Criticism from both sides for US proposal at plastics treaty talks

Busan, South Korea — As the global plastics treaty talks race ahead in an attempt to finalize an agreement, the debate around how much any deal should limit both chemicals used in plastics and problematic plastic products has become one of the thornier unresolved issues.

A new U.S. plan, for example, seemed to satisfy no one, drawing criticism from both environmental groups and industry.

Other countries, including Switzerland, the United Kingdom and China, were floating their own their own plans, as the last scheduled round of negotiations opened Nov. 25 in Busan.

A U.S. plastics industry group said the chemicals provision in the new U.S. plan goes in the wrong direction by creating a new regulatory process based on global lists and vague decision-making.

Environmental groups, for their part, said the U.S. proposal lacked teeth and would give countries too many options, some of which amount to little more than studies.

Specifically, the U.S. proposed a list of 18 chemicals used in making plastics that countries would have to act on, but it gave nations wide latitude on that action, ranging from strict bans to merely evaluating them for harm.

The list, which seemed to mirror chemicals already regulated or under review by the Environmental Protection Agency, included 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrylonitrile, benzenamine, vinyl chloride monomer and various phthalates and other chemicals.

As well, the American plan listed eight plastic products that countries would have to take some action on, including microbeads, straws, stirrers, shopping bags, oxo-degradable products, single-use food and beverage packaging made from expanded and extruded polystyrene and cigarette filters.

Environmental groups wanted more from the U.S.

"It is really positive that the U.S. is putting forward those submissions and showcasing leadership, but they are not as strong as we would like to see them," said Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business with the World Wildlife Fund.

As 170-plus countries face a self-imposed deadline of Dec. 1 to finish the treaty, she urged negotiators to combine plans like the Swiss and British, which require stronger action from countries, but with the more flexible plans from the U.S. and others.

"I'm hoping those come together in a way that still has lists and actions in them, which we need to have in there, but creates a bit more concrete consistency between countries," Simons said.

Apart from disagreements over how to regulate, some countries said in the opening plenary session that the treaty should not include any regulations that would limit regulations around problematics items or chemicals.

A plastics trade group, however, said the chemicals plan from President Joe Biden's negotiating team would make it harder for the pact to get bipartisan support in the U.S. and get "effective U.S. participation in the agreement."

Ross Eisenberg, president of America's Plastics Makers, a unit of the American Chemistry Council, said the U.S. has worked to bridge gaps in the talks so far but added that its new proposal would be a mistake and could regulate chemicals not determined by EPA to pose a risk.

"The U.S. has proven effective at breaking gridlock and bringing member states together throughout the negotiations of the U.N. plastics agreement," he said. "Unfortunately, its latest proposal at INC-5 [intergovernmental negotiating committee] would create a process to regulate chemicals via the plastics agreement using a global list of chemicals based on open-ended criteria and a vague decision-making process."

He said the industry supports national chemical regulation plans like the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and is working to make more information on chemical health information about additives available to governments.

"We also support an effective plastics treaty that ends plastic pollution that all countries are able to join," Eisenberg said. "However, we do not support this proposal as it would undermine the prospects for bipartisan support, which will be critical for effective U.S. participation in the agreement."

But non-governmental organizations and one recycling group said the U.S. plan should include many more products and chemicals.

John Hocevar, oceans campaign director for Greenpeace USA, said the U.S. plans "don't match the scope of the problem" and should regulate chemicals more broadly.

"We can't make a whole lot of progress in protecting people from dangerous chemicals if we're going to do it one chemical at a time," he said. "We can't give countries a menu of options that include so many things that amount to no action."

He said the business community, through the U.S. Plastic Pact, has already proposed phasing out plastic products that go well beyond what the U.S. called for.

As well, Greenpeace urged that classes of chemicals to be regulated be named in the treaty, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and bisphenols.

NGOs said the U.S. list mirrors chemicals already regulated under TSCA, so that the White House could argue to the Senate that it doesn't need to give EPA new authorities to ratify the treaty.

"I think it's pretty evident that the U.S. is trying to thread the needle here," said Anja Brandon, director of plastics policy at Ocean Conservancy, adding that she appreciated that the U.S.'s problematics product list includes many of the top polluting plastic items found in beach cleanups.

A coalition of non-profit recycling programs in U.S. cities, the Alliance for Mission Based Recycling, said it wanted to see other plastic packaging that causes significant problems for recycling, such as multilayer packaging, added to the U.S. list.

"The U.S. proposal is very voluntary and we feel that much more mandatory proposals are needed," said Martin Bourque, AMBR spokesman and executive director of the Ecology Center in Berkeley, Calif.