Inconsistent plastic definitions across UK Regulations create barriers for bio-based innovation
New BB-REG-NET report reveals regulatory confusion hampering sustainable materials development...
A comprehensive new report published today by BB-REG-NET reveals that inconsistent definitions of "plastic" across UK regulations are creating uncertainty for bio-based and biodegradable material manufacturers and potentially hindering innovation in sustainable alternatives.
The report, Plastic definitions in UK regulation: How plastic is defined in regulations and implications for bio-based and biodegradable alternatives, identifies discrepancies between how major UK regulations define plastic, with materials treated differently under various regulatory frameworks despite having identical properties.
The analysis shows that whilst both the Single-Use Plastics Ban (SUPB) and Plastic Packaging Tax (PPT) base their definitions on the REACH polymer definition, they apply different exclusions that create regulatory inconsistencies. The SUPB excludes all "natural polymers that have not been chemically modified," whilst the PPT only exempts "cellulose-based polymers that have not been chemically modified."
Commenting on the findings Polly-Ann Hanson, Bioeconomy Consultant for Alder Bioinsights and lead author of the report: “Although regulatory plastic definitions are based on scientific principles and definitions they are not always consistent, being tailored to meet the precise needs of the regulation at the time it is written. Furthermore, while scientific and regulatory definitions are developed to enable a common understanding, public definitions vary, being influenced by environmental considerations and media coverage. This divergence in definitions can lead to market confusion and potentially frustration, particularly in what 'plastic-free' labels mean and how plastics are marketed, regulated and taxed.”
The report highlights three key materials that demonstrate these inconsistencies: cellulose is exempt from both regulations, starch is exempt from the SUPB but subject to the PPT, and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are subject to both regulations despite being produced by natural biological processes.
A key finding is that neither SUPB nor PPT clearly defines what constitutes "chemical modification" or "natural polymers," creating interpretative challenges for manufacturers developing novel bio-based materials. The report notes that ECHA guidance suggests industrially fermented polymers are not considered "natural" even when structurally identical to naturally occurring versions.
The BB-REG-NET research identifies the consequences of the different definitions of plastic on innovation in new materials. Novel polymers derived from plant proteins, seaweed, alginates, and chitin may face classification uncertainties under current definitions, potentially creating regulatory grey areas that could discourage investment in sustainable alternatives.
The report also addresses consumer perception challenges, noting that negative public attitudes towards plastics are driving some companies to pursue "plastic-free" certification even for materials that may technically qualify as plastic under regulatory definitions.
Key recommendations include:
- Harmonise definitions across regulations to ensure consistent treatment of materials with similar properties
- Clarify terminology around "natural polymers" and "chemical modification" to reduce interpretative uncertainty
- Develop protocols for assessing novel materials to accommodate emerging technologies
- Align policy objectives with environmental outcomes rather than material origins alone
The study demonstrates how some companies have successfully navigated current regulations through innovative approaches using natural plant polymers, including Xampla's plant protein materials and Notpla's seaweed-based packaging.
The report also highlights important work from the National Physical Laboratory (NPL), the UK’s national measurement institute and a world-leader in measurement science. NPL has recently announced a pioneering approach for evaluating whether a material is truly plastic-free as defined by regulation.
Alexandra French, CEO, Xampla, adds: “Standards and definitions are vital for the operation of any industry. The clarity they bring gives customers certainty on product quality and provenance while also directing and promoting innovation towards a joint end goal.
“At Xampla, we have experienced the benefits of innovating materials that are ‘natural polymers’ as defined by EU REACH regulations and are recognised under the SUPD and by NPL as ‘plastic-free’. By standardising definitions across regulations aimed at tackling plastic pollution, the packaging industry can take another step towards a plastic-free future.”
However, the report warns that as more novel materials enter the market, existing definitions may become increasingly inadequate for classification purposes, potentially creating barriers to commercialisation of sustainable innovations.
The research forms part of BB-REG-NET's broader initiative to provide evidence-based guidance for bioeconomy policy development and support the transition to sustainable materials.