By ByteBot
Cornell University and University of Chicago researchers dropped a bombshell last week: wearable health devices will generate over 1 million tons of electronic waste by 2050. However, the industry is solving the wrong problem. While manufacturers celebrate recyclable aluminum cases and biodegradable plastics, printed circuit boards account for 70% of a device’s environmental footprint. With global demand projected to reach 2 billion devices annually by 2050—a 42x increase from today—the continuous glucose monitor market alone could bury sustainability efforts under 1.44 billion disposable sensors every year.
The disconnect is stark. CES 2026 wrapped up last week with hundreds of new wearables showcasing advanced health monitoring—brain activity tracking, cardiac sensors, continuous glucose monitors. Nevertheless, sustainability wasn’t part of the conversation. Not in keynotes. Not on show floors. Meanwhile, solutions exist: modular design could cut environmental impact by 70%, but zero major manufacturers have adopted it.
The 70% Problem No One Talks About
Printed circuit boards dominate the environmental cost of wearables, yet they’re invisible in marketing. Consequently, Apple touts “100% recycled aluminum” cases. Fitbit celebrates biodegradable packaging. Samsung highlights reduced plastic components. All of this accounts for less than 30% of a device’s actual carbon footprint.
The real environmental disaster lives inside: rare earth mining for gold and silver connectors, energy-intensive semiconductor fabrication for integrated circuits, and PCB disposal that current e-waste facilities can’t handle. Furthermore, a single wearable device generates 1.1 to 6.1 kilograms of CO2-equivalent over its lifecycle, with the PCB contributing 70% of that impact. The study, published December 31 in Nature, analyzed continuous glucose monitors, cardiac monitors, blood pressure wearables, and smartwatches—all showed the same pattern.
Cornell Professor Fengqi You, co-author of the study, put it bluntly: “Sustainability at this scale can’t be solved with one material swap.” Instead, the industry needs systemic redesign—modular architecture, renewable manufacturing energy, material substitution—not plastic theater.
Continuous Glucose Monitors: 72% of 2050 Wearable E-Waste
Continuous glucose monitors exemplify the crisis at scale. Notably, these devices will account for 72% of wearable health device usage by 2050, with projected annual demand reaching 1.44 billion sensors. Their 7-14 day lifespan creates exponential waste: a Type 1 diabetes patient using Dexcom G7 goes through 36 sensors per year. Multiply that by 540 million projected CGM users globally by 2050, and you’re looking at 19+ billion sensors annually.
The current numbers are already alarming. Around 230 million CGM sensors are used worldwide each year, generating 20,000 tons of packaging waste and 580 tons of sensor waste from just two brands—Dexcom and Freestyle Libre. Moreover, each sensor contains lithium batteries (600+ kilograms of lithium wasted annually from diabetes devices alone), PCBs with rare earth elements, and silver oxide batteries (14,000 kilograms annually). Worse, CGMs are classified as clinical waste due to contaminated sharps and must be incinerated. No recycling is possible under current disposal regulations.
The dilemma is real: CGMs demonstrably improve health outcomes, reducing A1C levels and preventing hypoglycemia in diabetes patients. Atrial fibrillation detection on smartwatches prevents strokes. These aren’t vanity devices—they save lives. However, 14-day disposable design is unsustainable when you’re talking about 1.44 billion sensors by 2050. The good news? There’s a proven alternative the industry refuses to implement.
Solutions Exist, Yet Industry Ignores Them
Three solutions could dramatically reduce wearable e-waste, backed by the Cornell/UChicago study’s quantitative analysis:
Modular Design (70% Reduction): Separate the reusable PCB core from disposable sensor patches or casings. Think electric toothbrushes—disposable heads, reusable motor and electronics. For CGMs, users would replace the skin-contact sensor and adhesive patch every 14 days while keeping the PCB module, battery, and wireless transmission components for years. As a result, the environmental impact drops by 70%. The technology is feasible. University of Chicago researcher Bozhi Tian notes that using abundant metals like copper and aluminum instead of gold and silver won’t sacrifice performance: “A lot of people assumed you would have to sacrifice performance if you use more reactive metals, but our analysis suggests it should be okay.”
Renewable Manufacturing Energy (15% Reduction): If semiconductor fabs ran on 100% renewable energy, carbon footprints would drop 15%. Currently, most chip manufacturing relies on fossil fuels. TSMC hits 9% renewable energy; Samsung manages 6%. Intel leads at 75%, but the industry average remains abysmal.
Material Substitution: Replace rare earth elements with abundant minerals. Gold and silver connectors could become copper and aluminum. Rare earth semiconductor materials could shift to more common alternatives. The manufacturing retooling costs money, but the environmental savings are quantified.
So why hasn’t a single major manufacturer adopted modular design? Business model conflict. Shorter replacement cycles mean more device sales. Consequently, a modular CGM that lasts five years sells once; 130 disposable sensors over the same period sell 130 times. Manufacturers have zero incentive to change unless consumers demand it or regulators mandate it.
One bright spot: Oura Ring offers a genuine device take-back program in the US, Canada, EU, and UK with free return shipping. They’re the only major wearable manufacturer attempting component reuse at scale. Apple’s Daisy robot can disassemble Apple Watches, but PCB recovery remains limited. Fitbit provides recycling shipping labels, but devices likely end up incinerated anyway. Dexcom and Freestyle Libre—which will command 72% of the 2050 market—offer zero recycling programs.
CES 2026: Innovation Without Accountability
CES 2026 showcased wearable health tech everywhere. Samsung announced Brain Health, a Galaxy Watch and Galaxy Ring feature analyzing walking patterns, voice changes, and sleep data to detect early signs of cognitive decline. Additionally, Neurable partnered with HyperX to launch a brain activity headset for gamers tracking focus in real time. Naox demonstrated in-ear EEG technology for consumer earbuds.
All of these devices require more powerful processors for AI-powered diagnostics. Larger PCBs. More rare earth materials. Higher environmental impact. Nevertheless, sustainability wasn’t mentioned in a single keynote. The Cornell/UChicago study was published December 31 and announced January 6—the day before CES opened. The timing couldn’t have been better for manufacturers to address the findings. Instead: silence.
The contrast with the EV industry is striking. Tesla, Rivian, GM—they all lead product announcements with carbon footprint data and lifecycle emissions analysis. Wearables? Marketing focuses on features while environmental cost gets buried. Until sustainability becomes a competitive differentiator—something consumers actively choose based on environmental impact—manufacturers will prioritize innovation over responsibility.
What Happens Next
The math is unavoidable: 48 million wearable health devices annually in 2025 becomes 2 billion by 2050. That’s 42x growth. Without intervention, cumulative impact reaches 1+ million tons of e-waste and 100 million tons of CO2 emissions. For perspective, one million tons of e-waste weighs as much as 100 Eiffel Towers. 100 million tons of CO2 equals annual emissions from 21 million cars.
The industry knows solutions exist. Modular design cuts waste by 70%. Renewable manufacturing reduces carbon 15%. Material substitution makes supply chains less fragile. Indeed, the technology is proven. The environmental savings are quantified. What’s missing is pressure—from consumers demanding modular designs or regulators mandating them.
Until then, wearables will continue generating health benefits and environmental crises in equal measure. The question is whether the industry will act before 2050’s 1.44 billion disposable CGM sensors make the problem impossible to ignore.
