Posted on February 24,
2019 by Jerri-Lynn Scofield
The Center for International
Environmental Law (CIEL) last week released a report, Plastic & Health; The Hidden Cost of a Plastic Planet.
Its conclusion: “Plastic is a
Global Health Crisis Hiding in Plain Sight.”
Lifecycle Approach
The principal contribution of
the report: it takes a comprehensive look at the health impacts of plastic
throughout its life cycle. This begins with the extraction and transport
of fossil feedstocks for plastic, continues onto refining and production of
plastic, creating consumer products and packaging, fostering toxic releases
from plastic waste management. Waste disposal isn’t the final stage either, as
afterwards, there’s the fragmentation and creation of microplastics to
consider, as well as cascading exposures as plastic degrades, and finally,
ongoing and continuing environmental exposures over the hundreds of years
plastic remains before it disintegrates completely..
This report breaks new ground,
as thus far, there’s been little systematic attention to the collective
problems created by the ubiquitous and increasing use of plastic throughout its
lifecycle – from when the fossil fuel is extracted from the ground, to final
waste disposal – and what happens to plastic that finds its way into the
environment:
To date, discussions of the
health and environmental impacts of plastic have usually focused on specific
moments in the plastic lifecycle: during use and after disposal. However, the
lifecycle of plastic and its related human health impacts extends far beyond
these two stages in both directions: upstream, during feedstock extraction,
transport, and manufacturing, and downstream, when plastic reaches the
environment and degrades into micro- and nanoplastics. Increasing research and
investigation are providing new insights into the hidden, pervasive impacts of
micro- and nanoplastics on human health and the environment (report, p.6).
I encourage readers to take a
brief look at the entire report, which only runs to 75 pp. I warn you, however,
that it’s deeply depressing. In common with many others who’ve written
about or studied the plastics problem, I realize that so far, I’ve limited my
focus on plastic pollution only to specific stages of this lifecycle – largely
waste reduction and waste management. What the CIEL report’s comprehensive
approach reveals is a far, far worse catastrophe unfolding as the potential
cumulative health risks of effects of plastic are considered throughout its
life cycle. A too-narrow focus on one stage or even several in that of that
cycle underestimates the full scope of the problem.
Don’t Drink That Water!
Just a couple of things I
thought I’d mention from the report.
Microplastics contaminate the
water we drink, the food we eat, even the salt we use to season our meals:
The evidence that humans are
increasingly exposed to microplastics is mounting. Recent reports suggest that
microplastics are entering the human body through the water we drink, food we
eat, and air we breathe. In 2018, a study from the Medical University of Vienna
and the Environment Agency of Austria analyzed stool samples from participants
across Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, the United
Kingdom, and Austria. Every sample tested positive for the presence of
microplastics and up to nine different types of plastic resins were detected.
On average, the researchers found 20 microplastic particles per 10g of stool.
The study demonstrated that plastic reaches the human gut and that all food
chains are likely contaminated.202 Increasing evidence that human food and
water sources are contaminated with microplastic will continue to shed light on
the routes of exposure (p. 37).
Tap water is contaminated by
micro plastics across the globe, according to a recent study by Orb Media cited
in the CIEL report:
Researchers at Fredonia State
University of New York analyzed 159 tap water samples from 14 countries, half
from developed and half from developing nations. Of these samples, 81 percent
showed particles ranging from 0 to 61 particles per liter. The results included
an overall average of 5.45 particles per liter, with the US having the
highest average (9.24 particles per liter) while EU nations had the four lowest
averages. Water from more developed nations had a higher average density (6.85
particles per liter) while the average density from developing nations was
lower (4.26 particles per liter). Ninety-eight percent of particles were
fibers.203 (report, p. 37).
How about drinking bottled
water instead?
That solution would increase
rather than reduce a person’s exposure to plastics:
When Orb Media ran a
subsequent study of bottled water with the same researchers, it found twice as
much plastic in bottled water compared to the previous study on tap water.204
The study tested 259 bottles from 19 locations across 11 leading brands and
found microplastic particles in 93 percent of the samples, with an average of
325 plastic particles per liter. The tests revealed an average of 10.4 plastic
particles per liter, nearly double the average of the tap water study.
Not only is bottled water
contaminated with microplastics, but samples also included polypropylene,
nylon, and PET – leading the Orb Media authors to suggest that packaging might
be the source for some contamination.
Plastic Additives
I had been aware of the
microplastics issue before. Good luck with trying to reduce your exposure.
One issue I’d failed to
appreciate before was the ubiquity of plastic additives, and the potential
health risks they pose:
Additives are added to plastic
for flexibility (softeners and plasticizers), durability against heat or
sunlight (stabilizers and anti-oxidants), color, flame retardancy, and as
fillers. They are an underestimated environmental problem. Among the most hazardous
additive types are brominated flame retardants, phthalates, and lead compounds.
Some brominated flame retardants like polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBdEs)
structurally resemble polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are environmental
contaminants known to accumulate in the fat tissues of aquatic animals, causing
neurotoxic effects and altering the function of thyroid hormones. Other
chemicals used as softeners or brominated flame retardants cause birth defects,
cancer, and hormonal problems, particularly for women. Once the additives have
been released, including through incineration of plastic, they persist in the
environment, building up in the food chain (report, p. 29, citations omitted).
I’m not alone in my concern.
Chemical Watch also highlighted this issue, in Plastics exposure a global health crisis, says NGO report:
The report says plastics
additives are an “underestimated problem”. Research that has identified
negative human health impacts of many plastic additives is conclusive, it adds.
“There are significant risks to human health and a precautionary approach is
warranted.”
…
The report says that “most of
these additives are not bound to the polymer matrix and, due to their low
molecular weight, easily leach out”.
What Is To Be Done? Weak on
Solutions
I found the last chapter of
the report, on conclusions and recommendations, to be the weakest – especially
in light of its warning:
Every stage of the plastic
lifecycle poses significant risks to human health, and the majority of people
worldwide are exposed to plastic at multiple stages of this lifecycle )p. 61).
Grist reports in Plastic has a long lifespan. It’s probably shortening yours. :
While plastic is the material
du jour in part thanks to its cheap convenience, the true cost of plastics has
not been reflected in the price at the till. “Plastics are harming or killing
animals around the globe, contributing to climate change and keeping us dependent
on fossil fuels, entering our air, water, and food supplies, and seriously
jeopardizing human health throughout their lifecycle,” said Graham Forbes,
Global Plastics Project Leader for Greenpeace, in a press release.
So, what is to be done?
Especially as the use of plastics continues to increase, and is estimated may
increase by a factor of four by 2050. Should we just surrender to the notion of
a future in which we’ll be smothered by plastic?
The report punts on solid,
focused answers, but recommends:
Solutions at every stage of
the plastic lifecycle should respect the human rights to health and to a
healthy environment. Despite some uncertainty requiring further
independent scientific research, existing information about the severe human
health impacts of the plastic lifecycle documented in this report warrant the
adoption of a precautionary approach to the lifecycle of plastic and the
overall reduction of plastic production and uses (emphasis added).
And CiEL recommends increasing
transparency and creating a right to a remedy – but is silent on how this is to
be achieved in a world hostile to global action not only on plastics, but on
dealing with climate change:
In identifying, designing, and
implementing possible solutions to the plastic pollution
crisis transparency is key to success. As indicated above, transparency is
required to identify the nature and breadth of exposure to toxic material, as
well to assess and prevent possible adverse health and environmental impacts of
technologies touted as “solutions” to the plastic pollution problem, such as
incineration and plastic-to-fuel technologies. As indicated in a statement of
the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Toxic Substances: “The right of
victims to an effective remedy, the right to meaningful participation, the
right not to be subject to experimentation without consent, the right to the
highest attainable standard of health and several other human rights have all
been frustrated by large information gaps throughout the lifecycle of
substances and wastes.” (report, p. 54, citations omitted).
The way we think about the
plastic problem has to change, too, from a focus on one aspect or another of
the issue, without considering the cumulative effect of exposure throughout the
entire plastics lifecycle – and regulating or restricting accordingly. Absent a
more comprehensive approach, well-meaning but ill-conceived solutions that
address one aspect of the problem may only exacerbate another – and worsen the
overall scenario. So, looking at the whole plastic lifecycle is key:
The current narrow approaches
to assessing and addressing plastic impacts are inadequate and inappropriate.
Understanding and responding
to plastic risks, and making informed decisions in the face of those risks, demands a full lifecycle approach to assessing the complete scope of the impacts of plastic on human health.
to plastic risks, and making informed decisions in the face of those risks, demands a full lifecycle approach to assessing the complete scope of the impacts of plastic on human health.
As is considering the health
impact of chemical additives in addition to a product’s plastic components:
Health impact assessments that
focus solely on the plastic components of products while ignoring the thousands
of additives and their behavior at every stage of the plastic lifecycle are
incomplete and dangerous (report, p. 63).
One of the report’s seven
co-authors, David Azoulay, director of environmental health for CIEL, was
quoted in Chemical Watch article, as saying:
that because supply chains and
the impacts of plastic cross borders, continents and oceans, “no country can
effectively protect its citizens from those impacts on its own, and no global
instrument exists today to fully address the toxic lifecycle of plastics”.
“Countries must seize the
opportunity of current global discussions to develop a holistic response to the
plastic health crisis that involves reducing the production, use and disposal
of plastic worldwide,” he says.
I can’t offer much by way of a
happy prognosis. This is not to fault the achievement of the report’s authors
in organising and summarizing material defining and outlining the problem.
Perhaps it’s too ambitious to expect more by way of solutions.
What can consumers do? Alas,
the best answer I can come up with is to practice the four Rs – reduce, reuse,
recycle, and repair (see Four
Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and…Repair). My recommendation will
provide scant comfort to those readers who have or will look at the report, as
they are inadequate to confronting this pending global health
catastrophe created by indiscriminate use of plastics.
