A
t the site of an illegal dumping site in Kapar, Selangor, which stands two storeys high and covers a space of at least five football pitches, lay scraps of conveniences that gleam weakly in the sun.
Two boys in T-shirts, shorts and slippers were sifting through the trash with a stick, occasionally bending down to inspect and discarding or picking up whatever piece of trash they deemed worthy.
Prof Dr Philip J Landrigan, Director, Global Observatory on Planetary Health at Boston College and co-author of the Lancet article on the Global Countdown on Health and Plastics. Supplied photo.
“Just looking for items to recycle,” said the older boy, who asked not to be named. He said he and his brother would forage for recyclables at the dump to make extra money.
On the ground lay several Tetra-Pak cartons in a cluster. The brothers ignored them, telling Bernama that recyclers did not take them. In fact, the boys have been disregarding most of the consumer packaging waste, such as drink packaging and refill pouches.
What these boys, considered informal waste-pickers and crucial to Malaysia’s circular economy, were doing was typical.
Unless someone collects the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) packaging like the containers for food and beverages, and detergents – often considered too expensive or too hard to be recycled – for recycling purposes, most of these items end up in landfills or in illegal dumps.
To solve this issue, Malaysia is finalising an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law for the country, which requires producers to collect a certain percentage of the packaging they put out on the market for recycling, while also mandating that their packaging contain a percentage of recycled materials.
But as Malaysia edges toward the implementation of the new policy, environmentalists and experts caution that this solution may not pan out as hoped.
They should know. The first polymer was created as a solution to save the environment after all.
PLASTIC CREATED TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT
The irony of plastic is that it owes its existence to a world seeking to limit humans’ damage to nature. In 1869, the world’s desperation to save elephants from wholesale slaughter to make ivory billiard balls gave rise to an invention that would define the current age – plastic, made from fossil fuels. Over the decades, plastic’s popularity and reputation grew as a way to save trees and other natural resources, such as paper, glass and metal. More people had access to goods that were previously difficult to transport.
But like the monster that turned against its creator, so did plastic. Unlike natural products, plastics do not degrade after centuries, and by the 1970s, plastic had mostly fallen out of favour, albeit not its usage. Adverse health reports associated with the extraction and production of plastics were confirmed. Recycling was introduced, but until now, the rate has remained below 10 percent globally, even as plastic production increased from two million megatonnes in 1950 to 475 million megatonnes in 2022.
Sorting recyclables for collection. --fotoBERNAMA (2025) COPYRIGHT RESERVED
‘
The Lancet Countdown on Health and Plastics’, published earlier this month, said plastics are a “womb to grave” threat. It stated that 8,000 megatonnes of plastics now pollute the earth. (‘The Lancet’, one of the world’s leading medical journals, addresses critical issues at the intersection of health and society. ‘The Lancet Countdown on Health and Plastics’ is an independent global monitoring initiative focused on the health impacts of plastics.)
“It is now clear that the world cannot recycle its way out of the plastic pollution crisis,” wrote Dr Philip J Landrigan, a co-author of the report and director of the Global Observatory on Planetary Health at Boston College in the United States.
A LAW THAT SHIFTS THE BURDEN
Nevertheless, in Malaysia, the government, supported by industry players and Malaysian Recycling Alliance Bhd (MAREA), has not given up on the recycling dream, aiming to use the planned EPR law to boost recycling rates.
“This is a big change from the current situation,” said Roberto Benetello, chief executive officer of MAREA, which has been piloting EPR projects on a voluntary basis since 2020.
An illegal dumping site.
“From the date it becomes mandatory, companies have a responsibility to recover a percentage of what they put on the market, and make sure that this material is recycled.”
That responsibility could be sweeping. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT), one of the entities responsible for drafting the EPR policy, said in a statement to Bernama that they are finalising the EPR framework, which will require obligated companies to take responsibility for post-consumer plastic packaging.
“Currently, the government is considering suitable incentive mechanisms, such as tax rebates for early adopters under the voluntary phase (of the EPR), to encourage participation in the EPR scheme and promote more sustainable product designs,” it said.
Under the EPR scheme, food and beverage entities and household product companies, ranging from global giants like Coca-Cola to local cosmetic producers, would be required to document recovery and recycling of their packaging, or pay a Producer Responsibility Organisation or PRO to remove, intercept and take away the recyclables for them.
KPKT added that the first phase of the EPR policy will start on a voluntary basis in 2026, and become mandatory by 2030.
“The early phase of the EPR will focus on six types of packaging materials, namely plastic, paper, aluminum, glass, metal alloy with iron, and cartons, before expanding to other materials like mixed packaging, textiles and new emerging waste,” it said.
The ministry also said the EPR will increase the recycling rate in Malaysia, which stood at 37.9 percent in 2024, according to government data as reported in the media.
LOFTY RATES, MURKY ACCOUNTING
Malaysia’s recycling rate has supposedly increased from the 2023 figure of 35.38 percent. Plastics account for nearly 40 percent of the materials recovered, according to government data. But not everyone buys the numbers.
“That’s an extraordinarily high figure,” Landrigan told Bernama via a Zoom interview. “Globally, the average recycling rate for plastics is about eight percent. In Western Europe, where they push recycling hard, it’s only 14 or 15 percent.”
The existence of plastic actually originated from the world's efforts to limit the damage caused by humans to the natural environment.
He suspects that official figures may include categories beyond true recycling. Even if Malaysia meets its 40 percent recovery target, Landrigan argues that the gains may be illusory. Contrary to public perception, most items sent for recycling do not end up being recycled.
The answer may lie in how Malaysia calculates its recycling rate – rather than counting the amount of recyclable products that end up being recycled, authorities instead count the amount of items collected and turned in to be recycled and divide the figure with the total amount of waste generated. Whether the waste collected actually ends up recycled or in the incinerator or landfill remains a question.
Solid waste expert Prof Datuk P Agamutu said the data was unlikely.
“There is no actual definition of recycling. (What is happening) is that they give the items to recyclers and they go through the items. Some they throw away because (they are) contaminated,” he said.
S. Mageswari from Sahabat Alam Malaysia piped in, saying, “And then, some types of plastics cannot be recycled. Or not economic enough to be recycled.”
Plastic manufacturers and recyclers told Bernama that often, they have had to reject items submitted for recycling due to contamination, typically food containers. Other items that recyclers reject include multi-layered items that combine plastic with other materials like aluminum, such as refill pouches for detergents.
Industry officials counter that EPR will encourage more investment in building the recovery and recycling infrastructure Malaysia desperately needs, which will thereby increase the amount of items recycled.
MAREA’s Benetello told Bernama usually, the issue was not that the items could not be recycled, but that Malaysia lacked the technology and infrastructure to handle such hard-to-recycle materials.
He said chemical recycling, a more complicated and costly process that separates materials for recycling, is supposedly able to handle these complex products, but Malaysia does not have the facilities.
“Chemical recycling will likely come in after the EPR law becomes mandatory,” Benetello said.
In 2023, MAREA’s pilot projects collected about 3,000 metric tonnes of recyclables; this year, they expect to collect 4,000 metric tonnes. That is a sliver compared with the over a million tonnes of plastic waste the country generates annually.
“Definitely, EPR is important and EPR is good because it extends the responsibility of waste management back to the producer, which is something very necessary,” said Wong Pui Yi from the Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4), who attended the recent global plastics treaty talks in Geneva, Switzerland.
However, she said, hoping that recycling would reduce the amount of plastic waste in Malaysia is unrealistic as long as “companies keep producing more”.
Landrigan agreed. “Recycling sounds very attractive on the surface, but in reality it just doesn’t work,” he said.
GOVERNMENT’S BALANCING ACT
KPKT officials, meanwhile, argue that they are not blind to upstream measures. The ministry’s Circular Economy Blueprint for Solid Waste in Malaysia (2025-2035) explicitly promotes reuse systems and eco-designs, not just recycling.
Single-use plastics remain a top concern. The ministry has banned polystyrene containers, pushed supermarkets to adopt reusable shopping bags, and launched a ‘Say No to Single-Use Plastics’ campaign with over 7,600 retail outlets participating in it.
But for now, the centrepiece is still EPR. KPKT calls it a “new direction” that reflects Malaysia’s commitment to a low-carbon future.
Malaysia has an oil and gas industry, and experts have said any policy tackling plastic production will have to take that into account.
For C4’s Wong and others, it remains a sore point, saying the EPR will not be able to meet its goals without addressing plastic production.
“What about our health and our environment? If we are all getting sick all the time and if our environment continues to become polluted and Malaysia is already suffering badly from plastic pollution, is it still worth it to continue to do business as usual just to protect our business interests?” she asked.
“There’s the plastics industry, there’s the petrochemical industry. But if the world is moving away from plastics and petrochemicals, is it wise business sense? Does it make business sense for Malaysia to be clinging on to these industries?”
‘The Lancet’ report estimates the cost to human health to be at least US$1.5 trillion annually in health damages worldwide, from cancers to endocrine disorders.
As for Landrigan, the stakes are generational.
“Plastic production is on track to double by 2040, triple by 2060. If you think you have a lot of plastic waste now, just imagine what your kids are going to be facing,” he warned.
