From Circular Pollution to Circular Solutions: How To Avoid Perpetually Spreading Toxic Pollution
By Bill Walsh, Safer Chemistry Impact Fund
The vision of a circular economy, where resources are perpetually recycled, and waste is a relic of the past, faces many practical challenges. One of the least discussed is how to deal with toxic content that is ubiquitous in present day materials - the feedstocks of a circular economy. This is evident from the agenda of the nation’s premier circular economy conference, Circularity 2025, where it is conspicuous by its relatively small role. Jon Smieja, Vice President of Circularity at conference convenor Trellis Group, who is himself an evangelist for the “Safe and Circular” approach, notes: “My sustainability roots are in green chemistry and it was my primary responsibility for the better part of 10 years. The challenge is that not everyone connects the need for safe materials with the need for a circular economy yet. We have to be very intentional about how we break down those silos and connect these two important pieces of the sustainability puzzle.”
On one level, I get it. When only 30% of recyclable glass is even collected, dealing with chemical hazards in more complex materials might seem to be a problem for another day. However, mounting evidence suggests that the problem is a more significant impediment to circularity than is generally acknowledged.
“Recycled content” has long been incentivised by green product certifications and government incentive programs, but with the exception of Cradle-to-Cradle Certified, these programs do not require recycled content to be safe. Time and again, toxic chemicals in recycled products have been linked to massive pollution problems. For example, the current black plastic scare, is attributed to flame retardants in recycled feedstocks. Post-consumer PVC plastic recycling has failed due to lead and other heavy metals in legacy products like wire sheathing, siding, and mini blinds.
I worry that the “recycled” brand is on the verge of coding negatively in the minds of the public and policy makers. I have first-hand experience with this dilemma. Years ago, my research colleagues at the Healthy Building Network (now Habitable) came to the surprising and disappointing conclusion that toxic contaminants in recycled plastic feedstocks compelled us to recommend virgin vinyl as superior to recycled vinyl building products! Ditto for rubber and cork flooring where recycled content was sourced from tires, and for tiles incorporating glass sourced from televisions and desktop monitors. If consumers begin to associate circular with inferior or hazardous products, circular systems will never advance past the pilot stage.
Biodegradable products are implicated as well. PFAS, the forever chemicals contaminating at least 45% of the nation’s drinking water, have also been spread over one fifth of American farmland via recycled municipal sewage sludge, opening up a “pandora’s box” of health concerns, ruined property values, and complex litigation.
This may be a harbinger of the challenges we will face with large-scale composting. Efforts to phase out PFAS used to provide an oil and liquid-resistant barrier in food packaging are riddled with loopholes, and in any case, there are multiple routes by which PFAS (and other chemical hazards) can migrate into food, and thus the compost value chain.
Management of chemical hazards in circular feedstocks is possible and will be necessary to maintain the brand value of circular products. But it can be costly and difficult, creating another friction point in efforts to transform our failing repair and recycling systems. These costs and potential liability can inhibit investments in circular manufacturing if these risks are priced in.
In order to win consumer and investor confidence in circularity, we need to systematically eliminate chemicals of concern in the materials we prioritize for recycling. This used to be an aspirational vision. Now, with tools like ChemFORWARD’s Plastic Additive Alternatives Finder, and a growing roster of brands committing to safer chemistry strategies, “Safe & Circular” is a practical goal being advanced by a growing community of committed stakeholders. These efforts are ready to be integrated into strategies to advance circular systems.
Please join us by using this link to register for the April 28th Workshop “From Circular Pollution to Circular Solutions.” Circularity 2025 has kindly offered a 20% registration discount to Workshop attendees with the code C25GCW20, and for non-profit organizations, startups, academic institutions, or governments, a 40% discount using CAGNS40 available at the Circularity 2025 registration page.
To start this conversation in earnest, the Safer Chemistry Impact Fund, is helping to organize the first dedicated workshop to share progress and define a strategy enabling safe and sustainable design for circularity using safer chemistry. At this workshop, which will be held adjacent to Circularity 2025, Jon Smieja and I will join colleagues from co-convenors Change Chemistry and ChemFORWARD in lively dialogue with industry leaders to discuss and explore topics such as:
How to align current trends and opportunities in safer chemistry with circularity strategies for maximum impact;
Case studies and best practices for implementing safer chemistry in various industries, including electronics, beauty and personal care, and building materials;
Tools and metrics for safer chemistry that can inform circular systems, including utilizing Chemical Hazard Assessments (CHAs) at scale, data sharing, and data analytics;
It is hard to imagine a circular economy that is not “safe and circular.” And it’s easier to create a “safe and circular” economy than one might think given advances in safer chemistry. Let’s connect the dots.
