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
