In November, international delegates to INC-5, the international negotiating committee for a Global Plastics Treaty (GPT) held in Busan, South Korea, failed to agree on a legally binding United Nations treaty on plastic pollution. The main fault lines lie between countries supporting an ambitious treaty, including a cap on plastic production, and a minority seeking to focus the treaty provisions on waste management and voluntary measures. At INC-5, health emerged as a key battleground for disputes over the scope and power of the Treaty.
The draft text discussed in Busan included a dedicated article focused on the health impact of plastic pollution: Article 19.
Several countries propose a strengthening of obligations in Article19 to prevent and mitigate health risks from plastic pollution, for example by setting targets for reducing exposure.
However, others proposed weak language that ‘encourages’ states to prevent health risks rather than supporting binding commitments, or oppose the inclusion of a dedicated article on health altogether. In their statement opposing its inclusion, the Saudi Arabia delegation claimed that including health issues in the treaty will ‘divert attention from the core objective we have at hand of—addressing plastic pollution’.
The protection of health is one of the main reasons why an international, legally binding treaty on plastic pollution is needed. As the WHO submission to INC-5 states ‘the plastic crisis is also a health crisis’. Microplastics have been detected in human blood and multiple human organs, and correlations between microplastics in arterial plaques and fatal outcomes are emerging. Among over 15,000 chemicals used in plastics, 3,600 are unregulated chemicals of concern. Fewer than 6% of the total are subject to international regulation, and we lack essential hazard information on 62%, making it impossible to be sure that they are safe. Many of the health burdens of plastic pollution disproportionately fall on economically disadvantaged, minority and indigenous populations who live and work at sites of plastic production and discard.
Article 19 is crucial because regulatory authorities have failed to respond to mounting evidence of the toxic qualities of plastic-related chemicals. We have known that vinyl chloride, used to make PVC, is a carcinogen for 50 years, yet tens of millions of tonnes are manufactured globally each year; many countries have restricted the use of chemicals called phthalates in children’s toys because of their toxicity, yet they remain in intraveous and respiratory equipment that releases them directly into patients’ bodies. These are just two examples of many.
Naysayers at INC-5 were supported by hundreds of industry lobbyists, some of whom are accused of intimidating environmental scientists. One reason these interest groups oppose the inclusion of health issues is that health impacts from plastic pollution occur at every stage of the plastic lifecycle, from production to use and disposal. Binding provisions to protect health would therefore help to bolster the case for an ambitious Treaty that addresses the entire lifecycle of plastics.
Until now, these lobby groups have been largely successful in sidelining health from the Treaty negotiations. Gaps in scientific evidence have been misrepresented to emphasise scientific uncertainty and justify inaction. At INC-5, a 2019 WHO report on microplastics in drinking water which suggested the risks to human health are low was widely touted. Four days into the meeting, WHO issued a statement to clarify that the report should not be represented as suggesting that health risks from microplastics are low in general.
One sign that the health risks of plastics are being taken more seriously is that a proposed blanket exemption for medical plastics from the Treaty provisions has now been removed from the draft text.
But more still needs to be done to strengthen the Treaty’s ability to protect human health, including a strong and binding Article 19. Calls for scientific certainty from those profiting from chemicals that they have placed on the market without testing must not distract us. We already know the risks. We must act now to protect us all from plastic chemicals that are increasingly ubiquitous across our workplaces, homes and natural environments. While the Treaty talks have missed their original deadline, it is far more important that the final text has the power to genuinely prevent the plastics industry from continuing to expand and pollute with impunity.
This is why voices from healthcare, delegates from low-and middle-income countries, indigenous groups and labour unions, who have consistently highlighted the health impacts of plastics should be heard and health put at the centre of a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution.
About the authors: Alice Street is Professor of Anthropology and Health at the University of Edinburgh and Principal Investigator of the Wellcome funded ‘After the Single Use’ project.
Ruth Stringer is Science and Policy Coordinator for Health Care Without Harm. Health Care Without Harm are partners on the Wellcome funded ‘After the Single Use’ project.
Competing interest: This blog piece was supported by funding from Wellcome Trust. Health Care Without Harm is an international organization dedicated to providing resources, knowledge, and inspiration for the health care sector to help reduce its environmental impact. They have sent observers to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and advocated for stronger protections for health. The authors declare no other interests.
Handling Editor: Neha Faruqui