Both the EU Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) and the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) have things to say about waste and recycling. However, at first sight they appear to point in opposite directions. This paper expands on everyday observations which reflect the opposing forces of (i) a desire to re-use and recycle used goods and (ii) to be suspicious of potentially unknown constituents in recycle streams. Modern manufacturing can produce articles for low cost, meaning that replacement is often seen as more desirable than repair. This can be seen as acceptable if the original is repaired, re-used, or subject to recycling – but in many cases, medium and long-life goods will inevitably contain chemical substances which have been subject to regulation after the first production of the article. Should we still re-cycle these to maintain the circular economy? Or should we take a more cautious view and remove these substances of concern? Both the CEAP and CSS strive to improve our sustainability, yet their aims appear to be in conflict. Which will prove more important?