160+ environmental and health groups respond to last-minute attempt by Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Others to Reopen EU Packaging Law

Written by

BRUSSELS — A leaked letter signed by more than 100 food and beverage company CEOs, including Coca-Cola, Heineken, McDonald’s, Kraft Heinz and Mondelez, is calling on European Union institutions to delay and reopen key provisions of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), just months before implementation is set to begin in August 2026. 

On 29 April, CEOs requested EU institutions to delay key implementation timelines and revise provisions. If acted upon, requests could weaken restrictions on harmful PFAS chemicals in food packaging, and expand exemptions to keep large volumes of single-use packaging on the market, undermining the EU’s objective to reduce packaging waste at a time when waste levels remain high. Notably, a number of signatories and active sponsors of this initiative are headquartered outside the EU, raising questions about the extent to which corporate interests beyond Europe are seeking to undermine democratically agreed EU law.

A broad alliance of over 160 Break Free From Plastic members and allies, communities impacted by plastic and PFAS pollution, universities, consumer rights organisations and businesses committed to reuse, have sent a letter in response urging EU leaders to reject this lobbying push and uphold the Regulation as agreed by the European Parliament, Council and Commission.

They have warned that reopening agreed legislation at this stage risks weakening environmental protections, undermines regulatory certainty for companies already investing in compliance, and sets a precedent for corporate influence over environmental law after adoption. 

Companies have shaped the Regulation and have had years to prepare

The PPWR, one of the most heavily lobbied EU files, was adopted through the full legislative procedure, following extensive public and industry consultation. Companies have had both regulatory clarity and guidance to adapt their business models and supply chains.

Environmental and health groups argue that reopening agreed provisions would erode trust in the legislative process and deflect responsibility for democratically agreed environmental commitments back onto EU institutions. 

Public commitments contradicted by private lobbying

There is a contradiction between the voluntary sustainability commitments made by major brands and their behind-the-scenes policy positions. Several signatory companies have presented themselves as climate and circular economy leaders, yet are now seeking to weaken packaging reduction rules, delay chemical safety measures, and limit implementation of reuse systems. However, the PPWR mandatory reuse targets exist precisely because recycling alone cannot deliver the structural shift Europe needs to reduce packaging waste. 

The lobbying push is creating collateral damage for businesses,  including major market players, that are genuinely committed to the success of the regulation and are already investing in the transition. Companies that have already started to adapt their supply chains around PPWR compliance are now facing unnecessary regulatory uncertainty, putting planned investments and innovation at risk. 

The power of precedent

The outcome of this lobbying effort will be closely watched across Europe and beyond as governments around the world consider similar packaging and plastics policies. If corporate lobbying succeeds in reopening a regulation weeks before it applies, it risks signalling that even landmark environmental law remains vulnerable to last-minute, covert lobbying pressure, regardless of democratic process. 

Quotes:

Marco Musso, Deputy Policy Manager for Circular Economy at the European Environmental Bureau, said: 

”It is disappointing to witness yet another attempt to delay and dilute a legislation designed to protect citizens and to stop the uncontrolled growth of packaging waste. Fortunately, the usual suspects behind the CEO letter do not speak for the majority of the packaging value chain. Across Europe a multitude of businesses, including major players, remain genuinely supportive of the regulation and are already investing to prepare for it. We stand with the EU institutions to preserve the integrity of the regulation and ensure effective implementation.”

Emma Priestland, Corporate Campaigns Coordinator for the Break Free From Plastic movement, said: 

“The letter sent by some of the world’s biggest users and polluters of plastic is a shocking example of corporations trying to override the democratic will of 27 countries. Their last minute attempt to derail this vital piece of legislation shows a frankly appalling disregard for the wishes, safety and wellbeing of their own customers. Companies should be focusing on ending their reliance on single-use packaging rather than influencing the law of an entire region.”

Catia De Cao, from Italian civil society network Rete Zero PFAS Italia,said: 

“I am deeply concerned about PFAS, having grown up in a region of Italy’s Veneto that has been severely affected by ‘forever chemical’ contamination. Years of exposure have left many people in my community with dangerously high levels of PFAS in their blood, increasing the risk of a multitude of serious health issues. But regardless of whether people live in pollution hotspots or not, we are all exposed to PFAS on a daily basis, as it is commonly used in food and beverage packaging. To protect people’s health – and especially the health of the youngest generations – the European Commission must go ahead with the ban of PFAS in food packaging.”

Sam Pearse, Campaigns Director from Story of Stuff, said: 

“The PPWR is a direct response to decades of fast-moving consumer goods companies shifting to disposable packaging—shedding microplastics and harmful chemicals while pushing their costs onto society. Now, some of those same companies, including U.S.-based corporations like McDonald’s, claim to support the law’s intent after pouring resources into weakening it and carving out exemptions. Their complaints ring hollow. The PPWR sets a critical global benchmark for moving away from throwaway packaging. EU leaders must hold the line — the world is watching.”

ENDS
Notes to the editor
  • Read the Break Free From Plastic and allies’ response letter here
  • Read the leaked CEO letter here
  • The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation text and implementation timeline: 2025/40 

About BFFP — #BreakFreeFromPlastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 3,700 organizations and 15,000 individual supporters from across the world have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain – from extraction to disposal – focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions. www.breakfreefromplastic.org.

About Rethink Plastic – Rethink Plastic is an alliance of leading European NGOs, representing thousands of active groups, supporters and citizens in every EU Member State. We are part of the global Break Free From Plastic movement, consisting of over 13,000 organisations and individuals worldwide demanding an end to plastic pollution. www.rethinkplasticalliance.eu

Press Contacts: 

Rethink Plastic condemns last-minute industry attempt to weaken and re-negotiate Packaging regulation

Written by

The Rethink Plastic Alliance fully supports the reaction of our member Zero Waste Europe:

“Just four months before the application of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), which is meant to begin on 12 August 2026, a group of single-use packaging industry players is, once again, attempting to delay their obligations and reopen political negotiations on rules that were already agreed after years of legislative debate.

In a letter sent privately to EU institutions on the week of 27 April 2026, industry representatives call for a postponement of key provisions and a targeted review of the Regulation’s core requirements. Rather than focusing on implementation and compliance, this appears to be a last-minute attempt to weaken and re-negotiate agreed measures designed to reduce packaging waste, improve recyclability, and accelerate Europe’s transition away from unnecessary single-use packaging.

While Zero Waste Europe acknowledges the challenges the packaging sector faces in adapting to new regulatory frameworks, we firmly oppose any attempts to adjust/postpone the 12 August 2026 application date, or to reopen the PPWR for a targeted review. 

Such moves would not only undermine the legal certainty of the Single Market but also jeopardise the urgent environmental progress the EU has committed to achieving through the PPWR, which also aims at increasing the circularity of the sector, helping to reduce dependency on third countries.

  1. Legal integrity and the co-decision process: the PPWR is the result of a rigorous co-decision process involving the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission. It has undergone extensive scrutiny, public consultation, and democratic debate. To now seek a reopening of the legislation simply because the industry finds the timeline challenging sets a dangerous precedent. It suggests that once a law is democratically enacted, it remains subject to revision under lobbying pressure rather than achieving legal finality. Legally, the application date is not a mere suggestion; it is a binding provision of the Regulation. Postponing it would violate the principle of legal certainty and the integrity of the EU’s legislative framework, including the EU’s ability to enforce its own rules.
  2. The Commission has already provided clarity: the European Commission has already “heard” the industry’s concerns and has recently published the guidance documents and FAQs to help companies navigate the transition. The availability of this robust guidance demonstrates that the Commission has already taken significant steps to support the packaging industry, and the focus must now shift to ensuring these rules are implemented in a manner that fully respects the legislative intent and timeline, rather than seeking further legislative amendments. The PPWR provides the framework. What is lacking is not legal clarity, but enforcement. The industry is using “lack of guidance/clarity” as a stall tactic while they lobby for exemptions.
  3. Single Market harmonisation: the interpretation and clarification provided in the COM guidance and FAQ document on the harmonisation of the Single Market already favours industry players. This is something that we’ve also highlighted in our reaction with the Rethink Plastic alliance: ‘we caution against the risk that Single Market harmonisation is misused to excessively restrict the ability of national and local authorities to go beyond EU minimum requirements on waste reduction and reuse. While harmonisation can support the PPWR’s objectives, it is only helpful if it is underpinned by sufficiently high ambition so that the Regulation’s core objectives – advancing the circular economy and delivering meaningful waste prevention – are achieved. These priorities should remain central to both interpretation and implementation. Strengthening the Single Market must not come at the expense of environmental protection, public health or the public interest; rather, it should enable a race to the top by allowing more ambitious national and local measures, particularly where they are needed to meet waste prevention targets and support reuse’.
  4. The urgency of PPWR environmental goals should not be denied. We must not lose sight of the PPWR’s ultimate purpose: to drastically reduce packaging waste, eliminate non-recyclable packaging, and drive the transition to a safe and circular economy. The packaging sector is currently responsible for a significant portion of the EU’s waste crisis. Delaying the implementation of these critical measures by even a few months translates to millions of tons of unnecessary waste continuing to pollute our environment. This should be non-negotiable as the clock is ticking on climate targets and resource efficiency goals. We cannot afford to pause progress on a regulation designed to fix the very problems the industry helped create.
  5. Industry accountability: it is ironic that the same industry actors who have united so effectively to leverage the current simplification/deregulation wave to demand the reopening of the PPWR and the postponement of the application date are not demonstrating the same unity and urgency to solve the packaging waste crisis they helped create. If the industry has the collective strength to successfully lobby for delays and exemptions from a legally approved and democratically debated piece of legislation, it possesses that same capacity to join forces to innovate, redesign, and solve the waste crisis.

Rather than seeking to delay the inevitable, the industry should channel this energy into accelerating the transition to circular packaging. The tools, technologies, and markets exist; what is needed is the political will and the corporate commitment to act.”

ENDS

For any media enquiries, please reach out to:

Ana Oliveira, Head of Communications at Zero Waste Europe – [email protected] or [email protected] 

Larissa Copello, Reuse and Packaging Policy Officer at Zero Waste Europe – [email protected] 

About Zero Waste Europe

Zero Waste Europe (ZWE) is the European network of communities, local leaders, experts, and change agents working towards a better use of resources and the elimination of waste in our society. We advocate for sustainable systems; for the redesign of our relationship with resources; and for a global shift towards environmental justice, accelerating a just transition towards zero waste for the benefit of people and the planet. www.zerowasteeurope.eu

About Rethink Plastic

Rethink Plastic is an alliance of leading European NGOs, representing thousands of active groups, supporters and citizens in every EU Member State. We are part of the global Break Free From Plastic movement, consisting of over 13,000 organisations and individuals worldwide demanding an end to plastic pollution. www.rethinkplasticalliance.eu

PPWR Guidance provides necessary clarity, implementation must proceed without delay

Written by

The Rethink Plastic Alliance welcomes the European Commission’s publication of its Guidance on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). We recognise the substantial effort undertaken to provide clarity and support a consistent interpretation of the Regulation across Member States. At this crucial stage, the guidance must support rapid and effective implementation. Any delay risks undermining the Regulation’s objectives, making it imperative that implementation continues without disruption and at the highest level of ambition.

We also commend the Commission for upholding the restrictions on PFAS in food contact packaging, including the requirement to exhaust existing stocks, and clarifying the stepwise methodology to test for PFAS content. This represents an important step towards reducing exposure to harmful chemicals and accelerating the transition to safer, non-toxic packaging solutions.

In addition, the Commission’s reaffirmation of the obligation on Member States to establish deposit return schemes (DRS) for single-use plastic bottles and metal beverage containers by 2029 is very positive. In particular, we welcome the clarification on retailers’ obligation to accept deposit-bearing containers, which are important to ensure effective and accessible systems across the EU. Nevertheless, we express strong concern regarding the procedure for Member States to request an exemption from setting up DRS: The absence of an answer from the European Commission regarding the country’s national implementation plan should not be considered as an approval of the exemption.

In addition, we raise a strong objection to regarding the interpretation that plasticised paper-based packaging containing less than 5% plastic would fall outside the ban on single-use plastic packaging for indoor dining under Annex V. This approach risks opening a significant loophole, encouraging material substitution between different types of single-use plastic products, and ultimately undermining the Regulation’s waste reduction efforts. Such packaging formats are clearly defined as single-use plastic products under the Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) as they contain a plastic component performing a structural function. Excluding them from the scope of the ban would therefore run counter to the Directive’s logic and the overall objectives of the Regulation.

We underline that limiting the bans in Annex V to plastic packaging already represents a significant weakening compared to the Commission’s initial PPWR proposal. Any further narrowing through interpretative guidance risks compromising the Regulation’s effectiveness and could also undermine the objectives of the SUPD – as well as the EU’s commitment to reduce marine litter by 50% by 2030 – by incentivising a shift towards alternative single-use formats that still contain plastic but evade restrictions.

Furthermore, we caution against the risk that Single Market harmonisation is misused to excessively restrict the ability of national and local authorities to go beyond EU minimum requirements on waste reduction and reuse. While harmonisation can support the PPWR’s objectives, it is only helpful if it is underpinned by sufficiently high ambition so that the Regulation’s core objectives – advancing the circular economy and delivering meaningful waste prevention – are achieved. These priorities should remain central to both interpretation and implementation. Strengthening the Single Market must not come at the expense of environmental protection, public health or the public interest; rather, it should enable a race to the top by allowing more ambitious national and local measures, particularly where they are needed to meet waste prevention targets and support reuse.

In light of the Commission’s laudable commitment to tackling Europe’s major packaging waste problem, we urge that the PPWR be implemented in a manner that preserves its ambition and integrity. Only a robust and coherent approach will provide Member States with a fair chance of meeting their legally binding waste prevention targets and ensure that Europe stays on track towards a truly circular economy.

Rethink Plastic provides feedback on the evaluation of the Single-Use Plastics Directive

Written by

Read RPA’s feedback

The priority for the Rethink Plastic Alliance is to ensure that the evaluation of the Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) further reinforces—rather than undermines—the ongoing environmental objectives and pollution-prevention measures. Overall, the Directive has delivered clear and positive outcomes, notably through effective product bans and design requirements such as tethered caps, which have proven implementable, visible, and impactful in reducing litter and preventing pollution at source. At this stage, a broad revision would be premature, as more time is needed to gather consolidated, harmonised, and comparable implementation data across Member States. Preserving regulatory stability, while strengthening monitoring and reporting, is therefore essential to preserve legal certainty, maintain investment signals, and safeguard the environmental benefits already set in motion.

Article 15 regarding the evaluation framework is oriented toward improving effectiveness—through the possible introduction of binding reduction and collection targets—indicating that any future revision should logically reinforce, rather than weaken the Directive’s level of ambition.

In this response, we identify priority gaps – in line with Article 15 – that must be addressed in case the Directive is revised, in order to strengthen existing achievements. These include:

  • safeguarding definitions to prevent harmful material substitution,
  • reinforcing consumption-reduction and ban provisions,
  • improving design and marking implementation,
  • strengthening Extended Producer Responsibility toward prevention and reuse,
  • and delivering independent, prevention-focused awareness-raising.

Targeted improvements in these areas would support a future-proof evolution of the SUPD while safeguarding its core environmental ambition.

Read RPA’s feedback
Previous Rethink Plastic and Break Free From Europe evaluations of the SUPD

The Rethink Plastic Alliance, together with the wider Break Free From Plastic movement, has carried out five in-depth yearly assessments of the Directive’s transposition and implementation across EU Member States, which all answer this question at different points in time. The most recent of these reports was published in December 2024. 

European Commission embraces problematic “chemical recycling” technologies despite their harmful environmental impacts and low yields 

Written by

At the end of 2025, the European Commission announced its Implementing Decision laying down rules for recycled content in single-use plastic beverage bottles, including chemically “recycled” content. The Implementing Decision was presented as part of the Commission’s Winter Package on the Circular Economy Act. The Rethink Plastic Alliance is deeply concerned by the Commission’s decision to allow the use of certain problematic, so-called ‘chemical recycling’ technologies to achieve the EU’s recycling targets. The text is the first full recognition of ‘chemical recycling’  – an umbrella term for several methods, among which are pyrolysis and gasification – under EU legislation, and can set a dangerous precedent for future legislation. It accepts credit mass balance for accounting recycled plastic content for the first time, based on the so-called ‘fuel-exempt method’ worsened by the introduction of the questionable concept of ‘dual-use output’ (1), giving a worrying direction for other EU legal acts.

With this implementing decision, companies will be able to claim they’re using more recycled plastic content without changing anything at all. But it isn’t magic; it’s a bad mass balance calculation based on the wrong method. This won’t encourage businesses to use more recycled plastic, nor will it increase circularity – only a truly proportional attribution of recycled plastic content can do that, and the Commission missed the opportunity.

Fanny Rateau, Senior Programme Manager at Environmental Coalition on Standards (ECOS) on behalf of Rethink Plastic

The Commission intends for the adoption of these rules to enable ‘chemical recycling’ in the EU, hoping that it will help economic actors meet the recycled content targets set under the Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD). However, the concept of ‘chemical recycling’ relies on deeply questionable technologies, which is why we had urged the Commission not to promote these technologies in our Rethink Plastic response to the EC consultation (2).

The Implementing Decision under the Circular Economy Winter Package repeals a previous decision on mechanical recycling (3), a long-established and well-suited technology for recycling PET bottles. Instead, it promotes ‘chemical recycling’, especially pyrolysis, even if it cannot treat PET because its oxygen acts as a poison for the process, or needs very high dilution with virgin naphtha and very energy-intensive cleaning processes. Pyrolysis and gasification (4) are characterised by low yield, poor efficiency,  high energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. They should be considered as recovery technologies (5) rather than recycling, as the thermocracking of plastics in most cases turns said plastics into fuel, which then gets burned. 

For all these reasons, we call upon Member States to reject the adoption of this Implementing Act and invite the Commission to ensure the method is developed in support of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation to help meet EU’s recycling targets based on less energy-intensive technologies, such as depolymerisation, and a more trustworthy mass balance method.

Notes to the Editor
  1. ‘Dual-use outputs’ means outputs, other than losses, that can be reprocessed either into fuels or materials other than fuels;
  2. Rethink Plastic Alliance feedback to European Commission’s consultation: https://rethinkplasticalliance.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/SUPD-ID-RPa-consultation-answer-and-draft-for-partners-1.pdf 
  3. Previous Implementing Decion on Mechanical Recycling from 2023: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023D2683&qid=1701421859795 
  4. Fifty years: chemical recycling’s fading promise:  https://zerowasteeurope.eu/library/fifty-years-chemical-recyclings-fading-promise/ 
  5. Chemical Recycling and Recovery:  https://ecostandard.org/publications/joint-position-paper-chemical-recycling-and-recovery/
Our Experts
  • Zero Waste Europe
    Lauriane Veillard, Chemical Recycling and Plastic-to-Fuels Policy Officer | [email protected]
  • ECOS – Environmental Coalition on Standards
    Fanny Rateau, Senior Programme Manager | [email protected]
  • Rethink Plastic Alliance
    Caroline Will, Communications Coordinator | +32 456 56 07 05 | [email protected]
About Us

Rethink Plastic is an alliance of leading European NGOs, representing thousands of active groups, supporters and citizens in every EU Member State. We are part of the global Break Free From Plastic movement, consisting of over 13,000 organisations and individuals worldwide demanding an end to plastic pollution. www.rethinkplasticalliance.eu

ECOS – Environmental Coalition on Standards is an international NGO with a network of members and experts advocating for environmentally friendly technical standards, policies, and laws around the world. We ensure the environmental voice is heard when they are developed and drive change by providing expertise to policymakers and industry players, leading to the implementation of strong environmental principles. www.ecostandard.org

Zero Waste Europe (ZWE) is the European network of communities, local leaders, experts, and change agents working towards a better use of resources and the elimination of waste in our society. We advocate for sustainable systems; for the redesign of our relationship with resources; and for a global shift towards environmental justice, accelerating a just transition towards zero waste for the benefit of people and the planet. www.zerowasteeurope.eu

Rethink Plastic Alliance Joins Call to Protect the Integrity of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation

Written by

The European Commission must protect the integrity of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation!

We are deeply concerned by the potential reopening of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) as part of the upcoming Environmental Simplification Omnibus. That’s why we joined a coalition of 115 signatories, consisting of trade organisations, industry and national associations, reuse businesses and leading European NGOs & environmental groups to call on Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné and Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall to protect the integrity of the PPWR.

Read the Joint Statement

The PPWR is a cornerstone of the European Circular Economy and is a crucial step in establishing the necessary framework that enables truly reusable and recyclable packaging across the Single Market by 2030. While the legislation had already been watered down in response to intense industry lobbying, it provides crucial measures to help tackle Europe’s ever-growing consumption of throwaway packaging by setting binding rules for prevention, reuse and redesign.

That’s why our message to the European Commission is: Do not reopen the PPWR and other key environmental laws in the upcoming Environmental Omnibus!

Reopening this core law, even for minor amendments, risks:

  1. Further worsening the EU’s packaging waste crisis, harming the environment and human health
  2. Creating legislative uncertainty for businesses
  3. Delaying crucial investments in circular solutions
  4. Undermining the Clean Industrial Deal’s goal to double the EU’s circular material use by 2030

We urge the European Commission to act responsibly and maintain key environmental provisions that protect EU citizens and our environment. European businesses must have predictability so that they can seize the opportunity to transition to a truly circular economy.

Rethink Plastic provides feedback on the Circular Economy Act

Written by

The Rethink Plastic Alliance is advocating for a Circular Economy Act that truly rises to the challenge and reflects the urgent need to reduce, reuse and recycle materials. Concerningly, the Call for Evidence suggests that the Commission’s main focus is on downstream measures. While we acknowledge and support the need to improve recycling in the EU, we are calling for a CE Act that accurately reflects the waste hierarchy and therefore also includes strong measures on waste prevention and reuse, while ensuring material loops are toxic-free.

Download our feedback

In line with this, the Rethink Plastic Alliance urges the Commission to:

  • Use a dual legal basis: Establishing a dual legal basis under both environmental and Single Market provisions of the EU Treaty (Article 114 and 192 TFEU) for the CE Act will preserve environmental integrity while improving the coherency of the EU Single Market.
  • Introduce binding EU-wide material footprint targets: The CE Act should be used as an opportunity to significantly decrease the EU’s material and consumption footprints to bring them into planetary boundaries as soon as possible.
  • Reduce the number of polymers in plastic: The number of poorly recyclable and harmful polymers has substantially multiplied and this is fundamentally unsustainable. We therefore call for a reduction of polymers used in virgin plastics with the aim of phasing out those that are most harmful and those that impede recycling and reuse.
  • Mandate EPR to fund prevention, repair and reuse: EPR is a key source of funding for waste management in the EU but it fails to support more resource-efficient measures such as waste prevention, reuse, repair, refurbishment, and remanufacturing. The CE Act should reform EPR schemes so that they effectively promote the scaling-up of circular processes beyond waste management, including the establishment and development of reuse systems.
  • Leverage public procurement as a driver for reuse: The CE Act must deliver on setting mandatory and impactful criteria for public procurement of circular goods. In particular, it should be done in a way that creates predictable demand for reuse.
  • Restrict substances of concern in plastic: The CE Act must promote clean manufacturing and toxic-free material cycles. This includes ensuring that all chemicals in plastic products are used more safely and sustainably, minimising and substituting chemicals that have a chronic effect on human health and the environment, and phasing out the most harmful ones for non-essential societal use.
  • Ensure high-quality recycling: The CE Act should promote the redesign of plastic towards more mono-materials and safer chemicals so that it can be mechanically recycled in a way that delivers high-quality recyclates. The two main technologies promoted under the undefined concept of “chemical recycling”, namely pyrolysis and gasification, should not be considered as recycling technologies. Rather, these inefficient and highly polluting technologies should be considered as chemical recovery and they should not be promoted under the CE Act as a sustainable solution to the plastic waste crisis.
  • Tackle illegal exports of WEEE: The implementation of export bans needs to be improved and sufficient resources for enforcement in both exporting and importing countries should be ensured to address this problem, including inspections for stronger border control.
  • Develop well-designed End-of-Waste criteria: We are in favour of the EU developing EU-wide End-of-Waste (EoW) criteria that ensure recycled materials are safe, traceable, and used within a closed regulatory loop. It is crucial that EoW criteria developed under the CE Act are well-designed so that they provide a single standard for recyclates quality, ensure alignment with chemicals and product legislation, and prevent circumvention of waste-trade controls.
Download our feedback

Plastic pellet regulation: the Rethink Plastic alliance welcomes the EU Parliament’s green light

Written by

After 2 years of negotiations, the Regulation on preventing pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution has finally been formally approved by the European Parliament, paving the way for its publication in the Official Journal and entry into force in the coming weeks. 

As pellet pollution is a daily reality for citizens – such as in Tarragona (Spain) or Ecaussinnes (Belgium) – Rethink Plastic alliance (RPa) welcomes this long-awaited Regulation which we have advocated for over a decade (see the note to the editor below).  

The final regulation marks a significant step towards a concrete “Zero Pellet Loss” objective and follows a comprehensive supply chain approach, introducing measures on prevention, adapted packaging, staff training, mandatory certification of conformity issued by an accredited certifier for medium and large operators. 

By mandating annual reporting on pellet losses for both EU and non-EU carriers, the European Union sends a strong global message that compliance and accountability are essential to tackling this major source of microplastic pollution. 

Still, RPa is disappointed that Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) managing fewer than 1,500 tonnes per year per installation will fall outside the regulation’s ambition, facing only reduced obligations, such as a one-off certification five years after the regulation comes into effect. This represents a major loophole that risks undermining ambition in the new Regulation. 

Quotes: 
  • “This Regulation is a long-overdue course correction – with this groundbreaking law, the EU is finally treating plastic pellets as the major microplastic hazard they are. For decades, producers and handlers have been unaccountable for billions of pellets lost into the environment. This Regulation sets out a vital benchmark for accountability, establishing binding supply-chain obligations to protect the EU’s land and seas. Yet loopholes and delayed implementation risk weakening its impact, allowing tonnes more pellets to slip through the cracks. We urge Member States and industry to deliver on the EU’s zero-pellet-loss ambition with decisive action and stop plastic pellet pollution at its source.” 
    Amy Youngman, Legal and Policy Specialist for the Environmental Investigation Agency 
  • “It is a huge relief to see EU decision-makers unite behind a binding regulation with a set of specific measures to fight plastic pellet pollution on both land and sea. The Commission got it right by choosing a supply chain approach, ensuring a uniform implementation of prevention and clean-up measures. Including maritime transport was a welcome addition, likely driven by recent container ship accidents, although an unjustified 3-year delay is disappointing. It is high time such binding rules replaced existing voluntary initiatives to ensure pellets are finally treated as the hazardous pollutant they are, not just another cargo”.  
    Frédérique Mongodin, Senior Marine Litter Policy Officer for Seas At Risk. 
  • The situation in Tarragona is a prime example of why clear regulation is urgently needed. Plastic pellet pollution doesn’t only occur during maritime transport – it’s also a chronic issue on industrial sites, where responsibilities are too often blurred between actors. After years of monitoring pollution on the ground and bringing this issue to decision-makers, we know that challenges will remain even once the regulation is fully adopted. We’ve documented pollution coming from small and medium-sized companies, and although EU decision-makers haven’t fully reflected this reality in the final text, the responsibility will now fall on national and regional authorities. If the rules themselves aren’t strict enough, the on-the-ground inspections will have to be. 
    Lucie Padovani, Marine Litter Lobbying Officer for Surfrider Foundation Europe. 

For the Rethink Plastic Alliance, this regulation must be considered a basis which gives an essential tool to EU Member States to reach a Zero Pellet Loss Ambition. It belongs to them to make it effective, powerful, and to strictly follow its implementation. 

Notes to the Editor: 
Chronology of the regulation
  • 16 october 2023: Proposal of a regulation to prevent pellets pollution by the European Commission The text gives priority to prevention, mandatory certification, transparency in reporting but the scope is incomplete, containing too much exemptions, especially for SMEs (our reaction here) 
  • 16 january 2024: Rethink Plastic Alliance sends an open letter to the Members of the European Parliament, urging MEPs to consider a regulation with a broader scope, irrespective of a company’s size or a mode of transport, maritime included. (see here) 
  • 23 february: Members of Rethink Plastic Alliance brings MEPs on the ground to consider Pellet’s Pollution in Ecaussinnes, 50kms from Brussels (see here) 
  • 19 march 2024: The European Parliament’s Environment and Public Health Committee (ENVI) adopts its position by supporting the Commission’s approach to regulating the supply chain and go the extra mile by including measures on maritime transport (our reaction here)
  • 22 april 2024: in the last plenary session of its mandate, European Parliament adopt its position, a missed opportunity to tighten the regulation by choosing to exempt businesses that handle less than 1,000 tonnes of pellets a year from mandatory certification, audits and staff training. (our reaction here)
  • 17 december 2024: Council of the EU adopts its General Approach: it includes binding measure for SMEs handling more than 1000 tons of plastic pellets per year but in the same time, it extends delays for many operators, including SMEs and maritime transport (our reaction here)
  • 8 april 2025: End of trilogue, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission find an agreement. If it confirms a true supply chain approach, addressing spills and losses from all actors, EU and non-EU carriers, across all stages, the majority of SMEs are finally exempted from measures, such as independent oversights. (our reaction here) 

Link to the whole procedure file here 

We remain at the disposal of journalists for any comment. 

About Rethink Plastic Alliance 

Rethink Plastic is an alliance of leading European NGOs, with thousands of active groups, supporters and citizens in every EU Member State. We bring together policy and technical expertise from a variety of relevant fields, and work with European policymakers to design and deliver policy solutions for a future that is free from plastic pollution. We are part of the global Break Free From Plastic movement, made up of 11,000 organizations and individual supporters from across the world who are demanding massive reductions in single-use plastics and to push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. 

Contacts 

For Rethink Plastic Alliance 
Caroline Will | +32456560705 | [email protected]  

For Environmental Investigation Agency 
Amy Youngman | +44 20 4549 9015 | [email protected] 
 
For Seas at Risk 
Louisa Gray | +32 486 11 06 67 | [email protected] 

For Surfrider Foundation Europe 
Lionel Cheylus | +33 6 08 10 58 02 | [email protected] 

Rethink Plastic provides feedback on the Environmental Omnibus

Written by

Input from the Rethink Plastic alliance on the Commission’s initiative to simplify and streamline administrative requirements related to the environment in the areas of waste, products, and industrial emissions.

The priority for the Rethink Plastic alliance is to ensure that the policy measures devised under this simplification initiative do not undermine the environmental objectives pursued by the legislation
in question. We acknowledge and strongly welcome the statement in the Call for Evidence that the
goal is not to lower the EU’s environmental objectives or the protection of human health granted by
EU environmental laws.

However, we are concerned that removing certain databases or reporting obligations would indeed
have such a negative impact, and we wish to stress the importance of maintaining existing
obligations that meaningfully contribute to the EU’s high standards of environmental protection. In
this regard, we detail why it is important to maintain reporting obligations related to the SCIP
(substances of concern in products) database, under the Waste Framework Directive, and the
Waste Shipment Regulation.

At the same time, we are supportive of targeted simplification and harmonisation in cases where it
is clear that fragmentation across Member States is resulting in major inefficiencies and when
targets have proven to be ineffective. To this end, we make concrete recommendations for
targeted simplification of certain EU rules, namely rules related to Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) and the EU Landfill Directive.

Download our feedback