Three common misconceptions holding back the fight against plastic pollution

Misconception 1: Plastics are not harmful

It's been over a decade since I was first warned that chewing on plastic was potentially harmful. I assumed that, surely, the material used to package our food, beverages and hygiene products must be safe. That is misconception number 1: that plastics are safe. It persists despite mounting evidence which suggests otherwise. Long-term studies by IUCN, UNDP and many others have proven this. 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of synthetic chemicals that have been widely used in various consumer, commercial, and industrial products since the 1950s. These chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), are known for their resistance to heat, grease, water, and stains, making them prevalent in everyday items such as food packaging, cookware, clothing, and firefighting foam. Studies and reports have consistently linked PFAS to birth defects, cancer, immune disruption, liver injury, and other health issues. 

And, of course, the risks are not limited to our health. Plastic pollution presents a danger to the marine ecosystem, increasing the likelihood of marine creatures consuming, suffocating from, or becoming ensnared in plastic waste. Studies show that over 1,500 species in both marine and land environments have been documented to ingest plastics. Plastic pollution also severely affects soil and groundwater, as well as the greenhouse gas emissions of production and end-of-use pollution that accumulate and damage the atmosphere.

Despite mounting evidence against the ‘chemicals of concern’ present in plastics and their toxicity and contamination, regulatory actions have been slow. The plastics treaty is a crucial, collective chance to catch up.   

Misconception 2: Pollution is just about waste. 

Back in my pen-chewing days, I at least knew to refrain from recklessly throwing my pen cap out into the Madagascan rainforest. I also knew that there was a lot more to the story. 

Since assuming my role as a delegate for Consumers International in our advocacy for a treaty that works for consumers, I've been confronted with a second striking misconception, one which comes up time and again in negotiations: the belief that ‘plastic pollution’ is solely a problem of waste at the end of use, also known as a downstream issue. The UN´s definition of pollution encompasses ‘presence of substances and heat in environmental media (air, water, land) whose nature, location, or quantity produces undesirable environmental effects; and ‘activity that generates pollutants.’

To see the full picture, we need to assess the impact of plastic pollution across the entire lifecycle of the product, from the extraction of the initial resources required, through the production process, to the disposal and subsequent release of any remnants into the environment after its use.  

Despite their versatility, plastics are foreign to the natural world, they are industrially produced materials that take over 100 years to decompose. At the end of use, once I've chewed it down to the nub and thrown it away, my pen cap will release even more greenhouse gas emissions, breaking down into tiny pieces, known as ‘microplastics’.  

With delegates meeting at INC-4 from the highest-income countries to the smallest islands, from small non-profits to major industry players, discussions surrounding the management of plastic pollution are both intense and multifaceted. Understanding the full life-cycle of plastic pollution can help illuminate the complexities behind the debates which took place in Ottawa.

Misconception 3: A world without plastic pollution is not possible

The major hurdle the negotiations need to overcome is also what I see as misconception number 3: The persistent belief in the importance and ubiquity of plastics. This comes coupled with: The perceived lack of viable alternatives. 

There is a pervasive assumption that commercial activity is somehow detached from the well-being of our planet and its inhabitants. That pollution is the price we pay for a functioning marketplace. But there are powerful examples of innovation underway. Like edible and biodegradable packaging for beverages and condiments made from brown seaweed a renewable natural resource, solid shampoos and body products. There are complexities here. But while substantial investments, in the range of billions of USD dollars for the highest performing companies, are directed towards innovation in products and industries, we should call on producers to be far more ambitious in their efforts to discover and advance environmentally sustainable and safe substitutes. If we can put someone on the moon, and operate self-functioning satellites in space, we can also realise our global vision for a fair, safe, sustainable, and pollution-free marketplace. 

At Consumers International, we want to see a ‘Plastics Treaty’ that is a catalyst for environmentally sound innovation. This could mean informing companies to recourse their research and development investments, setting common goals for state subsidies, and scaling up technological innovation.