22nd May 2023

Landmark Decision – Intentionally-added microplastic restrictions are to be adopted by the EU


On the 26th of April the European Commission voted to adopt the intentionally-added microplastics restriction proposal

 

Why are intentionally added microplastics in artificial pitches a concern?

Artificial pitch infill is an intentionally-added microplastic. Microplastics such as rubber crumb from recycled tyres are added as a performance infill, particularly to artificial sports pitches. The infill material is the largest source of environmental microplastic emissions of intentionally added microplastics at the European level.

 

Why now?

There has been uncertainty around whether the European Commission (EC) Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) committee would reach a decision on restricting intentionally-added microplastics in products. The initial decision was expected at the end of 2021 after the REACH committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) produced a technical report on the risk management measures for artificial pitches and the effectiveness of these proposed measures. The report1 recommended:

(A) Use of risk management measures to ensure that annual releases of microplastic do not exceed 7 g/m2 (equivalent to 50 kg/full-size pitch/year2) after a transitional period of three years.
(B) A ban on placing on the market after a transitional period of six years.

In August 2022, the EC finally released its draft proposal, which opted to ban microplastics used as infill in artificial pitches with a six-year transition period, in line with other scientific committees2. Despite ongoing delays and opposition around the proposal, there has been mounting evidence to support a ban on the use of intentionally added microplastics in artificial pitches 3–8. This evidence is outlined within the Annex XV dossier alongside the opinions of the RAC and the Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC). It is evident that awareness of the socio-economic impacts has increased alongside an emergence of research into – and availability of – microplastic-free alternatives9. The vote concluded that the use of products with intentionally added microplastics was a considerable source of microplastic pollution, posing unacceptable risks to the environment, and that a European Union-wide approach was needed10. This welcomed ban on intentionally added microplastics in artificial pitches will however be subject to a longer eight-year transitional period, instead of the RAC suggested six-year transition.

 

What does it mean and what happens next with artificial pitch microplastics?

It is encouraging that the EC’s broad restrictions and eventual bans encompass all intentionally added microplastics11, however, there are exemptions including biodegradable and soluble polymers and products such as cosmetics, granted longer transitional periods.

The decision to implement a ban of this scale is excellent news, however with the initial delay to make the decision (2023 instead of 2021), plus the longer eight-year transition period for intentionally-added microplastics used in artificial pitches, the loss of microplastics could reach 160,000 tonnes across the 10 years of inaction1 which is equivalent to the weight of 16 Eiffel towers. This level of additional microplastic pollution going into the environment is completely preventable and is an unacceptable dismissal of the risks that have been outlined.  It is likely that microplastic losses to the environment will exceed estimates due to further potential delays during the European Council and Parliament ‘three month’ scrutinization period. Furthermore, the decision will be met with strong opposition to the ban from industry, particularly from northern European countries, over concerns that alternative microplastic-free artificial pitch infill options are not suitable12.  With the longstanding ban on landfill outlets, there are also concerns over where end-of-life tyres will go when re-use in artificial pitches is no longer an option. Court proceedings initiated by third generation pitch producers and tyre recycling industries could further delay the phase out of intentionally-added microplastics used in artificial pitches.

 

How can I get involved?

We encourage you to write to your local artificial pitch owners or councils to raise awareness of the issue and ask them to consider opting for natural grass pitches, approved microplastic-free infills, or non-infill (fourth generation and beyond) pitches when planning to build or refurbish an existing pitch.

Contact your local MP asking them to support a ban on the use of artificial pitch microplastic infills, as recommended by the European Chemical Agency, RAC and SEAC.

Although our Pitch In project is currently paused, you can visit our website for useful guides and information or contact our team at info@fidra.org.uk

 

References

  1. Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) (2021) Opinion related to the request by the Executive Director of ECHA under Art. 77(3)(c) of REACH to prepare a supplementary opinion on: CEN technical report 17519 on risk management measures for artificial pitches and the ESTC study on their effectiveness and the proposed derogation for polymers without carbon atoms in their structure .
  2. European Commission (2022) COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) …/… of XXX amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards synthetic polymer microparticles C34200: Committee established under the Regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Joint responsibility with DG ENV).
  3. Bleyer A, & Keegan T (2018) Incidence of malignant lymphoma in adolescents and young adults in the 58 counties of California with varying synthetic turf field density Cancer Epidemiol 53 129–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2018.01.010.
  4. Cheng H, Hu Y, & Reinhard M (2014) Environmental and Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Review Environ Sci Technol 48 2114–2129, https://doi.org/10.1021/es4044193.
  5. Perkins AN, Inayat-Hussain SH, Deziel NC, Johnson CH, Ferguson SS, Garcia-Milian R, Thompson DC, & Vasiliou V (2019) Evaluation of potential carcinogenicity of organic chemicals in synthetic turf crumb rubber Environ Res 169 163–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.018.
  6. Peterson MK, Lemay JC, Pacheco Shubin S, & Prueitt RL (2018) Comprehensive multipathway risk assessment of chemicals associated with recycled (“crumb”) rubber in synthetic turf fields Environ Res 160 256–268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.09.019.
  7. Pochron ST, Fiorenza A, Sperl C, Ledda B, Lawrence Patterson C, Tucker CC, Tucker W, Ho YL, & Panico N (2017) The response of earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) and soil microbes to the crumb rubber material used in artificial turf fields Chemosphere 173 557–562, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.01.091.
  8. Murphy M, & Warner GR (2022) Health impacts of artificial turf: Toxicity studies, challenges, and future directions Environmental Pollution 310 119841, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119841.
  9. Fidra PitchIN – Solutions Retrieved online May 22, 2023 from: https://www.fidra.org.uk/artificial-pitches/plastic-pitches/solutions/#infills.
  10. European Commission (2023) COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) …/… of XXX amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards synthetic polymer microparticles C34200: Committee established under the Regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Joint responsibility with DG ENV).
  11. Rethink Plastic Alliance (2023) rethink plastic alliance welcomes the eu restriction of intentionally added microplastics Retrieved online May 2, 2023 from: https://rethinkplasticalliance.eu/news/rethink-plastic-alliance-welcomes-the-eu-restriction-of-intentionally-added-microplastics-urges-faster-implementation/?emci=baf6fb31-29ea-ed11-8e8b-00224832eb73&emdi=0d3275ba-51ea-ed11-8e8b-00224832eb73&ceid=9863788.
  12. Carter L (2023) Tussle over artificial football pitches comes to a head(er) Politico. from https://www.politico.eu/article/tussle-over-artificial-football-pitches-comes-to-a-header-old-tires-danish-football-association-ngo-harmful-chemicals/