Break Free From Plastic

“One of CESTA’s longest-running programs is sustainable waste management. We began this discussion more than 20 years ago,” explains Silvia Quiroa, director of the organization, where she has worked for 29 years on tracking, monitoring, and advocacy efforts.

Waste management is, however, only one part of a broader mission. CESTA works to build sustainable societies and links environmental defense with food sovereignty, agroecology, biodiversity protection, and community empowerment. Within this framework, the fight against plastic is taking on an increasingly important role.

One of the tools CESTA uses with communities is based on something seemingly simple: identifying how much plastic is part of everyday life. The organization works with about 30 communities in different parts of the country, alongside community organizations, water and environmental committees, feminist organizations, and indigenous peoples. In these settings, they have examined the presence of plastic in kitchens, homes, and farm plots. The exercise aims to bring to light what often goes unnoticed.

“So we began talking with the communities: How can we gradually remove plastic from our lives?” says Quiroa. The answer is built on concrete actions. CESTA works, for example, with groups of women who recover recyclable materials; in addition to collecting reusable waste, they have created small businesses and campaigns to promote alternatives to plastic bags.

Cloth bags thus become a tool for raising awareness. The women take them to parks, fairs, markets, and shopping centers with a simple message: “I use cloth bags for my shopping.” Change is also being promoted among farming families and small businesses. The idea is to prevent every purchase of vegetables or legumes from automatically resulting in a new disposable bag.

For CESTA, questioning these everyday habits is part of a larger transformation: to stop accepting as normal a model based on products designed to be used for just a few minutes and then discarded.

Single-use plastics are one of the organization’s main areas of concern. They are visible not only in municipal collection systems but also on the streets and in storm drains, especially during rain. “Waste management as it is currently practiced in most municipalities is not sustainable,” says Quiroa.

For years, CESTA has challenged the linear model of producing, consuming, discarding, and transporting waste. Its approach focuses on reducing waste generation, separating materials, and processing them as close as possible to their source.

The organization has sought to demonstrate that this alternative is possible. In one of the municipalities where it carried out a pilot program, it worked with residents neighborhood by neighborhood to introduce waste separation at the source and collaborated with the municipality to prevent organic and recyclable materials from ending up mixed together.

The process included a collection center and a municipal composting facility. In addition to reducing the amount of waste sent to landfills, the experience showed that a different approach to waste management can result in lower costs for municipalities.

But for CESTA, infrastructure alone does not solve the problem. Education, organization, and political will are needed. That is why it also conducts training programs for municipal officials on sustainable waste management, plastic reduction, and public policy.

One of the changes Quiroa considers most significant has been bringing waste management and plastic pollution into the public discourse in El Salvador. “Before, nobody was talking about trash. As long as it got picked up, it didn’t matter,” she recalls.

The conversation has begun to shift. Some businesses have reduced the number of plastic bags they hand out or started charging for them. There’s also a greater willingness among people to ask about reusable alternatives. “People now ask, ‘Are you going to give me a disposable one or a reusable plate?’” she says.

For CESTA, these changes are important but insufficient. One of the main challenges is to dispel the notion that recycling alone can solve the plastic crisis. “Recycling isn’t the only solution,” Quiroa asserts.

The organization is committed to prioritizing reduction and reuse and to questioning the production model that generates increasing amounts of waste. CESTA has also participated in discussions about landfills and incineration, providing information to municipal governments so they can assess the impacts of different alternatives.

Community work is complemented by political advocacy. CESTA participated in drafting a proposal to regulate single-use plastics, which was presented to the Legislative Assembly with the support of female legislators from the previous session.

The proposal called for a five-year transition period to phase out these products and allow companies to adapt to other materials. The process stalled following political changes in the country, but for CESTA, the need for regulation remains. “A major challenge is changing the mindset of decision-makers,” notes Quiroa.

Added to this, according to the organization, is the influence of the plastics industry. “The plastics industry lobby is very strong. It wields a great deal of power in the country. It sits down with decision-makers,” she states.

In this context, CESTA seeks to challenge solutions that focus solely on recycling and to also shine a light on what happens before a product becomes waste: who produces it, how much is produced, what it is used for, and who bears the costs of its impacts.

CESTA’s track record in waste management made its incorporation into BFFP a natural fit. The organization already had extensive experience in this field and ties to GAIA, and becoming part of BFFP allowed it to connect its local work with an international network of organizations that share the same concerns. The exchange of information has been one of the main benefits.;

Research on microplastics, health impacts, corporate responsibility, and alternatives to single-use products has fueled CESTA’s work in communities. So too have the campaigns and communication tools developed by the movement.

For Quiroa, BFFP offers something that goes beyond information: the certainty that Salvadoran communities are not alone. “Knowing that we are part of a global movement where we are fighting for the same cause” is, for her, one of the movement’s greatest achievements over the past 10 years.

The global dimension is especially important because plastic, too, knows no borders. Decisions made by governments and transnational corporations in other regions can have consequences in El Salvador, especially since the country is one of the region’s leading importers of plastic waste.

The connection between the local and the global thus allows us to understand that what happens in one community is part of a much broader system.

As he reflects on BFFP’s first decade, Quiroa highlights the production and exchange of information, as well as the opportunity to coordinate experiences and strategies among organizations from different countries.

“I believe that the production of information is one of the most important things,” she says. For CESTA, this collaboration strengthens local advocacy and allows communities to learn about the experiences of other areas facing similar challenges.

The organization is also part of national coalitions with other organizations. Zero-waste work intersects with agendas related to environmental justice, the climate crisis, food sovereignty, and the defense of territories. “We’re just one more organization in that coalition,” says Quiroa.

For CESTA, this collaboration is also essential in addressing one of the movement’s greatest challenges: securing a global treaty on plastics that is ambitious and legally binding.

The organization believes the agreement must address the entire life cycle of plastic, from its production—not just when it becomes waste. “We need an international treaty—one that regulates companies throughout the entire life cycle of plastic production, not just when waste is generated, but throughout the entire production cycle,” states Quiroa.

For her, the negotiations will put governments’ priorities to the test: “We’ll see if governments really govern for the people or for transnational corporations.”

CESTA’s position is that an effective treaty must go beyond managing existing waste. It must address production, reduce single-use plastics, promote reuse systems, and establish clear responsibilities for those who benefit from this industry.

From “Use and Discard” to “Reuse”

10 years after the creation of BFFP, CESTA believes the movement must delve deeper into alternatives to the “use and discard” model. Among these, reuse plays a central role. “We have to delve deeper into that aspect,” says Quiroa. Reuse involves more than simply substituting one material for another. It means challenging the logic of consumption that turns objects into waste after a single use and reviving practices capable of reducing waste generation at its source.

It is a transformation that begins at the local level but requires public policies and structural changes to take root. A community that sorts its waste, a family that stops burning trash, a woman who sews a reusable bag, or a municipality that changes its waste management system are all small pieces of a larger transformation.

“The fight continues. BFFP has a lot of work ahead; it’s a movement that will grow—and keep growing,” says Quiroa. “The more communities, towns, and organizations that join this effort, the more we’ll be able to stop this monster of plastic growth and create the possibility of a different world,” she concludes.

21 August, 2026, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - Two new studies present a fuller picture of environmental and health conditions around plastic and paper waste recycling facilities in Kuala Langat, Malaysia. One study confirms significant river pollution and microplastic contamination near factory discharge points through direct water quality testing. The other reports elevated rates of self-reported symptoms among nearby residents.

Together, the studies offer some of the first community-level evidence on the potential public health and environmental footprint of Malaysia's plastic and paper waste recycling sector. Malaysia remains one of the world's leading destinations for imported plastic waste.

Key Findings include:

Study 1: This study directly tested river water near the discharge points of plastic and wastepaper recycling factories in the same region, offering evidence for some of the concerns raised by residents in the health survey, particularly related to water quality:

• Turbidity, or cloudiness, represents the suspended sediments in water. Malaysia's drinking water standards cap turbidity at 5 NTU for treated drinking water. The river water tested reached as high as 996 NTU — roughly 200 times that benchmark. High turbidity also blocks sunlight, making it easier for contaminants and pathogens to persist.

• • Conductivity and dissolved solids indicate how much salts, minerals and potentially industrial byproducts are present in the water. These were markedly elevated (38,452.33–41,676.33 μS/cm; up to 1,106 mg/L), compared with national standards of around 1,000 μS/cm for conductivity and 500–1,000 mg/L for total dissolved solids in river water. The salinity levels (21.71–23.87 ppt), were also far above the safe 0.5–2 ppt range set for rivers, indicating brackish water rather than freshwater, most likely caused by heavy industrial contamination.

• Dissolved oxygen, essential for both human and aquatic sustenance, was low (1.35–2.78 mg/L; standard: 4 mg/L), indicating severely degraded water quality.

• Microplastics were detected in every sample collected, though the specific polymer types were not confirmed.

• Most chemical pollutants tested, including phthalates, bisphenol A, and most VOCs, were below detection limits, except toluene, which was found at one sampling location (3.0 μg/L).

Study 2: A cross-sectional survey of 520 residents living near recycling facilities in Kuala Langat found notable rates of self-reported respiratory, eye and skin symptoms:

• Respondents frequently reported concerns regarding fumes, smoke, unpleasant odours, and dirty water in their residential areas.
• Many participants attributed these issues to nearby recycling facilities and waste-processing activities.
• A significant portion of respondents (66.3% regarding fumes/smoke and 73.9% regarding odours) had filed formal complaints, primarily to the Department of Environment (DOE). The DOE responded to some complaints and took some actions, yet there have been no further reports filed with the Ministry of Health, nor any resolution offered.
• Respiratory: Frequently reported symptoms included cough (33.7%), sore throat (31.0%), and runny nose (26.7%).
• Ocular: Common symptoms were itchy eyes (43.5%), watery eyes (40.4%), and red eyes (36.5%).
• Dermatological: The main reports included dry or cracked skin (35.7%) and itchiness (20.3%).
• Neurological: Reported symptoms included fatigue (34.6%), low energy (27.3%), and dizziness (26.7%).

Several symptoms were significantly associated with factors such as how long residents had lived in the area, smoking status, and second-hand smoke exposure. Most respondents also raised concerns about fumes, smoke, unpleasant odour and dirty water, which they associated with nearby factories and waste-related activity.

Read together, the two studies offer complementary evidence: a water quality study found measurable, significant degradation in river water near factory discharge points; and residents near recycling facilities widely reported health concerns since the factories were established. The authors caution that two studies should be read as complementary lines of evidence and investigation, rather than direct proof of a causal link between specific pollutants and symptoms.

Why is this important?

As Malaysia continues to import large quantities of plastic waste each year and recycling is concentrated in industrial areas, the researchers argue that community-level health evidence is essential for environmental health surveillance and risk management — particularly in developing-country settings where such research remains scarce.

"Our research in Kuala Langat proves a vital truth: if recycling pollutes our water with microplastics and causes respiratory illness next door, it isn't a solution—it's just outsourced pollution," said Dr Sharifah Norkhadijah Syed Ismail, University Putri Malaysia (UPM).

"Recycling shouldn't cost a community its health. When imported waste turns local rivers into microplastic hotspots, it’s clear: we need cleaner processing, not just green labels," said Dr Nurulain Mustafa Udin, University Technology Mara (UiTM).

"Imported waste doesn't just disappear when it gets recycled—it settles in our rivers and spills into the air our communities breathe. True sustainability means protecting local water and health, not just moving garbage across borders," said Dr Aida Sora Shamsuddin, University Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

The study highlights an urgent need for continuous environmental health surveillance, improved community engagement, and further research that integrates health assessments with air and water quality monitoring near such facilities.

About the Studies

Study 1: Investigating the pollution footprint of imported paper and plastic waste processing plants in Malaysia on water quality and microplastics [Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2026)]: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-026-02608-1

Study 2: Perceived health impacts among residents living near plastic and paper waste recycling facilities in Kuala Langat, Malaysia [Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2026)]: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-026-15741-z

For media enquiries or interviews with the study authors, please reach out to: Devayani Khare, Asia-Pacific Regional Communications Officer, Break Free From Plastic: devayani@breakfreefromplastic.org

About the Environmental & Occupational Health Society (EOHS) – a group of energetic and diverse practitioners and researchers brought together by a common interest in promoting distinction in prevention, research, and professional services across the environmental and occupational health field. https://eohsmy.wixsite.com/eohsmy

About Break Free From Plastic –  #BreakFreeFromPlastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 3,500 organizations representing millions of individual supporters around the world, have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the values of environmental protection and social justice, and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain—from extraction to disposal—focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions. www.breakfreefromplastic.org

On August 9, 2026, the Chair of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution Julio Cordano shared an informal reference document titled “Aid to Negotiations” ahead of the anticipated resumption of negotiations for an international legally binding agreement to end plastic pollution. 

This document was a culmination of all the informal talks that happened after electing the Chair in INC 5.3 in Geneva, Switzerland in February 2026. The document is meant to “aid” the discussions in the next informal heads of delegation meeting that is set to take place in Bangkok on September 27-30, 2026. 

In his explanatory note, Cordano said that the document was informed by past texts and discussions that happened in previous INCs, but critics are quick to notice that most of the ambitious treaty elements that garnered the support of more than a hundred Member States in past discussions were missing from the recently released document. 

The Chair said that he hopes that this document will help to “begin identifying possible bridging approaches and solutions” but many are wary that the current text is bound to bridge the weakest and most watered down measures without articles pertaining to continued plastic production and chemicals in plastics.

Melissa Aguayo, Co-Coordinator for Break Free From Plastic, calls on all Member States to bring back the important provisions, terms, and key measures from previous texts that obligate States to act towards ending plastic pollution. "The text cannot be accepted as is," said Aguayo. "The process is raising serious concerns about legitimacy and trust. This document emerged from closed-door sessions that once again excluded civil society, while critical issues were kept off the formal agenda, undermining the integrity of the process."

Break Free From Plastic members respond to the Chair’s Aid to Negotiations: 

Eskedar Awgichew Ergete, Executive Director, Eco Justice Ethiopia, said: 

"The Chair’s Aid to Negotiations falls short of the justice centered ambition that governments agreed to in UNEA 5/14. A treaty that treats upstream obligations as optional, sidelines independent science, and weakens global decision making cannot end plastic pollution. It only protects the interests of those who profit from it. For African countries and frontline workers who live with the daily realities of waste colonialism, this text is not balanced; it is inequitable. We need a treaty that confronts plastic production, embeds worker centered just transition, and upholds the rights of communities most affected. Anything less is a retreat from the mandate and a failure of global responsibility."

Nyebon Faustin, Executive Director of Appui aux Initiatives Communautaires pour l’Environnement Durable (AICED), said: 

“Plastic pollution is, above all, a matter of human health and survival. Even before contaminating our ecosystems, plastic and the toxic substances associated with it affect our health—including that of unborn children—thereby compromising their development and humanity’s future. The Chair of the INC, has the power to turn the tide by setting the foundations for countries to take action towards an ambitious, legally binding global treaty based on an approach that covers the entire lifecycle of plastic, from production to end-of-life.”

Salisa Traipipitsiriwat, Senior Campaigner and Southeast Asia Plastics Project Manager at Environmental Justice Foundation, said: 

"The Chair's Aid to Negotiations does not reflect the outcome ambitious countries have worked for. Its provisions leave the pace and action against plastic pollution largely where the world already stands today, without the binding commitments that would justify negotiating a legally binding instrument. It is not possible to address plastic pollution while leaving production out of the conversation. Upstream measures to reduce plastic at the production stage must be part of any credible outcome. This is a moment for high-ambition member states to hold firm, make their voices heard, and demand a text that truly matches the urgency of this crisis."

Muriel Papin, Executive Director, No Plastic in my Sea, said: 

“This text, which was intended to facilitate future negotiations, is extremely disappointing and falls short of the ambition set out in the original mandate. It is a war of attrition, which favours the lowest common denominator, and one which the ambitious countries – despite being in the majority – are now facing.”

Fabienne McLellan, Managing Director of OceanCare, said: 

“This treaty is meant to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. What the Ocean needs most from this treaty–upstream measures to prevent plastic getting into the environment in the first place–is what it is least likely to get. Member States need to stand by their previous positions and refuse to settle for this low-ambition document. They must demand that their ambitious proposals be reintroduced and reflected in the text going forward.” [see interview with The Guardian]

Christina Dixon, Ocean Campaign Lead of Environmental Investigation Agency, said: 

“One year after countries rejected a weak outcome in Geneva, they are now being presented with much the same level of ambition, repackaged as progress. Key measures that could tackle the problem at its source remain diluted, deferred or dropped altogether and new proposals remain totally absent. Ultimately, the world needs a treaty that bends the curve on plastic production and pollution, not one that bends to the lowest common denominator.” [see full statement]

David Azoulay, Director of Environmental Health at the Center for International Environmental Law, said: 

“The Chair called this draft a ‘no surprises’ document, and on that count, it delivers. The text is the lowest common denominator. And it is indeed no surprise that a text developed behind closed doors, following a meeting where production, chemicals, and decision-making were kept off the formal agenda, and observers were kept out of the room, fails to reflect the science on what it will take to address the plastics crisis…” [see full statement]

Note to Editors: 

• More quotes from environment activists and experts are available here

• Photos of civil society from previous negotiations: INC-5 in Busan, South Korea, 2024 | INC 5.2 in Geneva, 2025 |INC 5.3 in Geneva, Switzerland, 2026

Press Contacts: 

• Marianella Nuñez, news@breakfreefromplastic.org 
• Eah Antonio, eah@breakfreefromplastic.org, +63 927 827 7960

Other Regional Press Contacts: 

• Africa: Masego Mokgwetsi, masego@breakfreefromplastic.org
• Asia: Devayani Khare,  devayani@breakfreefromplastic.org  
• Europe: Bethany Spendlove Keeley, bethany@breakfreefromplastic.org 
• Latin America: Masego Mokgwetsi, masego@breakfreefromplastic.org 

###

About BFFP — #BreakFreeFromPlastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 2,700 organizations and 11,000 individual supporters worldwide have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain – from extraction to disposal – focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions. www.breakfreefromplastic.org.

Concerned about microplastics after watching The Plastic Detox documentary on Netflix? Read along and learn how to reduce plastic use, avoid microplastics, and support long-term solutions with simple swaps you can make at home.

If you've recently watched The Plastic Detox, you're not the only one wondering how much plastic finds its way into our lives. From food packaging and plastic bottled water to clothing and household products, tiny plastic particles known as microplastics have become increasingly difficult to avoid.

Now, more people are searching for practical answers to questions, such as how to avoid plastic and microplastics, and how to reduce microplastics in our bodies.

The good news is that reducing plastic use doesn't have to be aggressive and overwhelming. Simple everyday swaps can help lower your exposure to microplastics while reducing plastic waste sustainably. 

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles measuring less than five millimeters in size. These particles can either be intentionally manufactured for use in products or result from larger plastic items breaking down over time. As plastic pollution continues to accumulate, microplastics have spread far beyond oceans and waterways.

SEM image highlighting nanoplastic fragments and fibers detected in human sperm samples, from Ecoton.

Microplastics can now enter our bodies through multiple pathways. We may ingest them through food and water, inhale them in the air, or encounter them in products we use every day.

While scientists have detected microplastics in various parts of the human body, the science around their long-term health effects is still developing. Researchers have identified concerning associations between microplastic exposure and certain health outcomes, but many studies show correlation rather than direct causation. 

In other words, scientists are still working to understand exactly how microplastics affect human health over time, and further scientific research is required around the specific impacts. However, when something we never evolved to live with is now inside our hearts, our lungs, and even our maternal placentas, humanity needs urgent action. 

Protecting public health requires making decisions based on the best available information. Ideally, this means following the precautionary principle, which emphasizes caution and pausing to review scientific findings before adopting new technologies at a large scale in case they might prove dangerous. Plastics are still new in the timescale of human evolution, and we would do well to protect humanity from the potential impacts that these microplastics might be having on our health.

The safest path forward is clear: drastically reduce plastic production, shift to toxic-free reuse systems, and protect people and the planet from harmful chemicals. 

If you're wondering how to reduce microplastics in your body, one of the simplest places to start is the kitchen. Studies show that heating food in plastic containers can increase the release of both microplastic particles and chemicals from the plastic into food, particularly when containers are exposed to high temperatures in microwaves or ovens. Apart from plastic food containers, we’re also exposed to microplastics through the plastic cutting boards, utensils, plates, and bowls we use in the kitchen.

That doesn't mean you need to throw away every plastic container in your home. Instead of creating unnecessary waste (and succumbing to consumerism), consider replacing plastic food storage items with glass, ceramic, or other toxic-free alternatives when possible. 

The water you drink is often one of the first places people consider to avoid microplastics. However, studies have detected microplastics in both bottled water and tap water. Plastic-bottled water frequently contains higher levels of microplastic particles, partly because the water comes into contact with plastic packaging during production, storage, and transportation. While scientists are still studying how these particles affect human health over time, reducing unnecessary exposure is one practical way to reduce microplastics in our bodies.

For households with access to safe drinking water, using a home water filtration system and storing water in reusable containers may help reduce the use of single-use plastic bottles and eventually save on costs, too! Some communities also offer water refill stations that allow people to access drinking water without generating additional plastic waste.

At the same time, it’s important to recognize that access to safe and affordable drinking water is not equal everywhere. In many communities, bottled water may still be the safest or most accessible option available, and people should make the best choice available to them based on their circumstances. Long-term solutions require investments in safe public water infrastructure, accessible refill systems, and policies that reduce single-use plastics in the first place.

When people think about microplastics, they often picture plastic bottles or single-use food packaging. Textiles are the largest source of microplastics, responsible for roughly 35% of the microplastic volume in our oceans. Synthetic fabrics such as polyester, nylon, acrylic, and elastane shed tiny plastic fibers—known as microfibers—during everyday wear and washing. These microfibers can enter waterways through wastewater systems and eventually make their way into the environment. 

The good news is that you don’t have to purge your wardrobe. In fact, replacing perfectly usable clothes can create unnecessary waste and even promote overconsumption. 

When it's time to purchase new clothing, consider buying natural fibers such as cotton, linen, or wool over synthetic materials. Many natural fibers are also more breathable and comfortable, especially in warmer climates. Want to save up on clothes while choosing sustainably? Buy second-hand or “thrift shop” clothing made of natural fibers and could survive multiple wears.

Some might find this hard to believe, but how you care for your clothes can also make a big difference for the environment. Experts recommend washing garments only when necessary, using full loads, choosing cold water and shorter wash cycles, and air-drying clothes when possible. While these laundry habits won't completely eliminate exposure, they are among the simple swaps you can do at home to reduce microplastics while extending the life of your clothing and reducing plastic pollution at the source.

A person can learn how to limit their exposure to plastics at a personal or household level, but behavior change as consumers can only do so much when single-use plastics are ubiquitous. 

Break Free From Plastic's Regional Brand Audit Report demonstrates how a small number of multinational companies continue to be among the biggest contributors to plastic pollution in Asia, particularly through single-use sachets and other disposable packaging. 

The harsh reality: plastic pollution is not simply the result of individual consumer choices, but also the result of the production and packaging systems that make plastics essentially impossible to avoid. For many people seeking to avoid microplastics, the challenge is not a lack of willingness to change habits, but a lack of accessible alternatives. Consumers deserve better options than having to choose between convenience and sustainability.

While simple swaps you can do at home to reduce microplastics can help lower everyday exposure, sustainable long-term solutions require reducing plastic production in the first place. 

Reuse and refill systems prevent waste before it’s created by replacing single-use packaging with containers that can be returned, cleaned, and used again. These include refill stations for household products, reusable beverage bottle systems, and refill stores that allow customers to bring their own containers.

It’s important to address plastic pollution at its source rather than relying solely on waste management. Unlike recycling, reuse systems reduce demand for new plastic, helping prevent future plastic waste and the microplastics that can form as plastic breaks down over time. Because when you recycle plastic, it’s still plastic with a second life.

Sustainable long-term solutions depend on changing the systems that produce plastic pollution in the first place. Experts increasingly point to reduce and reuse measures such as packaging redesign, investments in reuse and refill infrastructure, and stronger policies that hold companies accountable for the waste they generate.

The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy principle was established to make producers all over the world to be accountable for the entire lifecycle of the products they place on the market.  In the Philippines, the EPR Act of 2022requires large companies to take responsibility for recovering and managing their plastic packaging, creating incentives to reduce unnecessary packaging and explore more sustainable alternatives.  

On the contrary, some organizations argue that well-designed EPR schemes work best when they prioritize waste prevention and reuse (not just recycling) by encouraging businesses to redesign products and packaging from the start, which makes more sense as we adopt the “polluter pays principle.”

Supporting policies and business models that reduce plastic pollution at the source can be just as important as the simple swaps you can do at home to reduce microplastics. It’s about time to put more pressure where it should be.

Learning how to avoid plastic in our daily lives is an important first step—but it shouldn't stop there. 

Explore our wide array of films and documentaries on reducing plastic pollution at the source – whether you want to know how microplastics enter our bodies or are simply curious about plastic solutions driven by local communities.

Watching The Plastic Detox documentary might be like a real-life modern-day horror movie, but you don't have to be perfect to make a difference. Rather than striving for a perfect "plastic-free" lifestyle, focus on gradual changes that make sense for you and your household.

At the same time, beating plastic pollution requires more than individual action. We need businesses to redesign packaging, governments to invest in reuse and refill infrastructure, and stronger policies that reduce plastic pollution at its source.

Together, let’s make plastic-free choices more accessible for everyone.

Brussels, 12th August 2026 – As of today, 12th August 2026, the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) applies, marking a significant milestone in Europe's efforts to tackle the packaging waste crisis, despite an unprecedented last-minute industry lobbying push that aimed to delay and weaken the regulation.

This landmark regulation will contribute to protecting public health and the environment. Over the next few years, the regulation will introduce legally binding measures aimed at reducing packaging waste, increasing reuse and refill, restricting certain single-use packaging formats, and improving packaging design requirements.

As of today, food-contact packaging that contains ‘forever chemicals’ PFAS exceeding a critical threshold is banned from the European market. The use of these chemicals is used to make food packaging such as coffee cups and takeaway containers impervious, and is particularly concerning because the forever chemicals can leach into the food and can thus be ingested (1,2).

A recent study by the EU’s Joint Research Centre (3) showed that efforts to tackle the packaging waste crisis are urgently needed: The total amount of all packaging placed on the market amounts to a striking 98 kg per capita (this weight is very significant as packaging is usually so light). Food and beverage account for the largest share, covering 97% of the whole packaging material on the market. Plastic packaging, in particular, is a growing concern, as it is the only packaging category showing an upward trend between 2011 and 2025, growing by 11% in absolute terms.

As the PPWR application period kicks-in, there’s no time to waste. The Rethink Plastic Alliance and the wider BFFP movement commend the European Commission for safeguarding the PPWR and continue to offer support for effective implementation. At the same time, we urge national and local governments to implement the provisions of the Regulation with a high level of ambition by championing waste prevention and reuse and slash record levels of packaging waste across the EU.

“Forever chemicals in packaging are harmful and unnecessary, posing a serious risk of contaminating our food and entering our bodies. With these new rules, the EU has taken swift action to remove PFAS from food contact packaging, helping to reduce our exposure to them as well as making packaging more circular. Industries and Member States must now keep up the pace and implement these rules without delay to protect consumers and the environment.” - Emily Best, Senior Programme Manager at ECOS.

“The entry into application of the PPWR on 12 August marks a crucial milestone for Europe’s transition to a circular economy. After years of negotiations, now is time for an ambitious implementation that delivers on the regulation’s core promise: preventing packaging waste before it is created. The coming years must focus on turning reuse and waste-prevention obligations into reality through clear national measures to reduce unnecessary packaging and invest in well designed reuse systems. If Europe is serious about cutting packaging waste, reuse needs to become the norm, not the exception.” - Larissa Copello, Reuse and Packaging Policy Officer at Zero Waste Europe.

"The PPWR shows us a glimpse of what future-fit EU legislation should look like: preventing waste before it is created, accelerating the shift to reuse, and reducing exposure to harmful chemicals. As the EU prepares its Circular Economy Act, the packaging regulation offers a clear lesson for the next generation of circular economy legislation: true circularity starts with prevention and reuse." - Marco Musso, Deputy Policy Manager for Circular Economy at the European Environmental Bureau.

1. Zero Waste Europe: Why is toxic food packaging still legal? - Zero Waste Europe 
2. European Environment Agency: What are the impacts of PFAS polymers on our health and the environment? | Press releases 
3. Joint Research Centre (2026): Packaging materials in the EU: quantities stay significant, plastic grew by 11% 
4. Rethink Plastic Alliance: 160+ environmental and health groups respond to last-minute attempt by Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Others to Reopen EU Packaging Law - Rethink Plastic 
5. Rethink Plastic Alliance: PPWR Implementation Guide for National and Local Governments