The story so far: Around 180 countries have failed to find consensus on an internationally binding legal agreement that sought to restrict plastic pollution. Talks in Geneva remained deadlocked on the issue late this week. While there is already a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-backed resolution on the need for such a move, only a binding agreement will actually force countries to take concrete action. However, countries are divided on several questions: should they address plastic waste alone or include plastic production?; should developing countries be funded by developed countries for the purpose? The key point of contention is the role of plastics in health.

What are the challenges from plastic?

No material symbolises the global, industrialised, consumption-based economy like plastic. The chemical constituents of plastics are polymers, and they can be natural — like cellulose, lignin, and are the basis of nearly everything in nature — or made in labs. Polymers derived from fossil fuel and then shaped into objects are in general called ‘plastic.’ As a derivative of crude oil, it has the ability to be moulded into a nearly infinite variety of objects, from critical things, including aircraft and medical equipment, to cosmetic items such as tinsel, baubles and packaging. Add to that its low cost of production relative to materials such as glass and aluminium. The ubiquity of plastics and the fact that it is cheap has led to it being the prime source of litter and a symbol of the collapse of waste management systems.

However, plastic’s flexibility also implies its persistence. Plastics are mixtures of various types that include monomers, polymers, and chemical additives. There are more than 16,000 chemicals potentially used or present in plastic materials and products. There is little or no information about the potential impact on human health or the environment by over 10,000 of these chemicals. A report last year in the journal Nature concluded that more than 4,000 chemicals of concern can be present in each major plastic type, such as PVC, polyurethanes, PET, polyethylene and others. Given that most of these are synthetic and non-biodegradable, public opinion has generally focussed on recycling or waste management. Over the years, however, there has been a body of scientific investigation into how these chemicals — that are indestructible — may make their way into living organisms in rivers, oceans, land and ultimately inside people.

What is evidence that plastic harms health?

Ethylene, propylene, styrene and their derivatives are commonly used to make plastic. Ethylene derivatives such as polypropene (PP), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) comprise the largest portion of downstream petrochemicals used to make plastic packaging. However, manufacturing them requires a range of other chemicals, several of which are monomers (the building blocks of polymers). These include bisphenols, phthalates, polychlorinated-biphenyls (PCB), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). They are used to produce food containers, drink bottles, teething toys, polyester, intravenous bags, cosmetics, paints, electronic components, adhesives and sealants.

For years, there have been a bulk of studies where medical researchers have investigated if exposure to these chemicals, via the products used, is having a discernible impact on health. Earlier this month, Boston College in the U.S. and Australia’s Minderoo Foundation launched a dashboard that compiled such evidence. There are around 1,100 primary studies involving about 1.1 million individuals that have linked changes in thyroid function, hypertension, kidney and testicular cancer, and gestational diabetes to exposure to these chemicals. The vast proportion of these individuals studied are in the developed world. Nearly, all of these studies are “associative”, in the sense that the measured disease outcome could be a result of exposure to the chemicals as well as a range of other factors, and it is not always possible to tease apart individual effects.

The true “gold standard” of exposure is a “longitudinal study”, where a fixed group of people are tracked over a long time to discern the effects of chemical exposure, but this is time consuming. There are studies underway, said Dr. Sarah Paul, neuroscientist and head of Plastics and Human Health, Minderoo, to evaluate if a group of people who were consciously less exposed to certain plastics would have improved health outcomes.

What about microplastics?

Microplastics are plastics smaller than five millimetres and can refer to the constituent elements of a variety of additives or plastic products. Given that technology available to detect them is relatively recent, they have over the years been found in blood, breast milk, placenta and bone marrow. While their exact impact on human health is unclear, they too are implicated in a wide range of disorders.

What is India doing about plastic?

There is a ban on the production and use of single-use plastics in nearly 20 States. These are the category of plastic goods that are the least re-usable and difficult to recycle. Given that they constitute a waste management problem, India has a range of administrative process meant to push companies towards ensuring that a proportion of plastic that is used are collected back. However, this has had limited effect. India doesn’t yet recognise the impact of plastics and chemicals on health.

In international negotiations on the global plastics treaty, India and other countries have expressed reservations on including discussions on health in the plastic treaty and said that these are matters to be taken up at the World Health Organization. Thus, plastics is primarily a waste management problem, as far as India is concerned.

Published – August 17, 2025 02:49 am IST

Plastic waste piled outside an illegal recycling factory in Jenjarom, Kuala Langat, Malaysia October 14, 2018. Picture taken October 14, 2018.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Malaysia’s trade ministry said it has imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, originating or exported from China and Indonesia.

The anti-dumping duties range from 6.33% to 37.44% and took effect on January 7, 2025, the trade ministry said in a statement late on Tuesday.

INC-5 Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso brings down a gavel, made using recycled plastic bottle tops from the Dandora landfill in Nairobi, during the start of a plenary of the fifth session of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC-5) in Busan on December 1, 2024.
| Photo Credit: AFP

Negotiators have failed to reach agreement on a landmark treaty to curb plastic pollution, the diplomat chairing the talks said Sunday (December 1, 2024), calling for additional time to continue discussions.

Nearly 200 nations are in South Korea’s Busan for negotiations that are supposed to result in a landmark accord after two years of discussions.

But a week of talks has failed to resolve deep divisions between “high-ambition” countries seeking a globally binding agreement to limit production and phase out harmful chemicals, and “like-minded” nations who want to focus on waste.

A draft text released Sunday (December 1, 2024) afternoon after multiple delays included a wide range of options, making clear the ongoing level of disagreement.

When an open plenary session finally convened late Sunday (December 1, 2024) night, chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso said progress had been made.

But he acknowledged “we must also recognise that a few critical issues still prevent us from reaching a comprehensive agreement.”

“These unresolved issues remain challenging and additional time will be needed to address them effectively,” he said.

“There is a general agreement to resume the current session at a later date to conclude our negotiations.”

‘Obstruction’

His comments reflected earlier calls from delegates for a follow-up to the so-called INC5 talks given the ongoing divisions.

“If you ask me… we stop, we adapt the paper as it is and we try to do another session,” Senegal’s Cheikh Sylla told AFP.

That would offer time “to bring the positions closer together, and at this session 5.2, we can reach an agreement that is balanced”.

Earlier, delegations seeking an ambitious treaty warned that a handful of countries were steadfastly blocking progress.

A French Minister accused the like-minded group of “continuing obstruction,” while Rwandan delegate Juliet Kabera said a “small number” of countries “remain unsupportive of the measures necessary to drive real change.”

“Rwanda cannot accept a toothless treaty,” said Ms. Kabera.

While countries have declined to directly name those preventing a deal, public statements and submissions have shown mostly oil-producing nations including Saudi Arabia and Russia have sought to block production cuts and other ambitious goals.

Portuguese delegate Maria Joao Teixeira said earlier Sunday (December 1, 2024) that another round of talks might be the best option for a meaningful deal.

“We are really trying to not have a weak treaty,” she told AFP.

But environmental groups had pushed ambitious countries to call a vote if progress stalls, and said another round of negotiations was unnecessary.

“We know what we need to do to end plastic pollution… simply adding more meetings is not the solution,” said Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead at WWF.

‘Step up or get out’

Over 100 countries support setting a target for production cuts, and dozens also back phasing out some chemicals and unnecessary plastic products.

Left unclear is the position of the world’s top two plastics producers, China and the United States. Both were notably absent from the stage at a Sunday (December 1, 2024) press conference by countries urging a strong treaty.

“They are still considering and we are hopeful that there will be some interest on their part,” said Mexico’s head of delegation Camila Zepeda.

“This coalition of the willing is an open invitation. And so it’s not like it’s them against us.”

Panama’s Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez meanwhile told colleagues that “history will not forgive us” for leaving Busan without an ambitious treaty.

“This is the time to step up or get out.”

A man holds a sign against plastic pollution outside the venue at the COP29 U.N. Climate Summit on Saturday (November 16, 2024), in Baku, Azerbaijan.
| Photo Credit: AP

The exhaust from the planes that ferried ministerial delegates to Baku for the climate conference, which concluded on Sunday (November 24, 2024), has barely settled. Yet some of them found themselves on the red-eye to this coastal city to lay the foundations of a new United Nations-mediated treaty to end plastic pollution – and potentially the production of plastic.

On December 1, representatives from 175 countries would hope that this fifth and anticipated final round of discussions of the Intergovernmental Negotiations Committee (INC), following those in Punte Del Este (Uruguay), Paris (France), Nairobi (Kenya) and Ottawa (Canada), will result in an agreement.

Were the Busan negotiations to prove successful, next year will see a diplomatic convention where Ministers from signatory countries (parties) will likely adopt the text and set the ground for periodic meetings – akin to the annual climate Conference of Parties (COP) – to evolve a legally binding treaty to progressively weed out plastic.

For comparison, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – the guiding climate change tackling agreement – was adopted in 1992 and entered into force in 1994. The first COP was held in Berlin in 1995.

“The historic Paris Agreement of 2015 where the world finally agreed to limit emissions to keep temperatures from breaching 2 degree Celsius took 21 Conference of Parties meetings. We cannot wait for 21 years to end plastic,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director, United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) at a press conference on Monday (November 25, 2024).

In March 2022, in Nairobi, the United Nations Environmental Agency (UNEP’s governing body) passed a resolution to “end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment”.

Also read: South Korea’s mountain of plastic waste shows limits of recycling

While there is global consensus that plastic pollution is a problem, and several countries are enthusiastic about ways and means to encourage recycling and prohibiting certain plastics that lead to littering – India for instance has banned single-use plastic since 2022 – many of them prefer to drag their feet on actually limiting plastic production. Many of these countries are either petro-states or those that have significant industries that manufacture plastic polymers.

Negotiations in the week ahead will centre around a ‘non-paper’, a document put forward by the INC Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso, that serves as a synthesis of the common ground that countries have seemingly achieved in the previous negotiations since 2022.

Representatives from India, in their intervention during plenary discussions, said that it was agreed on accepting the non-paper as a base text but was opposed to certain references to “primary plastic polymers”.

The committee is expected to aim for resolution on four broad themes: plastic products, chemicals of concern as used in plastic products, product design, and production/supply and related aspects; plastic waste management, emissions and releases, existing plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, and just transition; finance, including the establishment of a financial mechanism, capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer, and international cooperation; and implementation and compliance, national plans, reporting, monitoring of progress and effectiveness evaluation, information exchange, and awareness, education and research, according to a bulletin by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

A legal drafting group is expected to begin work on the initial and final provisions of the text before considering the substantive and operational aspects of the new treaty, it added.

New research published in the journal Nature has said that India is responsible for around one-fifth of global plastic emissions of around 9.3 million metric tonnes (Mt) per year.

The rate places India at the top of the emitters’ list, whereas the study places China, generally considered to be the greatest committer, fourth.

Plastic emissions includes materials that have moved from controlled systems for waste, however basic, managed or mismanaged, to the environment where they are under no control.

According to the study, conducted by researchers at the University of Leeds, plastic emissions are highest in southern Asian, sub-Saharan African, and southeast Asian countries.

It estimated Nigeria produces 3.5 Mt of plastics per year, ahead of Indonesia with 3.4 Mt/year and China with 2.8 Mt/year.

“Previous studies highlighted China as a high plastic polluter because they used much older data on the country’s waste management” researcher and study co-author Ed Cook told The Hindu. “However, in the last 15 years, China has improved its waste management substantially and is approaching a point where it has a comprehensive collection system. Remember that China is fast approaching high-income group status and more monetary resources than India.”

India’s plastic problem

India has emerged as one of the world’s largest plastic polluters for several reasons, according to Cook. “Firstly, there is a large and increasing population which is becoming more affluent. That means more and more waste, and the country has struggled to keep pace with providing waste management services. In a way this is a typical situation seen in other countries, but it is more pronounced in India because of the large number of people.”

Dumping sites in the country are home to uncontrolled land disposal and outnumber sanitary landfills 10 to 1. The country’s official waste generation rate, estimated to be 0.12 kg per capita per day, is possibly underestimated while waste collection is overestimated, the study noted.

While India claims to have a national waste collection coverage of around 95%, the study found evidence that official statistics don’t include rural areas, open burning of uncollected waste, and waste recycled by the informal sector.

Data used in the study indicates collection average of 81% for India.

Around 5.8 Mt of plastic solid waste is openly burned each year in India.

Other findings of the study

Researchers used machine learning to develop an inventory of macroplastics that pollute the environment from 50,702 municipalities based on five land-based sources: uncollected waste, littering, collection system, uncontrolled disposal, and rejects from sorting and reprocessing.

Around 69%, or 35.7 Mt, per year of the world’s plastic waste comes from 20 countries, four of which are low-income (LIC), nine are lower-middle-income (LMC), and seven are upper-middle-income (UMC), the study paper said.

High-income countries have higher plastic waste generation rates but none are ranked in the top 90 polluters, mostly due to 100% collection coverage and controlled disposal.

Despite lower plastic waste generation rates in LICs, LMCs, and UMCs, a large part of it is either uncollected or disposed of in dumping sites, contributing to uncontrolled disposal.

The study also reported more plastic waste is burned than is emitted as debris (physical particles larger than 5 mm) worldwide, which may have a significant impact on human health and ecosystems.

Shortcomings in local and national waste management systems are more evident on a per-capita basis. For example the study found China to be the world’s fourth-largest absolute emitter but 153rd on a per-capita basis. Similarly, India ranked 1 but 127th per capita. Russia on the other hand is the world’s fifth-largest absolute emitter but also has high per-capita emissions, reportedly due to low levels of controlled disposal.

In the Global South, uncollected waste is the largest contributor to plastic pollution. It accounts for 68% of all plastic waste emissions and 85% of all debris emissions, the study estimated. According to the researchers, no other global plastic pollution models explicitly identify uncollected waste as the main source of pollution. Mostly, this is clubbed with “mismanaged waste”.

In high-income countries, littering is the largest source of plastic emissions, accounting for 53% of debris emissions and 49% of all plastic emissions in the Global North.

Mismanagement of rejects from plastics sorting and recycling systems in both Global North and Global South adds around 1 Mt/year of plastic waste emission to the environment, thus showing that it is a comparatively small emissions burden even though it has previously been the focal point of research in the field.

Pointing a way forward

The study said it aimed to create a global inventory of macroplastic pollution at local levels to inform policies designed to reduce plastic emissions and to provide a global baseline for researchers monitoring emissions.

An inventory like this can prove critical to the success of the United Nations’ Plastics Treaty, a draft resolution that negotiators are hoping to turn into an international legally binding agreement by the end of this year. Once finalised, this agreement will aim to end plastic pollution.

The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to develop the agreement is scheduled to take place in Busan, South Korea, from November 25 to December 1, 2024.

Plastic is in our clothes, cars, mobile phones, water bottles and food containers. But recent research adds to growing concerns about the impact of tiny plastic fragments on our health.

A study from the United States has, for the first time, found microplastics in human brains. The study, which has yet to be independently verified by other scientists, has been described in the media as scary, shocking and alarming.

But what exactly are microplastics? What do they mean for our health? Should we be concerned?

What are microplastics? Can you see them?

We often consider plastic items to be indestructible. But plastic breaks down into smaller particles. Definitions vary but generally microplastics are smaller than five millimetres.

This makes some too small to be seen with the naked eye. So, many of the images the media uses to illustrate articles about microplastics are misleading, as some show much larger, clearly visible pieces.

Microplastics have been reported in many sources of drinking water and everyday food items. This means we are constantly exposed to them in our diet.

Such widespread, chronic (long-term) exposure makes this a serious concern for human health. While research investigating the potential risk microplastics pose to our health is limited, it is growing.

How about this latest study?

The study looked at concentrations of microplastics in 51 samples from men and women set aside from routine autopsies in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Samples were from the liver, kidney and brain.

These tiny particles are difficult to study due to their size, even with a high-powered microscope. So rather than trying to see them, researchers are beginning to use complex instruments that identify the chemical composition of microplastics in a sample. This is the technique used in this study.

The researchers were surprised to find up to 30 times more microplastics in brain samples than in the liver and kidney.

They hypothesised this could be due to high blood flow to the brain (carrying plastic particles with it). Alternatively, the liver and kidneys might be better suited to dealing with external toxins and particles. We also know the brain does not undergo the same amount of cellular renewal as other organs in the body, which could make the plastics linger here.

The researchers also found the amount of plastics in brain samples increased by about 50% between 2016 and 2024. This may reflect the rise in environmental plastic pollution and increased human exposure.

The microplastics found in this study were mostly composed of polyethylene. This is the most commonly produced plastic in the world and is used for many everyday products, such as bottle caps and plastic bags.

This is the first time microplastics have been found in human brains, which is important. However, this study is a “pre-print”, so other independent microplastics researchers haven’t yet reviewed or validated the study.

How do microplastics end up in the brain?

Microplastics typically enter the body through contaminated food and water. This can disrupt the gut microbiome (the community of microbes in your gut) and cause inflammation. This leads to effects in the whole body via the immune system and the complex, two-way communication system between the gut and the brain. This so-called gut-brain axis is implicated in many aspects of health and disease.

We can also breathe in airborne microplastics. Once these particles are in the gut or lungs, they can move into the bloodstream and then travel around the body into various organs.

Studies have found microplastics in human faeces, joints, livers, reproductive organs, blood, vessels and hearts.

Microplastics also migrate to the brains of wild fish. In mouse studies, ingested microplastics are absorbed from the gut into the blood and can enter the brain, becoming lodged in other organs along the way.

To get into brain tissue, microplastics must cross the blood-brain-barrier, an intricate layer of cells that is supposed to keep things in the blood from entering the brain.

Although concerning, this is not surprising, as microplastics must cross similar cell barriers to enter the urine, testes and placenta, where they have already been found in humans.

Is this a health concern?

We don’t yet know the effects of microplastics in the human brain. Some laboratory experiments suggest microplastics increase brain inflammation and cell damage, alter gene expression and change brain structure.

Aside from the effects of the microplastic particles themselves, microplastics might also pose risks if they carry environmental toxins or bacteria into and around the body.

Various plastic chemicals could also leach out of the microplastics into the body. These include the famous hormone-disrupting chemicals known as BPAs.

But microplastics and their effects are difficult to study. In addition to their small size, there are so many different types of plastics in the environment. More than 13,000 different chemicals have been identified in plastic products, with more being developed every year.

Microplastics are also weathered by the environment and digestive processes, and this is hard to reproduce in the lab.

A goal of our research is to understand how these factors change the way microplastics behave in the body. We plan to investigate if improving the integrity of the gut barrier through diet or probiotics can prevent the uptake of microplastics from the gut into the bloodstream. This may effectively stop the particles from circulating around the body and lodging into organs.

How do I minimise my exposure?

Microplastics are widespread in the environment, and it’s difficult to avoid exposure. We are just beginning to understand how microplastics can affect our health.

Until we have more scientific evidence, the best thing we can do is reduce our exposure to plastics where we can and produce less plastic waste, so less ends up in the environment.

An easy place to start is to avoid foods and drinks packaged in single-use plastic or reheated in plastic containers. We can also minimise exposure to synthetic fibres in our home and clothing.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.