The need to transition from a linear model of production and consumption to a circular economy has never been more pressing.
A circular economy focuses on reducing waste, designing products for longevity, and promoting reuse, repair, and recycling. However, achieving this vision requires addressing the presence of harmful chemicals that undermine these efforts. Chemicals like flame retardants, PFAS, and bisphenols not only limit the safety and value of recycled materials but also pose significant environmental and health risks.
These chemicals contaminate recycled materials, creating “toxic recycling loops,” and limit the value and safety of secondary materials. For instance, bisphenols like BPA, used in plastics and food packaging, have been replaced with equally harmful alternatives, such as BPS, demonstrating the issue of regrettable substitution.
Fidra’s new report explores several examples of where circular economy practices have been implemented without consideration of where the chemicals are, resulting in unsustainable and sometimes unsafe practices.
Sector-Specific Challenges
Textiles and Furniture: Persistent chemicals like flame retardants and PFAS hinder recycling efforts. These substances, added for fire safety or water resistance, often have minimal real-world benefits. Alternatives such as wool-based fire barriers or inherently flame-resistant materials can achieve safety without toxic additives.
Plastics and Electronics: Brominated flame retardants in electronic waste complicate recycling and increase costs. Contaminants from recycling processes often appear in new products, such as toys and kitchen utensils, further spreading pollutants.
Food Packaging: PFAS in compostable packaging persist in the environment, creating long-term pollution in soil and water. Encouraging PFAS-free alternatives, already adopted by several UK supermarkets, is essential.
Addressing Contamination in Water Systems
Water and wastewater systems face significant contamination from consumer and industrial chemicals. Microplastics, pharmaceuticals, and PFAS in sewage sludge limit its reuse as an agricultural fertiliser and pose a risk to soil health. The most effective solution lies in robust source control, which prevents these harmful substances from entering water systems and reduces the burden on wastewater treatment facilities.
To achieve true circularity, we must:
- Eliminate harmful chemicals at their source: Preventing their inclusion in primary materials reduces contamination in recycling streams.
- Adopt chemical transparency and traceability: Tools like product passports can identify and track chemical content, enabling safer reuse and recycling.
- Support sustainable design: Safe and sustainable by design principles simplify products and reduce reliance on harmful substances.
Recommendations for a Safe Circular Economy
Align UK Regulations with EU Standards: Harmonised policies ensure the safe use and reuse of materials.
Invest in Safe Design: Supporting green chemistry and sustainable design fosters innovation and reduces reliance on harmful substances.
Implement Transparency Schemes: Product passports with chemical content details enable traceability and enhance recycling efficiency.
Set National Targets: Reduce plastic and chemical production to limit resource consumption and environmental harm.
A circular economy is not only an environmental imperative but also an opportunity for economic growth and innovation. By addressing chemical use at every stage—design, production, and recycling—governments and industries can unlock the full potential of a safe circular economy, balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship.
Read Fidra’s new Chemicals in the Circular Economy Report here and watch our YouTube video summary here.