Environment experts have reported the Italian government to the EU authorities after its new law on single-use plastics was found to directly contradict EU legislation.

Restrictions in the EU’s Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) apply to single-use plastics including those that are biodegradable or compostable. But the law adopted by the Italian Parliament – which is meant to directly echo the SUPD – alarmingly carves out exceptions for these plastics.

The final step to formally transpose the SUPD into Italian law must be taken by the government, but it is late – the deadline passed on 3 July. This also puts the country in contravention of EU law.

Environmental experts at Greenpeace Italy, ClientEarth, ECOS and the Rethink Plastic Alliance had already warned the environment ministry in May that its law would violate EU rules. They have now lodged an official complaint with the European Commission.

Giuseppe Ungherese, Greenpeace Italy’s toxics campaigner, said: “This law shows that Italy is clearly not committed to a genuine transition to a circular society. If we want to go beyond plastic and a single-use culture, we must avoid a simple material substitution”.

“The most sustainable approach is to support solutions based on refill and reuse. This was, after all, one of the main goals of the EU Directive, but the Italian government has unfortunately failed to comprehend this.”

Biodegradable plastics are being touted by industry marketers as the solution to plastic pollution. They only break down under very specific conditions – for example high temperatures, humidity and presence of micro-organisms – that won’t be met in most circumstances.

ClientEarth plastics lawyer Tatiana Luján said: “Biodegradable plastics are a false solution. They are only biodegradable with lots of caveats such as high temperatures. But if they end up at the bottom of the sea, we know those strict conditions won’t be met. The EU law is designed to start to wean EU countries off this dangerous culture of one-time use. Italian lawmakers have decided to disregard this essential aspect.”

The SUPD has been at the centre of discussions in Italy, with doubts being raised over its impact on Italian industry. However, the EU law was agreed two years ago with Italy’s green light.

Ungherese added: “The Italian government should have guided the industry through the transition, but instead has been focused on fighting EU rules that it had agreed on – this is detrimental to the environment and the Italian economy.”

Notes

The term “bioplastics” is used for two separate things: bio-based plastics (plastics made at least partly from biological matter) and biodegradable plastics (plastics that can be completely broken down by microbes in a reasonable timeframe, given specific conditions).

Italy has a 2-step process for the transposition:

1. A law (sometimes referred to as “Delegation Act”) adopted in Parliament
2. Administrative decrees adopted by the government

In this case, the Delegation Act was adopted in April 2021 and entered into force in May 2021. An administrative decree was meant to follow by 3 July, but the Italian government missed the deadline.

Analysts from ECOS and the Rethink Plastic alliance have examined the claims made on 82 plastic items. Products studied include some of the most commonly found on beaches across Europe such as plastic bottles, bags and cutlery. 

In the absence of clear, specific legislation on ‘green’ claims, companies are free to use vague language, which can often be confusing and potentially mislead consumers. A stroll to any local supermarket is enough for anyone to find a myriad of ‘green’ claims on plastic products, then often found washed up on beaches.

Many of those statements are irrelevant to addressing the plastic crisis or supported by weak evidence, as shown in a study conducted by ECOS and the Rethink Plastic alliance on the ‘green’ claims displayed on 82 different products containing plastics or plastic packaging [1]. 

Main study results: 

• 75% of the claims examined were self-made and not verified by independent third parties
• 49% were potentially unclear to consumers as they did not provide sufficient information
• 46% were irrelevant to addressing plastic pollution
• 26% lacked supporting evidence and were therefore considered not reliable 

Most claims found in the assessment related to the following characteristics of plastic products: reusable, recyclable, containing recycled material, biodegradable, compostable, and bio-based.

Analysts highlighted some of the worst examples they found:

–    ‘Reusable’ dishware: Cheap plastic glasses, cups, plates and silverware are sold as ‘reusable’ in supermarkets. This is due to the absence of clear standards on what can be referred to as reusable. Analysts concluded that clear definitions and criteria on what makes plastic items reusable are missing and needed.

–       Biodegradable bottles: A common false solution doing more harm than good to the environment. Beverage bottles are already widely recycled, and it is preferable for bottles to be produced from recyclable materials rather than promoting biodegradability. Advertising biodegradable bottles is environmentally counterproductive and irrelevant.

–      Biodegradable clothing: Products claiming to be biodegradable in landfill conditions. Such products, however, only incentivise the take-make-waste consumption models.

The full report can be found here: ‘Too good to be true? A study of green claims on plastic products’

Recommendations to policymakers 

Greenwashing can be dramatically reduced if policymakers act. The study offers four recommendations to policymakers and standardisation organisations to put an end to unreliable ‘green’ claims:

1.   Eliminate all loose and stretchable definitions in legislation and standards 

2.       Set clear rules in legislation about what can and what cannot be claimed

3.       Strengthen enforcement of legislation and sanctions against greenwashing

4.       Make sustainable products the norm

Mathilde Crêpy, senior programme manager at ECOS, said:

‘Companies should innovate real product solutions and give people honest information. During this analysis, we have found lots of false solutions and gadget innovation where brands tell consumers they are acting to solve our environmental problems when they are not. We will not solve the plastic pollution crisis with artificial green labels.’

Justine Maillot, policy coordinator of the Rethink Plastic alliance, said 

‘EU decision-makers must act promptly to put an end to the harmful and ever-increasing wave of unregulated green claims, and hold companies accountable. Prohibiting unreliable, irrelevant and confusing information is a key component in allowing consumers to make informed choices, and to actually prevent plastic pollution and achieve a truly circular economy.’ 

A reusable packaging target of 50% by 2030 in the EU for three key sectors could lead to the reduction of 3.7 million tonnes of CO₂, 10 billion cubic metres of water and nearly 28 million tonnes of material, according to a new report from the Rethink Plastic alliance and the Break Free From Plastic movement launched today.

That’s equivalent to CO₂ absorption by 170 million mature trees, and the saving of nearly 4 million olympic swimming pools’ worth of water and nearly 3.5 million truckloads of material.

Based on a study conducted by Circular Economy Portugal, the report highlights the capacity for reuse to thrive with the right sector specific targets, policy frameworks, contributing significantly to circular economy and Paris Agreement objectives, while saving companies and consumers money. 

The study focuses on 3 sectors: 1) take-away food containers and cups, 2) mailing packaging for e-commerce clothing and accessories and 3) household care product containers used in large retail.

Key recommendations

Key recommendations include a 100% reusable target for eat-in consumption in the hotel, restaurant and catering sector, and a 75% reusable target for food takeaway and delivery, a rapidly growing industry which has seen a significant increase in single-use plastic production since the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Sector-specific targets, harmonising and simplifying packaging composition and formats, capping single-use plastic usage and investing public funds into research and development are also proposed. Some of these solutions are discussed today at the REUSE conference organised today by Environmental Action Germany (DUH), CEGROBB, Private Breweries Germany and Reloop. 

Expert voices

“Virtually all packaging sectors are currently dependent on single-use packaging, and this comes at a huge cost for the environment and for society. If we look at case studies of  reusable systems for household products in the UK, France and Germany for example, we see there are numerous existing models that can be implemented to provide the best option for various scenarios.” 

Larissa Copello, Consumption and Production Campaigner at Zero Waste Europe

“In the absence of standards on how to design reusable packaging formats and run interoperable reuse systems, businesses face high unnecessary costs that make it difficult to compete with single-use. The EU could see  reusable packaging flourish if EU policy-makers finally agreed to set requirements for reusable packaging formats and systems, at great benefits to the environment and society.”

Samy Porteron, Programme Manager at the Environmental Coalition on Standards (ECOS)

“For decades European policies on packaging have been focused on end of pipe solutions and recycling. Consequently, reuse is at its lowest level and packaging waste at its highest level in history. If policy makers are committed to the circular economy its time reuse is taken seriously. The upcoming revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive presents an ideal opportunity to do this”

Jean-Pierre Schweitzer, Policy Officer for Products and Circular Economy at the European Environmental Bureau

New reports show achievements and failures of governments across Europe and highlight growing initiatives to address the challenge.

Today, the Rethink Plastic alliance and the Break Free From Plastic movement released two reports, an assessment of policy measures adopted by EU countries to phase out single-use plastic and a catalogue of best practices that can be replicated or scaled up to support the transition. They show that further ambition is urgently needed and come as the period for EU Member States to transpose the Single Use Plastics Directive comes to an end on 3 July 2021.  

The Single Use Plastic Implementation Assessment differentiates between top performers (highlighted in green) and Member States lagging behind (in orange and red) in implementing the mandatory EU measures to curb plastic pollution.

Estonia, France, Greece, and Sweden are examples of countries on a strong track for the implementation of the Directive, while Bulgaria and Poland are just some of many Member States which need to urgently scale up their efforts.

While the level of ambition varies significantly across EU Member States, it remains overall insufficient to ensure Europe actually moves away from single-use and towards a circular economy. 

The Seas at Risk Best Practices report and interactive multilingual map, link EU policy measures with effective and concrete solutions, offering over 150 best practices to reduce and phase out single use plastics. The provided solutions have already proved to be effective, easy to replicate in other regions or to develop on a wider scale. They aim to encourage public authorities, businesses, schools, local communities and consumers to reduce single-use plastics and support Member states in implementing the Directive and go beyond.

To curb plastic pollution, the EU adopted in 2019 the Single-Use Plastics Directive that requires EU countries to implement a number of measures including: banning several single-use plastic items, including plates, straws and cutlery, by 3 July 2021; putting in place extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes and single-use plastics marking requirements; adopting measures to achieve consumption reduction for single-use plastic cups and food containers; and by 2029, achieving 90% separate collection on single-use plastic bottles. Based on the assessment of European and national NGOs, the first report released today reveals the performance of all EU Member States plus Norway in transposing the Single-Use Plastics Directive into their national law. 

Gaëlle Haut, EU affairs project manager at Surfrider Europe said: “The effective and complete transposition of the Single-Use Plastic Directive is still missing in many EU countries. The measures laid down in the Directive are minimum requirements to be achieved and built upon. To achieve the 50% reduction target of plastic litter at sea, it’s urgent all these measures are transposed and enforced. Best performing States are showing that, with political will, great ambition and timely transposition can go hand in hand”. 

Larissa Copello, Consumption and Production Campaigner at Zero Waste Europe added: “Half-hearted measures, such as material substitution or cosmetic legislative change, will not allow to achieve a truly circular economy across Europe. It is urgent to redesign both products and distribution systems, and decision-makers can drive this systemic change by adopting a combination of measures such as consumption reduction targets, reuse quotas, harmonised packaging formats and deposit return schemes.  

Frédérique Mongodin, Senior Marine Litter Policy Officer At Seas At Risk said: “Single-use plastic is the symbol of today’s throw-away society and phasing them out constitutes an obvious first step to fight plastic pollution. Yet we cannot rely on the sole political will of national governments. We need bold and effective actions from across society to drive a wave of change. The solutions we have collected are meant to inspire new ways of living and consuming that are more respectful of our ocean, our planet and ourselves.” 

Réseau Tunisie Verte | Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) | Basel Action Network (BAN) | Zero Waste Europe (ZWE) | European Environmental Bureau (EEB) | Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) | Greenpeace MENA | Rethink Plastic alliance (RPa) | International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN)

For immediate release Brussels, March 3, 2021

International, European, Italian and Tunisian environmental groups have joined in demanding the immediate return of 282 containers full of mixed municipal waste that were illegally exported from Italy’s Campania region to the Port of Sousse in Tunisia between May and July 2020. According to the environmental organizations, the exports violated European Union law, Tunisian law as well as international waste trade treaties — the Basel Convention, the Bamako Convention and the Izmir Protocol of the Barcelona Convention. A short report shows how weaknesses in EU regulations may have contributed to this waste being exported for disposal under the cover of recycling. Under the terms of international and EU laws, Italy should have returned the shipments many months ago.  

Indeed, the Italian Administrative Region of Campania has already demanded that the exporting company Sviluppo Risorse Ambientali (SRA) return the waste at their own cost. SRA reportedly appealed this request to an administrative court in Naples and the court ruled it has no jurisdiction to counter the regional demand. Regardless, the responsibility to enforce the international rules lies ultimately with the Italian national government. 

“We fail to understand why Italy has not moved decisively to resolve this case and have these unwanted wastes returned,” said Ms. Semia Gharbi of Réseau Tunisie Verte, in Tunis. “We cannot wait indefinitely. We, therefore, call upon the European Commission to get involved and take the necessary actions to ensure that Italy fulfills its clear legal obligations. Tunisia is not Europe’s dumping ground!”

Tunisia is a Party to the Bamako Convention and the Izmir Protocol of the Barcelona Convention. Both of these agreements make it illegal for Tunisia to import wastes collected from households. And at the same time, Italy’s obligations under the Basel Convention and the European Waste Shipment Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006) require them to not approve of any exports to countries which have banned the import of such wastes. The shipments are therefore considered as illegal traffic under the Basel Convention and the EU Waste Shipment Regulation that implements that treaty in the European Union. 

Illegal traffic under these rules is a criminal act. Shipments that are illegal due to the fault of the exporter, as is the case in this instance, must be taken back by the exporting state within 30 days from the time the exporting state was made aware of the illegal shipment, or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally sound manner under the direction of the exporting country.

“Italy was made aware of the illegal shipment by the Tunisian government on 9 December 2020,” said Jim Puckett of the Basel Action Network (BAN). “They are therefore nearly two months overdue in acting as required by law.  This is unacceptable.  We call upon the European Commission to take the necessary action to ensure compliance.”

“Italy ought to take responsibility for preventing and managing its own municipal waste, rather than exporting its problems to Tunisia”, said Sirine Rached of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). “Every additional day of delayed repatriation adds to this injustice”.

“This type of trade is immoral and environmentally destructive, it is not acceptable to import waste from Italy to Tunisia for landfilling. Landfilling of waste can generate toxic leaching and contribute to the degradation of human health and the environment,” added Mohammed Tazrout, campaigner for Greenpeace Middle-East and North Africa. 

“This is another striking example of a weakness in European legislation and enforcement causing ethical and environmental harm to others” said Pierre Condamine, waste policy officer at Zero Waste Europe. “The first clear and immediate step is for Italy to repatriate the shipment. The following step should be to fix and properly enforce, EU legislation to avoid doing any more harm.” 

ENDS

Read the Rethink Plastic alliance’s recommendations for the revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation to reduce harm caused from Waste Trade.

Press contacts:

Jim Puckett, Executive Director, Basel Action Network, [email protected], +1 (206) 652-5555

Semia Gharbi, Réseau Tunisie Verte, [email protected], +216 98 997 350

Ana Oliveira, Zero Waste Europe, [email protected], +32 (0) 485 986 111

25 February 2021, Brussels

EU plans to stop firms adding microplastic to almost all products have major loopholes that would keep pollution flooding into the environment for nearly a decade and reward unproven biodegradable plastics, environmental groups are warning.

The European Commission has pledged to ban microplastic from cosmetics, paints, detergents, some farm, medical and other products to prevent 500,000 tonnes polluting mostly rivers and seas. The legal process moved forward on Tuesday when a detailed proposal was presented by ECHA to the Commission. The legal restriction is expected to become law next year.

But following industry lobbying, the proposal has major loopholes, according to the Rethink Plastic alliance of environmental groups. Some sectors could get up to 8 years to drop microplastic while ‘biodegradable’ microplastic that has not been shown to degrade in the environment could escape the ban. The 500,000 tonnes target will be impossible to achieve unless the proposal is improved, they calculated.

“Microplastic pollution is everywhere: in our drinking water, our fields, filling the air in cities and even inside our bodies. The EU is right to build on its reputation of tackling plastic pollution with this new ban. But it must avoid being sidetracked by industry-sponsored loopholes. We want a quick and broad restriction with no green light for unproven biodegradable plastic.”

European Environmental Bureau chemicals policy officer Elise Vitali

“The EU promised to turn off the taps on microplastic pollution. Take sport pitches – it’s a gigantic source of microplastics pollution and it’s now up to the Commission to make sure that a full ban is in order. When it comes to cosmetics – another well-known source of this pollution – the Commission needs to reject the lenient proposal that would give the cosmetics industry a free pass to continue business as usual until 2028, even where alternatives are available.”

Hélène Duguy, chemicals lawyer at ClientEarth

Microplastic pollution is irreversible and causes considerable harm to the environment, with potential grave consequences for humans. EU scientific advisors have recognised that microplastics pose an unacceptable risk, which justifies a comprehensive ban.

The groups are urging the Commission to adopt a broad restriction that covers all microplastics in all sectors and uses.

The proposal is now in the hands of the Commission’s industry department, which has not always shown ambition on chemicals policy, the NGOs said. The Commission has until end of May 2021 to draft the restriction text, which will then go to a vote of member state experts. The European Parliament and Council of Ministers then have three months to object, but rarely do. 

Ends

For more details, click here. For details on ECHA’s proposal and further comment please get in touch using the supplied contacts. 

Contacts

Hélène Duguy, ClientEarth, [email protected] +33 (0) 6 68 74 72 32

Élise Vitali, European Environmental Bureau, [email protected] + 32 456 164 678

Jack Hunter, European Environmental Bureau, [email protected] +33 (0) 7 51 05 18 05  

Rethink Plastic, part of the Break Free From Plastic movement, is an alliance of leading European NGOs working towards ambitious EU policies on plastics. It brings together the Center for International Environmental Law, ClientEarth, Environmental Investigation Agency , European Environmental Bureau , European Environmental Citizen’s Organisation for Standardisation, Greenpeace, Seas At Risk, Surfrider Foundation Europe, and Zero Waste Europe. Together they represent thousands of active groups, supporters and citizens in every EU Member State working towards a future free from plastic pollution. 

The Rethink Plastic alliance welcomes the European Parliament ENVI Committee’s strong call for ambitious measures to achieve a toxic-free circular economy and prevent pollution at source. Now, upcoming legislative initiatives, including the Sustainable Products Policy Initiative and the revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, must maintain the same ambition in order to make the objectives of the Circular Economy Action Plan a reality. 

Today, the ENVI Committee (of the European Parliament) adopted their own report welcoming the Circular Economy Action Plan released in March 2020 by the European Commission, under the umbrella of the European Green Deal. In this report, the Parliament urges the European Commission to continue the implementation of the 2018 Plastics Strategy.

The European Parliament highlights that single-use products can be “a significant burden on the environment and on resources” needing to be replaced by reusable alternatives. It calls for circular and non toxic materials and products to become the norm in the EU market while making sure they are accessible and affordable to all. It also highlights the need to support circular products and business models and the development of “product as a service“ initiatives and deposit-return schemes.

“By putting single-use under the spotlight and calling for legislative measures and economic incentives to support reusable solutions, the European Parliament is sending a strong and welcome signal. Reduction, redesign and reuse are – and need to be – at the core of the transition not only to circular products and packaging but also to circular systems”

commented Justine Maillot, Policy Coordinator at the Rethink Plastic alliance.

The European Parliament also stresses the need for urgent action to address microplastic pollution, a growing source of concern for both the environment and health. It calls on the European Commission to phase out intentionally added microplastics (e.g. in cosmetics, detergents, sanitary pads and nappies), adopt regulatory measures to reduce unintentional release of all microplastics at source (secondary microplastics and plastic pellets) as well as ecodesign requirements to prevent microplastics released by the degradation of larger plastic items. 

“The European Parliament has so far taken a bolder stance on microplastics than the Commission, calling for the adoption of a comprehensive and mandatory set of measures to reduce their release across sectors. To overcome the significant threat microplastics pose to both our health and environment, parallel regulatory efforts are urgently needed, including a wide restriction of intentionally added microplastics, EU legislation to make best practice handling of plastic pellets mandatory all along the value chain, and binding measures to target secondary microplastics sources such as plastic mulch, car tyres and synthetic fibers”

added Justine Maillot, Policy Coordinator at the Rethink Plastic alliance.

ENDS

Notes to editors

The European Parliament’s report also highlights that : 

– the Commission should set material and consumption footprints targets to 2030 and 2050 to bring consumption within planetary boundaries by 2050;

– the circular economy can only be toxic free and that further action is needed to phase out hazardous chemicals in products and packaging and increased traceability, notably thanks to product passports and the SCIP database; 

– green public procurement has a big role to play in the transition, leading by example in making sustainable products and packaging (reusable, repaired etc) the default option in public procurement;

– green claims related to plastics must be fully justified with the use of harmonised calculation methods, such as the Product Environmental Footprint methodology

– bio-based and biodegradable plastics alone are not a solution to the environmental impacts of plastics; 

– the EU should continue to lead the work on international responses for addressing plastic pollution, including the work towards a global agreement on plastics. 

The European Parliament Plenary is expected to vote on the report in February.

Contacts 

Justine Maillot, Policy Coordinator at Rethink Plastic alliance, +32 (0) 487 347 215, [email protected] 

Eilidh Robb, Communications Officer at Rethink Plastic alliance, +44 (0) 753 152 5899 [email protected] 

The Rethink Plastic alliance, part of the Break Free From Plastic movement, is an alliance of leading European NGOs working towards ambitious EU policies on plastics. It brings together the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), ClientEarth, Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), European Environmental Bureau (EEB), European Environmental Citizen’s Organisation for Standardisation (ECOS), Greenpeace, Seas At Risk, Surfrider Foundation Europe, and Zero Waste Europe. Together they represent thousands of active groups, supporters and citizens in every EU Member State working towards a future free from plastic pollution. 

19 November 2020 Brussels

While this pollution is claimed to be under control all along the supply chain, Surfrider Foundation Europe, on behalf of the Rethink Plastic alliance and other leading NGOs, today prove that this is not the reality. In their latest report: “Plastic giants polluting through the backdoor” they highlight 5 recent cases of pellet (nurdle) leakage across Europe. As part of the EU’s commitments under the new Circular Economy Action Plan, and the Commissions commitments to come up with a zero-pollution strategy next year, they are calling on the European Commission to adopt ambitious legal measures to tackle pellet pollution once and for all.

To date, pellet pollution has not been regulated by EU decision makers, while the voluntary industry initiative (Operation Clean Sweep) has proven to be unable to stop the pollution in nearly 30 years of volunteer action. Yet, pellet pollution is the second most significant primary source of microplastic pollution in our Ocean.

Through the presentation of five case studies across Europe, this report exposes the consequences of plastic production related pollution on the environment and on local communities, detailing the reactions of citizens and local associations to the pollution, and the responses of the companies responsible. These case studies finally allow the alliance to draw a series of conclusions which all plead for urgent, legal measures to be adopted.

“What the case studies show is that pellet pollution continues to be out of control today, despite repeated declarations from the plastics giants that everything is going in the right direction. Plastic pollution continues to occur on a large scale with dramatic impacts on nature and our Ocean. Meanwhile, local communities are left to deal with the pollution. It’s time for the EU to adopt legal measures to hold companies accountable”, explains Gaëlle Haut, EU affairs officer at Surfrider Europe.

Up to 160 000 tonnes of nurdles are lost every year in Europe. Plastic pellets, also called nurdles or mermaid tears, are a raw material used in the manufacturing of plastic items. They are the virgin plastic that is melted and molded into plastic items. Pellets end up in nature when handled irresponsibly by plastic producers, transporters, recyclers or converters.

Pellets accumulate in the sea, in surface waters and rivers and near industrial sites or ports. Pollution has been going on for decades. Plastic pellets have many impacts on marine ecosystems. They cause severe damage to marine life and threaten terrestrial animals; because of their colour and shape, they are often mistaken for food by marine animals and birds, and, once ingested, they get stuck in the animal’s stomach, causing starvation and death.

Once released into the environment, pellets, which already contain harmful additives, also attract and absorb toxic particles and bacteria which are present in the water. This harmful cocktail can then enter the food chain, and reach our bodies, through the fish and seafood we eat.

Pellet pollution also impacts recreational activities (such as water sports), deteriorates habitats and affects tourist activities. In almost all cases of pollution, local communities are left to deal with the pollution, without any responsibility being established.

Clearer responsibility and accountability are needed to prevent pellet pollution. Surfrider Foundation Europe and its partners from the Rethink Plastic alliance call on the European Commission to adopt measures to prevent plastic pellets from polluting our Ocean and compel companies to act. Pellet pollution adds to the estimated 12 million tonnes of plastics that end up in the Ocean every year. With plastic production projected to double by 2035 and to almost quadruple by 2050, it is urgent that the plastic production and transformation chain’s contribution to the plastic crisis is recognised and addressed.

ENDS

Contact: Gaëlle Haut, EU affairs officer, Surfrider Foundation Europe, + 32 (0)4 87/16 94 53  & [email protected]

Plastic giants polluting through the backdoor : the case for a regulatory supply-chain approach to pellet pollution, Surfrider Foundation Europe, Rethink Plastic alliance, November 2020: https://rethinkplasticalliance.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/plastic_giants_polluting_through_the_backdoor.pdf

About the Rethink Plastic alliance 

Rethink Plastic, part of the Break Free From Plastic movement, is an alliance of leading European NGOs working towards ambitious EU policies on plastics. It brings together the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), ClientEarth, Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), European Environmental Bureau (EEB), European Environmental Citizen’s Organisation for Standardisation (ECOS), Greenpeace , Seas At Risk, Surfrider Foundation Europe, and Zero Waste Europe. Together they represent thousands of active groups, supporters and citizens in every EU Member State working towards a future free from plastic pollution.

About Surfrider Foundation Europe
Surfrider Foundation Europe is a European not-for-profit organisation dedicated to the protection and enhancement of Europe’s lakes, rivers, ocean, waves and the coastline. It currently has over 13,000 members and is active across 12 countries through its volunteer-run branches. For 30 years, Surfrider Foundation Europe has been taking action as a recognized authority in 3 areas of expertise: marine litter, water quality and health, coastal management and climate change. More info: www.surfrider.eu

16 November 2020 Brussels

In a new report, ClientEarth, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and the Rethink Plastic Alliance, urge the European Commission and Member States to severely restrict the intentional use of microplastics, beyond what is currently proposed by the European Chemical Agency (ECHA).

The call comes as ECHA finalises its recommendations for a ban on microplastics that are intentionally used, in all sectors including, for example, cosmetics, detergents, paints, or sport pitches. The ban could drastically reduce the pollution caused by these sectors.

Environmental experts warn that while the current version rightly gauges the harmfulness of microplastics, it is too soft on key sources of microplastic pollution, which could jeopardise the overall effectiveness of the final restriction.

ClientEarth lawyer Hélène Duguy said: “EU institutions promised to crack down on microplastic pollution but the latest proposal doesn’t cut it. “The ball is in the European Commission and EU countries’ court now and it’s crucial that they show ambition. With the loopholes we’re looking at, an ever increasing volume of microplastics will keep on flooding into the environment. Once there, they persist and accumulate – hence the need to turn off the tap as fully and quickly as possible.” 

The report specifically points to the fact that:

• Not all intentionally used microplastics are targeted. Allegedly biodegradable microplastics and soluble polymers are for example exempt, which might lead companies to use those instead, failing to actually reduce microplastic pollution.
• Insufficient requirements on major sources of microplastic pollution. The current proposal does not adequately restrict microplastics contained in sport pitches (even if alternatives exist) and similarly, the requirements for reporting on pellet loss should be strengthened. 
• Exemptions that lack sound justification. For example, the latest version of the proposal would allow microplastics to be used in continence pads, menstrual pads and nappies, despite these being in direct contact with the human body and a known source of marine pollution.
• Unjustified delays in implementing the ban. For example, the ban on microplastics for leave-on cosmetics would only enter into force in 2028, while alternatives already exist.

Beyond environmental considerations, experts argue that a strong restriction would boost innovation in the market for microplastic-free alternatives and spare public authorities from the cost of cleaning microplastics, notably in water.

Duguy added: “By standing firm on the ban, the EU would show that it is truly committed to its promises under the European Green Deal and the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability.”

Elise Vitali, Policy officer on Chemicals for the EEB, said: “Every week, a new study opens our eyes further to the dangers of plastic pollution. In recent years the EU has led the world in confronting the problem; banning many throw-away products and announcing the microplastic crackdown. But industry holds a lot of sway in Brussels and lobbyists have injected some really troubling loopholes that would allow the polluting business-as-usual to keep on. Leaders need to close the highly risky backdoors to the microplastics restriction.”

Gaëlle Haut, EU affairs project manager at Surfrider Foundation Europe, said: “The Ocean would be home to as many as 125 trillion microplastic particles. Building a Healthier Planet for Healthier People as the European Commission has committed to with its Zero Pollution ambition starts with a ban, coming into effect as soon as possible on all intentionally added microplastics.”

Tom Gammage, Ocean Campaigner at EIA, said: “Microplastics represent an appalling and insidious form of pollution, the impacts of which we are only just beginning to understand. This restriction is a step in the right direction, yet currently it falls short on the ambitious action required to lead the world in decisively tackling this growing issue.”

Frédérique Mongodin, senior marine litter policy officer with SEAS AT RISK, said: “Debates about the multiple impacts of microplastics have gone on for too long, at a time when the anticipated growth of global plastic consumption is out of control and requires short term action. Discussing long transitional periods for primary microplastics hardly makes sense when sustainable alternatives already exist for most of them. When it comes to plastic pellets, manufacturing and handling companies need to take responsibility for the current lack of information, training and transparency available to professional users, when targeted information on the environmental costs of pellet loss could keep that chronic pollution under control.” 

ENDS

Read the position paper and summary two-pager

Notes to editors

Between 75,000 and 300,000 tonnes of microplastics are released into the environment each year in the EU alone. Scientists are warning that the situation is out of control.

Microplastics can be found almost everywhere: on mountains, in the ocean, in the Arctic sea ice and in human bodies.

Globally, 2,249 species of plant, animal and microbe are known to interact with micro- and nano-plastics. These tiny synthetic polymers are harmful to biodiversity as they resist biodegradation – fragmenting in nature – causing including by blocking the digestive tracts of aquatic creatures, turtles and birds. Extensive scientific evidence also shows that microplastics facilitate the bioaccumulation of pollutants in animals and plants, including those destined for human consumption. Most scientists agree that they are likely to be harmful to human health.

In 2019, upon request from the European Commission, ECHA submitted a proposal for restricting the use of intentionally added microplastic particles to consumer or professional products of any kind, in line with the EU Plastics Strategy (2018). The proposal would reduce intentionally added microplastic pollution by nearly 40,000 tonnes after 2030.

The scientific assessment of the restriction proposal by ECHA committees will be finalised and made public in December, after which the European Commission will have three months to draft a proposal that the Member States will vote on.

---