The harmful health effects of plastic emissions could double by 2040

The research identified health harms at all stages of the plastics life cycle: from the extraction of fossil fuels, the raw material for more than 90% of plastics, and the production of materials to their eventual disposal or release into the environment.

The team, led by researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), used modeling to compare the harmful health effects of various future plastic waste production, consumption and management scenarios between 2016 and 2040.

Specifically, it evaluated “disability-adjusted life years” or “DALYs,” a measure of disease burden. It analyzed the number of years of healthy life lost due to greenhouse gases, air pollutants and toxic chemicals emitted throughout the life cycle of plastics on a global scale.

These emissions are linked to the health effects of global warming, respiratory illnesses, cancers and other serious illnesses.

The model revealed that if the plastics system continues without changes in policies, economics, infrastructure, materials or consumer behaviors (“the business as usual scenario”), the annual health effects could more than double, going from 2.1 million DALYs in 2016 to 4.5 million DALYs in 2040.

Overall, it estimated that the global plastics system could be responsible for reducing 83 million years of healthy population life between 2016 and 2040.

The team explored what would happen in alternative future scenarios with different levels of action. They found that isolated measures, such as increasing recycling, had, on their own, little impact on reducing the global health burden.

It is the combination of all measures in a complete change of the system that is the most effective method, since it would reduce the global health burden of plastics by 43% in 2040 (compared to the scenario without changes), details a statement from the LSHTM.

The work revealed that emissions from primary plastic production were the main cause of health effects in all scenarios and that reducing production, without replacing plastics with other materials, would give the best health outcomes.

The transition to renewable energy could alleviate some effects in terms of global warming and air pollution, but it does not address other harmful effects of waste production and management.

Megan Deeney, author of the study, says research shows that the adverse health effects of plastics “go far beyond” the moment a product is purchased or placed in a recycling bin.

“We as individual consumers are often blamed (…), but, although we all have an important role to play in reducing use, our analysis shows that systemic change is needed, from start to finish, in the production, use and disposal of plastic”.

Much more ambitious action by governments and greater industry transparency are needed to stop this growing global public health crisis related to plastics, he concludes.

Limitations due to lack of data

Lack of industry disclosure and inconsistency in information on the chemical composition of plastics severely limit the ability of life cycle assessments to inform effective policies that protect humans, ecosystems and the environment, the authors denounce.

The study, in which the University of Exeter and the University of Toulouse also participate, is based on available emissions models and data, which implies inherent limitations.

For example, it was not possible to include the possible health impacts associated with the stage of use of plastics (actively by consumers and industries) nor many of the chemicals contained in them (also in microplastics and nanoplastics).