The European Circular Economy: Now Circulating Mostly Microplastics
The European Commission has launched yet another consultation on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). Citizens, stakeholders, industry representatives and lobbyists are invited to provide feedback on how Europe should manage packaging waste.
The same stakeholders who helped design the system that produced Europe’s packaging waste problem are now being asked how to fix it.
Again.
And judging from past consultations, they will deliver the same feedback they delivered last time — sometimes several times, just to make sure the message is heard. After all, a multinational company can participate directly, through its industry federation, through its national association, through its recycling coalition, and through its sustainability alliance.
One corporate opinion can easily become five “independent stakeholder contributions”.
Democracy at scale.
Meanwhile, outside the consultation documents, reality continues to perform an unscripted experiment in waste management.
Take a walk through the streets of Brussels — the capital of the European Union and the spiritual home of the circular economy. Very often the city offers a unique urban landscape somewhere between a waste bin and an open-air landfill.
But fear not: Europe has solved the waste problem.
We incinerate or export it.
Recycling: The Magical Disappearing Act
According to official statistics, roughly one third of plastic waste in Europe is recycled.
This sounds impressive until one realizes that 85% of plastic waste is either incinerated, landfilled, or exported to countries where “recycling” sometimes means “sorting through it next to a river”.
But the terminology is evolving.
Plastic waste will no longer be waste.
It will be a resource, a secondary raw material, or — if one wants to sound particularly innovative — a feedstock.
In practical terms, this means plastic waste can travel thousands of kilometres to become someone else’s environmental problem while still being counted as part of Europe’s circular economy.
The circle, apparently, is global….. and the greedy profit is sweet.
Packaging: Choose Your Preferred Contamination
European policy debates about packaging often resemble a philosophical discussion about which material is morally superior.
Plastic is bad.
Glass is good.
Metal is excellent.
Paper is sustainable.
Reality, however, has a slightly darker sense of humour.
Recent studies have found that beverages in glass bottles can contain significantly more microplastics than those in plastic bottles. The reason is beautifully ironic: the painted coatings on metal bottle caps can shed microscopic plastic particles during storage and transport.
In other words, Europeans can avoid microplastics from plastic bottles by drinking from glass bottles sealed with plastic-coated caps.
Glass packaging also enjoys a reputation for being chemically inert. And the glass itself usually is. The rest of the packaging system, however — coatings, inks, adhesives, liners and closures — occasionally participates in a quiet exchange of trace substances with the beverage inside.
Bad quality, old, or improperly manufactured glass—particularly lead crystal or decorative, colored glass—can release several toxic heavy metals and chemicals when it corrodes or is exposed to acidic substances (like vinegar, citrus, or wine).
Metal containers offer another elegant solution. Stainless steel can release small amounts of metals such as nickel or chromium under certain conditions. But at least these are traditional elements with a long history in chemistry.
Reusable containers are often presented as the ultimate sustainable solution. The idea is simple: circulate the same bottle between thousands of consumers and wash it repeatedly.
What could possibly go wrong?
Industrial cleaning systems are designed to handle this, of course. But reusable containers in real life occasionally accumulate scratches, biofilms, and the collective microbiological memories of previous users.
Consumers therefore enjoy an unprecedented level of freedom when choosing packaging.
They can select whichever contamination profile best suits their lifestyle.
The Consultation Process
Against this backdrop, the European Commission is asking stakeholders how to improve the system.
This is a noble initiative.
Stakeholders are invited to submit feedback, position papers, impact assessments, comments and recommendations. These documents will then be carefully reviewed by policymakers who will attempt to balance environmental protection, industrial competitiveness, and the delicate ecosystem of Brussels lobbying.
The consultation process is open to everyone.
In practice, however, it tends to attract a familiar constellation of participants:
• industry federations
• packaging alliances
• recycling coalitions
• sustainability platforms
• corporate representatives
• consultants representing the above
Occasionally, a citizen may also appear…. but often they’ve been asked to do so by lobbyists.
But the system works beautifully.
If one company belongs to six different industry organisations, its policy preferences can appear six times in the consultation results. This creates the comforting impression of broad consensus.
Waste Management in the Real World
While the consultation process unfolds, the physical waste continues its journey.
Some packaging is recycled.
Some is burned.
Some is shipped abroad.
And some decorates European streets on collection day, offering citizens a tangible reminder of the circular economy in action.
From a policy perspective, this situation raises an uncomfortable question.
Is the European Commission unaware of the scale of the problem?
Or does it simply believe that another consultation will solve it?
The answer is probably more complicated.
European policymaking operates through negotiations between institutions, industries, member states, and economic realities. The result is often a delicate compromise between wishful thinking and complete bullshit.