New Research in the Netherlands: synthetic clothing fibers inhibit the production of lung cells
Nylon and polyester hinder the growth and recovery of our airways, scientists from the University of Groningen (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen), TNO, […]
Prohibit plastics? Use the term ‘essential use’!
Amsterdam, 04 November 2019 – How do you distinguish between useful and harmful plastics? Scientists refer to the concept of ‘essential use’, which is used in the Montreal Protocol. They applied it to PFAS, a group of substances classified as very worrying. The same principle can also be useful to approach plastics.
The Montreal Protocol and essential use
One of the most successful international environmental agreements ever is the 1987 Montreal Protocol. This agreement provides for the cessation of the use of hydrofluorocarbons suspected of affecting the ozone layer. However, some hydrofluorocarbons are considered ‘essential’ for our health, safety or for the better functioning of our society. They will not be banned unless there is a safe alternative. Therefore, the Montreal Protocol’s assessment yardstick consists of three categories: substances can be non-essential, substitutable or essential. See the recent article advocating this approach for PFAS.
Essential use and microplastics in personal care products
When we apply this measure to microplastics in care products, we immediately see that this use is not essential. The microplastics do not contribute to better health, more safety or a better functioning of society. Alternatives are also available. But manufacturers still use them for marketing or financial reasons, because microplastics are cheap. Since the microplastics used in care products are harmful to the environment, they should be internationally qualified as non-essential and then banned worldwide.
Essential use and medical applications
But how do you judge a plastic prosthesis? Nobody would want to ban it. The same assessment framework can explain such plastics as ‘essential’. This is the case when a certain application contributes to our health and safety and no alternative materials are available yet.
Of course, this assessment framework offers scope for discussion. After all, who decides, for example, how the criterion ‘better for society’ is to be fulfilled? But in the end, this discussion does provide the answers we are looking for and the instruments to effectively combat plastic pollution.
Read more – ECHA proposes to ban intentionally added microplastics
More news
Read more
Ban the export of plastic waste!
European countries are part of the plastic pollution problem in South East Asian countries because shady dealers are free to do what they like. This was yet again the finding of a recent broadcast by Pointer in cooperation with investigative journalists (in Dutch).
Supermarkets’ plastic policy needs a complete overhaul
By 2025, Dutch supermarkets promise to use 20% less plastic packaging material than in 2017. According to this promise, by 2021 we would be at around 10%.
Ten years of Plastic Soup Foundation
Today marks the tenth anniversary of Maria Westerbos’ founding of the Plastic Soup Foundation at her kitchen table. Plastic soup, pollution of the environment by plastic, was hardly known at the time. One of her first goals was that everyone in the Netherlands should know what it was.
