{"id":13319,"date":"2025-08-04T13:15:23","date_gmt":"2025-08-04T18:15:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=13319"},"modified":"2025-12-03T12:54:39","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T17:54:39","slug":"advanced-recycling-is-a-toxic-scam-now-the-epa-is-turning-a-blind-eye-to-some-of-the-most-toxic-chemicals-it-produces","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2025\/08\/04\/advanced-recycling-is-a-toxic-scam-now-the-epa-is-turning-a-blind-eye-to-some-of-the-most-toxic-chemicals-it-produces\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cAdvanced recycling\u201d is a toxic scam \u2014 now the EPA is turning a blind eye to some of the most toxic chemicals it produces"},"content":{"rendered":"

What\u2019s new: <\/strong>Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a proposed rule covering 18 new chemicals, which would have paused industry efforts to turn toxic oils from plastic waste into fuel until the agency could review their health risks. Companies make these oils through pyrolysis, a controversial process that essentially burns plastic waste\u2014often full of toxic additives like lead, phthalates and PFAS\u2014at high temperatures. Industry has sought for years to re-brand this inefficient and dirty process as \u201cadvanced recycling\u201d\u2014a false solution to the plastic waste crisis.<\/p>\n

Why it matters:<\/strong> In 2022, the EPA approved the production and use of the 18 chemicals despite\u00a0significant<\/em>\u00a0health risks<\/a> documented in the agency\u2019s own analysis. These risks include an up-to 1-in-4 lifetime cancer risk\u2014250,000 times greater than what the EPA typically considers acceptable. It was only after residents near the facility in Pascagoula, Mississippi that received the approval learned of these risks and filed a lawsuit that the EPA finally pulled it back.<\/p>\n

As damning as the EPA\u2019s 2022 analysis was, it almost certainly underestimated the true risks of the 18 chemicals by failing to consider the known health risks of toxic additives such as\u00a0lead, PFAS and dioxins commonly found in waste-plastic pyrolysis oils. In response to mounting pressure<\/a>, the EPA issued the proposed rule in 2023 to address these additional risks. Because it is nearly impossible to make fuels from these oils that are free from toxicants, the rule had an immediate chilling effect<\/a> on industry investment in \u201cadvanced recycling\u201d that\u2019s thawing now that it has been withdrawn.<\/p>\n

Our Take: <\/strong>The proposed rule was effective because it would have required companies to notify the EPA before producing and using the new chemicals when they contain toxic plastic additives by designating it as a significant new use<\/em>. This designation also would have given the agency time to evaluate potential risks to human health and the environment\u2014and mitigate them if necessary.<\/p>\n

The proposed rule was also significant because it represents the first time the EPA officially acknowledged that waste plastic-derived pyrolysis oils contain toxic additives \u201cknown to cause cancer and harm the reproductive system, among other health effects.\u201d While we believe this rule (and the list of toxic chemicals requiring review) did not go far enough\u2014and submitted comments to the EPA<\/a> in 2023 explaining why\u2014it was a big step in the right direction.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the problem with so-called \u201cadvanced recycling?\u201d<\/strong> Although industry touts \u201cadvanced recycling\u201d as a solution to the plastic waste crisis, the process has major flaws. Not only does it fail to recycle anything, but it also rarely results in new plastic products. To make matters worse, the oils it produces are so toxic that their use is highly limited<\/a>. Continued investments in \u201cadvanced recycling\u201d will lock us into burning more polluting fossil fuels that contribute to climate change. Instead of spending its resources propping up this toxic scam<\/a>, industry could devote them to developing truly innovative and safe solutions.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s next?<\/strong> With the rule now out of the way, the EPA is likely to reissue its approval of the 18 chemicals and propose a new set of \u201crules\u201d that would ignore both the known cancer risks and the additional risks from the highly toxic additives. This would be an unacceptable outcome for public health. The agency must consider the full picture of risk\u2014not just part of it.<\/p>\n

With industry actively pushing to develop new facilities across the country\u2014and simultaneously seeking exemptions from other pollution limits<\/a> for facilities like the one in Pascagoula\u2014the EPA\u2019s reversal opens the door to more pollution and greater harm to both people and the environment. We must hold both the EPA and industry accountable to ensure these plastic waste-derived new chemicals filled with dangerous toxins are not approved\u2014and that any future rules protect people and the environment from unreasonable risk.<\/p>\n

To learn more about the health risks of “advanced recycling,” check out <\/em>this recent Instagram reel<\/em><\/a> by Sarah Vogel, Senior Vice President of Healthy Communities.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What\u2019s new: Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a proposed rule covering 18 new chemicals, which would have paused industry efforts to turn toxic oils from plastic waste into fuel until the agency could review their health risks. Companies make these oils through pyrolysis, a controversial process that essentially burns plastic waste\u2014often full …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":151199,"featured_media":13320,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[114066,114047,114079,114078,114072,114114,114050,44,56093,114055,114076,114033,114077],"tags":[],"coauthors":[114042,114148],"class_list":["post-13319","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-adverse-health-effects","category-bpa","category-chemical-exposure","category-chemical-regulation","category-contamination","category-environmental-justice","category-frontline-communities","category-policy","category-industry-influence","category-phthalates","category-risk-assessment","category-tsca-2","category-vulnerable-populations"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13319","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/151199"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13319"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13319\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13367,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13319\/revisions\/13367"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13320"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13319"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=13319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}