BLOG

Every sip and bite might carry more than we bargained for – microplastics are now found in our water, air and food. The question isn’t just how they’re affecting the environment, but how they might be impacting our gut health too.

“…the connection between the plastic problem and the health of the planet and our own health has largely remained under the radar…”

We have all seen the shocking images of plastic bottles littering beaches in far away places and getting in the food chain of seabirds and fish. For the majority of consumers this doesn’t seem to be a personal problem, as long as the plastic waste doesn’t wash up on our own beaches. However, what we can’t see are the ominous things unfolding closer to home from our addiction to plastic containers for food, drinks, fruit and just about everything else we buy in supermarkets. While major efforts are underway to wean ourselves from our addiction to gas guzzling methods of transportation, and from our addiction to unhealthy food, the connection between the plastic problem and the health of the planet and our own health has remained under the radar and has received relatively little attention, despite the magnitude of the problem.

“…people who were found to have tiny plastic particles lodged in a key blood vessel were 4.5 times more likely to experience heart attacks, stroke or death…”

Every year, companies produce more than 400 million metric tons of plastic. Some of that plastic spills onto waterways or beaches, clogging streams or floating in huge gyres in the ocean. Some of it breaks down into tiny microplastics or nano-plastics that float in the air and enter human lungs, blood and organs. These tiny plastic particles in our drinking water make their way into all the drinks and foods contaminated by plastic food packaging, and in our seafood coming from plastic contaminated oceans. In a recent study, about 77% of the people who were tested were found to have microplastics in their bloodstream. And even more concerning, a 2024 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that people who were found to have tiny plastic particles lodged in a key blood vessel were 4.5 times more likely to experience heart attacks, stroke or death during a three-year study. One unresolved question is how our gut microbes deal with this new challenge in their food supply. As many of the plastic particles are unlikely to be absorbed in our proximal small intestine, it is plausible to assume that a significant amount of these “xenobiotics” make it down into the end of the small intestine and into the colon, where they are broken down by our gut microbial ecosystem, and that some of our microbes will turn the plastic molecules into harmful metabolites.

“…the increase in these harmful microbial metabolites in our bodies may play an important role in the increasing prevalence of … colon cancer and inflammatory bowel disease in younger and younger patients.”

One may speculate that the increase in these harmful microbial metabolites in our bodies may play an important role in the increasing prevalence of certain diseases like colon cancer and inflammatory bowel disease in younger and younger patients. Now that science has unveiled this major environmental hazard with serious consequences for our health, it would seem wise to identify the source of the problem in order to find a solution.

“…56 companies were responsible for more than 50 percent of branded plastic waste globally.”

A recent research article by Win Cowger from the Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research, Long Beach, and the University of California in Riverside California, and a group of international investigators, published in the journal Science Advances presents a comprehensive study on the accountability of global plastic producers for environmental pollution. In their study, the investigators used data from brand audits of over 1.8 million pieces of plastic waste across 84 countries and catalogued by a team of over 100,000 volunteers over five years collected. This heroic effort found that 50% of plastic items in the environment were unbranded, meaning they likely entered the environment without anybody taking responsibility for this contamination. In addition, the results showed that 56 companies were responsible for more than 50 percent of branded plastic waste globally. The top five global brands identified, responsible for 24% of the total branded count, were The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Danone, and Altria. The largest contributor was Coca-Cola, which accounted for 11 percent of the branded plastic pollution worldwide. There was a strong correlation between a company’s annual plastic production and the prevalence of their branded plastic waste in the environment, particularly among food and beverage companies, suggesting that the laudable recycling efforts by some of these companies are not effective.

The Cowger study recommends phasing out single-use and short-lived plastic products by the largest polluters to significantly reduce global plastic pollution. It calls for more transparency in product labeling and an international open-access database for companies to report their environmental releases. Importantly, the paper suggests that reduced plastic production is a primary means to mitigate pollution and urges producer brand managers and policymakers to focus on solutions that decrease plastic production. It also notes that improved waste management alone is insufficient and that corporate action is critical to address the problem. So are the major polluters following these recommendations?

According to a recent article by Shannon Osaka in the Washington Post the top 5 companies were contacted for comments on the study’s findings: “In an email, a spokesperson for the Coca-Cola Company pointed to the company’s World Without Waste strategy, noting that it aims “to make 100% of our packaging recyclable globally by 2025 and to use at least 50% recycled material in our packaging by 2030. … We know more must be done and we can’t achieve our goals alone.” The same post stated that “Nestlé said in an email that the company aims to reduce its use of new plastic by one-third and incorporate more recycled content into its packaging, while PepsiCo declined to comment, and Danone did not respond to a request.” If the responsible companies or governmental organizations can’t be counted on to come up with effective solutions, what are the alternatives? To be honest, whenever I read projected timelines for major improvements in global warming or fossil fuel use to happen in 10 or 20 years, they seem more like efforts in greenwashing than realistic goals.

Reducing personal use of plastic bottles for drinks, plastic containers for fresh fruit and vegetables, plastic wrappings for cheeses and food stored in the refrigerator and use of plastic bags in the market, also won’t be an effective solution to this problems. Recycling efforts or programs to recover plastic waste from the environment or preventing them from ending up there have not been effective, as stated by one of the co-authors of the study. “Many of these companies actually do have programs in place to recover their waste from the environment or prevent it from ending up there,” said Neil Tangri, science and policy director for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives and another author of the study. “And what we’re seeing is that those are not really effective.”

According to the Washington Post article, “Global leaders and negotiators are gathering in Ottawa this week to hammer out a global plastics treaty. Many environmental groups and countries are looking for an agreement that will include cutting the amount of plastic production, a goal that U.S. negotiators have resisted. Industry groups and companies say that “circular plastics,” advanced recycling and waste management can solve the problem without production limits.”

“Our members are investing billions of dollars in infrastructure to scale-up the supply of circular plastics, so that used plastics are prevented from entering the environment as waste, landfill or via incineration, and instead become new plastics,” Benny Mermans, chair of the World Plastics Council, said in a statement in the lead-up to the talks.

Researchers say that things such as advanced recycling and a circular economy may have a place in the future, but so does actually slowing the pace at which plastic is made. “We know what works: make less plastic and use less plastic,” said one of the co-authors of the study.

What is the driving force behind the… striking resistance of the food and packaging industry to limit, or even phase out the use of plastics?

So what is the driving force behind the continuing growth in plastics production, and the striking resistance of the food and packaging industry to limit, or even phase out the use of plastics? Even though there are many alternatives to plastic containers and wrappings, their use continues to increase. Surprisingly, despite the increasing concern of the public about healthy food sources, pesticides and ultra-processed food, there is little awareness amongst the health conscious public of the major role the plastic problem plays in human health.

The answer to this question is simple: Plastics, which are made from fossil fuels, have helped to buoy the fossil fuel industry with their massive lobbying power and their continued subsidies from the US government, even as climate policies take aim at the production of oil and gas. Plastic is projected to account for half of growth in oil demand by mid-century, according to the International Energy Agency.