the recycling chain through pathways such as pesticide containers and cleaning solvents. Plastic can absorb these chemicals, leading to contamination.  Finally, new toxic chemicals can be generated during the recycling process when the plastic is heated up. This also presents a great health risk for future consumers.  A  study  conducted on recycled plastic pellets secured from various regions in the Global South found high concentrations of 162 biocides in the samples, among other hazardous items that make the plastic unsuitable to be reused. Additionally, a 2022 report  produced by the Human Rights Watch detailed the adverse health problems faced by workers at recycling plants in Turkey. Workers developed health problems after inhaling toxic fumes and chemicals during the recycling process due to gases being released into the surrounding environment.  With recycled plastic products poisoning consumers , workers, as well as the environment, the benefits of the process have to be called into question over the potential harm it presents for human health and environment.  Are There Any Steps Being Taken?  Big plastic manufacturers strategically put the focus on recycling instead of cutting down on plastic production so that the onus of responsibility would fall on consumers. With the production of plastic waste set to almost triple by 2060 and around 9% recycled, it has become imperative for measures to be implemented that push industries to stop hiding behind recycling, and pledge to cut down on the production and usage of plastic altogether.  In 2022, UN member states adopted a resolution  which called for a legally binding global treaty. The resolution aimed to address the full lifecycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal. Vested interests vigorously oppose the inclusion of production. Some of those in favour are pushing for a 40% cut in production by 2040 and Greenpeace is advocating for 75% .   The Global Plastics Treaty is scheduled to be agreed this year and has been going through five stages of negotiation, the last of which should be completed in Busan, Korea in November. A strong successful treaty should achieve a drastic reduction in plastic production.   The aim is to move away from focussing on making plastic a part of everyday life, spend time and resources to recycle such materials, and eventually phase them out, so that future generations can have healthier plastic-free lives.     +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images man and girl with globe covered eyes - Image by ArtHouse Studio (ST ref: 1323) plastic bottles recycling - Image by Hans (ST ref: 1130) GPT INC2 Greenpeace projection - Image by Greenpeace Tokyo  (ST ref: 1324)

Forever Toxic: Health Threats From Plastic Recycling

In April 2024, Coca-Cola, the largest beverage manufacturer in the world, launched an eye-catching campaign titled ‘ Recycle Me ’ in...

Read More

Health

The average European drinks   118 litres of bottled water  each year,   97%  of which are in plastic bottles, a well-recognised source of pollution and environmental harm . However, many companies such as Danone , Nestle  and Buxton Water  promote their plastic bottles as environmentally friendly using claims related to recycling.  A 2023 report from the BEUC  * (The European Consumer Organisation) shows many such claims to be either vague, factually inaccurate or otherwise not substantiated. What kind of claims do companies make? Many plastic water bottle companies claim that their packaging is ‘100% recycled’ and/or ‘100% recyclable’. These statements suggest environmental sustainability. Amcor’s European consumer survey  highlights how environmental claims influence consumer choice. Therefore, the accuracy of such claims is important in allowing consumers to make informed purchases. 100% recycled An average consumer may reasonably assume that if a bottle is labelled as 100% recycled, it is made entirely from recycled materials. These materials should be previously used, collected, processed and remanufactured into a bottle. However, this is not true of plastic bottles. Only the main component of most plastic bottles, made from PET (polyethylene terephthalate), can initially be made from fully recycled plastic. After PET has been recycled a few times ‘virgin’ (i.e. unrecycled) plastic must be added to maintain product quality. This may include offcuts from the manufacturing process, which are often counted as ‘recycled’ content even though they rely on the production of more virgin plastic. This is not what many people would understand of the claim ‘made from 100% recycled material’.  Other components, such as the lid and label, cannot easily be made from recycled materials. There are also different methods used to allocate 'recycled content' to each bottle, sometimes meaning that individual bottles could actually contain little to no recycled content. When questioned by the BEUC, only a few companies could name certification schemes to verify how they allocate recycled content. 100% recyclable The term ‘100% recyclable’ is ambiguous with no universally agreed definition. It is reasonable to assume that recyclability should depend on both the nature of the material and the infrastructure in place to enable recycling. However, the materials which make up a plastic bottle are not always recyclable by these metrics, for example caps and labels. A Eunomia report commissioned by   Zero Waste Europe  shows how even the main PET component, which is a plastic that can be recycled, cannot be seen as fully recyclable as the infrastructure to collect bottles for recycling is not always available. Only 60%  of plastic bottles in Europe are collected for recycling. Plastic also gets lost during sorting, cleaning and remanufacturing. Lost plastic leaks into the environment, is incinerated or ends up in landfill.  In addition, the recycling process degrades plastic meaning that additional virgin plastic needs to be added to maintain quality. PET bottles cannot be infinitely recycled. Importantly only 31%  of the recycled plastic from PET bottles is used to make more bottles. The remainder is made into other PET plastic products or ‘downcycled’  to make different lower-grade plastic products which are difficult to recycle. Plastic bottle circularity Inaccurate claims of ‘100% recycled’ or ‘100% recyclable’ clearly mislead the consumer. These claims are often accompanied by circular or green imagery. This messaging promotes the false idea that bottles can be recycled again and again, bottle-to-bottle, neutralising the negative environmental impact. Bottled water producers engage in   greenwashing tactics . To sell their products, they make claims that lead the consumer to falsely believe they are making good environmental choices. This effectively deters consumers from real sustainable options, slowing down any green transition.  Legality of these environmental claims The BEUC report  argues that these environmental claims should fall under the scope of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). This EU legislation prohibits misleading actions and omissions in promotional claims and requires supporting evidence for any statements.  Plastic bottles harm the environment at every stage Even if bottles could be processed in the circular manner suggested, all plastic waste management, including recycling, harms the environment by generating pollution such as greenhouse gases. Ironically, the manufacturing and recycling processes uses vast amounts of a decreasing resource: water. The most sustainable way to consume water is not in single-use plastic bottles, but in refillable bottles from the tap wherever possible. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images Circular recycling plastic bottles - Image by  Clker-Free-Vector-Images (ST ref: 1322) plastic bottle - Image by pasja1000 (ST ref: 1127) Greenwashing one to ten - Image from sigmaearth.com (ST ref: 1295)  *The BEUC report was made with a non-governmental association of national consumer groups across Europe with technical expertise from ClientEarth  and ECOS .  Edited 6 Aug 2024

Misleading Recycling Claims: The Greenwashing Tactics of Bottled Water Companies

The average European drinks 118 litres of bottled water each year, 97% of which are in plastic bottles, a well-recognised source of...

Read More

Corporate

“If you really believe in something you can make it happen and it’s okay to make it up as you go along.”* Back in 2016, Dan Webb thought that plastic pollution happened in other parts of the world, not at home in the UK. Many of us thought the same way in the years before Blue Planet II , except that when Dan moved out of London to a coastal town and was really shocked to see how much plastic pollution there was on the beaches, he decided to do something about it. Inspiration He started to realise just how much packaging there was in the supermarket, the amount that he was bringing home and how much was thrown away.  Recycling was supposed to solve the plastic problem but clearly wasn’t working.  How much was he throwing away, was it all food and drink packaging from the supermarket? What was actually happening  to all of his plastic waste? This is where Dan’s story differs from most of ours.    He decided not to throw away a single piece of plastic waste for an entire year. Whether he was at home or at work, at the pub or the cinema, visiting family or on holiday, he made sure that none of the plastic waste he produced would be thrown away. No bottle tops, no inner soles from his shoes, no toothbrushes, no toothpaste packets…  Towards the end of the year there were 4,500 pieces of plastic in 22 bin bags piled in his spare room! It took four days with 20 volunteers to separate, count, categorise, photograph and weigh every single piece, covering the floor of a 2000 capacity music venue and he knew that he had a story to tell! Telling the story It was about this time that Blue Planet II  thrust plastic pollution into the limelight. Dan was able to tell his story to a wider audience, and the reaction made him realise that the sight of his own plastic footprint was much more relevant than the often quoted: ‘8 million tons of plastic entering the ocean every year, more plastic than fish in the sea by 2050.’ If this experiment had such a dramatic effect on his own thinking, by offering this experience to others, it would help them discover their own plastic footprint and galvanise and inform them. He started work on developing a project that would do just that. Birth of the Big Plastic Count Dan trialled the project with families, schools, businesses and community groups for almost two and a half years, some of it over Zoom during lockdown. The brief for the project was simple. All you had to do was count your plastic waste for just a week (not a year) and then submit your results online. That generates your plastic footprint.  At an individual level this helps people to connect to the Plastic problem, and  to understand it better. It provides them with the real data to help them understand and reduce their own plastic waste. Working with Greenpeace UK, the Big Plastic Count went national, and since 2022 472,000 people have taken part and they have counted 11 million pieces of plastic.   Plastic Free July That was how Everyday Plastic got started. If you have taken part in this year’s Big Plastic Count, or just want to make a change, then they suggest some simple things you can do to reduce your own plastic footprint  here . +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images Beach plastic UK - image by author albatross chick fed on plastic - image by  kris krüg (ST ref: 1316) screenshot from www.everydayplastic.org/ *Dan Webb, founder Everyday Plastic

A Story for Plastic Free July

“If you really believe in something you can make it happen and it’s okay to make it up as you go along.”* Back in 2016, Dan Webb thought...

Read More

Lifestyle

The WWF-UK reports that in the UK alone we use between 2.5 billion and 5 billion disposable coffee cups every year. The UK government published guidelines to ban single-use plastics in 2024, but this does not include hot drinks containers. As a response to the UK high street's continued use of single-use coffee cups, City to Sea  provide returnable cups. It was first launched in Bristol in 2016.  The single-use plastics campaigning charity provided returnable cups schemes for businesses, cafés, campuses, and even tourist hotspots. They partnered with providers such as circular&Co and Reuser in order to help fund the scheme. In 2016, City to Sea launched the world’s first (free with a returnable deposit for the cup) Refill  app to promote living with less plastic across Bristol. It shares refill locations for ‘water, coffee, food containers and plastic-free shopping’. The scheme was also launched in Bath. Their website has a blueprint for companies to implement their own Refill Return cup scheme. The Refill Return cup is an alternative to customers bringing their own refillable bottles or cups sometimes containing recycled plastic. Many people forget their cup at home, according to Perfect Daily Grind. Although two thirds of people report having a returnable cup, four in ten do not bring a cup when buying a hot drink. However, the Refill app includes reminders and promotions to keep customers motivated. The choice is to reuse their cup, or exchange it for a clean one.  To measure the cup's impact, City to Sea published a guide and ran several case studies at cafes, public venues and a university. Users paid a small extra fee for their cup, then gave them back to the shop when done. The cost is then refunded in exchange for the cup. For example, the University of Bath charged £3 for a returnable cup. The returnable cups were so popular that the only complaint was why the smoothie cups were not reusable. This promoted a circular plastics economy alongside the bring your own cup (BYOC) industry.  Personalised schemes  City to Sea advises venues to have a cup design that is not attractive enough for customers to want to keep. The Circular Return Cup can have a QR code or an RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chip to trace the cups' journey and return. At Blenheim House, a trial with RFID led to some success, but some users did not return them because they visited the venue once.  There are promotions and personalisation through the Refill app. Some venues offered free hot drinks for every purchase for employees and customers to encourage behaviour change. This change was one of the aims for the Circular Return Cup scheme. Many people think they are buying the cup, but it is really a loan. Other challenges include time lost downloading the app itself, baristas needing to explain the scheme and inputting card details.  Is it more ecological?  The main problem is that single-use coffee cups accumulate in landfill sites, beaches, riverbanks, or they need to be incinerated. Buying reusables has the potential to be as convenient as single-use, both for businesses and consumers. It raises the profile of reducing plastic waste. The City to Sea Refill guide (see ' Making Reuse a Reality ') includes advice for specific locations and a handy calculator to work out CO₂ savings.  Among other initiatives, including most recently World Refill Day , City to Sea recommends taking the following steps to encourage behaviour change: a first trial, returning the reusable cup and becoming a repeat customer. It is a small change to avoid more plastic waste polluting the environment.  +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Tags: WeChooseReuse, System change, Waste Images: Two People Holding Coffee Cups- Image from Senior Living (ST ref 1311) Woman holding refill return cup - Image by Refill (ST ref 1253)

The Future Is Returnable – A Circular Economy for Plastic Cups

The WWF-UK reports that in the UK alone we use between 2.5 billion and 5 billion disposable coffee cups every year. The UK government...

Read More

Lifestyle

Over the last few months, you might have noticed more news stories talking about forever chemicals. But you might not realise the true scale of the threat they pose to our planet – and your health.  PFAS, also known as ‘forever chemicals’, are a group of over 10,000 man-made chemicals used in many consumer goods. More and more evidence is showing a connection between PFAS and damage to the environment and human health. And PFAS are already everywhere: one recent study found evidence of forever chemical pollution at 17,000 sites in Europe alone.  What are PFAS? PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in a wide range of products. They are found in everyday items such as non-stick cookware, waterproof clothing, and food packaging. The chances that  you have nothing containing PFAS in your home are very low. PFAS are often called ‘forever chemicals’ because they persist for a long time in the environment and are difficult to break down. Once they are released into the environment, they will linger for years or even decades, contaminating soil, water, and wildlife. Because PFAS are resistant to natural degradation, they can accumulate in the environment over time. To make things worse, studies have found increasing levels of PFAS present in living organisms, including humans. What's the link between PFAS and single-use plastics? Due to their unique properties, PFAS are used at different life cycle stages of plastic products, including production and in products themselves . Their resistance to heat and water makes them useful for making products like non-stick pans, waterproof clothing, and food packaging. Many single-use plastics contain PFAS to make them more durable and water- and oil- repellent, including shopping bags, food containers, plastic cups, and disposable cutlery. However, when these products are discarded, they end up in landfills or oceans, where the PFAS can  migrate into the environment. Studies have shown that exposure to acidic or alkaline conditions can cause PFAS to leach out of plastic products, contaminating water sources and exposing plants and animals.  How can PFAS harm the environment and my health? Some PFAS have been shown to have a detrimental impact on both the environment and human health. These chemicals do not break down easily, and some can take over 1000 years to degrade . PFAS contaminate the food chain, and high levels have been found in the blood of humans and animals around the world. PFAS can be regarded as a threat to wildlife and may be contributing to the decline of some plant and animal species.  Scientists have linked some well studied PFAS to a variety of health problems, including cancer, liver damage, and immune system dysfunction . They can also affect reproductive health and development, and have been associated with decreased fertility and birth weight in humans. What can I do about PFAS? Firstly, there are a few easy steps you can take to reduce your exposure. Avoid using products that contain PFAS whenever possible. For example, you can look for alternatives to non-stick cookware and opt for natural fabrics instead of waterproof clothing. Choose glass or stainless steel containers instead of single-use plastics. If you do use plastic containers, make sure they are PFAS-free. The main uptake of PFAS for the general public is however  through food and water . Next, you might consider boycotting products and companies that use PFAS. Give your business to companies who don’t use forever chemicals in their products. Check here  for a list of retailers committed to phasing out PFAS. Finally, you can take action. Contact your local representative. Sign a petition  to demand greater regulation. Get involved with an environmental organisation near you. Your health and our shared environment need to be protected – so make sure your voice is heard today. For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk   With thanks to EEB (Christine Hermann) for support. Images:  Products that contain PFAS - graphic from NY State Dept of Health (ST ref: 1251) Reported effects of PFAS on humans - Image from  Environmental Sciences Europe (ST ref: 1250)

Plastics and Forever Chemicals: How PFAS Damage the Environment and Your Health

Over the last few months, you might have noticed more news stories talking about forever chemicals. But you might not realise the true...

Read More

Pollution

Environmental and economic arguments for reuse Too often conflated with recycling, reuse involves multiple circulations of reusable packaging , where outlets provide customers with packaging on a loan basis, before it is returned for cleaning and reuse. It is environmentally beneficial: plastic production is reduced overall when reuse systems are established. Reuse also makes economic sense, with the projected net benefit across Europe amounting to €1.8 trillion by 2030 .   For reuse to work, the ‘sustainability breakeven point’ is crucial, balancing the raw materials required for the container with the number of reuses necessary to make it environmentally better than its single-use equivalent. This isn’t a new concept – doorstep glass-bottled milk delivery is a familiar example . Despite the potential benefits of reuse, consumer packaging still comprises predominantly single-use plastics, with  36% of all solid waste stemming from single-use packaging.  As things stand, in Europe alone 14.38 million tons  of single-use beverage materials and 60 billion units  of packaging are consumed each year.  Other solutions, such as substituting existing materials with compostable packaging actually have worse environmental impacts,  and so reuse must now take centre-stage.  Successful reuse systems In the UK reuse is highly localised, usually occurring in individual households or single-businesses. In mainland Europe re-use is increasingly widespread. In citywide schemes such as that of Tubingen , Germany, the reuse strategy is a combination of subsidies, infrastructure, taxes and consumers’ rights to use reusable containers. In the Netherlands, disposables are now prohibited at festivals, and charges now apply for single-use packaging sold at certain venues such as train stations. Across Europe, suppliers of reusable packaging are now supplying leading food-delivery companies such as Just Eat, Deliveroo and Uber eats. While these examples highlight the potential for scaling-up re-use, achieving this requires changes to an infrastructure that is currently optimised for recycling. It is likely that the transition from single-use to reusable plastics would have high up-front costs, which would only be recouped up to three years after the transition. Businesses will also need to consider the impact on consumer behaviour. The future of reuse: regulation, accountability and technology One way to incentivise re-use is through regulation. When levies and taxes are accounted for, overall costs for reusable packaging are favourable. The United Nations Environment Assembly’s Global Plastics Treaty negotiations represent progress. At the May 2023 meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, reuse featured more prominently as a solution to plastics pollution in its options paper , with proposed obligations focusing on product design and  a “reduce, reuse and repair of plastic products” ethos – distinct from recycling.  In a step towards increased accountability the World Economic Forum (WEF) has led an initiative  to chart companies’ progress with reuse across their portfolios using agreed metrics. Likewise, Upstream’s ‘Chart Reuse’  analytics tool supports companies in evaluating their reuse progress and the Netherlands Institute of Sustainable Packaging has a way to calculate emissions connected to reuse processes, so a full environmental comparison with single-use plastics is feasible. Transnational companies such as Unilever and Coca-Cola now claim to set their own reuse targets, which the WEF says are working ‘in parallel’ with the European Union’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, which includes some mandatory measures. However, both have been heavily criticised by  Greenpeace  for lack of ambition and slow progress, suggesting that their PR campaigns are mostly greenwash . Celebrate World Refill Day While some businesses are slow to act, individuals can adopt reuse-friendly consumer habits now.   Refill’s mobile phone app  connects users to over 330,000 Refill stations globally, and promotes new, user-initiated reuse schemes, 420 of which are in the UK, with others in countries as far apart as Japan and Ecuador . Refill estimates that its 400,000 users have already avoided 100 million pieces of plastic being wasted.  World Refill Day is 16th June 2024, so why not download the Refill app  and join the campaign?! +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: Sustainability breakeven point - Table University of Portsmouth (ST ref: 1166) zero waste store by Wix (ST ref: 1304) greenpeace banner global plastics treaty  - Image by Greenpeace (ST ref: 1155) Refill App

Making Reuse a Reality: A systems approach to tackling single-use plastic pollution

Environmental and economic arguments for reuse Too often conflated with recycling, reuse involves multiple circulations of reusable...

Read More

Waste

It is not uncommon to see images or videos online of turtles trapped in plastic six-pack rings or with plastic straws stuck up their nose; however, whilst this is terribly damaging, it is not the only threat to marine life caused by plastic pollution. Other ways plastic can affect marine life are ingestion, biomagnification, bioaccumulation, habitat destruction and chemical pollution . Entanglement and Injury Any type of plastic in the ocean can lead to animal entanglement but plastics that are manufactured in loops are often the most dangerous. Plastic loops can easily become hooked around the limbs, body, neck and even in the mouth of marine animals . Prolonged entanglement can lead to severe pain in the long term for animals as it can cause ulceration and deep laceration of underlying soft tissues. For any air breathing animal, death can come a lot quicker when entangled as the plastic can inhibit their access to the surface leading to asphyxiation or drowning. Fishing gear is a leading component of ocean plastic, making up approximately 20% of all marine plastic  and is the largest identified cause of death due to human activity for minke and humpback whales in Scottish waters. Ingestion Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic less than 5 millimetres in size, and they are a growing environmental problem in the ocean. Microplastics are formed when plastics break down into small particles under the influence of many factors such as wind, currents and UV radiation . Due to their size, microplastics are very easily mistaken for food by animals such as fish, turtles, and birds. When ingested, microplastics can have a damaging effect on animals as it can reduce food intake, delay growth and cause oxidative damage .  Bioaccumulation Even life at the bottom of the food chain such as fish larvae and plankton ingest microplastics . Bioaccumulation is the increasing concentration of persistent, toxic substances in organisms at each level, from the bottom of the food chain to the top. These are substances that are fat soluble, not water soluble, and are stored in the fat reserves of each organism. Microplastics accumulate in animal fat and tissue as they move up the food chain and this leads to an increase in toxic chemicals absorbed by microplastics within marine animals. Not only are these toxic chemicals damaging to the health of animals, but they can then be transferred to humans via the consumption of animal products. Chemical Pollution Tel Aviv University found  that microplastics can absorb and concentrate toxic organic substances and increase their toxicity by a factor of 10 when in marine environments. During the manufacture of certain plastics, chemicals such as BPA and Phthalates can be added to the product . In general, microplastics act as a transport system for toxic chemicals through the food chain. They can attract and concentrate toxins. Once this plastic is in circulation these chemical additives can be released into aquatic systems. They are often harmful, sometimes deadly to marine life. Is it really such a problem? When disposed of incorrectly, plastic can become a huge problem for the ocean and marine life. Over 14 million tonnes of plastic end up in the ocean every year according to IUCN  – the equivalent of around 63,000 commercial aircraft. This colossal amount of plastic can affect marine life in the ways described above. It is estimated that ocean plastics kill roughly 100,000 marine mammals  every year. What is the Solution? Plastic litter generally originates from land and ends up in the ocean via wind, rain, boat littering, river littering as well as people’s behaviour on the beach .  Pollution from microplastics it is not new. Their size makes them incredibly difficult to clean up, and we have reached the point where no amount of money or technology can do more than skim the surface of the problem (literally in some cases). While we, as consumers, can reduce our single use plastic consumption, this will only go so far. This is why, despite the efforts of industry and consumer brands to dilute the outcome, the Global Plastic Treaty that is currently being negotiated must succeed in cutting the problem off at source and limit the production of plastics. We must lobby decision makers to Turn off the Tap on single use plastic. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: white and blue ocean waves - Photo by  Matt Paul Catalano (ST ref: 1313) turtle caught in a drift net - Image by Sébastien Stradal for MDC Seamarc Maldives (ST ref: 1190) school of fish in plastic - Photo by Naja Bertolt Jensen (ST ref: 1181) Impact of marine plastic in the microbial loop - Image by Frontiers in Marine Science (ST ref: 1203) Discarded plastic bottles - Image by mbeo (ST ref: 1299)`

How the Ocean Is Under Threat From Plastics Pollution

It is not uncommon to see images or videos online of turtles trapped in plastic six-pack rings or with plastic straws stuck up their...

Read More

Pollution

Microscopic plastic waste is now ubiquitous on earth. It’s found on the highest peaks of the Himalayas and at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. It’s sadly no surprise that we unknowingly inhale microscopic plastics in the air we breathe, perhaps thousands of tiny particles a day, the health effects of which are only just being realised. Exposure to these invisible nano-plastic particles by inhalation – some less than 1/100th of the width of a human hair – spreads them to every part of our bodies. Through our airways they can reach the deepest part of our lungs, pass into the bloodstream, and even be transferred to our children through the placenta and breastmilk. Scientists are only now beginning to understand the potential extent of the harm to human health these airborne micro and nano plastics are having on us all. A toxic cocktail A new report by the Centre for International Environmental Law, Breathing Plastic: the Health Impacts of Invisible Plastics in the Air,  has assessed the highly likely damage this toxic cocktail can have. Its authors warn of the potential to harm the reproductive, cardiovascular, immune, lymphatic, and vascular systems. While airborne microplastics research is in its infancy, studies on the frequent inhalation of micro and nanoparticles show that they can have immediate and long-term effects such as cancer after chronic exposure.  The ease with which the tiny particles are transported allows them to be inhaled into the lungs with immediate effects on the respiratory tract, including asthma-like reactions, bronchitis, and auto-immune diseases. From there they can enter the bloodstream to affect our internal organs as well as the brain, increasing the risk of neurological disorders such as ADHD.  There is also the potential to harm male and female fertility, as well as leading to worse birth outcomes for new-borns. Although the full effects of long term exposure on reproductivity are not yet known, more research is being urgently carried out over the next five years. Stopping it at source The exponential increase in plastic production has led to a ten-fold increase in plastic waste over the last 50 years.   This period of increase corresponds to a rise in microplastics in atmospheric studies. Micro and nano-plastics are created either as primary by-products from the production of agrochemicals and pharmaceuticals, or from the smaller fragmentation of larger plastic particles which have been broken down.  One study from 2020, for example, found atmospheric plastic was created after plastic in the sea is broken down and turned into a plastic sea spray. The ultimate source, however, of atmospheric plastic pollution is undeniably the unstoppable surge in global plastic production by the petrochemical industry which has fought off global regulation with legally-binding measures. The authors of the report warn that voluntary approaches at self-regulation of the industry have failed, as the inexorable rise of plastic production is expected to almost quadruple by 2050.  At the heart of this is the basic freedom to have clean air. Individuals can only do so much. HEPA filters can be used to recycle the air in the home, while the minimal use of plastics in food preparation, especially heating food in plastic containers, can reduce contamination to an extent. But these are a 'temporary bandage for a systemic problem' which require legally binding measures to curb the production of plastic, the authors conclude. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images:

Airborne Plastics: An Invisible Threat?

Microscopic plastic waste is now ubiquitous on earth. It’s found on the highest peaks of the Himalayas and at the bottom of the Pacific...

Read More

​

A recent study  by the University of Strathclyde reveals  that alarming amounts of microplastics are being produced by an unnamed plastics recycling plant in the UK. This discovery highlights a somewhat ironic dark side to an industry that many have touted as a sustainable solution to plastic pollution. New evidence raises concerns Researchers sampled the facility’s wastewater before and after the introduction of a filtration system. Before filtration, 13% of the plastic processed was being released into the water as microplastics. After filtration, it decreased to 6%—but this would still equal about 1,366 metric tonnes of microplastics annually. And the problem isn’t just in the water; the study also found high levels of microplastics in the air around the recycling plant. What are microplastics? Microplastics are tiny plastic particles up to 5mm in diameter (or 5000 microns), according to the UNEP definition . Microplastics can be categorised into two types: primary and secondary. Primary microplastic particles are manufactured intentionally at that size (e.g. cosmetic facial scrubs with microbeads), while secondary microplastics result from the breakdown of larger plastic items (e.g. water bottles, tyres, bags). In this particular University of Strathclyde study, more than 80% of the microplastic particles found in the (filtered) water at the facility were smaller than 5 microns (0.005mm), and more than 90% were smaller than 10 microns (0.01mm). Of the microplastic particles found in the air, more than 60% were smaller than 10 microns (0.01mm). Microplastics are considered a threat to the environment, wildlife, and potentially human health , as they have the capacity to build up within the food chain, release harmful substances, and concentrate and transport various chemicals, microorganisms, and pathogens. Why is this research worrying? Along with the direct harm that the microplastic pollution emitted by this individual recycling plant could cause to ecosystems, this important research brings up a host of questions and concerns about the broader implications of the global plastic recycling industry. The unnamed facility represents a 'best case scenario ,' according to lead researcher Erina Brown. The plant is considered state-of-the-art, and the presence of a water filtration system at all may make it one of the least pollutive facilities of its kind. Plus, this study had limitations on the size of plastic particles it could investigate, so the researchers assume that there are 'many, many, many '  smaller particles that went undetected. With all this in mind, it is worrying to imagine the vast amounts of microplastics that may be emitted from recycling plants around the world on a daily basis, potentially going unfiltered, unmeasured, and unregulated. More research is needed on this topic, especially as scientists continue to uncover links between microplastics and human health issues. Discussions to determine the details of the UN Global Plastics Treaty, which aims to end plastic pollution , are ongoing. With four out of five meetings  completed thus far, it is still yet clear how the treaty will approach plastics recycling and the evidence discussed in this blog post. Hopefully the UN’s intention to address the 'full life cycle ' of plastics will shine through in the treaty’s outcomes, including a nuanced approach to reforming the recycling industry, rather than simply promoting more  recycling. So, what is the solution? While wastewater filtration appears to hold promise for reducing microplastic pollution from recycling plants, this research emphasises the underlying need to #BreakFreeFromPlastic   altogether. Erina Brown, the study’s lead researcher, said  it best: 'For me, [the study] highlights how drastically we need to reduce our plastic consumption and production.' +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: plastic bottles recycling - Image by Hans (ST ref: 1162) microplastic plain background -  5Gyres, courtesy of Oregon State University (ST ref: 1308) hand earth plastic bag - Image by Vikentiy Elizarov (ST ref: 1141a) TurnOffThePlasticTap  - Image by Von Wong (ST ref: 1310)

Plastics Recycling: More Problem Than Solution?

A recent study by the University of Strathclyde reveals that alarming amounts of microplastics are being produced by an unnamed plastics...

Read More

Waste

Increasingly microplastics are finding their way into our wastewater, and whilst the fact that this may lead to plastics in our oceans is well known, the fact that this can also lead to plastics in our food is rarely discussed. This is because a byproduct of cleaning this wastewater is sewage sludge , which unfortunately, due to its high levels of nutrients, is frequently used as fertiliser across farmland.  From waste water to sewage sludge As much as ten million tonnes of sewage sludge is produced each year with around 40% of this being used as fertiliser. One study estimated that this is leading to as much as 42000 tonnes of microplastics accumulating in European farmland every year. Even areas where the sludge is not directly applied can be contaminated as ploughing can spread the microplastics from field to field. Furthermore, the runoff caused by rain can transport plastics into drainage systems and, ultimately, into waterways. This leads to even more microplastics finding their way into the oceans.  This is concerning for a number of reasons, one of which is that microplastics have the capacity to disrupt food chains. There is evidence that microplastics can stunt the growth of earthworms. This could lead to a reduction in the available food for those species that prey on earthworms. If the numbers of those species were to reduce then other animals that in turn prey on them could also be impacted. Added toxins As well as the potentially dangerous chemicals microplastics already contain, they can also pose a risk to our food another way, by acting as a vector for other toxins . Microplastics can absorb other substances that can then be released into the soil as the plastics break down, allowing them to adversely affect the growth of our crops or remain in the crops and be ingested by humans. Ingesting microplastics can cause immune responses to be triggered such as inflammation, allergic reactions, damage to cell walls and even cell breakdown leading to tissue damage. They have also been shown to cause disruption in the endocrine system which regulates hormones that control growth and development. Such disruption can affect the development of foetuses and even lead to the proliferation of cancer cells by increasing the release of hormones that promote cell division. The answer: higher standards of water treatment? Though it may seem like the obvious solution is to simply ban farmers from using sewage sludge as fertiliser, as some countries already have, that is not necessarily the answer to all our problems. If the nutrient rich sewage sludge was unavailable to farmers, then they would mostly likely use nitrogen-based fertilisers instead. These are produced from fossil fuels and therefore pose their own risk to the environment. Furthermore, such a move would still not solve the problem of what to do with sewage sludge.  Instead of banning its use, another option available to governments is to increase the standards of water treatment so that a greater proportion of the microplastics are removed before the sludge is used as a fertiliser. This can be done by removing fats and oils from the wastewater . Fats and oils often contain high levels of microplastics and typically collect at the surface of the wastewater in what is often referred to as, ‘surface scum’. The removal of ‘surface scum’ would make the sewage sludge far safer to use and biofuel could be produced from the fats and oils collected. Though more research is needed on how to best deal with the issue of microplastics, with the UK having some of the highest concentrations of microplastics in Europe (between 500 and 1,000 microplastic particles spread on farmland each year) it is clear that inaction on this matter would lead to an alarming escalation in what is already a serious environmental and health issue.      +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: tractor spreading water fertilizer d itch field - Image by  corlaffra (ST ref: 1134) sewage plant top view - Image by Ivan Bandura (ST ref: 1305) examining the crops by WIx (ST ref: 1306) Sewage sludge MP contamination - Image from sciencedirect.com (ST ref: 1307)

How Microplastics Are Infiltrating the Food You Eat

Increasingly microplastics are finding their way into our wastewater, and whilst the fact that this may lead to plastics in our oceans is...

Read More

Health

Companies are claiming to be ‘plastic neutral’  by using ‘plastic credits’ to offset the plastic pollution they create. This model follows the use of carbon credits to offset greenhouse gas emissions. Companies claim plastic neutrality to appear environmentally friendly, whilst avoiding scrutiny for the plastic pollution they create. What are plastic credits? Companies buy plastic credits  to fund plastic waste clean-ups around the world. A credit usually represents one ton of plastic removed from the environment. Companies purchase these credits from crediting companies to fund a clean-up project that would not have happened otherwise. Companies claim plastic neutrality if they have used credits to clean-up as much waste as they produce. So for every piece of plastic produced by the company, an equal weight will be removed from the natural environment elsewhere.  Why do companies buy plastic credits? Companies may feel a moral duty to fund a solution to the plastic problem they helped create, according to Peter Hjemdahl, co-founder of the plastic crediting initiative Repurpose Global.  In some countries, companies may also be obligated to comply with   extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws  and manage their waste impact. However, a key motivating factor in the purchase of plastic credits is their marketing value. The use of terms such as ‘plastic neutrality’ make a brand more desirable to the eco-conscious consumer. Many plastic crediting organisations such as  Repurpose Global  and   PCX  advertise how companies can use credits to make green marketing claims. Can plastic credits lead to plastic neutrality? There are a number of problems with claims of plastic neutrality. A company might be releasing very harmful plastic into the environment whilst funding a clean-up of relatively less harmful plastic. Another concern is how to prove that a clean-up project would not have happened anyway without company funding. For example, an unconnected group of volunteers might have done the plastic beach clean-up instead. A company cannot then claim to have collected ‘ additional’  neutralising plastic. There are numerous issues around how to meaningfully claim neutrality under a credit system run by a complex network of   privately run organisations . There are currently no globally agreed standards. Crucially, the whole credit system is based on the idea that one can be plastic neutral through waste collection alone. However, the plastic problem is not just a waste collection problem. From fossil fuel based plastic production to distribution and incineration there   is harm at every stage.  Worryingly, much of the plastic collected through credits ends up in landfill or is   burned , releasing toxic chemicals and greenhouse gases. Clean-ups alone cannot neutralise the plastic problem. Is plastic neutrality just greenwashing? To continue to make profits, companies use   greenwashing   tactics. They overstate the green credentials of their products to appeal to consumers. For example, companies use offsetting language like ‘plastic neutral’ and ‘net zero plastic to nature’. The real source of the problem, excessive plastic production, is obscured to the public. Irresponsible companies use plastic waste management projects to justify further plastic production. This focus on clean-ups aligns with the greenwashing strategy of both plastic-producing petrochemical companies and oil-producing nations. What needs to be done? It is essential to ensure that companies provide clear labelling which does not mislead the consumer with terms like ‘plastic neutral’. The   Plastic Footprint Network   hopes to create a common set of standards in the crediting system. Even with these improvements, credits still represent a waste management solution to the plastic problem. Greenwashing companies fund clean-up projects, whilst producing and using more and more plastic. Plastic production is set to triple by 2060 .  It is futile to focus on waste management without prioritising a significant reduction in unnecessary plastic. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: Discarded plastic bottles - Image by mbeo (ST ref: 1299)` WWF guide to greenwashing - from WWF (ST ref: 1302) Greenwashing one to ten - Image from sigmaearth.com (ST ref: 1295) Greenwashing synonyms - Image from spunout.ie (ST ref: 1297)

Companies Are Claiming To Be ‘Plastic Neutral’. Is It Greenwashing?

Companies are claiming to be ‘plastic neutral’ by using ‘plastic credits’ to offset the plastic pollution they create. This model follows...

Read More

Corporate

History – How Plastics came to being  Do you know how we went from a race to win a ten-thousand-dollar reward to a full blown  plastic pollution crisis?  No? Let me tell you how. It all started with the entrepreneur Michael Phelan in 1863 whose billiard-ball business relied heavily on ivory obtained from elephants. The growing ivory scarcity pushed Phelan into exploring ivory substitutes, and supporting this search with an attractive offer of a ten-thousand-dollar reward .  Motivated by this offer, John Wesley Hyatt tested some ideas, including experimenting with nitrocellulose. Hyatt found that a specific type of nitrocellulose could be molded into any shape after being heated with camphor. The product was termed ‘celluloid’ and used to make products other than billiard balls. We’re talking dentures, combs, piano keys etc.  In some ways this was the beginning of the end, as it marked the first commercial production of plastic in the world. Since then, the creation of different forms of plastic, and the volume of plastics created across the globe, has skyrocketed. Plastics went from being an antidote to a scarcity problem, to being quite poisonous for our health. Why is it considered poisonous?  Plastics were here before some of us and will be here long after we’re gone, even in uninhabited lands as recent evidence shows. Beyond polluting the oceans and hurting the biodiversity within it, plastics can degrade into microplastics (bits of plastic that are smaller than five millimeters). As plastics degrade, the chemicals that went into their production leak out. These chemicals could be one of the 13,000 chemicals  associated with plastic production and plastics, and found in items like children's toys, electronic equipment, furniture etc. Many of these chemicals are hazardous and harmful to breathe in .  Indeed microplastics do not just leak harmful chemicals but also attract them — for example, chemicals like ‘‘persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances (PBTS)’ which are essentially chemicals that resist environmental degradation, and accumulate in living organisms overtime.   We all encounter microplastics in different forms — it could literally be from our clothes which shed microfibres, down to our tyres which release particles into the air as they roll along our car/bicycle journeys. Interestingly, researchers have found microplastic in human placentas and in an infant’s first poop. Children are possibly feeding on microplastics before they can even eat. Crazy? I know! Is recycling the solution? After reading these harrowing impacts, you might be pondering on a solution and ask the question — ‘well what can we do about this’? The usual response promoted even by the very perpetrators of the crisis, is RECYCLING!  We recycle, and our trash often gets shipped to waste entrepreneurs in countries where regulations around waste management are lax. In their bid to recycle , some entrepreneurs cause a bigger problem, for example, extruding plastic and creating nurdles  — a form of microplastic.  In some cases, plastics (eg. those made from polyethylene terephthalate like soda and water bottles)  are often tricky to reprocess because they are contaminated by other bits of trash or other kinds of plastic. Some recycling companies never tell you this though and will profit from your goodwill. Don’t get me wrong, we’re not saying don’t recycle but bear in mind that recycling really doesn't work in the long term . ' Turning off the tap ’ by curbing production is the only viable solution. What are the Trade-offs? As with all policies, there are always trade offs. The plastics industry is technically borne out of the fossil-fuel industry. ExxonMobil for example is a world leading oil company, but also one of the leading producers of virgin polymers (plastics that are manufactured from materials that have not been used or processed before e.g. petroleum). Any attempts to ‘turn off the tap’ completely are met with resistance that obstructs negotiations either openly or secretly. Beyond this, there is a question of suitable alternatives. For example, do we replace plastics with paper and subsequently increase deforestation, still offsetting climate change? Perhaps we could consciously move towards a world of reuse instead of perpetuating a throwaway culture. Ultimately, there are decisions to be made on a policy level around the best direction. As Elizabeth Kolbert concludes in her New Yorker article: "If much of contemporary life is wrapped up in plastic, and the result of this is that we are poisoning our kids, ourselves, and our ecosystems, then contemporary life may need to be rethought. The question is what matters to us, and whether we’re willing to ask ourselves that question." +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: Chemist holding vial  - Image by Bermix Studio on Unsplash (ST ref: 1226) Man lying on garbage pile - Jordan Beltran (ST ref: 1157)  Plastic bottles in water - Image by Ajin KS (ST ref: 1209)

Plastic – Poison or an Antidote? 

History – How Plastics came to being Do you know how we went from a race to win a ten-thousand-dollar reward to a full blown  plastic...

Read More

Health

With 49 million tonnes of plastic consumed annually across Europe in packaging alone, our appetite for plastic grows ever more ravenous.  Meanwhile, a proliferation of throwaway plastic food packaging coincides with mounting global food waste: one-third of global food production (around 1.3 billion tonnes)  is wasted each year. Food waste is responsible for up to 10% of greenhouse emissions The scale of this environmental and social market failure is stark:   8-10% of greenhouse gas emissions are accounted for by non-consumed food , while   a similar proportion of the world’s population (691–783 million people) go hungry . In this context,   arguments promoting disposable plastic packaging as the solution  appear alluring. Yet sim plistic claims of a ‘trade -off’ between the two different types of waste overlook links between throwaway packaging and consumption choices. On-the-go habit While some plastic packaging does indeed help protect food and extend its shelf-life, the rise of disposable wrapping has helped transform eating habits and production processes. Single-use plastics underpin convenience habits such as takeaways and ‘on-the-go’ food culture. Global annual natural capital costs from plastics in the food industry have been estimated at €15 billion. Furthermore, ‘ packaging waste has grown alongside food waste , challenging its potential to contribute to reducing food waste’. Developing countries, where plastic packaging is less prevalent, have lower rates of household food waste.  Throwaway culture The volume of wasted food attributed to households (53 per cent)  exceeds all other sectors combined. Changes in eating habits, exacerbated by smaller household sizes, have coincided with multi-material packaging which is complex and difficult to recycle. Products with high packaging/ product ratios, such as pre-cut fruit and vegetables, packaged sandwiches/wraps and meal kits, reflect urban lifestyles and are among the food industry’s fastest-growing segments. Meanwhile, the relative cheapness of food as a proportion of household incomes has also been associated with a ‘throwaway’ culture as well as growing obesity levels. One analysis of contributors to food waste  identifies five technological drivers related to food processing and packaging. Retail tactics such as multipacks, driven by heavy marketing, and often tempting buyers to buy more than they need, have been connected to plastic packaging. In addition, a combination of changing buyer preferences and quality control processes, along the food chain, can cause ‘hidden’ food wastage. For fresh produce, pre-determined packaging formats and sizes restrict the produce deemed suitable by major retailers. Some 20kg  per head of food are wasted in the European Union annually in the agriculture sector alone. Supply chain solution? Plastic packaging is associated with   much longer distribution supply chains , driven by production efficiencies and year-round demand for seasonal produce. Short food supply chains (SFSCs) can bring consumers closer to local farmers, reducing both food and plastic waste. Food cooperatives demonstrate how collective action can make supply chains more sustainable while preserving individual choice/taste. Zero-waste retailers/restaurants and reverse logistics also point to a future where ‘re-use’ habits curb both food and packaging waste. But consumer choice is only part of the solution. Municipalities also have a role, both as procurers of food and via waste management. In the long term, the priorities for government should be to: Develop a holistic, evidence-based approach to the role of plastic packaging in the food system, identifying the underlying drivers of food waste and its interaction with plastic packaging. Review legislation to assess and address gaps in order to tackle the dual challenge of food waste and plastic waste. Use market-based instruments to prompt behavioural change towards avoiding food and plastic waste and keeping resources in the economy. Provide greater investment and funding for waste prevention systems, including zero and reusable packaging systems and better integrated SFSCs between rural and urban areas, with a focus on retailers and SMEs. +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images: shelf of vegetables - Image by Firda Faradiba (ST ref: 1303) Food waste mouldy bread - Image by Nick Saltmarsh  (ST ref: 1290) fish and chips takeaway - Image by Jakub Kapusnak (ST ref: 1098) zero waste store by Wix (ST ref: 1304)

The Global Food Waste Failure: Examining the Role of Throwaway Plastic Packaging

With 49 million tonnes of plastic consumed annually across Europe in packaging alone, our appetite for plastic grows ever more ravenous. ...

Read More

Waste

‘The Fraud of Plastic Recycling’ reveals plastic producers have known for decades that plastic recycling is not a real solution. This February, the Centre for Climate Integrity (CCI) released a report on plastic recycling. Evidence shows that for decades, the plastics industry knew plastic recycling was ‘virtually hopeless’ yet continued to promote it.  The History of Plastics Before recycling, plastics were marketed as single-use. At a conference in 1956 by the Society of the Plastics Industry, now known as the Plastics Industry Association, producers were advised to prioritise ‘disposability’. Producers hoped this emphasis would drive sales.  In the following decades, the plastics industry continued to promote convenient disposal of plastics in landfills or through incineration. However, in the 1980s, this changed with discussions surrounding bans on disposable plastic products, like grocery bags, to protect the environment. This led the industry to change their marketing and shift to promoting recycling. The Recycling Lie Recycling was marketed as the solution to plastic pollution. Instead of plastic going to landfills or being incinerated, plastic could be reused over and over again. But this was a lie. Each time plastic is recycled, it degrades until it can no longer be recycled. Eventually, all plastic, regardless or whether it is recycled or not, will either end up in landfills or incinerators.  The report from the CCI reveals that the industry has always been aware that plastic recycling is not feasible and simply prolongs the disposal time. Roy Gottesman, the executive director of Vinyl Institute, conceded that “recycling cannot go on indefinitely”.  Despite this, the Plastics Industry Association established the Plastics Recycling Foundation in 1984 to highlight the sector’s dedication to recycling.  Following this, they founded a plastics recycling research centre in New Jersey to comply with a recycling law in the state. In 1988 the Council for Solid Waste Solutions launched a recycling pilot Project in Minnesota, shortly after the city council voted to ban polystyrene, or styrofoam. During the early 1990s, another industry group ran advertisements in Ladies' Home Journal proclaiming: ‘A bottle can come back as a bottle, over and over again.’ In the meantime, industry leaders continued to express privately that recycling was not a genuine solution. The Legal Consequences This report comes at a time where there is increased public attention on the plastics industry and recycling.  Two years ago, California’s attorney general initiated an investigation into fossil fuel and petrochemical producers regarding their involvement in contributing to and worsening the global plastics pollution crisis.  In 2023, New York state filed a lawsuit against PepsiCo. They alleged the company's single-use plastics violate public nuisance laws. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also announced the initiation of a health review of vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen used in plastic manufacturing, marking the initial step toward a potential prohibition. The authors of the report suggest that legal action is likely as laws aimed at safeguarding the public from deceptive advertising and environmental pollution may have been violated. This report shows a potential pathway to hold the plastics industry accountable for their deceptive practices, and sets us on the path to slow down the mass production of plastics. Here is a link to the full report: Fraud-of-Plastic-Recycling-2024.pdf ( climateintegrity.org ) +++++++++++++++++ For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk Images:  Assorted Plastic Bottles - Image by  mali maeder (ST ref: 1300) Plastic pollution on beach - Image by  Pete Linforth (ST ref: 1301)

How the Plastics Industry Deceived Us

‘The Fraud of Plastic Recycling’ reveals plastic producers have known for decades that plastic recycling is not a real solution.

Read More

Corporate

It was over one year ago that a train in East Palestine, Ohio derailed and caused an explosion, waking residents in the small town. The length of time since the explosion occurred is important to note, as is the contents of the train, affecting those that were unfortunate enough to live nearby.  On February 3rd 2023, a Norfolk Southern train derailed in East Palestine, with five of the train’s carriages carrying vinyl chloride, a chemical used in the production of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC). PVC is a plastic and is one of the first discovered as well as one of the most widely used across the globe. PVC is used in many products that are commonly used from piping in construction to packaging. Vinyl Chloride is also a known carcinogen. Often the production of this substance is in lower income communities , threatening the health of the surrounding environments and the health of the people living there.  Following the explosion of the train, the chemical was released into the atmosphere thanks to the power and ferocity of the eruption. Residents of the area experienced symptoms from the chemical release such as sore eyes and throats, despite federal and local officials at the time declaring the area as safe after a couple of days. Even though the incident received global media attention, added to environmental and campaigning organisation’s concerns about the safety for the residents, families are still not receiving any information about the health of their air, soil and water. This is despite the fact that the chemical released is known to cause symptoms of nausea and cancer for those unlucky enough to come into close contact. Associated health risks The International Agency for Research on Cancer considers vinyl chloride as a Group 1 carcinogen . To offer context, the well known harmful loft insulator, asbestos, is also classified as a Group 1 carcinogen. This means that it is proven to cause cancers such as liver cancer, leukaemia and cancer of the brain and lungs. There is also no safe level of exposure to vinyl chloride, putting humans at risk when in contact with the chemical. This has led to people living near the train crash site continuing to drink bottled water as they fear for their future health. What can be done?   The good news is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is beginning the process to prioritise the assessment of vinyl chloride amongst five other known toxic chemicals. The downside is that this is a lengthy process and the residents of the train disaster could argue that it has taken them far too long.  Plastic campaigning organisations and campaigners alike are worried that another East Palestine, Ohio train disaster is on the horizon. It may not take the form or shape of a derailing train, but we may see similar spills and accidents occurring thanks to the toxic chemicals used in plastic production. If vinyl chloride can be banned, we may see the derailing of the entire plastic chemical lifecycle in our lifetimes.  In order to move the EPA’s assessment along, please join others in urging Congress to support the U.S. EPA’s decision to assess the safety of vinyl chloride and push for an outright ban. If you live in the U.S. click here to email your members of Congress about this directly. For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk   Images:  Large Explosion - Image by  ds-grafikdesign (ST ref: 1293) Chemistry vials combining - Image by  Alex Kondratiev  (ST ref: 12270)

Small Town Explosion: What Really Happened in East Palestine?

It was over one year ago that a train in East Palestine, Ohio derailed and caused an explosion, waking residents in the small town. The...

Read More

Pollution

If you are thinking of heading out on your daily run, walk or hike, have a read of how the chemicals in your clothing could be affecting your health and what you can do to prevent it.  New research is indicating that when wearing gym clothes and any clothing containing artificially made plastic chemicals, our sweat is helping these harmful substances to absorb into our bodies through our skin.  Even though the study mainly focused on flame retardant chemicals, which can be found in some fabrics and not just gym wear, the findings suggest that other plastic chemicals like bisphenols, phthalates and Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAs) which are prevalent in your workout gear, can leach from the clothes themselves and into our bodies via our sweat.  In the past, research surrounding microplastics and the chemicals derived from plastic production have focused on how these are entering the body via the food that we consume. However, this study illustrates the absorbency of these chemicals and how they are entering into our bodies through our skin, as our sweat breaks down these substances more readily.   It is understood that having a high number of plastic chemicals in our bodies can result in health risks. For example, a US study found the risk of cancer has increased in Americans under 50, with breast and thyroid cancers becoming some of the fastest rising. Experts have speculated that an increased exposure to harmful pollutants and chemicals such as the ones found in our clothing could be a major factor.  So what chemicals should you be aware of?  A lot of workout gear and clothing that specifically states that it is ‘sweat-wicking’ or water-repellent can often contain plastic chemicals, also known as ‘forever chemicals’. They have been given this name for the amount of time that they take to break down, the clue is in the name.  You may have heard of PFAS ? PFAS are a human-made chemical that you will encounter in everyday items such as your saucepans, firefighting foam, clothing, and even food packaging. The fact that they take a very long time to break down, means that they can stay in our bodies once absorbed for a long time and potentially do harm to us and the planet. Further studies need to be exercised in order for more conclusive research and long-term testing to be carried out.  So what can you do?  Now that you know a little more, it is important to understand how clothing manufacturers such as outdoor retailers and sportswear brands are not only marketing their products, but what they are putting into their clothing. Gore-Tex is a popular material used to show the technical features of certain clothing such as walking shoes. However, in reality, this is just another type of PFAS coating.  If a clothing manufacturer boasts that their clothing is ‘sweat-wicking’, keep in mind that they may have used artificial PFAS chemicals within the fabric.  With research indicating that there are many ‘forever chemicals’ out there that we are not aware of, it is difficult to avoid them fully. However, as consumers are becoming more ethically aware, some brands are straying away from using plastic chemicals and choosing a more sustainable approach.  It is also worth taking a look at fabric labels to see if they have used ethically sourced and naturally derived materials such as cotton, bamboo and hemp. Arguably, this can be expensive, but as more brands are aware of consumer’s buying habits, and want to move away from harsh chemicals, we may see an increase in the uptake of more naturally sourced clothing material. For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk   Images:  Woman stretching on pavement - Image by lograstudio on Pixabay (ST ref: 1244) Chemist holding vial  - Image by Bermix Studio on Unsplash (ST ref: 1226)

Thread Carefully: Your Gym Clothes Could Be Leaching Toxic Chemicals

If you are thinking of heading out on your daily run, walk or hike, have a read of how the chemicals in your clothing could be affecting...

Read More

Lifestyle

‘Soft plastics’ are a category of plastic waste that includes things like clear film, crisp packets, fruit bags, food pouches and biscuit wrappers. Soft plastics contribute towards nearly 300,000 tonnes of plastic waste every yea r; soft plastics are some of the most common in our homes. However, a solution for what to do with them once they have been used has been elusive. A drag on recycling rates Most soft plastics can be recycled, but it’s a specialised process. The plastics are cleaned, sorted by grade, size, and colour (often by hand), and then melted down into flakes or pellets. These can be used to create new plastic bags, food packaging or even clothing.  Since only around 15% of UK local authorities collect soft plastic items from the curbside, it is unsurprising that soft plastics are a major drag on recycling rates in the UK. In fact household recycling rates for soft plastics are thought to be as low as 5%. What are the supermarkets doing? With a need for action evident, soft plastic collection points sprung up in UK supermarkets from 2021. These offered customers a chance to drop off their soft plastic in-store, with the promise that the store would recycle it. For example, Tesco promised that they would recover ‘80% of the soft plastic returned’, and that it would be ‘kept out of landfill’. Morrisons promised that soft plastics would ‘not be sent overseas for reprocessing’, and be recycled in the UK. Since 2021, there have been some successes in finding new uses for deposited soft plastics. Tesco reports recycling it into bin liners and packaging for its own-brand cheese. Co-op has turned collected plastic, rather vaguely, into ‘material for the construction industry’. What proportion of the waste collected in stores actually gets recycled in these ways is unreported. However, this success is not universal. Sainsbury’s admitted that, currently, they do not recycle any of the deposited soft plastic in the UK. Trackers placed by Bloomberg into Tesco soft plastic bins made their way across Europe to Poland and Turkey, where, rather than being recycled, evidence pointed to these plastics being incinerated or discarded. As Bloomberg concluded, the soft plastic recycling system ‘looks less like a virtuous circle and more like passing the buck’.   Export So why are soft plastics exported? Quite simply, the UK does not have the necessary infrastructure to recycle these kinds of plastics . Moreover, the recycling process is expensive, and the market for recycled soft plastics is small due to the low quality and limited utility of the recycled product. This is why local authorities do not collect these at the curbside, and why recycling rates of soft plastics are so low in the UK. False sense of security Take-back schemes have proved that the UK population is keen to recycle more of their soft plastics, however, critics have argued that these schemes only offer consumers a ‘false sense of security’. The reality is that these schemes have not improved the laborious processes of or increased the limited capacity for soft plastic recycling. Moreover, with the consumers’ consciences settled, there is less pressure on supermarkets to make efforts to reduce their plastic footprint. Reuse: the only answer If consumers have the choice between throwing soft plastics in general waste or taking them to an in-store collection point, doing something is still better than nothing. However, it is dangerous that we are being led to believe that take-back schemes – that are really nothing more than stop-gaps – could be long-term solutions to the growing problem of the over-use of soft plastics. These schemes obscure the truth that, in the short to medium term at least, the only real sustainable solution to soft plastic waste is to reduce use – something that supermarkets are proving much slower to respond to. For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk   Images:  apples clear plastic bag - Image by Sophia Marston on Unsplash (ST ref: 1171) white plastic bag - Image by Christopher Vega on Unsplash (ST ref: 1170)

Soft Plastic Take-back Schemes: Are They a Real solution?

‘Soft plastics’ are a category of plastic waste that includes things like clear film, crisp packets, fruit bags, food pouches and biscuit...

Read More

Waste

There can be no doubt that plastic places an enormous burden on our planet. Plastic pollution damages habitats and ecosystems, reducing their ability to adapt to climate change, putting people’s livelihoods and well-being at risk. Millions of animals and birds die from entanglement, or starvation after ingesting plastic debris. Microplastics , tiny plastic particles linked to serious health problems, have been found in various human organs, including the placenta of newborn babies. Shockingly, despite the overwhelming evidence highlighting its harmful effects, half of all plastic produced is designed for single-use purposes – to be used just once before being thrown away.   Yet plastic is not the only material that poses a threat. Many different types of packaging are also used once. For example, in 2019, 7.1 billion single-use cardboard boxes were used for e-Commerce services within the EU28. If we are to truly embrace circularity (a model of sustainability based on re-use and waste elimination), we must identify which products would be most suitable for the transition from single-use to reusable options.  What is going to replace single-use plastics?  In May 2022, Zero Waste Europe published a study examining different categories of packaging. Its purpose was to assess various products in order to quantify their environmental impact, and to inform policy-makers where effective changes could be made. The study determined the following five product categories as the most suitable for transition, partly or completely, to reusable packaging:  soda drinks & (sparkling) water postal services (post and packages) take-away & delivery meals take-away warm drinks  wine (in single-use glass bottles) In the report, Zero Waste Europe emphasises that although there is a justifiable focus on reducing plastic pollution, other materials such as cardboard, which also have harmful environmental consequences, ‘have not been targeted by the prevention or reuse agenda’.  The study concluded that many sectors have the potential to increase their reuse rates over the coming years and should be considered as targets for legislative action. Several recommendations were made, including: putting a cap on single-use packaging; economic incentives and setting reuse targets.  The importance of deposit return schemes (DRS) was also identified in the report. All successful reuse/refill collection schemes were able to guarantee the return of packaging for reuse. Zero Waste Europe strongly recommends that Member States should be encouraged to include deposit return schemes beyond beverage packaging. Reduce, Reuse, Refill, Repeat How does this study help us in our fight against plastic? If we are to be free from our plastic dependency, then surely we need to consider its replacement – it would be no use to exchange one single-use material for another.  Recycling alone is not enough. Of the seven billion tonnes  of plastic waste generated globally so far,  less than 10 per cent  has been recycled .  Zero Waste Europe makes a strong case for the reuse model – where products and packaging are conceived, designed and created with the intention to achieve multiple uses within its lifespan. This is not simply taking your own coffee cup for a refill. It is systemic change at an international level.  To our knowledge, Zero Waste Europe’s study is the first of its kind. By detecting specific market interventions, it gives us a viable roadmap to a future without waste. +++++++++++++++++ For more information, contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk   Images:  pile of garbage - Image from Wix Media clear glass containers  Image by Laura Mitulla on Unsplash (ST ref: 1174) Zero waste reduce reuse... Image by Ssali Christopher  (ST ref: 1196)

A Sustainable World: Making the Transition to Reusable Packaging

There can be no doubt that plastic places an enormous burden on our planet. Plastic pollution damages habitats and ecosystems, reducing...

Read More

Lifestyle

The huge glass packaging industry could make a big impact in the transition to sustainable packaging systems. Glass packaging is a major industry employing 40,000 people in Europe and it is economically important because products in glass containers make up €250 billion of Europe’s exports, far more than is contained in plastics. Glass has a high carbon footprint compared to plastic and aluminium but it can be  used sustainably to have less environmental impact. Glass is an inert material which makes it good for re-use, while there are issues with re-using the most common plastic polymer, Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET).  Glass is good for recycling too. It can be recycled almost indefinitely and fits the ideal ‘closed-loop’ recycling model where it can be used for the same purpose over and over again without producing any more carbon. It also remains pure so that it can be used for foodstuffs for ever. Manufacturers like to use glass because it comes in so many shapes and colours and is good for branding, and unlike plastic glass doesn’t bring the issues of micro plastics in the sea. Altogether, if we could use less plastic, glass might fill the gap. Single use, re-use and recycling The big issue with glass lies with single use glass, typically beverage bottles. Statista estimates  that 743.26 billion units were used in 2023 and this is increasing.  FEVE, which represents over 90% of Europe’s glass packaging industry, says this equals a third of the beverage packaging market and that about half of the bottles are returnable or re-usable compared to only 4% of PET containers which often become litter. The EU leads the world in recycling glass but the process uses 75% of the energy needed to manufacture a new bottle so it only reduces the energy-intensiveness of the industry by 25%. This means that recycling single use glass will never reduce emissions enough to meet greenhouse gas (GHGs) targets. FEVE says that the new hybrid furnaces appearing across Europe will reduce the energy used for processing bottles by about 30% and that the industry can switch to renewable energy. But the reality is that this relies on governments investing in renewables which is not happening consistently across all countries. Moving to refillable glass bottles would make a big difference to GHGs but only if they can be part of a system that functions effectively. The challenge is to find a system that works for the consumer and the manufacturer. Deposit return systems where bottles are returned and re-used rely on consumers doing the right thing and do not work where beverages are exported over long distances. Also, the glass industry needs to think in terms of return rates, transport and washing and how to reach a commercial break-even point with re-used containers. FEVE says that if more bottles are returned and re-used, fewer will be recycled. However re-using bottles would be beneficial in regions that do not have recycling services. We need to re-invent glass So, how can we use glass more sustainably in a Net Zero world? Some companies, such as EcoSpirits, have developed systems that ship beverages in bulk in re-usable glass vessels and use local bottling and refillable self-service machines to serve customers. They have proved that this way of distributing wines and spirits to pubs and restaurants is commercially viable. If consumers could also return their bottles to be re-filled locally with the same brand, this would be a huge step forwards toward a more sustainable system. The challenge for manufacturers is to recycle glass with less energy and to maintain the current level of re-use while moving to more sustainable ‘re-use systems’ in future. Studies by the global consultancy firm Deloitte show that removing single use glass could bring a staggering reduction of 60-90% in carbon emissions. This is the kind of ambitious thinking the industry needs.  For more information contact: info@scarabtrust.org.uk   Images:  Top view bottles alcohol - Image by Freepik (ST ref: 1245) macro shot of clear glass bottles - Photo by Pete Wright on Unsplash (ST ref: 1241) Circular One Closed Loop System - Image by Ecosprit  (ST ref: 1240)

Reinventing Glass

The huge glass packaging industry could make a big impact in the transition to sustainable packaging systems. Glass packaging is a major...

Read More

Waste

bottom of page