BEYOND PETROPLASTICS Expert Insights on Biobased and Biodegradable Material Substitutes and Alternatives to Conventional Plastics

1 BEYOND PETROPLASTICS Expert Insights on Biobased and Biodegradable Material Substitutes and Alternatives to Conventional Plastics August 2025 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Additives & Chemicals Standards and Certifications: Clarity, Credibility, and Safety Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) Executive Summary Case in Point List of Abbreviations 3 4 7 13 17 21 26 28 End of Life and Environmental Interaction of Plastics Expert Recommendations for the Global Plastic Treaty TABLE OF CONTENTS safesustainablematerials.org 24 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY safesustainablematerials.org This expert guide supports the Global Plastics Treaty by providing science-based insights on bio-based and biodegradable materials (BBMs) as an alternative to conventional plastics. The guide highlights both the opportunities and the challenges of BBMs, ensuring they are not only circular but also safe for human health and the environment. Purpose The report aims to address gaps in technical understanding of BBMs within the treaty process. It provides policymakers and stakeholders with evidence on Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) approaches, chemical safety, end-of-life (EoL) strategies, and the role of standards and certification in building trust and avoiding greenwashing. Key Findings - BBMs will play a significant role in replacing the most problematic plastic applications, particularly where persistent microplastics or waste mismanagement are a concern. - SSbD principles are essential to ensure BBMs are safe, sustainable, and compatible with circularity from the outset. - Additives and non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) remain a risk factor in BBMs just as in conventional plastics and require full transparency and elimination of chemicals of concern. - Biodegradability and compostability are context-dependent and must be verified with harmonised standards and credible certification systems. - BBMs are most effective when designed for multiple EoL pathways (e.g., material recycling, composting, thermal recovery), reducing the risk of mismanagement. - A science-based advisory mechanism is needed to inform treaty implementation and updates.Recommendations Recommendations 1. Require Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) approaches for all plastics and BBMs. 2. Mandate full chemical transparency and safety oversight, including a global ?Red List? of hazardous substances. 3. Support safer material innovation through R&D and adoption of inherently safer additives and polymers. 4. Implement harmonized standards and third-party certification to verify biodegradability and safety. 5. Design for multiple end-of-life pathways, ensuring compatibility with local infrastructure. 6. Establish a science-based advisory mechanism to review and update evidence and guide treaty decisions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION safesustainablematerials.org INTRODUCTION To be effective, the Global Plastics Treaty must go beyond reducing plastic production and improving collection and recycling systems. It must capitalize on the market shift towards safer and sustainable material systems. Whilst reducing plastic production and improving collection are critical interventions, they alone cannot address the systemic issues posed by conventional plastics, especially those with no economically viable or circular end-of-life. A successful treaty must also support the transition that is already occurring toward safer and more sustainable material systems. The Treaty, as reflected in the evolving draft texts, has consistently recognized the role of ?alternatives and non-plastic substitutes? to address plastic pollution from a full life-cycle approach. While this terminology lacks technical clarity and an agreed-upon official definition within the treaty process, it highlights a growing need for attention on sustainable materials beyond conventional plastics. This document focuses on one category of what is broadly discussed as ?alternatives and substitutes?: biobased and biodegradable materials (BBMs). BBMs include polymeric materials such as chitin, phycocolloids (i.e. seaweed extracts), cellulose, starch, polysaccharides, and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), among others. BBMs combine two essential attributes that contribute meaningfully to reducing fossil resource dependency, enhancing environmental integrity, and supporting the development of safe and circular material and product systems. BBMs will play a vital role in replacing conventional plastics particularly in the most problematic and unsustainable applications. Although currently small in comparison to the global plastics market, BBMs are gaining momentum, with growing evidence of their potential to advance the treaty?s goals: preventing pollution, enabling circularity, and avoiding persistent microplastics. Consequently, BBMs have received widespread global support from governments. Governments have taken meaningful steps to enable substitution with BBMs, especially in critical sectors where harmful substances and microplastics risk entering the food-chain, such as agriculture, aquaculture, and food-contact packaging, with regulatory oversight for safety via mandatory tests and performance requirements. A group of independent experts developed this technical guide on BBMs to present science-driven insights on technical aspects of BBMs that often cause concern or confusion, and to clarify their potential role as substitutes to conventional plastics. This guide brings together evidence and expert insights to inform policy design, risk mitigation, and the safe and effective adoption of BBMs. 5 INTRODUCTION safesustainablematerials.org Section I is dedicated to the Safe and Sustainable by Design framework, a holistic approach that promotes circular design. It resembles Life Cycle Assessment methodologies but expands them throughout the whole life cycle of the material, addressing safety and impacts on the environment, society, and economy. Section II examines the chemical safety dimensions of BBMs, highlighting the potential presence of harmful additives similar to those found in conventional plastics. To avoid repeating the mistakes of conventional plastics, all substitutes and alternatives, including BBMs, must be verified, and comply with high safety standards from the outset. Section III presents the diverse spectrum of end-of-life options for BBMs, compared to conventional non-biodegradable plastics. These include composting and anaerobic digestion, options characterized by significant variability and high degree of technical complexity. Section IV discusses the standards and certification systems needed to verify biodegradability and other key features of BBMs. These systems are essential to unlocking the full safety and sustainability potential of BBMs, while preventing misleading claims and reducing the risk of persistent microplastic pollution. Section V concludes with targeted recommendations to help align the systemic adoption of BBMs with the goals and implementation mechanisms of the Global Plastics Treaty. Terminology Biodegradation: the process by which microorganisms break down organic matter into carbon dioxide, water and biomass under aerobic conditions (when oxygen is present) and also methane under anaerobic conditions (in the absence of oxygen). Persistent microplastics: plastic particles, smaller than 5 mm, that do not break down in the environment and therefore accumulate over time. They are a concern due to their persistence, mobility, and potential harm to ecosystems and potentially human health. Non-persistent microplastics: plastic particles, smaller than 5mm, that do slowly or more rapidly break down in the environment and do not build up in the ecosystem. All materials degrading will go through the microplastics stage, the difference is that biodegradable ones will generate non-persistent microplastics as opposed to persistent ones generated by conventional plastics. 6 SECTION # - LOREM IPSUM AMENT Fig 1: Safe and Sustainable by Design Framework (ViSS project, 2025) 7 1 SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE BY DESIGN (SSbD) FRAMEWORK To responsibly scale BBMs as replacement for problematic plastics, safety and sustainability considerations must be embedded from the earliest stages of product development. The Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) framework1, 2, 3 is a holistic approach developed by the European Commission?s Joint Research Centre (JRC) to ensure that new chemicals, materials, products and processes are inherently safe for people and the environment and sustainable throughout their life cycle; therefore, avoiding harmful decisions for the environment from the design phase. Overall, the SSbD is aligned with Treaty goals (Article 5 ? Plastic Product Design) as it addresses directly Paragraphs 1 (a and b) as it proposes to improve the (re)design of plastic products, including biobased materials, to increase their sustainability and circularity while fostering research, innovation, development and use of sustainable and safer alternatives and non-plastic substitutes. A central pillar of SSbD is the rigorous assessment and elimination or minimization of hazardous substances throughout the value chain. Moreover, other relevant principles of SSbD aim to optimise resource efficiency (focusing on reducing material and energy consumption throughout the lifecycle), promote circularity by encouraging the reuse, recycling, and recovery of materials, minimizing waste generation, and ensuring social and economic benefits, considering the broader societal impacts and economic viability of innovations. Maite Ferrando, Gabriela Munares, José Benedicto, Alba Matamoros, Aran Blanco | Kveloce, Spain Alberto David Larraz, María López Abelairas | IDENER Research & Development, Spain Carmen Fernández Ayuso, Ana Crespo | CETEC, Spain SECTION I 8 SSbD Principle / Goal What SSbD Means How it Links to Article 5 of Chair's Text 1. Hazard Minimization (Safety First) Exclude harmful chemicals when plastic substitutes are manufactured. Art. 5(a)ii: "promote the use of safe and sustainable additives." Art. 5(b): "sustainable and safer alternatives." 2. Resource Efficiency (Less is More) Optimizing material/energy use; reducing waste throughout the lifecycle. Art. 5(a)i: "contribute to sustainable production and consumption of plastics by increasing reuse and recycling..." Art. 5(b): "...potential for waste reduction and reuse..." 3. Circularity Promotion (Looping Resources) Designing for easy reuse, recycling, composting. Art. 5(a)i: "...increasing reuse and recycling... and recycled content targets." Art. 5(a)ii: "Improve the durability, reusability, refillability, refurbishability, repairability and recyclability..." Art. 5(a)iii: "ensure disposal of plastic products in an environmentally sound manner in accordance with the waste hierarchy." 4. Holistic Assessment (Big Picture View) Considering environmental, human health, social, & economic impacts. Art. 5(b): "...taking into account environmental, economic, social and human health aspects..." 5. Proactive Approach (Design it Right from the Start) Embedding sustainability & safety before scale-up, preventing future problems. Designing products whose properties meet consumers? demands and are compatible with safe end-of-life options. Art. 5(a): "improve plastic product design, in pursuit of circular economy approaches..." Art. 5(b): "foster research, innovation, development and use of sustainable and safer alternatives..." SSbD is the methodology to design these. 6. LCA Integration (Data-Driven Decisions) Using LCAs to quantify impacts & inform design choices. Art. 5(b): "...based on life cycle assessments and best available science..." SSbD guides how LCA insights are applied to design decisions. 7. Avoiding Regrettable Substitution (No More False Solutions) Ensures new alternatives truly improve impacts across the board, not just shifting problems. Art. 5(b): "...sustainable and safer alternatives..." SSbD is the safeguard to ensure these alternatives genuinely reduce overall burdens, preventing unintended negative consequences that would undermine the Article's intent. Table 1: SSbD framework alignment with the Treaty?s Product Design Objectives SECTION 1 safesustainablematerials.org 9 SECTION I safesustainablematerials.org Key Dimensions of Sustainable Design The SSbD approach integrates innovation/functionality considerations across four key dimensions (safety, environmental, social, and economic sustainability) throughout the design, production, use, and end-of-life of chemicals, materials, products and processes. This comprehensive evaluation ensures that improvements in one area do not lead to unintended negative consequences in others. The safety dimension involves integrating safety considerations into the development and production process of BBMs from the conceptual stage. To avoid unverified claims, biodegradation tests must be thoroughly performed and safety and toxicity of bio-based plastics assessed. The environmental dimension is technically covered by the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), whose objective is to consider impacts along the entire chemical/ material life cycle using, assessing several environmental impact categories. SSbD explicitly integrates LCA principles by requiring a holistic, lifecycle perspective in design choices. It goes beyond traditional LCA by also incorporating intrinsic safety aspects from the outset. It is important to highlight that, although LCA has traditionally been used reactively to assess existing products, its application is increasingly expanding into proactive contexts. This includes scenario planning, design optimization, and circular economy strategy development. This proactive approach, particularly exemplified by SSbD, also considers impacts often overlooked by traditional LCA, such as the end-of-life of plastics and feedstock circularity, phases where BBMs often demonstrate significant sustainability advantages. The social dimension is covered by the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) of products4 considering five categories of stakeholders: workers, value chain actors, society, local community, and consumers. Finally, the economic dimension is addressed using the Life Cycle Costing (LCC) approach which is the opportunity to cover the economic considerations (such as cost efficiency, resource optimization, equipment, installation and operational efficiency). In this regard, it must be demonstrated how biodegradable plastics biodegrade successfully under specific conditions and are instead durable and stable during the use phase. For this reason, BBMs are compatible with reuse and recycle strategies. 16 17 3 END OF LIFE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTION OF PLASTICS In 2019, 22 million tons of plastics were not properly disposed of and ended up in the environment worldwide13. Scientific studies have shown that plastics are transported by wind and rivers to remote regions, including Antarctica and Alpine glaciers14. Once released, plastics often accumulate in specific locations and begin to disintegrate over time under the action of temperature, pressure, and light. There are many well known examples, such as in oceans, rivers, lakes, and fields, where plastic products have shown to break down into macroplastics, microplastics, and eventually nanoplastics (<1 µm). Given the persistence and degree of penetration of these particles, another emerging issue is represented by atmospheric microplastic and nanoplastic pollution, which can spread through cloud formation and impact areas far removed from plastic production or disposal sites15. These particles are invisible to the naked eye and the smaller they are the deeper they can penetrate biological barriers like plant walls but also animal organs and cells. Designing safer materials is only part of the solution. What happens at the end of a product?s life, whether it degrades, accumulates, pollutes or if it can be recovered and recycled, ultimately determines its environmental impact. This section examines the environmental fate of BBMs and the EoL strategies available for managing them. In line with the SSbD approach, BBMs must be evaluated not only by their intended applications but also by how they behave when mismanaged or released into the environment. First, there are certain applications where plastic materials are needed in situ and their environmental occurrence is not due to a mismatched Dr. Manfred Zinn | University of Applied Sciences and Arts (HES-SO Valais Wallis), Switzerland SECTION III 18 SECTION III safesustainablematerials.org waste management strategy but they are released into the environment as part of their function. To avoid the release of toxic particles in water and soil, BBMs can offer a valuable alternative. BBMs that degrade harmlessly in the natural environment in a relatively short time, thanks to the enzymatic action of microorganisms, can be adopted in unique applications, e.g., as structures to support ecosystem and habitat restoration projects16. In agriculture, films made from BBMs release antifungal molecules while degrading17 and improve the storage and protection of seeds against fungal attack. For fertilizers, using BBMs allows for gradual release of nutrients over time, making them more effective18. End of Life Management and Systems Compatibility Beyond the intended environmental release, plastics also enter the environment through mismanagement or littering, particularly in regions where waste infrastructure is lacking or consumers are less aware or careless about the environmental impacts of mismanaged plastic waste. As littering remains common in some areas and while the long-term goal is to eliminate littering altogether, in the short term, replacing non-biodegradable plastics with BBMs can help reduce environmental harm where littering is still widespread. And whilst some sceptics argue that the use of BBMs could have the unintended effect that consumers see them as a ?license to litter? leading to a lower threshold of disposing these materials into the environment, these concerns seem to be unfounded. Recent studies have demonstrated that the type of material used is not a factor influencing the consumer's littering behavior19. While biodegradation is often seen as a defining feature of BBMs, it should not be viewed as their sole end-of-life pathway. In many cases, biodegradability serves as an environmental safety net, a form of EoL insurance against mismanaged waste, particularly in applications prone to littering. BBMs are increasingly designed to be compatible with conventional waste management infrastructure, including composting, mechanical recycling, and thermal recovery20. Their integration into existing systems allows for more flexible and context-appropriate EoL strategies, depending on regional capabilities, product design, and environmental impact assessments. Targeted collection and composting biodegradable packaging are sensible strategies where suitable facilities exist. Generally, biodegradable polymers have lower environmental impacts, as they degrade fully over time. The degradation process generally accelerates in environments with high microbial activity and at elevated temperatures for example in composting environments. Composting is a waste management strategy where organic waste is degraded into specific sites by the action of environmental 19 SECTION III safesustainablematerials.org microbes to produce compost that finds application in the agricultural sector. Industrial composting facilities resemble home composting solutions, however on a larger scale that ensures higher temperatures and better aeration. These conditions allow industrial composting facilities to typically achieve better results than home composting. Biodegradable plastics can enter and degrade in composting facilities when they are collected with the organic waste fraction. Differently, if under anaerobic conditions, at specific industrial plants, more than half of biodegradable plastic can be converted into methane, a valuable, green energy carrier. Alternatively, incineration can recover the inherent energy of the polymers through thermal recycling. The waste is burnt at very high temperatures, generating heat that can be used to make energy or supplied to households. The downside of incineration is, however, the generation and dispersion of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). Overall, when LCAs indicate a neutral or negative carbon balance for the production of the BBM, incineration remains a viable option. Recycling Pathways Nevertheless, to keep material value in circulation for as long as possible, meaning to avoid environmental release, landfill end-of-life, or incineration, recycling is a crucial approach to minimize the loss of the energy and resources invested in producing plastics. Several recycling methods are available for many types of BBMs including cellulose or PHA materials: - Mechanical recycling, in which the material and additives are processed into new products. Often, virgin material must be blended in to maintain quality, since repeated processing can reduce the average molecular weight and weaken the material. - Chemical recycling, where plastics are degraded into monomers using chemical agents and catalysts, potentially creating new chemicals or solvents. The use of high temperature and chemical agents, however, pose other concerns such as the energetic demand of the process and the generation of dangerous chemical wastes, - Enzymatic degradation, which is particularly promising because it generates less harmful waste. Ideally, the resulting monomers can be purified and reused for polymerization through enzyme catalysis or even biosynthesis by microorganisms. Enzymatic degradation is so far kinetically too slow, presenting low yields, and hence not yet a competitive alternative. 20 21 4 STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATIONS: CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, AND SAFETY As discussed in the previous sections, the environmental performance of BBMs depends not only on polymer type (and chemical composition) but also on how the material behaves in real-world conditions. Particularly with the potential of BBMs as safer alternatives in high-volume, high environmental leakage applications makes thorough biodegradability assessment crucial. Correct testing, certifications, and labeling play a key role in strengthening safety measures. Additionally, an accurate communication of biodegradability standards and performance must occur to promote effective sustainable decisions and avoid any form of greenwashing21. The Importance of Standards Harmonized biodegradability standards are essential to ensure consistency, transparency, and credibility across geographies and product categories. To ensure the full environmental safety of BBMs, biodegradation tests must be accompanied by chemical analyses (monitor the presence of harmful substances such as heavy metals, fluorine) and toxicity tests (which can be performed on marine, fresh water or soil micro-organisms, plants and animals). These standards then allow manufacturers, regulators, and certification bodies to test materials under reproducible and realistic conditions, helping verify whether a product truly degrades as claimed. Internationally recognized standards, especially those developed by ISO (International Organization for Standardization), provide a scientifically robust and material-neutral basis for evaluation. When implemented in policy or procurement, they can create clear market signals while building trust among consumers, industry, and regulators. Gaëlle Cavalie, Bruno De Wilde | Normec OWS, Belgium SECTION IV 22 SECTION IV safesustainablematerials.org Several key standard-setting bodies support biodegradability testing: - ISO (International Organization for Standardization) ? the preferred international framework, widely used across markets. - ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) ? common in North America. - CEN (European Committee for Standardization) ? EU-based but globally referenced. - National bodies ? such as the Australasian Bioplastics Association (ABA) or the Japan BioPlastics Association (JBPA), which apply region-specific adaptations. While technical specifics vary, core test principles are aligned. For international recognition, ISO-compliant testing is recommended as the baseline. Certification and Labeling Compliance with recognized standards enables materials and products to be certified by independent third-party bodies. Certification provides a credible mechanism to verify biodegradability (and other sustainability claims) and builds trust across the value chain; from regulators and manufacturers to consumers. To ensure integrity, certification involves three separate, independent parties: the applicant (e.g. manufacturer or brand), the testing laboratory, and the certification agency. This separation ensures impartiality, prevents conflicts of interest, and strengthens credibility. Certification confirms that a product not only meets technical biodegradability criteria but also does so under realistic and reproducible conditions. Certification is available for a range of environments, including home composting, Industrial composting, soil, freshwater (e.g. from sewage systems), and marine environments. The most established and widely recognized certification bodies include: Europe: DIN CERTCO (Deutsches Institut für Normung Certification Body), Seedling (by European Bioplastics) and TÜV AUSTRIA (Technischer Überwachungsverein Austria); North America: BPI (Biodegradable Products Institute); and Asia / Australasia: ABA and JBPA It?s important to note that certification is applicationspecific: a product can only be certified for an environment that is relevant to its intended use and likely end-of-life. Certification bodies also enforce strict rules on how claims can be marketed. For example, even if a plastic bag passes marine biodegradability tests, it cannot carry a marine biodegradability logo if it is not intended for marine use22. These safeguards help prevent greenwashing and ensure claims remain credible and scientifically grounded. Matching Biodegradability Claims to Real-World Use To ensure certification claims are both credible and meaningful, biodegradability must be evaluated in the context of how 23 SECTION IV safesustainablematerials.org and where a product is actually used and discarded. Different applications demand different biodegradation rates and environmental conditions, which means that a ?biodegradable? label alone tells only part of the story. Importantly, the biodegradability of a material differs (rate and level) from one environment to another; hence, to address a realistic end-of-life behavior of the material, one must carefully select the appropriate standard of biodegradation depending on the polymer application in question23. A distinction can also be made between fast biodegradability (including composting), or slow biodegradability. In fact, for some applications, a fast or slow biodegradation can be the desired and best EoL option. Whilst in others, biodegradability is an added value or ?littering insurance? that will ensure a full conversion into CO2, biomass and water over time; as opposed to creating persistent microplastics that will remain in those environments for decades/centuries, affecting the fauna/flora and eventually entering the food chain24,25. See Table 2 for examples. It must be emphasized that not all materials that pass biodegradability tests are eligible for certification, and not all certified materials are appropriate for all applications. Certification must be both scientifically valid and contextually relevant27. Certification agencies apply strict rules to how biodegradability claims can be marketed. Certification is only permitted when the claim aligns with the product?s intended use and likely end-of-life. For example, even if a plastic bag passes marine biodegradability tests, it cannot be labeled as such if it?s not designed for marine use. Still, in the case of accidental littering, that bag may offer environmental benefits, such as avoiding the formation of persistent microplastics. This shows that implementing credible, harmonised certification systems is critical to ensure BBMs deliver verified environmental benefits and to support the policy measures proposed in the following section. It is also crucial for manufacturers and brands to have clearer global guidelines which provide planning security and understanding how products can be marketed to have value-add for industry and the environment. Use Case Biodegradability Requirement Examples Compostable Applications Fast biodegradation in managed / controlled environment Tea bags, coffee pods, fruit/vegetable stickers Products entering sewage system Fast biodegradation in wastewater/sludge Cosmetics, detergents In-soil or aquatic applications Slow biodegradation over extended time frames Mulch films, fishing nets, aquaculture crates Accidental leakage / littering Biodegradation in uncontrolled environments as added value or ?littering insurance? Packaging, textiles, tire wear particles Table 3: Use cases and biodegradability requirements for BBM product applications26 24 5 EXPERT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GLOBAL PLASTICS TREATY To ensure that bio-based and biodegradable materials (BBMs) support the treaty's goals of pollution prevention, human and environmental safety, and material circularity, we recommend the following: 1. Require Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) approaches Mandate the use of SSbD frameworks for all materials ? plastics and BBMs ? to ensure safety, sustainability, and circularity are embedded from the earliest design stages across environmental, health, social, and economic dimensions. 2. Mandate full chemical transparency and safety oversight Require disclosure of all intentionally added substances and NIAS across the product life cycle, and support the development of a global ?Red List? of hazardous chemicals which is applicable to both conventional plastics and their alternatives. SECTION V 25 5. Design for multiple end-of-life pathways Encourage the development of alternatives and substitutes, including BBMs, that are compatible with regionally appropriate waste management infrastructure, such as industrial composting, mechanical recycling, or thermal recovery to ensure practical and flexible circularity. 6. Establish a science-based advisory mechanism Create a standing scientific body to guide policy decisions, review emerging evidence on sustainability and performance of plastic alternatives, and recommend updates to treaty instruments (e.g., Red List, standards, certification criteria). SECTION V 3. Support safer material innovation Promote research, development, and adoption of inherently safer additives, formulations, and polymers to prevent regrettable substitutions and improve public and environmental health outcomes. 4. Implement harmonized standards and third-party certification Require compliance with internationally recognized biodegradability and safety standards appropriate to the product?s intended environment and application, verified through independent certification bodies. 32 More info on safe and sustainable alternatives and substitutes to plastics at safesustainablem aterials.org