Plastics and fossil fuel polluters are competing to see who can kill us first

They’re not just polluting nature but also our bodies.

It’s been quite the week for headlines regarding how plastics undermine our health and pollute our bodies.

Starting gently, one headline reads, Plastics in everyday objects may disrupt sleep in same way as caffeine, study finds. The article notes that:

The findings showed for the first time how plastic chemicals probably wreak havoc on cell signals that regulate the body’s internal clock, throwing it off by up to 17 minutes.

The internal clock is “incredibly important for physiology and overall health”, though more research is needed to know the precise consequences of exposure, said Martin Wagner, a study co-author and plastic chemical researcher with the Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology.

“This study adds to the increasing body of evidence that plastics contain compounds that cause a wide range of toxic effects,” the authors wrote in the peer-reviewed study published in Environmental International. “A fundamental shift in the design and production of plastics is essential to ensure their safety.”

But much worse, another headline reads, This commonly used plastic chemical caused 350,000 heart disease-related deaths in 1 year. This is due to exposure to DEHP, a chemical used to soften plastic products including children’s toys and food packaging that acts like a “wrecking ball” on the body’s tissues. The article notes:

Researchers found that in 2018, 10 percent of heart disease-related deaths in the United States and 8 percent in Europe were attributable to DEHP exposure. That figure was as high as 17 percent in the Middle East and South Asia and more than 13 percent in East Asia and the Pacific.

Now you might be inclined to ask: Why is this being allowed to happen? Surely the government and plastics industry should be doing something about this? Well yes, but much like the fossil fuel producers, these concerns have been known for many years, steps were supposed to be taken to reduce impacts, but this has not happened.

For example, another headline this week reads, Plastics industry pushed ‘advanced recycling’ despite knowing problems. The article notes:

Plastic producers have pushed “advanced recycling” as a salve to the plastic waste crisis despite knowing for years that it is not a technically or economically feasible solution, a new report argues.

Advanced recycling, also known as chemical recycling, refers to a variety of processes used to break plastics into their constituent molecules. The industry has increasingly promoted these technologies, as public concern about the environmental and health effects of plastic pollution has grown. Yet the rollout of these technologies has been plagued by problems.

Oh, wait. Who’s in the mix of these failed plastics solutions? It’s the fossil fuel polluters Chevron and Exxon: not satisfied with killing us with air pollution, they’re looking to form a pincer movement to also kill us with plastics pollution.

And another headline feeding into the more familiar concern about microplastics: UK falling behind on tackling microplastic pollution, scientists say. With both the EU and the even the US enforcing tighter controls, the article notes:

The scientists have recommended that the government sets up a roadmap with measurable targets and timelines to tackle the microplastic problem. They are also calling for interventions in high-emission sectors such as agriculture. Sewage sludge that contains high concentrations of microplastics is spread on fields as fertiliser, and plastic-based mulching is contributing to widespread soil contamination.

At the moment, there is a ban in the UK on cosmetic products that use microbeads, but the scientists said these tiny plastics need to be recognised and designed out of products beyond this, including setting design standards for clothing and other textiles so they shed less.

The question is, do you have any confidence that the government who are largely in the pockets of the polluters are really going to take the rational advice of scientists? Nor do we. Our Fair Future requires economic wellbeing and good health for everyone: but it will not be given freely by the polluters and their cronies in government. It will need to be taken be force.