EPR and Recycled Plastics: Why Chemical Safety Is the Next Compliance Frontier

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws are evolving rapidly. What began as mandates to boost recycling rates and reduce packaging waste is now expanding into oversight of chemical safety. A new study in the Journal of Hazardous Materials highlights why chemical processors cannot treat this as a downstream issue. Recycled plastics often contain higher levels of hazardous substances than their virgin counterparts, raising both regulatory and liability risks.

For chemical processors, the findings offer both a warning and an opportunity: the safety of chemicals in post-consumer recycled (PCR) plastics will define the next decade of compliance.

The Science Behind the Headlines

The study compared virgin and recycled plastics used in food, oral and skin contact products. Results showed significant elevation of contaminants in recycled samples:

• Metals: Recycled plastics carried average concentrations more than 10 times higher than virgin materials. Lead levels in some recycled samples exceeded the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) legal limit of 100 mg/kg for children’s products.
• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): Recycled plastics contained up to three times the PAH levels of virgin plastics. Several samples exceeded EU REACH regulatory limits for highly carcinogenic compounds such as benzo[a]pyrene.
• Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): These persistent chemicals appeared in both virgin and recycled samples, but concentrations in recycled plastics were about twice those in virgin materials.
• Hazard Index (HI): The researchers calculated ingestion risks for both adults and children, finding a potential twofold increase in risk associated with the ingestion of recycled plastics. HI values exceeded 1 for both groups, which places recycled products squarely in the “high-risk” category.

The conclusion is clear: recycling amplifies, rather than eliminates, chemical risk. Contaminants migrate, concentrate and sometimes transform during the collection, reprocessing and blending of post-consumer waste.

The Regulatory Trajectory

European Union

Regulations in the EU are furthest along. Mandates for recycled plastics have rigorous decontamination and quality control procedures in food-contact applications, and migration limits for plastic constituents already exist. EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation proposals anticipate eco-modulated fees, with member-state EPR systems already linking fee tiers to recyclability and chemical profiles.

United States

The U.S., including California, Washington and New Jersey, has passed recycled-content mandates. While the focus to date has been on percentages, states are beginning to add chemical provisions. PFAS bans in packaging will effectively disqualify contaminated PCR streams. The U.S. EPA is also stepping up its scrutiny of PFAS and could extend monitoring to recycled feedstocks.

Global Frameworks

The Stockholm Convention lists perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) for restriction, and additional PFAS compounds are under consideration for restriction. The Basel Convention regulates hazardous and contaminated plastic-waste shipments and raises questions about how authorities will classify PCR with elevated contaminants in cross-border trade. Holistically, these trends indicate a future where EPR compliance extends beyond weight recycled to encompass chemical safety as well.

Business Implications for Chemical Processors

Chemical processors, whether producing base resins, additives or masterbatches, cannot assume safety is only a downstream issue. EPR creates a feedback loop in which brand owners and converters will look upstream for assurances.

Key implications include:

• Contractual Exposure: Expect stronger warranty and indemnity demands from converters and brands. Regulators or brand owners may hold processors liable when PCR-based packaging fails a compliance test.
• Portfolio Risk: Regulators and customers are increasingly viewing legacy additives, such as brominated flame retardants, phthalates, heavy-metal pigments and PFAS processing aids, as liabilities. Some may trigger eco-fee surcharges; others could face outright bans.
• Traceability Obligations: Under the EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, Digital Product Passports will require companies to provide standardized product data, including additives, impurities and recyclability profiles, to support traceability and compliance.
• Testing Burden: Regulators and customers alike will want migration and degradation data that simulate recycled conditions, not just virgin use.

Strategic Priorities for Chemical Processors

Chemical processors can mitigate risk and position themselves as industry leaders by taking pragmatic steps:

1. Audit Portfolios: Map products against known regulatory hotspots (e.g., metals, PFAS, PAHs, restricted phthalates) and flag substances under pending scrutiny.
2. Invest in Testing: Generate data on migration and degradation under recycling conditions (e.g., heat, UV, abrasion) to anticipate real-world compliance outcomes.
3. Reformulate Proactively: Replace high-risk additives with safer alternatives before mandates force the transition. “PCR-compatible” formulations will be in high demand.
4. Tighten Contracts: Clarify liability for risks associated with recycled feedstock. Define thresholds and testing methodologies in supplier agreements.
5. Adopt Traceability Tools: Certificates of analysis, QR codes or blockchain solutions will soon be table stakes.
6. Engage Policymakers: Leverage trade association relationships with policymakers to ensure eco-modulation criteria and chemical thresholds reflect operational realities.

Litigation and Liability Risks

Beyond regulatory compliance, chemical processors should anticipate litigation in the following areas:

• Product liability concerns exist because of elevated lead or carcinogenic PAHs in recycled food-contact packaging.
• Consumer protection suits may arise because claims of “safe recycled packaging” can be challenged if products fail to meet chemical thresholds.
• Insurance coverage gaps exist because general liability policies exclude contamination from “unauthorized substances,” therefore, specialty coverage may be necessary.

Turning Risk into Opportunity

The shift toward chemically safe recycling is not just a burden. It represents a market opening.

• Differentiation: Suppliers who market additives as “PCR-compatible” or demonstrate benign degradation pathways will have an advantage.
• Customer Trust: Providing transparent data packages on chemical behavior in recycled streams builds credibility with brand owners under EPR pressure.
• Regulatory Goodwill: Companies that help shape and comply with early frameworks can influence eco-modulation in their favor.

The study in The Journal of Hazardous Materials makes clear that recycled plastics often carry higher chemical risks than virgin plastics. Metals, PAHs, PFAS, and unregulated “non-intentionally added substances” accumulate during recycling, pushing some products into high-risk categories. As EPR programs expand, compliance will increasingly hinge on chemical safety, not just recycling volume. 

For chemical processors, this is an emerging compliance frontier, but more importantly, a chance to lead. Chemical processors can mitigate liability but also seize the opportunity to define what “safe recycled content” looks like in practice by auditing portfolios, reformulating additives and building transparency.