Kansas county sues plastic companies over recycling, alleging ‘fraud and deception’

Plastics and chemical companies engaged in “a decades-long campaign of fraud and deception” about recycling, causing a pollution crisis, a western Kansas county claims in a lawsuit. 

Ford County filed suit against a host of manufacturers and a leading chemicals trade group last month, claiming the companies lied about the recyclability of plastic.

“Despite their long-standing knowledge that recycling plastic is neither technically nor economically viable, petrochemical companies … have engaged in fraudulent marketing and public education campaigns designed to mislead the public about the viability of plastic recycling as a solution to plastic waste,” the lawsuit says.

The case is filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The defendant companies — including ExxonMobil, Chevron and the American Chemistry Council — have not yet responded with filings of their own.

“The plastics industry … should be held accountable for their campaign of deception much like the producers of tobacco, opioids and toxic chemicals that engaged in similar schemes,” the lawsuit says. 

Attorneys for Ford County did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

Lauren Kight, a media relations representative for ExxonMobil, said in an email that the company is “transparent and meticulous” in the claims it makes about its products and has made sizable investments to keep plastic out of landfills.

“This lawsuit does nothing to advance solutions to plastic waste and pollution,” Kight said. “Instead of filing lawsuits, we invite governments, big and small, to work with us on solutions that recognize the value of plastics and improve recycling rates, which are much too low.”

Chevron’s attorney — Theodore Boutrous, Jr., of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP — said in a statement that there was “no basis for Chevron to be in this baseless lawsuit.” 

“The plaintiff in this meritless action fails to include a single allegation of wrongdoing by Chevron in the entire complaint,” Boutrous said. 

According to the lawsuit, less than 10% of plastics are recycled. Only some of the myriad types are recyclable at all. But even some plastics that are recyclable don’t get recycled because of the challenges waste processors face in separating and sorting varieties of plastic along with other materials. 

Plastic also degrades as it’s recycled, the lawsuit says, meaning a product made from recycled plastic is of lower quality and doesn’t replace virgin plastic. 

The toxicity of plastic and additives also limits recyclability, the lawsuit says.

“As plastics degrade through use and the recycling process, they begin to leach these toxic substances,” the lawsuit says. “For this reason, a vast majority of plastic products cannot be recycled into food-grade packaging, food-contact surfaces or other high-contact products.” 

According to the lawsuit, the plastics industry began promoting the idea of plastic disposability in the mid-20th Century. When waste began to pose a problem, the industry began promoting recycling.

But, the lawsuit says, the defendants knew about the limitations of plastic recycling and promoted it anyway.

A report from the Vinyl Institute in 1986 cited in the lawsuit says “recycling cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution, as it merely prolongs the time until an item is disposed of.” 

But in the late 1980s, promotion of plastics recycling took off, the lawsuit says, by trade groups and manufacturers.

“All these groups had the same directive: defend the plastics industry from restrictive legislation by selling recycling as a viable solution to plastic waste,” the lawsuit says. 

As of 2018, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, only 9% of plastics generated were recycled compared with 68% of paper, 25% of glass and almost all lead-acid batteries.

Ross Eisenberg — president of America’s Plastic Makers, which is affiliated with the American Chemistry Council — claimed Ford County’s lawsuit contained inaccurate, misleading and out-of-date claims.

“It would be far more helpful to its citizens and the environment if Ford County invested more in its own recycling infrastructure instead of bringing a misguided lawsuit,” Eisenberg said.

Other defendants named in the lawsuit include Celanese Corporation, Eastman Chemical Company, LyondellBasell Industries, DuPont de Nemours Inc. and Dow Chemical Company.

Celanese said it does not manufacture the type of single-use plastics relevant to the lawsuit.

Eastman said it was still reviewing the lawsuit. 

And LyondellBasell said it does not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit requests that the court stop plastics companies from “engaging in the deceptive, unfair, unconscionable and unlawful business practices” laid out in the complaint, award damages and require cleanup of the “public nuisance” of plastics waste.