The PlayStation 4 sold approximately 117 million units over its lifetime, making it one of the best-selling consumer electronics products ever made. By 2025, Sony was winding down support for the platform, and tens of millions of those devices are now moving toward disposal. Only 22.3 percent of global e-waste reaches formal recycling, according to the UN’s Global E-waste Monitor 2024. The rest ends up in landfills, incinerators, or informal processing abroad.

The PS4 is one example of a pattern that repeats across every major console cycle. Gaming hardware is a significant and growing contributor to the e-waste stream, and the rate at which old devices are replaced consistently outpaces any manufacturer recycling effort.

What Goes Into a Console

A modern gaming console contains gold, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, lithium, cobalt, and cadmium, along with processed plastics and specialized circuit components. Extracting and purifying those materials involves complex global supply chains that frequently release hazardous compounds, including arsenic and mercury, into surrounding ecosystems. Some raw materials, including tungsten and gold, are sourced from regions linked to civil unrest and documented human rights concerns.

A life-cycle analysis of the PlayStation 4 found that manufacturing and shipping a single unit produces roughly 89 kilograms of CO2 equivalent. That figure does not include the energy consumed during years of use, the disposal of the device, or the environmental cost of the controller, cables, and accessories that accompany it.

When a household upgrades at a console launch, that manufacturing footprint is reset. The previous device is set aside, and producing the new one requires that same chain of extraction, processing, and shipping to start over.

The Scale of the Disposal Problem

The PS4’s long lifecycle shows how slowly hardware actually exits households. As Game File reported, roughly half of Sony’s 118 million monthly active PlayStation users were still on the PS4 years after the PS5 launched, largely because the newer console offered too little improvement to justify the cost. By 2025, that transition was finally underway, moving tens of millions of PS4 units toward disposal at scale.

The same dynamic has played out in every previous generation. Xbox One units are now reaching end of life. Nintendo Wii U consoles predated them. Devices accumulate in closets for years before they eventually reach the waste stream.

U.S. gaming consoles consume roughly 34 terawatt-hours of electricity per year, with an estimated 24 million metric tons of carbon emissions associated with that use. On the disposal side, the $91 billion in recoverable metals sitting in the 2022 global e-waste pile, most of it lost to informal processing or landfill, reflects a recycling gap that gaming hardware contributes to.

Mid-Generation Upgrades Add to the Problem

Beyond full generational cycles, manufacturers have introduced mid-cycle hardware refreshes. The PS4 Pro, Xbox One X, and PlayStation 5 Pro each offered improved performance for players who already owned the previous model. Unlike a full generation transition, these upgrades carry no technical requirement to stop using the older device. A 2016 analysis noted that mid-generation consoles encourage disposal of hardware that remains fully functional, without the platform incompatibility that at least makes a generational upgrade necessary for some players.

Trade-in programs offer credits toward the new device, but the value paid for an older console is typically far below its replacement cost. The traded-in unit often passes through several resale steps before eventually reaching the waste stream.

Where Manufacturer Responsibility Falls Short

Sony and Microsoft have both published sustainability commitments. Microsoft has pledged to make its Xbox division carbon negative by 2030. Newer console models include energy-saving standby modes. A 2021 National Resources Defense Council analysis, however, found that those modes go largely unused, with most players defaulting to instant-on settings that consume significantly more electricity.

On device disposal, no major console manufacturer has a take-back program at the scale of the devices it sells. There is no PS4 collection initiative, no Xbox One recovery program. The burden of keeping those devices out of landfills falls primarily on individual consumers.

Gaming Without Dedicated Hardware

Some gaming takes place without any dedicated hardware at all. Browser-based gaming platforms run on devices people already own, whether that is a laptop, phone, or tablet. Platforms like Poki, which reached 100 million monthly players and recorded one billion gameplays in a single month in 2025, offer over 1,500 titles that load in a browser without installation. That approach avoids the manufacturing footprint of a dedicated gaming device and the upgrade cycle that follows it.

Browser gaming is a small fraction of the overall market. Most gaming still runs on dedicated consoles and high-performance PCs. But it is one example of a model where play does not require a purpose-built device.

What You Can Do

Extending the life of current hardware has more impact than any individual recycling action. Beyond that, there are a few practical steps.

• Keep hardware longer. A console used for eight years instead of five spreads its manufacturing footprint over a longer period. Mid-generation refreshes are optional upgrades, not replacements.
• Find a recycler. Earth911’s recycling search tool accepts “game consoles” as a search term and returns local drop-off options by ZIP code. Best Buy and Staples accept gaming hardware for recycling at no charge.
• Use certified recyclers. The e-Stewards certification identifies recyclers that meet standards for safe handling and do not export devices to informal processing sites, where hazardous materials can harm workers and nearby communities.
• Buy refurbished or previous-generation. A PS4 in 2026 runs the vast majority of available titles. Buying one secondhand extends the life of an existing device at no additional manufacturing cost.
• Donate working hardware. Organizations like PCs for People accept game consoles. A device that still functions is more useful rehomed than processed for scrap.

Gaming consoles are consumer electronics, and they carry the same end-of-life problems that come with any complex device. The upgrade cycle moves faster than recycling infrastructure can accommodate. Understanding that gap is a starting point for making different choices about when to upgrade, where to bring old hardware, and what to buy next.

About the Author

This sponsored article was written by Christopher Baude.

The post Guest Idea: Gaming’s Console Upgrade Cycle Is a Growing E-Waste Problem Nobody Talks About appeared first on Earth911.

• Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
• Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube

Interview Transcript

Mitch Ratcliffe 0:10

Hello. Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are in this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability in Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society, and I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation today, and it’s one I particularly enjoy — talking to a young person. Well, actually, two of them, making a positive impact.

Textile waste has become one of the most stubborn problems in the American waste stream. Americans throw away roughly 17 million tons of clothing every year, and a great majority of it ends up buried in landfills, where natural fibers slowly decompose and release methane — a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide. Over a century, as things break down in a landfill, clothing is uniquely wasteful, because so much of what gets discarded is still perfectly usable, and it’s simply been outgrown, or it’s gone out of style, or fallen out of someone’s rotation.

And the environmental cost we pay is paid twice: once when a still-good garment is thrown away, and again when a brand-new one is manufactured to replace it, consuming water, energy, and raw materials in the process. And nowhere is that double cost more visible than with children’s school uniforms. Kids outgrow them on a predictable annual cycle, long before the clothing wears out. And for families on a tight budget, replacing a uniform every year is a recurring expense that arrives whether the household can afford it or not.

The result is a steady stream of good clothing headed for the trash and a parallel stream of families struggling to pay for its replacement — two problems that, looked at the right way, turn out to be each other’s solution. And our guests today saw that connection when they were still in middle school.

Ethan and Desmond Hua are the founders of HOPE — H-O-P-E — the HOPE Uniforms Program. HOPE stands for Help Our Planet Earth, a student-led nonprofit that they launched in 2020 in San Mateo, California. The idea was simple: collect gently used school uniforms that families had outgrown and redistribute them for free to families who need them.

What began in a single elementary school run out of the family garage has grown into an operation serving 10 schools across three districts, and to date, HOPE has kept more than 14,000 uniforms out of landfills, redistributed over 12,000 of them back to families, and served more than 1,400 households, saving those families an estimated $141,000 in clothing costs along the way.

The spark, as Ethan has said, was a single moment: a classmate came to school in shorts on a cold day because he couldn’t afford another pair of pants to last until laundry day. And from that, Ethan and Desmond built something with real operational sophistication — an online request system with a live inventory tracker, and a website in English, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese to reach every corner of his multilingual community. They’ve since secured a donation of 2,000 brand-new uniforms from Costco, and their work has earned Ethan a 2025 Gloria Barron Prize for Young Heroes, a Samaritan House Young Samaritan Award, and coverage on national television.

So we’re going to talk with Ethan and Desmond about what started it all, why reuse is one of the most underrated tools in the sustainability toolkit, and the environmental case for keeping a garment whole and in circulation rather than recycling or replacing it. We’ll dig into how they built a real logistics operation as teenagers and why they made the program multilingual from the start, as well as how they designed it so that asking for help feels routine rather than uncomfortable. And we’ll look ahead at what’s next for HOPE, and what they’d tell any listener sitting on an idea but waiting for money, permission, or someone else to go first.

So, to learn more, visit hopeuniformsprogram.com. That’s all one word, no space, no dash — hopeuniformsprogram.com. And if you’re a teen making a difference for the planet, check out the Barron Prize at barronprize.org. Again, all one word, no space, no dash — barronprize.org — to learn how to enter your work for recognition by the Gloria Barron Prize program.

Can a teenager with a garage, a good idea, and a little persistence really make a dent in two of our most intractable problems at once — textile waste and the cost of raising a family? Let’s find out, right after this.

Mitch Ratcliffe 4:30

Welcome to the show, Ethan and Desmond. Hey, introduce yourselves so people can recognize the difference.

Ethan Hua 4:42

Hi, I’m Ethan. I just graduated as a senior.

Desmond Hua 4:46

My name is Desmond, and I just finished my freshman year at Aragon High School.

Ethan Hua 4:51

And we’re the co-founders of the HOPE Uniforms Program, HOPE standing for Help Our Planet Earth.

Mitch Ratcliffe 4:56

You guys have done some amazing work already, and I just want to start off by — tell me about how this started. You saw a classmate come to school in shorts, and it was a cold day, and he was wearing them because they couldn’t afford a pair of pants until laundry day. What went through your mind, and how did you come to the conclusion, “I can solve that problem”?

Desmond Hua 5:13

Well, I guess what went through our minds was that when we were in elementary school, when we saw our friends, we realized that we outgrow so much clothes ourselves when we grew up, and we wondered, what do we do with them when we outgrow them? So when we went — how do…

Ethan Hua 5:27

…they go?

Desmond Hua 5:28

Yeah, like to—

Ethan Hua 5:29

Narnia. Like, some place.

Desmond Hua 5:33

Yeah. So when we went home, we talked to our parents, and we asked them, where does our clothes go? And they said we used to just throw them away, don’t usually have a better purpose. So me and my brother wanted to give them a new life, something to reuse those uniforms, and so we actually founded HOPE around five years ago.

Ethan Hua 5:54

One of the biggest travesties that we saw in these uniforms is that they’re very reusable, they’re gently used, there’s nothing wrong with them, and it’s a shame that, with this little time that we spent with the uniform, they’re going thrown away — when they’re able to be perfectly used and given a second life. In fact, we tell that these uniforms not only have a second life in them, but a third life and a fourth life as well, and because of that, it just seemed like a shame to be tossed away after one single use.

Mitch Ratcliffe 6:23

You picked the name “Help Our Planet Earth,” but this program obviously does something else. It helps families just as much as the planet. Which did you really feel like was the right focus at the time you launched?

Desmond Hua 6:34

I think the main focus at first was our community, because we, you know, grew up in the elementary school. But then at the same time our mission was also helping the earth, because this cause not only impacted the community, but also took out over 40 tons of textile waste from the landfills — 40 metric tons of textile waste, or 30, 30 metric tons of textile waste out of the landfills. So we wanted to cover both aspects while we’re doing HOPE.

Ethan Hua 7:06

So yes — when we first addressed this problem, the community, it was based on a problem that we experienced, that we witnessed from peers. However, we did act, because we’re Scouts, and we’ve been part of the Scouting program since kindergarten, so we have a lot of sustainability virtues instilled in us, like Leave No Trace principles, and we thought that there’s something we can give back to the environment.

Mitch Ratcliffe 7:33

Clothing reuse, thrift shopping, is a big deal these days. Is clothing reuse gaining traction? Is it becoming cool to say these clothes are being reused? Or is that still a point of resistance in people who you might give a uniform to?

Ethan Hua 7:48

I think that there’s, in the youth, there’s a little disparity, but I guess between the youth and the more grown-up adults. We live — me and Desmond live — 10 minutes away from San Francisco, and some people don’t know this, but San Francisco is one of the thrifting capitals of the nation, and because of that, it’s very trendy. I thrift. A lot of kids love thrifting as a hobby; it’s something fun to do on the weekends, so there’s nothing wrong with thrifting. However, there are certain stigmas surrounding getting used clothes, and it’s understandable.

However, to combat that, what we do is, once we get our donations from the community, we process them, we check them for any rips, stains, tears, make sure they’re gently used. We want these families to have — we want these uniforms to have — many, many lives, not just one life or two. We’re in for the long, the long sustainable impact, long-term impact. Because of that, we check them, and what we pride ourselves in is ensuring that our families are repeat customers.

So we get all our uniforms from families all across the community — we get them from families who no longer need to use their uniforms — so we receive them through donation bins in each of our partner schools’ offices. We drop them off in these wooden bins that we’ve built, and then once we take these uniforms back, we process them, we do the check, as I said. And on our website, a family would request, okay, I need three articles of size-medium white polo tops. And our website is multilingual, because we serve a very diverse customer base across the community, across the Bay Area.

And on these websites we see, okay, this family at so-and-so school needs this amount of uniforms at this size. Let’s go check our inventory — a spreadsheet of all the uniforms we have in our inventory. Currently, we have roughly 2,000; it’s all sitting in our garage. And then we refill this order, we put it in the bag, we drop it off to the school, and these families would receive them. And, say, it’s probably six months down the line, hopefully: they wear the uniforms, they take good care of them, and they outgrow them, and at this point they’re back at stage one. The family goes, “Hey, at least out of four, I have these uniforms that they’ve outgrown — what do I do with them?” And they send it back to us.

So because of that, we want to make sure these uniforms are kept very nice, they’ve been spot-checked, so the families are happy with their services and they will reuse us in the future, thereby forming an eco-friendly cycle — a long-term sustainability impact.

Mitch Ratcliffe 10:31

So, by getting them involved in the return process too, you’re also reinforcing the value of reuse, and that makes it feel more normal to them to get what would, in earlier generations, be described as hand-me-downs. Does that activation of their concern about the planet play a big part in that messaging?

Ethan Hua 10:49

We try to include that message — we do include that messaging in all our announcements. That’s one of our main selling points. However, it’s hard to beat the word “free” when it comes to advertising to the community, especially when it’s across different cultures or languages — Spanish, Chinese, and English. It’s a lot more direct to say, hey, we have free uniforms that are reused through our program, and it’s a really cool benefit that we prevent them from going to landfills. One of our most proud statistics, actually — Des, you might want to share the statistics. Yeah, okay. So the reason why I’m sharing this with you is that, since inception, we have diverted roughly 14,900 garments from landfills and given back out to the community roughly 12,700 uniforms. Desmond, do you want to share our most proud statistics that sprung up from that?

Desmond Hua 11:45

So I think we’ve roughly also helped around 1,400 families, and we’ve also saved families around $140,000 through uniforms, so they don’t have to keep buying uniforms over and over as they grow up. Also, the methane equivalent to carbon emissions is around 3,000 kilograms, and, as I said, the 30 metric tons is saved from the landfills through HOPE’s Uniform Program, and those are some of our proudest statistics.

Ethan Hua 12:16

When we — so this is our message to the community — when we usually talk about HOPE, we mention the 30 to 30,000 methane-equivalent carbon emissions avoided from landfill diversion. So when uniforms reach landfills, what someone might ask is, why are they so harmful to the atmosphere? The answer to that question is that when they sit in these landfills, over time they decompose — first goes the cotton, then go the poly fibers, the plastics — and throughout the years it takes for a uniform garment to decompose, it releases harmful greenhouse gases, such as methane. Especially methane: methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide to our atmosphere, and throughout these many years it just releases more and more of these gases, and it builds up, adding to the greenhouse effect, warming up our planet.

Mitch Ratcliffe 13:08

Both of you have articulated a number of benefits and a number of the concerns that people should be aware of. You mentioned that “free” is the driving force in a lot of this — the messaging, and the reuse generally. When you think about how your generation is growing up in a world where it’s very difficult to be unaware of the environmental consequences of our life, are we beginning to see a change in their relationship with materials like clothing that you see as promising for a more sustainable economy?

Desmond Hua 13:42

I feel like I would say so, because — I think not just here, but around the world — there’s many ways people are trying to find ways to reuse, recycle, and, right, there’s like new methods, and, I guess, new technology now that we’re able to access, to find ways to reduce carbon emissions and make things more eco-friendly.

Ethan Hua 14:07

Just to specify your question — are you asking, is the next generation more willing to reuse?

Mitch Ratcliffe 14:13

More willing to reuse, but also, to what Desmond was just saying — are we also seeing a generation grow up that recognizes they have tools to do things with material that we weren’t able to do before? When I was growing up, there was a garbage can and there was nothing else. Now there’s a recycling bin too. How do you imagine the world will be configured to support what your generation recognizes it needs to do with regard to reuse, with creating a circular economy?

Ethan Hua 14:42

I think, of course, we’re a lot more well-equipped to deal with the climate crisis, and, more importantly, a lot of people are a lot more aware. For example, we know a lot about the textile world because we run a uniform organization. But one thing that we’ve noticed has taken on in the industry is that a lot more fabrics have been developed to become more eco-friendly, such as hemp. Hemp is a little coarse of a fabric, so… very comfortable, but it’s all plant-based. Well, it’s a lot more plant-based than just microfibers and plastics, and it’s very durable as well, and it seems like that could be a possible trend, and something that the textile industry is going towards in the future. So, trends like that — just seeing things like that — it’s very encouraging to see that there are good people concerned about our future and thinking of keeping that in mind.

Mitch Ratcliffe 15:48

So, you’ve run this out of your family’s garage, as you said, but you’ve also built an inventory management system. Tell us about how you learned to run an operation like this, because that’s another key to unlocking the potential your generation has to make a really massive difference in the way the economy runs.

Desmond Hua 16:06

I think, in the beginning, in order to talk to families and reach out to families, we actually had to do a really slow system where we just had to email back and forth. We realized, you know, if we want the operation to grow or to improve, it would require a much more mechanical process. So I think we started to use a spreadsheet, taking everything that came in, managing how much of each uniform we have, roughly, and what we’re giving out. So, like, we have a spreadsheet of our entire inventory, and even when we do orders to give out to families, we keep track of everything we give out. So I think, in order for us to have a mechanical process and to know what we have and how much we can help the families, and remove gas emissions — that’s how the spreadsheet would really help, because it just keeps everything in track.

Mitch Ratcliffe 17:11

So, how do you deliver the uniform once you have that need identified? Is it — you hand it to them, or do they pick it up?

Desmond Hua 17:21

So we actually drop it off at their school’s front office, and they can just pick it up at the school.

Ethan Hua 17:29

We send them an announcement to come pick it up, as well as the school does, to their emails.

Mitch Ratcliffe 17:33

So, is it getting easier with the new tools — the vibe-coding tools and things like that — for you to start to solve some of these problems? Have you explored them?

Ethan Hua 17:42

Oh, yeah. We have automation. We have, like, automated emails to the families that, yes, your order is in queue, it’s coming up, we’re working on it, and we have ways to let them know that, yeah, your order is ready for pickup. And social media is a very great tool for that — we use Instagram. Follow us on our HOPE Uniforms Program Instagram. It’s a very good way to let families know en masse. And one thing that I’d like to add to Desmond’s point: in our journey of collecting uniform orders from families, originally in 2020 when we started this program, we were doing it by email — literally one-on-one email chains, so we’re managing 50 email chains at once, which was very logistically challenging. On top of that, we’re receiving emails not even in English — we’re in Chinese, in Vietnamese, in Spanish — so, using Google Translate, it was just a lot of steps to take to get to the final product of getting the uniforms to the family.

Desmond Hua 18:47

Yeah.

Ethan Hua 18:47

And because of that, we set up this multilingual website to help us address the multilingual, cultural diversity in our community, which was very helpful.

Mitch Ratcliffe 18:57

I guess the question I want to get to before we take a quick commercial break is: do you think the satisfaction that both of you are expressing about the impact you’re having — as well as the satisfaction people have in participating in the program — is the catalyst for jump-starting thousands of local programs to solve thousands of different problems across the country? Like keeping uniforms in circulation, but potentially collecting a lot of other things for reuse?

Ethan Hua 19:23

Is it worth it? Is that your question?

Mitch Ratcliffe 19:24

Is this the kind of thing that can inspire people to solve local problems? Do you have a template here for a solution to jump-starting the circular economy in the many small places it needs to happen?

Ethan Hua 19:38

I think it matters — or, I think true sustainability is very hard to reach. When I hear the word “sustainability” nowadays, I think of words like gourmet and adventure. What do I mean by that? So, if you look at the Merriam-Webster definition of adventure, you see it connotes risk-taking and danger, yet when you go on adventure travel, it’s rarely ever dangerous. And for gourmet — if you eat a gourmet burger at a restaurant, sometimes it’s not even that tasty, yet it’s still labeled as gourmet. Same thing with sustainability. When you hear the word “sustainability” — sustainability buildings, for example — yes, they might be carbon-neutral, yet the process to get these net-carbon-zero buildings, it’s not sustainable, like all the building practices; it takes a lot of energy and resources to get that building to energy perfection, as you could say.

And likewise, in the real world, achieving true sustainability is very, very hard, and clothing is one of these things that we noticed could have a cyclical life cycle, and being able to be reused for these many, many life cycles. Again, we’re long-term impact; it’s something that you could reuse many times, not just one or two. So, yes, I think that we are jump-starting and inspiring a lot of grassroots efforts in achieving these reuse programs. Not everything can be reused, though. However, the idea, and getting it into people’s minds, is, I think, the biggest, most important part.

Mitch Ratcliffe 21:16

And then we’ll start to solve problems. So, this is a great conversation. I want to take a quick commercial break. Folks, we’re going to be right back to continue the conversation.

Mitch Ratcliffe 21:28

Welcome back to Sustainability in Your Ear. Let’s continue the discussion with Ethan and Desmond Hua, who created Help Our Planet Earth, or HOPE — a clothing reuse program that helps teens in need while reducing the volume of textile waste headed for landfill. And Ethan was a 2025 winner of the Gloria Barron Prize for Young Heroes. Ethan, what has that recognition — as well as the Samaritan House Young Samaritan Award that you won — done for the program? Are you getting more attention now?

Ethan Hua 21:55

Yes, we are getting more attention. The biggest thing this exposure has helped us with is that it gives us credibility to talk to new schools, and then it’s just really helpful, because when we first started this program, we started with one school — me and Desmond’s elementary school — and we started by announcing it just to the couple of families at our school, saying that we have this program available, it’d be pretty cool for the environment and for other families, if you could help out. And now, instead, with this exposure to the Gloria Barron Prize and Samaritan House, and our interviews on ABC, NBC — it just helps us a lot, because schools were like, okay, these guys are legit, they’re really in the business of helping the community, they’ll do their job, and they’ve been verified by all these organizations. And because of that, it’s all the easier to spread and make a bigger impact on the community.

Mitch Ratcliffe 22:55

So, how big can this get before you outgrow your garage, and your parents say, “Look, that’s just too many uniforms”?

Ethan Hua 23:02

Well, I would say — I’m not exactly sure about the limit, that’s a good question. Yeah, it’s certainly going to reach a limit, and I think the beauty about HOPE is that anyone can do it. Yes, me and Desmond, we do have backgrounds in scouting, and we have strong sustainability virtues, however, that does not make us that unique, and students like us could take on the program. And in the long term, what I think would be great is if we could spread HOPE to other districts — like, other districts beyond what we can manage — and we’ll have HOPE in another garage.

Desmond Hua 23:47

Yeah.

Ethan Hua 23:48

And then maybe another one. And I think that is what makes HOPE — I think that is the biggest impact that HOPE could have: it’s not, of course, only the environmental impact of diverting uniforms from landfills and saving them from decomposing into the atmosphere, but it’s also putting the idea in other kids’ minds that they could do something as well. And I see a lot of kids in the Bay Area having a lot of reuse programs, like saving food waste, or other service projects in parks. I think that’s very, very powerful — just the fact that you’re doing it, and you’re telling other people about it. It puts the idea in kids’ minds, saying, I could do something like that as well.

Mitch Ratcliffe 24:29

Well, you’re also creating new communities by connecting different lingual groups — you do English, Spanish, Mandarin on the site right now. As you think about the various communities you serve and the reuse challenges that are emerging all around you — the Bay Area being a hotspot for a variety of new trends in the world — how would you use a multilingual website and other services to help people understand what they could do together to solve some of our environmental problems?

Ethan Hua 25:00

So what we like to do is fully contextualize the problem. It’s very important for families to understand that this is an issue, in order for them to fully appreciate their usage of our services. Going back to our number-one most serious statistic — the 30 metric tons of carbon emissions prevented through uniform reuse — we tell families this. We need to fully explain what goes behind that 30 metric tons. So that 30 metric tons represents the 12,700 uniforms that we’ve given back to the community; this represents all the carbon that would have gone into making 12,700 uniforms, but was saved because they used one that was pre-existing. So this carbon waste includes — when we try to calculate a rough estimate — all the carbon used through all the land that it takes to grow the cotton for these uniforms, all the water that was used to grow the cotton, all the pesticides, all the chemical dyes used to dye the uniforms, the energy that goes into making it in the factory, and all the car emissions that are emitted through that, the transportation costs to the store. It’s a long laundry list of all the things that go into making a uniform. Although it’s a lot of carbon going into a uniform, just a rough estimate, it adds up — it does make a really sizable difference when you add up all the 12,000 uniforms. And it’s important to tell the families that, because if they don’t understand what it means to reuse the uniform, then they won’t understand the true impact of their actions, and I want them to appreciate it.

Mitch Ratcliffe 26:48

Well, so that’s really what I’m getting at. Are there other areas where you can see being able to tell that story in a variety of languages, rather than just in English, which shuts out a lot of people, that we could start to activate within many communities a lot of different circular cycles? Not just uniforms, but maybe school supplies that go unused, and so forth. Have you thought about what else HOPE could eventually manage within the circular economy?

Desmond Hua 27:16

Definitely, I think so. Actually, recently I’ve been trying to expand to some schools in San Jose. They actually do especially have a need for uniforms, and seeing that, I think it’s definitely a school that would appreciate getting free uniforms. And seeing that, I think if we showed them the true meaning of what we’re trying to aim for — which is helping, or helping Planet Earth — I think the families would be more willing to, first of all, help with the eco cycle, which is donating back to HOPE, where we can, and then we can give back to them. So it’s like a process. So, but yes, there’s definitely schools around here that would appreciate HOPE.

Mitch Ratcliffe 28:06

Now, Ethan, you’ve said that meaningful change doesn’t take a lot of resources or institutional backing — just an idea and the willingness to act. For someone who’s listening, who has an idea but assumes that they need a lot of money or some permission to get started, what would you tell them?

Ethan Hua 28:23

I remember when me and Desmond started, we were very, very scared talking to adults in that moment, but deep down, we knew what we were doing was good. It was good for the community. It was going to be a benefit for the community and the environment. We didn’t have any doubt about that. Our biggest fear was that, right now, we’re just going to say the wrong thing and embarrass ourselves, but deep down we knew that it was an ultimate good — there’s no way that it couldn’t be an ultimate good for the community. And I think most people do understand: if they’re trying to launch an initiative, and it truly is a net benefit for the community, I think people deep down know what’s good, and I would say, keep pushing on that feeling.

Mitch Ratcliffe 29:21

If a student wanted to start something like HOPE in their own district, where would you point them, so they could take a first step? What did you learn that allowed you to confidently pursue that vision you just described?

Ethan Hua 29:35

It’s like — you want to foster your idea in an environment where you know it will succeed. At first, you always want to start strong, you always want to start in a community where you understand your community 100%. So we started ours in our elementary school. We knew the principal, we spoke Chinese — it was a Chinese-immersion school — so we knew that we could address this community. And I want everyone to address their own community at first. Help your community first, make sure it survives — sorry, let me say, make sure it survives, make sure it grows — until you can expand to other areas that you know can be helped.

Mitch Ratcliffe 30:21

Knowing a community is something that a lot of brands wish they could do, and you managed to get Costco to give you 2,000 new uniforms. How did that relationship emerge, and is that potentially a pointer to the new relationships you could build in order to take HOPE to the next level?

Desmond Hua 30:40

Well, what we did with Costco is, both of us actually reached out to the CEO, Ron Vachris, and we asked him if, in our local Costco area, they had any extra uniforms they could possibly donate to us.

Mitch Ratcliffe 30:57

Wait — so you sent an email to the CEO of Costco?

Desmond Hua 31:00

So what we did is, we actually reached out to Ron Vachris, the CEO of Costco, and we told him that we had such a low supply of uniforms at that time, and for—

Ethan Hua 31:11

—the back-to-school season. Yeah, our most popular demand season is back-to-school.

Desmond Hua 31:16

Yeah, so we reached out to him asking if he had any extra uniforms he could possibly donate to HOPE’s Uniform Program, and he actually responded saying yes, he does have surplus inventory. And so—

Mitch Ratcliffe 31:31

—I think that’s a nervy move, but boy, congratulations.

Desmond Hua 31:35

Thank you. Yeah, both of us. Yeah.

Mitch Ratcliffe 31:37

That says a lot about the potential for an initiative like yours to make a difference in the world.

Desmond Hua 31:44

Yes, that actually does show — when you try to reach out, and when you have a good cause, whether it’s in the community or in the world, I think reaching out to people who could help you is definitely a thing that — it’s like an opportunity for you to expand and to improve the initiative, or your passion.

Mitch Ratcliffe 32:05

Ethan, you’ve just graduated from high school. What’s next for you?

Ethan Hua 32:10

So, in the fall, I’ll be attending Wharton at UPenn. And I think, if there’s one thing I’d like people to know about me, it’s that I enjoy addressing unmet needs in the community with self-sustaining solutions. With HOPE, I’ve done that; and in my work at the San Mateo–Foster City School District, I built a repository of Eagle Scout projects in order to create an outlet for schools to get their service projects out to the community, and to help other scouts like us find their Eagle Scout projects. By the way, an Eagle Scout project is the final step a scout can take in their scouting journey to achieve the rank of Eagle, which is the highest rank.

Mitch Ratcliffe 32:55

Desmond, what are your plans? I mean, you’ve got a couple more years of high school, but what are you thinking about doing?

Desmond Hua 33:00

Well, first of all, for HOPE, I think my mission is to keep expanding HOPE into further areas — even though I may not be as familiar with the communities, I want to reach out to as many people and families as I’m able to help, beyond the San Mateo–Foster City School District. I guess outside of HOPE, I would also love to continue Boy Scouts as the senior patrol leader this year. The senior patrol leader is basically — it’s like a CEO; not CEO, club president — yeah, the highest rank.

Ethan Hua

I’m very proud of Desmond.

Desmond Hua

Yeah, yeah. So I think — he’s been a senior patrol leader, and I’m going to be one this year, so being in that position, leading younger scouts and showing them the right path, I think that’s going to be a really fun experience. That’s what I’m looking forward to this year, too.

Mitch Ratcliffe 33:52

So, Ethan, you’re going to business school, and based on what both of you are saying, leadership is really that instigator of the change that you want to see in the world. Is business the primary lever that you see as our opportunity for change?

Ethan Hua 34:07

Yes. In fact, I think that business is going to be the discipline that helps push the world to be more sustainable. If you think about it, all too often the careers that attack the climate crisis are very siloed — for example, politicians in their chambers, engineers in their labs, or lawmakers in their courts — but all too often these disciplines are not very interconnected and working together in unity to address these issues. And I think that business is something that — its profit is what connects all these efforts together. It’s what pushes people to attempt to create a greener world: financial incentives. Okay, let me give you an example: the solar panel industry. Families would be less incentivized to purchase a solar panel for their home if they didn’t understand that it would save them money in the long term. Because they understand that solar panels will save them money on their electricity bills, they’re like, okay, not only does it save me money, but it’s also a lot greener for the planet. So because people have that — it’s an example of the power of financial incentives to motivate people to join sustainable causes. I think that’s why that cause and effect is what interests me in pursuing business.

Mitch Ratcliffe 35:31

Do you see that as the pursuit of vast wealth, or distributed prosperity?

Ethan Hua 35:38

Distributed prosperity. I think that financial incentives are what’s going to push sustainable efforts, and that’s kind of how HOPE is founded upon, too — free uniforms for families who then don’t have to go out and spend roughly $100 a year per child, with the added benefit that it saves landfill waste.

Mitch Ratcliffe 36:02

So obviously there’s a lot of opportunity in front of you, and for HOPE. What are you thinking about growing into, and where can people find out how to donate, or to request uniforms, or maybe just make a contribution to help make this bigger?

Desmond Hua 36:18

I think just helping out HOPE in general. First of all, donating to HOPE is a really big thing. Contacting HOPE — of course, we have a multilingual website, so visiting that, we have all the info on where to donate, where to request. But I think also what we’re trying to aim for is expanding into bigger schools, where we reach out with HOPE, with our mission, to help out families that, like you said, need uniforms, so they don’t have to spend that $100 to $200 every single year.

Mitch Ratcliffe 36:57

So, Ethan, how can people track what you all are doing and get involved?

Ethan Hua 37:01

Follow our Instagram, @hopeuniformsprogram. Stay on our website; we update our statistics there. You can find out a lot more about how we started this, where we are, and why we do what we do, on our website. We provide it so that families across the community, no matter what language they speak, can understand us — understand our story, understand our passion, our mission.

Mitch Ratcliffe 37:27

Congratulations, gentlemen, to both of you, for an immense good that you have brought into the world. And I wish you both the greatest success in the future. And Ethan, enjoy Wharton.

Ethan Hua 37:38

Thank you, Mitch.

Mitch Ratcliffe 37:46

Welcome back to Sustainability in Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Ethan and Desmond Hua. They are brothers who founded the HOPE Uniforms Program. HOPE is short for Help Our Planet Earth, and that’s a student-led nonprofit that collects gently used school uniforms and redistributes them free to families who need them. You can learn more about their work at hopeuniformsprogram.com. That’s all one word, no space, no dash — hopeuniformsprogram.com.

And if you know a teenager doing this kind of work, the Gloria Barron Prize for Young Heroes is something you should point out to them. Ethan was recognized by the program last year, and you can learn more about the Gloria Barron Prize for Young Heroes at barronprize.org. Again, all one word, no space, no dash — barronprize.org, and Barron has two R’s.

The circular economy won’t be built only in boardrooms and at pilot plants; it will also grow from the grassroots, in garages like the one we’ve heard about today. That happens when people recognize human needs and take steps to address them. Ethan and Desmond started HOPE in 2020 while they were still in middle school, after a classmate showed up in shorts on a cold day. That’s a failure of material flows, in the same sense as when a species within an ecosystem struggles because something further up or down the food chain is disrupted.

Ethan kept returning to the idea that the highest-value thing you can do with a uniform is keep it whole and keep it in use, flowing through the economy. Keep the garment in circulation, and you can avoid a variety of environmental impacts, including the water used to grow the cotton, the pesticides, the oil drilled to create the synthetic textiles, the dyes, the factory energy, and the freight emissions produced simply by transporting a uniform to the store. We’ve trained a generation to feel good about the recycling bin, but reuse sits a rung above recycling, and textiles are only the clearest case for it. Americans throw away something like 17 million tons of clothing every year, most of it still wearable.

HOPE’s answer to that isn’t a new material or a chemical process; it’s a reverse-logistics system — a community solution based on a phone number and a website — that keeps uniforms in use. And you’ll note that HOPE is building a closed loop, not a one-way consumption model. That’s an important shift. Families request uniforms through the website; the uniforms come back when kids outgrow them; and the brothers spot-check and then reissue them for another use.

Ethan and Desmond built in the return mechanism, and that’s important. It’s a blocker that many big players are running into. Think back a couple of weeks ago to my conversation with Amy Fernandez and Zach Lauer of Trex, the synthetic decking company. They struggle to recapture material because contractors don’t want to separate old Trex decking from the sprues and connectors used to make the deck in the first place. HOPE started by making returns routine and building a solution for getting the material back, and then communicating about the services in three languages, so that no family is shut out. They also refuse to treat what they’re doing as charity, focusing on raising the service experience for families, which is the basis for long-term engagement and long-term behavior change.

Ethan said his goal is distributed prosperity, and that echoes the idea shared by many of our guests, that sustainability can be a profitability lever rather than a cost center, even while creating social benefits. Ethan’s pitch is that HOPE is replicable — a model that other communities can use. As he said, anyone can do it, and the dream is HOPE in another garage, and then another. And I think Desmond’s comment that the biggest impact isn’t the uniforms diverted, it’s putting the idea in another kid’s head that they could do this too — that’s an important point. We can spread this virally. We’re building the systems for the next generation, not the last.

When I was growing up, there was a garbage can, and nothing else — no recycling bin, no curbside pickup. The recycling system that we know today, the one that we take for granted, didn’t exist even within living memory. It’s going to be built again by another generation, piece by piece, by people who start small and local and don’t wait for permission to do so. And, of course, we have to acknowledge this: the scale of challenges and adverse environmental impacts faced by this generation is daunting. But every system we now treat as permanent was once somebody’s improbable idea, run out of a garage, a church, a basement, or a classroom.

What Ethan and Desmond have proven at the scale of San Mateo County is that circular economies are waiting for people willing to do the unglamorous work of moving material back to where it’s needed. Ethan heads off to Wharton this fall with a thesis already tested in the field: the belief that business is a lever for prosperity. And that’s the important point. We’ll be watching where they take HOPE, and who copies them.

And if this conversation gave you something to think about, please share it with a young person in your life who’s sitting on a great idea. You folks are the amplifiers to spread more ideas and create less waste, and I hope you’ll take a moment to share one of the more than 550 episodes in our archive to help others get up to speed on recycling, circularity, and sustainable business. Please point your friends, family, coworkers, and the people you meet on the street to Sustainability in Your Ear on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or whatever purveyor of podcast goodness you prefer, and if you take a moment to leave a rating or review, that will go a long way toward helping others find the show.

Thanks for your support. I’m Mitch Ratcliffe. This is Sustainability in Your Ear, and we will be back with another innovator interview soon. In the meantime, folks, take care of yourself, take care of one another, and, of course, let’s all take care of this beautiful planet of ours. Have a green day.

The post Sustainability In Your Ear: Ethan and Desmond Hua Build HOPE for School Uniform Reuse appeared first on Earth911.

About one in four items Americans put in recycling bins does not belong there. This good-intentioned mistake leads to equipment damage, higher processing costs, contaminated bales that buyers reject, and injuries to workers who have to remove these items from conveyor belts.

Recyclers call this hopeful but mistaken behavior wishcycling. This means putting a questionable item in the blue bin and hoping the facility will sort it out. Most facilities cannot do this, and the cost of trying has gone up sharply. An August 2024 EPA assessment estimates that the country needs $36.5 to $43.4 billion in investment by 2030 to modernize a recycling system strained by contamination. Understanding what wishcycling actually costs, and who pays for it, is the first step to stopping it.

What is Wishcycling?

Wishcycling is the practice of putting items into a recycling bin when you’re not sure they’re accepted, hoping the system will sort it out.

The term appeared around 2015 and is attributed to Bill Keegan, president of Dem-Con Companies, a Shakopee, Minnesota waste and recycling operator. Star Tribune columnist Eric Roper revisited the term in a 2017 follow-up documenting industry efforts to coordinate recycling education across haulers and municipalities. The behavior is older than the word. Bowling balls, garden hoses, propane tanks, and Christmas lights have been arriving at material recovery facilities (MRFs) for decades.

The main change has been the cost. In the early 2000s, U.S. MRFs accepted fewer types of materials and sent most contaminated materials overseas in bales.

After China’s National Sword policy took effect in 2018, the global market for dirty recycling collapsed. Research from the University at Buffalo found that the amount of plastic landfilled in the U.S. increased by 23.2% in the year China’s import bans began to take effect. Processors now have to clean material to a much higher standard if they want to export it, or pay to landfill it themselves.

The Contamination Numbers Have Stayed Stubbornly High

National contamination figures vary by methodology and region, but the picture is consistent: a meaningful fraction of every recycling load is material that shouldn’t be there. Industry estimates put the share of items placed in residential bins that are not actually recyclable at around 25%, with municipalities reporting rates from below 10% to above 40% depending on local rules and education. Waste Management, the country’s largest hauler, reported its average inbound contamination at just over 17% in recent years, down from a longer-running 25% average, which represents progress, but is still well above the under-5% threshold most end markets demand.

Capture rates tell the other half of the story. The Recycling Partnership’s 2024 State of Recycling report found that only 21% of U.S. residential recyclable material is actually recycled. Roughly 76% is thrown out by households as ordinary trash, and another 3% is lost at the MRF, where contamination, broken glass, and unsortable mixed material wash out of the system before it can be baled and sold.

In other words, most recyclables never make it to a recycler. The ones that do often come with extra items like pizza grease, plastic bags, garden hoses, food residue, batteries, or propane canisters, which compromise the load.

What Contamination Costs the System

Wishcycling affects the finances of every part of the recycling process.

At the MRF, processing a ton of single-stream mixed recyclables cost $129 per ton in Oregon in 2022, according to a Crowe LLP audit cited in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s 2025 review of U.S. recycling. The same review says that after the National Sword contamination restrictions, Waste Management’s processing costs went up by about 15%, or roughly $13 per ton, across its 43 single-stream facilities. These costs include extra labor, optical sorters, screens, and slower processing when machines jam.

At the end of the process, contaminated bales sell for less, get downgraded, or are rejected completely. When a load is rejected, the MRF has to pay the landfill tipping fee instead of making a sale. The Environmental Research and Education Foundation’s 2024 tipping fee analysis puts the national average at $62.28 per ton, a 10% increase from 2023, which is the biggest year-over-year jump since 2022. In the Northeast, the average is even higher, around $80 per ton.

At the public level, municipalities and producers end up paying the bill. Oregon’s new producer responsibility program, which started in mid-2025, includes a contamination management fee that producers pay to MRFs. The fee is $341 per ton of eligible material for 2025 and 2026, rising to $432 in 2027. This shows that regulators recognize contamination has a cost, and that someone besides the MRF operator should pay for it.

The EPA’s August 2024 Recycling Infrastructure Assessment estimates that bringing U.S. recycling infrastructure up to a level that gives every household access to recycling on par with trash collection would require $36.5 to $43.4 billion in investment by 2030. That figure covers MRFs, packaging-specific recycling facilities, drop-off infrastructure, and composting and anaerobic digestion capacity. Reducing contamination is built into the agency’s assumptions; cleaner inputs are a precondition for the recovery gains the investment is meant to unlock.

The Human Cost: Recycling Workers Are Getting Hurt

Contamination is not just an economic problem. Items that do not belong in the recycling stream, such as propane tanks, lithium-ion batteries, medical sharps, broken glass, and plastic bags that tangle in screens, make sorting recyclables physically dangerous.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data released in January 2026 show that the injury rate for solid waste collection workers rose to 5.0 cases per 100 full-time-equivalent workers in 2024, up from 4.3 in 2023 and 4.7 in 2022. Workers at material recovery facilities were injured at a rate of 5.8 per 100 FTE — the highest the agency has reported for that category since at least 2020. For comparison, the rate across all private industry in 2024 was 2.3 per 100 FTE, the lowest since 2003. Sorting recycling is more than twice as dangerous as the average American job.

Fatalities show an even more serious side. The BLS counted eight MRF deaths in 2024, down from nine the year before, and 32 fatal injuries among solid waste collection workers, with 23 linked to transportation incidents. In 2024, refuse and recyclable material collection was the fifth-deadliest job in the country, behind only logging, fishing and hunting, roofing, and structural ironworking.

Lithium-ion batteries deserve a separate line. They are routinely placed in curbside recycling bins by residents who don’t know where else to put them, and they routinely catch fire when crushed by compactor trucks or sorting equipment. A 2024 report from the National Waste & Recycling Association and Resource Recycling Systems estimates more than 5,000 fires occur annually at U.S. recycling facilities, with the rate of catastrophic losses up 41% over the previous five years. The cost of insuring an MRF has climbed accordingly, driving recycling costs for citizens higher.

Why Wishcycling Persists

Three structural problems keep contamination rates high.

First, recycling rules are set locally, but packaging is made for the whole country. For example, a yogurt cup accepted in Seattle might be sent to landfill in Atlanta. The chasing arrows symbol and resin identification codes 1 through 7 show the type of plastic, not whether it can be recycled locally. According to a 2020 McKinsey survey cited in the National Academies’ 2025 report, two-thirds of U.S. consumers are confused by this difference.

Second, single-stream collection is convenient for residents and trucks, but it results in dirtier loads compared to dual- or multi-stream systems. Most U.S. municipal recycling programs now use single-stream collection, and the convenience that made it popular also allows more contamination.

Third, people often feel a strong moral urge to recycle, which can lead them to ignore instructions. A National Academies survey found that 78% of consumers check product labels to sort products correctly, and 82% trust the information on those labels. When labels are wrong or misleading, good intentions turn into contamination.

What You Can Do

Reducing wishcycling begins with individual choices at the bin, but it is most effective when combined with changes at the system level.

At the household level:

• Look up your local recycling guidelines and post them where you sort. Use the Earth911 recycling search by ZIP code and material to find what’s accepted near you.
• When in doubt, throw it out. One contaminated item can devalue an entire bale. A landfilled item costs the system less than a wishcycled one that has to be pulled out twice and sent to landfill anyway.
• Follow four common-sense rules: keep recyclables empty, clean, dry, and loose. Do not bag recyclables. Do not leave food residue. Avoid putting in items that tangle, such as hoses, cords, string lights, or plastic bags.
• Never put batteries, propane cylinders, electronics, or hazardous waste in curbside bins. Use a dedicated drop-off location. Most counties have hazardous waste collection days, and many retailers accept batteries.
• Treat plastic bags and film separately. Most municipal MRFs can’t process them; grocery stores and big-box retailers often have collection bins for them at the entrance.

At the community and policy level:

• Support extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws that shift the cost of packaging recyclability onto the companies that produce it. Several states have packaging EPR laws on the books; Oregon’s took effect in mid-2025.
• Ask local officials whether your municipality publishes contamination data and whether it audits MRF inbound loads. Cities that measure tend to manage.
• Push back on misleading recyclability labels. The Federal Trade Commission has been reviewing its Green Guides since 2022 but has not yet issued an update; public attention has been one of the main forces keeping the review going.

Wishcycling happens when good intentions meet a system that cannot handle them. The solution is not to try less, but to focus your efforts: learn what your program accepts, follow the rules even if it feels wasteful, and speak up about the policies that decide what gets made and labeled.in place.

The workers who sort our recyclables, the cities that pay for processing, and the bales that decide if material becomes a new product all depend on one thing: what you put in the bin.

Editor’s Note: Originally published on January 11, 2017, this article was substantially updated in June 2026.

The post The Reasons “Wishcycling” Is Always a Bad Idea appeared first on Earth911.

About 2.4 billion bottles of nail polish are sold around the world each year, with more than 600 million bought in the U.S. alone. Most Americans who use nail polish have eight to twelve bottles at home. When a color is no longer wanted, almost none of these bottles can go in the recycling or regular trash.

Nail polish contains solvents, plasticizers, and resins that are considered household hazardous waste (HHW), just like oil-based paints and pesticides. State and local rules, based on federal law, decide how it should be handled. The good news is that by 2026, more brand take-back programs and beauty recyclers are giving people better options than waiting for a rare HHW collection day.

Why That Little Bottle Counts as Hazardous Waste

A regular bottle of nail polish is about 70% solvents, usually ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, and sometimes toluene, mixed with film-formers, plasticizers, and pigments. These solvents are flammable, and some plasticizers are linked to reproductive harm. Dried polish acts like a thin layer of car paint. The U.S. EPA says household hazardous waste includes products that are ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Nail polish burns easily and is toxic, so many local programs, from Sonoma County to the City of London, list it as hazardous waste.

Three ingredients in nail polish have raised the most concern and are called the toxic trio: toluene, which can harm development and the nervous system; formaldehyde, which is a known cancer risk; and dibutyl phthalate (DBP), which can affect reproduction. The European Union banned DBP in cosmetics in 2004. The U.S. does not have a similar federal ban, but most big brands have changed their formulas. In 2023, California took an extra step by regulating toluene in nail products.

Changing the formula does not always remove all harmful chemicals. A 2026 study in Science of the Total Environment, using tests from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, looked at 178 nail products of different types. The researchers found 29 different chemicals, including toluene, formaldehyde, and methyl methacrylate. In 92% of the products, chemicals were found that were not listed on the label. Products for children had the same chemical levels as those for adults.

A separate study by California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control in 2012 found that 10 out of 12 products labeled as “toluene-free” still contained toluene, with levels ranging from 42 ppm to 177,000 ppm. Five out of seven products claiming to be free of the toxic trio actually contained at least one of those chemicals. Labels like “3-free,” “5-free,” and “10-free” are now common. These labels are not regulated by the federal government and often do not match what is found in lab tests.

Gel polish has its own set of chemical issues. In September 2025, the EU banned trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide (TPO), which helps gel polish harden under UV light, because it was classified as a category 1B reproductive toxicant. This ban stops both the sale and professional use of gels with TPO in all 27 EU countries. However, TPO is still legal in the U.S.

What Not to Do With Old Polish

Never pour leftover polish or remover down the sink, tub, or storm drain. The solvents can harm septic systems, damage wastewater treatment plants, and end up in rivers or lakes. Do not put liquid polish in your regular trash or recycling, since it can leak and harm sanitation workers or contaminate other materials. Also, do not try to burn polish to dry it out faster, because the solvents catch fire easily and the fumes are toxic.

Programs Worth Knowing About

Some brands and salon companies now have special take-back programs for nail polish. Most of these programs accept bottles from any brand, not just their own. While they do not cover every U.S. zip code and often require shipping, they are a better option than throwing polish in the landfill.

Côte Beauty Recycling Program. The Los Angeles-based clean-beauty brand partners with PACT Collective, a nonprofit focused on hard-to-recycle beauty packaging, to accept nail polish bottles from any brand by mail. Côte instructs consumers not to rinse the bottles because the polish is upcycled into industrial paint. Ship bottles to Côte Beauty Recycling Program, 11601 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1750, Los Angeles, CA 90025. The brand offers loyalty discounts on future purchases for participants.

Zoya Earth Month Exchange. Zoya, a New Jersey-based 10-free nail polish brand, runs an annual nail polish exchange each year around Earth Day. Recycling customers can order Zoya shades at a discount and mail in their unwanted polishes from any brand. Zoya disposes of the returned bottles through a commercial hazardous-waste handler and, in some years, donates usable polishes to local causes. Outside the promotion window, the exchange is not active, so timing matters.

Tenoverten. The clean-beauty nail salon Tenoverten partners with Chemwise, a chemical recycling and disposal company, to take old polish bottles of any brand at its salon locations. Chemwise stores the collected polish in temperature-controlled facilities and aggregates it into batches that are reformulated as paint for industrial equipment. Bottles, caps, and brushes are recovered separately.

PACT Collective beauty drop-offs. PACT Collective, founded in 2021 by Credo Beauty and MOB Beauty, now operates more than 3,300 drop-off bins at retailers including Ulta Beauty (about 1,350 U.S. stores), Credo Beauty, Sephora, and partner brand locations. Important caveat: PACT bins accept hard-to-recycle beauty packaging — pumps, tubes, caps, lipstick bullets — but explicitly exclude liquid nail polish and polish remover because they are hazardous. Empty, rinsed polish bottles may or may not be accepted depending on local rules. For full bottles, route through Côte’s mail-in program (which uses PACT infrastructure on the back end) or a municipal HHW facility.

Beauty packaging is one of the hardest types of waste to recycle. PACT says that over 120 billion beauty packages are made worldwide each year, but only about 9% get recycled. Most are too small, made of mixed materials, or too dirty for regular recycling. Liquid nail polish is especially tough to recycle, which is why special brand programs are important.

The Local HHW Route Still Works

If a mail-in program isn’t a fit, every U.S. county has some form of household hazardous waste handling — though access varies dramatically. Some counties operate year-round permanent facilities; others run one-day collection events two or three times a year; rural areas may require appointments or shared regional sites. Earth911’s recycling search directory is the most comprehensive U.S. database, listing more than 100,000 collection points across 350+ material categories. Enter a ZIP code and “nail polish” to find the nearest option.

Before driving over, call ahead. HHW facilities almost always restrict drop-offs to residents of the county or city that funds them, and they often limit the quantity accepted per visit. Some charge a small fee; many do not. Bring polish in its original bottle, sealed tight, and place bottles inside a sturdy box or bag in case of leaks. While there, it’s a sensible trip to combine: leftover paint, motor oil, garden chemicals, expired medications, and old batteries are typically accepted on the same visit.

Reducing the Waste Upstream

Throwing away polish should be the last resort. A better solution is to buy less polish and pick formulas with fewer hazardous ingredients from the start. Earth911 has a guide to safer nail polish alternatives, including water-based and lower-chemical brands. There are a few trends to keep in mind.

Mini-bottle subscriptions and seasonal color trends encourage people to buy and throw away polish more often. In the U.S., about 600 million bottles are sold each year, even though most polish users already have eight to twelve bottles at home. This demand adds up and increases waste.

Water-based polishes have much fewer solvents and are easier to take off without acetone, but they do not last as long and cannot fully replace gel polish. “10-free” or higher polishes are better than regular ones, but DTSC studies warn that the label does not tell the whole story. Ingredients can vary by brand, and unwanted chemicals may still be present even after reformulation.

Nail polish remover should be handled with the same care as nail polish. Most removers with acetone are flammable and are also considered hazardous waste. Let cotton balls and pads soaked with remover dry out completely in a well-ventilated area before throwing them away. Any leftover remover should be taken to the HHW facility with your old polish.

What You Can Do

• See if a brand-run program works for you. Côte Beauty takes bottles from any brand by mail all year. Zoya has an Earth Month exchange in April. Tenoverten salons accept walk-in drop-offs at their locations.
• Find the closest HHW collection site. Use Earth911’s recycling search to look up a household hazardous waste facility or event. Call first to check residency rules and how much you can bring.
• Try to buy less polish in the first place. If you already have ten bottles, adding a new color is more likely to become waste than a useful addition. Finish what you have before opening new bottles.
• Be skeptical when reading labels. Terms like “non-toxic,” “clean,” and “X-free” are not defined by the federal government. The Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database gives hazard scores for individual products and offers more detailed comparisons than marketing claims.
• Do not pour polish or remover down the drain. The solvents can harm wastewater treatment systems, damage septic fields, and end up in rivers or lakes.

Editor’s Note: Originally published on February 21, 2015, this article was updated in May 2026.

The post How to Properly Dispose of Nail Polish appeared first on Earth911.

A single load of synthetic laundry can shed hundreds of thousands of plastic microfibers into wastewater. Multiply that by the roughly 300 wash cycles an average U.S. household runs each year, and the case for rethinking laundry gets concrete fast—not just the detergent itself, but the chemistry that rinses out, the plastic that carries it home, and the residue that stays on fabric after the cycle ends.

We’re Orange House, a plant-based cleaning brand built around food-grade orange oil. We wanted to share how we think about the trade-offs in sustainable laundry—concentration, packaging, residue, and third-party testing—because the answers aren’t always the obvious ones, and because consumers deserve more than a “natural” label to go on.

Why we built our formulation around orange oil

We chose orange oil as a primary active ingredient because of its natural performance as a grease-cutting and stain-removing agent. For us, it represents a conscious move away from chemical-heavy conventional systems while still delivering the cleaning results families expect. Plant-based doesn’t have to mean underpowered.

But we also know that sustainability in laundry isn’t defined by a single ingredient. Every wash cycle contributes to environmental pressure in two main ways: the chemical substances released into wastewater, and the residues that stay behind on fabric in direct contact with skin. A good formulation has to address both.

Some laundry additives—especially fabric softeners and certain enhancers—can coat fabric surfaces and remain even after rinsing. The American Cleaning Institute has published guidance on how these products interact with fibers. We optimized our detergents to clean effectively and rinse away thoroughly, which reduces residue build-up over repeated washes.

Trace impurities: why we test for 1,4-dioxane

Product safety isn’t just about what goes into a formula—it’s also about what slips in during manufacturing. 1,4-dioxane is a well-known example. It’s not an ingredient; it’s a byproduct that can form during the production of certain surfactants and foaming agents, and the EPA classifies it as a likely human carcinogen.

Since December 31, 2023, New York State law has required that finished household cleansing products sold in the state contain no more than 1 ppm of 1,4-dioxane—the strictest such limit in the country. We test against that benchmark.

Our finished-product testing was performed by Intertek Testing Services Taiwan Ltd. using a method aligned with USP-NF 2023 <467> for residual solvents, analyzed by Headspace Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (Headspace GC-MS). Testing was conducted between March 20 and March 27, 2026, with a limit of quantitation of 0.5 ppm. Under those conditions, 1,4-dioxane was not detected in our final formulation.

For us, sustainable laundry means more than a “natural” label. It’s a commitment to minimizing total material usage and reducing cumulative chemical exposure over time—and being willing to publish the data that shows it.

The packaging trade-off most brands skip

Packaging is where a lot of laundry sustainability claims fall apart. Every detergent bottle eventually becomes waste, and highly diluted formulas compound the problem: more bottles per year, more transportation weight, more emissions per wash.

We addressed this with a concentrated format—including our 4-liter design—that delivers more washes per container. Increasing efficiency per use reduces the number of bottles a household goes through annually, which is a straightforward way to cut plastic waste without asking consumers to change their routines.

We’ll be candid about a trade-off other brands sometimes obscure. Paper-based detergent containers can appear more environmentally friendly, but many of them require internal plastic linings that make them difficult to recycle in practice. A single-material plastic that actually gets recycled in local infrastructure can have a better real-world outcome than a multi-material paper container that ends up in landfill. Neither option is perfect; we chose the one we believe performs best in the waste stream most of our customers live in.

Testing for sensitive skin

After washing, trace detergent components can remain embedded in textile fibers. For people with sensitive skin or atopic dermatitis, residual detergent has been linked to skin barrier irritation. That’s why residue behavior matters as much as the active ingredient list.

We subjected our detergent to a Human Repeat Insult Patch Test (HRIPT), a standard dermatological evaluation. The test ran for six weeks across 108 participants, including people with sensitive skin, and used repeated exposure followed by a controlled challenge phase. Under the test conditions, no signs of irritation or sensitization were observed.

Our goal isn’t to eliminate chemistry—it’s to optimize it. Our micellar orange oil technology combines citrus oil with molecular structures that encapsulate and remove dirt using less detergent per wash. Orange House detergents are dermatologically tested and carry the USDA Certified Biobased Product label at 85% biobased content, verified through the USDA BioPreferred Program’s ASTM D6866 testing protocol.

What to look for in any sustainable detergent

The broader point we want to leave you with: choosing a better detergent comes down to informed decision-making, not marketing claims. Whether or not you choose Orange House, these are the questions worth asking about any product on the shelf.

• Concentration: How many loads per container? More concentrated formulas mean less plastic, less shipping weight, and lower emissions per wash.
• Packaging honesty: Is the container actually recyclable in your local system—or is it multi-material packaging that sounds greener than it performs?
• Residue and rinse-out: Does the formula rinse cleanly, or does it coat fibers with additives you’ll end up wearing?
• Third-party testing: Has the finished product been tested for trace contaminants like 1,4-dioxane by an accredited lab? Is the data published?
• Independent certifications: Look for labels that require third-party verification—USDA Certified Biobased Product, EPA Safer Choice, or dermatological testing with disclosed protocols.

Innovation in formulation and packaging design can align real cleaning performance with environmental responsibility. We built Orange House to prove that. But even if the detergent you choose isn’t ours, asking these five questions pushes the category in the right direction—one load at a time.

About the Author

This sponsored article was written by the Orange House team. Orange House is a plant-based cleaning brand whose products are formulated around food-grade orange oil and tested to meet New York State’s 1,4-dioxane standard. Learn more at orangehouse.com.

The post Guest Idea: How to Choose a Laundry Detergent That’s Better for the Planet appeared first on Earth911.

From 1980 through 2024, the United States averaged 9 weather and climate disasters per year, each causing at least $1 billion in damage. Over the most recent five years, that average jumped to 23. The country is not facing the same weather it built its infrastructure to handle.

A new National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, released May 19, 2026, argues that the way to absorb the coming climate shocks is to stop treating energy and water as separate research problems. The report was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy to guide a proposed Regional Energy–Water Technology Pilot program and makes the case that severe weather, aging infrastructure, electrification, and the explosive growth of data centers have pushed the two systems to a point where failures in one cascade into the other.

Coordinated research across the water and energy infrastructure, the researchers say, is essential for reliability.

How Severe Weather Couples Two Systems Into One Failure Mode

Energy depends on water, and water depends on energy. While this sounds simple, the report shows that the connection between them has become fragile in reality.

Power plants use water for cooling. Hydropower releases water to make electricity. Drinking water systems need electricity to pump, treat, and pressurize water. Wastewater plants also need electricity to prevent pollution in rivers and bays. If any of these links break under stress, the problem spreads to the other systems.

The committee points to Winter Storm Uri in February 2021 as a key example. When ERCOT’s grid failed in Texas, it did more than leave millions without power. It also shut down water treatment and distribution, resulting in boil-water notices for millions of Texans, and left some communities without safe water for days. The report says events like this are likely to happen more often.

The mechanisms behind that expectation are documented across the rest of the report:

• Thermal power vulnerability. From 2000 through 2015, 43 U.S. power plants reported shutdowns due to high water temperatures, most occurring during summer heat waves, drought, or both. Nuclear plants accounted for 25 of those shutdowns.
• Future capacity losses. Modeling cited in the report projects that future water availability and rising temperatures will decrease U.S. national thermoelectric power capacity by an average of 2.5 percent, with individual plant impacts ranging from a 31 percent decrease to a 6 percent increase, depending on location.
• Saltwater intrusion. In South Florida, sea-level rise combined with groundwater pumping is pushing saltwater into freshwater aquifers, forcing the use of energy-intensive reverse osmosis to produce drinking water. The climate impact becomes a permanent energy cost.
• Wildfire feedback loops. Wind-driven contact between vegetation and overhead power lines sparks wildfires. Utilities respond with public safety power shutoffs. The shutoffs strain water systems that need electricity to maintain pressure. Firefighting depletes reservoirs. After the fire, runoff carrying combustion byproducts and damaged pipe materials degrades water quality for months.
• Compound drought and heat. Drought and extreme heat now co-occur more often, simultaneously raising electricity demand for cooling and reducing water available for thermoelectric generation and hydropower. Each stress amplifies the other.

What the Report Recommends

The committee’s main recommendation is for the Department of Energy to create a group of regional pilot projects. Instead of single demonstrations, these would be coordinated investments to test how integrated energy–water solutions work in different parts of the country. For example, drought in the Southwest is very different from flooding in the Gulf Coast or grid failures during cold weather in the Plains.

Two recommendations focus on preparing for severe weather. Recommendation 2-3 says pilot projects should clearly consider the effects of possible extreme events. Recommendation 2-5 goes further by asking DOE to make proactive risk management at the energy–water intersection a main goal of the program. This includes investing in risk assessment, scenario planning, and early warning tools.

The committee is clear about what is at risk. Without careful scenario planning and investment in coordinated solutions, the report says that cascading failures will increasingly threaten economic stability, public health, environmental protection, and national security.

Why This Recommendation Is Vulnerable Right Now

The proposed pilot program falls under DOE’s Hydropower and Hydrokinetic Office, which was renamed from the Water Power Technologies Office in early 2026 and reorganized into the new Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation. The office’s framing under the current administration emphasizes affordability, reliability, and energy dominance rather than climate adaptation.

This approach brings both an opportunity and a risk. The opportunity is that an energy–water pilot program can be supported for its reliability and economic benefits, without needing to rely on climate-change arguments to gain political support. The risk is that the climate-related research priorities identified by the National Academies committee could be left out of the program if no one outside DOE advocates for them.

The NOAA billion-dollar disasters database, which provided key evidence for the report, was discontinued in May 2025. Climate Central now manages the dataset, but losing the federal version shows how fragile the data infrastructure has become.

It is difficult for research recommendations to carry their full weight when the supporting evidence is being defunded.

What You Can Do

Right now, public pressure on Congress and industry trade groups can influence whether the pilot program is funded, designed effectively, and focused on the climate-related risks described in the report. Here are some concrete actions, listed from most to least impactful:

Contact Your Members of Congress

• Find your representatives. Use house.gov to find your House member by ZIP code, and senate.gov for your two senators.
• Request three specific actions: full funding for the DOE Hydropower and Hydrokinetic Office’s regional energy–water pilot program in the next fiscal year; clear language in the appropriations report that directs the program to include the National Academies report’s Recommendations 2-3 and 2-5 on extreme-event risk; and restoration of federal funding for the NOAA billion-dollar disaster tracking and the climate and infrastructure data programs that researchers, utilities, and insurers rely on.
• Make your message local. Members of Congress pay more attention to issues that affect their constituents directly. Mention the energy and water utilities in your area, recent disasters your region has faced, and the local economic impacts. A letter specific to your district is more effective than a general petition.
• Target the relevant Congressional committees. If your member sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, or either chamber’s Appropriations Committee Energy and Water Development subcommittee, your contact carries extra weight.

Engage Industry Where It Already Has Standing

The report often points out that professional associations are some of the most trusted ways to move energy–water research from policy into real-world practice. Members of these groups can advocate for change from within.

• If you work in or with a water utility, ask whether your utility is engaging with the American Water Works Association’s Water 2050 initiative and its sustainability and resilience strategic priority. Urge utility leadership to file public comment in support of the DOE pilot program through AWWA’s federal advocacy channels.
• If you work in or with an electric utility, groups like the Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association all have federal advocacy programs. Supporting coordinated energy–water research matches their members’ interests in reliability and stable rates, especially as data centers increase demand.
• If you are a utility customer, remember that public utility commissions and city councils decide water and electric rates and approve investments in resilience. Speaking up at resource planning hearings is one of the few times residents can directly influence how utilities prepare for severe weather. Support the Research and Data Infrastructure
• Defend the data. Climate Central’s takeover of the billion-dollar disasters database is useful but does not substitute for the federal data infrastructure that utilities, insurers, and grid operators depend on. Write to your representatives in support of restoring NOAA’s climate and weather data programs in the next appropriations cycle.
• Use and reference the report. The National Academies report is free to download. If you work in planning, journalism, policy, or research, its approach to viewing energy-sheds alongside watersheds offers a helpful perspective that can influence local decisions.
• Pay attention to your state’s utility regulators. State public utility commissions are now key places where decisions about resilience investments for extreme events are made. Their meetings are open to the public, their decisions depend on public comments, and they often do not get the attention they deserve considering the money they manage.

The National Academies committee chose its words carefully when talking about climate change. While the word climate appears often, the report focuses on risk, extreme events, changing conditions, and resilience in uncertain times. No matter what language is used in future funding debates, the facts remain: heat waves and droughts are happening more often and together, hurricanes are getting stronger faster, wildfires are starting earlier and burning larger, and the country’s energy and water infrastructure was built for a climate that is now gone.

The report is valuable because it goes beyond just describing the problem. It offers a specific federal solution: a regional pilot program at DOE that can help close the gap. Whether this program is created as the committee intended will partly depend on how many people push for it.

The post Energy and Water Need to Be Researched Together: Contact Your Representatives appeared first on Earth911.

Each year, over 11 million metric tons of plastic end up in the ocean, which is like dumping a garbage truck full of plastic every minute. For years, we’ve known that marine animals eat this debris, but no one had measured exactly how much plastic it takes to kill them. Dr. Erin Murphy, who leads ocean plastics research at the Ocean Conservancy, is the principal author of a major study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Her team analyzed more than 10,000 necropsies from 95 species of seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals worldwide. Earth911’s summary describes this critical study, which found lethal plastic thresholds that could change how we view the plastic crisis.

The study measured how deadly different types of plastic are to sea life, which makes the results especially useful for policymakers. Each finding suggests a clear policy action, such as banning balloon releases like Florida has done, banning plastic bags as in California’s SB 54, or improving how fishing gear is marked and recovered. Still, Erin points out that focusing only on certain plastics is not enough. Her team found that even small amounts of any plastic can be dangerous. As she says, “At the end of the day, there is too much plastic in the ocean,” and we need big changes at every stage of the plastics life cycle, from production to disposal.

There’s encouraging evidence that interventions work. Communities in Hawaii conducted large-scale beach cleanups and saw the Hawaiian monk seal population rebound. A study published in Science confirmed that bag bans reduce plastic on beaches by 25 to 47%. And Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup, now in its 40th year, removed more than a million plastic bags from beaches last year. These actions address a parallel crisis in human health that is building from the same pollution source. Most of the microplastics now found in humans and around the world began as the same macroplastics that are killing puffins and turtles. As Erin puts it, “I do view this all as part of the same crisis.”

You can read the full study at pnas.org and learn more about Ocean Conservancy’s work at oceanconservancy.org.

Share this episode with a friend.

• Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
• Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube

Editor’s Note: This episode originally aired on February 9, 2026.

Interview Transcript

Mitch Ratcliffe  0:00

Hello, good morning, good afternoon or good evening, wherever you are on this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society, and I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation today.

We’re going to talk about ocean plastics. Every year, more than 11 million metric tons of plastic enters the ocean. That’s the equivalent of dumping a garbage truck worth of plastic every minute. And we’ve known for decades that marine animals eat this debris. But until recently, no one had systematically quantified how much plastic it actually takes to kill them.

And the answer is, it turns out, disturbing. Less than three sugar cubes worth of plastic increases an Atlantic puffin’s risk of dying by 90%. A loggerhead turtle reaches the same threshold at about two baseballs worth, and for a harbor porpoise, a mass of plastic roughly the size of a soccer ball can kill. More concerning, at the 50% mortality level — that is, where half the animals who consume the plastic die — the volumes that kill them shrink to less than one sugar cube for a puffin and half a baseball for a loggerhead turtle.

Our guest today, Dr. Erin Murphy, is the manager of ocean plastics research at the Ocean Conservancy, and lead author of the study that produced these findings, published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Her team’s research analyzed more than 10,000 necroscopies across 95 species of seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals worldwide. It’s the most comprehensive assessment yet of how different plastic types — soft film like bags, hard fragments, synthetic rubber from balloons, and abandoned fishing gear — translate into mortality across marine life.

The findings matter beyond ocean conservation. A 2024 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found microplastics embedded in human arterial plaque of cardiovascular surgery patients, and those with detectable plastics were 4.5 times more likely to suffer a heart attack, stroke, or death in the following three years. The same polymers killing seabirds and sea turtles — polyethylene, PVC, and their chemical additives — are found in human blood, lungs, liver, and placenta.

Dr. Murphy’s research offers policymakers what they’ve been asking for: science-based data to inform decisions about which plastics to regulate and how aggressively to act. Nearly half the animals in her study that had ingested plastics were threatened or endangered species, and with global negotiations on a binding plastic treaty continuing and extended producer responsibility programs expanding across the United States, the timing of this research could not be more relevant.

So we’ll talk with Erin about what her team found, why balloon fragments are amongst the deadliest items for seabirds, how fishing gear became the leading killer of marine animals, and what her research means for the humans who share a planet and a body burden with these species. You can read the full study at pnas.org and find Ocean Conservancy’s work at oceanconservancy.org. Ocean Conservancy is all one word, no space, no dash. Oceanconservancy.org.

So how much plastic is too much for wildlife and for humans? Let’s find out right after this brief commercial break.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Welcome to the show, Erin. How you doing today?

Erin Murphy  3:44

I’m doing well. Thank you so much for having me.

Mitch Ratcliffe  3:46

Well, thank you for joining me, and for this really important research. It was a fascinating read. We wrote it up, and I’m really pleased that you would join us to talk about it today. So can you explain what made this study different from previous attempts to quantify plastics’ lethality to marine life?

Erin Murphy  4:01

Yeah. So first, I’ll specify that we focus specifically on macroplastics, which are just plastics that are bigger than five millimeters in length. There’s more research on how microplastics, which are these smaller plastics, can harm animals, because scientists can study these in laboratory settings. Of course, it’s not feasible or ethical to feed animals like whales, sea turtles, or seabirds large plastic items and study what happens to them in the lab. And so as scientists, we really have to depend on opportunistically collecting dead animals in the environment and looking at what’s inside them to understand what’s happening with these bigger plastics.

And so previous research has looked at these sorts of threats as well, but they focused on fewer species, on smaller geographic areas, and they didn’t differentiate by plastic type, like hard plastics versus soft plastics. So they were really important for laying the groundwork for our larger study. But we were actually able to look globally and look at a broader set of species, and also differentiate by these different plastic types and by species size as well, which allowed us to get at some of these species-level understandings.

Mitch Ratcliffe  5:13

So the unfortunate truth is, we are feeding these animals this material by throwing it all away. That is a stark way of starting this conversation. And you use a lot of illustrative examples, like three sugar cubes worth of macroplastic can kill a puffin. How did you arrive at those kind of volume-based comparisons, and why is translating your data into those relatable measures important?

Erin Murphy  5:37

Yeah, so when we did this in the study, we actually looked at the influence of volume based on the animal’s body length. So we reported all of this as a deadly volume per centimeter of body length. But telling people 0.098 centimeters cubed per centimeter doesn’t really mean anything to them. And honestly, when I first got those centimeter-based thresholds, it didn’t mean that much to me.

And so we thought that choosing some iconic species that people could picture would help, but still saying, you know, three centimeters cubed of plastic kills a puffin, or 220 centimeters cubed of plastic kills a loggerhead, doesn’t really paint a picture in people’s heads, and three sugar cubes or a baseball are much easier to picture.

So we chose to do this because I think when people can picture these items, they can really understand that volume, and people do use plastic every single day, and so having volumes like that to compare to allows them to think about how little plastic can kill animals, especially when we compare it to how much we produce or use globally.

Mitch Ratcliffe  6:42

Can you put in context how long it takes for a puffin, for instance, to eat that much plastic? What do they eat in a day or a week generally?

Erin Murphy  6:52

Yeah, that’s a great question, and it’s actually the next step in our research. So to estimate the risk that something poses to wildlife, we have to understand two things. One is your question: how likely are they to be exposed to this threat? The second is, if they are exposed to it, how likely is it to harm them? And so this research really focused entirely on that second piece.

But to fully understand risk, we have to dig deeper into the first part, and that’s what we call likelihood of exposure. And so for puffins specifically, there’s not a lot of research, but we do know a lot about what species are eating, and we know that different species are more or less likely to eat plastic based on where they live, what they eat, and how they feed. So we’re really excited to be working with some really amazing researchers over the next few years to think about how we can connect exposure for these animals to the lethality and understand risk in a more comprehensive way.

Mitch Ratcliffe  7:48

I want to get a sense of what you found. You mentioned in the study that one whale can have a three-gallon bucket in its stomach. What’s the range of objects that you encountered as you were doing the research?

Erin Murphy  8:00

Yeah, this was pretty unbelievable to me, actually, some of the things that we saw in animals, and I’ll just give a few items that stood out to me. But there’s many more. Part of an oar handle from a plastic — or a plastic belt, webbing from the back of a lawn chair, a koozie, rubber pencil topper, fake Easter grass, ice cream tubs, single-use coffee pods, bungee cords, tons of different types of gear, ropes, nets, fishing line.

But I’ll just illustrate kind of how dramatic this can look with one example that really stood out to me, on a sperm whale that researchers in Spain reported on. Sperm whales feed very deep in the ocean, and they use echolocation to find their food. So it may be particularly hard for them to tell plastic from prey. And in this case, it seems like an entire greenhouse washed into the ocean, and this sperm whale happened upon it. It had plastic film cover material for a greenhouse in its stomach, along with a flower pot, a piece of a hose, a plastic burlap sack, plastic craft, and plastic spray bottle, and even fake plastic mulch in its stomach. And unfortunately, this was one of the individuals that did lose its life to plastic ingestion.

Mitch Ratcliffe  9:23

That’s — I mean, that’s shocking in so many ways. You found that one in five animals had plastic in their digestive tract when they died. Was this percentage higher or lower, and in the context of your previous answer, more or less shocking than you expected?

Erin Murphy  9:45

Yeah, I think, you know, it was higher than I expected. And it’s funny, because all of our research was based on previous research. It was a meta-analysis. So we collected data from existing literature. And I’d seen some, you know, similar numbers then reported at more local scales. But I think it still really shocked me to look at so many studies and see, you know, for sea turtles, that was one in two. Sea turtles had plastic in their gut. And for seabirds, one in three.

And when thinking about that at a global scale, that felt higher to me than it should be, and I suppose it’s because it is higher than it should be. These really are high ingestion rates. And for some of these individuals, the bulk amount of plastic in their gut, like that sperm whale, is particularly shocking.

Mitch Ratcliffe  10:35

I want to step back just for a second and talk about how long this kind of research has been going on. Because when I was a child, oceanography was very much in its infancy. How aggressively are we trying to understand what we’re doing to the ocean environment at this point, and where do you think we are in terms of the long arc of beginning to reach that understanding?

Erin Murphy  10:58

Yeah, I don’t know if we’ll ever fully understand it, which is one of the things that makes studying the ocean so interesting. It’s so complex and vast. But, you know, we’ve come a long way, and for plastic pollution in particular, the ’70s was really when we started seeing those first reports of animals eating plastics. You know, and it’s been 50 years since then. Now we have evidence of plastic ingestion in more than 1,300 species, and we’re starting to be able to get at these really more complicated analyses that help us understand like the potential quantity that kills an animal, like this one, or what does that mean possibly for populations.

I think the thing that’s been really impressive in the last decade, though, is how much research has been done on plastics. In particular, 10 years ago, roughly, the first study came out by Jambeck et al. that gave us an idea of the amount of plastic that was getting into the environment. And since then, we have learned so much as a scientific community, and people are working really hard to try to understand what these vast amounts of ocean plastic mean for ecosystems, for human health, for fishing industries and other marine industries that really depend on a healthy ocean, and we’ve been doing a lot of research on how to address it. So I don’t think we’ll ever fully understand everything that we’re doing to the ocean, but I think we’re working hard as a scientific community to get there.

Mitch Ratcliffe  12:38

It’s really disturbing to think about, because plastic in the 1970s was really only — was 10 years into widespread use, and widespread compared to today is nothing, since half the plastic we’ve manufactured in history has been made since 2002. So it sounds like what we’re really delving into now is a real-time accounting of the damage that we’re doing. How do you as a scientist think about what your goal is in terms of bringing the consequences of our decisions back to the public so we can think about it?

Erin Murphy  13:11

Yeah, that’s why I feel very lucky to work with an organization like Ocean Conservancy. We conduct research that we know governments and decision makers need to help address these problems, and we have a policy team and a communications team that are really well trained on helping us bring this research to the decision makers.

And the type of research we’re doing here, in particular on risk assessments, is something that governments are really craving. They want to set science-based targets as they try to address plastic pollution, and part of that is understanding environmental thresholds that we should be aiming for to better protect marine wildlife, to better protect marine ecosystems.

And so when we do research like this, a big part is getting it into the literature, in this sense to the scientific community, but it’s also working with our policy team and our communications team to make sure the public hears about it, and to make sure that decision makers nationally and abroad hear about the work that we’re doing, and can use this to help inform science-based targets that they’re setting right now.

Mitch Ratcliffe  14:22

So one of the materials that you found was most dangerous is rubber, particularly from balloons. It emerged as especially deadly for seabirds, where you estimated that just six pea-sized pieces could create a 90% mortality rate. What’s happening physiologically with balloon fragments that make them so lethal?

Erin Murphy  14:45

Yeah, so if you think about the design of a balloon, they’re super stretchy, and they’re long and they’re thin, and even the fragments seem to have this shape. And so they get stuck at those junctures in the gastrointestinal tract, like between the stomach and the intestine. And the gut moves things along through these wave-like contractions. And it seems like these stretchy materials just kind of stretch with it, and so the gut just isn’t able to move them through as easily. And we see similar things for those plastic bags as well.

Mitch Ratcliffe  15:20

Well, you also point out that sea turtles appear to mistake plastic bags for jellyfish. Is there anything we could do in terms of the chemistry of soft plastics or the appearance of soft plastics to make them less attractive to sea life?

Erin Murphy  15:35

Yeah, I don’t know if there’s a way that we can make them less attractive that I know of. And it’s unfortunate, because we know there are a lot of plastic bags in the environment compared to other plastics. Every year, Ocean Conservancy organizes the International Coastal Cleanup, and plastic bags are consistently in the top 10 items we see most frequently.

That being said, we do know ways of keeping plastic bags out of the ocean and protecting turtles in that way. And so every year — or in this last year, during our Coastal Cleanup — we collected, or our partner organizations collected, more than 1 million bags off our beaches. So this is really important for helping protect ocean animals, because those bags are already very close to their environment, and by removing them from beaches, we prevent them from getting into the ocean.

We also know that plastic bag bans, like the policy that California just implemented, are very effective in reducing the threat that plastic bags pose to marine wildlife, and help by preventing them from getting into the environment in the first place. So there was a recent study published in Science that actually showed that communities that implement bag bans, whether that’s a city, a state, or a country, do meaningfully reduce the amount of plastic bags that end up on beaches by 25 to 47%. So that’s a really significant reduction, and just provides further evidence that we know how to address some of these threats. We have ways of measuring if policies are effective, and it’s really about preventing these bags from getting into the environment in the first place.

Mitch Ratcliffe  17:18

Another example of really short-term human thinking is the impact of fishing gear pollution. Can you talk a little about what you found in terms of what’s being tossed overboard by the boats that are hoping to treat the ocean as an ongoing resource and source of living?

Erin Murphy  17:36

Yeah. I mean, I think a lot of the fishing gear that’s lost is lost on accident. Fishing gear can be really expensive for fishermen. Like crab pots can cost thousands of dollars. And so these are very valuable resources for fishers, and they’re expensive to replace.

But unfortunately, one of the challenges with fishing in turbid and wavy environments around storms, especially with things that are set, is that some gear does get lost. And we did see interactions and ingestion of fishing gear by many of these animals. And partially that’s because gear attracts prey species. So we know that for some animals, they’re more likely to interact with fishing gear, and this isn’t just ingestion, but also being entangled in fishing gear, because, you know, that gear is still fishing. And for a lot of these bigger species, fish are their prey, and so they’re also being drawn to these devices, or this lost gear that might have their food in it.

Mitch Ratcliffe  18:44

And your study didn’t look at the external plastic lethality, it was only that which was consumed. So we don’t really fully understand what the consequences of, say, for instance, a net lost at sea is for the ocean yet? Or do we?

Erin Murphy  19:01

Yeah, we have — there’s some studies that have looked at this, but this is actually another study we’re working on. So one of the next papers we’re working on right now is looking at entanglement lethality, and that really will be important for understanding the impacts of plastic pollution together, because ingestion and entanglement, when we talk about these bigger plastics, are the two main threats that we see.

Mitch Ratcliffe  19:24

I feel like we’ve got our bearings and can have a really productive conversation. But folks, we’re going to take a quick commercial break. We’ll be right back.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Now, let’s get back to my discussion with the Ocean Conservancy’s Dr. Erin Murphy, who led a groundbreaking study about the lethal effects of macroplastics in sea life. Erin, nearly half the animals that you studied that had ingested plastics were already listed as threatened. Is plastic pollution accelerating extinction risk, and what species do you feel are most endangered?

Erin Murphy  20:03

Yeah, that’s a great question. Right now, there’s not a lot of research yet on population-level effects of plastic pollution, and our study is really helping build that information out. But it’s just very difficult to understand what’s happening to populations that often we have trouble studying in the first place.

Still, for many marine species, the IUCN Red List notes plastic pollution as a significant threat. Six out of seven sea turtle species are threatened. We saw really high ingestion rates for sea turtles. We know that 5% of the turtles in our data set died from plastic ingestion.

So I think there is a lot of evidence suggesting that this could be contributing to extinction risk. And there are some studies that look at very specific populations that we know are vulnerable, like the Hawaiian monk seal, that have found that plastic pollution is contributing to extinction risk.

And the hopeful piece in the Hawaiian monk seal case was actually that as communities started doing large-scale cleanup efforts in the Hawaiian Islands, they actually saw a rebound of that population. So again, just a reminder that even though we know that this is something that is posing a threat to marine species we really care about, it’s also evidence that targeted and effective intervention strategies can be really important in helping some of these species rebound.

Mitch Ratcliffe  21:34

That’s encouraging. So it isn’t as though we’re doomed, or that nature is doomed. We can intervene in our behavior today and make a change for the better in the future. How does the Ocean Conservancy encourage people to do that?

Erin Murphy  21:49

Yeah, so there was a study that we — some of us co-authored, and the Ocean Conservancy supported — that came out in 2020 that looked at what we would really need to do on a global scale to reduce plastic pollution in the ocean meaningfully enough to hit some of our potential targets. And in this case, we were thinking about just returning to 2010 annual leakage rates into the environment.

And what we found is that we really need sweeping change to our relationship with plastic and our waste management systems. And so we found that to achieve this goal, we would need a 40% reduction in plastic production globally. We would need waste management to reach levels of 98 to 99%, depending on the income of the country. And we would need, annually, 40% of waste that gets into the environment to then be cleaned up.

And at Ocean Conservancy, we really work on policy efforts in all three of those big buckets. And so we have the International Coastal Cleanup, but we also work on upstream policies with our policy teams at the sub-national, national, and international levels to try to work towards some of those goals of reducing plastic production and better managing the plastic waste that we do use.

Mitch Ratcliffe  23:10

You used the phrase “our relationship with plastic,” which is an interesting concept. In 2024, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that microplastics were found in human arterial plaque, and that resulted in much higher risk for cardiovascular events. Do you see what you’re studying as a parallel crisis, or the same crisis, just in a different species?

Erin Murphy  23:35

Yeah, I view that — you know, so they were looking specifically at microplastics, and we focused on macroplastics in this study. That being said, most microplastics that are in the environment are breaking off of these larger macroplastics. So in that sense, I do view this all as part of the same crisis, and I think we need to think about all of the harms that plastic materials are causing to human health, to animal health, and to sociocultural outcomes like our marine and terrestrial industries that are affected by plastic pollution, and we need to think about comprehensive policies that are addressing all of those harms.

Mitch Ratcliffe  24:17

Are there studies that are showing the same types of impacts from plastic in human and non-human species that we can use to start to tell the story in that same illustrative way that you did with the sugar cube analogy, so that people really take this seriously? I mean, the problem with our society is that we’re accustomed to throwing everything away.

Erin Murphy  24:40

Yeah, so there’s a lot of really great research that’s being done on microplastic exposure in other marine and aquatic organisms, and those are more similar to what’s happening in humans. But that human research, and the research on sort of sub-lethal microplastic risks — like the risks to cardiovascular systems, nervous system, gastrointestinal tracts — those are all pretty new, and so this body of research is really building, and I think we’re going to learn a lot in the next decade.

Mitch Ratcliffe  25:14

Do you see an acceleration of your ability to make those kinds of conclusions — well-grounded conclusions — emerging as a result of the advent of something like artificial intelligence? Are we at the dawn of a scientific revolution?

Erin Murphy  25:33

You know, that’s a good question. I don’t know in what ways AI will change the way that we’re doing research. Definitely, the rate at which we are producing research has increased. There’s more people working on these issues, and the scientific process is really just about iterating as a community and building on what we know. And so I think what we’re seeing here is a large-scale interest in this plastics issue and a big concern by the scientific community and by the public.

And as we learn more, we can answer more complicated questions. And so I was only able to do my work because over the last five decades, people have been studying what plastic is in the animals and reporting on that, and we have thousands of published papers now that tell us about what animals are consuming. And each one of those papers is really important in producing this bigger picture. And as we have, you know, similarly more studies on these sort of individual systems and humans, using model organisms like mice, we will be able to do the same sort of thing of painting this bigger picture for humans as well.

Mitch Ratcliffe  26:48

So as we get this higher-resolution view of what we’re doing, both to the planet and to ourselves, how does Ocean Conservancy potentially use those storytelling opportunities to get us to think about things like plastic bans, or the impact of extended producer responsibility on not just what ends up in the environment, but what we design so that it doesn’t end up in the environment in the future? It’s a big, complicated, multifaceted story. Where are we going?

Erin Murphy  27:17

Yeah, that is true, and I am not the policy expert at Ocean Conservancy, but the work that they do is amazing. And they, you know, they go and they talk to the public about these issues and educate the public through blogs and other resources to make sure that people understand the scale of the problem. And they work really closely with local decision makers who are interested in addressing these problems and help them develop bills, help them build support for bills. And, you know, we’ll meet with legislators and other leaders to help them kind of understand the reason that these policies are useful.

So Ocean Conservancy in the last 10 years has done a lot of work on state bills, like helping to push forward California’s SB 54, or specific bills that are targeting problematic plastics. Like recently, Florida passed a balloon release ban. Ocean Conservancy was also really involved in pushing that.

And I think we have seen with plastic pollution — what, for me, one of the things that’s most comforting in studying plastic pollution is actually that people do really seem to care about this issue and do seem willing to make change. So when people find out what I research — strangers — they always tell me about what they’re doing to reduce their plastic footprint, and I think that’s just a sign that there is appetite for change, and people want to understand how to do it. And as an organization, we’re just trying to leverage that passion and that stewardship that does kind of inherently exist in people, especially when they see the plastics that they’re using, and use that and sound science to help develop policies that can actually make a change on this issue.

Mitch Ratcliffe  29:06

Building on what you mentioned a moment ago, based on your findings about which plastics are the most lethal, it sounds like it’s a blend. But should policymakers prioritize specific materials, or just look at broad categories? No more of this type.

Erin Murphy  29:23

I think we need to do both. So we did find that different plastics pose different levels of risk, and I think there’s policies that are smaller and easier to implement, like balloon release bans and bag bans, that are effective in targeting some of these problematic plastics specifically. You know, using that Hawaiian monk seal example as well, having very targeted and strategic cleanups can be really important for protecting animals at sea turtle nesting beaches or seabird nesting areas. There’s these areas that we know are of particular importance for animals.

But still, the total plastic thresholds that we found were also low, and we see all types of plastics in these animals. So at the end of the day, there is too much plastic in the ocean, and we do need sweeping reforms along the entire plastics life cycle, from production to management to disposal, to meaningfully address this issue and protect our oceans.

And it takes longer to implement these policies because it does require some pretty extensive system-wide changes. But I think policies like California’s SB 54, which aims to reduce 25% of single-use plastics used, that’s really a step in the right direction. And so our policy team is on the front lines of making sure that that bill is fully implemented and that we understand the benefits of that policy by monitoring outcomes and effectiveness of it.

Mitch Ratcliffe  30:56

You mentioned earlier that on the International Coastal Cleanup Day, which is a distributed event all over the world but a day, they collected more than a million plastic bags last year. Is the goal in the long term to no longer need to do those cleanups? Or do you anticipate that we’re always going to be needing to do those cleanups?

Erin Murphy  31:18

Yeah, I think unfortunately, at this point, it’s hard to imagine a world where cleanups aren’t necessary. I think when we did that study in 2020, that was led by Lau et al., it was pretty alarming to see how much we would have to reduce plastic production and how well we would have to manage waste to no longer need cleanups at all, and we really did find that cleanups needed to be an important part of this solution.

And there’s already a lot of legacy plastics in the ocean. So I think as far as we can look forward, cleanups will always be an important part of the suite of solutions that we use.

They’re also really effective for monitoring what’s happening in our ocean. So I mentioned earlier that study that was published in Science that showed that plastic bag bans are effective. We were really excited to see that they actually used Ocean Conservancy International Coastal Cleanup data to do that analysis, and it really just emphasizes the value of citizen science. When you go out and collect data during a cleanup on your beach, we can see what changes occur through time in terms of what debris you’re seeing, and that helps us better understand whether it’s targeted policies or these broader policies, if they’re being effective or not.

Mitch Ratcliffe  32:42

What does the Ocean Conservancy do to help people do citizen science beyond the International Coastal Cleanup?

Erin Murphy  32:49

So that program has been going on for 40 years, and that’s really, in terms of citizen science, our main body of work. But we are interested in having citizens engage in other ways. So we often have — you can sign up for our newsletter and get information about opportunities to call your senators or write your senators or legislators about important ocean issues that are coming up.

And we also just have a lot of educational material so that people can start their own cleanup events, or find cleanup events to participate in, so that individuals can be engaged in being part of the solution.

Mitch Ratcliffe  33:31

You’ve mentioned a couple of items of research that you are beginning to pursue now. But if you had unlimited resources for the remainder of your career, what would you like to investigate and build on those findings with?

Erin Murphy  33:44

Yeah, it’s pretty hard to imagine unlimited resources, especially now, I know. But yeah, you know, we already started working on answering some of these next questions that are remaining for us, and I’m really excited about the work that we’re going to be doing over the next three to five years. And I will not be surprised if, you know, this body of work, trying to understand what’s happening to ocean animals, becomes a career-long question for me.

But in the short term, the things we’re really trying to get at is, first, that entanglement piece, which you mentioned — what is the lethality of plastic entanglement. And we also just launched a working group with scientists from all over the world to take what we have learned about the lethality of plastic ingestion and to build out, include what we are learning right now in our research about entanglement, and then bring in that exposure piece.

So that question you asked earlier about how much plastic is a puffin eating, how often does it have a lethal dose — that’s really what we want to get at. We want to know if we have an idea of what’s in the environment, how likely is that to have population-level effects for species? How likely are they to eat a lethal dose? How likely are they to die? And are we worried about populations because of this?

And right now, governments around the world are really trying to determine how to effectively address plastic pollution, and these sorts of comprehensive risk assessments are really helpful in setting targets. And so that’s really what I want to keep getting at: How can we take everything we know and help decision makers better understand, you know, a reasonable goal? Because a perfect goal is an ocean with no plastic, and I think we have to keep working towards that collectively. But it’s also really important to understand what species are being adversely affected and what we can do to immediately protect them now.

Mitch Ratcliffe  35:46

Well, it’s a multi-generational challenge, and I really applaud the work that you’re doing. How can folks keep up with the work that you’re undertaking?

Erin Murphy  35:55

Yeah, we have a brand new website at oceanconservancy.org, and we have a lot of information there, you know, specifically on what our plastics team is doing, but on what our entire organization is doing in terms of bills that we’re working on. They can also sign up for our newsletter to get information about what the organization is working on, and that will give them ample opportunities to participate in being part of the solution to the plastics crisis.

Mitch Ratcliffe  36:20

Erin, thanks so much for your time today. It’s been a fascinating conversation and an encouraging one.

Erin Murphy  36:26

Thank you. It was great to be here.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Mitch Ratcliffe  36:34

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Dr. Erin Murphy, manager of ocean plastics research at the Ocean Conservancy, and she’s the lead author of the recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that quantifies, for the first time at this scale, how much plastic it takes to kill seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals.

You can explore the Ocean Conservancy’s wide-ranging work and sign up for a beach cleanup event at oceanconservancy.org. Ocean Conservancy is all one word, no space, no dash. Oceanconservancy.org.

The numbers Erin and her colleagues reported should stop us in our tracks. The volumes we heard about are disturbing, but imagine — one in five animals had plastic in their gut when they died. For sea turtles, it was one in two. What makes that study especially useful for policymakers is its differentiation by plastic type. Rubber fragments can be targeted because balloons are the deadliest material for seabirds. Soft plastics like bags are the top killer for sea turtles. Ghost fishing gear poses the greatest risk to marine mammals like whales. And each of these findings points to a specific, actionable policy lever: balloon release bans like Florida’s recent legislation, bag bans like California’s, and better gear-marking and recovery programs for the fishing industry.

But the targeted approach is only part of the answer. As Erin emphasized, the total plastic thresholds her team found were low across the board, meaning that every type of plastic poses a threat. “At the end of the day,” she said, “there is too much plastic in the ocean, and we need to do sweeping reforms along the entire plastics life cycle, from production to management to disposal.” That’s a very important quote. Keep it in mind.

A 2020 Ocean Conservancy-backed study quantified what “sweeping” means: a 40% reduction in global plastic production, waste management reaching 98 to 99% effectiveness in its collection and processing of plastic so it doesn’t reach nature, and annual cleanups of the 40% of plastic that still escapes into the environment — and that’s just to return to the 2010 leakage rates.

So that brings us to the elephant in the room — or maybe more to the point, the sperm whale with an entire greenhouse in its stomach — the global plastics treaty negotiations. Which were supposed to deliver a binding international agreement, collapsed in August 2025 in Geneva after oil-producing nations blocked provisions that called for production caps and toxic chemical phase-outs. More than 100 countries in the group known as the High Ambition Coalition were pushing for full life-cycle regulation for plastics, but the requirement that the negotiations reach a consensus gave a handful of petrochemical states an effective veto power. And effective it was.

So between the Busan round in late 2024 and the end of the Geneva talks in 2025, an estimated 7.4 million more metric tons of plastic entered the ocean. The world currently produces more than 460 million metric tons of plastic annually, and only 9% of that is being recycled. Every day, the equivalent of 2,000 garbage trucks of plastic is dumped into our oceans, rivers, and lakes.

However, the collapse of the treaty talks does not mean the end of progress. Erin pointed to evidence that targeted interventions can work. For example, communities in Hawaii conducted large beach cleanups and saw the Hawaiian monk seal population rebound. A study published in Science confirms that bag bans reduce plastic on beaches by between 25 and 47%. California’s SB 54 law aims to cut single-use plastics by 25%. And Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup, which is now in its 40th year, removed more than a million plastic bags from beaches last year. That cleanup data, collected by citizen scientists worldwide, is a research tool providing the time-series evidence that tells us whether policies are working.

So here’s what I want you to leave with from this conversation. Erin’s research focuses exclusively on acute mortality from ingested macroplastics — that’s obstruction, perforation, and torsion of the digestive tract. It does not capture the chronic effects of plastic and chemical exposure or entanglement, which her team will study next. That means the lethal thresholds that she reported likely underestimate the total harm plastic inflicts on marine life.

And the parallel crisis in human health is building from the same source of pollution, which has scattered microscopic shards of plastic across the planet, from the seas to the highest peaks. Most of these microplastics began as macroplastics, like those that are killing puffins and turtles. They break down in the environment into fragments small enough to enter our bloodstream, lungs, liver, and even women’s placentas. As Erin put it, it is all a part of the same crisis.

So one of the most encouraging things that Erin said was also the simplest. When strangers learn about what she studies, they stop and they tell her what they are doing to reduce their plastic footprint. That instinct to environmental stewardship is a real and powerful phenomenon, even if it’s currently being actively suppressed by governments. And the public’s will to protect nature is the foundation that policy, science, and investment will ultimately build on.

The ocean doesn’t need our sympathy. It needs a 40% cut in plastic production, waste systems that actually work, and the political will to treat a binding plastics agreement as a matter of human survival rather than an inconvenience for a few petrochemical companies. Until international negotiations deliver that agreement, the work continues at every other level: state legislatures, coastal cleanups, citizen science, and research programs like Erin’s that give decision makers the evidence-based targets that they’ve been asking for.

So stay tuned, folks, for more conversations about the solutions that can still turn this crisis around. And I hope you’ll take a moment to take a look at any of the more than 540 episodes of Sustainability In Your Ear in our archives. Take the time to share just one of them with your friends or your family. Writing a review on your favorite podcast platform will help your neighbors find us. Folks, you’re the amplifiers that can spread more ideas to create less waste. So please tell your friends, family, and co-workers they can find Sustainability In Your Ear on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or whatever purveyor of podcast goodness they prefer.

Thank you all for your support. I’m Mitch Ratcliffe. This is Sustainability In Your Ear, and we will be back with another innovator interview soon. In the meantime, take care of yourself, take care of one another, and let’s all take care of this beautiful planet and its oceans. Have a green day.

The post Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: The Ocean Conservancy’s Dr. Erin Murphy Documents the Lethality of Ocean Plastics appeared first on Earth911.

Open the cabinet under almost any kitchen sink, then check the garage shelf and the basement corner. You will likely find the same inventory: half-used cans of paint, a jug of antifreeze, corroded batteries, an aerosol can of something nobody remembers buying. As much as 100 pounds of hazardous material can pile up in a single home, much of it sitting untouched until the residents move out or finally clear the clutter, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates.

Household hazardous waste, including the paints, solvents, pesticides, cleaners, and automotive fluids that become toxic, corrosive, or flammable when discarded, is among the most loosely tracked streams in the American waste system. Most of it has no producer-funded route to recovery, so it lands in trash cans, storm drains, and back shelves.

One product is the conspicuous exception. Leftover paint, the largest category by volume, now has a working multi-state recycling system operated by PaintCare and funded by the industry. What that system has accomplished points directly at how to handle the rest.

The waste hiding in plain sight

As of 2018, the last year the EPA collected data, the average American generated an average of about four pounds of household hazardous waste a year — roughly 530,000 tons nationally. Paint, used motor oil, batteries, pesticides, and cleaning chemicals make up the bulk of it.

The volume matters less than where it ends up. When these products go down the drain, onto the ground, into a storm sewer, or out with the regular trash, the consequences are not abstract. The EPA warns that improper disposal can contaminate groundwater and surface water used for drinking, corrode plumbing, disrupt septic systems and wastewater treatment plants, injure sanitation workers, and poison children and pets. The chemistry that makes a solvent useful in the garage makes it dangerous in a landfill leachate pond.

The regulatory gap that shaped the problem

Here is the reason so much household hazardous waste goes unmanaged: the federal government does not regulate it as hazardous waste. Under the household waste exclusion in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, waste from routine house and yard maintenance is exempt from the rules that govern industrial hazardous waste. It is overseen only at the state and local level, and treated as ordinary solid waste.

The practical effect is that no business is federally required to take responsibility for these products once a consumer is done with them. Collection and safe disposal fall to municipalities — and to the taxpayers who fund them — if a community offers a program at all. Many offer a single collection day a year, or none. That gap is the backdrop against which paint’s recovery system stands out.

What PaintCare built

Paint manufacturers created PaintCare in 2009, a nonprofit organized through the American Coatings Association to run paint stewardship programs in states that pass paint stewardship laws. When Maryland’s program launched in April 2026, it became the 12th state with a program, alongside the District of Columbia; Illinois had come online only months earlier, in December 2025.

The scale of the program is impressive. PaintCare reports it has managed roughly 85 million gallons of paint, stain, and varnish across its state programs. More than 70 million gallons came through neighborhood drop-off sites and events, and another three million-plus through more than 10,000 large-volume pickups for contractors and institutions with large stockpiles.

Most of what comes back is water-based latex paint, which processors remix into recycled-content paint. In California, leftover paint also becomes retaining wall blocks, landscape stones, and parking stops, a reminder that “recycling” here means real secondary markets, not just diversion from a landfill.

PaintCare offers free, year-round drop-off at paint stores, hardware stores, and municipal facilities replaces the once-a-year collection event.

Never do this:  Pour paint, solvents, or automotive fluids down the drain, onto the ground, or into a storm sewer, and never put liquid hazardous products in the trash. Keep products in their original, labeled containers, and never mix incompatible chemicals.

Who pays — and why that is the whole point

PaintCare is funded by a small fee added to new paint at the point of sale. In Maryland it runs from 50 cents to $2.25 per container depending on size, with no fee on containers a half-pint or smaller. That fee is the visible cost to a household. It is also the mechanism that makes the system work. Maryland’s law requires that 90% of residents live within 15 miles of a collection site.

This is a proven example of extended producer responsibility (EPR), the principle that the cost of managing a product at end of life should be built into the product rather than dumped on the general taxpayer. The fee funds the drop-off network, the transportation, the processing, and public education. The result is a closed loop where the people buying paint fund the recovery of paint, and the system is convenient enough that people use it.

The larger savings can’t be easily quantified: paint kept out of waterways, landfill liabilities avoided, and disposal costs lifted off municipal budgets that would otherwise carry them. Those benefits are real even when they resist a tidy per-household number.

What paint reveals about the rest

Paint is one category in a cabinet full of them. Batteries, electronics, pharmaceuticals, mattresses, and packaging are all moving toward producer-funded recovery in various states, and paint is the proof of concept that the model scales. When a modest fee funds genuinely convenient collection, such as with bottle deposit programs, material that used to vanish into the trash or the storm drain starts coming back instead.

When New Hampshire’s governor vetoed a paint stewardship bill in 2026, the stated reason was that the fee amounted to a new tax on residents. But it is not a new cost so much as a reassignment of one: the public already pays to manage household hazardous waste, less efficiently, through municipal collection days and the environmental cost of the paint that never gets collected. EPR makes that cost visible, attaches it to the product, and buys a far more effective recovery system with it.

The question is not whether households pay to deal with leftover paint — they always have — but whether that payment buys a system that works.

PaintCare’s record across 12 states and the District of Columbia is the strongest available evidence that it can. Scaling the model to the rest of household hazardous waste, and to the states that still lack a paint program is the clearest path to closing the gap that federal law left open.

The post PaintCare Reveals How Household Hazardous Waste Recycling Can Grow appeared first on Earth911.

About a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the food system, but the public conversation about food and climate keeps getting stuck at the two ends of the chain — what farmers grow on one side, what consumers buy on the other. The middle of that chain — processing, packaging, distribution, storage — is where most of the practical climate levers actually live, and it is the part you almost never see. Brendan Niemira, Chief Science and Technology Officer at the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), wants us to look there. Brendan spent more than 25 years at the USDA Agricultural Research Service leading a team of 30-plus scientists developing non-thermal treatments — cold plasma, high-intensity light, irradiation — that kill foodborne pathogens on produce, meat, poultry, and shellfish without cooking the food. He stepped into the IFT role on December 1, 2025, and joins Sustainability In Your Ear to walk through IFT’s new white paper, Food Science & Technology Solutions for Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change, which lays out a roadmap covering circular bioeconomy practices, AI-enabled supply chain resilience, reusing food waste, precision fermentation, and cellular agriculture.

Brendan describes food safety as a three-legged stool — exclusion, containment, and eradication — and notes that in a warming world the first leg is getting harder. Pathogens travel further, persist longer, and show up in places they didn’t used to, with warming oceans already expanding Vibrio bacteria in shellfish that previously didn’t carry them. That reframes food safety as climate adaptation work — and it lands at the moment when federal research capacity is being thinned out. The conversation then opens into the ultra-processed food debate, where IFT is pressing the case that nutritional quality, not processing intensity, should define dietary guidance, because pasteurized milk, shelf-stable beans, and a deep-fried snack cake are all “processed,” and collapsing them into a single category hobbles the very technologies that extend shelf life and cut food waste. Brendan closes on the structural shift coming next: humans domesticated about 50 animal species over 25,000 years of agriculture, but precision fermentation — built on whole genome sequencing and metabolomics — opens up trillions of possible microbial community combinations, each able to turn side streams and waste streams into dairy proteins, vitamins, flocculants for water treatment, and food ingredients. Garbage in, gumdrops out, as he puts it. We’re not there yet, but the trajectory is clear.

To learn more about IFT’s work and download the climate white paper, visit ift.org.

• Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
• Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube

Interview Transcript

Mitch Ratcliffe  (0:09)

Hello, good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are in this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society. I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation today.

We’re going to talk about food. Food is responsible for roughly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions each year, and the climate is now responsible for a growing share of what happens to our food. Food systems face dramatic challenges. Droughts are reshaping olive country in the Mediterranean. Warming oceans are increasing the frequency of shellfish pathogen outbreaks. Hurricanes are taking out manufacturing facilities. Sea level rise may flood key ports where food flows, and fluctuating precipitation is driving mycotoxin contamination in crops. And that’s only a partial list.

The food system must feed 8 billion people while the conditions it was designed for are unwinding underneath it. Meanwhile, the public conversation about food and climate gets stuck at the two ends of the chain: agriculture on one side, consumer choice on the other. But our guest today wants us to pay attention to what happens in between—the processing, packaging, distribution, and storage that turn a fall harvest into something you can eat in February. That middle segment is where a quarter century of food science meets the climate problem, and where most of the practical levers actually live.

Brendan Niemira is the Chief Science and Technology Officer at the Institute of Food Technologists, a Chicago-based scientific association that has served as the voice of the global food science community since 1939. Its 200,000-member network spans academia, government, and industry. He stepped into this role on December 1, 2025, after more than 25 years at the USDA Agricultural Research Service, where he led a team of more than 30 scientists, engineers, and students developing tools to kill foodborne pathogens on produce, meat, poultry, and shellfish.

Brendan’s specialty is non-thermal food safety systems that use cold plasma, high-intensity monochromatic light, irradiation, and pulsed light treatments to disinfect food without cooking it. He’s published more than 200 peer-reviewed papers, holds patents on the technology, and the 2024 citation rankings place him in the top 0.01% of food scientists worldwide.

Brendan joins IFT at a moment when food science is being pulled in two directions at once. On one side, climate pressure on supply chains, food safety, and resource efficiency is intensifying—the subject of IFT’s new white paper, Food Science & Technology Solutions for Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change, which lays out a roadmap for circular bioeconomy practices, AI-enabled supply chain resilience, food waste valorization, and emerging technologies like cellular agriculture and precision fermentation—that is, growing food in vats.

On the other side, the public and political conversation about food is fixated on ultra-processed food, and the MAHA Commission—the Make America Healthy Again Commission—frames processing itself as the central problem rather than part of the solution. IFT has been one of the loudest scientific voices arguing for definitions grounded in nutritional quality rather than processing intensity. That’s a position that’s both scientifically defensible and complicated by the fact that IFT membership includes much of the food industry.

So we’re going to talk with Brendan about what the climate case for a redesign of the food system is, what IFT’s recent white paper does and doesn’t quantify, and where precision fermentation and cellular agriculture actually stand in 2026. We’ll also look into why food safety remains under-researched within climate science, and how IFT is navigating the MAHA debate. To learn more about IFT’s work, visit ift.org; the white paper we’ll be discussing is available there as well.

The climate fight runs through the food we eat, but most of the action is happening in the part of the supply chain that nobody sees. So let’s find out what Brendan Niemira sees right after this brief commercial break.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Welcome to the show, Brendan. How are you doing today?

Brendan Niemira  (4:46)

I’m doing great, Mitch. How are you?

Mitch Ratcliffe  (4:49)

I’m well. It’s a beautiful morning here in Southern Oregon, and I’m excited about this conversation. You spent 25 years at the USDA. What does the food system look like from this new vantage point at IFT? How’s it different from the perspective at the lab bench?

Brendan Niemira  (4:59)

Well, first let me say that I really enjoyed being a scientist for the USDA. There were a lot of great scientists working at the USDA, and I was absolutely proud to be one of them. Even with the recent losses, there are great scientists, engineers, and subject matter experts in different areas of the federal research continuum. The research done in those labs remains a crucial part of the overall science landscape for the US.

My work as a food microbiologist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service was focused on food safety and advanced food processing technologies—again, to improve food safety and extend shelf life. Now, as the Chief Science and Technology Officer for IFT, I get to engage with all of the technical areas of food science: microbiology, chemistry, sensory science, sustainability, food laws, and regulations. I also get to engage in the larger space around advocacy and science communication. I get to work with colleagues across the whole food system—all the way from primary producers like farmers and ranchers, to processors, product developers, all the way to nutritionists and retailers. So I get a much bigger-picture view.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (5:56)

When you think of it from that perspective—from the industry side—what do you think the key issues we need to consider as a nation are in our food system as it stands today?

Brendan Niemira  (6:08)

Food has to be safe, healthy, and wholesome, but it also has to be available, it has to be sustainable, and it has to be the kind of food that people will want to eat. It doesn’t matter if you produce something that’s super healthy and even super affordable; if it doesn’t meet the cultural needs of what people want to eat, if it doesn’t meet their expectations for how it looks, how it tastes, how it performs in their lifestyle, then it’s going to stay on the shelves, and all that science that you did to produce this product is not going to be any good, because it’s not going to provide any nutritional benefit to people.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (6:43)

IFT draws a sharp line between food processing—what you do to the ingredients—and food formulation, which is the ingredient list itself. Why does that distinction matter, and why has the public conversation lost that distinction?

Brendan Niemira  (6:56)

Well, we draw that distinction because if you take either one of those aspects alone—just the ingredient list, or just the ingredient processing—neither one is going to give you a complete indication of the healthfulness or the nutrient value of the food. If you use either one just as a simple shorthand—you say, well, there’s a certain thing on the list of ingredients, or a certain thing was done to that stuff—you miss the mark. You’re going to have to take both of them into account to look at the total healthfulness of the food.

Part of the issue with the public conversation is that, frankly, it’s a little bit more straightforward to give short, simple messages about which foods are healthy and which foods are not. Look for this ingredient, or look for that processing step, and it’s a thumbs up or a thumbs down. The fact that it’s simple is true, even if those short, simple messages don’t give a complete or, frankly, a fully accurate picture. Food is more complicated than that, and complicated stories are harder to tell.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (7:53)

Our dialogue is, let’s just say, relatively simplistic right now. Are we diverging from the real issues we need to be exploring as a nation when we talk about the MAHA concerns?

Brendan Niemira  (8:05)

Science communication tries to make complex issues of science and nutrition, nutritional availability—even getting to things like cultural tolerance, cultural acceptability, economics, and all that sort of stuff—it tries to make these very complex issues understandable. Not everybody is a nutritionist; not everybody is an economist. People just want to be able to get food that they want to feed their family. They want it to be safe, they want it to be healthy, they want to be able to afford it, they want to be able to provide for their family, and they want to be able to enjoy it.

Food is about more than just nutrition. Food is about culture, food is about satisfaction, food is about joy. Those are things that simple stories can speak to, but the science behind this can be very complicated. So it’s the job of us here at IFT, and the job, really, of all science communicators, to take these complicated issues and present accurate, factual, complicated science information in a way that people can understand, and that they can use to make decisions on.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (9:08)

Having written about technology and sustainability and a variety of things over the years, I find that one of the challenges is that experts resort to their jargon, partly because it’s shorthand—it makes it easier to say something to somebody else—but it relies on an understanding of that jargon. Are we at an inflection point? I hate to put it this way, but is Bobby Kennedy simplifying this conversation in an important way?

Brendan Niemira  (9:36)

This is why science communication is a distinct discipline. You can be a terrific microbiologist or chemist or toxicologist or nutritionist or economist, but if you’re not able to communicate to people outside of your discipline, then you run the risk of miscommunication, where you’re trying to say something but you’re just not communicating accurately. And unfortunately, you also set up a situation where people can take what you say in your good-faith effort to explain it properly, take a word here or a sentence or a phrase, and things get misunderstood or taken out of context. When people draw conclusions from material that is misinterpreted, then base decisions on that, or policies based on that, you can get to a point where the science is over here, the communication is in the middle, it gets a little bit muddled, and then policies arising from that are based on something not directly related to what the science is actually telling you.

That’s why we try to support good science communication and try to give people tools to communicate the science. At IFT we bring a lot of different scientists together in different disciplines, and we try to give them the tools to make sure that people are understanding their science and connecting on it appropriately.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (10:56)

I think that’s a really important point: that we need to create full access to the conversation, so people who want to dig in further can go further and learn more, in order to deepen their understanding of the decisions they face, either as a consumer or as a policymaker. I’ll just give a quick shout-out to ift.org. We have lots and lots of information—some of which is intended for scientists, technicians, food scientists, and food technologists, and is very jargon-heavy—but we have a lot of information that is intended for the general public to consume, and that is intended for decision-makers in industry, academia, and government.

A moment ago, you talked about the food system needing to be sustainable. A recent meta-analysis found that processing, packaging, transport, and retail steps in the food process account for just a modest share of the overall greenhouse gas footprint of our food system—farm production and distribution account for most of the rest. If most of food’s climate damage is upstream, how big a sustainability lever can processing innovation actually be? Can we really lower the overall impact of our food?

Brendan Niemira  (12:03)

Well, you’re absolutely right, a lot of the impact is on primary production, and that’s why people are also working on reducing the carbon footprint, water usage, and overall sustainability impact at the primary production stage: farms, ranches, fisheries. If you go talk to groups like the American Society of Agronomy, the Crop Science Society of America, the Soil Science Society of America, the American Meat Science Association—all those folks—they are working hard. They’re doing all of that science to develop and implement ways to improve sustainability in terms of carbon footprint, water-use efficiency, land-use programs, wildlife setbacks, insect refugia, and a host of other approaches.

Now, IFT does food. We do food processing, food science, food technology. So we are in the center part of that continuum, but we are actively working with those other scientific organizations to support the work that falls under those sectors, the overall food system, and to improve what we can do in processing, packaging, transport, retail, and so on.

Mitch, I would say this is one of those cases where we can’t allow ourselves to be tripped up by the false thinking that if we can’t do everything, then we shouldn’t do anything. Our Sustainable Food Systems interest group is an active and vibrant part of all the food science that we support. There’s a lot of communication between what they are doing and what other efforts are underway in other societies and other parts of it.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (13:26)

Absolutely—we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of progress. We have to take important steps.

Brendan Niemira  (13:31)

Here at IFT, we’re doing what we can, and we are supporting the other people that are working in their areas as well.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (13:37)

When I read the white paper that I mentioned in the introduction, there was not a lot of quantified environmental data, but it seems to me that what you’re saying is that that’s an area we really need to dig into now. How do we do that?

Brendan Niemira  (13:50)

It’s by talking to people who are on the ground doing that work. I would not sit back here as somebody who focuses on food production and food science and go talk to a soil scientist and tell them what to do, or what they should be doing, or what I think is most important in their area. When we’re all focused on the same overall goal of improving sustainability and reducing the impact of how we grow, how we harvest, how we process, how we ship, and how we consume our foods, then we need to listen to each other. There are people who have expertise in lots of different areas.

Our food is complicated. People think, well, there’s an apple on the shelf, or there’s some hamburger in the cooler. Food is complicated—it really truly is. And all of the different people that are contributing in all the different ways, all up and down across the food system, the food continuum—we need to draw on their expertise and get together to solve problems that will work across the entire system. If one person working on just one part of it rolls out a solution and says, ‘Yep, I’ve done my thing, and all the rest of you should change to do what I want,’ then that may not be a usable solution, because it breaks other parts of the system. There has to be a holistic approach.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (15:04)

As you say that, I realize how hard it is just to get food from my garden at the beginning of the season onto a plate at the end of the year.

Brendan Niemira  (15:12)

Yeah, and that’s encompassing. There are different people who grow different products, different commodities, different regions. You grow different kinds of tomatoes in different parts of the country, and there are different ways of growing food. Even on a very, very small scale, it gets to be very complicated. You have to have a lot of different kinds of knowledge, a lot of different kinds of infrastructure, a lot of different kinds of expertise and equipment, and so on. Plus, you have to comply with different regulations, different laws controlling different sorts of commodities in different parts of the country at different times of the year. All of this knowledge has to come together and be brought to bear on the problem.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (15:50)

Again, it’s a huge storytelling problem, but we have to look at this as a system rather than a bunch of separate parts that don’t necessarily interact with everything else.

Brendan Niemira  (15:58)

Absolutely, absolutely. It’s all one. That’s why we talk about the food system and the food continuum, because going right from primary production through all the various stages of getting food to you, and then on the back side, taking food waste—say, away from restaurants at their point of sale, point of service, point of consumption—some of those aspects of where the food goes, and what kind of advantages we can gain from paying attention to where those nutrients are ending up.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (16:26)

One of the other—and probably the most shocking—parts of the white paper that I read was how our dietary recommendations are being undercut by climate change. For instance, the Mediterranean diet is recommended; it consists of olives, olive oil, tree nuts. But those come from regions that are warming 20% faster than the rest of the globe. How should we think about US dietary guidelines in terms of how climate stress is going to change the availability of food over the course of the next decades?

Brendan Niemira  (16:58)

I think it starts with a clear-eyed understanding of what it takes to grow, deliver, and consume food. If you’re saying, well, I’m going to lean into one kind of a diet or another—whether it’s the Mediterranean diet or other specialty diets, either recommended by your doctor, by a nutritionist, or recommended by your own cultural or societal predilections—where does that food come from? Is it grown locally? Is it shipped far away? Does it come from other parts of the country? Does it come from other countries?

And then you have to understand: this is what food costs—not just the money, but in terms of the carbon you’re using to produce the food, the water, the land use. Once you have that accurate information and you have an accurate understanding of what goes into producing the food, then you can start to make some other decisions about the health and nutritional benefits of the food that you’re consuming, or one aspect of it, and then you can make other decisions about the other sustainability parts of how you’re getting your food and how you’re eating it.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (18:07)

You mentioned the cuts we’ve seen in federal research recently. As a microbiologist, where do you think federal climate-health research should be focused at this point?

Brendan Niemira  (18:17)

My specific work with food microbiology was in food safety, and so I was always very concerned with understanding the risks for human pathogens on foods. Despite the best efforts of food producers, you still do have instances where you have E. coli, salmonella, or listeria on one commodity or another. The way that you respond to that—there’s a sort of three-legged stool of responding to a food safety problem from a microbiology and food safety standpoint.

You can prevent these harmful organisms from being on your food commodity in the first place—that’s called exclusion. That’s where you do water quality monitoring, you do land-use history analysis, you do exclusion activities to make sure that the bad bacteria or viruses or parasites don’t get on the food in the first place.

Then you have containment, which is a monitoring system. That’s where you do continuous testing of foods being produced at the point of production, point of packaging, when they’re in shipping. Sometimes you pull samples, you hold them back a little bit, you test to make sure there are no pathogens on them, and then if you find any, that’s when you do the recalls and the trace-back analysis. Our Global Food Traceability Center at IFT is working very hard to develop protocols so that if we have a problem, we know where it came from, we can trace that back, we can isolate it, and we can contain it.

Then the third leg of the stool is eradication—that is to say, you apply techniques and technologies that will eradicate potential organisms. In one big way, we heat. If you’ve got ground beef, you can cook that ground beef, and you apply a thermal process that kills any potential E. coli or anything that might be on it. Now, heat is one technique, but you can’t apply that to lettuce. That doesn’t really work, which is why my research—and other people’s research—is working on other kinds of processing technologies that you can apply to more sensitive foods: fresh fruits, vegetables, berries, melons, other sorts of more sensitive products. Different kinds of novel sanitizers in the organic space, non-thermal processing technologies, other sorts of interventions that will kill the organism so they can’t cause any harm. So you’ve got exclusion, containment, and eradication, and all these different efforts working together. Those are the kinds of research that you’re going to do to have a good food safety impact.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (20:56)

Well, because exclusion is getting harder—because of the rising temperatures globally encouraging the growth of more pathogens, or at least the propagation of more pathogens—it sounds like that’s raising the bar for containment and recall.

Brendan Niemira  (21:09)

Yeah. If you find yourself in a situation where one of those things is not an option, or you’re not able to do it as well as you were before, then you lean into the other two. If effective technologies for eradication don’t exist, well, that’s where you need to put some research dollars in to create them.

I’ll give you an example. Years and years ago, we had lots and lots of outbreaks on sprouts. Sprouts were the cause of continuous outbreaks again and again, and research was put into place to find: how can we eliminate E. coli and salmonella on sprouts so they can be as safe, healthy, and wholesome as they can possibly be? But just because we were working on eradication steps does not mean we were ignoring the other two. There were things like seed certification processes to make sure the seed coming into these sprouting facilities is as healthy as it can be. There were containment efforts—let’s do better trace-back analysis, let’s do better testing, so that we know what’s on there, so we can act when we find it.

So it’s not a case of, ‘Well, we’re just going to work on one and ignore the other two.’ You’ve got to have an understanding of what the problem is. You can address all the different aspects of science at once. I would say this is one of the issues that happens when you start to see cuts in science: then you have to start making some hard decisions—well, we’re going to dial back on one and we’re going to keep our remaining resources and put them into one of the others. Maybe you’re leaving yourself in a situation where two years from now or five years from now, you might say to yourself, ‘Darn, I really wish we’d been working on that.’

Mitch Ratcliffe  (22:45)

Do you think that the private sector can step into the gap that has opened? Or are we really at a point where we need to seriously reconsider our federal funding for food science research?

Brendan Niemira  (22:55)

Private funding—corporate funding—has always been a huge part of food science research. Companies fund their own research, and then there’s funding through grants and consortia funding larger works. Industry funds provide grants for academic researchers, and academic research is a huge part of this. Government research is a huge part of this. And in a time when you’re looking at research funding that is cut or under threat, one of the unwanted outcomes is that there’s research that’s not being done.

Some of our advocacy priorities at IFT include seeing that we want food science research—including food microbiology, food safety, food toxicology, whether it’s chemical toxicology, chemical safety issues, or biological safety issues. We want to see that funding. We’d like to see it increase, honestly, but at least we’d like to see it not cut. Because you can’t have good data without good science, and you can’t make good decisions without good data. So, if you want to be able to make good decisions and develop good policies, you need good data, and for that, you need good science.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (24:10)

We certainly have had a foundation of solid data in the United States for the past 50 years. I think we’ve got a great sense of the problems that we need to talk about. Let’s take a quick commercial break, folks. We’re going to come right back and talk more with Brendan.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Let’s get back to the conversation with Brendan Niemira. He is the Chief Science and Technology Officer at the Institute of Food Technologists, a 200,000-member network focused on food production and safety.

Brendan, let’s talk about bugs. The paper discusses a Costa Rican study where they’re taking a variety of food waste to farm edible insects. What’s the realistic potential for adoption of food made of insect protein in the United States, and is there a path even to regulatory approval for that in this day and age?

Brendan Niemira  (25:07)

Okay, here’s the thing. I actually just wrote a book chapter on edible insects and digging into all the ins and outs of this, so I happen to have a lot of this fresh in my mind. There are only a very small number of animals that we can take things that humans can’t eat—like cellulose—and convert. Humans can’t eat grass; humans can’t digest grass or the cellulosic material. Historically, the way that we have made cellulose into something that we can eat is to feed it to an animal and then eat the animal. Right now we do that with cows and other ruminants.

But you can do that with crickets. Crickets have some advantages over cows: they use a lot less space, they have a shorter generation time, so you can be more responsive to market changes, they use less water, they use less energy, and so on. But then at the end of the day, you have this insect protein, and what’s the realistic prospect for that?

I would say that, because of the cultural nature of Western society, Western society does not have a cultural heritage of entomophagy—eating bugs. That’s the Greek word for it. There are other parts of the world that do have a cultural heritage of this, and so they have lower cultural barriers to having insect proteins as part of the diet, either as just edible insects—as a commodity, where you look down and say, hey, here’s a cinnamon-crunch-flavored cricket. These are products that are on the market.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (26:44)

I’ve tried these. They’re not the worst thing in the world, but they’re also not something that most people would pop in their mouth at a movie theater.

Brendan Niemira  (26:50)

Well, certainly not in the US, and not in most Western societies that derive their cultural heritage from Europe. So if you’re not going to have these things that are identifiable as an insect, could you have insect protein powder as part of an insect supplement? I think these things are still in the market. I’ve tried it. I’ve got insect powder, and—you know, put my money where my mouth is—I’ve made brownies and cookies with cricket powder. They taste like brownies and cookies. It was okay.

As a large-scale process, I think you have to start with the cultural issue and the consumer issue, because if you’re going to make a product that—let’s generalize—very few people want to buy, it’s a very, very niche product. Then you are going to have that process remain a niche process, and so the overall impact on large issues of sustainability, or carbon usage, or moving away from conventional animal sources or plant sources of protein, is going to be kind of limited.

Where you might see much more of a penetration, however, is in taking these insect protein sources and using them as feeds for aquaculture. Right now, fish are not really able to digest soybean meal very well, so you can’t raise fish the same way that you raise cows and chickens. They’re trying to work to breed new kinds of trout, let’s say, that are better able to use soybean meals so you can get some of those economies of scale. But if you can lean into insect protein production, you essentially use the insect farms almost as a kind of bioreactor to turn cellulose—indigestible cellulose—into a digestible form of protein that can then be processed through aquaculture or chicken farms, conventional animal agriculture, that then would go into the human food supply.

I think it is still kind of a long way away, at least in the United States, from a time when insect proteins are going to be a significant or a major part of our daily diet. The FDA rules on insect proteins and edible insects, right now, are that they have to be safe and wholesome. They have to be tested for human pathogens, and so on. These insects have to be in a production facility that is dedicated to that production—they cannot be wild caught. So you can’t just go out into your local meadow and swing a net and start collecting crickets. They have to—

Mitch Ratcliffe  (29:30)

They might be contaminated with pesticides.

Brendan Niemira  (29:33)

Pesticides, who knows—there might be other pathogens on them, there might be fungi on them, there might be potentially heavy metal contamination. So these have to be grown in a dedicated production facility. The FDA is certainly on the ball in terms of having an understanding of the potential risks for some of these things, and they have put rules in place to make sure that if insects are produced as human food, they adhere to safety rules and regulations.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (29:58)

The metaphor of the insect as a bioreactor with legs makes a lot of sense to me. But precision fermentation using bioreactors is another one of the paper’s big bets, and I’ve personally been involved in trying to raise some funding to create dairy proteins using acetate fermentation, which would reduce the need for concentrated animal feeding operations, so dairy’s environmental impact could be drastically reduced. Can you explain how precision fermentation works for our listeners?

Brendan Niemira  (30:30)

Sure, absolutely. Precision fermentation is a really fascinating area of research right now. The work that we’re doing with whole genome sequencing and proteomics and metabolomics has just led to opening a whole new chapter in what we’re doing with fermentation.

What is precision fermentation, versus conventional fermentation? People have been fermenting foods for thousands of years, relying on yeast and bacteria to process raw ingredients and turn them into edible foods—everything from beer to bread to kimchi. Those microorganisms only ate certain things, and from a metabolic standpoint, they only produced certain things. They were useful because they were able to break down cellulose and hemicellulose into digestible sugars for humans. They’re able to take food which was not edible or provided very little nutritive value, into things that do provide nutritive value for us when we consume them.

But because it was gathering wild strains—and even after you get into the Louis Pasteur days of breeding new strains of yeast to make better beer—it was still kind of old-school breeding to get better fermentation cultures. Now, thanks to modern food science, we can really dig into the cellular, molecular microbial ecology. I mentioned whole genome sequencing, microbial community metabolomics, and so on. We can specify what metabolite or nutrient we want to produce, and we can design a multi-species microbial ecology that will produce it, and we can do that based on specific inputs.

Bacteria in the wild almost never live alone. You never have one species of bacteria; you have multiple species of bacteria all working together in conjunction with other kinds of fungi, and so on, to produce lots of different kinds of metabolites. Now we have a much greater understanding of that multi-species microbial economy.

The way I like to think of it is, if you imagine Little House on the Prairie, and you’ve got families—settlers—going out into this wide-open space, and you’ve got 50 families in some state, they establish a town, and that town behaves in a certain way. The behavior of that town will change dramatically if you introduce one person that comes in and opens up a church, and now the behavior of the town changes. The behavior of that town will change dramatically if one person comes into town and opens up a casino. If you have a church and a casino, even though they represent only very minor components of the overall population, they create this incredibly complex interaction—metabolomics, consumption, behavior. You get complex inputs, complex outputs.

Up till the last 10 years, a lot of this stuff has just been so complicated, such a black box. We have a good understanding now—a much clearer understanding. So we can take side-stream products from food processing, we can take waste-stream products from food waste, and we can lean into precision fermentation, design communities of microbes, give them the feedstocks that we want, and we can get valuable nutrients out the other side.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (33:48)

What can we make?

Brendan Niemira  (33:50)

Well, if you want to make lactic acid, you want to make certain kinds of vitamins, you want to make certain kinds of proteins, you want to do conversions of things. There are a lot of things that are useful in the food industry. You can make surfactants, you can make flocculants. Flocculants are stuff that, if you’ve got a bunch of solids suspended in material, you add a flocculant, and it causes everything to clump together and drop out, so you get clean water out the other side.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (34:19)

So, to put a finer point on it, we can make both food materials and materials that help us process a variety of things, including our waste.

Brendan Niemira  (34:29)

Correct. Absolutely. Flocculants are used very extensively in wastewater production, where you’ve got a lot of suspended organic matter, or you’ve got a lot of other suspended material. You add in some flocculants, all that stuff clumps up, and it drops out, and that really simplifies the process of filtration and cleaning the water, so you can get clean water back into the environment.

From a food standpoint—stepping away from the wastewater stuff—let’s say that you’re producing beer, you’re producing wine, you’re producing yogurt, you’re producing some other kind of liquid product. You might add one of these ingredients to cause oil droplets to remain suspended, or to cause sediments to drop out, or to give you better colors, or to give you different kinds of nutrients, or different kinds of vitamin production. All of these things can be the result of precision fermentation, because we have that understanding of what the microbes are doing, what they’re eating, and what they’re producing.

There’s a lot of research that’s going into this right now to work out those molecular details, those metabolomics details, and the position is to scale it up and then put it through its paces. Let’s get that cost engineering analysis. Let’s scale it up; see what’s it going to cost, where the weak points are, where we need to improve. So that you can then feed into developing a business case around it, selling your product, and working on consumer acceptance to get stuff out in the real world.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (35:51)

Going back to simplification: what we’re talking about is that we have been farming as a species now for 25,000 years with macro-level cattle and products. Where we are moving now is micro-scale relationships with nature that allow us to produce our food and other forms of materials and supplies.

Brendan Niemira  (36:14)

Right. So in conventional agriculture, let’s be generous—there are 50 species of animals that we use in animal agriculture, and these animals are used to take things that we can’t eat and turn them into things that we can eat or things that we want to eat. You’ve got cows, you’ve got chickens, you’ve got hogs, you’ve got goats, sheep, and so on. But it’s a relatively short list.

If you’re going from conventional vertebrate animals to insects, there are thousands and thousands of species of insects, only a small handful of which have really been looked at for optimization. Each one is capable of metabolizing different sorts of things, they live in different kinds of communities. And when you then go to the microbial world, you’ve got millions of kinds of organisms that you can use, and if you look at the different kinds of microbial community combinations, the numbers scale incredibly—like trillions of different kinds of combinations of microbial communities that you can create and cultivate and use in these bioreactor kind of environments, each of which eats different things and produces different things.

The goal is always to produce food and nutrients and food processing materials that are safe, healthy, wholesome, available, and sustainable. When you start to lift your eyes up to the skies and see all the possibilities out there, it really becomes—I don’t want to say magical, because I’m a scientist—but it becomes amazing to think about all the things that we could do if we were able to lean into the kind of science that would allow us to take advantage of all these different things.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (38:02)

It is magical in the sense that Arthur C. Clarke meant it: any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic until it becomes normalized.

Brendan Niemira  (38:11)

Just imagine that you had some kind of a tank and you put in garbage and you get out gumdrops. Wow, that’s magic. Well, okay, obviously we’re oversimplifying, because there are all the various steps involved in that. But at IFT, what we’re trying to do is bring together all of the different food scientists and food technologists who have the knowledge that will allow us to do some of those things—to increase the food supply, make it safer, make it more wholesome, make it more available, and do it in a way that people can access and that they can have knowledge and confidence in using.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (38:50)

Another topic in the paper was cultivated meats, and this is something that we’ve had folks on the show talking about several times. In 2013, a burger grown in the lab cost about $300,000, and it’s under $40 today. We’re talking about meat that is coming out of a lab, not something processed to appear like meat. Where’s that technology realistically today? Because that number is 10 years old.

Brendan Niemira  (39:16)

It’s getting better. I don’t recall exactly what the latest numbers on that are—whether it’s gone down to $20 or $15 or where it is—but this is one of the big areas of technology that people are looking at. Arthur C. Clarke might have predicted this back in 1955, but actually, I believe it was Winston Churchill who predicted this. I’m trying to remember the quote, but he said something like, someday we’re going to be able to raise chicken legs without having to raise a whole chicken.

Are we there yet? Well, we’re not quite there yet, but there’s been a lot of work that’s been done on this. Cellular agriculture, now, to create meat cells, whether they’re from pork or beef or chicken or fish, to grow these out so that they look, taste, perform, and smell like—I’m not saying like the real thing, because they are the real thing, and this is ultimately what it is, but like conventional, traditional things that everybody is used to.

Part of the work that’s gone into it has been to show that, yeah, you can do this—you can produce these, and they look like a burger, tastes like a burger. But can you do it in a way that’s going to allow you to make that available to people, so that it’s not just a very, very billionaire niche novelty product? That’s part of the challenge, but I think that’s part of the challenge with any kind of food technology innovation.

Mitch, you start in the lab, and you begin with saying, well, is this even possible? And once you’ve demonstrated that it’s possible, then you start to develop that out, and you say, well, how do we lean into some of the engineering stuff to make it realistic, and realism falls in—what people will be willing to buy, from a cultural acceptability standpoint, from their expectation of what food is, how much it’s going to cost, how available it’s going to be, and what are the inputs necessary to create it? That’ll dictate a lot of the overall feel and the overall landscape in which these new products are going to operate.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (41:36)

It’s a data problem to a very great degree, and one of the areas the paper goes into in depth is how AI-driven supply chain modeling and various forms of traceability can perform as climate adaptation tools. Where are those technologies actually deployed today at commercial scale that you might be aware of? And do you have any evidence that they’re actually reducing emissions, reducing the overall impact of our food system on the planet?

Brendan Niemira  (42:00)

A lot of the AI tools—I can tell you what the AI tools are doing now, and probably by the time this show airs, they might have changed.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (42:09)

Obsolescence is an hourly thing today.

Brendan Niemira  (42:12)

AI tools are moving so fast. But AI is one of those areas where, if you want to know how much something costs, or how much water you’re using to produce it, or how much of an impact you’re having—being able to go into the data and ask sophisticated questions of complicated datasets is one of the things that AI is very, very good at. It does it quickly, so you can get to: what are the trends, what are the key points, what are the key pain points, where do we need to lean in and do more research and do better, so that we can get a better outcome on the back side.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (42:48)

So we’re just beginning in that process, along with the leaps that we’re taking in various forms of fermentation and cellular agriculture. Can you paint a picture of where you think the food system should be in 10 years in order for us to start to transition through the climate era?

Brendan Niemira  (43:06)

The food system should be more holistic. That, I think, is one of the things that will make a big difference in terms of our overall ability to respond to issues of sustainability. It encompasses everything that falls under that. Right now there are disparate areas of science and disparate areas of scientific inquiry that are a little bit isolated.

I like to make the joke: if you’ve got an apple on the tree and you’ve got a bacteria on that apple, it’s a plant pathology problem. But as soon as the apple falls from the tree—well, now it’s a food microbiology problem. You need to get the plant pathologist and the food microbiologist talking to each other so they have an understanding of the continuum. I think if we’re going to respond to these large, complicated problems, then we need to have a greater connection between different areas and different scientific disciplines, so that we can adopt and create that holistic approach.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (44:04)

Well, IFT is doing a lot of work to articulate that. You mentioned ift.org earlier. How do people follow your work? What do you recommend they do to keep track and keep at the cutting edge, so they understand these things as they evolve?

Brendan Niemira  (44:19)

Well, you can join IFT. That’s an easy one. If you go to ift.org, there’s membership information right there. We’re a great group of folks, very active and very involved in all kinds of different areas of food science and food technology. We make a big effort to publicize what we’re trying to do, the science that’s done, the research that we connect. When we have all the different areas—people working within the field of food science come to the meeting and they connect with us—academia, industry, and government members of IFT—when we connect them all together, we publish, like the white papers we’re talking about right now. We do press releases, we do commentary on different things, we engage in media responses, all kinds of stuff. Some of this is kind of hot-button issue of the day, and other times we comment on larger scientific issues—big landscape issues that are going to affect us now and tomorrow, and over the next 20 years.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (45:24)

Well, Brendan, thanks. This has been an eye-opening conversation, really interesting.

Brendan Niemira  (45:27)

Well, Mitch, I’ve had a lot of fun with it. I really appreciate your having me on the show.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (45:34)

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Brendan Niemira. He is Chief Science and Technology Officer at the Institute of Food Technologists, the Chicago-based scientific society that has connected food scientists across academia, government, and industry since 1939. You can learn more about IFT’s work and read that new white paper we discussed, Food Science & Technology Solutions for Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change, at ift.org.

Most of the climate fight in food is happening in the middle of the supply chain, where the public has almost no visibility, and the policy debate keeps looking somewhere else. Brendan described a three-legged stool for food safety—exclusion, containment, and eradication—noting that as the planet warms, exclusion gets harder. That’s because pathogens can travel further, persist longer, and show up in places they didn’t used to. That single observation reframes food safety as climate adaptation work. And it lands at exactly the moment when federal research capacity at agencies like the USDA Agricultural Research Service is being thinned out. Roughly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the food system, and the people best positioned to redesign safety and efficiency at the processing, packaging, and distribution layers of our food system are being asked to do more with less.

The first idea worth elevating from our conversation is the distinction that IFT keeps insisting on between food processing and food formulation. In other words, the question of what we should do to the ingredients, instead of what’s included in the ingredient list, is critical to the sustainability and health outcomes of what we eat. Brendan is right that the thumbs-up, thumbs-down approach we see in federal decisions these days may drive engagement, but it confuses policy.

The MAHA Commission’s framing treats processing intensity as the problem, and that collapses a category that includes both deep-fried snack cakes and shelf-stable beans, both ultra-formulated soda and pasteurized milk, into grossly simplified yes-no, us-versus-them choices. That’s not what we need right now.

The climate consequences matter. Many of the technologies that extend shelf life, cut food waste, and reduce cold-chain energy demand involve processing. If we regulate processing, treating it as a proxy for harm, we hobble some of the most useful tools we have for cutting the system’s environmental footprint and improving its safety. IFT’s response—to define nutritional quality by what the food does in the body, not by how it was made—is scientifically defensible. It is also, as Brendan acknowledged in his own way, complicated by the fact that IFT membership includes the companies whose products would be reclassified under any new rule.

The second idea I want to dig into for a moment is microbial agriculture as a structural shift in what farming means. Farming in 50 years will be as unrecognizable to us as today’s agricultural system would be to a farmer plucked from 1890, when 43% of Americans worked on farms. Humans had domesticated perhaps 50 animal species over 25,000 years of agriculture, and Brendan’s point is that precision fermentation, built on whole genome sequencing and metabolomics, opens up access to trillions of possible microbial community combinations. Precision fermentation can take side streams and waste streams from existing food processing and convert them into all sorts of things—dairy proteins, food ingredients, even in water treatment systems.

That’s a circular bioeconomy story, and one that all of you who’ve been listening for years are aware of. It aligns with the case made by my recent guest, Jasper Steinhausen, that sustainability should be a profitability lever, not just a cost center. We have the opportunity to invent entire new industries here, folks.

The third idea is one that we return to most often, and that’s holism—thinking in systems. The climate problem doesn’t respect the disciplinary boundaries that scientists observe every day. The IFT white paper’s call for AI-enabled supply chain modeling sits right at the center of this argument. That’s not because AI is magic, but because the food system data we rely on is fragmented across many actors who don’t currently talk to each other, and pulling that data into a coherent picture is the kind of work that modern LLMs are actually good at.

The critical issue here is that federal research cuts don’t just slow individual programs—they erode the connective tissue between disciplines, and the connective tissue is where climate adaptation has to happen. Innovation is the product of diverse solutions being combined in new ways, and the most unexpected connections often yield the greatest impact. So we need more cross-disciplinary discussion, not less.

The food system is being asked to feed 8 billion people under conditions that it wasn’t designed for, with less federal science capacity, a public conversation that mistakes processing for poison, and a set of emerging technologies that are scientifically ready but culturally challenging—as our discussion about insect protein showed.

So here’s the headline to remember from my conversation with Brendan Niemira: IFT is making the case that food science is climate science, and we’re going to be watching how that argument lands as the MAHA debate continues, and as the 2026 dietary guidelines evolve. Hopefully they won’t mutate too much.

If this episode gave you something to chew on, please share it with someone in your world to make new connections possible. And would you consider leaving a review of Sustainability In Your Ear on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or any of the other purveyors of podcast goodness where you can listen to the show? You folks are the amplifiers that help spread more ideas to create less waste. And our archive of more than 550 episodes is there anytime you want to dig deeper.

Thanks, folks, for your support. I’m Mitch Ratcliffe. This is Sustainability In Your Ear, and we will be back with another innovator interview soon. In the meantime, take care of yourself, take care of one another, and let’s all take care of this beautiful planet of ours. Have a green day.

The post Sustainability In Your Ear: IFT’s Brendan Niemira on Why Food Science Is Climate Science appeared first on Earth911.

Pull the sheets back from the numbers and the American mattress starts to look less like a product and more like a disposal problem. The United States throws out an estimated 18.2 million mattresses a year — roughly 50,000 every day — and only about 19% of them are recycled. The rest, more than four out of five beds, are landfilled or incinerated.

A mattress is one of the largest, bulkiest, and most expensive things you own, and almost none of it has to be wasted. Recyclers can recover 80 to 95% of a mattress — steel, foam, fiber, and wood that become new products. Yet the default path for most beds is a hole in the ground, and that default costs the typical household twice: once to buy the bed, and again to get rid of it. Most mattresses are built to last seven to ten years, so a single household will buy and discard several over a lifetime. The bed itself is the obvious expense: a new queen mattress averages around $1,500, and even budget models start near $400.

The hidden cost shows up at the curb. Getting rid of an old mattress averages about $100 and runs from $40 to $200 or more depending on how you do it. Junk-hauling services typically charge $80 to $250. Municipal bulk pickup is often free but can mean a two- to eight-week wait, and many landfills tack on a $20 to $40 bulky-item fee. For a household replacing a bed every several years, disposal alone quietly adds up.

Why the landfill is the worst place for it

Mattresses are built to resist compression, which makes them miserable landfill tenants. Each one can take up as much as 23 cubic feet of space even after compacting, and their steel springs tangle and damage the heavy equipment that operators use to manage the waste. Multiply that by tens of thousands a day and mattresses become a stubborn drain on landfill capacity.

The waste is also material that holds real value. A typical mattress contains roughly 25 pounds of steel and 9 pounds of cotton, plus foam and wood. Across its programs, the Mattress Recycling Council reports keeping more than 555 million pounds of steel, foam, fiber, and wood out of landfills by recycling over 14 million mattresses. Buried beds throw all of that away.

A recycling system exists, but it’s uneven

Where you live largely decides whether recycling is even an option. Four states — California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Oregon, whose program began January 1, 2025 — run extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs. A small fee on every new mattress funds free drop-off through the industry’s Bye Bye Mattress program. The access is meaningful: in 2024, 98.4% of California residents lived within 15 miles of a collection site.

Once a mattress is dismantled, up to 75% of its materials become new products. The foam and fiber go into carpet padding, springs are melted down as scrap steel, and box-spring wood is chipped into mulch or biomass fuel. Outside the four EPR states, though, recycling depends on a patchwork of private facilities, and most households still pay to haul a bed away.

What you can do

• Recycle it where you can. In California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Oregon, drop-off is free through byebyemattress.com. Everywhere else, search by ZIP Code on Earth911’s recycling locator to find the nearest facility, if one is available.
• Donate a bed that still has life. Charities, shelters, and reuse organizations accept clean, structurally sound mattresses. Reuse beats recycling because it skips the dismantling step entirely.
• Extend the lifespan you already paid for. A protector, a supportive foundation, and regular rotation can push a quality mattress toward the long end of its seven-to-ten-year range, cutting both cost and waste.
• Ask the retailer about takeback before you buy. Many sellers will haul away your old mattress on delivery, sometimes routing it to a recycler. Confirm where it actually goes.
• Back producer-responsibility laws. EPR programs are the single biggest reason recycling is free and accessible in some states and not others. Their expansion is what moves the national recycling rate above 19%.

The post 18.2 Million Mattresses Disposed a Year, and Most of Them Get Buried appeared first on Earth911.