How the Global Plastics Treaty Could Protect Our Health: What You Need to Know

Plastic production is skyrocketing. Since the 1950s, it has grown 250 times and is set to double again by 2040. Today, we’ve got about 8 billion metric tons of discarded plastic polluting the planet. This waste breaks down into tiny particles known as micro- and nanoplastics that are everywhere, even in our bodies. They can be found in our organs and can get into our food, air, and water.

Global leaders from over 170 nations are currently in Geneva, discussing the Global Plastics Treaty. One major focus? Including human health in the treaty. The evidence is clear: plastics threaten our health at every stage. From extracting fossil fuels to production and disposal, plastics are linked to diseases like cancer and neurological disorders. Children exposed to chemicals like phthalates from plastic toys are at risk of losing IQ and future fertility. Adults who consume food from plastic containers may face issues such as obesity, diabetes, and heart problems.

The impact is widespread but hits the poor and vulnerable hardest. The annual health-related costs tied to plastics exceed $1.5 trillion globally.

For a successful treaty, two things are crucial. First, there must be clear regulations on the many harmful chemicals used in plastic. Some are known to cause cancer and disrupt hormones, while many have never been tested for safety. Second, we need a global cap on plastic production to stop the rising tide of pollution.

This preventive approach, called “upstream” prevention, has worked in the past. A famous example is John Snow, who removed a pump handle in 19th-century London to stop a cholera outbreak. Upstream strategies have proven more effective than trying to clean up pollution after it happens.

For instance, the Clean Air Act in the U.S. reduced factory emissions by 75% since 1970, leading to better air quality and healthier citizens. Similarly, removing lead from gasoline has lowered blood lead levels significantly and improved children’s cognitive abilities. Investing in pollution prevention has economic benefits, generating $30 for every dollar spent on air quality improvements.

However, many oil-rich nations and major plastic-producing companies resist these upstream controls. They argue waste management and recycling can solve plastic pollution. Unfortunately, recycling plastics has been largely ineffective—only about 8% of plastic gets recycled, with most either burned or sent to landfills.

As delegates negotiate in Geneva, last November’s talks in Busan ended without a treaty. Many nations want health protections included, and they have growing support from organizations like the World Health Organization and various religious leaders. They advocate for a treaty that prioritizes justice and health.

The future of the Global Plastics Treaty hangs in the balance. Will it prioritize health and scientific evidence, or bow to short-term economic interests? The world is watching closely.

For more on plastic pollution and health impacts, consult the World Health Organization’s recent report.

Dr. Philip J. Landrigan is a professor at Boston College and heads the Global Observatory on Planetary Health.

Source link