For many of us, the end of June will mark the return of soft plastic recycling run by the Soft Plastics Taskforce (SPT), which is made up of the three major supermarkets: Woolworths Group, Coles Group and ALDI. But this may be premature since the joint recycling strategy from the Ministry of the Environment and Water and the Ministry of Climate Change and the Environment and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is still developing a plan to recycle legacy soft plastics that have been stockpiled following the collapse of REDcycle. The bins in supermarkets from June mean shoppers will be able to deposit their soft plastics at the front of participating supermarkets nationwide; however, since the capacity to recycle all plastics is not yet a reality, this will only be a trial.

The country uses around 70 billion pieces of soft plastics each year, approximately 538,000 tonnes. In 2021, 84% of that ended up in landfill while only 13% was recycled. REDcycle was created in 2011 as a national soft plastics recycling and collection program. It operated in 2,000 stores across Australia and collected five million items each day. Customers could deposit their soft plastic waste at these drop-off points. REDcycle collapsed in 2022, leaving behind an estimated 11,000 tonnes of stockpiled soft plastic across 44 locations in Australia. Several issues led to the scheme’s demise, such as supply-chain issues, the COVID pandemic and insufficient product demand.

The SPT’s new trial will begin at 100 Woolworths stores in NSW and 500 additional stores by the end of June. The ACCC has made it clear that this trial does not cover any proposed stewardship schemes with program partners or supermarkets.

Recycling soft plastics

The circular economy is the basis for several of the Department of Climate Change, Environment and Water’s (DCCEEW) recent waste policies. Fundamental to the circular economy is keeping materials at their highest use, in circulation, and out of landfills. By this metric, recycling soft plastics is a win for the circular economy. On the other hand, endlessly recycling soft plastics is not possible for many reasons. The structure of soft plastics gives way to a shorter life cycle than other plastics. They are composed of polyethylene and/or polypropylene, which are hard to recycle. Inadequate demand for recycled materials, downcycling/lower quality products and contamination, such as mixed colours within the soft plastics, can result in poor quality output.

The downgrading of soft plastic recycling means it falls at the first hurdle. Furthermore, according to The Australia Institute’s Plastic Waste in Australia report, recycling plastic carries a toxicity risk and sheds microplastics into the environment. Even worse, the effects of plastic production from fossil fuels, pollution, and microplastics dispersed from production and recycling are not solely environmental. According to medical reports, there are significant health risks to humans, including cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal problems, intake of carcinogens, inflammation, and reproductive health challenges associated with microplastics in people’s bodies.

Waste-to-energy / Waste Recovery

Let’s look at a waste-to-energy alternative. This process converts plastic to fuels such as gas or oil using high temperatures. Energy recovery or waste-to-energy is an alternative used by many countries such as Japan, Germany and Sweden. In Japan, 67% of collected plastic waste is incinerated, while 22% is materially or mechanically recycled.

However, conversion processes can release green-house gases (CO2) into the atmosphere, unleash toxic chemicals and also generate microplastics.

Countries such as Germany, Japan and Sweden are some of the world’s most celebrated countries for having the highest plastic-waste management indexes. These accolades are also based on their highly organised and advanced collection and sorting polices and facilities. In Germany, more than 50% of plastic packaging waste is used in waste-to-energy recovery, equating to the combustion of 1.6 million tons annually (6 million tons of plastic is generated annually). And in Sweden, 86% of all plastics are incinerated. By contrast, Australia converts about 1% of soft plastics to energy.

The circular economy principle does not align with this practice. Incinerating plastic, even for energy use, means the materials fall out of the circular loop. It would require consistent input of virgin plastic materials to repeat this process of creating new products that will eventually be incinerated. This is a valid concern, considering one million tonnes of Australia’s annual plastic consumption is single-use plastic. Australia Institute research notes, “… waste-to-energy does not move us away from what is ultimately a fossil fuel economy”.

Returning to first principles, plastic is a fossil fuel product that sheds microplastics in production and recycling, loaded with toxic chemicals, hazardous to human health and the environment and a major pollutant, which leads to the question: does endless recycling or incineration constitute a solution? Boomerang Alliance and its 55 circular economy allies made a submission to the ACCC in January 2025 arguing that the stockpiled soft plastics waste should not be sent to landfill, incinerated or exported to other countries. They conclude that Australia can manage its own waste problems, which is what the SPT would be contributing to with this trial.

Since recycling and incineration are not plausible options, it is time to consider lowering use through systemic reduction of soft plastics. It is also a good time to start looking at material alternatives that are non-toxic and compostable, with a system where these products are reused consistently with supermarket products and elsewhere.

As the Labor government has been re-elected for a second term, it has the opportunity create a strategy that would invest the resources necessary to radically minimise or even end plastic waste. The soft plastics initiative could be a good start.