A view shows the Lego logo and some bricks inside their headquarters in Billund, Denmark, April 25, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Toymaker Lego said on Wednesday (August 28, 2024) it was on track to replace the fossil fuels used in making its signature bricks with more expensive renewable and recycled plastic by 2032 after signing deals with producers to secure long-term supply.

Lego, which sells billions of plastic bricks annually, has tested over 600 different materials to develop a new material that would completely replace its oil-based brick by 2030, but with limited success.

Now, Lego is aiming to gradually bring down the oil content in its bricks by paying up to 70% more for certified renewable resin, the raw plastic used to manufacture the bricks, in an attempt to encourage manufacturers to boost production.

“This means a significant increase in the cost of producing a Lego brick,” CEO Niels Christiansen told Reuters.

He said the company is on track to ensure that more than half of the resin it needs in 2026 is certified according to the mass balance method, an auditable way to trace sustainable materials through the supply chain, up from 30% in the first half of 2024.

“With a family-owner committed to sustainability, it’s a privilege that we can pay extra for the raw materials without having to charge customers extra,” Christiansen said.

The move comes amid a surplus of cheap virgin plastic, driven by major oil companies’ investments in petrochemicals. Plastics are projected to drive new oil demand in the next few decades.

Lego’s suppliers are using bio-waste such as cooking oil or food industry waste fat as well as recycled materials to replace virgin fossil fuels in plastic production.

The market for recycled or renewable plastic is still in its infancy, partly because most available feedstock is used for subsidised biodiesel, which is mixed into transportation fuels.

According to Neste, the world’s largest producer of renewable feedstocks, fossil-based plastic is about half or a third of the price of sustainable options.

“We sense more activity and willingness to invest in this now than we did just a year ago,” said Christiansen. He declined to say which suppliers or give details about price or volumes.

Rival toymaker Hasbro has started including plant-based or recycled materials in some toys, but without setting firm targets on plastic use. Mattel plans to use only recycled, recyclable or bio-based plastics in all products by 2030.

Around 90% of all plastic is made from virgin fossil fuels, according to lobby group PlasticsEurope.

Personal care products (PCP) like face washes and shower gels in India contain a significant amount of harmful microplastics, new research has revealed.

According to a study published in the Emerging Contaminants journal and led by Riya K. Alex, a third-year Ph.D Scholar at the Cochin University of Science and Technology, polyethylene (or polythene, PE) is the dominant polymer noted in microplastic emissions from PCPs.

What are microplastics?

Microplastics are defined as particles of plastic that are under 5mm in range — in terms of microbeads, under 5mm in diameter and mainly in the range of 1-1,000 micrometres.

Findings of the new research

The research analysed 45 samples of PCP across four categories — face wash, face scrub, shower gel, and body scrub available in Indian market and manufactured in the year 2022. The study especially used products marketed as “eco-friendly”, “natural”, and “organic” to scrutinise the legitimacy of these claims. Around 23.33% of products contained cellulose microbeads, and their biodegradability is unclear. Most of these microbeads were coloured white, followed by blue, pink, yellow, red, and green. According to the researchers, the white colour of microbeads could be intended to hide them from easy identification.

In PCPs, microbeads are widely used for exfoliation, as well as delivery of active ingredients and improved aesthetics, among other uses.

Microbeads in PCP are made of materials like polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyester, with polyethylene being the most dominant polymer identified in more than half the microbeads studied.

On average, 1.34% of the total product of each analysed sample was microbeads. This ranged from 0.04% at the lowest to 5.04% at the highest. In 30 grams of each kind of product, the average quantities of microbeads were noted to be 0.26g, 0.90g,1.24g and 1.74g for face washes, face scrubs, body scrubs, and shower gels respectively. The highest quantities obtained were 2.30g, 1.73g, 1.75g and 4.87g, respectively, whereas the lowest quantities extracted were 0.01g, 0.13g, 0.55g and 0.13g, respectively.

The average sizes of microbeads in samples under study were 640.74 μm, 452.45 μm, 556.66 μm and 606.30 μm for face washes, face scrubs, body scrubs, and shower gels respectively. Shower gels contained the largest microbeads, followed by body scrubs, face scrubs, and face washes.

The study also shows that most microbeads were not spherical but instead irregularly shaped. This is worse for the environment, as irregular shapes provide more surface area for adsorption of other environmental pollutants, and sharper edges can potentially cause cuts and injuries to organisms who ingest them.

The research also found polycaprolactone, a type of bioplastic, in two of the tested samples. Although polycaprolactone is gaining attention as an efficient carrier for drugs, and for its anti-ageing and antibacterial constituents, it has been known to cause embryonic developmental delays and other malformations in aquatic biota.

Findings of the report also indicate greenwashing in the Indian PCP market, especially with labels like “organic”, “natural”, and” eco-friendly.” Brands rely on consumers to not scan the ingredient lists in detail, and the blends of natural and plastic in the same product poses challenges in recognising the presence of plastic.

Why are microbeads bad?

Like most other plastic pollution, microbeads are terrible for the environment. They accumulate in food chains, reach wastewater treatment facilities and eventually end up in oceans causing aquatic pollution.

Many countries, like the U.S., U.K., Canada, France, and New Zealand have banned the production and sale of products with microbeads, but it remains an ambiguous issue in developing countries like India. In 2023, India rose to the fourth position in terms of revenue in global beauty and personal care markets, behind the U.S., China, and Japan.

The 2030 microbead emission forecast for India is “alarmingly high,” researchers say. The trend can go up as well due to an evolving retail landscape, cosmetic trials, and enhanced purchasing power in the coming years.

Are microplastics everywhere?

Yes, microplastics are almost everywhere. A recent study by Toxics Link, a non-government organisation working in the field of environmental research and advocacy, found microplastics ranging from 6.71 to 89.15 pieces per kg of dry weight, and between 0.1 mm to 5 mm in size in several varieties of salt and sugar.

Microplastics have also been found in the human brain, blood, lungs, colon, placenta, testicles, and stool.

The study advocates for better policies to control microplastic pollution in India, and suggests coffee, apricots, walnut, kiwi seeds, and soluble cellulose beads, etc. as some natural and sustainable alternatives to microbeads in PCPs.

Over 90% of plastic is not recycled, with much of it dumped in nature or buried in landfills. File
| Photo Credit: AP

With months until crunch talks on the world’s first binding treaty on plastic pollution, experts are meeting in Bangkok to discuss financing options and problematic plastics.

The four-day gathering is a largely technical waypoint on the road to final negotiations in late November in South Korea’s Busan.

There, countries are hoping to seal a potentially groundbreaking deal to tackle the gargantuan problem of plastic pollution.

The scale of the issue is almost unprecedented – microplastics have been found in the deepest ocean trenches, highest mountain peaks, in clouds and even breastmilk.

Plastic production has doubled in 20 years and at current rates it could triple by 2060, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Yet over 90% of plastic is not recycled, with much of it dumped in nature or buried in landfills.

Negotiators have already met four times to discuss a deal that could include production caps, unified rules on recyclability, and even bans on certain plastics or chemical components.

But significant gaps remain, including on whether the treaty will be adopted by consensus or a majority vote.

“Other flashpoints include whether plastic production will be addressed,” Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead at WWF, told AFP.

“Is it within the scope to talk about production, or does the value chain start after plastic products are made? And then if we can regulate production… is it with a cap, is it with a reduction target, what are the measures?” he said. “That’s been a very contentious issue.”

Environmental groups have long argued that the treaty must include curbs on new plastic, a position backed by dozens of countries who call themselves the “high ambition coalition”.

They may now have a powerful ally in the form of the United States, which has reportedly thrown its backing behind some production limits.

That shift has been welcomed by environmental groups, though Mr. Lindebjerg warned it was not yet clear if Washington would back mandatory caps or weaker voluntary limits.

‘Unresolved matters’

Just how binding the deal will be is another source of contention.

Some countries want measures like a unified timeline for phasing out certain plastics, while others back vaguer language that would let nations decide how and when to regulate.

And, as with climate negotiations, finance for implementing whatever is agreed remains hugely controversial.

“Some countries want money, and some countries don’t want to give money, very simply put,” said Mr. Lindebjerg.

Two expert groups are meeting in Bangkok, with one focused on financing, including technical details on waste management systems and how to implement “polluter pays” principles.

The second group will focus on a framework and criteria for chemicals, plastic materials and plastic products that could be targeted for bans or reductions in the treaty.

The meetings are advisory and are being held behind closed doors, to the dismay of some environmental groups and industry.

“There are still a lot of unresolved matters,” warned Chris Jahn, council secretary of the International Council of Chemical Associations, which represents the global chemical industry.

The group opposes language that would regulate chemicals or cap plastic production.

“Plastics are essential in order for the world to achieve its sustainable development and climate change goals,” Mr. Jahn said, pointing to uses from solar energy to food preservation.

The American Chemistry Council last week warned U.S. backing for production caps would “betray” U.S. manufacturing and risk jobs.

“The industry does back efforts to promote the reuse of plastics and new designs to make recycling easier,” Mr. Jahn said, “as well as rules to make producers pay for plastic pollution.

And despite the remaining gaps, there is cautious optimism that a robust deal is possible.

“I think that we’re really at a historic opportunity here,” said Mr. Lindebjerg.

Marine scientist Anna Sanchez Vidal shows microplastics collected from the sea with a microscope at Barcelona’s University, during a research project “Surfing for Science” to assess contamination by microplastics on the coastline, in Barcelona, Spain, July 5, 2022. (Image for Representation)
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Researchers in Japan have confirmed microplastics are present in clouds, where they are likely affecting the climate in ways that aren’t yet fully understood.

In a study published in Environmental Chemistry Letters, scientists climbed Mount Fuji and Mount Oyama in order to collect water from the mists that shroud their peaks, then applied advanced imaging techniques to the samples to determine their physical and chemical properties.

The team identified nine different types of polymers and one type of rubber in the airborne microplastics — ranging in size from 7.1 to 94.6 micrometers.

Each liter of cloud water contained between 6.7 to 13.9 pieces of the plastics.

What’s more, “hydrophilic” or water-loving polymers were abundant, suggesting the particles play a significant role in rapid cloud formation and thus climate systems.

Also Read | Scientists find microplastics in blood for first time

“If the issue of ‘plastic air pollution’ is not addressed proactively, climate change and ecological risks may become a reality, causing irreversible and serious environmental damage in the future,” lead author Hiroshi Okochi of Waseda University warned in a statement Wednesday.

When microplastics reach the upper atmosphere and are exposed to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight, they degrade, contributing to greenhouse gasses, added Okochi.

Microplastics — defined as plastic particles under 5 millimeters — come from industrial effluent, textiles, synthetic car tires, personal care products and much more.

These tiny fragments have been discovered inside fish in the deepest recesses of the ocean peppering Arctic sea ice and blanketing the snows on the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain.

But the mechanisms of their transport have remained unclear, with research on airborne microplastic transport in particular limited.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on airborne microplastics in cloud water,” the authors wrote in their paper.

Emerging evidence has linked microplastics to a range of impacts on heart and lung health, as well as cancers, in addition to widespread environmental harm.