Yavuz Eroğlu, President of the Turkish Plastics Industrialists’ Research, Development, and Education Foundation (PAGEV), has made significant statements regarding the restrictive regulatory approach recently proposed in Türkiye under the title of “single-use plastics.”
Although presented as an environmental policy, it in fact carries the risk of triggering far broader consequences: contraction of industry, weakening of employment, decline in exports, rising inflation, and an increase in the cost of daily life for citizens.
More concerning is the following: while the European Union, having experienced firsthand how excessive regulations have weakened the competitiveness of its own industry, has in recent years moved toward postponement, softening, revision, and simplification in many areas; it is unacceptable for Türkiye today to move toward the very same mistake the EU made five years ago and is now trying to correct.
The issue is not plastics, but the failure to establish an effective waste management system; and the solution is not bans, but smart transformation.
Hygiene Plastics Play a Critical Role in Food Safety
A significant portion of the products referred to by the public as “singleuse plastics” are actually products that provide hygiene and food safety. The role of these products in reducing the risk of contamination was clearly demonstrated during the pandemic period.
For this reason, discussing the issue solely with the “single-use” label is incomplete and misleading. The subject cannot be addressed without evaluating food safety, hygiene, accessibility, cost, and industrial structure together.
It was emphasized that these products are viewed as “hygiene plastics” within the sector and respond to the contamination risks and food safety needs brought about by communal living.
Türkiye’s plastics industry is not a marginal power but a strategic production force. The sector produces 11 million tons of plastic products annually, which corresponds to a turnover of over 45 billion dollars.
When products manufactured from recycled raw materials are included, the total turnover reaches approximately 50 billion dollars, and direct and indirect exports are realized at the level of 15 billion dollars.
With this scale, Türkiye is the second largest producer of plastic products in the European continent after Germany. To suppress such a production infrastructure with bans without taking technical and economic realities into account is not protecting the environment, but weakening the production backbone of Türkiye.
‘Restrictions Could Have a Major Impact on Employment and Exports’
The economic weight of the product groups at the heart of the restriction discussions is also extremely large. According to the sector data note, the annual production volume of the listed single-use plastic products is 1.458 million tons, with an approximate production value of $4.4 billion.
In the same product group, exports stand at 1.008 million tons, valued at approximately $3 billion.
The risk of direct employment loss reaches 35,000 people, while the total impact including suppliers and related sectors reaches up to approximately 100,000 individuals. The impact on households earning their living from this sector is stated to be approximately 400,000 people.
It was noted that Türkiye is the second-largest producer of “hygiene plastics” in Europe after Italy, and the sector has a volume of approximately $4 billion and very strong export links.
The alternatives assumed to replace these products are neither economically nor technically problem-free. In the opinions submitted to the ministry by sector representatives, it is stated that alternative products harbor serious risks in terms of both cost and technical aspects.
Sudden Bans Create Investment Losses and Financial Pressure
It is also clear that the sector’s stance on this issue is not “defensive,” but highly rational. The direct prohibition approach, if enacted without sufficiently evaluating technical realities, existing production infrastructure, accessibility of substitute products, food safety requirements, economic impacts, and transition capacity, will not yield the expected outcomes in terms of public interest.
It is evident that a reasonable balance must be established between environmental objectives and economic and technical realities, that product-based evaluations should be conducted, that a gradual transition should be envisaged, and that comprehensive impact analyses should be prepared.
It is emphasized that investments in machinery, molds, and infrastructure for the production of single-use products have largely been completed; that the timelines envisaged in the draft carry the risk of rendering these investments idle in a short period; and that factories are already under serious financial pressure due to current economic conditions and credit burdens.
This alone demonstrates that sudden bans may not constitute an “environmental decision,” but rather a direct destruction of investment.
The European experience serves as a powerful laboratory showing that bans alone are not a solution. According to the March 2025 national initiatives tracker of EuPC, the European Plastics Converters association, the implementation of the SUP Directive across Europe is not uniform; debates, postponements, and revisions continue in many countries.
For instance, in France, the EPR implementation for professional packaging, which was expected to start in January 2025, has been postponed; in Belgium, the system is under revision; in Bulgaria, the framework for DRS is still under discussion, with implementation progressing toward a 2027 outlook; in Italy, the plastic tax has been postponed to July 1, 2026, with ongoing pressure for its cancellation; and in Greece, a model focused on a 25% recycled content requirement for PET bottles and DRS is coming to the fore.
In other words, Europe’s actual direction is not “more bans,” but recycling, recycled content, deposit systems, and feasible transition mechanisms.
