Representatives from over 170 nations gathered in late November with hopes of formulating a robust plan to tackle the spiralling plastic waste crisis. However, the talks ended amidst entrenched divisions, delaying a resolution many consider critical to the planet’s future.

Diverging Visions

At the heart of the negotiations lay a chasm between two factions: the “high-ambition” coalition of over 100 countries advocating for legally binding limits on plastic production and oil-producing nations, along with some developing states, who resisted such measures. “The objective of this treaty is to end plastic pollution, not plastic itself,” declared Kuwait’s negotiator, encapsulating the resistance to production caps from nations heavily reliant on the oil and petrochemical industries.

Plastic production, which has soared from two million tonnes in 1950 to over 400 million tonnes annually today, is projected to double by 2040. This trajectory threatens to exacerbate environmental degradation and could constitute 15% of global carbon emissions by mid-century.

Frustration and Resolve

The failure to produce a treaty text has drawn sharp criticism. Campaigners decried the lack of progress, with Sean Savett, a spokesperson for the U.S. National Security Council, lamenting how “a small group of countries and producers stood in the way of progress to protect their profits.” Such sentiments echoed a broader frustration with corporations that continue to prioritise recycled plastics over more sustainable, reusable alternatives. Coca-Cola, for instance, recently abandoned its commitment to 25% reusable packaging by 2030, drawing accusations of “greenwashing” from activists.

Despite the disappointment, some observers are cautiously optimistic. Sr. Patty Johnson, attending on behalf of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, remarked, “I had a general sense that everyone agreed this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The challenge lies in how ambition is defined.”

The Path Forward

The incomplete negotiations underscore the complexity of addressing a problem deeply intertwined with global economics, environmental health, and corporate interests. Plastic’s lifecycle, from production to waste management, remains contentious. While some nations champion comprehensive measures encompassing production, use, and disposal, others favour a narrower focus on waste management and recycling.

Adding to the challenge, microplastics and their effects on health and ecosystems intensify the urgency for action. Research linking microplastics to severe health risks, including heart attacks and strokes, has only amplified calls for decisive intervention.

Still, progress, albeit incremental, has been made. Key elements of a treaty framework, such as a financial mechanism to support implementation (which could involve a global fund for plastic pollution reduction) and criteria for regulating specific polymers (which could include setting limits on the use of certain types of plastic), are taking shape. Negotiators are expected to reconvene in 2025 to build on these foundations.

Reimagining Solutions

A shift in the narrative around plastics is essential to achieve meaningful change. Von Hernandez of Break Free from Plastic encapsulated the issue, criticising corporations for perpetuating single-use culture: “Recycled single-use items still pollute the environment. The focus must be on reuse and reduction at the source.”

Incentivising innovation in alternative materials, expanding reusable systems, and integrating scientific research into policymaking could pave the way for more sustainable practices. However, bridging the gap between nations’ varied economic dependencies and environmental goals will require exceptional diplomacy and commitment.

A Global Imperative

Plastic pollution transcends borders, washing up on remote island shores and infiltrating the deepest ocean trenches. While the Busan talks fell short of expectations, they underscored the shared recognition that a global solution is imperative. “We have not yet reached the summit of our efforts,” affirmed Luis Vayas, Ecuador’s vice minister of foreign affairs and negotiations chair. His words reflect the determination of many to persist despite the obstacles.

The road to a global plastics treaty may be fraught with challenges, but it remains a journey worth taking. The stakes — ecological integrity, public health, and the sustainability of our planet — demand nothing less than a collective and unwavering resolve.

The post Plastic Treaty Talks: A Stumble on the Path to Progress appeared first on Medika Life.

I have begun to worry about these minuscule particles.

Recent research findings caught my eye. Did you know that boiling tap water effectively removes 90 percent of microplastics?

Today, I will explore the problem of environmental microplastics before turning to this new finding.

The “plastic age.”

They permeate the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil beneath our feet and have emerged as an omnipresent concern.

Their pervasive presence in global drinking water and food supplies raises alarming questions.

How do microplastics influence the environment and our health?

As we navigate this landscape of microscopic pollutants, unraveling the intricate web of implications surrounding microplastics and contemplating sustainable solutions for a healthier future is imperative.

Some researchers even call this the “Plastic Age.”

My concern

Plastic is everywhere in our oceans and Great Lakes, making it the most common type of trash floating around.

This plastic comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes. The National Ocean Services explains that when it’s smaller than five millimeters (about the size of a pencil eraser), we call it “microplastics.”

A groundbreaking study recently shook me.

Scientists reported that the bottled water you can buy at the store could have 10 to 100 times more small bits of plastic than we previously thought . These tiny particles are so small you can’t see them with a regular microscope.

One liter, 240,000 tiny particles

In simpler terms, researchers discovered this:

One liter of water, about the same as two regular-sized bottled waters, contains around 240,000 tiny plastic pieces.

These plastic bits come from seven different types of plastics. Most of them, about 90%, are what we call “nanoplastics,” which are incredibly small.

The rest are “microplastics,” which are a bit bigger but still tiny.

Into the lungs and gut

At 1,000th the average width of a human hair, nanoplastics are so tiny they can migrate through the tissues of the digestive tract or lungs into the bloodstream, distributing potentially harmful synthetic chemicals throughout the body and into cells, experts say.

The tiny plastic particles can sneak into individual cells and tissues in our major organs, causing potential disruptions in how our cells work.

They also bring along harmful chemicals like bisphenols, phthalates, flame retardants, and PFAS, which are known for interfering with our hormones, among other things.

When plastics get inside us, they release these chemicals, and because our bodies are warmer than the environment, these chemicals easily move from the plastic into our bodies.

It’s like plastic is carrying these potentially harmful substances right into us.

Microplastic perils

According to a recent report by the World Health Organization, microplastics have been found in drinking water sources worldwide, including bottled and tap water.

These tiny particles, smaller than five millimeters, seriously threaten human health and the environment.

Ingesting microplastics can lead to a range of health problems, including reproductive issues, developmental problems, and even cancer.

Microplastics and marine life

Furthermore, researchers have discovered microplastics in marine life, with studies showing that fish and other seafood consumed by humans contain microplastics.

This finding means that even if we reduce our exposure to microplastics, we may still consume them indirectly through our food sources.

The impact of microplastics on the environment is also significant, as they can harm marine life and accumulate in ecosystems, leading to long-term environmental damage.

Boiling water removes microplastics.

A new study discovered this remarkable fact:

If you boil and filter tap water using everyday tools, similar to what you’d use for making tea or coffee, you can slash 90 percent of those super tiny plastic particles called nano- and microplastics.

To test this, scientists added these small plastic bits to tap water from Guangzhou (China) and boiled each sample for five minutes.

Study details

The boiling process caused the minerals in the tap water to form crystal structures of calcium carbonate, which acted like a shield, trapping the plastic particles and greatly lowering their amount.

According to Prof. Eddy Zeng, one of the researchers involved in the study, these tiny plastic particles could accumulate over time.

However, to get rid of any leftover particles that have been trapped, you can pour the water through a coffee filter.

This step helps to scrub away and remove any remaining plastic particles that might be encrusted in the crystal structures formed during the boiling process.

Limiting your microplastic exposure

Using a glass or stainless steel pot is best if you plan to boil your water to eliminate microplastics.

Healthline provides this guidance:

After boiling for around five minutes, let the water cool without stirring, as this helps the tiny plastic particles bind to the calcium and settle at the bottom of the pot. Once they’ve settled, you can filter or scoop them away.

However, it’s essential to know that boiling water won’t solve the microplastic issue completely.

Other ways to reduce your microplastic exposure

There are other sources of exposure we encounter regularly.

To reduce exposure, I try to avoid single-use plastic packaging, like bottled water, plastic utensils, and cooking products, and refrain from putting plastic containers in the dishwasher or microwave.

Regularly using these items can release plastic particles or chemicals, contributing to the problem.

My thoughts

This simple boiling-water strategy can “decontaminate” nano/microplastics (NMPs) from household tap water.

The approach has the potential to harmlessly alleviate human intake of nano/microplastics through water consumption.

Moreover, we can each improve the planet by avoiding single-use plastic packaging.

Increasing evidence indicates that plastics may gather in the body, leading to issues such as oxidative stress, inflammation, insulin resistance, problems with gut health, and potential liver issues.

I look forward to writing more about the absolute health risks of microplastics.

The post Discovering a Simple Solution: Boiling Tap Water Effectively Removes 90% of Microplastics. appeared first on Medika Life.

This has gone on for years but isn’t confined to food containers like the one on your desk, but also to the wrapping that may be used where you pick up your sandwiches or the packaging used in the supermarket for all the items you purchased there or even for shipping food products.

Every time you eat one of the products that has been wrapped, shipped, or slipped into a container with a specific chemical in it, you are, in effect, damaging your health, or endangering yourself or your children, if they also use those containers or wrappers.

What do you think should have been done decades ago when it was known that this was not a safe material to have near food? And what’s the stuff that’s so dangerous? It’s PFAS, the forever chemicals, and they are endocrine disrupters.

The information we have shows that people who are most likely to be subjected to endocrine disruptors (EDs) are more likely to have cancer, reproductive problems (like infertility, endometriosis, and miscarriages), metabolic problems (like diabetes), and/or immune system problems. Children who are exposed to endocrine disruptors also show behavioral and psychological problems. The disturbing results in children, in utero, and after birth, are particularly disturbing.

In the US, The Endocrine Society has indicated that hormonal disrupters put unborn children at the highest risk. Animal studies show that even small amounts during pregnancy can lead to obesity later on. Some disrupters directly affect cells in the pancreas and fat and liver cells. This can all cause insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.

The EU has made rules about these chemicals with Regulation 2017/2100 and Regulation 2018/605. But these scientific factors are not a way to find EDs and do not fully protect people’s health.

For food contact purposes, the FDA said that makers can no longer sell grease-proofing substances containing PFAS. When these chemicals are used on food packaging paper and paperboard are taken off the market voluntarily, they will no longer be a major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from approved food contact uses. Where do we find PFAS used?

Paper and paperboard packaging is treated with grease-proofing chemicals to stop grease and oil from leaking and to make the packaging resistant to water. Materials with PFAS were used to make fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard cases, pet food bags, and other similar kinds of packaging.

The FDA had given manufacturers three years to exhaust their supply of products containing this material. During the three-year moratorium, however, consumers continued to be exposed to these substances, and we do not know the long-lasting results of such exposure in terms of human health. Some manufacturers have already removed themselves from markets requiring them not to use this material in their products. We do not have information regarding which manufacturers have left the markets where they would have used PFAS. But this is only one small part of the equation; what about shipping food products or ingredients?

The issue now becomes one of finding safe wrapping and packaging materials that are not problematic should they come in contact with food either for us or animals, even in animal feed. How do we know which ones are safe and which ones still contain PFAS? We don’t, which leaves us with a quandary regarding how much exposure we will accept if we do not know where the exposure may be.

A question lingers in my mind regarding PFAS and food. While the FDA has indicated manufacturers can no longer make products containing this material for food packaging, what about all of the facilities that still have these kinds of packaging materials on hand? No one told them they had to discard all of these materials and purchase new ones without the dangerous PFAS in them. Who knows how much stock they had on hand?

Can we believe that all of the packaging materials in all of the shops or all of the food preparation companies are now free of PFAS? I know these are disturbing questions, but we must consider that the food is still unsafe because it may still be placed in packaging or wrappings containing the now-forbidden material. This can happen at the packaging level, whether at the manufacturer or retail level.

The post PFAS Is a Culprit Affecting Health, and It’s in Packaging — But No More in the USA appeared first on Medika Life.