The Problematic Plastics Pivot: Bans, Breakthroughs, and the Path to Better Materials

World leaders are coming together to confront plastic pollution. In just a few weeks, more than 175 countries will join what is anticipated to be the final negotiation session of the UN Plastic Treaty. The International Legally Binding Instrument on Plastic Pollution (UN Plastic Treaty) aims to address potential harms across the entire life cycle of plastic; from design and production to use, disposal, and leakage into the environment. While every article in the proposed treaty plays an important role, Article 3 stands out, laying the foundation for global criteria, a phase-out list, and binding commitments to redesign or eliminate entirely the most harmful and hard to recycle plastic products.

Five of the authors of this blog will attend the treaty session in Geneva as official observers. Our expertise encompasses several disciplines that are essential to understanding and preventing the harmful effects of plastic – and to finding safer, more sustainable alternatives. Building on RTI’s experience in product testing and commercial innovation, we are excited to share our capabilities with all who share the goal of a circular economy where plastics pose less of a threat to health and the environment.

Article 3 calls on governments to identify and manage plastic products that pose risks to human or environmental health. This Article targets the most problematic plastics including those that are toxic, difficult to recycle, or commonly leak into the environment. Specifically, the draft outlines five key risk factors. A plastic product may be subject to ban or phase-out if it:

• Is likely to leak into the environment or be littered, posing a risk to human or environmental health.
• Contains hazardous chemicals that pose risks to human health or the environment.
• Is not practically reusable, recyclable, or compostable, and cannot be redesigned to improve end-of-life outcomes at scale.
• Disrupts or inhibits the development of a circular economy at a significant or systemic level as it does not make sense to cycle hazardous chemicals through round after round of product. .
• Contains intentionally added microplastics or other toxic substances harmful to human or environmental health.

In practice, this means every treaty signatory may need to systematically review plastic products that are imported, manufactured, or sold domestically, evaluating each product or product category against these criteria. 

Chemicals of concern and microplastics are increasingly recognized as threats to both human and environmental health linked to endocrine disruption, developmental harm, and ecosystem damage. They also hinder the adoption of a circular economy. Further, it is estimated that less than 10% of all plastics are recycled, meaning most continue to end up in landfills, incinerators, or the environment. To break the cycle, we must address problematic plastics at the product level.

The draft of the plastics treaty already points to several types of products at high risk of phase-out. These include single-use plastic straws, stirrers, cutlery, carrier bags, and plastic-stemmed cotton buds. Also on the list are rinse-off cosmetics with microbeads, certain types of food packaging made from expanded polystyrene, and oxo-degradable plastics that fragment into microplastics but don’t biodegrade. 

In addition to plastic product bans, the treaty proposes restricting chemical additives, especially in toys and food contact materials intended for children. For example, plasticizers such as di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and dibutyl phthalate (DBP), commonly used to soften plastics, have been associated with hormone disruption and are already restricted in children’s products in many countries including the US. 

Beyond what is explicitly named, Article 3 also flags a broader category of products: those that are technically unrecyclable or impractical to recover at scale. Multilayer films, mixed-material sachets, and certain black plastics often fall into this category.

As negotiations progress, Article 3 will have wide-ranging implications for both treaty signatories and affiliated businesses.

Governments: Public agencies will likely bear the responsibility for turning Article 3’s principles into policy and action. That could start with a comprehensive inventory of plastic products currently in circulation and a gap analysis to identify which items may fall under future restrictions. To do so, signatory countries will need to build or strengthen scientific review capacity, including laboratory testing and hazard data management, along with risk assessment protocols to support decisions that are evidence-based and defensible. Governments may also be tasked with creating the infrastructure for monitoring and transparency, including digital systems to track product flows, updated customs codes, and public-facing dashboards to report progress. Crucially, in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs), these efforts should include support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the informal waste sector, both of which will be key to successful implementation.

Businesses: For businesses, particularly consumer goods companies and packaging suppliers, Article 3 represents a call to evaluate product portfolios against emerging global standards and to develop new, more sophisticated innovation processes that more fully embed sustainability and material health. 

Companies should consider mapping their portfolios now and modifying innovation processes to identify which products may be at higher risk of restriction. This kind of proactive “portfolio triage” is a core part of RTI’s sustainable innovation practice. We've supported clients in conducting these assessments to inform design changes, reformulation strategies, and long-term R&D planning. Unlike other organizations, we have experts across human health, toxicity, environmental health, and implementation that improve the outcome of these assessments.

Another important implication for businesses is the growing emphasis on chemical transparency. The treaty signals that companies will increasingly be expected to disclose the polymers, additives, and processing aids used in their products. This level of traceability may require new supply chain oversight systems, new agreements across the supply chain that do not restrict ingredient disclosure, and greater collaboration across industry and public databases providing chemical information for products.

To move from broad commitments to targeted action, institutions can take the following steps now to align with the direction of the UN Plastics Treaty:

Expand National Lab Capacity for Chemical and Product Testing (Governments)

Governments need the ability to assess plastic products and chemicals through a transparent, science-based process. This means investing in national infrastructure for laboratory testing, hazard characterization, exposure modeling, and risk assessment protocols. Countries without existing frameworks may need to develop them from scratch, while others will need to modernize outdated systems. Labs should aim to ensure quality and safety of any research conducted by following internationally recognized rules such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

RTI has helped enact methodologies for polymer associated chemical characterization within products, development of standardized reference materials for microplastic and nanoplastic research and conducted chemical release analysis of products for hazard and risk assessments. 

Strengthen Monitoring and Digital Infrastructure (Governments) 

Tracking plastic product flows domestically and across borders will be essential for treaty enforcement, reporting, and policy refinement. Governments likely need to develop improved  chain of custody for these materials.  To do so, governments should consider strengthening digital infrastructure to comprehensively monitor plastic flows, production volumes, and end-of-life outcomes, including systems that integrate with updated customs classifications and extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes. There are emerging models to build from. For example, the European Union’s SCIP database (Substances of Concern In articles, as such or in complex objects) requires companies to report hazardous substances.

RTI works with governments to develop these tools, offering flexible and scalable solutions for data management, visualization, and decision-making. This includes dashboards for public reporting, digital tracking systems, and tailored training programs for customs officials, environmental inspectors, and policy staff.

Enhance Chemical Transparency (Businesses) 

Companies should begin preparing to disclose the materials used in their plastic products, including polymers, additives, plasticizers, and stabilizers. This level of visibility may require overhauling procurement policies, supplier agreements, and internal data systems. Companies should also prepare to transition now to more holistic and sustainable innovation processes should the treaty be enacted.

RTI has supported global commercial clients in navigating complex chemical regulations, including identifying alternatives for emerging PFAS, polybrominated flame retardants, and phthalates as well as other substances of concern. We help businesses map their material inputs, assess regulatory exposure, and build traceability systems that align with current and future compliance demands. We are currently developing a chemicals of concern innovation hub that stops the chain of regrettable substitution by anticipating and understanding the long-term impacts of widely adopting an alternative.

Identify and Prioritize High-Risk Products (Governments and Businesses) 

Not all plastic products will be affected equally. Signatory governments can begin by conducting product mapping and market analysis to identify which products are difficult to recycle, frequently leak into the environment, or contain hazardous additives. At the same time, companies should proactively assess their product portfolios to anticipate the need for reformulation, redesign, or phase-out. This early triage will be essential for minimizing disruption and aligning with future treaty requirements.

RTI’s sustainable innovation practice has guided clients including Fortune 500 and Multi-National clients through technology scouting, a structured product triage processes to prioritize R&D investments, evaluate safer or more circular alternatives, and prepare for upcoming regulatory transitions.

Engage Early in Stakeholder Processes (All Actors)

Treaty implementation will involve new rulemaking processes, technical guidelines, and stakeholder consultations at the national, regional, and global levels. Signatory governments, businesses, and civil society organizations should engage early to ensure that their perspectives and operational realities are reflected in the design of future rules. Participation in working groups, industry alliances, or municipal forums can also help build coalitions, identify shared barriers, and accelerate collective solutions.

RTI often facilitates these multistakeholder engagements, bringing together public and private sector actors to co-design policies and implementation strategies that are both ambitious and feasible.

Article 3 Offers a Strategic Opportunity to Lead on Plastics Policy and Innovation

Article 3 is more than a ban list. It is a blueprint for redesigning the global plastics economy. Organizations that act now to prepare for an enacted treaty by auditing products, upgrading data systems, and investing in circular solutions will turn compliance risk into market and governance leadership. Whether you're crafting policy or managing risk across your supply chain, now is the time to prepare. Connect with our team to get ahead of the curve.