Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

A recycler’s perspective on the implications of REACH and food contact

material (FCM) regulations for the mechanical recycling of FCM plastics
Ellen De Tandt a, Cody Demuytere a, Elke Van Asbroeck d, Hiram Moerman d, Nicolas Mys a,c, Gianni Vyncke a,
Laurens Delva a, An Vermeulen e, Peter Ragaert b,e, Steven De Meester c, Kim Ragaert a,⇑
a
CAPTURE – Centre for Polymer and Material Technologies, Faculty of Engineering & Architecture, Ghent University, Technologiepark 130, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
b
CAPTURE – Department of Food Technology, Safety & Health, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Campus Coupure, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
c
CAPTURE – Laboratory for Circular Process Engineering, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University – Campus Kortrijk, Graaf Karel de Goedelaan 5, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium
d
Apeiron-Team NV, Berten Pilstraat, 4, 2640 Mortsel, Belgium
e
Pack4Food NPO, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This manuscript provides an overview of the legislative requirements for the use of mechanical recycled
Received 11 May 2020 plastics in articles placed on the EU market, as seen from the perspective of a plastics recycler. The first
Revised 2 October 2020 part reviews the main principles included in the overarching legislation on Registration, Evaluation,
Accepted 8 October 2020
Authorisation and Restrictions of Chemicals (REACH) and to what extent these are applicable for mechan-
Available online 22 October 2020
ical recyclers of plastics. The interactions between REACH and the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) is
discussed, as well as the difficulties for recyclers to comply with certain REACH requirements. In a second
Keywords:
part, the focus is moved to the use of recycled plastics as Food Contact Material (FCM). The scope of the
EU Legislation
REACH
different applicable EU FCM regulations is inventorised as well as the key legislative principles involved.
Food Contact Materials A final section is dedicated to the discussion on the authorisation of recycling processes under the FCM
Mechanical recycling regulation and the practical challenges involved for the effective introduction of FCMs containing recy-
Plastics cled plastics. Altogether it could be concluded that the complexity of the different legal perspectives, a
lack of communication and transparency within the plastic value chain together with technical chal-
lenges related to recycling processes have been hindering the effective uptake of recycled plastic FCM
(with the exception for bottle PET). The development of targeted solutions across the entire value-
chain, taking into account different perspectives in terms of legislation and health protection, economic
growth and technical innovations, will be crucial in achieving a circular economy for plastics, including
recycled plastics for FCM.
Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
2. European legislation on chemicals: REACH Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
2.1. REACH framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Abbreviations: Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, ‘General Food Law Regulation’; Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004, ’FCM framework Regulation’; Commission Regulation (EC) No
2023/2006, ’GMP Regulation’; Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011, ’Plastic FCM Regulation’; Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008, ’Recycled plastic FCM
Regulation’; Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, ’REACH Regulation’; Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, ‘Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation’; Regulation (EU)
2019/1381, ’Transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment Regulation’; Directive 2008/98/EC, ’Waste Framework Directive’; CLP, Classification, Labelling and
Packaging; DEHP, di/bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; DoC, Declaration of Compliance; ECHA, European Chemicals Authority; EFSA, European Food Safety Authority; EoW, End-of-
Waste; eSDS, extended Safety Data Sheet; EU, European Union; FCM, Food Contact Material; GMP, Good Manufacturing Practice; HBCDD, Hexabromocyclododecane; NIAS,
Non-Intentionally Added Substances; OML, Overall Migration Limit; PCR, Post-Consumer Recycled (plastics); PET, Polyethylene terephthalate; (HD) PE, (High Denisty)
Polyethylene; PP, Polypropylene; PVC, Polyvinyl chloride; SDS, Safety Data Sheet; SML, Specific Migration Limit; SVHC, Substance of Very High Concern; UK, United Kingdom;
WFD, Waste Framework Directive.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Ragaert).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.10.012
0956-053X/Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

2.2. Applicability of REACH to mechanical recyclers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

2.2.1. Interface between waste framework Directive and REACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
2.2.2. Exemptions from the registration requirement under REACH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
2.2.3. Substances of very high concern (SVHC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
3. Food safety legislation: Overview of EU regulation on food contact materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
3.1. The framework Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
3.1.1. Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
3.1.2. Declaration of compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
3.2. Good manufacturing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
3.3. EU legislation on specific materials: Plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
3.3.1. Migration limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
3.3.2. Non-intentionally added substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
3.4. EU legislation on specific materials: Recycled plastic materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
3.4.1. Conditions for the authorisation of recycling processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
3.4.2. Exclusions under Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
4. Food contact legislation: Authorisation of recycling processes under the FCM regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
4.1. Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
4.2. Input contamination: NIAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
4.3. Determination of decontamination efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
4.3.1. PET guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
4.3.2. Guidelines for other plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
4.4. Authorised recycling processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
5. Conclusion and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

1. Introduction (Brouwer et al., 2019). Besides improving recycling rates, the Euro-
pean Commission also stated that it is important for recyclers to
Plastics nowadays have a key role in our society. With a global work closely together with the chemical industry to help identify
EU demand of 51.2 Mt they have become an integral part of our wider and high-value applications for their output. This together
daily lives finding their use in various application areas with the idea of a more circular economy implies the preference
(PlasticsEurope, 2019). Despite the fact that the use of plastics of the EU for closed-loop recycling scenarios, in which, for instance,
has many advantages as it combines excellent overall properties food packaging is recycled to become a food contact material
with a low cost, over the years it has also generated negative (FCM) once more.
impacts on the environment. It became clear to policymakers that However, for certain packaging applications, there is still a long
changes needed to be made within the plastics economy from a way to go to achieve this closed-loop recycling goal. Within food
linear waste producing consumer system to one that preserves packaging for instance, it can be estimated that a mere 5% is nowa-
the value and benefits of plastics (European Commission, 2019a). days recycled closed-loop within the EU (ING Economics
In this respect, the European Commission formulated their Department, 2019; Lugal et al., 2020). This recycling is mainly done
vision on a more integrated system in ‘A European strategy for by means of mechanical recycling where washed and sorted plastic
plastics in a circular economy’ (European Commission, 2018a). This waste is re-molten and processed into a new food packaging. How-
communication published in 2018 sets out different goals to ever, the recycling process may cause several issues regarding the
implement a more life cycle thinking approach to plastics. Certain safe use of the recycled plastics as food packaging due to an
aspirations focus mainly on plastic packaging as the packaging increase in possible contamination sources which might migrate
industry is the largest outlet for plastics in the EU, with a market into the food, thus imposing a risk to human health. To prevent
share of nearly 40% (PlasticsEurope, 2019). In addition, a lot of placing such materials on the market, the EU has several pieces
packaging materials can be categorized as ‘single use plastics’ of legislation in place on the use of Food Contact Materials (FCMs)
which means that they are disposed of very quickly after only a including plastics and recycled plastics. This legislation aims to
short period of use (European Commission, 2018a). This is one of protect the human health and the environment from the possible
many reasons why packaging accounts for more than 60% of the adverse effect of the use of those materials by imposing several
total plastic waste yearly generated in the EU. In order to counter- requirements towards recyclers.
act this the European Commission stated that by 2030, all plastic Within the EU, mechanical plastic recyclers (for FCMs) are sub-
packaging placed on the EU market needs to either be reusable ject to various regulations, including the framework Regulation
or recyclable in a cost-effective manner. Moreover, they have pre- (EC) No 1935/2004, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006
viously proposed that by 2025 at least 55% of all plastic packaging on good manufacturing practice, Commission Regulation (EU) No
in the EU should be recycled (European Commission, 2018a). 10/2011 on plastic FCMs, Commission Regulation (EC) No
There is still a lot of work to be done in order to achieve this 282/2008 on recycled plastics as FCM and the overarching Regula-
goal as the recycling rate of plastic packaging currently is only tion (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation,
40% (European Commission, 2018b). However, this is an overesti- Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). The – often
mation since in practice this 40% accounts for the plastic waste complicated – interaction between these regulations throughout
which is ‘collected for recycling’. The actual net recycling rate of the life cycle of plastics intended for the use as FCM is illustrated
plastic packaging is in fact lower. A study on the post-consumer by Fig. 1.
plastic packaging recycling network in the Netherlands for These regulations exist for very good reasons as they guarantee
instance has indicated an effective recycling yield of only 26% a high level of protection of human health and the environment
instead of 50% as was reported by the official authorities and do ensure the effective functioning of the internal market by

316
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

tion. Nonetheless, it is often unclear – from the recycler’s perspec-

tive – as to what exactly needs to be ‘done’ to realize compliance in
practice. The authors have therefore elected to approach this sub-
ject from the recycler’s perspective.

2. European legislation on chemicals: REACH Regulation

2.1. REACH framework

The use and placing on the market of chemical substances is

regulated in Europe by the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Autho-
risation and Restrictions of Chemicals) Regulation. The purpose of
REACH is stipulated in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006:

1. The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure a high level of protection

of human health and the environment, including the promotion of
alternative methods for assessment of hazards of substances, as
Fig. 1. Graphical representation of the applicability of REACH and EU FCM well as the free circulation of substances on the internal market
regulations on (recycled) plastic FCM throughout the entire life cycle. while enhancing competitiveness and innovation.
2. This Regulation is based on the principle that it is for manufactur-
ers, importers and downstream users to ensure that they manufac-
allowing free movement of FCMs and/or the circulation of sub-
ture, place on the market or use such substances that do not
stances on that market. Within the EU, health protection is of par-
adversely affect human health or the environment. Its provisions
ticular concern when it comes to food safety. Therefore, an
are underpinned by the precautionary principle
overarching and coherent framework for the development of
pieces of legislation related to food (including the regulations men- To achieve this purpose, REACH requires substances placed on
tioned above) was established within the General Food Law Regu- the market in quantities exceeding one tonne per year per manu-
lation or Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 which is applicable to all facturer or importer to be registered by the manufacture or impor-
stages of food production, processing and distribution. Within this ter. This registration dossier needs to contain information on the
regulation it is stipulated that measures relating to food safety physical and hazardous properties of the substance and on its con-
must be based on strong science. Therefore it established the struc- ditions of use. The amount and nature of the information to be pro-
tures and mechanism for scientific and technical evaluations which vided for a substance depends on the volume placed on the market
are undertaken by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and on its hazardous properties. The registration dossier, which
together with the principles for risk analysis consisting of (i) risk needs to demonstrate safe use of the substance in its entire supply
assessment (independent, objective and transparent based on chain, forms the basis for the hazard and risk communication in
available science), (ii) risk management and (iii) risk communica- the supply chain via the extended safety datasheet (eSDS).
tion. It also invoked the precautionary approach (Article 7 of Reg- Under the scope of REACH, polymers are defined as substances.
ulation (EC) No 178/2002) which refers to specific situations where They themselves are exempt from REACH registration, but the
there are reasonable grounds for concern that an unacceptable monomers and other reactants used to manufacture the polymer
level of risk to health exists or when insufficiently complete data should be registered by the manufacturers or importers of the
are available to enable a comprehensive risk assessment to be polymers (European Chemicals Agency, 2012).
made. This precautionary principle allows decision makers or risk The registration dossiers of substances can be scrutinized by
managers to take specific measures or other actions, while seeking ECHA in coordination with Member States competent authorities.
complete scientific and other data. This can be either in the context of checking the completeness of
Still, the use of recycled plastics as FCM – with the exception the registration dossier (dossier evaluation) or in the context of a
for bottle PET – has not yet been successfully established which concern that a member state might have with a specific substance
is clearly reflected by the small closed-loop recycling percentage (substance evaluation), e.g. a concern that a substance may be per-
of food packaging. Typical challenges for recyclates include full sistent, bio-accumulative and/or toxic. As a result of these evalua-
traceability, potential misuse during the lifetime and the separa- tion processes, authorities may request additional data regarding
tion of FCM and non-FCM waste. These are complex technical the hazard or use conditions of the substance.
and logistical questions which require full value-chain solutions REACH also establishes a certain class of substances as being of
that are at the same time able to provide the necessary guaran- very high concern (SVHC). These substances meet the criteria set
tee on chemical safety and effectively increased recycling rates. forth in Art. 57 of REACH. They are considered carcinogenic, muta-
With new targets like 30% PCR (Post-Consumer Recycled) plas- genic or reprotoxic substances (category 1) but also substances
tics uptake in beverage bottles by 2030 (European Parliament, which can disrupt the endocrine system, substances that are respi-
2019), discussion on how to resolve this stand-off is no longer ratory sensitizing or substances which are persistent, bio-
avoidable. accumulative and toxic or very persistent and very bio-
In the current manuscript, the key legislative principles of the accumulative. In case a substance meets one of these criteria, the
abovementioned regulations are summarized for (recycled) plas- risk of continued use of the substance can be managed by the
tics starting with the overarching REACH Regulation and following authorities through additional regulatory measures. A first type
the legislation on FCM. Their mutual interplay is discussed, as well of such measure is Authorisation. Substances subject to authorisa-
as the challenges this may lead to for the effective and practical tion are listed in Annex XIV of REACH. In practice this means that
uptake of recycled plastics in FCMs in the EU. It is well- the substance cannot be used anymore for any use after a certain
established that the relevant existing pieces of legislation are in date, called the Sunset Date, unless an authorisation has been
place as an important safeguard for the protection of human granted for that use (or is under decision if the authorisation appli-
health. It is not the intent of this manuscript to call those into ques- cation was made timely, i.e. before the latest application date).
317
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

Prior to inclusion in Annex XIV, a substance is included in the ‘‘Can- that although the recovery process is not a use, measures to reduce
didate list for inclusion in Annex XIV”. This listing allows compa- exposure and emission need to be described in the registration
nies to prepare the substitution of the substance or prepare for dossier of the substance.
an application for authorisation but also triggers communication In case of plastics recycling, this means that the emission and
obligations in the supply chain. exposure during recycling to monomers, other reactants (e.g. graft-
A second type of regulatory measure is Restriction. Substances ing agents) or non-stabilizing additives present in the polymer (e.g.
which can be subject to restriction (Art. 69.1 of REACH) have to colorants, lubricants), should have been considered in their respec-
pose an EU-wide risk. Unlike the authorisation process, the sub- tive registration dossiers. However, the legislation does not clarify
stances that can be subject to restriction are not limited to the cri- how the recycler should be aware of the conditions for safe use
teria set forth in Art 57 of REACH, the SVHC criteria. A restriction taken into account in the risk assessment. For downstream users
sets limits to the use of a substance, for instance the substance can- of a substance, these conditions of safe use are communicated
not be used in toys or jewellery. These limits can both affect the through the mandatory eSDS, which is nonetheless vital to guaran-
use of substances as such, in mixtures or in articles. This means tee lack of adverse effects on human health once materials are con-
that a restriction can cover the placing on the market of articles verted back into products. For a waste producer it is not mandatory
containing substances, whereas this cannot be covered by means to provide an eSDS or even SDS to the waste handler, nor does the
of the authorisation process. Indeed, because the authorisation reg- waste handler have access to the chemical safety assessment con-
ulates the use of the substance and not the placing on the market tained in the registration dossier of the substance. Nevertheless,
of it, the manufacturing of an article involving the use of an SVHC the recycler has to consider, independently of REACH, legislation
requires authorisation, while importing the same article, even con- regarding industrial safety which require the employer to ascertain
taining the SVHC, cannot be regulated by means of an authorisa- the risk of substances used. In that respect, it could be beneficial for
tion requirement but can be in scope of a restriction. the recycler if the legislator could strengthen the legal require-
However, the uses of the SVHC not affected by the restriction ments on the communication regarding the nature of the waste
remain allowed within the conditions described in the registration and therefore consider going beyond the current requirements on
dossier unless they have also been included in Annex XIV of waste classification.
REACH. The restricted uses of substances are listed in Annex XVII In general, the recycler brings a substance or mixture of sub-
of REACH. stances on the market which triggers a number of REACH require-
The supply chain is notified of the presence of an SVHC included ments. The aforementioned exclusion of waste under Article 2(2)
in the candidate list (1) in a mixture if the substance concentration of the REACH Regulation no longer applies when waste ceases to
is >0.1 wt% through the safety data sheet (SDS) or (2) in an article be waste in accordance with the Waste Framework Directive
through an obligatory communication to the user of the article (Directive 2009/98/EC and amended in 2018 by Directive
(Art. 33 of REACH). Authorities are notified of the presence in an 2018/851/EC). This is also illustrated in Fig. 1. It is therefore impor-
article of a substance included in the candidate list through a noti- tant to consider when and where exactly the processed product
fication obligation of the article manufacturer (Art. 7(2) of REACH). ceases to be waste and becomes a substance or a mixture in the
Through these two regulatory measures, the regulator aims at scope of REACH.
gradual substitution of these substances with safer alternatives. Article 6(1) of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD as
Due to the nature of REACH as a European regulation, it is amended in 2018) provides that: ‘‘Member States shall take appro-
directly enforceable in each member state without translation into priate measures to ensure that waste which has undergone a recycling
national legislation. The enforcement of REACH obligations how- or other recovery operation is considered to have ceased to be waste if
ever remains a responsibility of each member state. it complies with the following conditions:

2.2. Applicability of REACH to mechanical recyclers (a) the substance or object is to be used for specific purposes;
(b) a market or demand exists for such a substance or object;
2.2.1. Interface between waste framework Directive and REACH (c) the substance or object fulfils the technical requirements for the
The scope of REACH is mainly related to the manufacturing, and specific purposes and meets the existing legislation and stan-
use of the substance. In REACH terms, the life cycle of a substance dards applicable to products; and
ends when the substance enters the waste stage. At that point, the (d) the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall
regulatory context for the substance is defined by the Waste adverse environmental or human health impacts”.
Framework Directive (Directive 2009/98/EC and amended in
2018 by Directive 2018/851/EC). However, after a recycling or a For some materials, the Commission has set out additional and
recovery process, a new substance life cycle can start. This split, specific End-of-Waste (EoW) criteria to further define this scope
which is illustrated in Fig. 1, should avoid overlap of regulations (e.g. iron, glass, copper). For other materials, a general methodol-
and by this avoid any inconsistencies between both regulations. ogy for the application of EoW-criteria was originally developed
However, although waste as such is excluded from REACH (Delgado et al., 2009) and has since been further applied for waste
under Article 2(2), there is still an impact of REACH on the recy- plastics (Villanueva Krzyzaniak and Eder, 2014). However, at this
cling process as REACH is applicable to the entire life cycle of a sub- time of writing there are no harmonized EU EoW-criteria applica-
stance. The life cycle ends with the waste stage and a new life cycle ble for plastics.
starts when the substance ceases to be waste. The recovery process Recycling consist of different processing steps and as such it is
between the two life cycles focuses on the recovery of substances crucial that the EoW-criteria are defined to that level. The exact
from the waste and can therefore not be a continuous use of the process step when waste ceases to be waste and is again subject
originally registered substance (European Chemicals Agency, to the REACH Regulation needs to be identified. This process step
2010). Nevertheless, for the substances contained in waste and where waste ceases to be waste is considered a manufacturing pro-
for which in the REACH registration dossier a risk assessment cess in the scope of REACH (European Chemicals Agency, 2010).
was required, the exposure and risk assessment in the registration However, since there are no specific harmonised EoW-criteria for
dossier shall also consider the exposure and emissions during the plastics, this remains a difficult task where consulting with local
recycling process (Annex I of REACH §5.1.1 & §5.2.2) (European authorities can be beneficial to achieve some clarity
Parliament, 2006; Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.), 2012). This means (Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.), 2012).
318
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

As such recyclers have the same information obligations as the of 20 wt% which can either originate from the original registered
manufacturers or importers of the substances towards the down- substance or can be present in the waste stream but without func-
stream users of the recycled material. In this context the recycler tion in the recovered material, on the other hand do not require a
has to classify the recycled material, has to provide an SDS (Art. registration. However, even if impurities do not have to be regis-
31 of REACH) and has to respond to information requests from tered separately, they need to be identified to the extent needed
their customers (e.g. as a result Art. 33 of REACH). (1) for comparison of substance identity of an already registered
substance and (2) for establishing the hazard profile as well as
2.2.2. Exemptions from the registration requirement under REACH the classification and labelling.
According to Art. 2(2) of REACH, waste is not a substance, mix- The specific position of waste in the REACH legislation results in
ture or article. This definition already limits the applicability of a disruption of communication on safe use. The recycler who wants
REACH to waste significantly. Additionally, for recycling there is to benefit from the exemption for registration should have legal
a key exemption regarding REACH registration obligations, rele- access to all the relevant safety information of the recovered sub-
vant for the recyclers of plastics. stance, including the exposure scenarios (Art. 31 of REACH). How-
The exemption in Article 2(7)(d) of REACH relates to the regis- ever, the recycler should provide the downstream user of the
tration obligation of recycled material. Within certain conditions, a recycled substance ‘‘sufficient information to allow safe use” (ECHA
REACH registration is not required for the recycled material if: guidance on waste). Specifically, the recycler should provide the
downstream user of the recycled substance an SDS, but the
(i) the substance that results from the recovery process is the same recycler is not obliged to provide exposure scenarios (eSDS) to its
as the substance that has been registered in accordance with downstream user in case the recycler can benefit from the exemp-
Title II; and tion of registration under Article 2(7)(d) of REACH. This means that
(ii) the information required by Articles 31 or 32 relating to the in certain cases the downstream user receives an exposure sce-
substance that has been registered in accordance with Title II nario for virgin material, but no exposure scenario in case of the
is available to the establishment undertaking the recovery same recycled material. Recyclers do normally not receive any
SDS or other safety information from the waste handler as they
To benefit from this exemption, the recycler shall thus identify are not legally required to provide such information. As a result,
whether the recycled material is ‘‘the same” as a substance (or sub- recyclers can often not comply with the criteria set forth under
stances in case the recycled material is a mixture) that has (have) Article 2(7)(d) and are compelled to register their substances
been registered by another actor. For polymers this means that the themselves. Therefore they often need to rely on external analysis
monomers, the other reactants and additives to manufacture the as they are typically not equipped to perform this themselves. Not
polymer must have been registered by another actor. For the providing an eSDS since it is not mandatory (when complying with
exemption it is sufficient that a registration was filed for the sub- Article 2(7)(d)) or if it is mandatory due to technical reasons may in
stance(s) by any registrant. This registrant does not have to be part fact be a competitive disadvantage for the supplier of the recycled
of the supply chain leading to the waste generation (European material, which means there is an economic incentive to being able
Chemicals Agency, 2010). to provide this, on top of the obvious concern for human health.
Regarding substance identity of recovered substances, ECHA’s While in 2010 ECHA already announced in their guidance that such
guidance on Waste & Recovered Substances (2010) provides the a situation could be subject to change during a revision of REACH
following clear guideline: (European Chemicals Agency, 2010), up until now this has not
yet been addressed.
‘‘Recovered substances may contain impurities which may be dif-
In this context, the split between the REACH legislation and the
ferent from those in a substance not derived from a recovery pro-
waste legislation is the cause of the complexity. Integrating both
cess. This is in particular the case when recovered materials
pieces of legislation could overcome these burdens and allow a
contain unintended constituents which have no function for the
safer and more efficient recovery of substances and as such support
recovered material and the only reason for their presence in the
a circular economy.
recovered material is that they were part of the input waste for
the recovery process. [. . .]. Constituents present in quantities above
20% (w/w) should, however, in general not be considered as impu-
2.2.3. Substances of very high concern (SVHC)
rities but as separate substances in a mixture. In the case that
SVHC are of specific concern to recyclers for various reasons.
recovered material is intentionally selected for the presence of cer-
First of all, since REACH defines a recycler as a manufacturer, the
tain constituent(s), those constituents should also be considered to
recycler is therefore required to classify the substance under the
be separate substances, even if they are present in smaller quanti-
Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation (EC) No
ties than 20% (w/w).”
1272/2008. SVHC can affect the hazard classification in a mixture,
as of 0.1 wt%. In practice this means that a recycler should have
For example, if during the recycling of PVC (polyvinyl chloride) information at this level. In this case, the recycler has a legal obli-
a selection is made to recover a high minimal content of the plas- gation to communicate the presence and the concentration of the
ticiser DEHP (di/bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate), then DEHP is not an SVHC via the SDS. In the situation where the recycler would pro-
impurity but a separate substance. This means that the recovery duce an article directly, then the recycler also has a communication
operator shall either check whether the Article 2(7)(d) applies for and notification obligation for the presence of the SVHC in a con-
the monomers of PVC and for DEHP, if this is not the case then centration >0.1 wt% (REACH Article 33 and 7(2) respectively).
the recovery operator cannot rely on this exemption and must then Secondly, the presence of an SVHC is of concern in the context
register the substances. Since DEHP is a SVHC included in the towards a toxic-free environment, which is one of the means
Authorisation List (Annex XIV of REACH), the authorisation obliga- towards a circular economy. Indeed, the SVHC present in the recy-
tion does also apply. This is further explained in Section 2.2.3. cled material will participate in at least one more life cycle during
On the one hand, substances which are intentionally added dur- which exposure could potentially occur, depending on the use. The
ing the recycling process, not originating from the waste, cannot incoming waste polymers can contain SVHCs such as flame retar-
benefit from the Art. 2(7)(d) registration exemption. Impurities dants (e.g. HBCDD - hexabromocyclododecane), stabilizers (e.g.
present in the recovered material up to a maximum concentration Pb), or softeners (e.g. DEHP), and therefore these SVHCs can also
319
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

be present as an impurity in the recycled material. Such waste for, recyclers are typically neither equipped for extensive testing,
streams will typically be sent to incineration or even landfill. nor do they have the possibility to rely on costly external product
According to the exposure assessment of DEHP (European and/or chemical analyses (estimated cost for analytical testing may
Commission, 2008a), 63% of the original DEHP is still present in range from 5.000 to 30.000 € per substance (Simoneau et al.,
the waste fraction. If this waste fraction is reused in an application 2016)). Also it is questionable whether such external ’batch’-
where DEHP still has a function and the exposure to humans can be testing might even be sufficient to effectively monitor compliance
avoided (e.g. internal liner of garden hoses), not only the plastic as in a non-controlled post-consumer waste loop, given that the
base material but also the hazardous additive can be used in a cir- composition of the waste stream may vary over time (de Römph
cular fashion without additional risk for humans. Using this soft- and Van Calster, 2018; EURACTIV, 2012; Federal Public Service
ener in a second life cycle also avoids the production of Health and Food Chain Safety and Environment Belgium, 2016;
additional new softeners and by this avoiding the consumption Janssen and van Broekhuizen, 2017). For closed-loop recycling pro-
of energy, emissions of and exposure to substances during this cesses, communication lines with the waste supplier are short and
phase. This type of smart recycling instead of a total avoidance, can be used to obtain information on the presence of SVHCs.
based on a precautionary principle, of all SVHC in recycled material Another strategy may rely on specifications of the materials
will help better to meet the circular economy goals in combination used (food contact, RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in
with zero carbon and a sustainable economy and could be there for Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Directive 2011/65/EU)), . . .)
a part of the Green Deal (European Commission, 2019b). to exclude the presence of certain SVHCs. However, because
Finally, when an SVHC, included in Annex XIV of REACH, is pre- legislation is continuously evolving, legacy substances have to be
sent in the recycled material, either intentionally and/or in a con- taken into consideration especially for substances such as con-
centration above 20 wt%, then it is considered a substance in a struction materials which have a long life cycle (37% of total plastic
mixture and not an impurity. REACH Art. 56(6) defines that the waste fraction) (European Commission DG ENV, 2011). In practice,
use of the SVHC in a mixture (i.e. the recycled material) is subject the recyclers will have to take a pragmatic approach and use a
to authorisation if the concentration of the SVHC is above the combination of different strategies to obtain information on the
specific values in Art. 11.3 of CLP (Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008) SVHCs in the waste material.
or higher than 0.1 wt%. The authorisation obligation comes with In the future, there will be more information on SVHCs in waste
a significant cost (estimated to 200.000 € or more per use applied articles. The regulator has included in the recast of the Waste
for) and with the obligation to research towards more sustainable Frame Directive (WFD) of 2018 in Art. 9(1)(i) an obligation to pro-
alternatives. vide information as of Jan 5th, 2021 regarding the presence of can-
As a result of the previous elements, the presence of an SVHC in didate list substances in the articles supplied. This obligation,
the recycled material can negatively affect the market value of which connects the WFD with REACH, will be implemented
recycled material, either as a result of the regulatory burden and through a database developed by the European Chemicals Agency
related costs or as a result of a negative perception in view of a (ECHA), i.e. the SCIP database, which stands for Substances of Con-
toxic-free environment. The presence of the SVHC then results in cern In articles as such or in complex objects (Products). This data-
a commercial disadvantage compared to virgin material. Although base is to be completed by any supplier of the article, with
exact impact of this is difficult to estimate, a consultation of vari- exception of retailers supplying to consumers. The content of the
ous stakeholders (McKinnon et al., 2018) indicate that the viability database will be made available to the public, including to the
of the recycling business depends on various factors such as the recycler and it should allow the recycler to be more informed
high price of the recovered plastics versus the virgin plastics. Any about the presence of SVHCs in waste articles. This is also relevant
additional cost or negative perception will tip the business case. for the recycling of packaging materials because packaging is
It has been shown that candidate listing of a substance by itself defined under REACH as an article (ECHA, 2017). It is expected that
is a significant trigger to initiate substitution activities (Mistry the effort to complete this database will be significant and will
et al., 2017) and in that sense it affects the value of the recycled require continuous updating.
substance. Additional to this, the Circular Economy Action Plan suggests
It is therefore key for the recycler to know the identity and the the use of digital technologies for tracking and tracing and the
concentration of SVHCs in the incoming waste material. In general, use of watermarks to signal the presence of hazardous substances
the supply chain is notified of the presence of an SVHC included in in waste and to support the development of the circular economy
the candidate list in a mixture if the substance concentration is (European Commission, 2020).
>0.1 wt% through the SDS. Because the producer of waste does In case the waste material contains an SVHC, various technolo-
not have to provide an SDS for the waste material, the recycler does gies have been employed to remove the SVHC from the waste
not have the information readily available, even if they should so material (Wagner and Schlummer, 2020). This can be mechanical
desire for the economic and food safety reasons mentioned earlier. selection, extraction by solvent or chemical recycling including
A second communication obligation for SVHC is an obligatory com- chemical purification.
munication to the user of the article (Art. 33 of REACH). This obli- However, in some cases it is impossible to remove the SVHC to a
gation is not extended to the article in the waste stage and hence level below 0.1 wt% (or the level in CLP). From the point of view of
not applicable for the waste handler. Authorities are also notified a non-toxic environment, this is an undesirable situation even in
of the presence in an article of a substance included in the candi- case the recycled substance can be used in conditions without
date list through a notification obligation of the article manufac- exposure during its life cycle. This position clearly limits the possi-
turer (Art. 7(2) of REACH). bility to recycle polymers and thus it limits the success of the Euro-
However, depending on the source of the waste material, some pean recycling goals (50% for plastic waste by 2025 (European
other strategies can be applied to obtain information on SVHCs Environment Agency, 2016)). For example, the limit of 0.1% of Pb
(Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.), 2012). in recycled PVC may limit the recyclability of PVC (Wagner and
A first strategy relies on measurement of SVHC in the incoming Schlummer, 2020).
waste material. To reduce the scope of the substances to measure, In conclusion, the recycler has legal obligations under REACH
literature information can be used on the additive composition of when the recycled material contains a SVHC. Authorisation is
polymers or typical non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) in required for the use of an SVHC included in Annex XIV of REACH
such waste. But even with a reduced scope of substances to test if it is present intentionally and/or in a concentration >20 wt%
320
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

(ECHA Q&A 565). The communication obligation on the presence of FCM regulation and REACH. A previous effort to explain these for
SVHC in a substance or mixture via the SDS (art 31 of REACH) is virgin plastics has been done by the trade association Plastics Eur-
triggered typically as of concentrations >0.1 wt%, independently ope (PlasticsEurope, 2013).
whether the SVHC has a function in the recycled material or not. Regarding plastics recycling, the scope of the framework Reg-
The recycler placing an article on the market containing an SVHC ulation is not limited to the production of the finished article, as
in a concentration above 0.1 wt% needs to notify the ECHA (Art. it also includes materials under its scope. It applies to the entire
7.2 of REACH) and needs to communicate in the supply chain life cycle of a food contact material or article starting with the
(Art. 33 of REACH). The article manufacturing itself is also subject approval and acceptance of the starting material all the way
to authorisation if a substance on Annex XIV is used. down to the conversion and production up to the point where
Thus, it is clear that the presence of an SVHC in waste plastics is the article is brought into contact with food. This also includes
not only a technical challenge for the recycler to identify and the packaging, warehousing and transport of those materials
remove the substance, but it also creates a regulatory burden with along the supply chain (PlasticsEurope et al., 2011). As such, an
potentially high costs. This establishes a commercial disadvantage initial recycler must keep in mind the eventual usage for their
for a recycled material in comparison to virgin material. Further recycled waste material. If the intention of the eventual producer
integration of the REACH and waste legislation, technological is to produce FCMs, the recycler must comply with certain rules
developments, and smart recycling could overcome some of the on traceability and the declaration of compliance as laid out
hurdles. under the FCM framework.

3. Food safety legislation: Overview of EU regulation on food 3.1.1. Traceability

contact materials The framework Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 requires full
traceability of FCMs and articles at all stages of manufacture, pro-
3.1. The framework Regulation cessing and distribution in order to facilitate control, the recall of
defective products, consumer information and the attribution of
Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 on Food Contact Materials (FCM responsibility (Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004).
framework Regulation) sets out the regulatory framework for ‘‘ma- Operators shall therefore have systems and/or procedures in place
terials and articles intended, or of which can reasonably be expected, to identify the businesses from which and to which their sub-
to come into contact directly or indirectly with food” (Article 1(1) of stances, materials or articles have been supplied. Each product
the FCM Regulation). The main purpose of this FCM Regulation is placed on the market should be identifiable by means of labelling
stipulated in Article 1: or other relevant documentation or information to allow their
traceability (European Commission, 2004).
The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure the effective functioning
of the internal market in relation to the placing on the market in 3.1.2. Declaration of compliance
the Community of materials and articles intended to come into The framework Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 introduced an
contact directly or indirectly with food, whilst providing the basis additional obligation in the existence of specific measures for cer-
for securing a high level of protection of human health and the tain FCMs. Producers of FCMs should provide a written declaration
interests of consumers. stating the compliance with all applicable regulations. This Decla-
ration of Compliance (DoC) must be made available throughout all
Therefore the framework Regulation sets out general require- marketing stages, except the retail stage, even for products in their
ments where materials or articles intended to come directly or intermediate stages of manufacturing and the substances intended
indirectly into contact with food must be sufficiently inert to pre- for the manufacturing of those products and materials.
clude substances from being transferred into food in quantities The aim of the DoC is to ensure the compliance of the final FCM
large enough to endanger human health or to bring about an unac- or article and to monitor this throughout the supply chain as well
ceptable change in the composition of the food or a deterioration in as to grant the downstream business operator additional safe-
its organoleptic properties. Also labelling, advertising and presen- guards relating to the specifications and required information of
tation of a material or article shall not mislead the consumer (Arti- the product. Consequently, recyclers must be aware when selling
cle 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004). In addition to that, their recycled polymers for food contact use that they should pro-
manufacturers of FCMs should also comply with certain ’Good vide this document to downstream manufacturers (European
Manufacturing Practices’ (GMPs) laid out under Regulation (EC) Commission, 2016, 2008b).
No 2023/2006 (European Commission, 2006). In addition to passing the DoC along the supply chain, business
There is no strict definition of what a FCM is and therefore it is operators must keep all supporting documents showing compli-
up to Member State authorities to define them. Consequently, ance with the DoC. While the supporting documents are not meant
‘food contact material’ should be interpreted broadly. Annex I to to be passed along the supply chain, they must be made available
Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 lists the different types of materi- upon request of the national supervision authority. These docu-
als that could be used as FCM, for some of them specific EU mea- ments should at least set out the conditions and results of testing,
sures were adopted in accordance to Article 5 for further calculations, including modelling, other analysis, and evidence on
regulation (i.e. legislation on plastic materials and recycled plastic the safety or reasoning showing compliance with the DoC
materials). (European Commission, 2016).
It should be noted that, in the absence of specific EU measures
for certain FCMs such as paperboard, Member States may maintain 3.2. Good manufacturing practices
or adopt their own national provisions on FCMs, more strict than
the harmonized EU regulation (Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 on Good Manufacturing Practices
1935/2004). National rules in place in Member States may differ (GMPs) applies to all sectors and all stages of manufacturing, pro-
from one another and may introduce inconsistencies in the cessing and distribution of materials and articles, up to but exclud-
approach to regulating FCMs, hindering the free movement of ing the production of starting substances (Article 2 of Commission
those materials and articles within the internal market Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006). These principles apply to all FCMs
(Simoneau et al., 2016). Clearly, there is an interplay between listed in Annex I to the FCM framework Regulation, including plas-
321
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

tics regardless of whether they are produced using virgin or recy- These impurities may originate from the raw materials used in
cled content. the polymer production or can be formed as reaction and degrada-
Food business operators are required under these principles (i) tion products during the manufacturing of the plastic FCM (Food
to establish, implement and ensure adherence to an effective and Packaging Forum and Geueke, 2018; Nerin et al., 2013). The pres-
documented quality assurance system; (ii) to maintain an effective ence of these substances has been acknowledged under the plastics
quality control system and (iii) to maintain documentation with Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 where they are referred to as Non-
respect to the specifications, manufacturing formulae and process- Intentionally Added Substances (NIAS). NIAS might not be included
ing which are relevant to compliance and safety of the finished in the Union list, they are however relevant in risk assessments and
material or article (Articles 5–7 of Commission Regulation (EC) should therefore be taken into account. If necessary they should
No 2023/2006). even be included in the specifications of the substance.
As mentioned above, additional obligations stemming from
specific EU measures could be imposed on producers of FCMs. 3.4. EU legislation on specific materials: Recycled plastic materials
The implementation of additional measures does also apply to
the GMP Regulation. The Annex included in the GMP Regulation Once plastic FCMs have reached the end of their intended use,
has been amended in 2008 under Commission Regulation (EC) they are no longer subject to Commission Regulation (EU) No
No 282/2008 on the use of recycled plastic materials and articles 10/2011, as they may have been contaminated with other sub-
imposing additional measures for recycling processes regarding stances due to degradation, packaged goods or misuse during their
the quality assurance system and supporting documentation. In life cycle (European Commission, 2008b). Therefore, the regulatory
addition to that, food business operators and food packaging pro- framework is further supplemented by Commission Regulation
ducers are also subject to various industrial guidelines, that, while (EC) No 282/2008 on recycled plastic materials intended to come
they do not have a binding power, can be a source of contractual into contact with food. According to this regulation, recycled plas-
obligation and can prove to be authoritative sources of reference tic materials and articles can only be placed on the market if they
for supervisory authorities (PlasticsEurope et al., 2011). contain recycled plastics exclusively obtained through an autho-
rised recycling process under Commission Regulation (EC) No
3.3. EU legislation on specific materials: Plastics 282/2008. This authorisation does not focus on the material or sub-
stance as it is the case for the plastics Regulation (EU) No 10/2011,
In addition to the general FCM framework Regulation, further nor does it evaluate a generic recycling process for each polymer
material-specific EU measures were adopted by the European type. Within Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 authorisa-
Commission on plastic materials and articles intended to come into tion is based on the safety evaluation on a case-by-case basis of
contact with food in Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011. As a individual recycling processes by EFSA followed by an individual
general rule, it requires substances to be of a technical quality and authorisation (European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2008).
purity suitable for the intended use as FCM. The composition of the The process for the authorisation is highly similar to the general
material is therefore controlled by the establishment of a positive authorisation procedure under the FCM framework Regulation to
list or Union list of authorised substances limiting the substances which a technical dossier must be submitted to the European Com-
which may be intentionally used in the manufacturing of plastic mission. This dossier should comply with the guidelines set out by
materials and articles (Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) EFSA and should describe the recycling process in detail including a
No 10/2011). This list contains authorised monomers, other start- flow chart of the key processing steps. The objective of these steps
ing substances, additives as well as polymer processing aids. The must be indicated (e.g. input control, sorting, cleaning. . .), and suf-
substances on this authorisation list underwent a risk assessment ficiently detailed information should be supplied to EFSA on the
by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) prior to authorisa- implementation of an appropriate quality assurance system to
tion. Depending on the committee’s decision on the substances allow a proper evaluation of any possible risks to human health.
safety, migration limits or other restrictions may be assigned. EFSA is required to issue a scientific opinion on whether the recy-
cling process complies with the requirement listed under the food
3.3.1. Migration limits contact regulations which is then forwarded to the European Com-
The implementation of migration limits is an important part of mission to make a decision on the authorisation.
the plastics Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 which ensures the safety
of the final material or article by measuring the quantity of sub- 3.4.1. Conditions for the authorisation of recycling processes
stance that may be transferred from the food contact material into Within the dossier submitted for the authorisation of a recy-
the food. As such, a quantitative migration limit is an expression of cling process, special attention should be paid to certain conditions
the principle of ‘sufficient inertness’, which applies to all FCMs. laid out under Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No
Although this manuscript will not analyse the technical aspects 282/2008 regarding the quality control and characterisation of
and compliance testing of these migration limits, it is important to the input material and the final recycled plastics as well as on
note that the regulation provides a generic or Overall Migration the establishment of conditions of use. It should contain informa-
Limit (OML) of 60 mg/kg food, or 10 mg/dm2 applicable to all sub- tion on how traceability and input-contamination is addressed.
stances to control the total amount of substances released from the Moreover, the dossier should include a separate section on the
FCM into the food. Moreover, an additional Specific Migration Limit determination of the decontamination efficiency of the recycling
(SML) may be imposed on some substances on the positive list to process. If the input material does not originate from a product
further control their migration (European Commission, 2011). loop which is in a closed and controlled chain, a recycler must
demonstrate by means of a challenge test or other appropriate sci-
3.3.2. Non-intentionally added substances entific evidence that the process is able to reduce the concentration
As already mentioned, Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 of contaminations so the final material does not pose a risk to
sets out a Union list of authorised substances used for the produc- human health. The submitted dossier should include all relevant
tion of plastic articles intended to come into contact with food. experimental data and the procedure used for challenge testing
However, plastic FCMs or articles placed on the market may con- as well as supporting scientific evidence and literature (European
tain certain impurities not included in the Union list (Article 6(4) Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2008). During a challenge test the
and recitals 18–20 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011). input material is deliberately contaminated with a known concen-
322
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

tration of surrogate substances before being processed through proved to be valid, given the fact that recycled plastics may be con-
each step of the entire recycling process. After recycling, the resid- taminated with other substances due to degradation, packaged
ual concentration of the surrogate substances must be at a suffi- goods or misuse during their life cycle and therefore may pose a
ciently low level to provide the needed scientific evidence to potential health risk. To do so, the precautionary principle was
EFSA on the ability of the recycling process to reduce any contam- established, which relates to all regulations pertaining to food,
ination of the plastic input to a concentration that does not pose a along with traceability requirements and the declaration of com-
risk to human health (Simoneau et al., 2016). pliance. With regard to plastic FCMs, a positive list has been estab-
Article 4 (b) also imposes an additional condition on the input lished and migration limits have been imposed to ensure that the
material of the recycling process, where it is stated that the input substances used are of a technical quality and purity suitable for
material must originate from plastic materials and articles that food contact use and do therefore not endanger human health.
have been manufactured in accordance with Community legisla- The legislative framework also ensures the free movement of FCMs
tion on plastic FCMs and articles (European Commission, 2008b). manufactured and marketed within the EU while facilitating global
These conditions, while essential for approval, do impose a trades of safe FCMs, taking into account international standards
number of practical challenges for recyclers to place FCMs from and agreements. The conditions for authorisation for recycling pro-
recycled plastics on the market. These will be discussed in more cesses, as described in the previous section, have a substantial
detail in Section 4. impact on the use of recycled plastics as they give rise to a number
of challenges regarding compliance towards traceability, input
contaminations and the determination of decontamination
3.4.2. Exclusions under Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008
efficiency.
Although Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 applies to
all FCMs containing recycled plastics, it does exclude several mate-
4.1. Traceability
rials from its scope under Article 1, provided that they have been
manufactured according to GMP, as laid down in Commission Reg-
One of the most complex technical and regulatory issues for
ulation (EC) No 2023/2006, such as: (i) FCMs from chemically
mechanical plastic recyclers producing FCMs is the obligation for
depolymerized plastics; (ii) unused plastic offcuts and scraps in
producers under the FCM Regulation to ensure traceability of the
compliance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011; (iii)
materials and articles. Recyclers must have systems and/or proce-
plastic materials and articles used behind a plastic functional bar-
dures in place to identify the businesses from which and to which
rier in compliance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011
their materials have been supplied by means of labelling or other
(European Commission, 2008b).
relevant information/documentation (European Commission,
The second exemption mentioned under Article 1 implies that
2004). It is far from clear for recyclers where the obligation of
unused industrial offcuts and scraps from the production process
traceability starts due to the ambiguity of the terms ’all stages’,
or post-industrial plastic waste could be recycled without the need
’materials’ and ’articles’ and the lack of specific EoW-criteria for
to comply with the strict requirements set out in this regulation, as
plastics. While various industrial guidelines on the traceability of
long as they are recycled in-house or ‘used at another site’. Never-
material and articles for food contact exist, including for plastic
theless, Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 or other pieces
FCMs, no reference is made to recycled plastic FCMs and their dif-
of legislation do not clarify what ’use at another site’ means. In addi-
ficulties (PlasticsEurope, 2013).
tion, it does not specify whether this applies to printed materials as
In a post-consumer scenario, the obligation of traceability is
well. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 has an Annex
highly unlikely to be met, except for very specific collection scenar-
referring to printing inks applied to the non-food contact side of
ios like that of bottle PET via deposit schemes. The FCM Regulation
FCMs. There it is stipulated that printing inks should be formulated
does provide producers with a certain amount of flexibility with
and/or applied in such a manner that substances from the printed
regard to the technological feasibility of the identification of the
surface are not transferred to the food-contact side in concentra-
businesses from which and to which materials covered by this reg-
tions that lead to levels of substance in the food which are not in
ulation are supplied. However, in reality EFSA has taken a rather
line with the requirements under Article 3 of the framework Reg-
strict approach regarding the traceability in recycled polymer
ulation (EC) No 1935/2004. It is also explicitly stated that the
FCMs. Based on their statements in several scientific opinions, it
printed surface shall not come into direct contact with food. There-
appears that EFSA requires full traceability for recycled plastics
fore, it is advisable to adopt a cautious approach to ensure that the
used from input to final product. However, this can only be
aim of the FCM regulations to secure a high level of protection to
achieved from a recycling process in which the input is obtained
human health is not undermined.
from product loops that are in closed and controlled chains pre-
Recycled plastic materials and articles used behind a functional
venting products out of the loop to enter the stream. Compliance
barrier are - like the offcuts and scraps - not subject to Commission
with this requirement is far from feasible, especially with respect
Regulation (EC) No 282/2008. A functional barrier is a layer within
to post-consumer recycling scenarios as limited market communi-
FCMs or articles reducing the migration of substances from behind
cation, a lack of cooperation within the plastic value chain and
that layer into the food. Behind a functional barrier, non-
divided responsibilities between actors are making it very difficult
authorised substances may be used as long as their migration
to track and trace materials through the entire chain (McKinnon
through the barrier layer remains below the maximum level of
et al., 2018). The availability and quality of compliance documen-
0.01 mg/kg in food. Mutagenic, carcinogenic or toxic substances
tation are therefore often hindering proper traceability
are evidentially not covered by the use of a functional barrier
(Karamfilova and Sacher, 2016).
(European Commission, 2011).
EFSA has clarified several safety evaluations on the recycling of
polyolefins whether the implemented systems ensure complete
4. Food contact legislation: Authorisation of recycling processes traceability. In the safety evaluation of the process ‘‘CO.N.I.P.” used
under the FCM regulation for the closed-loop recycling of PP and PE food contact crates, EFSA
concluded that the physical usage of specific trademarks could be a
As has become clear from the previous sections, FCM regula- sufficient means to ensure traceability (EFSA CEF Panel, 2013).
tions established certain key concepts which are vital to guarantee They came to the same conclusion in the scientific opinion on
a high level of protection to human health. Health concerns have ‘‘INTERSEROH STEP 1” where unique barcodes were used on crates
323
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

(EFSA CEF Panel, 2012). Finally, for the safety evaluation of the pro- with these decontamination criteria for PET-recycling in a bottle-
cess ‘‘MORSSINKHOF Plastics” used to recycle HDPE and PP crates, to-bottle recycling scenario (EFSA CEF Panel, 2011).
the agency held that an internal traceability system by way of
identifiers for labelling crates and recoding the type of polymer,
4.3.1. PET guidelines
the type of supplier and the original use of the input entering the
Since PET is currently the most recycled polymer for food con-
system together with reference and batch numbers for the grind-
tact use, a lot of recycling knowledge already exists which allowed
ing and washing step during the process, is sufficient to assure full
EFSA to develop specific criteria regarding the safety evaluation for
traceability (Silano et al., 2018). However, traceability achieved by
PET recycling in 2011 (EFSA CEF Panel, 2011). The evaluation pro-
for example markers in plastics or digital watermarks in products
cess is based on demonstrating the decontamination efficiency of
also have their limitations. The use of tracers for instance might
the recycling process by means of a challenge test.
be an issue as chemical substances are added to the polymer, pos-
According to the EFSA guidelines a PET recycling process is not
sibly causing accumulation of previous tracers as the eventual
of a safety concern when it is able to reduce an input contamina-
recycled material might be composed of different polymers and
tion of 3 mg/kg PET to a residual modelled concentration corre-
hence can contain different tracers. Watermarks or other barcodes
sponding to a migration below 0.1 mg/kg food as the potential
applied on products are only useful when entire products can be
dietary exposure can in that case not be higher than 0.0025 mg/
traced. However during post-consumer recycling processes materi-
kg body weight per day (EFSA CEF Panel, 2011). Those migration
als are often shredded before being sorted into separate recycling
values were set based on the most conservative exposure scenario
streams. Despite the fact that the examples show that traceability
of an infant weighing 5 kg consuming 0.75 l of water every day
is possible when it comes to a closed and controlled product loop,
from a bottle manufactured from 100% recycled PET. From this
the shortcomings also demonstrate the clear need for smart tools
exposure scenario it can be derived that the highest concentration
to be developed that can continuously guarantee traceability
of a substance that would ensure that the aforementioned dietary
within the entire supply chain (European Commission, 2018c).
exposure is not exceeded is 0.017 mg/kg food (0.0025  5/0.75 = 0.
01667 or approximately 0.017) (EFSA CEF Panel, 2011; Welle,
4.2. Input contamination: NIAS 2013). However, EFSA rounds the value of 0.017 mg/kg food to
0.1 mg/kg food, overestimating the migration by at least a factor
The presence of NIAS in the raw materials used during produc- of 5. In addition, this only applies to small molecules, for larger
tion or formed during their manufacturing needs to be taken into molecules the overestimation is even higher as the current migra-
account during the FCM risk assessment. With the use of recycled tion model is based on a fixed activation energy (set at 100 kJ/mol)
plastics additional NIAS may be present coming from contamina- for all potential migrating substances (Welle, 2013).
tions in the recycled material due to previously packaged food, Aside from the fact that these migration values are an overesti-
misuse or the use of additives and their degradation products dur- mation and do not make any differentiation on the contaminants
ing recycling. regarding molecular weight, polarity or volatility, they are also
It is however unclear how the safety and risk analysis for NIAS derived from a consumer scenario of a potential intake of an infant
should be conducted to be compliant with Commission Regulation drinking from a water bottle from 100% recycled PET making those
(EU) No 10/2011. In that regard, the regulation only provides that guidelines only applicable to bottle-to-bottle recycling scenarios.
NIAS should be assessed in accordance with internationally recog- Additionally, the guidelines are based on the ‘worst case’ presump-
nised scientific principles. As neither the European Commission tion that all of these contaminations would be highly toxic/car-
nor EFSA has thus far provided guidance on the issue, only indus- cinogenic, which is not necessarily the case. In fact, the reference
trial guidelines have shed some light on the matter, but cannot concentration level of 3 mg/kg PET was established based on the
reduce regulatory uncertainty. highest misuse contamination level of toluene found in washed
The risk assessment and identification of NIAS has been the sub- and dried PET flakes from experimental data of an EU survey
ject of several scientific researches (Muncke et al., 2017; Nerin (EFSA CEF Panel, 2011).
et al., 2013). The problems regarding the identification of these EFSA’s very strict recommendation to not intentionally use non-
NIAS and their risk assessment is also intrinsically related to the food PET waste as process input and to limit the use of non-food
SVHC described under REACH. It is still unclear for recyclers which PET to 5% was established based on information from previous
steps they need to follow to ensure the appropriate identification applications submitted to EFSA. However, no reference was made
of these SVHCs in their input waste stream and how they can effec- to specific figures or a clear scientific reasoning to establish this
tively manage their recycling process to comply with restrictions 5% threshold (EFSA CEF Panel, 2011).
and authorisations of these substances under the REACH Regula- It is evident from a scientific point of view that the contamina-
tion. While recent regulatory efforts have been made to ease some tion surrogates, spiking levels and admissible residual concentra-
concerns in this regard, e.g. ECHA’s creation of a database for prod- tions used in bottle PET-challenge testing are not necessarily
ucts most often including SVHCs (ECHA, 2018), uncertainty relevant for other PET recycling scenarios (e.g. bottle-to-tray,
remains in the daily practice of recyclers of other materials than tray-to-tray, etc.) or other plastics including the widely used poly-
(bottle) PET. olefins, therefore it still remains unclear what an appropriate chal-
lenge test means for those other recycling scenarios as EFSA has
not yet issued guidance on this matter (Palkopoulou et al., 2016).
4.3. Determination of decontamination efficiency

The determination of the decontamination efficiency of a recy- 4.3.2. Guidelines for other plastics
cling process is another key requirement for the authorisation of a In the absence of EFSA’s guidance for non-PET recycling scenar-
process used under the food contact regulation. According to EFSAs ios, recyclers should provide the necessary data based on sufficient
guidelines on the submission of a dossier, specially designed tests statistical analysis. Nonetheless, EFSA has held in the safety assess-
or challenge tests need to be performed or other ‘appropriate’ sci- ment of the processes ‘‘Biffa Polymers” and ‘‘CLRrHDPE” that, while
entific evidence should be delivered on the decontamination effi- migration models are highly polymer specific, the basic principles
ciency of the process. In that regard, EFSA has developed specific set out in the PET guidance can be applied to other polymers as
guidelines explaining the principals used to assess compliancy well (EFSA CEF Panel, 2015).
324
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

The other polymer furthest along in exploring FCM approval is Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation (Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
HDPE. Following the same procedure as for PET, EFSA had set a ref- 2019). To be successful, it would require a coordinated global roll-
erence contamination level of 0.5 mg/kg for HDPE bottles. Accord- out, however.
ing to the experimental data of a UK survey, 0.008% or 2 out of Regarding the prevalence of food grade plastics in the input-
every 2400 bottles were contaminated with misuse contaminants stream of recycling processes, EFSA acknowledged the lack of a
where the highest potential misuse contamination level was set technologically feasible method or scientific analysis to determine
at 6500 mg/kg HDPE resulting in the reference contamination level whether a material in the input stream can be labelled as FCM.
of 0.5 mg/kg. As for the migration criteria, the same can be used as Therefore, EFSA now uses conservatively extrapolations on the
for PET as it was derived from applying the exposure scenario to use of food- and non-food-grade plastics in the production of a cer-
the exposure threshold of 0.0025 mm/kg body weight per day tain article by a sufficiently large market-share of producers in
which is independent from the recycled polymer. More important order to set a reference level regarding a certain collection and
in establishing the migration criteria is keeping in mind the sorting process (EFSA CEF Panel, 2015).
intended use. While the exposure scenario for PET was modelled Nonetheless the European Commission is taking steps to further
based on a water bottle scenario, the recycled HDPE is intended clarify these processes on a scientific and regulatory level. While a
to be used as packaging for milk and milk products giving rise to recast́ version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 is in the
´
a calculated migration criteria of 0.06 mg/kg food instead of works setting out detailed steps for non-PET recycling processes,
0.1 mg/kg food for the PET water bottle. However due to the limited the new Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 on the transparency and sus-
scope of the statistical evidence provided by recyclers (only tainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain prescribes
encompassing the U.K.), EFSA has stated that these criteria cannot a more proactive role for EFSA. As from the 27th of March 2021
be extrapolated to other HDPE processes in the EU (EFSA CEF Panel, applicants for authorisation shall be able to reques ‘pre-
2015). submission advice’. EFSA shall then provide advice on the rules
Moreover, EFSA held that even after manual sorting, a sorting applicable to, and the content required for the application or noti-
efficiency of 99% is required to limit the presence of non-food con- fication, prior to submission, and where appropriate, shall publish
tact grade HDPE in the input-stream which is higher than the general guidance on the design of required studies (Article 32a of
applied 95% limit for PET. This limit is less strict for PET since Plas- Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 as amended under Regulation (EU)
ticsEurope clarified the fact that all PET resin grades sold by Euro- 2019/1381). Following the 27th of March 2021 potential applicants
pean manufacturers and placed on the EU market are food contact shall need to notify EFSA of all studies commissioned or carried out
approved (EFSA CEF Panel, 2011). Moreover, due to the non-polar by business operators to support an application when applying for
characteristic and high diffusivity of HDPE, the risk of non-polar an authorisation to guarantee that companies applying for autho-
contaminants to be absorbed in post-consumer HDPE and their risation submit all information and do not hold back unfavorable
subsequent migration into the food is of several orders of magni- studies. Another key element of Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 is
tude higher than for PET (EFSA CEF Panel, 2015; Palkopoulou ensuring more transparency by improving the access to studies
et al., 2016). and information submitted by industry on the risk assessment pro-
The target of 99% previously FCMs was however, as for PET, not cess. EFSA shall make the application for authorisation, relevant
set on the basis of scientific data regarding diffusion, sorption or supporting documentation and any supplementary information
migration but on the achieved sorting efficiency of the recycling by the applicant public, as well as its scientific opinion. It will also
process in question. An effective sorting efficiency of 99% previ- publish detailed guidelines concerning the preparation and the
ously food contact HDPE is much more challenging than for PET. submission of the application.
It is fair to assume that any PET bottle has been a beverage bottle As things stand, FCM-HDPE recycling remains exploratory at
(as its intended use), while the HDPE bottle product category best and the sizeable market for rHDPE bottle remains under-
includes containers for milk and juice bottles as well as non-food served. Moreover, Directive (EU) 2019/904 on the reduction of
applications such as detergents or personal care products. Auto- the impact of certain plastic products on the environment states
mated sorting systems for separation based on polymer type do that from 2030, plastic beverage bottles should contain 30% recy-
not differentiate between FCM and non-FCM HDPE (Ragaert cled content. It remains elusive how this will be reached for HDPE
et al., 2017). Additional sorting steps could be employed, sorting milk and juice bottles.
on colour foremost among them. This relies on the assumption that
the FCM bottles are white or uncoloured. However, depending on 4.4. Authorised recycling processes
markets, this assumption is critically flawed. In the USA market
juice bottles are often coloured, leading to false negatives, which At the time of writing, while EFSA has published over 140 pos-
in itself is not problematic for the purity of the sorted HDPE but itive safety assessments on recycling processes, the European Com-
rather for the recovery rate. However, false positives do remain mission has not yet authorised any of them (Cassart and
within the sorted HDPE and these come from personal care prod- PlasticsEurope, 2019). They stated that in order to authorise appro-
ucts (like shampoo bottles) that are also white. The WRAP consor- priately, clarification of transitions and obligations are required
tium conducted trials on this as far back as 2005 (Welle, 2005): and should be included in Regulation 282/2008/EC. Nevertheless,
from a mixed post-consumer plastic waste bag, they set up a sort- the European Commission has expressed its willingness to approve
ing line that would first sort positively on PE (by NIR) and then fur- the first batch of authorisations for EFSA-approved PET-recycling
ther sort this fraction on colour. Additionally, a sink-float step was processes in a September 2019 presentation (European
included to remove milk bottles that were clumped together with Commission, 2019c), when the amendments to Commission Regu-
PET bottles. They achieved a final purity of 97.9%. Only by including lation (EC) No 282/2008 enter into force. The European Commis-
a handpicking (=manual sorting) step, were they able to achieve sion has however delayed the authorisation of non-PET processes
the proposed minimum of 99% purity. While these tests are over and requested EFSA to enact proper guidelines relating to these
a decade old, nothing substantial has changed in either sorting processes before opening the discussion on their authorisation.
technology or HDPE bottle types that would warrant a review of These delays have negatively affected the entry into force of the
these conclusions. Marker technology for the separation of FCM authorisation procedure.
from non-FCM is an interesting route to explore and has recently While Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008, as a whole,
received backing from several top-100 companies, as well as the has been in force for over 10 years, the majority of specific material
325
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

provisions (including the provisions relating to the authorisation 6 months upon submission (Article 13(4) of Commission Regula-
requirement of recycling processes) integrated in this regulation tion (EC) No 282/2008).
are however not yet in force as the entry into force of these specific Following this initial phase, which finalised on 31 December
provisions under Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 is 2009, the European Commission had to submit draft decisions on
dependent on the submission of draft decisions granting or refus- authorisation within 6 months of receiving the scientific opinions
ing authorisation of the recycling processes issued by the European on the safety of the recycling processes by EFSA (Article 13(6) of
Commission via transitional procedure (Articles 13(6) and 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008). Consequently, the When the European Commission eventually submits a draft
authorisation procedure should have entered into force following decision on any recycling process, the use of some recycled plastics
the submission of these draft decisions, effectively regulating the could become unlawful overnight (Articles 13(6) Commission Reg-
usage of recycled plastics as FCM. However, the European Commis- ulation (EC) No 282/2008).
sion has not yet submitted any draft decision since the conception As the European Commission has stated that the authorisation
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 and more so, they are for non-PET processes would be postponed, this would essentially
expected to be further delayed (Schupp, 2019). As a consequence have the consequence of banning the entire non-PET recycling pro-
the foreseen EU-wide harmonised regulation of recycled plastic cesses for FCMs already in place (notwithstanding a positive safety
FCMs is still a mere diction. Fig. 2 presents a timeline related to assessment by EFSA concerning some of these processes). As a
the entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 result of this, the European Commission has stated that it will only
comparing the procedure as it was intended to proceed, against submit these decisions when it has amended the entry into force of
the current state. these provisions to avoid certain negative consequences. As such
The aforementioned transitional procedure sets out an initial an amendment is set to be adopted that will effectively separate
authorisation phase following the entry into force of Commission three different streams of approval decisions and the associated
Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 on the 20th day following the publi- entry into force of the relevant provisions. The European Commis-
cation in the Official Journal of the European Union, which was on sion is set to separate: (i) PET-recycling processes that have
17 April 2008 (Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No received a positive decision by EFSA, (ii) PET processes that have
282/2008). EFSA received a mandate to issue guidelines for the not yet applied for EFSA-approval or have been modified, and
safety assessment of a recycling process within 6 months following (iii) other plastics. Effectively allowing the commission to adopt
the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of authorisation decisions without triggering the entry into force for
Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 (Article 5(4) of Commis- non-PET recycling processes (Schupp, 2019).
sion Regulation (EC) No 282/2008). EFSA completed this mandate A new transitional approach will as such be enacted through the
on 1 July 2008, on which it published new guidance (European Regulation amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008
Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2008). Recyclers had then 18 months wherein soon after the entry into force of the amendment the
to apply for an EFSA safety assessment in the so called ‘initial European Commission will authorise all PET recycling processes
authorisation phase’ (Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) for which they received an opinion at the day the Regulation enters
No 282/2008). In this initial phase, EFSA did not have to comply into force. While under the unamended Commission Regulation
with the initial deadline to provide a safety assessment i.e. within (EC) No 282/2008 this would entail the entry into force of the

Fig. 2. Entry into force of Regulation 282/2008/EC, as intended (top) and the effective progress (bottom).

326
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

authorisation requirement for all plastic FCM recycling processes, has provided some clarity on how to approach the safety assess-
through the amended version the entry into force of the provisions ment with regards to recycling processes. They have held that
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 shall be limited to the basic principles set out in those guidelines, which are based
PET-processes. Consequently all recycled PET-FCMs must be man- on bottle-to-bottle PET recycling, could also be applied to other
ufactured through an authorised process at the latest 6 months plastics or recycling scenarios. However, establishing a similar risk
after the entry into force. Following this a new transitional period assessment for other types of plastics appears to be not as straight-
will start wherein those PET recycling process operators sending a forward for recyclers, who are still, years after the publication of
valid application to EFSA before the end of the 6 months for PET the PET-guidelines, awaiting for the publication of further guid-
recycling may remain on the market until there is a decision. ance by EFSA.
It is only after this that the European Commission will work on Altogether, it can be concluded that plastic recyclers remain lar-
authorising non-PET procedures, regardless of their EFSA approval, gely in a regulatory grey-zone due to the lack of clear legislative
and as such these processes will not be prohibited on a European measures aimed at the recycling and recovery of all plastics mate-
level barring the entry into force of their specific amended provi- rial types. The recycling industry therefore becomes subject to dif-
sions in the regulation. In the absence of the entry into force of ferent regulations, each having their own legal perspectives. This
the authorisation procedure for non-PET recycling processes, together with certain technical and logistical hurdles have been
non-harmonised, national legislation continues to apply to recy- negatively affecting the uptake of recycled plastics in new packag-
cled plastic FCMs in conjunction with the general framework legis- ing within the EU.
lation (Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008). As potential solutions the authors would propose to investigate
FCMs stemming from non-PET recycling processes have to fall back the following options: (i) the development of End-of-waste criteria
on the often limited national legislation (Simoneau et al., 2016). for plastics, thus better integrating REACH and waste legislation;
Overall, it can be observed that the recycled FCM market is cur- (ii) EU-wide harmonization of FCM approval, which is now still
rently non-existent for polymers other than PET. The industrial at the national level, pending entry into force of authorisations;
drive to use recycled content seems to be there, with FCM rPET (iii) increased cooperation and communication between EFSA and
market prices remaining consequently higher than that of virgin the industry regarding necessary testing procedures and step-by-
PET, while colourless non-food grade PET having been up to step transparent guidelines for waste processors and recyclers
300 €/tonne cheaper consistently up to 2019 (Victory, 2020). It is alike to conclusively achieve FCM-compliance for plastics
only with the oil price crashing in 2020 that also the non-FCM rPET recycling.
has become more expensive than virgin PET. Market data on recy- Finally, the concept of several economical instruments to stim-
cled PP and HDPE (Victory, 2020), however, up to date do not even ulate the uptake of recycled content has been circulating across
include the differentiation between non-FCM and FCM rHDPE or Europe. Taxation of virgin plastics – which would be an indirect
rPP, making it clear that on a global scale these markets do not stimulant to the uptake of recycled plastics – was proposed by
exist yet. Moreover, the prices of rHDPE and rPP (again, up to member states such as Italy (EY, 2020) and the (exiting) United
February 2020, which is prior to the oil price crashing) are consis- Kingdom. The UK tax would take effect in April 2022 and ‘applies
tently lower than for their virgin polymers, despites the many glo- to plastic packaging produced in, or imported into the UK that does
bal pledges for use of recycled content. not contain at least 30% recycled plastic’ (UK government, 2020).
The Italian tax was proposed in January 2020 to be as much as
EUR 450/ton of virgin plastic and was meant to enter into effect
5. Conclusion and outlook July 2020. However, following much protest from their national
industry, the tax proposal has first been softened and eventually
The complex interplay between REACH and the WFD and the postponed (Fonte, 2019; Laird, 2020). It remains to be seen if the
absence of EoW-criteria make it unclear whether plastic waste is proposal will disappear altogether with the appearance of the
covered by the WFD or if recyclers should comply with the chem- recent new European tax on non-recycled plastic waste.
icals legislation. However, when recyclers do become subject to In July 2020, the European Council has agreed to impose a tax-
REACH they encounter many challenges in meeting the REACH ation on non-recycled plastic waste (EUCO 10/20, 2020) This tax is
requirements. The delivery of the appropriate documentation described as ‘a new own resource (that) will be introduced and
including an SDS becomes very challenging in post-consumer recy- apply as of 1 January 2021 composed of a share of revenues from
cling scenarios and in particular with the presence of SVHCs as a national contribution calculated on the weight of nonrecycled
they do not have this information readily available. Although ECHA plastic packaging waste with a call rate of EUR 0.80 per kilogram
recently implemented the SCIP database on the presence of SVHCs with a mechanism to avoid excessively regressive impact on
in various articles, it still remains unclear from a scientific point of national contributions’.
view how they can be identified or removed and what an appropri- This new tax has great potential to effectively create the neces-
ate risk management approach looks like. This problem resurfaces sary levers for investment in the plastics recycling industry that
when recycled materials are intended to be used as FCM with the would allow for higher-quality recycling, including extended trace-
identification and risk assessment of NIAS. ability and the overcoming of some of the challenges discussed in
EFSA’s main concern for recycled plastics intended for food con- this paper. However, to date, the revenue from this tax is not in any
tact use relates to those NIAS having an adverse impact on human way earmarked to be destined for the stimulation of compliant
health or the environment. Therefore only recycled plastics recycling. As such, the risk remains that this tax may not at all ben-
obtained from an authorised recycling process may be placed on efit plastics recycling. This concern has been voiced through sev-
the market where the focus during evaluation is on the quality of eral industrial communications (Baumgarten, 2020; European
the input material, traceability and the decontamination efficiency Plastics Converters, 2020).
of the process. Recyclers face with several challenges when trying
to comply with these requirements, mostly associated with trace- Declaration of Competing Interest
ability and the lack of communication and transparency within the
entire plastic value chain, potential misuse of FCMs or articles dur- The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
ing their lifetime and the technical challenge of separating FCM cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
from non-FCM waste. The publication of PET-guidelines by EFSA to influence the work reported in this paper.
327
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

Acknowledgements Committee And The Committee Of The Regions A European Strategy for
Plastics in a Circular Economy.
European Commission, 2018b. Changing the way we use plastics. https://doi.org/
For the UGent authors, this manuscript was a joint effort between 10.2779/109560.
researchers funded by the following projects: PolyCE (funded by European Commission, 2018c. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the
the European Union’s Horizon2020 research and innovation pro-
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
gramme under grant agreement No730308), as well as Catalisti- Committee and the Committee of the Regions A European Strategy for
ICON MATTER (HBC.2018.0262, Mechanical and Thermochemical Plastics in a Circul.
European Commission, 2016. Union Guidance on Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on
Recycling of mixed plastic waste), TETRA ReFOIL project
plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food as regards
(HBC.2017.0056) and COOCK CIRCOPACK project information in the supply chain.
(HBC.2018.0433), funded by Flanders Innovation & Entrepreneur- European Commission, 2011. COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 10/2011 of 14
ship (VLAIO). January 2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact
with food. Off. J. Eur. Union.
The authors would like to extend their explicit gratitude to the European Commission, 2008a. Summary Risk Assessment Report - Bis(2-
following external experts for their thorough review of the draft Ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP).
manuscript: Peter Sellar (Fieldfisher), Sandra Saez Moreno (Field- European Commission, 2008b. COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 282/2008 of 27
March 2008 on recycled plastic materials and articles intended to come into
fisher), Kristin Geidenmark Olofsson (Trioplast), Oskar Karlsson contact with foods and amending Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006. Off. J. Eur.
(Trioplast), Henrik B. Andersen (Faerch) and Mette Kirstine Boye Union.
Jensen (Faerch). European Commission, 2006. COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2023/2006 of 22
December 2006 on good manufacturing practice for materials and articles
intended to come into contact with food. Off. J. Eur. Union.
European Commission, 2004. REGULATION (EC) No 1935/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN
References PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 October 2004 on materials and
articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/
590/EEC and 89/109/EEC. Off. J. Eur. Union.
Baumgarten, S., 2020. EU agrees tax on plastic packaging waste [WWW Document].
European Commission DG ENV, 2011. Plastic Waste in the Environment - Final
URL https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2020/07/21/10532318/eu-
Report.
agrees-tax-on-plastic-packaging-waste.
European Environment Agency, 2016. Waste recycling.
Brouwer, M., Picuno, C., Thoden van Velzen, E.U., Kuchta, K., De Meester, S., Ragaert,
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2008. Guidelines on submission of a dossier
K., 2019. The impact of collection portfolio expansion on key performance
for safety evaluation by the EFSA of a recycling process to produce recycled
indicators of the Dutch recycling system for Post-Consumer Plastic Packaging
plastics intended to be used for manufacture of materials and articles in contact
Waste, a comparison between 2014 and 2017. Waste Manag. 100, 112–121.
with food - Opinion of the Scientific Panel on food additi. EFSA J. 6, 17. https://
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.09.012.
doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.717.
Cassart, M., PlasticsEurope, 2019. Food Contact Regulations Current Evolution of the
European Parliament, 2019. DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/904 OF THE EUROPEAN
Legislation - Presentation at AMI conference.
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the
de Römph, T.J., Van Calster, G., 2018. REACH in a circular economy: the obstacles for
impact of certain plastic products on the environment. Off. J. Eur. Union.
plastics recyclers and regulators. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 27, 267–277.
European Parliament, 2006. REGULATION (EC) No 1907/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN
https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12265.
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 18 December 2006 concerning the
Delgado, L., Catarino, A.S., Eder, P., Litten, D., Luo, Z., Villanueva, A., 2009. End-of-
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH),
Waste Criteria. https://doi.org/10.2791/28650.
establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/4. Off. J.
ECHA, 2018. News: New database on Candidate List substances in articles by 2021
Eur. Union 49, 849.
[WWW Document]. URL https://echa.europa.eu/-/new-database-on-candidate-
European Plastics Converters, 2020. EU Plastic Tax approved by European Council: A
list-substances-in-articles-by-2021.
Danger for the EU Single Market & Recovery [WWW Document]. URL
ECHA, 2017. Guidance on requirements for substances in articles. https://doi.org/
https://press.plasticsconverters.eu/eu-plastic-tax-approved-by-european-
10.2823/470616.
council-a-danger-for-the-eu-single-market–recovery.
EFSA CEF Panel, 2015. Scientific Opinion on the safety assessment of the processes
EY, 2020. Italy introduces proportional tax on plastic items [WWW Document]. URL
‘Biffa Polymers’ and ‘CLRrHDPE’ used to recycle high-density polyethylene
https://www.ey.com/en_gl/tax-alerts/ey-italy-introduces-proportional-tax-on-
bottles for use as food contact material. EFSA J. 13. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.
plastic-items?download.
efsa.2015.4016.
Federal Public Service Healt, Food Chain Safety and Environment Belgium, 2016.
EFSA CEF Panel, 2013. Scientific Opinion on the safety evaluation of the process ‘‘CO.
Final report: Research into the use of recyclate.
N.I.P”. used to recycle polypropylene and polyethylene crates for use as food
Fonte, G., 2019. Italy softens budget plastic tax, cuts tax on ‘‘green” tampons [WWW
contact material. EFSA J. 11, 3157. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3157.
Document]. URL https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-tax-plastic-
EFSA CEF Panel, 2012. Scientific Opinion on the safety evaluation of the process
tampons-idUSKBN1Y31UP.
‘‘INTERSEROH Step 1” used to recycle polypropylene crates for use as food
Food Packaging Forum, Geueke, B., 2018. Dossier – Non-intentionally added
contact material. EFSA J. 10, 2912. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2912.
substances (NIAS) 10. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1265331.
EFSA CEF Panel, 2011. Scientific Opinion on the criteria to be used for safety
ING Economics Department, 2019. Plastic packaging in the food sector: six ways to
evaluation of a mechanical recycling process to produce recycled PET intended
tackle the plastic puzzle.
to be used for manufacture of materials and articles in contact with food. EFSA J.
Janssen, M., van Broekhuizen, F., 2017. Waste handling and REACH: Recycling of
9. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2184.
materials containing SVHCs: daily practice challenges.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019. HolyGrail: tagging packaging for accurate
Karamfilova, E., Sacher, M., 2016. Food Contact Materials - Regulation (EC) 1935/
sorting and high-quality recycling.
2004: European Implementation Assessment Study.
EUCO 10/20, 2020. Conclusions of the Special meeting of the European Council (17,
Laird, K., 2020. Italy finally approves new stimulus plan, postpones Plastic Tax
18, 19, 20 and 21 July 2020).
[WWW Document]. URL https://www.sustainableplastics.com/news/italy-
EURACTIV, 2012. Waste expert: Recycled products ‘faced with the REACH
finally-approves-new-stimulus-plan-postpones-plastic-tax.
regulation’ [WWW Document]. URL https://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-
Lugal, L., Grant, A., Cordle, M., Fletcher, D., 2020. PET Market in Europe - State of
society/interview/waste-expert-recycled-products-faced-with-the-reach-
Play.
regulation/.
McKinnon, D., Punkkinen, H., Wahlström, M., Bakas, I., Herczeg, M., Vea, E.B., Busch,
European Chemicals Agency, 2012. Guidance for monomers and polymers.
N., Christensen, L.H., Christensen, C., Damgaard, C.K., Milios, L., 2018. Plastic
European Chemicals Agency, 2010. Guidance on waste and recovered substances.
Waste Markets - Overcoming barriers to better resource utilisation. https://doi.
European Commission, 2020. Communication From The Commission To The
org/10.6027/TN2018-525.
European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social
Mistry, R., Moerman, H., Novak, A., Dubourg, R., Warwick, O., Krisht, S., Hard, S.,
Committee And The Committee Of The Regions A new Circular Economy
London, R., Van Asbroeck, E., 2017. Impacts of REACH Authorisation - Final
Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe.
Report. https://doi.org/10.2873/769886.
European Commission, 2019a. A Circular economy for plastics - Insights from
Muncke, J., Backhaus, T., Geueke, B., Maffini, M.V., Martin, O.V., Myers, J.P., Soto, A.
research and innovation to inform policy and funding decisions. https://doi.org/
M., Trasande, L., Trier, X., Scheringer, M., 2017. Scientific challenges in the risk
10.2777/269031.
assessment of food contact materials. Environ. Health Perspect. 125,. https://
European Commission, 2019b. Communication From The Commission To The
doi.org/10.1289/EHP644 095001.
European Parliament, The European Council, The Council, The European
Nerin, C., Alfaro, P., Aznar, M., Domeño, C., 2013. The challenge of
Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions The
identifying non-intentionally added substances from food packaging
European Green Deal.
materials: a review. Anal. Chim. Acta 775, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
European Commission, 2019c. Meeting with FCM European Professional
aca.2013.02.028.
Associations - Presentation.
Palkopoulou, S., Joly, C., Feigenbaum, A., Papaspyrides, C.D., Dole, P., 2016. Critical
European Commission, 2018a. Communication From The Commission To The
review on challenge tests to demonstrate decontamination of polyolefins
European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social

328
E. De Tandt, C. Demuytere, E. Van Asbroeck et al. Waste Management 119 (2021) 315–329

intended for food contact applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 49, 110–120. Simoneau, C., Raffael, B., Garbin, S., Hoekstra, E., Mieth, A., Lopes, J.A., 2016, V.R.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.12.003. 2016. Non-harmonised food contact materials in the EU: regulatory and market
PlasticsEurope, 2019. Plastics – the Facts 2019: An analysis of European plastics situation. https://doi.org/10.2788/234276.
production, demand and waste data. UK government, 2020. Policy paper Plastic packaging tax [WWW Document]. URL
PlasticsEurope, 2013. REACH and Food Contact Regulations for Plastics: substances https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-plastic-
listed in the REACH candidate list can be used to manufacture Plastic Food packaging-tax/plastic-packaging-tax.
Contact Materials and Articles. Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.), 2012. REACH and the recycling of plastics - Reference
PlasticsEurope, EuPC, Cefic-FCA, 2011. Guidelines For Good Manufacturing Practice manual for an appropriate implementation of the REACH requirements for the
For Plastic Materials And Articles Intended For Food Contact Applications. operators of recycling plants.
Ragaert, K., Delva, L., Van Geem, K., 2017. Mechanical and chemical recycling of Victory, M., 2020. Recycling chain facing deeply challenging times but investment
solid plastic waste. Waste Manag. 69, 24–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. opportunities remain.
wasman.2017.07.044. Villanueva Krzyzaniak, A., Eder, P., 2014. JRC Technical reports: end-of-waste
Schupp, B., 2019. Regulatory approach on recycling of food contact materials - criteria for waste plastic for conversion. https://doi.org/10.2791/13033.
presentation. Wagner, S., Schlummer, M., 2020. Legacy additives in a circular economy of plastics:
Silano, V., Bolognesi, C., Castle, L., Chipman, K., Cravedi, J., Engel, K., Fowler, P., current dilemma, policy analysis, and emerging countermeasures. Resour.
Franz, R., Grob, K., Gürtler, R., Husøy, T., Kärenlampi, S., Mennes, W., Pfaff, K., Conserv. Recycl. 158,. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2020.104800
Riviere, G., Srinivasan, J., Tavares Poças, M. de F., Tlustos, C., Wölfle, D., Zorn, 104800.
H., Dudler, V., Gontard, N., Lampi, E., Nerin, C., Papaspyrides, C., Lioupis, A., Welle, F., 2013. Is PET bottle-to-bottle recycling safe? Evaluation of post-consumer
Milana, M.R., 2018. Safety assessment of the process ‘Morssinkhof Plastics’, recycling processes according to the EFSA guidelines. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
used to recycle high-density polyethylene and polypropylene crates for use 73, 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.01.012.
as food contact materials. EFSA J. 16, 9. https://doi.org/10.2903/j. Welle, F., 2005. Develop a food grade HDPE recycling process.
efsa.2018.5117.

329