Category Archives: Plastic Pollution Articles & News

This company is turning plastic trash into construction blocks

Imagine taking heaps and heaps of earth-polluting, unusable plastic waste and actually transforming it into something constructive?Plastic pollution is a proliferating and increasingly overwhelming problem. By 2040, estimates indicate that as much as 710 million tons of solid plastic waste will clog up the earth’s ecosystem, in oceans, rivers and on land.Los Angeles-based startup ByFusion has a plan for that waste. In fact, the business has created a system to collect the most troublesome type of plastic trash — the stuff that can’t be recycled.Founded in 2017, the company has developed a machine that turns single-use plastics into something called “ByBlock.” Similar in size and shape to the concrete blocks commonly used in construction, ByBlocks are made entirely of reclaimed plastic waste.”You’d be astounded at the things that cannot be recycled, which is basically everything you touch … stuff like pens, toothbrushes,” ByFusion’s CEO, Heidi Kujawa, told CNN Business. “The interesting thing about our technology is we specifically, entirely designed our system around the low value, no value stuff, everything that can’t be recycled.”As she researched plastic waste, Kujawa learned that there are seven types of plastic, of which only two can be recycled. “In the past it used to go to China and other places that would buy it from us,” she said. “That dried up in 2017. Since then, we’ve been burning or burying that plastic.”ByFusion’s machine, called the Blocker System, converts the discarded waste into building blocks without having to sort or pre-wash them, a major obstacle in the plastic recycling process.After collecting the waste, it takes only minutes to shred the plastic is shredded and fuse it into solid blocks using steam and compression. The blocks are made without additives or fillers — 22 pounds of plastic create 22 pounds of ByBlock bricks.”We’ve modeled our ByBlocks around the dimensions of a hollow cement block. Each is a 16 inch by 8 inch by 8 inch unit,” said Kujawa, and each brick is about 10 pounds lighter than a standard cement block.A cement block has rebar running through it, but ByBlocks uses a method called post tensioning, which requires a steel rod. As a sustainable option for building material, the repurposed plastic can be used for commercial, residential and infrastructure projects, Kujawa said.To that end, the business wants to partner with local governments, municipalities and corporations among other entities. It’s already selling both its Blocker System and completed ByBlocks but declined to specify customers or sales numbers thus far.”From the very beginning, we knew we wanted to be as carbon neutral as possible. So our block, our systems and our manufacturing process is an all electric, no emissions process today,” Kujawa said.The ultimate goal, she said, is to take the Blocker System to communities worldwide and enable them to repurpose plastic waste for use in local building projects. ByFusion hopes to be able to recycle 100 million tons of plastic by 2030.”Every community struggles with plastic waste,” Kujawa said. “Putting in a Blocker is going to help reduce landfill, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce transportation needs, all of that other good stuff.”

LOS ANGELES — Imagine taking heaps and heaps of earth-polluting, unusable plastic waste and actually transforming it into something constructive?Plastic pollution is a proliferating and increasingly overwhelming problem. By 2040, estimates indicate that as much as 710 million tons of solid plastic waste will clog up the earth’s ecosystem, in oceans, rivers and on land.

In world first, Chile to ban single-use F&B products over three years

In May 2021, Chile announced a legislative ban on single-use products in the food and beverage industry to take effect over the next three years.Similar bans in other countries and cities also address the crux of the plastic pollution problem — the disposable culture — but Chile’s ban extends to other materials too, including cardboard and poly-coated paper.In the lobbying process, the Chilean plastics association raised some concerns about the intricacies of the ban, but said it was ultimately “satisfied with the outcome.” New legislation passed by the Chilean government in May 2021 aims to rid the nation of all single-use products in the food and beverage industry, including plastics, within three years. This is the first national-level legislation in the world to implement a ban on single-use F&B products, such as those made of plastic, cardboard and other materials, as opposed to targeting single-use plastics alone. It also follows Chile’s 2019 ban on plastic bags, which received some criticism for people swapping out disposable plastic bags for disposable paper ones, or overcollecting reusable bags.
Chile produces nearly 1 million metric tons of plastic trash a year, but recycles just 8.5% of it, according to a 2019 report by InvestChile. In comparison, Europe has a recycling rate of about 30%, according to another 2019 report by Hamburg-based research firm Statista.
The new legislation will significantly reduce Chile’s plastic waste while boosting the nation’s plastic recycling rates, experts say. This law is projected to eliminate an estimated 23,000 metric tons of single-use plastic pollution annually — the weight equivalent of 116 blue whales, according to a 2020 report by the NGO Oceana Chile.
“The plastic industry now realizes that we are not targeting plastics specifically, but the unnecessary use of single-use items,” Javiera Calisto, legal director of Oceana Chile, told Mongabay. Oceana Chile and its partner organizations were the teams responsible for the proposal and lobbying of this new bill over the past three years.
The law aims to reduce waste generation in three key ways: eliminating single-use products in the food and beverage industry, certifying plastic products, and regulating the use and composition of disposable plastic bottles.
“The law establishes different terms for the respective obligations to come into force. Since we’re making important changes, it was very important to be realistic,” Calisto said.
Chile produces nearly 1 million metric tons of plastic trash a year, but recycles just 8.5% of it, according to reports. Image by Chris Hunkeler via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0).
According to Oceana, plastic tableware such as straws, cutlery and stirrers will be banned from all eating establishments six months after the law is enacted. Other changes will have up to three years to come fully into force. This includes a requirement that at least 30% of bottled drinks in supermarkets must come in reusable bottles.
Other places in the world have taken similar action as Chile by taking a “hard measure” approach to eliminating single-use plastics. For instance, New York City, California, Hawai‘i, Kenya and the European Union have all banned single-use plastic bags in recent years.
As of July 2018, 127 out of 192 countries have adopted full or partial bans against plastic bags, while 57 countries have imposed a plastic bag tax on either the producer or consumer at the national level, according to the United Nations Environmental Programme.
But these legislations are far from perfect. Common criticisms against increasingly popular plastic bans include the fact that they harm poor nations and people the most, and merely encourage the uptake of equally harmful alternatives. This was the case when Chileans began amassing huge amounts of reusable bags following the countrywide ban on plastic bags in 2019.
Chile’s newest law will apply to single-use products including plastic utensils, poly-coated paper cups, disposable cardboard trays and single-use chopsticks, as opposed to single-use plastics alone. Single-use products have been defined as any F&B utensil that is not “used by the establishment on multiple occasions in accordance to their design,” regardless of the material they’re made of.
Chile’s newest law will apply to single-use products including plastic utensils, poly-coated paper cups, disposable cardboard trays and single-use chopsticks, as opposed to single-use plastics alone. Image by Brian Yurasits via Unsplash.
Change in the works
Under this legislation, restaurants that fail to comply can be fined up to around 327,000 Chilean pesos ($360) per product, and supermarkets can be fined 1.3 million pesos ($1,435) per reported case.
Some establishments have already made the switch to reusables. At Mallplaza Egaña, a shopping mall, reusable cutlery and utensils such as including plates, cups and stirrers have replaced all single-use plastics in its food gardens.
Antonio Braghetto, operations manager of the Mallplaza mall franchise in Chile, told Mongabay in an email that the legislations imposed in Chile in recent years have helped “mobilize organizations” along the path to a zero-waste economy.
The new law might also prove crucial in finally addressing the carbon footprint of the plastics industry.
For instance, the law requires that disposable plastic bottles in Chile must be composed of a percentage of plastic that has been collected and recycled within the country. The Ministry of Environment will enforce and regulate this process through a plastic certification process. However, the exact percentage, or what qualifies as “recycled” material, is unclear.
Plastic manufacture is often overlooked as a significant source of carbon emissions. For example, in the U.S., plastic manufacturing is expected to overtake coal plant emissions by 2030. At the same time, recycling rates have never surpassed 9% in the U.S., and plastics companies have been found to overstate the feasibility of recycling plastics since the 1970s, Mongabay previously reported.
“Only upstream measures such as a cap on plastic production will prevent further degradation of our life-supporting ecosystems,” Melanie Bergmann, a plastic pollution and microplastic expert at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, said in a previous Mongabay article.
Some establishments have made the switch to reusable cutlery and utensils such as including plates, cups and stirrers in the place of single-use plastics. Image courtesy of María Jose Arancibia/Mallplaza.
The plastic prerogative
An estimated 12 million to 14 million metric tons of plastics enter the ocean every year, according to the IUCN. It’s not known what proportion of this can be attributed to single-use plastics, though these are the “most visible” forms of pollution, IUCN plastics expert Joao Sousa told Mongabay in an email.
Yet, plastics also have their benefits, Sousa said. Their cost-effective, durable, lightweight and waterproof nature is precisely what makes plastics so versatile and lucrative.
This time, the Chilean Plastics Association (Asociación Gremial de Industriales del Plástico de Chile, or Asipla for short) was part of the meetings held with the Chilean senate and other officials for the drafting of Chile’s newest law against single-use plastics.
“Even though we were 100% conscious about the impact of plastics on the environment, we also are convinced of the many undeniable advantages that plastic has given society since its existence,” Magdalena Balcells, general manager of Asipla, told Mongabay.
Without plastics, for example, the world wouldn’t have the face masks (N95 masks are made from synthetic plastic fibers) or medical equipment necessary for managing the COVID-19 pandemic.
Seventy-five percent of the waste found on Chile’s beaches is plastic litter. Image courtesy of Javiera Castilo/Oceana.
“We all want to have fewer residues in the world — it’s not just plastic, but glass, paper, cardboard, and aluminum. But if it’s unfeasible, we are not doing any favors to the environment,” Balcells added when asked about Asipla’s experience being included in Chile’s bill-drafting process this time around.
The various parties “had their differences,” Balcells said. Proposals to ban the production of PET bottles altogether or to deem all forms of packaging as single-use materials were floated, but ultimately ruled unfeasible. But the parties involved eventually met in the middle.
“We are very satisfied with the outcome,” Balcells said. “Though the scope is not huge, it is visible enough for people to change their habits. And that’s a very good thing.”
Banner image: A neighborhood store in Chile with a sign proclaiming they are no longer delivering plastic bags. Image by LuisCG11 via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Citations:
Oceana Chile. (2020). Estimación de la disminución de desechos plásticos de un solo uso producto de su regulación. Retrieved from https://chile.oceana.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/informe_plasticos_digital.pdf
Statista. (2019). The plastic dilemma: 348 million tons of plastic produced per year worldwide, half of which becomes waste. Retrieved from https://mailchi.mp/statista/plastic-waste-dossierplus?e=c7c3bf2bc7
Taylor, R. L., & Villas‐Boas, S. B. (2016). Bans vs. fees: Disposable carryout bag policies and bag usage. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 38(2), 351-372.
UNEP. (2018). Legal limits on single-use plastics and Microplastics: A global review of national laws and regulations. Retrieved from https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/legal-limits-single-use-plastics-and-microplastics-global-review-national

Conservation, Environment, Environmental Law, Environmental Policy, Green, Interns, Law, Oceans, Plastic, Pollution, Sustainability, Water Pollution
Print

As India bans disposable plastic, Tamil Nadu offers lessons

Tamil Nadu’s ban on single-use plastic has gotten results, thanks to relentless policing. Now, India says it will tackle the problem nationwide.CHENNAI, India — Amul Vasudevan, a vegetable hawker in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, thought she was going to go out of business.The state had forbidden retailers to use disposable plastic bags, which were critical for her livelihood because they were so cheap. She could not afford to switch to selling her wares in reusable cloth bags.Tamil Nadu was not the first state in India to try to curtail plastic pollution, but unlike others it was relentless in enforcing its law. Ms. Vasudevan was fined repeatedly for using throwaway bags.Now, three years after the ban took effect, Ms. Vasudevan’s use of plastic bags has decreased by more than two-thirds; most of her customers bring cloth bags. Many streets in this state of more than 80 million people are largely free of plastic waste.A shopper at a market in Chennai. As people have gotten used to providing their own shopping bags, plastic use has gone down.Anindito Mukherjee for The New York TimesYet Tamil Nadu’s ban is far from an absolute success. Many people still defy it, finding the alternatives to plastic either too expensive or too inconvenient. The state’s experience offers lessons for the rest of India, where an ambitious countrywide ban on making, importing, selling and using some single-use plastic took effect this month.

'It's in the water you drink', how ocean plastic pollutes the Earth

Humanity’s impact on the environment has never been more prominent, with a recent government report finding increasingly more severe weather events and less biodiversity.
But one environmental issue, recently named by the UN as one of the world’s biggest problems along with climate change, has flown under the radar.
Tens of millions of tonnes of plastic enter the ocean every year, either washing onto coastlines or accumulating into giant ocean garbage patches, where they can spend decades breaking down into toxic microplastics that are next to impossible to remove.

Southern Spain’s ‘Sea of Plastic’ may actually cool the local climate

The man in the hoodie slips out from his hiding spot near the crime scene and makes a run for it. But brooding Detective Héctor Tarancón spots him. Whipping off his sunglasses to tell us that he means business, the supercop of few words and many pensive expressions takes off in pursuit. The two men race down narrow dirt streets lined with low, identical structures, one after another after another.
The suspect smashes through one of the walls—not that impressive, actually, since it’s just a thin sheet of plastic—and disappears before Tarancón turns the corner behind him. He has vanished. Thwarted for now, the detective slips his shades back on as the camera pulls back, revealing that he is surrounded by an expanse of white greenhouses. They gleam under the strong sun in a cloudless Mediterranean sky, and stretch all the way to red-brown mountains on the horizon.
The setting for the Spanish crime melodrama Mar de Plástico (Sea of Plastic) may look computer-generated, but the location is real. The series was filmed in southeastern Spain’s Almería province, which has been transformed over the last half-century from sparsely populated, semi-arid scrubland into a bustling agricultural powerhouse. The key to Almería’s fruit and veg boom has been cloudless skies, accessible groundwater, and plastic. Lots and lots of plastic.
Rows of plastic greenhouses have overtaken semi-arid scrublands in southeastern Spain, particularly in the province of Almería. makasana photo/Alamy
Plastic greenhouses take up nearly 100,000 acres along the coast and creep up into the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. Despite the region’s miniscule precipitation—less than nine inches of rain fall there annually, and virtually none of it from May to September—drip irrigation drawing from local aquifers allows farmers to grow more than three million tons of tomatoes, berries, and other crops annually.
According to a paper published in 2019 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, while most of the greenhouse farms are small, family-owned operations, they employ about 100,000 foreign laborers. More than 110 nationalities, primarily from Africa and Eastern Europe, work in the greenhouses or adjacent industries, such as packing and transportation. Despite the economic boost the sea of plastic has given the province, multiple media reports have documented poor working and housing conditions for many of the foreign workers, leading to charges of exploitation.
The explosion in the number of greenhouses, and the massive influx of people who grow and process the crops they produce, has also been hard on local nature. Numerous environmental groups have raised concerns about overuse of groundwater resources—once depleted, aquifers may take centuries to recover. The region is also considered a biodiversity hotspot, but many of its native plants, which evolved to occupy a narrow ecological niche, are particularly susceptible to changes in their environment, including habitat degradation. Of the two dozen or so native plants exclusive to Almería, six are critically endangered, including the trailing, yellow-flowered Gadoria falukei, discovered only in 2017.
The critically endangered Gadoria falukei is found only in Almería. Courtesy Juan F. Mota Poveda
Surprisingly, the greenhouses may provide a subtle assist in regulating the region’s climate. A handful of papers published by scientists at the University of Almería have suggested that all that bright white plastic may be reflecting sunlight back into space and effectively cooling the province. A 2008 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, for example, found that while overall temperatures have risen in this region of Spain, Almería has experienced a drop in temperature of about half a degree Fahrenheit. Limited subsequent research has been less conclusive about the reason for this dip, however.
In May 2022, NASA’s Landsat 9 captured this natural color image of greenhouses surrounding El Ejido, in the Spanish province of Almería. NASA Earth Observatory/Public Domain
While the impact of the greenhouses on the local environment and climate remains uncertain, there are signs that change is again coming to the region. Growing international concerns about global “plasticulture,” such as a 2021 United Nations report that highlighted its negative long-term impact on the environment and public health, are creating pressure for more sustainable methods of agriculture. For now, however, the sea of plastic remains as it has been for decades: a dazzling white patchwork visible from space, and a maze on the ground through which TV cops give chase.

Human pathogens are hitching a ride on floating plastic

Article body copy
The plastics had only been submerged in the ocean off Falmouth, England, for a week, but in that time a thin layer of biofilm, a slimy mix of mucus and microbes, had already developed on their surfaces. Michiel Vos, a microbiologist at the University of Exeter in England, had sunk five different types of plastic as a test. He and his colleagues wanted to know which of the myriad microbes living in the ocean would glom on to these introduced materials.
Vos and his colleagues’ chief concern was pathogenic bacteria. To understand the extent to which plastic can be colonized by potentially deadly bacteria, the scientists injected wax moth larvae with the biofilm. After a week, four percent of the larvae died. But four weeks later, after Vos and his team had let the plastics stew in the ocean for a bit longer, they repeated the test. This time, 65 percent of the wax moths died.
The scientists analyzed the biofilm: the plastics were covered in bacteria, including some known to make us sick. They found pathogenic bacteria responsible for causing urinary tract, skin, and stomach infections, pneumonia, and other illnesses. To make matters worse, these bacteria were also carrying a wide range of genes for antimicrobial resistance. “Plastics that you find in the water are rapidly colonized by bacteria, including pathogens,” says Vos. “And it doesn’t really matter what plastic it is.”
It’s not just bacteria that are hitching a ride on plastics. Biofilms on marine plastics can also harbor parasites, viruses, and toxic algae. With marine plastic pollution so ubiquitous—it’s been found everywhere from the bottom of the Mariana Trench to Arctic beaches—scientists are concerned that plastics are transporting these human pathogens around the oceans.
But whether plastics are bearing pathogen populations dense enough to actually be dangerous and whether they are carrying them to new areas are difficult questions to answer.
There are good reasons to believe that plastics are accumulating and spreading pathogens around the world. Linda Amaral-Zettler, a microbiologist at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, who coined the term plastisphere for the novel ecosystem plastics create, says plastic is different from other hard surfaces one often finds in the ocean—such as logs, shells, and rocks—because plastic is durable, long-lived, and a lot of it floats. “That gives it mobility,” she says.
Plastics can travel long distances. After the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, for example, many identifiably Japanese objects washed up on the west coast of North America. This litter, says Amaral Zettler, has “the potential to transport anything attached to it.”
Recent laboratory work also shows that some typically terrestrial disease-causing parasites can survive in seawater and infect marine mammals. Karen Shapiro, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, Davis, showed that these protozoan parasites—specifically, Toxoplasma gondii, Cryptosporidium parvum, and Giardia enterica—can attach to microplastics in seawater. This could be altering where, when, and how these parasites accumulate in the ocean.
“If they are hitching a ride on plastics that happen to be in the same sewer outlet, or river, or overland runoff from a storm drain, then they will end up where the plastic ends up,” Shapiro explains. That could be in shellfish on the seafloor, or floating on currents in the middle of the ocean.
The next step, Shapiro explains, is to look for a similar association between parasites and plastics outside the lab.
That microplastic pollution appears to be a breeding ground for pathogens raises, for Vos, a long-term concern as well—that plastics might be promoting the spread of antibiotic resistance. Bacteria can exchange genes, and since the bacteria are in close contact on the surface of tiny microplastics, the level of horizontal gene transfer between them is high, he says. Plastics can also put bacteria in close contact with pesticides and other pollutants, which also stick to biofilms. This encourages the development of antimicrobial resistance.
“We don’t know that much about it,” Vos says, “but there’s potentially interesting ways in which bacteria can experience stronger selection [for antimicrobial resistance] on plastics, but also have more opportunity to exchange genes that could confer resistance.”
As well as posing potential risks to human health, plastic-borne pathogens could threaten marine ecosystems and food supply chains, Amaral-Zettler says. Millions of people rely on seafood as a source of protein, and there are many pathogens that infect the fish and shellfish we eat. It might be possible, Amaral-Zettler says, for microplastics to spread diseases between different aquaculture and fishing areas.
Even though we don’t fully understand the risks, these studies are yet another good argument for limiting plastic pollution, Vos says. “There can’t be anything positive about plastics with pathogens floating around.”

LISTEN: Max Aung on hidden toxic threats

Dr. Max Aung joins the Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcast to discuss the dangers of some everyday chemicals to our health—and how regulation hasn’t kept up with these threats. Aung, an assistant professor at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine and assistant director at the Agents of Change in Environmental Justice program, also talks about how pregnant people and babies are most vulnerable to these pervasive exposures.The Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcast is a biweekly podcast featuring the stories and big ideas from past and present fellows, as well as others in the field. You can see all of the past episodes here.Listen below to our discussion with Aung, and subscribe to the podcast at iTunes, Spotify, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Brian BienkowskiAll right, today’s guest hanging out is Dr. Max Aung, an assistant professor at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine and assistant director at the Agents of Change in Environmental Justice program. Aung talks about the mix of insidious pollutant exposures we all face, how these exposures impact the most vulnerable among us, and how policy can catch up to the ever growing list of concerning chemicals. Enjoy.So Max, it is good to see you. But I will full disclosure for the listeners, I see you quite a bit now, you are part of the agents of change program, you are now an assistant director. And you were also part of our first cohort, and you wrote an essay about oil and gas development where you grew up. So I just want to start there, if you could tell me a little bit about what that experience was like, as a researcher being out there with your views and thoughts, what the reception was, to your article and a little bit about the work you’re doing now with us?Max AungYeah, so, you know, the article was such a great opportunity for me to reflect on the sort of environmental issues that are facing communities that have high oil and gas production. But it was also interesting, because having grown up there, you know, I’ve, I’ve had friends that work in the oil and gas fields, that’s like their first job out of high school, it pays really well. You know, it’s it’s basically the source of economic growth for a lot of folks in those communities. So, in my essay touched on that a bit – thinking about, you know, sort of how even though these have environmental impacts these different industries, there’s also this issue of like, how do you deal with folks that rely on this for their everyday lives? So I think, you know, when I wrote the essay, it was largely, you know, well received from I had some folks, you know, reach out to me, and, tell me that, that they found the article to be an important reflection on that balance. I’ve had, we got this article invited to be like in a undergraduate textbook chapter, which was really exciting, you know, that new scholars will be reading this as they think about creative writing and reflecting on environmental issues. And, yeah, so, you know, I think that’s sort of been a great foundation, as I’ve sort of navigated this next stage of my career and thinking about ways to incorporate communities and think about communities inputs, as we tried to shape policy, environmental policy. And so that’s been a huge factor, especially with some of my work at UCSF, which, you know, we can talk a little bit more about later on. In terms of the [Agents of Change] program, so I joined the leadership here in March. And it’s been really exciting because I’ve been working really closely with Dr. Ami Zota, you and Yoshi as well, and just thinking through different ways that we can engage existing scholars in the program, but also ways that we can, you know, galvanize the new cohorts towards different focus groups and thinking about how can we leverage that skill in terms of outreach and in terms of getting our Agents of Change fellows out there to you know, communicate with important stakeholders. So that’s been really exciting so far.Brian BienkowskiGood. And it’s so awesome to be part of the program and already a few years in have people like yourself who are part of it, who have now grown in your career and have new positions, and then come back. I mean for me when I started this, to already see people like you coming back and being a part of it after being in the first cohort, is just, it’s just wild how kind of fast time flies, but it’s been really excellent. And just for people listeners who maybe didn’t read your essay, so it was focused in Kern County, California, right?Max AungYeah, yeah.Brian BienkowskiYou’re right. And I really appreciated the idea of thinking about the economic ramifications. I thought that was one of the aspects of your essays that was crucial when we think about weaning off oil and gas or just trying to get rid of polluting, polluting industries, thinking about the people that rely on these for their livelihoods.Max AungYeah, and it was, you know, it’s so great. Like, during our sessions, like in that first fellowship year, just, you know, getting the feedback from you, workshopping it with the other fellows was such a great experience. Because I felt like, I was consistently challenged to think about every single word I put into that essay, and like the impact, you know, and not being afraid to say, radical, social justice oriented things. And I did feel like that was such a great learning experience, sort of go through that exercise.Brian BienkowskiWell, that’s great to hear. And I hope future folks feel the same way. That’s definitely the spirit of the program. And so you went to University of California, Santa Cruz for your undergrad, and I believe you’re at University of Michigan over here for your masters and your PhD – I love Ann Arbor, is such a fun town. What drew you to public health? And how did you come to start researching environmental exposures?Max AungYeah, so okay, at Santa Cruz, I’d say I gained a really diverse set of research and education experiences. So you know, my undergraduate training was in molecular biology. And so I was just really drawn to some of my more advanced coursework around immunology, and thinking about the different mechanisms that underlie various different health conditions. And that’s was sort of, you know, my bedrock in terms of the coursework. On the other end, I was doing research in a stable isotope laboratory, in the ocean sciences department, which is totally, you know, not, you know, totally different in terms of science, but like, just a totally different direction in terms of how to apply scientific research. And so in that lab, I was working with an exciting team to reconstruct past sea surface temperatures over the course of several thousands of years. So we…the Paleo climatology lab is very focused on trying to understand past climate conditions so that we have data to inform future climate models. So there’s this, you know, this duality between the molecular Health Sciences and more environmental, climate-change focused research. And I think, you know, trying to think through these two different experiences, it was a little bit next, like, after undergrad, you know? I struggled a little bit with trying to find my path forward.And after undergrad, I actually, I took two years, where I wasn’t in school, I was teaching full time for a STEM diversity program that focus on retaining undergraduates from historically marginalized backgrounds in the STEM fields. And so during that time, it gave me a little bit more breathing room to like, think through sort of what are my next steps, and, I got involved with the Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science, so I was working with them in the summer. And through that, I started networking with all of these different – because they’re so well connected with all of these universities across the country – and, and through that I sort of got connected with different professors from different schools of public health. And as I was brainstorming through potential graduate training, and really tried to lean in on those background experiences. It became clear to me as I was learning about grad programs that something that would fulfill me is a blend of environmental research, plus Health Sciences, plus policy, right? And so I kind of converge it to like environmental health policy is like sort of where I was thinking. And then so when I was looking at different programs, you know, Michigan really stood out to me. They had a super strong Department of Environmental Health. And when I spoke to different faculty and different current students, it seemed like there was a lot of opportunity if you came in with environmental health to sort of branch out, and also gain skills in policy and some of the more data analysis, epidemiology heavy coursework.So that’s the way, that’s the sort of path that brought me to Michigan. And at Michigan, you know, I don’t think any of this was planned, but I was able to receive this really exciting fellowship from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, it was called the Health Policy Research Scholars fellowship. And that really just amplified my health policy training. And it basically allowed me to integrate that type of training into my more science-heavy applications in environmental health. And so, you know, that’s sort of like my entry point into public health and the way I’ve been navigating it in terms of like, career trajectory.Brian BienkowskiWhat’s one place that you miss in Ann Arbor?Max AungOh. I love ramen. I think anybody that knows me really well knows that I’ll always, you know, go find like, the best ramen shop in any city I’m in. So there’s actually like a pretty, you know, delicious ramen place in downtown Ann Arbor called Slurping Turtle. And so that’s one place I miss. Where I was living most recently in Ann Arbor it’s in the middle of the campus and my home, or my former home. So like, you know, on the walk back, I had been known to just like, be like, alright, canceling dinner, cooking dinner, I’m just gonna get ramen.Brian BienkowskiYeah, there’s, there’s a lot, there’s a lot in a town, that’s not huge. There’s a lot of super good food and good music and good places to get a drink. So, before we get on to how you’ve taken that environmental research and what you’re doing with it now, I wanted to ask you, what’s the defining moment that shaped your identity?Max AungOh, yeah, um, you know, I, so I think I can, you know, I could time travel back to a lot of different moments long, longer times ago, but I actually, I think, like in terms of something that’s really defined me, it’s like, for me, one of the experiences, most recently was, I was working at UCSF, and I had the opportunity to, basically, you know, co-lead my first big R1 proposal. And I think what was really exciting about this proposal was, I was focusing on basically trying to better understand mental health disparities among immigrant women, and focus on how environmental exposures are potentially impacting mental health disparities in this population. And I think what was like really pivotal for me as, as a scholar was, this is sort of a moment where, after I’ve developed all of the training, earned the PhD, got to this point in my career, I’m able to now develop research questions and research proposals that literally converge my identity as an immigrant scholar, but also focus on important salient problems that are impacting these communities. You know, I will say that grant hasn’t been funded yet. So we didn’t get it on the first try. But I, I will be persisting on it and trying again, and, reshaping it in different ways. But nonetheless, I still look back at that experience and think that it’s been a huge moment for me to I’m really just feel empowered to use my skills to, you know, and my lived experiences to pursue research that, that not very many folks are doing and I think is really important.Brian BienkowskiYeah. And hopefully bettering science and shaping what environmental science looks like. And then take it one step further, hopefully making lives better, right?and in the communities you’re researching, or are looking into, in some way, having a positive impact. So that’s definitely a defining moment. I think that’s great. And hopefully it gets funded at some point.Max AungYeah, eventually I’m trying, I’m trying, you know, different ways to sort of get it funded. So crossing fingers.Brian BienkowskiSo now you’re really broadly your focus now is on what we’re exposed to that impact our health and human development. So just just kind of a 10,000 foot view, walk me through some of the things that we’re exposed to that kind of keep you up at night? What are you looking at, exposure wise, that we should be concerned about?Max AungYeah, so. So, you know, historically, in terms of what I’ve done research on so far, I’ve focused a lot on endocrine disrupting chemicals. And this includes, for example, a lot of different chemicals found in plastics and different personal care products that you use on a daily basis, like lotions, shampoos. So you know, some chemicals include phalates, phenols, parabens, I’ve done a lot of research on these endocrine disrupting chemicals. Particularly, I’ve focused on how they’re influencing maternal health conditions, and potentially, what implications that has for infant health later in life. And sort of my core research applications in that space is to try to disentangle biological mechanisms, right? So that’s, that’s sort of in the bedrock of my PhD dissertation: identifying different biological pathways that might be affected by these chemicals, and trying to illustrate that in these different studies that that we’ve published, so that so that different scholars can learn about those mechanisms, and build on those when they think about risk assessment, and trying to identify high-risk scenarios with these high exposures and thinking about what pathways might be influenced by those exposures.Brian Bienkowski Can you talk a little bit about… so I think when we historically think about environmental pollution and things that harm us, we think of… let’s use lead for an example, the more lead that I’m exposed to, or that my nephew is exposed to, the more toxic it is. With endocrine disrupting compounds, it doesn’t always work that way, there can be very tiny amounts of exposure that that wreak havoc on the body and maybe at a higher exposure, it’s not the same. So can you talk a little bit about first of all, when we say endocrine disrupting compounds, what what we mean, and also kind of the challenge of identifying how toxic they are, because they don’t always behave like traditional toxics.Max AungYeah, that’s a good point. Yeah, so, just to set the baseline. So when we say endocrine disrupting chemicals, essentially, what that means is that these chemicals, especially, based on in vitro, mechanistic laboratory experiments, these chemicals have been shown to have properties where they can mimic hormone signaling, and they can essentially alter concentrations of different hormone production. And this has, I mean, even though we call them endocrine disrupting chemicals, this has wide implications for various different pathways, because not only can they affect the endocrine system and hormone production, but because the endocrine system is so intimately connected to the immune system, for example, these chemicals can also elicit inflammatory responses, so, they can, you know, cause immune cells to regulate these proteins that are involved with inflammation and this can have downstream effects on cardiovascular function on tissue damage. So, all sorts of different downstream effects. And that’s what makes these chemicals you know, very tricky to understand. Because if they’re affecting various different pathways, there’s all sorts of feedback loops that might be occurring. And disentangling those different feedback loops, and those different mechanisms is really challenging. In terms of the dosage, you know, what you’re saying is about the concentrations, and different levels of concentrations being important, that’s also a huge consideration, right? Because, you know, there’s some evidence that, you know, particular endocrine disrupting chemicals can have nonlinear relationships. So it’s like, even low doses can have effects, and maybe you might not see effects in the middle range, but then you might see effects in the higher range. And, you know, that’s really tricky, especially when you’re trying to investigate these chemicals in a large, prospective cohort, an epidemiology study, where you have a huge distribution of these chemicals, and the distribution might be different based on which study population you’re focusing on. So, yeah, all of those things are incredibly challenging. And, a lot of the research and collaborations I’m working on now, is these, you know, multi center, multi cohort investigations, where we’re integrating data across different birth cohorts. And that’s one of the ways that we can sort of tackle this problem is having a larger sample, a larger, diverse sample that we can have a better understanding of the different distributions of these exposures.Brian BienkowskiSo, as you mentioned, a lot of your work is focused on babies, pregnant people, kind of fetal exposures. Can you talk about the specific vulnerabilities for these groups? And what we know about environmental exposures during this really critical window of development?Max AungYeah, so basically, a huge piece of my research is built on the developmental origins of health and disease hypothesis, which proposes that early life exposures can have, can be affecting key biological processes in utero, that can essentially influence the trajectory of infant development for many, many years. So this could be metabolic health, this could be neurodevelopment. So particularly, I’ve been focused on neurodevelopment, and that’s where my research program is shifting towards right now, in terms of my funded projects. And what we’re seeing so far is that, from preliminary data, that maternal biomarker profiles that we’ve measured in some of our pilot studies are associated with early measures of infant neurodevelopment. So after pregnancy. And those same biomarkers are also associated with environmental chemicals, such as the phalates from the consumer products. And so you know, our running hypothesis is that these chemicals are influencing different biomarker profiles in the mom during pregnancy, and that’s potentially influencing key neurodevelopmental features in the developing fetus, and that’s persisting into infancy. And so that’s one of the major pieces that I’m trying to work on. And so right now, we’re building on that preliminary work, and we’re expanding it into multiple different cohorts measuring these biomarkers. And the idea is that, from the study, we’ll be able to characterize these early mechanisms of neurotoxicity, potential neurotoxicity, but then also, hopefully use these biomarkers as you know, potential predictive tools that we can help to identify potential neurodevelopmental outcomes later in life.Brian BienkowskiSo just so I’m clear that the basic idea is that the mother is exposed to, or the pregnant person is exposed to a compound, and you’re seeing… and by biomarkers, what do you mean, what are you looking at?Max AungYeah, so there’s all sorts of biomarkers that you know that we, that I’ve been researching over the past few years. But most recently, I’ve been focusing on these targeted bioactive lipids, so this includes, you know, parent fatty acid compounds that folks get from, you know, essentially their diet like arachidonic acid, linoleic acid. And these fatty acid compounds are essential, and you know, you need them for key biological processes. And as a component of their essential function and role in physiology, they are metabolized into secondary molecules that can stimulate different things like immune responses, cardiovascular function, they’re also important for, you know, kidney function. So, these secondary molecules are really key signals of biological processes. And so, when you measure them, and then you see that there are altered levels, or different concentrations associated with higher concentrations of phalates, then you start to be concerned, because, you know, that essentially suggest that perhaps, that the chemicals are influencing that metabolism of those bioactive lipids, and if they’re influencing that metabolism, they might be influencing all those downstream processes that I just laid out. And that’s, you know, that’s when we start to find that there might be a problem with that, because those downstream processes could be influencing the developing fetus.Brian BienkowskiSo using a lotion that has too much phalates could make your child have delayed development, maybe some kind of behavioral issues. I mean, are these the kinds of downstream impacts you’re looking up?Max AungWell, we’re trying to disentangle that. It’ still very early stages in terms of those outcomes, but some of my colleagues in that I collaborate in these cohorts have found associations with dilates and altered infant neurodevelopmental parameters. And so we are seeing evidence so far that there are some associations. And so now that we’ve seen those relationships with dilates and neurodevelopment, this next stage that I’m proposing is trying to find these linking pathways, with these bioactive lipids that might be explaining some of these relationships.Brian BienkowskiAnd of course, as humans, we’re all eating perhaps produce that has pesticides, we’re putting on these lotions, we’re eating out of plastic containers, we’re walking outside where there’s heavy traffic, so we’re exposed to mixtures of pollutants all the time. So can you outline, you know, first, why that’s a challenge for researchers like yourself, and how folks like you try to best capture what these mixtures might be doing to us, or disentangling them? If that’s what you’re doing.Max AungYeah. So yeah, so thanks for bringing that up. You know, there’s, there’s hundreds of thousands of chemicals that were exposed to, and like you said, pesticides, and some pesticides have been shown in mechanistic models to be neurotoxic. So when you think about, you know, the cumulative exposures of pesticides, phthalates, toxic metals like lead, and, what is so challenging about understanding any single chemical class is that they’re not acting alone, right? You have these different exposures that are also influencing these biological pathways. And they’re also, through that mechanism, potentially influencing those outcomes like neurodevelopment. And so you know, what I’d say, in that space of disentangling the mechanisms. I think what’s really challenging is, you know, one of the studies I published like a couple of years ago is we looked at like four different chemical classes, you know, dilates, included toxic metals included, and we saw that they’re having these, in some cases, divergent associations with these biological pathways and these biomarkers, and so when you see divergent pathways, it’s really tricky because it’s hard to understand what that implication is in terms of the downstream effects. Like are they acting sort of against each other? like antagonistically? Is this an issue of temporality, where we’ve only measured the exposures once and the biomarkers once so we’re not capturing the bigger picture, right? So there’s a lot of unanswered questions in terms of like these mixture effects. But I think, in that chaos and confusion of all these different divergent relationships, I think there’s something really compelling in terms of this really emphasizes the need to look at chemicals as a whole mixture, because you’re going to miss things if you don’t, right? if you focus on just one chemical class, you’re really going to miss the fact that other chemical classes are having. And it’s, it’s really not conducive for risk assessment, you know, when you think when you’re ignoring those different chemical classes. And so, you know, in terms of taking the risk assessments and thinking of downstream policy implications, I think it’s really critical that we start to evolve from this one chemical at a time policy approach and thinking about all of these chemicals, cumulatively.Brian BienkowskiSo that leads me nicely into my next question, and maybe that’s in part your answer. I was thinking about, I’ve been, personally, I’ve been writing about BPA for more than a decade now. And the bad news keeps coming. And the studies keep finding impacts, whether it’s animal studies, or correlational, human epidemiological studies, and it’s still not regulated, right, nothing happens. And one of the things I realized as a journalist pretty early on that I think is was surprising to me, and I think it’s surprising to other people is that everything on the shelf isn’t tested to the extent that you think it is. So, you know, we you’re talking about phalates and things that are probably in my shower right now. So, where’s the regulation failing? So maybe one one aspect you mentioned, is not looking at things as classes rather trying to look at them individually, but what else? What else could we or should we be doing?Max AungThat’s a, that’s a big question. You know, I think there’s so many different things we could be doing better. But, you know, one of the things for sure is, you know, in addition to looking at the cumulative effects is thinking about better capturing different routes of exposure and integrating that holistically – especially thinking about different historically marginalized communities as well, because there is historic exposure that needs to be accounted for in marginalized communities. So, you know, some communities are exposed to not only the phalates, but high levels of air pollution, toxic lead, there’s PFAS in the drinking water. So thinking about historical exposures as well is really important, because that really contextualizes the current state of the problem that those communities might be facing. Whereas if you just look at the chemical class in isolation, without thinking about those historic exposures, you’re going to underestimate the risk that those communities are experiencing.Brian BienkowskiWhat would you tell someone who’s an expecting mother?Max AungThat’s, you know, I think, what I would tell them is that, you know, well… I think in general, what I would tell folks is that a lot of the solutions, the really big impact solutions are going to come at the regulatory policy level, we can try to limit our exposures as a consumer by, you know, not using this product or that product. You know, avoiding different products, but that’s really so marginal in terms of exposure reduction. I think the onus should really be on regulators and industry to not use these chemicals and to use safer alternatives or if some of these chemicals are not essential, basically, yeah, like they shouldn’t be produced. So in terms of what I tell folks when they asked me about reducing things like, in addition to, you know, avoiding certain products, I would say, it’s really, also going to take a lot of civic engagement to push policymakers to make responsible decisions on reducing these harmful exposures. That’s really where the big-impact, exposure reduction is going to come from. And so, you know, I think that’s where we really have to invest our energy and our effort, as scientists as activists, and sort of pushing policymakers and industries to sort of do better.Brian Bienkowski Was there an “aha!” moment for you or something that you learned when you were researching these exposures that you don’t think most people would know about? Something kind of surprising, interesting, shocking.Max AungYou know, I think like, for me, it’s, it’s been… Well, the first part was just seeing how many chemicals we’re exposed to. It’s pretty alarming. And there’s estimates that there’s like, hundreds of thousands of registered and, you know, thousands of unregistered chemicals too, and that is really problematic, because as a scientist, it’s really, it’s really challenging to investigate the health effects of these chemicals, when there’s like such a large mountain of chemicals. And so I think that was been sort of a huge moment, in terms of the way I think about the problem. And it’s also compelled me to not only investigate them, to the best I can with these epi cohorts –we’re very limited in those cohorts on what we can measure, right, just because of costs– So that’s compelled me to, you know, in addition to focusing on those, also think about how we can drive policy forward. And one of the things I’ve been working on in my role at UCSF, in my past, while at UCSF and I’m still carrying it forward, is thinking about developing a framework to inform policy action when there’s limited research, and to sort of, how can we drive decision making forward? so that we can reduce exposures without having to necessarily conduct these large epi cohorts that will take many, many years to do. So finding that balance has been really tricky. And that’s, you know, something sort of that I’ve been focusing on a lot recently, and it’s really great in terms of bridging my policy bug right into my science hat.Brian BienkowskiI wonder if that might be the answer to my next question. I was thinking about a lot of everybody in the Agents of Change program, there’s a, there’s a real importance placed on using your research to spur positive change in communities. And I think in some instances, I’ve seen this with reporting, when we report on a fence-line community, and there’s a power plant, it’s a very clear link: these people are being harmed by this thing, how can we make that known and spur action? It’s easy, it’s local. Whereas what you’re looking at is so ubiquitous and big. And really, we’re all exposed to these compounds and in some communities more than others, but being such a big, unwieldy problem. I’m wondering how you go about trying to make that change happen?Max AungYeah, so that’s definitely an ongoing workshopping and brainstorming process. In terms of like, how I’ve been approaching it with my collaborators at UCSF, we’re developing thi framework for Environmental Health Policy. And the goal of the framework is to develop a process, a very transparent process for evaluating scientific evidence to inform policymakers to take action on an environmental contaminant. And so in that process, it requires the integration of key decision criteria, right? Like how will you balance the costs and benefits of an intervention? How do you balance environmental injustice and the potential to essentially push back against systemic racism? you know, how can the intervention do that in terms of environmental hazards? And in this process, like, I think the way that we’ve sort of started to approach it is bringing in key stakeholders, from NGOs, from the government, from different community organizations, and really listening, trying to listen on their input. And so that’s one of the most recent things we did in this project: [it] was to bring together a workshop of different key stakeholders. And so now going forward, you know, we’re synthesizing through that information. And as we develop future case studies and applications for our policy framework, I think, will continue to sort of bring in community engagement and really trying to get their input every step of the way, so that we’re impacting a potential intervention with their ideas in mind and very integrated into how we’re approaching the potential intervention or recommendation.Brian Bienkowski I remember talking to Dr. Reginald Seeley, who who spoke to the Agents of Change at some point. And he mentioned when he worked on The Hill for a little while, how incredibly busy policymakers are. This idea of you doing some of the work for them and taking the studies and running them through this project and giving them different outputs of “this would do this, And this would do that. And there’s benefits here cost saving here,” I think is brilliant.Max Aung Yeah, absolutely. It’s a big, it’s a big hill, but I think that, you know, I’m optimistic. And I think we have a stellar team of collaborators. And we’ve brought together a great steering committee to help guide us. It’s really exciting. So I’m hopeful that we can continue that work and really influence policymakers in the future.Brian Bienkowski Excellent. I just have a couple more questions for you, Max. And this has been a really good time it is there anything else that you want to mention that you are optimistic about? Some of these topics are just heavy. What else out there gets you excited or hopeful?Max Aung Yeah, I think, you know, in terms of like, the science, I am pretty, I’m getting optimistic about how some of the funding opportunities that have been announced through the NIH, I’m starting to see more and more emphasis on important research that has implications for environmental justice. And not just NIH but also the EPA. There’s an environmental justice intent in some of these opportunities. So, I’m cautiously optimistic that they can influence positive change and promote social justice. You know, and hopefully, the folks that get these different funding mechanisms can incorporate community input, and really drive environmental justice forward. And I think there’s also a lot of potential in terms of a lot of initiatives that the Biden administration is doing, in terms of trying to integrate social justice into a lot of their regulatory frameworks. And so I think, I’m optimistic about that. I really hope it can be sustained after like the midterm elections, and hopefully in the next four years, but, we’ll see.Brian Bienkowski of living. Yeah, article, political realities. Yeah, unfortunately, sometimes But you know, I what I will say is the fact that there is an awareness, you know, easy for me to say I’m not a member of a community that is dealing with these things. But I think the fact that there is awareness right now is a positive step in itself. And hopefully that continues to bring about change. So Max, I have three rapid fire questions where you can just give me one word, or phrase and then we can, we can move on, get me out of here and the rest of your day. So one of my all time favorite moviesMax Aung Moulin RougeBrian Bienkowski When I have downtime, I am most likelyMax Aung Cycling outdoors.Brian Bienkowski Oh, gosh, me too. I’m taking one as soon as we get done here. And I cannot I cannot start my day withoutMax Aung Coffee.Brian Bienkowski Perfect. We are two for three on matching each other there. And Max. My last question, what is the last book that you read for fun?Max Aung I just started reading this book called “On Earth we’re briefly gorgeous.” And I haven’t finished it yet. So I’ll let you know what when I finished it, but so far, it’s really poetic.Brian Bienkowski And who is the author on that?Max Aung I hope I’m pronouncing their name right. Ocean Vuong.Brian Bienkowski Yeah. “On Earth We’re briefly gorgeous.” I love the title.Max Aung Yeah, it’s a beautiful title. And their background is largely in, you know, in creative writing and poem. So it’s got that sort of that vibe in there quite a bit.Brian Bienkowski Excellent. Well, Max, thank you so much for taking time today. I really mean it that I am so excited that you’re part of the team and I get to see you and talk to you and brainstorm with you on how to grow this program. So thank you so much for today.Max Aung Yeah, thanks so much for inviting me.

Plastic Free July pushes to reduce amount of pollution

ROCKY RIVER, Ohio  — Plastic Free July is a global movement that helps millions of people be part of the solution to plastic pollution.The initiative provides free resources and ideas to help people around the world reduce single-use plastic waste every day at home, work, or school.Lake Erie is a popular recreation spot and has undergone a dramatic transformation over the years when it comes to pollution, but the lake still faces a threat from things like un-recycled plastics.“Unfortunately, if it does end out into the water, whether it’s ponds, lakes, streams or the or Lake Erie itself, it makes it even more difficult to try to recover those materials and then get them properly recycled,” said Dan Sowery, assistant environmental administrator for the Ohio EPA.The mission is actually simple: recognize and take inventory of single-use plastics in your life and try to cut out one or two.“It could be as simple as you say no to plastic bags at the grocery store and you have reusable ones that you use or saying no to a plastic straw at a restaurant,” said Rachel Regula, owner of Little Spark Refill Shop.Regula’s shop offers zero-waste products and provides a spot for locals to bring in their own containers to refill bath and cleaning products, instead of purchasing new plastics that will later be thrown away. She opened the venture during the COVID-19 pandemic and has been blown away by the reception she’s received.“All of the products that we have in the store are going to be free of synthetic fragrances that also could contain parabens,” Regula said. “They’re synthetic free, they’re silicone free. So everything is safe for you and also safe for the environment.”The EPA estimates nearly 27 million tons of plastics ending up in landfills in 2018, with only three million tons of plastics being recycled. Regula is doing her to stay eco-friendly. Her goal is to make sustainability accessible to people who may feel overwhelmed with where to start.One of the best ways to begin is to refill containers at home to help eliminate single-use plastics.“It is very difficult in this day and age to be completely zero waste, but we’re always here to support people that are on that mission,” Regula said. “There is no specific month you need to start your sustainability, zero waste, no plastic journey, and every little step makes a huge difference.”

How the plastic industry turned the pandemic to its advantage

How the plastic industry turned the pandemic to its advantage With its products proving indispensable to combatting Covid-19, the plastics business is reinvigorated. What will it take to bring this major polluter to heel?There are only two reasons that the plastics industry will change, a polymer scientist once told me: war or legislation. Corporations along the plastics value chain have faced a number of environmental and health crises, from toxic scandals to marine plastic waste and the climate emergency. Each of these crises has led to new laws and regulations, despite corporate efforts to undermine them.In the two years leading up to the pandemic, the public backlash against plastic was a major concern for industry leaders. As a corporate executive remarked during an industry event early in 2019: “We need to get the image of plastic in oceans out of the public’s mind. Otherwise, we could lose our social licence to operate.” Of course, the pandemic did not take the image of plastic in oceans out of the public’s mind. However, it did highlight in a very real and urgent way the importance of many plastic products for healthcare and hygiene. At the virtual World Petrochemical Conference in April 2020, an industry analyst commented on this unexpected shift: “Ironically, sustainability, the issue that was dominating the conversation until just a few weeks ago, seems to be fading into the background, at least for the moment. And polyethylene may even be gaining some public favour as it plays a high-profile role in combating the greatest health risk to our planet in modern history.”This temporary respite from public anti-plastic sentiment opened the door for industry to push back against single-use plastics bans. In July last year, the European Commission rejected the industry’s request to delay the EU Directive on Single-Use Plastics. However, multiple single-use plastics bans and deposit return schemes were reversed or delayed in countries around the world, across North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia.During the pandemic, plastic was restored to its original paradoxical status as both a miracle and a menace for society. As far as industry was concerned, this was enough: it had regained its social licence to operate. By the end of 2020, industry leaders had fully embraced the new pandemic narrative about the essential role of plastics in society and many expressed optimism about their future growth. At the virtual World Petrochemical Conference in March 2021, industry analysts identified four key “Covid demand drivers”: food packaging, bag ban delays, online shopping, and hygiene and medical.As one petrochemical industry executive enthused: “The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted how essential all our products are to everyone in society around the globe. We saw record sales and record volumes for our products throughout the pandemic… over the long term we can continue to see that kind of growth, and we’re going to see that accelerate as economies reopen around the world. All of this is really driven by the world’s growing global middle class, and that’s going to drive demand for the products we produce. Covid-19 didn’t change our long-term view on the fundamentals.”Hearing these glowing industry reports about single-use plastics growth, I couldn’t help feeling guilty about the plastics that have entered my home in the UK during the pandemic. Many environmental activists and researchers have pointed out that one of the key tactics of industry is to blame the consumer for plastic waste, which diverts attention from corporate responsibility. The plastics crisis is a systemic problem, however, and most people are locked into supply chains and infrastructures, unable to simply opt out of plastics consumption.According to a recent study published in the journal Science Advances, the United Kingdom is second only to the United States in terms of the amount of plastic waste generated per person, at 99kg and 105kg per person per year respectively. Supermarkets with over-packaged food are one of the main problems. By contrast, the global average of plastic consumption is 45kg per person per year, and as little as 4kg per person per year in India. Looking at the consequences of one’s own actions, from a privileged standpoint, multiplied and intensified across the planet, invites a kind of vertigo.While voluntary corporate commitments to end plastic waste have flooded in, the plastics crisis has kept getting worse. Some of the most scathing reports have emerged during the pandemic, such as the Changing Markets Foundation’s report Talking Trash, which concluded that “the Covid-19 health crisis has, once again, shown that Big Plastic is always primed and ready to co-opt a crisis to its advantage, pushing to undermine environmental legislation or any restrictions on its products… [T]he plastics industry does not have people’s best interests at heart; instead, it is making cold calculations to carry on with business as usual.” The Talking Trash report focused on the inadequate voluntary commitments of the top plastics polluters in the consumer goods and beverage industries, and the corporate “playbook” for undermining plastics legislation, particularly deposit-return schemes and single-use plastic bans.One important lever for changing the plastics industry has gained traction during the pandemic: the dawning realisation by many investors and policymakers that green recovery paths to net zero will need to phase out fossil fuels altogether, including virgin (brand new) plastic. In September 2020, the thinktank Carbon Tracker warned investors in plastics about the risk of holding stranded assets in the transition away from fossil fuels. Plastic is the last pillar of oil demand growth, its researchers argued, but this pillar would be removed very soon by increasing regulatory and recycling pressures, accelerated by green recovery packages.The need to reduce the reliance of plastics on fossil fuels has also featured in a number of policy proposals, dovetailing with the momentum to respond to the climate emergency through green recoveries after the pandemic. The US Break Free from Plastic bill re-emerged early in 2021 under the Biden presidency, incorporating calls from environmental activists and frontline communities to halt petrochemical projects and to hold corporations accountable for waste and emissions throughout the plastic life cycle. Plastics sustainability, incorporating net zero emissions targets, is also a prominent part of the European Green Deal. Furthermore, reducing virgin plastic production is a core (if contested) topic for debates about the scope of a new UN treaty on plastics, amid growing recognition from many governments, organisations and researchers that the problem of plastic pollution extends through the plastics life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials through to manufacturing, consumption, waste and pollution.If there is any insight that can be gained from looking at the ways corporations have responded to the plastics crisis, which has magnified during the pandemic, it is the power of legislation. Binding laws and regulations offer less room for manoeuvre than voluntary commitments, especially when it comes to bans. The plastics industry is more concerned about the threat of the European Single-Use Plastics Directive, which is binding legislation, than the Ellen MacArthur New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, which is based on voluntary circular economy commitments. Outright bans of specific plastic products, on the grounds of protecting the environment or public health, effectively take these products off the market.The pandemic has made clear that we need legislation and binding regulations to address the plastics crisis, but we also need another lever of change. We need to keep questioning the dominant assumption that there can be continual plastics growth on a finite planet. If this assumption could be overturned, aligning with the growing consensus that the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels, that would be a starting point for meaningful change.
This is an edited extract from Plastic Unlimited: How Corporations are Fuelling the Ecological Crisis and What We Can Do About It by Alice Mah, published by Polity Press (£14.99). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
TopicsPlasticsThe ObserverWastePollutionClimate crisisfeaturesReuse this content