New Zealand urged to toughen plastics packaging rules

Experts in New Zealand have called for tougher plastics rules, criticising the Government's decision not to proceed with a ban on hard-to-recycle food and drink packaging. Their comments follow a new report saying microplastics are found throughout the environment.

The debate centres on whether New Zealand should move beyond existing restrictions on some single-use plastics and adopt broader controls on packaging materials, including PVC and polystyrene. Researchers cited health risks, environmental harm and policy moves overseas as reasons for faster action.

Associate Professor Nathan Cooper, an environmental law expert at the University of Waikato, said continued plastic production was worsening several problems at once, from fossil fuel demand to waste and pollution.

"Plastics production continues to grow rapidly, creating more demand for fossil fuel at a time of climate crisis, and generates hundreds of millions of tonnes of waste and associated pollution. There is already international agreement that micro and nano-plastics represent a risk to human health. Not banning plastic food packaging, including PVC and polystyrene, means these will continue to pose a risk to consumers in New Zealand and overseas.

"The Government's decision not to proceed with a ban on hard-to-recycle plastics in food packaging represents the latest failure to show leadership on urgent environmental issues. It sends another clear message that the Government prioritises short-term commercial profits over responsible stewardship and people's health.

"While the ban would have meant a costly transition for industry, continuing to do business in ways that harm health and ecological integrity should not be an option," Cooper said.

The shelving of the packaging ban has become a focal point in the wider argument over plastics policy. Supporters of stronger restrictions say food-contact materials deserve particular scrutiny because they are used directly to store and serve products consumed by households every day.

Global comparisons

Professor Trisia Farrelly, coordinator of the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, said New Zealand risked falling behind jurisdictions that had already acted on packaging and single-use products.

"There is more than enough scientific evidence for the Government to enact policies without delay that guard against chronic human exposure to hazardous food-contact materials. New Zealand risks losing market share as other jurisdictions adopt effective policies based on the best available independent science on the migration of chemicals of concern and microplastics from plastic food packaging into contents, and the environmental harm they cause.

"In February this year, Chile's final phase of plastics bans was rolled out. It now prohibits both compostable and non-compostable single-use items for on-site consumption and requires supermarkets to stock at least 30% of beverages in returnable bottles. In August this year, the Canadian Federal Government restored the 2021 order and confirmed the Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulation, which lists plastics as a Schedule 1 toxic substance and phases out bags, stirrers and cutlery. Many Pacific Island countries also have more effective plastic packaging policy than New Zealand.

"The European Union's Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation is a comprehensive regional policy. However, its recycled-content requirements for food packaging should be paired with stronger chemical safety oversight, as peer-reviewed evidence indicates recycled plastics - particularly PET - can carry a greater diversity of hazardous chemicals, including carcinogens such as benzene and styrene, and the endocrine disruptor BPA, than virgin plastic.

"Not all international standards are alike. Some are guided by the best available independent science, while others are heavily influenced by industry, resulting in very different safe limits. For example, the European Food Safety Authority has stringent standards for chemicals of concern in plastic food packaging. Following a 2023 re-evaluation of its safe limits, based on emerging independent science, it lowered its safe daily limit from 4 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day to 0.2 nanograms per kilogram of body weight - a 20,000-fold reduction. That is five orders of magnitude more conservative than the safe limit recommended by the US EPA for BPA.

"A global plastics treaty is on the horizon. Governments and business would do well to prepare by starting to implement key measures already backed by high levels of support from UN member states. These include more than 50 countries signing the Bridge to Busan Declaration on Primary Plastic Polymers in April 2024, calling for multilateral action to achieve sustainable, reduced levels of virgin plastic production and production transparency; 97 countries supporting the Nice Wake-Up Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty in June 2025, urging a legally binding global treaty covering the full lifecycle of plastic pollution, including reduction targets and the phase-out of toxic chemicals; 70 countries signing the High Ambition Coalition Member States Ministerial Joint Statement for INC-5, which supports a legally binding full-life-cycle approach including measurable, time-bound primary plastic polymer reduction targets, measures to phase out some plastic products, polymers and chemicals of concern, and binding transparency and reporting requirements across the plastics value chain; and 95 countries supporting the Switzerland and Mexico joint Conference Room Paper on Article 3, which calls for measures and trade bans on hazardous plastic products and chemicals of concern, including chemical traceability."

Her comments reflect a broader policy divide emerging internationally. Some governments are tightening rules on single-use products, returnable systems and chemicals in packaging, while others are taking a slower approach focused on narrower bans and waste management.

In New Zealand, the latest scientific findings on microplastics are adding pressure to that debate. The report cited by the experts says tiny plastic particles are present throughout the environment and recommends more detailed monitoring of microplastics, nanoplastics and their effects.

Health questions

A central issue is whether food packaging should be treated as both a waste problem and a source of human exposure. Farrelly argued that policy should address the movement of chemicals and plastic particles from packaging into food, and pointed to differing standards between regulators in Europe and the United States.

That focus widens the discussion beyond litter and recycling. It also raises questions for retailers, food producers and packaging suppliers, which may face changing expectations in export markets if New Zealand's rules diverge from those used elsewhere.

For industry, the practical challenge is how to balance compliance costs with pressure for lower-risk materials and reusable formats. For policymakers, the question is whether existing restrictions are enough at a time when scientific evidence on plastics exposure is becoming harder to ignore.

"While the ban would have meant a costly transition for industry, continuing to do business in ways that harm health and ecological integrity should not be an option," Cooper said.