Photo courtesy of Brian Yurasits

Nonprofit Organization
Ocean Blue Project
Plastics and Human Health
Photo courte
sy of Jon Tyso
n

Contents
Acknowledgments 3
Biographies 4
Introduction - The Growth of Plastics 6
Increasing Plastic Pollution 7
What are plastics? 9
How are Plastics Transported? 10
Plastic Pollution Transport by Water 11
Plastic Pollution Transport by Air 12
Plastic in Soil 13
Plastic Use in the Medical Industry 14
Plastic and COVID-19 15
Plastics and One Health 17
Biotransfer of Microplastics in Marine Ecosystems 18
Biotransfer of Microplastics in Terrestrial Ecosystems 19
Plastic in Other Food Sources 20
Human Consumption of Microplastics and Food Safety 21
Plastics and Human Health 22
Plastics and Respiratory Disease 24
Plastics and Cardiovascular Disease 26
Plastics and the Endocrine System 27
Plastic’s Links to Cancer 28
Plastics and the Reproductive System 29
Plastics and Mental Health 30
Solutions 31
Biodegradable Plastics 32
Changing Consumer Demand and Societal Pressure 35
Industries & Institutional Solutions 37
Individuals 39
Bibliography 40
 Acknowledgments
Ocean Blue Project is a 501c3 nonprofit organization founded in 2012 in
Newport, Oregon by father and son, Richard and Fleet Arterbury, tribal members
of the Choctaw Nation. This grassroots environmental organization is built
around one vision: that the world’s ocean, beaches and rivers will once again
be pristine, self-sustaining ecosystems where wildlife and human communities
can coexist and thrive.

Ocean Blue engages with local communities and governments to mobilize and
coordinate resources, to educate youth, and to reconnect populations to their
local environment. Our members and volunteers clean up beaches and river
banks, restore riverside vegetation, and train their communities on ways to reduce
environmental pollutants and help improve biodiversity in the local ecosystems.

Since our father-and-son founders began this mission, Ocean Blue Project
volunteers have recovered over 244,000 pounds of debris from beaches and
waterways. We have also planted 9,900 native shrubs and trees along waterways.

Ocean Blue’s main goal is to remove 1 million pounds of plastic debris from
the coasts and river banks by 2025, starting a virtuous cycle of habitat restoration,
ecosystem diversity and cleansing of our waterways.

Photo courtesy of Willfried Wende 3

Biographies

Karisa Boyce Arterbury, Ocean Blue Project Director of Operations, mother,

and facilitator of change, continues to remain a powerhouse in effectively
rehabilitating and preserving our planet’s rivers, waterways and oceans.
Continuing the legacy of her grandmother, Karisa has collaborated with schools,
agencies and organizations around the nation, providing the educational
and technical resources needed to keep waterways clean. In her first year as
director, Ocean Blue increased its revenue by 600%, and has since expanded
to include partnerships far and wide. With a background immersed in the
awareness that environmental and social justice go hand-in-hand, Karisa
harmoniously provides solutions for communities to be engaged and active in
the protection of their local waters.

Lindsay Hartley-Backhouse is a British scientific researcher who has been working

within local and international wildlife NGOs in Asia for the past 12 years. She
specializes in wildlife welfare and environmental science, with a particular
interest in marine ecosystems, ecology, and environmental sustainability. Her
published work includes reports on marine debris, ghost fishing gear, and the
exploitation of captive cetaceans. Lindsay graduated from the University of
Edinburgh’s Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies with a Master’s degree
in International Animal Welfare, Ethics, and Law. She is currently finishing a
Professional Certificate in Environmental Management for Sustainability from the
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

Aaron Tomat grew up in New York City and moved to Southern California in
2014, where he currently resides. From a young age, he was fascinated with the
ocean and even dreamed of becoming a professional diver and being able to
observe fish and other marine wildlife that inhabit underwater ecosystems. Being
in Southern California has only given him a deeper connection to nature and
the environment. When taking part in activities such as hiking, surfing, kayaking,
and whale watching he has a greater appreciation for the natural world and
a desire to help conserve and protect it. He graduated from California State
University Channel Islands with a Bachelor’s degree in Economics and is currently
working on his MS degree at Boston College.
4
Biographies (Cont.)

Shweta Manoharan is a Biomedical Sciences student who loves synthesizing

information and writing content. She hopes to use her time in a manner that
truly makes a difference in the world. Shweta began working with the Ocean
Blue Project to put her skills into use while learning about the impact of plastic
on human health. She met some wonderful people in the process and this will
remain an experience she truly cherishes!

Yiru Cheng was born in Taiwan, a subtropical island in the Pacific Ocean. She is
a certified doctor but decided to follow her passionate curiosity about birds. She
recently completed her Ph.D. at Columbia University studying social behavior
in grey-capped social weavers in Kenya. She now lives at the edge of Jamaica
Bay in New York City watching shorebirds, seabirds, and turtles. Her life at the
bay and seeing how that beautiful habitat has been trashed motivated her to
organize clean-ups and volunteer in this project.

Pranathi Chintala is a senior at Green Level High School, who is also dual-
enrolled at Wake Technical Community College. She has been an executive
team member of the school’s environmental club for three years and has done
clean-ups as well as phone banking as a part of the club. She also created
a Science National Honor Society chapter to help encourage the passion for
science with her fellow peers. She greatly enjoys taking environmental science
courses and wanted to work in an academic setting that allowed her to feel like
a part of change and is grateful for the opportunity to work on this report.

5
 Introduction
The Growth of Plastics
Though the earliest forms of plastic—cellulose-based compounds—were first
created in the 1860s, it was not until World War II that the mass production of
plastics as we know them today began. The creation of plastic as a durable,
malleable, weather-resistant material was a breakthrough to reduce human
dependence on natural resources. In the post-war boom, plastic use became
widespread, being used in machinery and later in a whole new range of
consumer products that capitalized on its unique properties.

During this initial phase of widespread use, the world was producing around
2 million metric tons of plastic annually (Geyer & Jambeck, 2017). Over time,
innovations and population increase caused plastic production to skyrocket.
It is estimated that over 300 million metric tons of plastics are now produced
annually. The variety of plastics has also increased, with more than 20 different
varieties being frequently used by people globally, each with a different
composition and life cycle (North & Halden, 2013).

Plastic’s unique characteristics not only determine its uses but also its recyclability
and disposal. The sheer scale of plastic production and lack of adequate waste
management systems ultimately lead to plastic pollution; this negatively
Photo courtes of Natalie Dmay
affects the environment, wildlife, and its own creators - humans. 6
 Increasing Plastic Pollution

In the 1960s, plastic began to wash up on beaches and be deposited in rivers or lakes worldwide. Since that
time, there has been concern among the public about plastic pollution and the effects it has on the natural
environment and the health of wildlife (Marty, 2020). Despite these concerns and the calls for increased
awareness and regulation, the production of plastic continued to grow exponentially, surpassing the production
of many other human-made materials that existed long before.

Estimates state that over 8 billion metric tons of plastic have been produced to date and of that, only 30% are
still in use. Of the 70% of plastics produced but not in use, 60% are sitting in landfills or have been dispersed into
the natural environment, while the remaining 10% have been recycled or incinerated (Geyer & Jambeck, 2017).
One of the main problems is that more plastic is entering the world than leaving it.

Photo courtesy of Fiqri Aziz Octavian 7

 Photo c
ourtesy of 3D Anim
ati on Prod
uct
nC io
om
pa
ny
In 2015, only 75% of the total plastic produced that year left the ‘use’ phase,
meaning 25% of it was newly added (Geyer & Jambeck, 2017). Without extensive
cleanup actions to dispose of plastics, plastic accumulation will increase,
further worsening the cycle (Y. Zhang et al., 2020). Research has uncovered
how widespread plastic pollution is within the marine ecosystem, as microplastics
have been found within crustaceans in the deepest parts of the world’s oceans,
including the Mariana Trench (Jamieson et al., 2019). There is no place that
plastic pollution cannot reach.

The chemical composition of plastics makes solving the problem of pollution

harder, as plastics will usually fragment into smaller pieces, including
microplastics, and never truly biodegrade. This causes further harmful effects as
these durable microplastics are better able to invade ecosystems and remain
indefinitely (Abbasi et al., 2020). Given the ocean covers 70% of the earth, the
invasion of plastic pollution into marine ecosystems is of serious concern. Millions
of tons of waste make their way into our oceans annually, with over 80% made
of plastic (Thevenon et al., 2015).

Much of this plastic pollution originates from urban and industrialized areas on
land, which is unsurprising when considering that 40% of the world’s population
lives within 60 miles of the coast. Given the human population is set to double
within the next 50 years, with a large percentage continuing to inhabit coastal
regions, the amount of plastic pollution created will undoubtedly increase
Photo courtes of Natalie Dmay
and contaminate our ecosystems further (Browne et al., 2011). 8
 Photo courtesy of Nick Fewings

What are plastics?

Plastics can be defined as either synthetic or semi-synthetic polymers made from
organic materials such as oil and petroleum. There are three different types of
polymers: natural polymers, which are found in many natural substances such
as cotton, wool, and silk; semi-synthetic polymers, which are natural polymers

sy Biju Toha
that have undergone chemical modification; and synthetic polymers, which are
entirely man-made.

Photo courte
Plastic production begins when raw materials are first extracted from the earth
and chemically processed into polymer chains (Hamilton et al., 2019). The
polymers can be combined in vast numbers to form resins such as polyethylene
and polystyrene. These materials can be used in packaging or can be
converted into other types of plastics under high heat (Hahladakis et al., 2018).
The low weight and essentially limitless functionality of plastics account for
their popularity in the modern world. While these characteristics have been
invaluable in many ways, they pose huge obstacles for recycling and disposal.

During its use and after disposal, plastic breaks down into different shapes and
sizes, each classified differently. Plastic under one micrometer long is considered
nanoplastic; microplastics measure less than five millimeters; macroplastics
measure between 5–50 centimeters; while megaplastics are pieces larger than
50 centimeters. Plastics are also grouped into primary and secondary plastics
depending on their size, with primary plastics being items that maintain their
original size and secondary plastics being those that have decreased in size due
to fragmentation, degradation, and mineralization. 9

How are Plastics Transported?
A majority of the plastic that ends up polluting the oceans,
lakes, forests, and other natural environments did not
originate nearby; plastic frequently travels long distances to
reach its current location. The low weight and combustibility
of plastics allow easy movement through channels such as
air and water currents to natural environments. Much of the
plastic entering the ocean originates from the inefficient
waste management of consumer products and through
spillages or losses throughout transportation and disposal.
Thanks to their tiny size and weight, microplastics can easily
make their way to the ocean through waste discharge from
pipes or intentional dumping and littering (Horton & Dixon,
2018). Between 21–42% of all global plastic waste is kept
in landfills, with many having poorly managed conditions,
allowing plastics to be easily lost into natural environments
(Nizzetto et al., 2016). As the world’s largest ecosystem,
the ocean has been described as the ultimate sink for all
environmental plastics (Woodall et al., 2014), since that is
where the majority of plastics are ultimately transported.
Photo courtes of Naja Bertolt Jensen
According to the WWF, 80% of plastics in the ocean have
terrestrial, rather than aquatic origins. The majority are not
from ocean-related activities, such as fishing. Once plastics
reach the ocean, they do not usually accumulate in the
initial area and can travel significant distances, at times
further from where they were originally discarded (van
Sebille et al., 2012).
Freshwater sources such as lakes and rivers also retain
plastics within their sediments (Nizzetto et al., 2016).
Scientists have noted that although the average amount
of plastic particle accumulation in freshwater bodies is
generally small, some bodies of water are so perfectly
positioned that they allow plastic accumulation at higher
concentrations than that of even the ocean (Horton
& Dixon, 2018). Overall, studies have determined that
the transportation of plastics is mainly determined by its
environment and factors such as the weather and nearby
human activity (A. A. Horton & Dixon, 2018).
10

Photo courtes of Naja Bertolt Jensen
Photo courtes of Naja Bertolt Jensen
Plastic Pollution Transport by Water
Rain—or rather humans’ initiative to build appropriate water drainage systems—
is one of the main ways plastic enters our ecosystems. Studies show that
drainage systems are the main path that microplastics take to enter bodies
of water (Boucher & Friot, 2017; Horton & Dixon, 2018). Litter and other waste
collected on the streets are washed away by rain showers, escaping into the
environment through gutters and pipes.
Even without considering litter, the expansion of urban environments itself
is driving microplastic pollution in marine environments. Roads generate
microplastics, with the abrasion of car tires releasing synthetic polymers into the
environment, alongside microplastics from degraded road paints (Boucher &
Friot, 2017). While soil is pervious, meaning it allows water and other liquids to
pass through it, human-made surfaces such as concrete and tarmac roads are
impervious. Two-thirds of the losses of primary microplastics into the ocean occur
through road runoff (Boucher & Friot, 2017), where fallen rainwater accumulates
microplastics on the roads, transporting them to water sources, and eventually
the ocean.
The washing of polyester and acrylic clothes in washing machines also releases
fibers into the water system. Clothing fibers are found in wildlife habitats that
receive sewage discharge, while wastewater sampling shows that a single item
of clothing can produce thousands of fibers per wash (Browne et al., 2011).
The mixing of microplastics with wastewater and sewage, and its subsequent
introduction into aquatic environments, allows for its accumulation. Areas in
close proximity to storm drains have been observed to contain relatively high
amounts of plastic fragments, as the runoff is carried through the water
streams to the natural environment (Horton et al., 2017). 11
Plastic Pollution Transport by Air
Due to the low weight of many plastics, some are prone to escape landfills
unintentionally, particularly during strong winds. The traveling of microplastics
through the air has been described by scientists as ‘urban dust’, with many of
the airborne particles coming from the dirt found on streets (Horton & Dixon,
2018). Airborne plastics particles can also end up in terrestrial or aquatic
environments when heavy rainfall forces the particles back to earth.

Plastics traveling through the air have the greatest potential to disperse, as their
movements are influenced by air currents and are not hindered by material
obstacles such as rocks, plants, or buildings (Horton & Dixon, 2018). Wind speed,
direction, and turbulence all affect plastics’ transportation and distribution (Y. Zhang
et al., 2020). Airborne microplastic fibers pose a risk to human health as they can
be potentially inhaled, damaging the lungs and other organs (Pauly et al., 1998).

Research analyzing the atmospheric fallout of microplastics in Greater Paris,

France, detected between 2 and 355 particles/m2/day, with levels higher in urban
than suburban areas. Nearly all of the microplastics collected were fibers and of
these, 29% of them were either fully or partially made out of petrochemicals
(Dris et al., 2016). While most studies on the influence of microplastics and
nanoplastics on human health have naturally focused on the digestive tract,
research on the inhalation of plastics is increasing and summarized well in Prata’s
review of current knowledge (Prata, 2018). Human reactions to the presence
of inhaled plastic fibers include asthma-like responses, chronic pneumonia,
bronchitis, lung cancer, cardiopulmonary disease, lesions in the respiratory
system, and cancer as a result of DNA change through chronic inflammation
(various, in Prata, 2018).

Photo courtesy of Pixabay 12

 Plastic in Soil
Due to wind and water transport, microplastics find their way into the soil on
farms and agricultural land. When sewage treatment plant spillages occur,
many of the microplastic particles that are not filtered out will be discharged
into a mud-like sludge. This allows them to enter into our soils, as the sludge
is commonly used as a fertilizer (Nizzetto, Bussi, et al., 2016). Estimates from
industrialized nations show that the application of sewage sludge coming from
wastewater treatment plants is a key factor in the introduction of microplastics
into agricultural soils; how that impacts human health is under-studied (Nizzetto,
Futter, et al., 2016).

Microplastics are also transferred into the soil through plastic mulch film (Y. Huang
et al., 2020), which covers the bases of some crops to prevent weed growth.
Plastics can also make their way into our soil due to their presence in common
agriculture products, such as mulch and bale twine, as those items are prone
to degrade into secondary microplastics (Nizzetto, Bussi, et al., 2016). In Europe,
studies show that hundreds of millions of tons of microplastics are added to the
soils used for agriculture annually through sludge fertilizer application (Horton &
Dixon, 2018). Organisms such as earthworms, which we depend on to aerate
and cycle soil nutrients are dying due to the toxic plastics present in their envi-
ronment, ultimately reducing agricultural productivity (Horton & Dixon, 2018).

Photo courtesy of Muhammad Numan

Photo courtesy of Markus Spiske 13

Plastic Use in the Medical Industry
The medical industry has been highly reliant on plastics since their mass production. Plastic is a significant component of
vital medical equipment, such as IV bags and tubing. While the use of plastics has led to more efficient, hygienic medical
care, it also accounts for up to 25% of total waste generated in the industry (B.-K. Lee et al., 2002). Despite the medical
industry’s reliance on plastics, the amount of plastic waste that hospitals and medical facilities in the United States generate
represents approximately 0.2% of the total waste generated by the country (North & Halden, 2013).

Photo courtes of Hennie Stander

In part, this is because hospitals are inclined to use non-
disposable plastic products that have a longer overall
lifespan, such as prosthetics and engineered tissues (North
& Halden, 2013). Healthcare contributes significantly
to countries’ GDP, accounting for over 16% and 10% of
the GDP of the United States and Canada, and varying
between 8-10% for most European countries (The World
Bank, 2018). With these contributions, the industry’s input
could force manufacturers to listen to demands towards
creating more sustainable and safer plastics, and act
accordingly (North & Halden, 2013).
While some medical plastics have long life cycles, the
use of single-use items is common. The most common
single-use items found in hospitals are syringes and latex
gloves, which while providing more patient safety, also
are one of the main contributors to plastic waste (North
& Halden, 2013). The disposal of single-use medical items
and other hazardous medical products usually involves
incineration to prevent contamination or the spreading of
infectious diseases. Incineration, however, has the potential
to produce toxic ash that can seep into and pollute our
groundwater (North & Halden, 2013). Ironically, as hospitals
continue to produce plastic waste with disposable products,
they harm the people they aim to help.
There is no doubt that humans have benefitted from the
invention and mass production of plastics as used in the
medical industry. Their versatility, cost-effectiveness, light
weight, and compatibility with human bodies have made
them incredibly popular (North & Halden, 2013). The diversity
of polymers has led to the production of products ranging
from disposable syringes, IV bags, and sterile packaging to
prosthetics and latex gloves (North & Halden, 2013) These
items and many more have undoubtedly saved lives and
increased hygiene levels, though recent events have
highlighted the dependence on single-use plastic in
healthcare and its environmentally damaging effects. 14
Photo courtes of k-e-k-u-l-é Photo courtes of Sorapong Chaipanya

Plastic and COVID-19

Emerging in December 2019, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused
massive social, economic, and environmental damage. To combat the highly
contagious respiratory virus, governments implemented a range of measures,
including lockdowns, restriction of social contact, and the mandatory use of
personal protective equipment (PPE), most of which is made of plastic (Patrício
Silva et al., 2021). Single-use facemasks, gloves, face shields, and other PPE have
undoubtedly saved countless lives, particularly for frontline workers in health
industries. They have also, however, had a disastrous effect on the environment,
reversing the momentum of efforts to reduce plastic pollution (Benson et al.,
2021; Patrício Silva et al., 2021).

The surgical masks most commonly worn by nurses, doctors, and now the
general public each contain 4.5g of polypropylene and other plastics that
disintegrate into microplastic particles under high temperature and UV
exposure. These microplastics will never dissolve completely but remain in the
environment (Abbasi et al., 2020). Globally, an estimated 3.4 billion single-use
face masks and shields are discarded daily due to the COVID-19 pandemic
(Benson et al., 2021).

As a result of COVID-19, some hospitals reported a tenfold increase in the

amount of medical waste when compared to pre-pandemic levels, while others
reported 370% and 350% increases (Abu-Qdais et al., 2020; Klemeš et al., 2020).
To put this into perspective, the 11 million inhabitants of a single city in China,
produced 200 tons of medical waste in one day during the pandemic, six times
more than the usual daily average (Saadat et al., 2020). If this increase holds
true in the United States, an entire year’s worth of waste from US hospitals
could have been generated in just 2 months (Cutler, 2020). 15
 While medical waste has saved lives in the short term, this is not the case for
other pandemic pollution. With lockdowns in place, e-commerce boomed.
Americans spent over $790 billion on online purchases during 2020, an increase
of over 30% from 2019 (US Department of Commerce, 2021). Each product in
plastic packaging, packed in styrofoam, with the box secured with plastic tape
has added to the mountains of waste already generated by COVID-19.

Such huge amounts of additional waste have left disposal facilities struggling
to cope, particularly incineration plants, given this is the preferred method
of disposal for infectious or contaminated waste, as mandated by the World
Health Organization (WHO, 2017). The incineration of plastic releases hazardous
pollutants including greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, furthering
environmental damage (Vanapalli et al., 2021).

While COVID-19’s effect on plastic pollution is immensely damaging, there

is hope that this crisis presents an opportunity to ‘build back better’. Existing
structures struggled to cope with the outbreak and reform is clearly warranted;
Photo courtes of Nataliya Vaitkevich changes in production are crucial to encourage the shift towards lasting,
large-scale sustainability.

Photo courtes of Nataliya Vaitkevich 16

 Plastics and One Health
The concept of ‘One Health’ stresses the need to approach health in a holistic
manner. Instead of focusing on human health alone, ‘One Health’ recognizes
the need to account for health in humans, animals, and ecosystems, knowing
that these areas are all intrinsically connected and that poor health in one area
negatively impacts the others (Destoumieux-Garzón et al., 2018). The impact
of plastic accumulation in our ecosystems is a ‘One Health’ issue and is not
confined to affecting ecosystems alone.

Photo courtes of Arek Socha 17

 Biotransfer of Microplastics in Marine Ecosystems
Microplastics have been found to transfer across trophic levels, essentially
traveling up the food chain as animals ingest other animals that have already
ingested plastics. A recent meta-analysis study reviewed 116 studies covering
411 species from producers (seagrass), primary consumers (mussels, fish) to
top predators (dolphins and whales) (Miller et al., 2020), concluding that
bioaccumulation is widespread in the marine ecosystem.

Feeding strategy plays an important role in determining the concentration of

microplastics for marine species (Miller et al., 2020; Setälä et al., 2014). Species
that feed by filtering water or sediments (i.e., filter-feeders), such as lugworms
and mollusks, are more likely to have higher plastic concentrations than species
that selectively choose their prey (Bour et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2020; Setälä et
al., 2014). Some lab studies have further corroborated that microplastics can be
transferred from mollusk to crab and pufferfish (Farrell & Nelson, 2013; Santana et
al., 2017).

The transfer of microplastics across organisms can not be

fully understood without considering the interactions among all involved species
simultaneously. To get a better estimate of the bioaccumulation of microplastics
in the marine eco-system, a study modeled the Cetacean food webs in the
Northeastern Pacific under different scenarios of concen-tration and exposure
time of microplastics (Alava, 2020).

Under a longer exposure time (1 year), microplastics in bivalves such as blue

mussels and Pacific oysters can reach weights of approximately 20g/kg (> 4300
particles/kg) (Alava, 2020), essentially 2% of their bodyweight. Unexpectedly,
squid has much higher levels of bioaccumulation of microplastics than filter
and suspension feeders (i.e., mollusks, oysters, crabs, shrimps), and even higher
than some predatory fish (e.g., halibut, salmon) and cetaceans (Alava, 2020).
Modeling suggests continuous exposure to prey with high-loaded microplastics
increases the level of microplastics in top predators such as killer whales, with
plastics making up 14.5g/kg, (> 3200 particles/kg), or 1.45% of their body weight
(Alava, 2020). Although modeling is only an approximation of the real world, the
results depict a concerning picture as humans consume a variety of seafood
across all trophic levels throughout their lives. The true cost to human health will
likely only be known in time.

Most evidence of bioaccumulation comes from lab studies where high concen-
trations of microplastics and additives were used in the experiment, which may
not accurately reflect environmental concentrations. Therefore, more studies are
needed to directly measure microplastics in the food web. Similarly, monitoring
the background concentration of microplastics would allow for better
evaluation of the risks microplastics pose to humans, animals, and ecosystems.

18
Photo courtes of Alfo Medeiros
Biotransfer of Microplastics in Terrestrial Ecosystems
Compared to our knowledge of the bioaccumulation and
risk of microplastics in marine environments, our knowledge
of terrestrial ecosystems is more limited (de Souza Machado
et al., 2018; Rillig, 2012). Given our reliance on agriculture
for survival, the concentration of MPs in soil and crops
should be of grave concern, yet only around 5% of the
research on microplastics has focused on terrestrial or
ecosystems on land (Qi et al., 2020). Despite that, evidence
is growing as to plastics in terrestrial food chains.
A range of terrestrial animals have been found to have
ingested plastics, including livestock animals eaten by
humans, allowing microplastics an additional route into
Photo courtes of FLY:D
the food chain. A number of studies have highlighted how
the plastic compounds featured in animal feed packaging
have transferred to the feed itself (e.g., Dong et al., 2020;
Wang et al., 2021). Other studies have demonstrated the
presence of microplastics in swine, poultry and sheep
feces (Beriot et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021); this is concerning
on multiple levels, as not only does that indicate the likely
presence of plastics within the animal, but also presents
another pathway for plastics into the soil. In fact, one
Mexican study examining microplastics found microplastic
concentrations increased between the soil, earthworm
casts, and chicken feces, demonstrating plastic
accumulation (Huerta Lwanga et al., 2017).
19
Photo courtesy of Emilian Robert Vicol
Plastic in Other Food Sources
Outside of meat and fish sources, plastic particles have
also been documented in a wide range of foods, including
fruit, beer, honey, and salt. The average number of particles
found in beer, for example, is 4.05 microplastic particles per
liter (MP/L) while analysis of sea salt revealed 212 MP/kg
(Kosuth et al., 2018), with the majority of all particles being
fibers. Two studies of plastic contamination in honey
revealed averages of 166 and 173 fibers/kg in 2013 and
2015 respectively (Liebezeit & Liebezeit, 2013, 2015). A
study in Italy documented microplastics in fruits (i.e.,
apples, pears) and vegetables (i.e., broccoli, carrots) for
the first time (Oliveri Conti et al., 2020).
Plastic is also present in the water we drink, both from
the faucet and bottled sources. Research analyzing the
microplastic content in water sampled around the world,
found tap water to contain 5.45 microplastic particles per
liter globally. When broken down by country, however, the
US had the highest mean concentration of microplastics
in tap water, with 9.24 particles per liter (Kosuth et al.,
2018). Research combining the results of several studies
featuring bottled water found, on average, samples
contained 94.37 microplastic particles per liter (MP/L),
a huge increase when compared to tap water (Cox et
al., 2019). Based on the average US recommended daily
consumption of water—with the majority coming from
the tap and the remainder from bottled sources—adult
males drink 55 MP/L from water alone, while adult females
consume 51 MP/L. Drinking solely bottled water increases
this total dramatically, up to 349 and 255 MP/L for adult
males and females, respectively (Cox et al., 2019). Given
that tap water should not be consumed in some areas of
the United States, due to contamination by heavy metals
or other hazardous materials, the high concen-tration
of microplastics in bottled water is concerning. 20
Human Consumption of Microplastics and Food Safety
Americans on average consumed about 19.2 pounds of seafood in 2019 (NOAA
Fisheries, 2019), but figures like this will vary by region and proximity to the ocean.
Although data is lacking in terms of how much microplastic Americans eat via
seafood, research in Europe found consumers could have digested between 1,800
and 11,000 plastics particles annually from shellfish alone (Van Cauwenberghe &
Janssen, 2014). When considering dietary intake from salt, water, honey, alcohol,
and seafood together, the estimated annual consumption of microplastics for
Americans was from 39,000 to 52,000 particles, with the highest numbers seen in
male adults (Cox et al., 2019).

Ultimately, when including diet types from both terrestrial and marine sources,
humans could be potentially exposed to about 100,000 microplastics per capita
(van Raamsdonk et al., 2020). The actual consumption of microplastics varies greatly
among geographical regions, diet types and sources, and food processing (Daniel
et al., 2021; van Raamsdonk et al., 2020). Research recently identified the presence
of microplastic particles in human blood, demonstrating that human exposure to
plastic particles results in their absorption into the bloodstream (Leslie et al., 2022).
The research found polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene, and polymers
of styrene—some of the most commonly found plastics in the world, used, for
example, in food packaging—were the most widely encountered polymer types.
The ways in which plastic affects human health has been studied to varying extents,
with some areas studied far more often than other areas. Animal studies, however,
have demonstrated microplastics can cause a myriad of sublethal effects,
including cell toxicity, inflammation, and interference with microbiomes, and male
fertility (D’Angelo & Meccariello, 2021; Huang et al., 2021; Meaza et al., 2021).
 Plastics and Human Health
The proven transport of microplastics into the food chain is undoubtedly
impacting human health.

While research is still ongoing, the adverse effects of plastic transferal into
human bodies can affect a wide range of bodily systems, as detailed below.
Similarly, the mass production of plastics has coincided with significant growth
of respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, different forms of cancer, and
reproductive health (Boffetta & Nyberg, 2003). The production of plastics has
also led to an increase in carbon emissions - in 2015, the global greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions of standard plastics was 1.7 Gt of CO2 equivalent
throughout the plastics’ life-cycle (Zheng & Suh, 2019). These increased
levels of airborne pollution are having significant impacts on our health.

Photo courtesy of Manik Roy

22
 What is BPA?
Bisphenol A, or BPA (C15H16O2) is used to manufacture plastics and is a highly
produced organic chemical, is an endocrine disruptor. Numerous studies have
documented how BPAs exposure to heat, acidic or alkaline conditions, or
incomplete polymerization during production can cause ‘unreacted’ BPA to
transfer into the surrounding substances (various, in Foster et al., 2019). Given
BPA is used in items such as microwave-safe containers and food storage
tupperware, this can contaminate food. Public messaging about BPA and its
health risks has been uncoordinated and generated controversy (Patisaul, 2010).
While the US Food and Drug Administration states BPA is not dangerous at the
levels people are exposed to, these levels are likely underestimated. In contrast
to the FDA, the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) states there is a concern
for adverse effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, babies,
and children (Patisaul, 2010). Exposure to BPA during perinatal and postnatal
periods has been found to increase susceptibility to disease across the whole
life cycle (J. Lee et al., 2018). BPAs have been identified in human breast milk,
blood serum, umbilical cord serum, and other human substances (J. Lee et al.,
2018). A systematic review of numerous BPA studies noted this compound “a
direct negative impact on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes, including
birthweight, rates of preterm birth, developmental defects, and recurrent
miscarriage” (Pergialiotis et al., 2018). Research conducted by the CDC
found BPA in the urine in 95% of the US adult population, showing widespread
Photo courtesy of Ron Lach
accidental consumption and exposure (Calafat et al., 2005).

Photo courtesy of Suzy Hazelwood

23
Plastics and Respiratory Disease
The manufacture and disposal of plastics pollute the air
we breathe, which ultimately affects the respiratory
system. During the extraction of plastic’s raw materials
and their processing into plastic products, a vast amount
of air pollution is created, particularly when compared
to levels at the end of World War II, before mass plastic
production began (Bornehag et al., 2004). There has
been a persistent increase in air pollution in the form of
volatile organic compound (VOCs) emissions (Li et al.,
2020; US EPA, 2016; W. Wei et al., 2011), carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter
(PM) (US EPA, 2016).
VOCs are primary pollutants commonly seen in everyday
items such as gasoline, paint, air freshener, and more and
can vary in concentration between outdoor and indoor
settings. The chemical constituents of plastics have been
identified in household dust, and research suggests they
may be associated with the allergic diseases of rhinitis,
eczema, and asthma in children (Bornehag et al., 2004).
VOCs have also been found to be released through
plastic debris photodegradation or broken down by light
(Lomonaco et al., 2020).
Photo courtesy of Andrea Piacquadio
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a staple in the making of
plastics and detergents and is also released through the
burning of plastic waste. A tasteless, odorless gas, CO
is created by the body’s catabolism of hemoglobin;
with the growth of fossil fuels, however, there has been a
significant increase in levels. A healthy carbon monoxide
level is 0.4–0.7%, however, in the United States, the average
carbon monoxide level is 1–2%, with smokers averaging
5–6% (Meredith et al, 1998). CO is heavily released through
incomplete combustion, which can cause headaches,
fatigue, dizziness, and drowsiness (OSHA, 2012).
Nitrogen is used heavily within plastic manufacturing,
particu-larly within molding. The production of adipic acid,
a powder used predominantly for manufacturing nylon
fibers and plastics, emits nitrogen oxides (US EIA, 2011).
When inhaled, oxygen bonds to the nitrogen oxide,
making nitric acid in the upper respiratory tract, which
eventually reaches the lower respiratory system due to
increased heart rate from exercise. At average rates
(13 ppm), there will be eye and nasal irritation. However,
if exposed to 150 ppm for 30 mins to an hour, a person
could become asphyxic and develop pulmonary edema
(National Research Council, 1998).
24
 Incinerating plastic products is a major source of harmful air
pollution that contributes to respiratory disease. The burning
of plastic waste releases a wide range of toxic chemicals,
including dioxins, furans, halogens, and carcinogenic gases
(Valavanidis et al., 2008). In research simulating the open-
burning of multiple common types of plastic waste—as is
carried out throughout the world—the soot and solid ash
created were analyzed. Results identified persistent free
radical chemicals, known for their toxicity as inhalable
particles; toxic heavy metals such as lead (Pb), zinc (Zn);
elements such as aluminum (Al), silicon (Si) sodium (Na),
magnesium (Mg), and more were present (Valavanidis et al.,
2008). The inhalation of fumes containing lead, for example,
can cause lead poisoning and also affect reproductive
hormone levels (Dehghan et al., 2019). The inhalation of
silicon leads to the development of pulmonary fibrosis
(Gordova et al., 2021; Koga et al., 2021). Burning plastic and
garbage also produces polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), a class of chemicals that occur naturally in coal,
crude oil, and gasoline, but which are also produced when
substances such as plastics and garbage are burned. PAHs,
which are also found in cigarette smoke and in higher
concentrations among smokers (CDC Environmental Health,
2014), can form toxic airborne particles harmful to human
health, affecting fertility, fetal health, and the respiratory and
cardiovascular systems.

As a by-product of burning plastic, airborne particles are

released, which range in size from large flakes of ash to
microscopic particulate matter (PM). PM can be categorized
into PM10, smaller than 10 micrometers, and PM2.5, smaller
than 2.5 micrometers. When PM is inhaled, it is fine enough
to be able to enter the bloodstream, as well as create
environmental effects such as haze. In a study, changes in
the health of adults near a steel factory were measured
through peak respiratory flow (PEF). The results showed higher
concentrations of lead led to lower PEF numbers, which also
showed a negative correlation for smokers (Dusseldorp et
al., 2012). Worryingly, research suggests PM2.5 may act as a
carrier for even smaller airborne microplastics, which in turn
could be a vector for PAHs (Akhbarizadeh et al., 2021).

Photo courtesy of Andrew Leinster 25

Plastics and Cardiovascular Disease
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in
America. In attempts to solve this issue, the American Heart
Association promotes exercise and research to help reduce
this disease’s influence.. However, Cardiovascular diseases
can also be caused by environmental issues. The cardio-
vascular system is the system consisting of the heart, arteries,
veins, platelets, and capillaries to circulate nutrients and
oxygen throughout the blood and remove waste, such as
carbon dioxide. The cardiovascular system is connected to
the respiratory system, so certain molecules/compounds
that are breathed in will cycle through the bloodstream
causing symptoms of cardiovascular disease within the body.
Phthalates are most commonly used as plasticizers to
increase the flexibility and plasticity of materials such as
PVC (Mariana et al., 2016) and impact the cardiovascular
system, among others. They are known as the ‘everywhere
chemical’ for their presence in such a wide range of
products, from packaging and toys to flooring. Unfortunately,
they can also leach into the environment and our bodies,
after which they are broken down by enzymes in tissues,
particularly the intestine (Mariana et al., 2016).
Phthalates have been associated with alterations in heart
rate variability and cardiovascular reactivity (Jaimes et
al., 2017). Research also found an association between
phthalate exposure and increased systolic blood pressure
(SBP) in adolescents (Trasande & Attina, 2015). The elderly
have also been identified as being at increased coronary
risk due to phthalate exposure (Lind & Lind, 2011). Exposure
to phthalates has also been documented to affect the
electrical activity and contractility of cardiac muscle cells
(various, in Jaimes et al., 2017).
For the first time, the toxic chemicals in plastics have been
linked to deaths. A 2021 study identified an association
between phthalates and associated morbidity, attributing
over 90,000 deaths in 2013–14 to phthalate exposure
(Trasande et al., 2021). Not only is this a shocking
statistic in terms of deaths associated with plastic-based
compounds, but the economic cost is also high, with
researchers estimating these phthalate-attributable
deaths to have cost around $40 billion in lost economic
productivity (Trasande et al., 2021).
26
Plastics and the Endocrine System
The endocrine system consists of the body’s
various hormones and regulates all biological
processes within the body, such as brain and
nervous system development, reproductive
function, metabolism, and blood sugar levels
(US EPA, 2015a). Plastics contain a range of
hazardous chemicals that can leach into our
bodies’ systems. Examples of this are endocrine-
disrupting compounds/chemicals (EDCs) that
alter the functioning of the endocrine system,
adversely affecting human health. Human
exposure to EDCs typically occurs through
ingestion, inhalation, and absorption through the
skin (Monneret, 2017).

EDCs inhibit hormone activity by interfering with

hormone synthesis, transport, metabolism, and
excretion (Darbre, 2020). For instance, EDCs
compete with hormones by binding to hormone
receptors and hormone transport proteins,
mimicking and antagonizing them. Eventually,
as a result of their interference with hormone
biochemical pathways, EDCs can alter gene
expression, the way our genes function. While
many of the changes in gene expression brought
about by EDC exposure might not be noticeable,
some changes may be drastic, turning a gene
‘on’ or ‘off’ (Krosofsky, 2021) and affecting the
function of a range of bodily systems.

While EDCs can take the form of natural

compounds such as phytoestrogens, components
in human-made plastics, such as bisphenol A
(BPA) (see ‘What is BPA?’) and phthalates, are a
cause for concern due to their ubiquitous nature
(Monneret, 2017).

Photo courtesy of Gerd Altmann 27

 Plastic’s Links to Cancer
Environmental carcinogens—cancer-causing agents—are present in a wide
variety of sources, from air pollutants to soil and water contaminants. Areas
with high polluted air quality can make the residents of the area around it
more prone to cancer. An area between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, for
example, has been nicknamed ‘Cancer Alley’ due to its concentration of
over 150 petrochemical facilities (Castellon, 2021). In this area, residents report
a yellow mist and the smells of rotten eggs and nail polish remover near the
chemical plants. It is reported that out of every ten houses, one to two people
have potentially died of cancer, thought to be related to the petrochemical
complexes crowding the area (Baurick et al., 2019). Aware of the impact the
manufacturing facilities are having on their health, residents are engaged
in activism to prevent the building of further sites, including a $9.4 billion
petrochemical facility that, if built, is reported to “roughly double the toxic
emissions in its local area” (Laughland, 2021).

Workers within plastic manufacturing sites are also at risk of developing cancers
through their work. Research has analyzed the cancer mortality in reinforced
plastics workers with styrene exposure (Loomis et al., 2019). Results found mortality
from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and pancreatic cancer to be associated with
mean exposure over worker’s careers, while esophageal cancer was associated
with both mean career exposure and cumulative exposure to styrene. This supports
previous findings of the connection between the styrene present in plastic
Photo courtesy of Tom Fisk
manufacturing and numerous forms of cancer (various, in Loomis et al., 2019).

Photo courtesy of Tima Miroshnichenko 28

Plastics and the Reproductive System
Plastics and the chemical compounds that they contain
can have serious impacts on the reproductive systems
of both men and women. While some plastic-derived
substances, such as phthalates, are excreted through
the urine and feces, others remain in the body and
have been associated with several conditions, including
endometriosis, a chronic gynecological condition. The
levels of the phthalate compound DEHP were measured
in the plasma, urine, and peritoneal fluid of women with
endometriosis and those without this disease. Results
found women with endometriosis have higher levels of
this plastic-derived chemical in their serum and urine than
women without this condition (Cobellis, 2003; Kim et al.,
2011, 2015; Nazir et al., 2018).
Microplastics have also been detected for the first time
in the human placenta (Ragusa et al., 2021), pressing the
urgency of more research on this tissue. The EDCs found
in plastics can also be passed on from mothers to fetuses
and infants via the placenta and breast milk, respectively.
Moreover, while adults can clear these plastics, fetuses
may not have the capacity to do so (Abbasi et al., 2020).
While the links between mothers passing plastic-derived
compounds to their children have been demonstrated,
research also notes that exposure to a mixture of BPA and
phthalates can “promote epigenetic transgenerational
inheritance of adult onset disease”, such as obesity and
Photo courtesy of Gerd Altmann
reproductive disease (Basak et al., 2020). More simply
put, the changes these compounds make to DNA can
be passed to the offspring, affecting their likelihood of
developing certain diseases.
Microplastics can also negatively affect male fertility
(D’Angelo & Meccariello, 2021). Studies in humans
examining urinary levels of BPA and semen found
evidence of BPA’s association with poorer semen quality,
including abnormal sperm tail morphology and decreased
motility (Pollard et al., 2019; Radwan et al., 2018). In
animal-based research, polystyrene microplastics were
also found to accumulate in mice testes after just 24
hours of exposure to the particles, while after 28 days of
exposure, sperm quality and testosterone levels decreased
(Jin et al., 2021).
Knowledge regarding the effects of plastics and plastic-
derived compounds on our health varies according to the
biological system being discussed and the types of studies
that can ethically be performed on humans. For example,
while human studies can examine pre-existing exposure to
plastic-derived compounds, studies deliberately introducing
exposure to these chemicals are only possible through
modelling or animal-based research. However, the body of
evidence pointing to the harm caused by plastics is large
and growing, and urgent action is needed to address our
continued exposure to these harmful chemicals.
29
Photo courtesy of cottonbro

MENTAL HEALTH
Plastics and Mental Health
While the physical effects of plastic pollution on human health are
the topic of much research, the effects on mental health are less well
documented, though still present. Research shows the interactions
humans have with the oceans and blue spaces have numerous public
health benefits, including increased physical exercise and better mental
health (Gascon et al., 2017). Both laboratory and field experiments have
shown that exposure to elements such as bodies of water and natural
landscapes restores our mental energy (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1984).

In contrast, the presence of litter in coastal environments is detrimental

to mental well-being, undermining the benefits the public would
ordinarily have when at the coast (Wyles et al., 2016). In this study,
public litter, or litter that could be discarded on the beach or
transported there by winds or waterways, was viewed particularly
negatively, though all litter was seen as reducing the positive, restorative
benefits of visiting the coast. The presence of plastic pollution and litter
in environments also increases the likelihood of people littering more
(Keizer et al., 2008; Schultz et al., 2013), worsening the problem.

30
 Solutions
The production and disposal of traditional petrochemical plastics are causing
significant threats to human health as well as that of our ecosystems and
animals, given we are all connected as illustrated by the One Health concept.
We must take actions that recognize the intrinsically linked nature of these
aspects and create meaningful solutions. The continued growth of plastic
production means that without significant systemic change, the consequences
will worsen. We know microplastics have entered our bodies through the food
chain, through ingestion via our water, and the very air we breathe.

Research demonstrates that plastic’s chemical components and the pollutants

generated through its creation are negatively impacting our bodies. Our
hormones; reproductive, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems, and our
genes themselves are all impacted by plastics. Research, however, has barely
scratched the surface in determining the long-term impacts on human health.
As our knowledge of plastic’s harm increases, what can be done to fight plastic
pollution’s impact on our health, wildlife, and ecosystems?

Photo courtesy of Thirdman 31


Biodegradable Plastics
Almost all standard plastic (98%) is sourced from non-
sustainable, virgin fossil fuel material, with just 2% of plastic
being recycled (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016). With
78 million tonnes of plastic packaging entering the market
in 2013 alone (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016), the
existing waste management systems are clearly unable
to tackle the vast amounts of standard plastic waste.
With that in mind, bio-based and biodegradable plastics
are in continual development, with the aim of creating
a sustainable alternative to standard, petroleum-based
plastics (RameshKumar et al., 2020).
Biodegradable polymers are essentially polymers that are
broken down by natural microorganisms such as bacteria,
fungi, and algae (Saini, 2017). Used in packaging,
medicine, agriculture, and many other industries,
biodegradable polymers can be naturally sourced,
Photo courtesy of Brian Yurasits
fully synthetic, or a blend of the two depending on the
qualities required. Natural biodegradable polymers, or
biopolymers, include animal-based proteins such as
collagen and plant-based sources like natural rubber
(Vroman & Tighzert, 2009).
Although environmentally friendly, biopolymers can have
some weaknesses in their application, for example, starch is
a cheap, readily available biopolymer, but is water-soluble.
For products such as food packaging, instability when wet
is a clear disadvantage. To become more stable, starch
is often combined with other biodegradable or non-
biodegradable materials, which impacts structure and
decomposition (Vroman & Tighzert, 2009). On an industrial
scale, starch-based bioplastics are the most commonly
manufactured bioplastics (Harding et al., 2017).
32

Photo courtesy of Brian Yurasits
While biodegradable plastics might be marketed as being environmentally
friendly, this claim is not always valid. Terms such as ‘bio’, ‘eco’, or ‘green’ are
used in marketing and give the impression that the sources and disposal are
‘clean’ and environmentally friendly. Indeed, the general public’s perception of
bioplastics is positive, despite their low level of knowledge regarding bioplastics
(Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019). ‘Bio’ products invoke the image of products
degrading gently back into nature with no trace left behind, when this may not
be the case (Ghosh & Jones, 2021; Lambert & Wagner, 2017).
In some studies, it has been suggested that items marketed as biodegradable
may be standard petroleum-based plastic; ‘bio’-labeled products behaved
similarly to standard plastics during exposure to a range of temperatures, ph
levels, and other environmental variables (Harding et al., 2017). Another study
documented a similar lack of degradation in plastics labeled biodegradable,
which were immersed in sea water for 180 days. On analysis, some of the items
were found to be ordinary non-bio polymers (Nazareth et al., 2019). In cases
such as these, companies may be deliberately ‘greenwashing’ - falsely labeling
petroleum-based plastics as ‘bio’ in an attempt to cash in on increased public
demand for environmentally friendly products. In other cases, there may be a
genuine lack of understanding of the range of complex conditions required for
the true decomposition of different bioplastics.
Biodegradable plastics break down differently depending on their molecular
composition and the environment they end up in after use. Starch bioplastics
and specific composite bioplastics, for example, have been reported to
biodegrade well in some studies. One study found that both of these bioplastics
degraded well when buried 10cm deep in regularly watered soil (Amin et al.,
2019). Composting and soil-based degradation successfully occurred in other
studies, with bioplastics breaking down even more quickly in vermicompost—
compost with earthworms—than standard moist soil (Arikan & Bi̇lgen, 2019).
Other biodegradable plastics break down through other processes, for example,
photodegradable plastics degrade through exposure to sunlight, while
water and oxygen are required for hydrolytic and oxidative biodegradation,
respectively (Saini, 2017).
Photo courtesy of Marcell Viragh
33
 While these studies show biodegradable plastics can successfully decompose,
the conditions present during the studies represent a fraction of the variables
present in real-world environments. Bioplastics may not always find their way into
the soil to begin decomposition; those that do might actually require sunlight, or
water to break down. ‘Biodegradable’ products may decompose poorly due
to both environmental variables and also the behavior of chemicals added to
them to make them more fit for purpose (Lambert & Wagner, 2017).

Given the complexities of biodegradable items, it is no surprise that those

consumers who do purchase them, often don’t dispose of them correctly. While
some bio-plastics need to be industrially recycled and could go in a recycling
bin, others are compostable and need disposing alongside organic waste.
Research has found consumers often incorrectly dispose of biodegradable
packaging and do not follow the recommended disposal information on the
label, when present (Taufik et al., 2020). Similarly, consumers may mistakenly
view biodegradable plastics as a ‘savior’ and make no changes to our plastic
consumption; while these materials do represent a step towards sustainability,
we cannot allow ourselves to be taken away from the primary goal of reducing
consumption.

Despite the problems discussed above, bioplastic development is still an

important solution to plastic pollution. Fortunately, new bioplastics are being
created, including those made from food waste such as potato peels,
that outperform commercial bioplastics in terms of quick (<4 weeks), safe
degradation (Arikan & Bi̇lgen, 2019). Other studies focus on naturally occurring
oxide compounds that can be added to bio-compounds to accelerate
biodegradation, for example, adding titanium dioxide (TiO₂) organoclay to
a specific bioplastic allowed for far better photodegradation (Krisnandi et al.,
2017). If added to the production chain responsibly, with waste management
systems accounting for the specific conditions required by each bioplastic type,
bioplastic discoveries such as these will help stem the tide of plastic pollution.

Photo courtes of Saindur Enviro

Photo courtes of Natracare 34

 Changing Consumer Demand and Societal Pressure
Research suggests—at least prior to COVID-19—
consumers are increasingly conscious of the
environmental impact of the products we buy and
brands’ sustainable credentials (Herbes et al., 2018;
Moon & Lee, 2018; Yang, 2017). When green marketing
is not accompanied by meaningful green action,
however, consumers perceive this as ‘greenwashing’,
which negatively impacts our purchasing intentions (L.
Zhang et al., 2018).

Research suggests that consumers may not be fooled

by greenwashing, which can affect profitability (Szabo
& Webster, 2021) and that companies should promote
substantive environmental initiatives within their business,
to increase sales, and retain customers (L. Zhang et al.,
2018). Many studies report high consumer willingness
to pay a premium for environmentally friendly items
(Drozdenko et al., 2011), particularly consumers with high
‘eco-literacy’, or knowledge of environmental issues (S.
Wei et al., 2018).

These studies typically focus on developed countries or

those in the Global North, however, which are likely to
have populations with higher levels of education and
application of sustainable practices. In developing
countries of the Global South, where sustainable
consumption is a newer field, the majority of consumers
may have little knowledge of environmentally friendly
products. In South Africa, for example, consumers were
unsure of what environmentally-friendly packaging was,
its benefits, and how to differentiate it from conventional
packaging. The promotion of environmentally friendly
practices by industries or authorities was also limited
(Scott & Vigar-Ellis, 2014).

Photo courtes of Bruno /Germany

35
In developing countries, the growth of a middle class
who are eager to consume plastic products, the lack of
plastic pollution knowledge and limited environmentally
friendly supply chains are deeply concerning. While
more developed countries are taking some steps to
combat the immense amount of plastic pollution we
have created—and continue to recklessly create—
economic growth in developing countries is increasing
plastic pollution levels.

Adding to this is the problem of higher-income,

developed countries that have been exporting our
plastic waste to lower-income countries, particularly in
Asia and the Pacific, for decades (Brooks et al., 2018;
Law et al., 2020). The United States is the second-highest
exporter of plastic waste (Brooks et al., 2018).

In 2016, the U.S. generated 42 Mt of plastic waste,

of which between 0.14 and 0.41 Mt was illegally
dumped in the US. Between 0.15 and 0.99 Mt was
exported for ‘recycling’ to developing countries, but
was inadequately managed instead, adding to the
receiving countries’ plastic problems (Law et al., 2020).
Research estimates Indonesia, India, China, and the
Philippines mismanage 61%, 79%, 62% and 74% of their
plastic waste, respectively. Once the waste has been
imported to the poorer countries, however, it is no longer
considered the problem of the exporter. In fact, research
has highlighted that exporting plastic waste creates
‘psychological distance’ from plastic waste pollution;
essentially, the artificially created ‘cleaner’ local
environment actually encourages plastic consumption,
which is only mediated when plastic levels increase
and consumers begin to acknowledge the truth of their
plastic consumption (Barnes, 2019).

While knowledgeable consumers may express a desire

to be more ‘green’, this does not always translate into
‘green’ practices and purchases (Yang, 2017), with
factors such as availability and price premiums also
influencing purchasing behavior. With that in mind,
large-scale solutions to plastic pollution must instead be
driven by industries and institutions at a policy level.

Photo courtes of tanvi sharma

Photo courtes of Random Person

36
Industries & Institutional Solutions
There are several incentives for companies to shift to
eco-friendly products, not least the moral obligation.
Research shows 68% of people say they would like to
see more of the plastic items they use be biodegradable
(Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019). If through better availability
and pricing, this willingness to buy translates to purchasing
behavior, this can generate a further financial incentive for
creating more environmentally friendly products. Research
backs this up, showing that engaging with environmental
issues and green innovation positively influences corporate
reputation. Similarly, corporate reputation has a positive
impact on profitability, companies’ future market values,
and risk of financial distress (Endrikat et al., 2014; Gangi et
al., 2020; Miroshnychenko et al., 2017).
While many companies recognize the moral, economic,
and reputational incentives of shifting to eco-friendly
products, too many are continuing ‘business as usual’.
Given that consumers are not always aware of the issues
surrounding plastic pollution, industries must go beyond
meeting current customer demand and instead move
into creating that demand. This can be done by choice
editing, in this case, the process of actively limiting the
harmful plastic products and packaging available to
consumers, to drive the move towards truly biodegradable
alternatives.
the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
responsible for implementing the environmental laws
written by Congress, by writing regulations and by setting
national standards that states must enforce through
their own regulations (2013). This includes standards
and regulations on plastic production and pollution, for
example, how many tons of toxic chemicals are permitted
to be released into the air during plastic production (US
EPA, 2015c). While some regulations and standards are
mandatory, others are not. For example, the Clean Water
Act, while recommending measures to regulate the
amount of trash entering water bodies, does not mandate
the use of these measures (US EPA, 2015b), leaving
loopholes which pollution producers can exploit. As part
of the solution to plastic pollution, closing loopholes,
mandating and enforcing the meeting of requirements
are key.
Photo courtes of RitaE

Of course, not all companies will voluntarily take measures

to reduce plastic pollution, or simply might not be able
to financially afford the changes necessary. This is where
institutional changes at a policy level are needed. Within

Photo courtes of meineresterampe 37

 Governments must incentivize the shift towards greener production if they
are to meet global targets for pollution reduction. Created in 2015, the UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are goals designed to lead the way
towards a better, more sustainable future for all. Goal 14: Life Below Water is
concerned with the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean, seas, and
marine resources for development (United Nations, 2015). While life in marine
environments would undoubtedly be improved should plastic consumption
decrease, other SDGs would also be greatly impacted. By adopting systemic
change within plastic production, recycling, and waste management, effects
including reduced exposure to toxins, job creation, reduction of waste spending,
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions would be seen (The Pew Charitable
Trusts & SYSTEMIQ, 2020). These are related to SDG 3, 1, 11, and 13, covering
health, poverty reduction, sustainability in communities, and climate action,
respectively.

In December 2020, the Save Our Seas (SOS) Act 2.0 became the most
comprehensive bipartisan legislation addressing the issue of marine plastic
pollution passed to date in the United States (US Congress, 2020). Building on
the initial Save Our Seas Act, the updated act works in three areas. Firstly, it
strengthened the United States’ domestic marine debris response capability
by creating a Marine Debris Foundation, as well as offering a genius prize for
innovation, and supporting new relevant research. Secondly, SOS 2.0 aims to
enhance global engagement on marine debris, including formalizing U.S. policy
on international cooperation and exploring the potential for a new international
agreement on the challenge. Finally, SOS 2.0 aims to improve domestic
infrastructure to prevent marine debris, by studying waste management and
mitigation and providing grants to solutions.

Encouraging innovation within plastic production and waste management, as

promoted by SOS 2.0 is a large part of the solution to plastic pollution; shifting
towards biodegradable products and packaging within manufacturing will
become increasingly important.

Photo courtes of Vie Studio 38

Photo courtes of Annie Spratt
Individuals
While it will take significant systemic change to reduce plastic
pollution in marine and terrestrial ecosystems, individuals too can
have an impact. On a local and regional scale, we can organize
gatherings for beach or river clean-ups. Volunteer clean-ups
such as the ones organized by Ocean Blue Project are vital
to ecosystem protection because they remove plastic debris
before it fragments into dangerous microplastics, enters aquatic
environments, and harms further wildlife.

What can we do to reduce the amount of plastic on the beach,

outside of beach clean-ups?

Here is a list of small impactful actions you can take:

• Support organizations that are focused on sustainable
practices and conservation efforts. You can help financially
by donating, or by volunteering your time.
• Support environmentally-friendly businesses with strong
sustainability policies. Don’t purchase products from
companies you know are harming the environment!
• Write to government and corporate leaders to express your
concern over plastic pollution and suggest initiatives like
clean-ups to tackle the problem locally.
• Use a reusable cup, water bottle, bag, take-out containers,
a non-plastic straw, cutlery, etc. instead of using single-use
plastics.
• Be a mindful consumer: when buying products think of the
packaging used. Avoid items wrapped in plastic and instead
purchase zero waste options, such as solid shampoo bars.
• Start incorporating recycling into your day-to-day routine if
using single-use plastics. For biodegradable plastics, check
the packaging information for disposal recommendations.
• Make your home wildlife friendly by planting native species
for food and shelter, securing garbage, and minimizing the
use of pesticides or products created using non-sustainable
methods.
• Talk to your friends, family members, and co-workers
about plastic pollution. Encourage them to start recycling
themselves and reduce their use of single-use plastics. Lead
by example.

Being mindful of our actions and our impacts on the planet can
make a significant difference to the amount of plastic pollution
created. By working to combat plastic pollution we can be
leaders not only to our own generation but also to future ones.

Photo courtes of Sylwia Bartyzel 39

 Bibliography
Abbasi, S. A., Khalil, A. B., & Arslan, M. (2020). Extensive use of face masks during COVID-19 pandemic:
(Micro-)plastic pollution and potential health concerns in the Arabian Peninsula. Saudi Journal of
Biological Sciences, 27(12), 3181–3186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.09.054

Abu-Qdais, H. A., Al-Ghazo, M. A., & Al-Ghazo, E. M. (2020). Statistical analysis and characteristics of
hospital medical waste under novel Coronavirus outbreak. Global Journal of Environmental Science
and Management, 6(Special Issue (Covid-19)), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.22034/GJESM.2019.06.SI.03

Akhbarizadeh, R., Dobaradaran, S., Amouei Torkmahalleh, M., Saeedi, R., Aibaghi, R., & Faraji Ghasemi,
F. (2021). Suspended fine particulate matter (PM2.5), microplastics (MPs), and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) in air: Their possible relationships and health implications. Environmental Research,
192, 110339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110339

Alava, J. J. (2020). Modeling the Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification Potential of Microplastics in a

Cetacean Foodweb of the Northeastern Pacific: A Prospective Tool to Assess the Risk Exposure to Plastic
Particles. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 566101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.566101

Amin, Md. R., Chowdhury, M. A., & Kowser, Md. A. (2019). Characterization and performance analysis
of composite bioplastics synthesized using titanium dioxide nanoparticles with corn starch. Heliyon, 5(8),
e02009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02009

Arikan, E. B., & Bi̇lgen, H. D. (2019). Production of bioplastic from potato peel waste and investigation
of its biodegradability. International Advanced Researches and Engineering Journal, 3(2), 93–97.
https://doi.org/10.35860/iarej.420633

Barnes, S. J. (2019). Out of sight, out of mind: Plastic waste exports, psychological distance and
consumer plastic purchasing. Global Environmental Change, 58, 101943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2019.101943

Basak, S., Das, M. K., & Duttaroy, A. K. (2020). Plastics derived endocrine‐disrupting compounds and
their effects on early development. Birth Defects Research, 112(17), 1308–1325. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bdr2.1741

Baurick, T., Younes, L., & Meiners, J. (2019). Welcome to “Cancer Alley,” Where Toxic Air Is About to Get
Worse—ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/welcome-to-cancer-alley-where-toxic-air-is-
about-to-get-worse

Benson, N. U., Bassey, D. E., & Palanisami, T. (2021). COVID pollution: Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on
global plastic waste footprint. Heliyon, 7(2), e06343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06343

Beriot, N., Peek, J., Zornoza, R., Geissen, V., & Huerta Lwanga, E. (2021). Low density-microplastics
detected in sheep faeces and soil: A case study from the intensive vegetable farming in Southeast
Spain. Science of The Total Environment, 755, 142653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142653

Boffetta, P., & Nyberg, F. (2003). Contribution of environmental factors to cancer risk. British Medical
Bulletin, 68(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmp/ldg023

Bornehag, C.-G., Sundell, J., Weschler, C. J., Sigsgaard, T., Lundgren, B., Hasslegren, M., & Hägerhed-
Engman, L. (2004). The Association between Asthma and Allergic Symptoms in Children and Phthalates
in House Dust: A Nested Case-Control Study. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.7187

Boucher, J., & Friot, D. (2017). Primary microplastics in the oceans: A global evaluation of sources. IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.01.en

Bour, A., Avio, C. G., Gorbi, S., Regoli, F., & Hylland, K. (2018). Presence of microplastics in benthic and
epibenthic organisms: Influence of habitat, feeding mode and trophic level. Environmental Pollution,
243, 1217–1225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.115

Brooks, A., Wang, S., & Jambeck, J. (2018). The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic
waste trade. Science Advances, 4. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat0131

Photo courtesy of Hans Braxmeier 40

 Browne, M. A., Crump, P., Niven, S. J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., & Thompson, R. (2011).
Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide: Sources and Sinks. Environmental Science &
Technology, 45(21), 9175–9179. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201811s

Calafat, A. M., Kuklenyik, Z., Reidy, J. A., Caudill, S. P., Ekong, J., & Needham, L. L. (2005). Urinary
Concentrations of Bisphenol A and 4-Nonylphenol in a Human Reference Population. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 113(4), 391–395. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7534

Castellon, I. G. (2021). Cancer Alley and the Fight against Environmental Racism. Villanova
Environmental Law Journal, 32, 15.

CDC Environmental Health. (2014). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). https://www.epa.gov/

sites/default/files/2014-03/documents/pahs_factsheet_cdc_2013.pdf

Cobellis, L. (2003). High plasma concentrations of di-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate in women with

endometriosis. Human Reproduction, 18(7), 1512–1515. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deg254

Cox, K. D., Covernton, G. A., Davies, H. L., Dower, J. F., Juanes, F., & Dudas, S. E. (2019). Human
Consumption of Microplastics. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(12), 7068–7074. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517

Cutler, S. (2020, April 16). Mounting Medical Waste from COVID-19 Emphasizes the Need for a
Sustainable Waste Management Strategy. Frost & Sullivan. https://ww2.frost.com/frost-perspectives/
managing-the-growing-threat-of-covid-19-generated-medical-waste/

D’Angelo, S., & Meccariello, R. (2021). Microplastics: A Threat for Male Fertility. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2392. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052392

Daniel, D. B., Ashraf, P. M., Thomas, S. N., & Thomson, K. T. (2021). Microplastics in the edible tissues
of shellfishes sold for human consumption. Chemosphere, 264, 128554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2020.128554

Darbre, P. D. (2020). Chemical components of plastics as endocrine disruptors: Overview and

commentary. Birth Defects Research, 112(17), 1300–1307. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1778

de Souza Machado, A. A., Kloas, W., Zarfl, C., Hempel, S., & Rillig, M. C. (2018). Microplastics as an
emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 24(4), 1405–1416. https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.14020

Dehghan, S. F., Mehrifar, Y., & Ardalan, A. (2019). The Relationship between Exposure to Lead-
Containing Welding Fumes and the Levels of Reproductive Hormones. Annals of Global Health, 85(1),
125. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2617

Destoumieux-Garzón, D., Mavingui, P., Boetsch, G., Boissier, J., Darriet, F., Duboz, P., Fritsch, C.,
Giraudoux, P., Le Roux, F., Morand, S., Paillard, C., Pontier, D., Sueur, C., & Voituron, Y. (2018). The One
Health Concept: 10 Years Old and a Long Road Ahead. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 5, 14. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00014

Dilkes-Hoffman, L., Ashworth, P., Laycock, B., Pratt, S., & Lant, P. (2019). Public attitudes towards
bioplastics – knowledge, perception and end-of-life management. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 151, 104479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104479

Dong, S., Zhang, S., Li, X., Li, T., Fan, M., Wang, Y., Cheng, J., Wang, R., Zou, Y., Wang, S., Suo, D., Wang,
P., & Su, X. (2020). Short- and medium-chain chlorinated paraffins in plastic animal feed packaging and
factors affect their migration into animal feed. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 389, 121836. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121836

Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Saad, M., Mirande, C., & Tassin, B. (2016). Synthetic fibers in atmospheric fallout:
A source of microplastics in the environment? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 104(1), 290–293. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.006
Drozdenko, R., Jensen, M., & Coelho, D. (2011). Pricing of Green Products: Premiums Paid, Consumer
Characteristics and Incentives. International Journal of Business, Marketing and Decision Sciences, 4.

Dusseldorp, A., Kruize, H., Brunekreef, B., Hofschreuder, P., Meer, G. de, & Oudvorst, A. B. van (2012).
Associations of PM10 and airborne iron with respiratory health of adults living near a steel factory.
Photo courtesy of Daria Shevtsova American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164 ajrccm.152.6.8520758
 Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2016). The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics.

Endrikat, J., Guenther, E., & Hoppe, H. (2014). Making sense of conflicting empirical findings: A meta-
analytic review of the relationship between corporate environmental and financial performance.
European Management Journal, 32(5), 735–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.004

Farrell, P., & Nelson, K. (2013). Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas
(L.). Environmental Pollution, 177, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.046

Foster, W. G., Kubwabo, C., Kosarac, I., Gregorovich, S., Aryal, G., & Coleman, K. (2019). Free bisphenol
A (BPA), BPA-Glucuronide (BPA-G), and total BPA concentrations in maternal serum and urine during
pregnancy and umbilical cord blood at delivery. Emerging Contaminants, 5, 279–287. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.emcon.2019.08.002

Gangi, F., Daniele, L., & Varrone, N. (2020). How do corporate environmental policy and corporate
reputation affect risk‐adjusted financial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment, 29.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2482

Gascon, M., Zijlema, W., Vert, C., White, M. P., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2017). Outdoor blue spaces,
human health and well-being: A systematic review of quantitative studies—ScienceDirect. International
Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 220(8), 1207–1221.

Geyer, R., & Jambeck, J. R. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science
Advances, 3(7). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782

Ghosh, K., & Jones, B. H. (2021). Roadmap to Biodegradable Plastics—Current State and Research
Needs. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng, 9(18), 6170–6187.

Gordova, V., Grigoreva, E., Sergeeva, V., & Smorodchenko, A. (2021). The influence of silicon
consumption with drinking water on morphological changes in the lungs of rodents. The FASEB Journal,
35(S1). https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.2021.35.S1.01634

Hahladakis, J. N., Velis, C. A., Weber, R., Iacovidou, E., & Purnell, P. (2018). An overview of chemical
additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use,
disposal and recycling. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 344, 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2017.10.014

Hamilton, L. A., Feit, S., Muffett, C., Kelso, M., Rubright, S. M., Bernhardt, C., Schaeffer, E., Moon, D.,
Morris, J., & Labbé-Bellas, R. (2019). Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet. https://www.
ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Plastic-and-Climate-FINAL-2019.pdf

Harding, K. G., Gounden, T., & Pretorius, S. (2017). “Biodegradable” Plastics: A Myth of Marketing?
Procedia Manufacturing, 7, 106–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2016.12.027

Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., & Ramme, I. (2018). Consumer attitudes towards biobased packaging – A
cross-cultural comparative study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.05.106

Horton, A. A., & Dixon, S. J. (2018). Microplastics: An introduction to environmental transport processes.
WIREs Water, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1268

Horton, A., Svendsen, C., Williams, R. J., Spurgeon, D. J., & Lahive, E. (2017). Large microplastic particles
in sediments of tributaries of the River Thames, UK – abundance, sources and methods for effective
quantification. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 114(1), 218–226.

Huang, Z., Weng, Y., Shen, Q., Zhao, Y., & Jin, Y. (2021). Microplastic: A potential threat to human
and animal health by interfering with the intestinal barrier function and changing the intestinal
microenvironment. Science of The Total Environment, 785, 147365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2021.147365

Huerta Lwanga, E., Mendoza Vega, J., Ku Quej, V., Chi, J. de los A., Sanchez del Cid, L., Chi, C.,
Escalona Segura, G., Gertsen, H., Salánki, T., van der Ploeg, M., Koelmans, A. A., & Geissen, V. (2017).
Field evidence for transfer of plastic debris along a terrestrial food chain. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 14071.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14588-2

Photo courtesy of Christopher Vega 42

 Jaimes, R., Swiercz, A., Sherman, M., Muselimyan, N., Marvar, P. J., & Posnack, N. G. (2017). Plastics
and cardiovascular health: Phthalates may disrupt heart rate variability and cardiovascular reactivity.
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, 313(5), H1044–H1053. https://doi.
org/10.1152/ajpheart.00364.2017

Jamieson, A. J., Brooks, L. S. R., Reid, W. D. K., Piertney, S. B., Narayanaswamy, B. E., & Linley, T. D. (2019).
Microplastics and synthetic particles ingested by deep-sea amphipods in six of the deepest marine
ecosystems on Earth. Royal Society Open Science, 6(2), 180667. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180667

Jin, H., Ma, T., Sha, X., Liu, Z., Zhou, Y., Meng, X., Chen, Y., Han, X., & Ding, J. (2021). Polystyrene
microplastics induced male reproductive toxicity in mice. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 401, 123430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123430
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1984). The Experience of Nature. Cambridge University Press.

Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The Spreading of Disorder. Science (New York, N.Y.), 322,
1681–1685. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161405

Kim, S. H., Cho, S., Ihm, H. J., Oh, Y. S., Heo, S.-H., Chun, S., Im, H., Chae, H. D., Kim, C.-H., & Kang,
B. M. (2015). Possible Role of Phthalate in the Pathogenesis of Endometriosis: In Vitro, Animal, and
Human Data. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 100(12), E1502–E1511. https://doi.
org/10.1210/jc.2015-2478

Kim, S. H., Chun, S., Jang, J. Y., Chae, H. D., Kim, C.-H., & Kang, B. M. (2011). Increased plasma levels
of phthalate esters in women with advanced-stage endometriosis: A prospective case-control study.
Fertility and Sterility, 95(1), 357–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.07.1059

Klemeš, J., Fan, Y., Tan, R., & Jiang, P. (2020). Minimising the present and future plastic waste, energy
and environmental footprints related to COVID-19. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 127,
109883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109883

Koga, Y., Satoh, T., Kaira, K., Hachisu, Y., Ishii, Y., Yajima, T., Hisada, T., Yokoo, H., & Dobashi, K. (2021).
Progression of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Is Associated with Silica/Silicate Inhalation. Environmental
Science & Technology Letters, 8(10), 903–910. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00659

Kosuth, M., Mason, S. A., & Wattenberg, E. V. (2018). Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer,
and sea salt. PLOS ONE, 13(4), e0194970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194970

Krisnandi, Y. K., Rasanji, D. G. W. K. D., Luthfiyah, S. Z., Zahara, & Sihombing, R. (2017). Photodegradation
study of TiO2-organoclay modified acetate cellulose bioplastic. IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering, 188, 012059. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/188/1/012059

Krosofsky, A. (2021). How pollution and other environmental impacts can affect human DNA. World
Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/this-is-how-our-gene-expression-can-be-
altered-by-the-environment/

Lambert, S., & Wagner, M. (2017). Environmental performance of bio-based and biodegradable
plastics: The road ahead. Chemical Society Reviews, 46(22), 6855–6871. https://doi.org/10.1039/
c7cs00149e

Laughland, O. (2021). Cancer alley activists score a win against giant plastics conglomerate. Mother
Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/08/environmental-justice-cancer-alley-activist-
win-delay-louisiana-formosa-plastics-plant/

Law, K. L., Starr, N., Siegler, T. R., Jambeck, J. R., Mallos, N. J., & Leonard, G. H. (2020). The United States’
contribution of plastic waste to land and ocean. Science Advances, 6(44), eabd0288. https://doi.
org/10.1126/sciadv.abd0288
Lee, B.-K., Ellenbecker, M. J., & Moure-Eraso, R. (2002). Analyses of the recycling potential of medical
plastic wastes. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 22(5), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0956-
053x(02)00006-5

Lee, J., Choi, K., Park, J., Moon, H.-B., Choi, G., Lee, J. J., Suh, E., Kim, H.-J., Eun, S.-H., Kim, G.-H., Cho, G.
J., Kim, S. K., Kim, S., Kim, S. Y., Kim, S., Eom, S., Choi, S., Kim, Y. D., & Kim, S. (2018). Bisphenol A distribution
in serum, urine, placenta, breast milk, and umbilical cord serum in a birth panel of mother–neonate
pairs. Science of The Total Environment, 626, 1494–1501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.042

Photo courtesy of FLY:D 43

 Lesley, H. J., van Velzen, M. J. M., Brandsma, S. H., Vethaak, D., Garcia-Vallejo, J. J., & Lamoree, M.
H. (2022). Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environment
International, 107199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199

Li, X., Zhang, L., Yang, Z., Wang, P., Yan, Y., & Ran, J. (2020). Adsorption materials for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and the key factors for VOCs adsorption process: A review. Separation and
Purification Technology, 235, 116213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.116213

Liebezeit, G., & Liebezeit, E. (2013). Non-pollen particulates in honey and sugar. Food Additives &
Contaminants: Part A, 30(12), 2136–2140. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2013.843025

Liebezeit, G., & Liebezeit, E. (2015). Origin of synthetic particles in honeys. Polish Journal of Food and
Nutrition Sciences, 65(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/pjfns-2015-0025

Lind, P. M., & Lind, L. (2011). Circulating levels of bisphenol A and phthalates are related to
carotid atherosclerosis in the elderly. Atherosclerosis, 218(1), 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atherosclerosis.2011.05.001

Lomonaco, T., Manco, E., Corti, A., La Nasa, J., Ghimenti, S., Biagini, D., Di Francesco, F., Modugno,
F., Ceccarini, A., Fuoco, R., & Castelvetro, V. (2020). Release of harmful volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from photo-degraded plastic debris: A neglected source of environmental pollution. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 394, 122596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122596

Loomis, D., Guha, N., Kogevinas, M., Fontana, V., Gennaro, V., Kolstad, H. A., McElvenny, D. M., Sallmén,
M., & Saracci, R. (2019). Cancer mortality in an international cohort of reinforced plastics workers
exposed to styrene: A reanalysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 76(3), 157–162. https://
doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2018-105131

Mariana, M., Feiteiro, J., Verde, I., & Cairrao, E. (2016). The effects of phthalates in the cardiovascular
and reproductive systems: A review. Environment International, 94, 758–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2016.07.004

Marty, N. (2020). The True Revolution of 1968: Mineral Water Trade and the Early Proliferation of Plastic,
1960s–1970s. Business History Review, 94(3), 483–505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007680520000549

Meaza, I., Toyoda, J. H., & Wise Sr, J. P. (2021). Microplastics in Sea Turtles, Marine Mammals and
Humans: A One Environmental Health Perspective. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 8, 575614. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.575614

Miller, M. E., Hamann, M., & Kroon, F. J. (2020). Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of microplastics in
marine organisms: A review and meta-analysis of current data. PLOS ONE, 15(10), e0240792. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240792

Miroshnychenko, I., Barontini, R., & Testa, F. (2017). Green practices and financial performance: A global
outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.058

Monneret, C. (2017). What is an endocrine disruptor? Comptes Rendus Biologies, 340(9–10), 403–405.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2017.07.004

Moon, H., & Lee, H.-H. (2018). Environmentally Friendly Apparel Products: The Effects of Value
Perceptions. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(8), 1373–1384. https://doi.
org/10.2224/sbp.6392

Nazareth, M., Marques, M. R. C., Leite, M. C. A., & Castro, Í. B. (2019). Commercial plastics claiming
biodegradable status: Is this also accurate for marine environments? Journal of Hazardous Materials,
366, 714–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.12.052

Nazir, S., Usman, Z., Imran, M., Lone, K., & Ahmad, G. (2018). Women diagnosed with endometriosis
show high serum levels of diethyl hexyl phthalate. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences, 11(2), 131.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_137_17

NOAA Fisheries. (2019). Fisheries of the United States... NOAA.

North, E. J., & Halden, R. U. (2013). Plastics and Environmental Health: The Road Ahead. Reviews on
Environmental Health, 28(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2012-0030
Photo courtesy of y Peggy und Marco
Lachmann-Ank 44
 Oliveri Conti, G., Ferrante, M., Banni, M., Favara, C., Nicolosi, I., Cristaldi, A., Fiore, M., & Zuccarello, P.
(2020). Micro- and nano-plastics in edible fruit and vegetables. The first diet risks assessment for the
general population. Environmental Research, 187, 109677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109677

OSHA. (2012). Carbon Monoxide Poisoning (p. 3).

Patisaul, H. (2010). Assessing Risks from Bisphenol A: Evaluating human health risks from endocrine
disruptors such as BPA is difficult, but animal studies suggest trouble is afoot. American Scientist, 98(1),
30–39.

Patrício Silva, A. L., Prata, J. C., Walker, T. R., Duarte, A. C., Ouyang, W., Barcelò, D., & Rocha-Santos,
T. (2021). Increased plastic pollution due to COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and recommendations.
Chemical Engineering Journal, 405, 126683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.126683

Pauly, L., Stegmeier, J., Cheney, T., Zhang, J., Streck, J., Allaart, A., & Mayer, G. (1998). Inhaled Cellulosic
and Plastic Fibers Found in Human Lung Tissue’. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 7,
419–428.

Pergialiotis, V., Kotrogianni, P., Christopoulos-Timogiannakis, E., Koutaki, D., Daskalakis, G., & Papantoniou,
N. (2018). Bisphenol A and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. The
Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 31(24), 3320–3327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017
.1368076

Pollard, S. H., Cox, K. J., Blackburn, B. E., Wilkins, D. G., Carrell, D. T., Stanford, J. B., & Porucznik,
C. A. (2019). Male exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) and semen quality in the Home Observation of
Periconceptional Exposures (HOPE) cohort. Reproductive Toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.), 90, 82–87. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2019.08.014

Prata, J. C. (2018). Airborne microplastics: Consequences to human health? Environmental Pollution,

234, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.043

Qi, R., Jones, D. L., Li, Z., Liu, Q., & Yan, C. (2020). Behavior of microplastics and plastic film residues
in the soil environment: A critical review. Science of The Total Environment, 703, 134722. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134722

Radwan, M., Wielgomas, B., Dziewirska, E., Radwan, P., Kałużny, P., Klimowska, A., Hanke, W., &
Jurewicz, J. (2018). Urinary Bisphenol A Levels and Male Fertility. American Journal of Men’s Health,
12(6), 2144–2151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988318799163

Ragusa, A., Svelato, A., Santacroce, C., Catalano, P., Notarstefano, V., Carnevali, O., Papa, F.,
Rongioletti, M. C. A., Baiocco, F., Draghi, S., D’Amore, E., Rinaldo, D., Matta, M., & Giorgini, E. (2021).
Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environment International, 146, 106274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274

RameshKumar, S., Shaiju, P., O’Connor, K. E., & P, R. B. (2020). Bio-based and biodegradable polymers—
State-of-the-art, challenges and emerging trends. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry,
21, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2019.12.005

Rillig, M. C. (2012). Microplastic in Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Soil? Environmental Science &
Technology, 46(12), 6453–6454. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302011r

Saadat, S., Rawtani, D., & Hussain, C. M. (2020). Environmental perspective of COVID-19. Science of The
Total Environment, 728, 138870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138870

Saini, R. D. (2017). Biodegradable Polymers. International Journal of Applied Chemistry, 13(2), 179–196.

Santana, M. F. M., Moreira, F. T., & Turra, A. (2017). Trophic transference of microplastics under a low
exposure scenario: Insights on the likelihood of particle cascading along marine food-webs. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 121(1–2), 154–159.

Schultz, P., Bator, R., Large, L., Bruni, C., & Tabanico, J. (2013). Littering in Context Personal and
Environmental Predictors of Littering Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 45, 35–59. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013916511412179

Photo courtesy of Carson Arias 45

 Scott, L., & Vigar-Ellis, D. (2014). Consumer understanding, perceptions and behaviours with regard to
environmentally friendly packaging in a developing nation. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
38(6), 642–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12136

Setälä, O., Fleming-Lehtinen, V., & Lehtiniemi, M. (2014). Ingestion and transfer of microplastics in the
planktonic food web. Environmental Pollution, 185, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.013

Szabo, S., & Webster, J. (2021). Perceived Greenwashing: The Effects of Green Marketing on
Environmental and Product Perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 171(4), 719–739. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-020-04461-0

Taufik, D., Reinders, M. J., Molenveld, K., & Onwezen, M. C. (2020). The paradox between the
environmental appeal of bio-based plastic packaging for consumers and their disposal behaviour.
Science of The Total Environment, 705, 135820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135820

The Pew Charitable Trusts & SYSTEMIQ. (2020). Breaking the Plastic Wave: A Comprehensive Assessment
of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution. https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/
assets/2020/07/breakingtheplasticwave_summary.pdf

The World Bank. (2018). Current health expenditure (% of GDP)—Germany, France, Spain, Italy,
Portugal, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, United States, Canada | Data. https://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?locations=DE-FR-ES-IT-PT-BE-SE-NO-US-CA

Thevenon, F., Carroll, C., & Sousa, J. (Eds.). (2015). Plastic debris in the ocean: The characterization
of marine plastics and their environmental impacts, situation analysis report. International Union for
Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.03.en

Trasande, L., & Attina, T. M. (2015). Association of exposure to di-2-ethylhexylphthalate replacements

with increased blood pressure in children and adolescents. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex.: 1979), 66(2),
301–308. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.115.05603

Trasande, L., Liu, B., & Bao, W. (2021). Phthalates and attributable mortality: A population-based
longitudinal cohort study and cost analysis. Environmental Pollution, 118021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2021.118021

United Nations. (2015). Sustainable Development Goal 14—Life Below Water. United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/oceans/

US Congress. (2020, December 18). Text - S.1982 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Save Our Seas 2.0 Act
(2019/2020) [Legislation]. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1982/text

US Department of Commerce. (2021). Quarterley Retail E-Commerce Sales—1st Quarter 2021. https://
www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf

US EIA. (2011). EIA - Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Nitrous Oxide Emissions. https://www.eia.gov/

environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_nitrous.php

US EPA. (2013, January 29). Our Mission and What We Do [Overviews and Factsheets]. US EPA. https://
www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do

US EPA. (2016, June 10). Linking Air Pollution and Heart Disease [Overviews and Factsheets]. https://
www.epa.gov/sciencematters/linking-air-pollution-and-heart-disease

US EPA, O. (2015a, July 6). What is the Endocrine System? [Overviews and Factsheets]. https://www.epa.
gov/endocrine-disruption/what-endocrine-system

US EPA, O. (2015b, November 5). The Clean Water Act and Trash-Free Waters (Water Bodies) [Overviews
and Factsheets]. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters/clean-water-act-and-trash-free-waters

US EPA, O. (2015c, November 10). National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production - Fact Sheets [Reports and Assessments]. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/national-emission-standards-hazardous-air-pollutants-reinforced-0

Photo courtesy of Waldemar Brandt 46

 Valavanidis, A., Iliopoulos, N., Gotsis, G., & Fiotakis, K. (2008). Persistent free radicals, heavy metals
and PAHs generated in particulate soot emissions and residue ash from controlled combustion of
common types of plastic. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 156(1), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2007.12.019

Van Cauwenberghe, L., & Janssen, C. R. (2014). Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human
consumption. Environmental Pollution, 193, 65–70.

van Raamsdonk, L. W. D., van der Zande, M., Koelmans, A. A., Hoogenboom, R. L. A. P., Peters, R. J.
B., Groot, M. J., Peijnenburg, A. A. C. M., & Weesepoel, Y. J. A. (2020). Current Insights into Monitoring,
Bioaccumulation, and Potential Health Effects of Microplastics Present in the Food Chain. Foods, 9(1),
72. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9010072

Vanapalli, K. R., Sharma, H. B., Ranjan, V. P., Samal, B., Bhattacharya, J., Dubey, B. K., & Goel,
S. (2021). Challenges and strategies for effective plastic waste management during and post
COVID-19 pandemic. The Science of the Total Environment, 750, 141514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.141514

Vroman, I., & Tighzert, L. (2009). Biodegradable Polymers. Materials, 2(2), 307–344. https://doi.org/
doi:10.3390/ma2020307

Wang, R., Huang, Y., Dong, S., Wang, P., & Su, X. (2021). The occurrence of bisphenol compounds
in animal feed plastic packaging and migration into feed. Chemosphere, 265, 129022. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129022

Wei, S., Ang, T., & Jancenelle, V. E. (2018). Willingness to pay more for green products: The interplay of
consumer characteristics and customer participation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 45,
230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.08.015

Wei, W., Wang, S., Hao, J., & Cheng, S. (2011). Projection of anthropogenic volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) emissions in China for the period 2010–2020. Atmospheric Environment, 45(38), 6863–6871.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.01.013

WHO. (2017). Safe management of wastes from health‑care activities—A summary.

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/259491/WHO-FWC-WSH-17.05-eng.
pdf;jsessionid=395C73112B6FE8E6A7817193D1561B26?sequence=1

Wu, R.-T., Cai, Y.-F., Chen, Y.-X., Yang, Y.-W., Xing, S.-C., & Liao, X.-D. (2021). Occurrence of microplastic
in livestock and poultry manure in South China. Environmental Pollution, 277, 116790. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116790

Wyles, K. J., Pahl, S., Thomas, K., & Thompson, R. C. (2016). Factors That Can Undermine the
Psychological Benefits of Coastal Environments: Exploring the Effect of Tidal State, Presence, and Type
of Litter. Environment and Behavior, 48(9), 1095–1126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515592177

Yang, Y. C. (2017). Consumer Behavior towards Green Products. Journal of Economics, Business and
Management, 5(4), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.18178/joebm.2017.5.4.505

Zhang, L., Li, D., Cao, C., & Huang, S. (2018). The influence of greenwashing perception on green
purchasing intentions: The mediating role of green word-of-mouth and moderating role of green
concern. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 740–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.201

Zhang, Y., Kang, S., Allen, S., Allen, D., Gao, T., & Sillanpää, M. (2020). Atmospheric microplastics: A
review on current status and perspectives. Earth-Science Reviews, 203, 103118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
earscirev.2020.103118

Zheng, J., & Suh, S. (2019). Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of plastics. Nature Climate
Change, 9(5), 374–378. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0459-z

Photo courtesy of Cup of Couple 47