The Global Plastics treaty

Leonardo Trasande, Marina Fernandez y Miquel Porta

 

The negotiation of the treaty needs to be ethical, scientific, inclusive and transparent

 

Eight years after the 2015 Climate Accords, Paris is yet again the historic site of a new major treaty negotiation that is crucial for the planet and citizens’ health: the Plastics Treaty. Many types of plastics have released chemicals and particles that have contaminated wildlife, oceans, and humans. Virtually everyone living today has mixtures of chemicals used in plastics that hack our hormones and contribute to chronic disease. Notwithstanding the uncertainties usual in science, the science is sufficient to act and doubts are not about whether we have a problem, but how many and deep the wounds are. That is why the United Nations launched plans last year to negotiate an internationally legal binding instrument to end plastic pollution.

However, in the lead up to the second meeting of the International Negotiating Committee, parts of science are at risk of being excluded. Specifically, leading health organizations will be permitted to have one observer representative each. Some industries struggling to preserve the harmful current status quo, particularly fossil fuel manufacturers, are trying to pack the treaty process in a way that overemphasizes recycling and does not address the enormous production of plastics that are overwhelming the Earth and spilling out as waste. The United Nations Environment Program has tentatively issued a blueprint to suggest a path forward that minimizes the need to reduce plastic.

It is also particularly troubling to see that the plastics treaty might promote voluntary agreements rather than commitments to strict targets and explicit bans on chemicals of concern. As we have seen from the climate treaty, voluntary commitments are easily missed and dismissed. We are already seeing some companies failing to meet earlier voluntary commitments to reduce plastic pollution.

The ongoing process of negotiation of the treaty needs to embrace the best available science. Doubt is manufactured easily by those with vested interests. Efforts to get lead out of paint and gasoline, and to limit tobacco were constantly beset by biased representations of the data. These manipulations delayed action and harmed human and planetary health.

We need a better role for independent scientists as the treaty is laid out. And we need those directly affected to seat at the table. Waste pickers, for example, are highly exposed to the chemicals used in plastics and suffering the consequences. Plastic is being made more and more in low- and middle-income countries with weak infrastructure to protect the public.

It is feasible to achieve more transparency and inclusiveness in shaping the treaty. The United Nations Environment Program has suggested that 703 stakeholder organizations have been registered for the Paris and subsequent meetings. Only some 100 of these appear to be environmental and public health organizations. A former lobbyist states that some industries are establishing shell organizations to get accreditation. To minimize ethical conflicts, interests need to be documented following available procedures.

Set up a transparent process driven by science, and the treaty has a predictable, and correct, framework. We need to learn from the climate treaty and bind countries to their commitments. Only 9% of plastic is recycled, and the most aggressive estimates suggest that percentage can only increase to 30-40%. With plastic production rapidly increasing worldwide, plastic waste will only grow. Chemical and physical recycling are not the solution either: we know that recycled plastics are contaminated with toxic chemicals, even more than virgin plastics. We can restrict hazardous chemicals from being used in plastics, and stop the burning of plastics, which make carcinogenic dioxins.

There are other crucial pieces to the treaty, such as supporting low-income countries to do the right thing and decrease plastic production. All these issues are and will remain in the public agenda. Because many of us know that even if we cool the planet, a weak plastics treaty will leave the next generation too sick to enjoy it.

 

Leonardo Trasande, Marina Fernandez y Miquel Porta are researchers in environmental health in New York, Buenos Aires and Barcelona