Environmental and policy leaders from across the Asia Pacific are urging governments and investors to take a more cautious approach to bioplastics, warning that rapid growth in the sector risks replicating the pollution and health impacts associated with conventional plastics.
The concerns were raised during an online panel discussion, Fire or Ice: Growth of Bioplastics in the Asia Pacific, held on 22 January, which examined how regulatory shifts, policy incentives and investment trends are accelerating bioplastics production across the region — often without corresponding safeguards.
Speakers argued that bioplastics are increasingly being positioned as an easy solution to the plastics crisis, despite unresolved issues around chemical safety, end-of-life disposal, and real-world biodegradability. Panelists said this “quick fix” approach could distract policymakers from more effective measures such as cutting single-use packaging and scaling reuse systems.
“False narrative” risk as governments back bioplastics expansion
Arpita Bhagat, Plastic Policy Officer at GAIA Asia Pacific and moderator of the panel, said policymakers must avoid treating bioplastics as a default sustainable substitute for fossil-fuel plastics.
“Bioplastics are often framed as sustainable by default, whereas the material combinations keep evolving without minimum design standards or safe safeguards. Without chemical transparency, strong regulations, and a clear focus on the reduction of single-use material, they are another false narrative that wastes precious resources and delays real action. Therefore, our governments must reevaluate their policy incentives for bioplastics promotion,” she said.
The panel noted that Asia has already become the largest producer and exporter of bioplastics, with growth driven largely by market demand and investment incentives rather than by environmental regulation. Experts warned that without consistent standards, the region could face rising waste volumes and increased pressure on waste management infrastructure.
Thailand’s “biodegradable hub” push questioned
Concerns were raised that national strategies promoting bioplastics could unintentionally reinforce misleading claims around biodegradability.
Pichmol Rugrod, Plastic-Free Future Project Lead of Greenpeace Thailand, highlighted how Thailand is positioning itself as a regional centre for biodegradable plastics through industrial incentives and policy frameworks.
“Thailand is promoting itself as a biodegradable hub through investment incentives and policy frameworks like the bio-circular-green economy. But this does not address plastic pollution at its root. Plastic packaging, even when labeled biodegradable, does not truly biodegrade in real-world conditions and therefore is not the real solution. Reuse and refill systems are,” she said.
Panelists said similar initiatives across the region risk accelerating production of single-use alternatives while failing to address the underlying drivers of consumption.
Indigenous leaders warn of disproportionate waste burdens
The discussion also focused on the impact of plastic and waste policies on Indigenous and frontline communities, particularly in the Global South.
Rufino Varea, Director of the Pacific Indigenous Climate Action Network (PICAN) in Fiji, said bioplastics risk giving governments and businesses a misplaced sense of progress while communities continue to bear the consequences of pollution and waste exports.
“Bioplastics are a regrettable solution that only creates a false sense of security about addressing the plastic crisis. They do not fit our Global South realities. We already face disproportionate waste burdens threatening our ecosystems, affecting marine food webs, and causing toxicity to our waters. Our Indigenous knowledge systems have the heritage of organic materials that are inherently circular, regenerative, and in harmony with the economy,” he said.
Speakers argued that solutions must be grounded in waste prevention and community-led systems, rather than replacement materials that still depend on mass production and disposal.
Chemical safety and food system concerns raised
A recurring theme was the lack of chemical transparency and regulatory oversight in bioplastics manufacturing, with experts warning that “bio-based” does not necessarily mean non-toxic.
Jam Lorenzo, Deputy Executive Director of BAN Toxics, said testing has shown bioplastics can contain harmful substances similar to those found in conventional plastics.
“Studies show that more than half of tested bioplastics contain toxic chemicals similar to those found in conventional plastics, including substances like lead and cadmium when production is poorly regulated,” he said. “Our position is simple. No data, no market.”
Mageswari Sangaralingam, Chief Executive of the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) in Malaysia, said bioplastics used in agriculture pose particular risks, citing evidence of soil contamination and microplastic pollution.
“Bioplastics are marketed as eco-friendly, but they fragment, break down into microplastics, and release chemical additives that contaminate soil and enter food systems. A 2025 study by Jing Liu found that starch-based plastic is potentially as toxic as petroleum-based plastic. We must put a blanket ban on using bioplastics for mulching films,” she said.
Climate benefits not guaranteed, experts say
The panel also challenged the assumption that switching to bioplastics automatically reduces emissions, pointing to land use impacts and greenhouse gas emissions associated with production and disposal.
Doun Moon, Policy and Research Officer of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), warned that the climate case for bioplastics remains uncertain.
“Switching from petroleum-based plastics to bioplastics does not automatically cut emissions, as there is a large amount of GHG emissions associated with land use, material production, and end-of-life treatments,” she said.
Moon cited South Korea’s experience, where the bioplastics sector has grown slowly despite government backing and efforts to introduce legislation aimed at promoting the industry.
Regulatory gaps and “green label” concerns
Legal experts on the panel said current policy momentum in parts of Asia risks locking in another generation of single-use materials under a sustainability banner.
Madhuvanthi Rajkumar, an independent consultant working at the intersection of law, public policy, and rights-based advocacy from India, said the biggest danger is swapping one set of harms for another.
“While we are seeing unprecedented policy momentum (in India and Asia) in favour of bioplastics, the primary risk is substituting one set of problems for another while believing we’ve solved the crisis. Bioplastics come with the same array of negative environmental, social, and health impacts as conventional fossil-fuel-based plastics, in some ways even worse, while giving a false sense of sustainability that increases consumption and waste generation. It’s not even old wine in a new bottle; It’s old wine in an old bottle but with a “green” label!” she said.
The panel concluded with a call for the Global Plastics Treaty to focus on binding measures that reduce plastic production, regulate toxic chemicals and support reuse and refill systems, rather than legitimising new forms of single-use packaging.
