The ambition to retain products and materials for as long as possible in a circular economy may dilute, disperse and accumulate hazardous substances. However, in addition to exemptions for circulated products, the regulatory regime targets only a small percentage of all hazardous substances. This emerging problem is just one of many examples why the focus needs to shift from the win–win potential of a circular economy towards a reflexive consideration of tensions, trade-offs and policy conflicts between increased circulation and other topical issues, such as, in this case, reduced dispersion of hazardous substances.
The dispersion of hazardous substancesFootnote 1 in a circular economy has previously been highlighted as an anomaly, as a consequence of inferior, uncontrolled, and immoral recycling. For example, when electrical waste is exported from the global north to the south where plastic and rubber are burned to quickly access the precious metals, with risk to human health and the environment (Man et al. 2013).
However, it is less noticed that also formal, or to be more precise, industrial recycling and reuse can increase the distribution, dilution and accumulation of hazardous substances (Johansson et al. 2020). Researchers and NGOs have uncovered the unintentional recycling of hazardous substances into new articles. Elevated levels of hazardous substances from recycling have been identified in, for example, consumer articles such as toys (Chen et al. 2009; DiGangi and Strakova 2015; Guzzonato et al. 2017), kitchen utensils (Samsonek and Puype 2013; Turner and Filella 2017; Kuang et al. 2018), food packaging (Jurek and Leitner 2017; Abdallah et al. 2018; Geueke et al. 2018), and industrial products such as fertilizers (Johansson and Krook 2021).
But while the dispersion of hazardous substances through recycling has been documented, at least for some specific products and substances, it is still unclear how the problem of hazardous substances is, and should be, handled in a circular economy (cf. Johansson 2021). Previous studies on the governance of hazardous substances in a circular economy have primarily focused on isolated issues such as food contact materials (De Tandt et al. 2021), risk assessments (Bodar et al. 2018; Wang and Hellweg 2021), the sectoral separation of policies (Alaranta and Turunen 2021), threshold limits (Johansson and Krook 2021), and communication (Friege et al. 2021). This short paper aims to highlight specific complexities of a circular economy from the aspects of its application to regulation of hazardous substances. The paper concludes by proposing an alternative approach to regulating hazardous substances in a circular economy based on Ulrich Beck's (1992) advocacy of reflexivity.
Hazardous substances in a circular economy
The effort to keep materials in the economy as long as possible may keep hazardous substances that should really be phased out in the material loops, as legacy substances (Bodar et al. 2018). For example, antiques such as mirrors and vases may contain mercury, while plastics may contain “forever chemicals” such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs).
In addition, different types of materials and substances are usually mixed during waste collection. For example, even in the separate collection of plastic waste, different types of polymers from different products and time-periods are typically mixed. Modern recycling plants can separate some polymers from each other. However, depending on the use, different additives are added to the plastic such as plasticizers and flame retardants that make even products made of the same polymers substantially different. As a result, secondary plastics tend to be significantly more contaminated than their virgin counterpart (Groh et al. 2019).
When the waste-based resources shall be included in new products, new additives may also be added, adapted for the specific product. In sum, the presence of hazardous substances are higher and more unpredictable in products based on recycled materials, compared to products made of conventional resources from nature. Formal and industrialized circulation may thus dilute, disperse and accumulate hazardous substances.
The regulation of hazardous substances
Hazardous substances are partly regulated prospectively, upstream, through control mechanisms and prohibition. For example, some chemicals such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and elements such as mercury are completely or partially banned in products through multilateral agreements such as the Stockholm Convention (2001) and the Minamata Convention (2013), respectively. By limiting the introduction of hazardous substances in products upstream, the potential occurrence of hazards when the material becomes waste downstream is potentially affected.
In the EU, the use of hazardous substances in products is controlled by various regulations that require registration, labelling, evaluations and safe handling (EU 2006, 2008). Industry must demonstrate safety for the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) before the product can be placed on the market, according to EU chemicals regulation, Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (EU 2006). The rules differ for substances that are included in mixtures, such as washing powder and substances that are included in products. All substances, manufactured or imported into the EU (2006:article 6 (paragraph 1)), more than one tonne per year need to be registered. For products, only substances of very high concern (SVHC) imported or used in products more than 1 tonne per year, which exceeds 0.1% by weight of a product, are regulated (EU 2006:7(2)).
Substances with hazardous propertiesFootnote 2 may be listed as substances of very high concern on the candidate list (ECHA 2022a) for possible inclusion in the authorization list (EU 2006:XIV). If a substance is listed on the candidate list, a notification to ECHA, information to actors downstream, and labelling is required. If listed on the authorization list, permission by ECHA (2022b) is needed before the substances can be released on the market.
SVHC can also be listed in Annex XVII to REACH (EU 2006) and will thereby become restricted by a total ban or threshold limits (ECHA 2022c), according to what concentrations are considered as acceptable risks. The limitations usually vary depending on how the substance is used. For example, for cadmium, plastic articles may contain a maximum of 0.01% cd, painted layers on products 0.1% cd, while the use of cadmium is prohibited in metallic layers.
Hazardous substances are also regulated in the actual use of the waste, downstream, i.e. when the waste-based material is given a new opportunity as a resource, and shall be circulated. Mainly by stating threshold limits for hazardous substances. The Stockholm Convention (2001) contains limits for POPs that determine when waste is allowed to be recycled. For example, the limit for PCBs is at 50 mg/kg mass. If the concentration of hazardous substances is below the limits, it may be circulated, otherwise it should be discarded.
The non-regulation of hazardous substances
The European Union has arguably the strictest legislation of hazardous substances in the world (EU 2020b). Approximately 26,000 substances have been registered in the region (ECHA 2022d). However, given that more than 200,000 substances are estimated to be present in the European economy (ECHA 2022e), only about 15% of all substances are registered. Many substances remain unregistered since EU’s chemical legislation, REACH, requires registration only when more than 1 tonne per year of a specific substance is manufactured or imported (EU 2006:6(1)). Thereby, direct imports for personal use are generally exempted from REACH. Besides, if a new substance is used in a product, registration is not needed. This means that many substances end up uncontrolled in the waste stream.
For substances to be regulated in products, it needs to be classified as a SVHC. However, only a few substances of the 26,000 registered are classified as SVHC and thus regulated in products. Eurostat (2021) estimates that about 75% of the substances in the economy by volume are hazardous. About 220 substances are listed in the candidate list (ECHA 2022a), but with no quantitative restrictions. Of these 220 substances, about 60 are listed in the authorisation list and require permission (ECHA 2022b). About 70 different substances are listed in Annex XVII and thus banned or restricted (ECHA 2022c). In total,Footnote 3 only a small percentage of all substances are thus restricted or banned upstream.
EU’s chemical legislation and the obligation to provide information ceases when products become waste (EU 2006:2(2); EU 2018). This means, for example, that producers do not have to inform recyclers about the presence of SVHC in their discarded products. Wasted products containing both unregulated and regulated hazardous substances thus reach recycling actors blindly. When the waste is recycled into a new product, the chemicals legislation becomes applicable again (EU 2006:1(2)). But since the recyclers who receive the waste lack information about the hazardous content, information cannot be passed on to the manufacturers that shall produce the waste-based products. Hence, elevated levels of hazardous substances have repeatedly been identified in waste-based plastic products with a risk of exposure such as toys and food contact articles (Abdallah et al. 2018; Geueke et al. 2018; Chen et al. 2009), with the consequence of increased risk of leaching (Greassimidou et al. 2022).
Elevated levels of SVHC are, therefore, partially permitted in circulated products. For example, according to annex XVII in REACH (EU 2006), the threshold limit for cadmium in new plastics is 0.01% cd, while the limit for recycled plastic is 0.1%, and thus 10 times higher. In the Stockholm Convention (2001:4(3)) there are also stated possibilities for countries to exempt products from the regulation of POPs based on recycled material.
The legislation of chemicals in the EU (2006:1(1)) covers, indeed, the reuse and sharing of old products on the market. But in practice, second-hand shops as well as households that share or resell old products typically lack information about the products' content of hazardous substances. This means that old products are generally distributed unrestrained to new owners. In addition, the legislation contains exemptions for reuse and repairs. For example, old mercury thermometers placed on the market before 1957 are allowed to be resold (EU 2006:XVII). In addition, new spare parts for repairing electrical products, placed on the market before 2006, are allowed to contain substances that are restricted or prohibited (EU 2011:4(4)).
How the European Union addresses the gaps
To reduce the dilution, dispersion and accumulation of hazardous substances in a circular economy, the preferred strategy is to avoid introducing such substances to the economy in the first place, expressed as “toxic free material cycles” (EU 2020b:5) and “non-toxic from the start” (KEMI 2020:1).
However, limiting the introduction of hazardous substances upstream is difficult, as substances typically fulfil an important economic and technical function. For example, POPs such as flame retardants reduce the risk of fire, while additives in plastics improve the flexibility and durability. Chemical substances are also considered essential for triggering innovation and thus economic growth (Goldenman et al. 2017). Consequently, in the discussions on a forthcoming ban on persistent Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) substances in the EU (2020b:14) used, for example, extensively in plastics, only the substances “rarely used” and “not necessary for the society” are to be considered (KEMI 2021).
This means that the responsibility of controlling hazardous substances is in practice directed to the downstream regulation and actors, i.e. a focus post consumption. The EU intends, for example, to improve the flow of information through the whole value chain by introducing a database (EU 2020b:6), investing in decontamination techniques such as chemical recycling (EU 2020b:6), and developing threshold limits (EU 2020a:14) that determine what may and may not be circulated.
However, the database covers only the substances classified as SVHC. Besides, the 6000 different chemicals (Aurisano et al. 2021) that may be present in plastics will be a major challenge for plastic recyclers, regardless of whether the composition of individual products can be identified (Friege et al. 2021). In addition, decontamination processes are both ecologically and economically costly. For example, chemical recycling that can handle heterogeneous material flows by separating molecules requires so much energy, resources and chemicals that conventional production based on natural materials may be preferable (Davidson et al. 2021).
Threshold limits indicate the amount of hazardous substances that can be dispersed without adverse effects on health and nature. As threshold limits are developed through modelling, they can appear to be accurate, safe and scientifically sound. However, to keep the cost of sampling down, only a few substances are typically regulated, while others are excluded (Johansson and Krook 2021). In addition, the threshold limits for the same type of waste and substance differ between countries (Johansson and Krook 2021). This indicates that there are different types of choices and starting points in the modelling process that affect its outcome, i.e. the threshold limits.
Towards a reflexive circular economy
The European regulatory regime fails to control hazardous substances in a circular economy. Few substances are regulated. The actors downstream have been given an idealistic responsibility to both neutralize the myriad of hazards that are too important to be banned and at the same time increase circulation. Products based on recycled materials, therefore, end up with elevated levels of hazardous substances, partly in accordance with the regulation. Thereby, the regulatory regime may create an illusion of control, which helps to maintain the perception of recycled products as sustainable.
To increase the institutional capacity to limit hazardous substances in a circular economy, the focus needs first and foremost to shift from the current win–win paradigm of the circular economy (e.g. EU 2020a), to become more reflexive (Beck 1992:234). A reflexive circular economy is open to self-criticism, and thus also considers side effects, problems, tensions, and losers that arise due to a circular economy.
Hazardous substances are a good example of why reflexivity is important in a circular economy. The regulation of hazardous substances in a circular economy can create a policy conflict, where both goals cannot be met in tandem. Strict regulation of hazardous substances can decrease circulation with its positive effects such as reducing litter, climate emissions and dependence on fossil fuels and minerals. A liberal or unrestricted circulation, on the other hand, may increase its negative side effects such as the dispersion of hazardous substances.
If both goals shall be met simultaneously, other policy conflicts may arise. Regulating hazardous substances upstream can limit, for example, product innovation and functionality. Decontaminating material flows downstream, which is technically more difficult, but politically more viable (EU 2020a, b), will, for example, increase the energy consumption (Davidson et al. 2021).
The implementation of a circular economy will thus require that difficult political choices are to be made, which will create winners and losers (Kovacic et al. 2020; Corvellec et al. 2022). These choices and tensions need to be made visible and discussed. For example, by whom and how have the benefits of recycling been considered, so that the cadmium content in recycled plastic is allowed to be precisely 10 times higher than newly produced plastic?
Allowing 10 times higher levels of cadmium in recycled plastic than in new, virgin plastic may be correct, given the benefits of recycling. But to determine its correctness, the trade-offs must be made visible, communicated and discussed. As for now, the complex balancing between the positive and negative effects of a circular economy disappears behind the threshold limits.
The complexities of a circular economy need to be better integrated into the regulatory regime. For example, risk assessments should consider that materials and hazardous substances in a circular economy will not necessarily fulfil one purpose, but may flow through different uses, sometimes unexpected, with varying exposures (Bodar et al. 2018; Wang and Hellweg 2021). In other words, for hazardous substances in products to be released on the market, safe circulation through multiple uses should be assured.
Such requirements would not only reverse the information flow, but also completely change the starting point for the management of hazardous substances in a circular economy (cf. EU 2020b). It would change from producers sharing information on some substances through the value chain so that decontamination processes can be developed accordingly. It would shift to a situation where producers instead adapt product development, and the inclusion of substances, according to the circulation and decontamination processes that are practically available and economically viable downstream. Such reflexivity may constrain product development, but would on the other hand encourage system innovation, rather than the conventional focus of innovation on isolated parts of the value chain.
Furthermore, one of the main challenges for a circular economy is the lack of interest from customers to shift to secondary materials and products from the conventional, stable, predictable materials from nature (EU 2020a). For this reason, customers, users, waste pickers and other actors who will have to bear the consequences of a circular economy need to be invited into political processes. Unlike those actors who create waste, users have an interest in the purity of the materials. By inviting this group of actors to the political process, the ambition of reducing the dispersion of hazardous substances can be represented in a circular economy.
A substances with the inherent property (e.g. toxic or carcinogenic) to cause adverse effects to health or nature (WHO 2004). The effect of such a substances depends, however, also on, for example, its concentration level, its combination effect with other substances, time for exposure, the recipient's resilience and opportunities for protection.
Substances of very high concern are defined by its hazards properties and not its risk of exposure. The substances are assessed based on, for example, its toxicity, persistency, bioaccumulation and degree of use (EU 2006: 57).
While the authorisation lists concerns only manufactures in the EU, the restriction list (Annex XVII) concerns both importers and manufactures. Hence, many substances are present on both lists.
Abdallah M et al (2018) Hexabromocyclododecane in polystyrene packaging: a downside of recycling? Chemosphere 199:612–616
Alaranta J, Turunen T (2021) How to reach a safe circular economy? Perspectives on reconciling the waste, product and chemicals regulation. J Environ Law 33(1):113–136
Aurisano N, Weber R, Fantke P (2021) Enabling a circular economy for chemicals in plastics. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem 31:100513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2021.100513
Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity, vol 17. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Bodar C et al (2018) Risk management of hazardous substances in a circular economy. J Environ Manag 212:108–114
Chen S-J et al (2009) Brominated flame retardants in children’s toys: concentration, composition, and children’s exposure and risk assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4200–4206
Corvellec H et al (2022) Critiques of the circular economy. J Ind Ecol 6(2):421–432
Davidson M et al (2021) Developments in the life cycle assessment of chemical recycling of plastic waste—a review. J Clean Prod 293:126163
De Tandt E et al (2021) A recycler’s perspective on the implications of REACH and food contact material (FCM) regulations for the mechanical recycling of FCM plastics. Waste Manag 119:315–329
DiGangi J, Strakova J (2015) ToXIC toy or toxic waste: recycling POPS into New Products. IPEN. Online https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/toxic_toy_or_toxic_waste_2015_10-en.pdf. Accessed 01 July 2022
ECHA (2022a) Candidate list. European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/sv/candidate-list-table. Accessed 01 July 2022a
ECHA (2022b) Authorisation list. https://echa.europa.eu/sv/authorisation-list. Accessed 01 July 2022b
ECHA (2022c) List of restrictions. https://echa.europa.eu/sv/substances-restricted-under-reach. Accessed 01 July 2022c
ECHA (2022d) Registered substances. https://echa.europa.eu/sv/information-on-chemicals/registered-substances. Accessed 01 July 2022d
ECHA (2022e) CL Inventory. https://echa.europa.eu/sv/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-database. Accessed 01 July 2022e
EU (2006) REACH (1907/2006). OJ L 396:1-849
EU (2008) Classification, labelling and packaging of substances (1272/2008). OJ L 353:1–1355
EU (2011) Restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. OJ L 174:88-110
EU (2018) On the implementation of the circular economy package. The European commission. COM/2018/032 final
EU (2020a) A new circular economy action plan. The European commission. COM(2020a) 98.
EU (2020b) Chemicals strategy for sustainability. Towards a Toxic-Free Environment. COM(2020b) 667
Eurostat (2021) Chemicals production and consumption statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Chemicals_production_and_consumption_statistics#Total_production_of_chemicals. Accessed 01 July 2022
Friege H et al (2021) The new European database for chemicals of concern: how useful is SCIP for waste management? Sustain Chem Pharm 21:100430
Geueke B et al (2018) Food packaging in the circular economy: overview of chemical safety aspects for commonly used materials. J Clean Prod 193:491–505
Goldenman G et al (2017) Study for the strategy for a non-toxic environment of the 7th EAP. Milieu Ltd, Brussels
Greassimidou S et al (2022) Unpacking the complexity of the PET drink bottles value chain: a chemicals perspective. J Hazard Mater 430:128410
Groh K et al (2019) Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards. Sci Total Environ 651:3253–3268
Guzzonato A et al (2017) Evidence of bad recycling practices: BFRs in children’s toys and food-contact articles. Environ Sci Process Impacts 19(7):956–963
Johansson N (2021) Does the EU’s action plan for a circular economy challenge the linear economy? Environ Sci Technol 55(22):15001–15003
Johansson N, Krook J (2021) How to handle the policy conflict between resource circulation and hazardous substances in the use of waste? J Ind Ecol 25(4):994–1008
Johansson N et al (2020) Towards clean material cycles: Is there a policy conflict between circular economy and non-toxic environment? Waste Manag Res 38(7):705–707
Jurek A, Leitner E (2017) Analytical determination of bisphenol A (BPA) and bisphenol analogues in paper products by GC-MS/MS. Food Addit Contam Part A 34(7):1225-1238. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2017.1319076
KEMI (2020) Giftfritt från början. Report 2020/1. Swedih Chemicals Agency. https://www.kemi.se/publikationer/rapporter/2020/rapport-1-20-giftfritt-fran-borjan. Accessed 01 July 2022
KEMI (2021) EU förbjuder 200 PFAS ämnen efter svenskt initiativ. News 27–08–2021. https://www.kemi.se/arkiv/nyhetsarkiv/nyheter/2021-08-27-eu-forbjuder-200-pfas-amnen-efter-svenskt-initiativ. Accessed 01 July 2022
Kovacic Z, Strand R, Völker T (2020) The circular economy in Europe: Critical perspectives on policies and imaginaries. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429061028
Kuang J et al (2018) Brominated flame retardants in black plastic kitchen utensils: concentrations and human exposure implications. Sci Total Environ 610:1138–1146
Man M et al (2013) Persistent toxic substances released from uncontrolled e-waste recycling and actions for the future. Sci Total Environ 463:1133–1137
Minamata Convention (2013) Minamata convention on Mercury. UNEP, Nairobi
Samsonek J, Puype F (2013) Occurrence of brominated flame retardants in black thermo cups and selected kitchen utensils purchased on the European market. Food Addit Contam Part A 30(11):1976–1986
Stockholm Convention (2001) The convention. Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention
Turner A, Filella M (2017) Field-portable-XRF reveals the ubiquity of antimony in plastic consumer products. Sci Total Environ 584:982–989
Wang Z, Hellweg S (2021) First steps toward sustainable circular uses of chemicals: advancing the assessment and management paradigm. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 9:6939–6951
WHO (2004) International programme on chemical safety: risk assessment terminology. WHO, Geneva
The author would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their supportive and helpful suggestions.
Open access funding provided by Royal Institute of Technology. The research was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development, FORMAS under Grant number 2017-00219 and 2021-00451.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handled by Yasuhiko HOTTA, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan.
About this article
Cite this article
Johansson, N. Recycling warning! Reconfiguring the toxic politics of a circular economy. Sustain Sci (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01220-0
- Circular economy
- Policy conflicts
- European Union