Even cookware, clothing and make-up – have ‘forever chemicals.’ Can we reduce our exposure?
Allan Maynard, MSc. – November 2025
I wrote a series of articles in 2022 about toxic chemicals in the environment (see link below). Despite more research and some regulatory initiatives, the human population around the world is still exposed in many unnecessary ways. This is an update on the most worrisome class of chemicals – called “forever chemicals” (PFAS), because they take decades or even centuries to break down. A such, it is a class of chemicals that should have been heavily regulated decades ago. Even more egregious, thecurrent US administrationis proposing to loosen PFAS regulatory requirements and even expand their use on crops.
REMINDER – WHAT ARE FOREVER CHEMICALS (PFAS)?
Approximately 350,000 man-made chemicals are currently on the global market, including plastics, pesticides, and industrial chemicals with about 2,500 new chemicals, introduced each year. Thousands have not been properly evaluated.
This vast array of chemicals is divided into various classes – one such class is– PFAS – which stands for – get ready now – per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances. It is an umbrella term for a family of over 12,000 chemicals that, due to a very strong bond between carbon and fluorine, are prized for their indestructible and non-stick properties. The exact number of PFAS is not really known as hundreds of so called ‘byproducts” are created in the manufacturing processes.
Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Products Click image to enlarge.
WHAT PRODUCTS CONTAIN FOREVER CHEMICALS (PFAS)?
PFAS can be found in non-stick cookware (frying pans, air fryers, rice cookers), parchment paper, fire retardants, stain and water repellents, furniture (as a fire retardant), waterproof clothing and shoes, children’s clothing, takeout food containers, food packaging, carpets and textiles, tents, yoga mats, rubbers and plastics, electronics, dental floss and even make up – such as lip gloss and mascara. This is a long list – and it worth asking – are many or even most uses necessary? I would say a resounding – NO!!
Also sprayed on crops: There are over 60 PFAS registered as active pesticide ingredients permitted in the U.S. for use to kill fungi, insects or weeds. PFAS can also be found in pesticides as inert, or inactive, ingredients, which means they don’t address pests directly but can enhance how well a pesticide works. Unfortunately, manufacturers in the USA aren’t required to disclose individual inert PFAS in their products. PFAS are more stringently regulated in Europe. Canada has a planned phaseout of PFAS, but it will take years to be fully implemented.
WHERE ARE FOREVER CHEMICALS (PFAS) FOUND IN THE ENVIRONMENT?
The answer is everywhere – even in remote locations:
Water: Found in drinking water sources, surface water, oceans, and groundwater.
Air: Can be present in gaseous form or attached to particles and aerosols, which can travel long distances.
Food: especially in fruits and vegetables that have been sprayed with PFAS pesticides – and also in meat, fish and processed food from packaging.
Soil and sediment: Contamination occurs through sources like landfill runoff, contaminated soil, or direct discharge.
Biota – due to bioaccumulation
Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Products
WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH?
The answer? We just don’t know! The recoded cases of illness from exposure to PFAS is associated with the manufacturing process affecting people working in or living near, the factories. As an example, starting in 1998, multiple lawsuits were filed in US courts against DuPont in relation to C8 or PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), a specific PFAS, used to produce Teflon. Local farmers, residents and company workers claimed illnesses and livestock mortalities linked to pollution from DuPont’sParkersburg plant in West Virginia. Intense monitoring studies found that residents who drank water from wells near the plant, had a median level of PFOA, 7.6 times more than the average American. In 2012, a science panel concluded (from these studies) a “probable link” existed between C8 and six diseases: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol. Since then, there have been numerous individual lawsuits with DuPont settling over 3,550 of these for 671 million dollars.
In terms of day-to-day exposure from air, water and food, there is no clear answer to the question of long-term human health. What is known though, every human on the planet has detectable levels of PFAS in their blood.
My one-egg cast iron frying pan and yes, it is non-stick without chemicals.
WHY TAKE THE CHANCE? CAN WE REDUCE OUR EXPOSURE?
The simple answer – YES – by researching before buying cookware, clothing, furniture, cosmetics, etc. Do we really need waterproof jackets? Is it necessary to cook with a non-stick pan? Do our couches need to be stain-resistant and fireproofed?
• Use safer cookware: Swap nonstick pans for stainless steel, cast iron, glass, or ceramic alternatives. The same goes for air-fryers and parchment paper. Teflon pans can be especially concerning if they get heated too high or if they are scraped (as bits of coating will get in your food). A good cast iron skillet and some stainless-steel pots is all you need.
• Use glass for storing food: – even sandwich bags may contain PFAS.
• Filter tap water: Use a pitcher, faucet, or under-sink filter certified to remove PFAS, or a reverse osmosis system. PFAS have even been found in rainwater.
• Limit takeout and packaged foods: It is especially important to not heat food in plastic, grease resistant containers. For sure – I would avoid buying heated food that is stored in plastic – such as rotisserie chicken for sale in most grocery stores.
• Rethink microwave popcorn: Make popcorn on the stovetop instead of using microwave bags, which likely contain PFAS.
• Avoid certain fish: Limit consumption of locally caught freshwater fish, as they can accumulate PFAS.
• Choose non-treated textiles: Look for clothing, carpets, and upholstery that are NOT labeled “stain-resistant” or “water-resistant”. There is mounting evidence that we are breathing in PFAS from such products.
• Clean regularly: Damp dust surfaces with a microfiber cloth and vacuum weekly with a HEPA-filter vacuum to reduce the amount of PFAS dust in your home.
• Check labels: Look for “fluoro” or “perfluoro” on product labels, which indicates the presence of PFAS. Some products may use other PFAS, so be mindful of this.
• Limit cosmetics: Eliminate the use of cosmetics and personal care products that contain PFAS.
• Buy organic foods – this is much harder due to affordability – but it is very concerning that PFAS are used to spray crops.
There is a wealth of information on the internet if consumers want to research prior to buying. However, the challenge with all this, is the lack of forced (or regulated) disclosure from manufacturers of the products we buy and the producers of the food we consume. This needs to be addressed at the policy level – and I am not confident that this issue will be properly addressed when the industry lobby has an untoward sway over the political process.
It is now clear that we are all part of a massive global experiment to determine if microplastics are affecting human health. There are ways though, to reduce individual exposure. Read on – 4 minute read
Allan Maynard, MSc. – November 2025
Annual plastic production increased from two million tonnes in 1950, to about 475 million tonnes is 2022, and it is projected to grow over 70% by 2040. We are overwhelmed with plastic pollution: At least 8.8 million tons – of plastic waste is entering the ocean – EACH YEAR. Moreover, that is only the tip of the iceberg when we also add in all the waste found on land and accumulating in landfills. Over time, much of this plastic pollution degrades to form microplastics.
Microplastics are now found everywhere in the environment and unfortunately lodged deep inside our bodies. I first wrote about microplastics in 2020 (see link below): Fast forward to 2025, and a multitude of research has now been conducted. This is a brief update with some ideas on measures each of us can consider for reducing daily exposure.
REMINDER – WHAT ARE MICROPLASTICS?
Click image to enlarge.
WHERE ARE MICROPLASTICS FOUND IN THE ENVIRONMENT?
Microplastics are found virtually everywhere in the environment, from the deepest ocean trenches to the highest mountains — in air, soil, water, sediments and biota. As such, they find their way as contaminants in food, beverages, and the air we breathe.
MICROPLASTICS – ARE HUMANS ARE EXPOSED?
Microplastics have been found almost everywhere in humans: in blood, bones, saliva, urine, placentas, an array of organs and even the human brain. One study estimated our brains may contain as much as 5 grams – or roughly a teaspoon. Plastic isn’t just wrapped around our food or woven into our clothes: it is lodged deep inside us.
Microplastics enter our bodies by inhalation (contaminated air) and ingestion (food, water, beverages). There is a wide range of estimates dealing with how much exposure and its greatly dependant on factors such as water source, air quality, diet and lifestyle. An article by the World Economic Forum claims we inhale an average of around 60,000 particles per day. In terms of mass, one widely cited estimate suggests a person may ingest as much as 5 grams of microplastics per week, equivalent to the weight of a credit card. However, this estimate has been disputed in other studies. The important point – microplastics are ubiquitous and are now deep inside every human on earth.
WILL THIS EXPOSURE AFFECT OUR HEALTH?
A recent article in the medical journal “The Lancet” describes microplastics as an underestimated and under-regulated health crisis. Microplastics may affect human health by causing inflammation, oxidative stress, and DNA damage at a cellular level. They can also absorb and then release chemicals and pathogens, potentially leading to a range of issues including cardiovascular problems, reproductive harm, and endocrine disruption. A very recent (2025 study) identified microplastics in the brains of human cadavers. Most notably from this study – those who had been diagnosed with dementia prior to their death had up to 10 times as much plastic in their brains compared to those without the condition.
While definitive causal links are still under investigation, research is exploring associations with diseases like cancer and metabolic disorders. It will likely take decades to establish links to human health. Sadly, we are all part of a large, decades long experiment. Minimizing exposure is our best course of action.
A single one litre plastic bottle can contain as many as 240,000 different plastic particles of varying dimensions and materials – from NIH 2025 – see below.
WHAT CAN EACH OF US DO?
Most of what MUST be done, is at the policy level, but unfortunately, political will is lacking. Single use plastic should be banned. The plastics industry must be held accountable and forced to manufacture ONLY plastic products that can be easily recycled (presently only around 10% of plastic products can be recycled). Plastic production must be reduced – sadly – global talks (August 2025) to develop a landmark treaty to deal with plastic pollution with a legally binding production cap have once again failed.
That leaves us with our own individual actions. Here are some suggestions:
Consider a reuseable water filter if you suspect that the water source could have microplastics (it should not be needed in Metro Vancouver)
Don’t buy processed foods that are stored in plastic containers – in fact, most health professionals recommend avoiding ultra processed food altogether
Use only glass or steel containers for heating food with a microwave oven – heat greatly accelerates the shedding of plastic particles and the leaching of plastic chemicals
Minimize or even stop the use of single use plastics like water bottles, straws, plastic bags
Don’t use plastic cutting boards
Be aware of non-stick cookware – especially Teflon coatings that could be scratched
Clean the air in your home with a high efficiency air cleaner
Avoid wearing synthetic clothing
Refuse to buy washing pods (encased in plastic) for laundry or dishwashers
Refuse to buy products that contain micro-beads (these are already microplastics)
Try to buy beverages that come in cans or glass bottles – see figure above and the study of bottled water by the NIH
Check out your tea bags – many are made with plastics and will release thousands of particles per cup – better to use loose tea if possible or make sure the tea bag is paper
Rinse rice thoroughly – especially instant rice
Reduce intake of sea food – especially filter feeders – oysters, clams and mussels that accumulate microplastics
Clean your house frequently – mopping non carpet floors and having a good filter on your vacuum
It is especially important for younger people to minimize exposure. Exposure to toxins is usually cumulative, and the consequences often manifest over the long term. This process, often referred to as bioaccumulation or biomagnification, means that even small, repeated exposures to certain harmful substances can lead to a significant buildup in the body or the environment over time
NEXT UP – is our cookware toxic? Hint – maybe — but the fix is easy.
THE CRYING INDIAN – If you watched TV during the 1970s and 80s you would likely have seen one of the most iconic ads ever made. A buckskinned, black braided Native American (but called “Indian” in those days) is seen paddling down a pristine river but eventually enters a polluted harbor. He paddles his boat to a bank strewn with litter. As he exits his boat and wanders near a road someone flings a bag of trash from a moving car. The trash scatters at his feet. The Native American then looks into the camera; a single tear is seen rolling down his cheek. The narrator booms –“People start pollution. People can stop it.”
The ad in many aspects is a fraud. The “Crying Indian” is neither Native American nor crying. He was played by an Italian actor known for playing natives in western movies. The ad was sponsored by the organization “Keep America Beautiful”. What eventually became clear, the Keep America Beautiful organization was founded, and is still mainly funded, by the beverage and packaging industries. While anti-littering campaigns should certainly be lauded, the sinister reality behind this campaign was to shift blame for packaging waste in the environment towards the users of the products rather than the manufacturers. Thus began THE MYTH OF PLASTICS RECYCLING.
THE NUMBERS IN REVIEW – In my October 26, 2020 article – “We Are Drowning in Plastics”, I presented dramatic statistics concerning plastic waste. A quick review of the main facts:
6 billion (approximately) tons of plastic materials have been produced in the period 1950 to 2015 (Science Advances, 2017)
The estimate to update that number into 2020 – approximately 9 billion tons
Of the 6 billion tons of plastic ever made up to year 2015 – 9% has been recycled, 12% has been burned, and the remaining 79% has ended up in landfills or in the environment.
The amount of plastic entering the oceans (earth’s last sink) is over 9 million tons each year. This is only a fraction of the total plastic waste generated.
WHAT THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY KNEW – For decades, we have been sorting trash believing that most plastic could be recycled. But the truth is, the vast majority of all plastic produced can’t be or won’t be recycled. In a joint investigation, NPR (U.S. National Public Radio) and the PBS series Frontline found that oil and gas companies — the makers of plastic — have known this reality all along, even as they spent millions of dollars telling the American public the opposite.
The main points from this investigation are:
Plastics industry had “serious doubt” recycling would ever be viable
The investigators dug deep into various archives and found internal correspondence. For example, the investigators state — “A report sent to top industry executives in April 1973 called recycling plastic ‘costly’ and “difficult.’ It called sorting it ‘infeasible’, saying ‘there is no recovery from obsolete products.’ Another document a year later was candid: There is ‘serious doubt’ widespread plastic recycling can ever be made viable on an economic basis.”
The industry promoted recycling to keep plastic bans at bay
The investigators interviewed three former top officials from the plastics industry who revealed that the industry promoted recycling as a way to beat back a growing tide of awareness about plastic pollution along with calls for banning certain products (late 80s, early 90s). Recycling, the former officials told NPR and Frontline, became a way to pre-empt the bans and sell even more plastic. In fact the industry projection is to triple production by 2050.
More recycling means fewer profits for petrochemical companies
The more plastic is recycled, the less money the industry will make selling new plastic. And those profits have become increasingly important with the declining market for fossil fuels. In essence the petrochemical companies are aware that a successful recycling operation will become their competitor. Or, if they undertake recycling themselves, it will reduce profits. It’s much cheaper (and thus more profitable) to make new products from raw materials than to make an inferior plastic product from waste.
The sad truth is that is that the plastics industry has promoted recycling mainly to sell more products. The public has been lead to believe that the recycling triangle on the bottom of plastic packing means the item the item can be recycled. The truth of the matter? – It’s complicated.
Is it really necessary to package lettuce like this? These plastic containers are made of #1 PET thermoform and are usually used for berry containers, salad containers, tomato containers, etc. They are not readily recyclable.
WHAT PLASTICS ARE THERE? WHICH ONES CAN BE RECYLCED
Recycling is determined by two factors: the market and city or municipal government programs. If there’s an organized recycling program along with a demand in the market for the plastics collected, then recyclers and companies will pay for post-consumer recyclables. The market demand is quite limited in reality, and it greatly depends on the type of plastic.
In general terms there are two broad categories of plastic – thermoset plastics and thermo-plastics. Thermo-plastics are plastics that can be re-melted and re-moulded into new products, and therefore, recycled. Thermoset plastics contain polymers that cross-link to form an irreversible chemical bond, meaning that no matter how much heat is applied, they cannot be re-melted into new material and hence are not recyclable.
Examples of plastic containers that can be recycled in curb side programs. These are #2 – HDPE – see table below.
In more specific terms, the following are the various formulations of plastics, what they are used for, the approximate proportions in the waste streams (up to and including the year 2015) and the possibilities for recycling. Note – the numbers – 1 to 7 referenced appear on the plastic items usually in a small triangle.
Similar to #1 – mostly accepted in blue bin programs
3
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
2 forms – a) rigid – for plumbing, windows, bank cards and b) non rigid – inflatable products, electric wire insulation, etc.
5
Some items can be recycled – but there are difficulties in separating.
4
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
Plastic bags, food wrappings, squeezable bottles,
20
Only a few items can be recycled. The big issue is single use bags as they get caught in the sorting machines.
5
Polypropylene (PP)
Bottle caps, straws, coolers, diapers, clothing and carpet fibers, and some food packing – yogurt, margarine, etc.
19
Most cannot be recycled through curb side programs
6
Polystyrene (PS)
White Styrofoam – used in packaging and also for rigid food containers
6
Most municipalities do not accept Styrofoam products in curbside recycling programs
7
Other – category 7
A grab bag of plastics not found in any other category.
24%
Mostly non recyclable
# – Refers to the number found in the triangle on each plastic item
% – Refers to the estimated percentage of each kind of plastic in the waste stream – up to 2015.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECYLING – In general – it is the plastics with the numbers 1 and 2 (mostly) that can be recycled in curbside recycling programs. Others usually need to be taken to recycling locations or are simply sent to landfills or incinerators. Careful citizens will take the time to sort their plastics and take, to recycling depots, those items not permitted in curbside bins. However, the main concern is that a large majority will simply put all plastic items in curbside blue boxes. In such cases – likely the majority – the items that cannot be recycled will be considered trash.
Mixed material such as zip lock bags can be a problem. For instance – take away coffee cups. While the outside of the cup is made of paper, inside is a thin layer of plastic. The PP (Polypropylene) film protects the liquid from seeping into the paper (and thereby burning you) and keeps your warm drink from cooling too quickly. Because there are two different materials, the cups cannot be recycled unless the materials are separated, which is impossible to do by hand and requires a special machine.
Any plastic material with food residues on (or in) it CANNOT be recycled. In order for plastics to be transformed into recycled goods, they must be of decent quality. So, it is important to wash the plastic before it goes in the blue box.
To sum up – most plastic we use cannot be recycled. The plastic industry knows this and yet continues to extensively market plastic for multiple uses. We users can do more by becoming aware and refusing to use single use plastic or buying items that are inappropriately packaged. However, regulation is the only way to revers the troubling trend towards increasing plastic use. Canada for instance will ban single use plastic in 2021. But this is only a start.
UPCOMING – 2 more articles.
The serious concern about micro-plastics
Long-term solutions – yes – we can get out of this mess.
Home efforts are a good start. However – to solve the complex and overwhelming issue of plastic pollution, there is a dire need for solutions based on technology, for more regulation of the plastic and packaging industries and, in the long term, a comprehensive evaluation of how we evaluate economic success (linear vs. circular economy).
HOME EFFORTS – When my wife Margrit and I finished university in 1971, we spent a year travelling around Europe and Morocco. We would do 2 to 4 week trips followed by a return to Margrit’s birth-place and our declared ‘home base’ of Bassersdorf, Switzerland (near Zurich). After weeks of camping we were grateful to enjoy home cooked dinners and sleep in real beds. We stayed with Margrit’s aunts – Aunt Lydia and Aunt Martha.
Having lived through the scarcities during the Great Depression and World War II, these two ladies seemingly never threw anything away. They would wash and save even the smallest pieces of aluminum foil and plastic wrap. Plastic bags were rare and seen as a gift for storing food. They would be used and reused until they were worn out. They had a small refrigerator and thus shopped frequently, walking to the village bakery and to other stores dedicated to certain products. Nothing was packed in plastic. No food was ever wasted. These 2 rosy-cheeked ladies provided one of the best examples I have seen of the 3 Rs of minimizing household waste – REDUCE, RECYCLE, REUSE.
Learning from Aunt Martha and Aunt Lydia – Certainly, most of society want to do more to combat plastic waste. There’s a general sense of frustration that recycling as it exists today, is not the solution it was marketed to be. Because of enhanced societal awareness, there is now a plethora of web sites dedicated to providing advice for reducing plastics use in our homes. The 3 Rs – noted above is now expanded to 4 Rs – Reduce, Reject (or refuse), Reuse, and Recycle.
It is relatively easy for most households to reduce plastic waste with some basic steps – here are but a few tips:
IS TECHNOLOGY THE ANSWER? – The short answer – unlikely but it’s complicated. Technology initiatives are centered around 3 considerations – 1) Making plastic that is biodegradable, 2) Making plastic that can be more successfully recycled and 3) Making recycling more successful than it is today. A brief summary of these:
1. Biodegradable Plastic – Biodegradable plastics can in theory, be broken down by microbes. Biodegradable plastics or bio-plastics are made from plant materials (starch or cellulose), rather than fossil fuels. There are a number of possibilities on the market and under research.
The big question though – even with these products – what does biodegradable really mean? It does not mean they can go to backyard compost boxes or to to landfills under the expectation they will degrade. What’s required rather, is an industrial scale composting system. Such systems are becoming more and more prominent in dealing with food waste. From coffee cups to sandwich packaging to takeaway containers, putting food in compostable plastics means that – in an ideal world, the plastic and any food waste still stuck to it can be composted together. It’s a triple win: reducing the amount of regular plastic being sent to landfill, preventing recycling from being contaminated with food, and at the same time making sure food waste is returned to the soil, rather than being left to rot in landfill where it will release methane.
The main issue though is that food waste pickup and subsequent industrial composting, while quite widespread in Europe (and some provinces in Canada), is not as prevalent as it could be in North America and in many developing countries.
New plastics that can be continuously recycled – A previous article outlined how few of the plastics in use are recycled. Moreover, the recycled plastic material is of lower quality. Even PET – the most recycled form of plastic (used in beverage bottles) is only recycled at a rate of about 30%.
Now research is underway to produce plastics that can be recycled over and over without a resulting loss of quality. For example, the creation of a new material, called polydiketoenamine, or PDK, was reported in the journal ‘Nature Chemistry’. This formulation along with other research is showing considerable promise but it’s too early to assess commercial viability.
Improving recycling – Today, recycling centers rely largely on mechanical processes, which consist of crushing the plastic into flakes, which are then processed and transformed into plastic granules. These granules are then, in theory, mixed with virgin plastics. It should be possible to manufacture new beverage bottles composed of at least 50 to 70 percent recycled plastic. The difficulty is that there are simply too many types of plastic on the market. Thus, sorting prior to recycling is the main limiting aspect of all recycling programs.
Better sorting – In Europe an initiative called “Project Holy Grail’ is working on much better systems for sorting waste. Postage stamp sized watermarks on packaging—which are not visible to the naked eye—make it possible to effectively sort the material into specific waste streams. With this new technology, it becomes possible to separate materials more accurately. The waste plastic can then be more effectively recycled based on the chemistry of that specific material. Again – this is in a development phase and not yet commercialized.
A worker working with conveyer belt electronics in the factory
Waste needs to be sorted before recycling.
Chemical technology – Some in the industry suggest that chemical recycling may also provide an answer. This is very much at the research or pilot stage. The process would involve pyrolysis, which consists of heating the plastic to a high temperature to obtain a hydrocarbon product, followed by material separations into separate chemical components, followed then by re-polymerization.
GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STEP IN – it has become clear to me that individual action on the home front along with developing technologies that are still at the research stage, will not provide all the solutions needed to deal with plastic pollution. It is my view that governments around the world need to exert more control. There is broad societal support for doing so.
Plastics impose a massive untaxed externality upon society, estimated by the Carbon Tracker and other sources at about $1,000 per tonne ($350bn a year) from resulting air pollution, health costs, collection costs, and ocean pollution. Policymakers, especially in Europe, are implementing much more stringent regulatory regimes using five key tools — taxation, design rules, bans, targets, and infrastructure. However, there is a huge and undoubtedly expected push back from industry on these initiatives. According to the Carbon Tracker report, there is a stark contrast between the plans of the petrochemical industry and the threat of imposed restrictions leading to lower growth. “The petrochemical industry already faces huge overcapacity, but is planning to spend a further $400bn for new capacity. Unless stopped, this will result in continued low prices and significant stranded assets”. (Carbon Tracker)
Fortunately – At least 127 countries have now imposed some sort of ban on single use plastic, even though there as been a relaxation of enforcement during the CoVid crisis. Most European countries now ban such products. Canada will ban the use of all single use plastic by the end of 2021. A few US states also have bans but it’s far from nation-wide. Kenya likely has the strictest regulations of all where citizens can face jail time for breaking the single use plastic laws.
In addition to bans – there are now proposals to force the plastic industry to take more responsibility for the waste their products produce. The most effective plans would require industry to pay for the disposal of plastic waste that cannot be recycled. For example – the European Union plans tax of about $1,000 US per tonne of product The plan also includes rules obliging all plastic packaging to be recyclable, and to set targets for the share of recyclates in packaging.
A CIRCULAR ECONOMY – The issue of plastic pollution in our environment is a clear example of the need to completely re-think global economies and how we measure success that is sustainable. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the standard used around the world but it does not provide information about the overall wellbeing of a country since activities that are detrimental (like waste, deforestation, strip mining, over-fishing, prison populations) actually (and strangely) increase today’s GDP. In my opinion, it is vital that we move towards a circular economy as an alternative to a traditional GDP based lineareconomy (make, use, dispose).
This applies very clearly for plastics in that we keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, then recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life. Yoni Shiran, lead author of ‘Breaking the Plastic Wave’ claims “There are huge benefits in the change from the current linear system to a more circular one. You can have all the functionality of plastics but at half the capital cost, half the amount of feedstock, 700,000 additional jobs and 80% less plastic pollution.” I believe this claim is possible to achieve.
REFERENCES
Can we break our addiction to plastic – Financial Times – October 30, 2019
Closed loop recycling of plastics enabled by dynamic covalent diketoenamine bonds. Nature Chemistry. April 22, 2019
The future is not in plastics. Carbon Tracker, Sept 4, 2020
Holy grail 2.0 is launched – Recycling Magazine 08/09/2020
https://zerowasteeurope.eu
Good information about recycling
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org
Excellent resource on all aspects of the plastics issue and about a circular economy
One example web site that promotes eco-friendly products. There are many such web sites for those interested and I am not able to verify how good some of these items are. It just shows that a number of enterprises are working on resolutions.
FINALLY – FOR LITTLE COMIC RELIEF – Some photos of ridiculous packaging that should be easy to avoid. Maybe not so funny!!!
Bananas are seen in a Conad grocery shop in Rome, Italy, April 10, 2016. REUTERS/Max Rossi
Note – I realize these articles can be unsettling to read especially at a time when we may be looking for more uplifting news. However as a friend noted – the first step in solving a problem is addressing it. I feel obliged to do my small part towards increasing awareness of environmental issues and the need for science based decision- making.
from sciencenewsforstudents.org
Images of common household waste swirling in vast garbage patches in the open ocean or tangled up with dolphins, turtles and seabirds have turned plastic pollution into one of the most widely reported environmental issues of our day. However, what scientists can see and measure accounts for only a fraction of the plastic waste entering the environment. A consideration of tiny plastic fibers may not tug at the heartstrings like a picture of a sea turtle caught in a plastic pop ring, but these tiny particles and fibers are an even greater threat to our planet and consequently, human health.
As an emerging field of study, not a lot is known about micro-plastics and their impacts. The first inkling that plastic pollution is not limited to the plastic bags, soft drink bottles and other visible trash came in the 1960s and 1970s. During a research cruise to the Sargasso Sea in the Fall 1971 a marine biologist noticed peculiar white specks floating amidst the mats of brown seaweed. After some investigating he discovered they were tiny bits of plastic. It was a stunning discovery given the fact that thousands of the broken down particles were showing up in in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Ed Carpenter, now at San Francisco State University, published his observations March 17, 1972, in Science.
An explosion of research to track micro-plastics is revealing a mountain of plastic hidden not only in the oceans but in the world’s rivers, lakes, soils, as well as organisms big and small. Micro-plastics have also been found in the atmosphere and are thus transported around the globe. A seminal study was conducted in 2004 by a marine biologist at the University of Plymouth. Dr. Richard Thompson (who helped coin the term micro-plastic) found beach and coastal sediments off Plymouth, England, teeming with micro-plastics. Scientists around the world really sat up and took notice. Since then, studies have documented microfibers and fragments drifting around every ocean basin, in the bellies of marine species, and even frozen in Arctic sea ice.
WHAT ARE MICROPLASTICS?
Two classifications of micro-plastics currently exist. Primary micro-plastics are plastic fragments or particles that are already 5.0 mm in size or less before entering the environment. These include microfibers from clothing, micro-beads used as exfoliates in personal care products, and plastic pellets. Secondary micro-plastics are micro-plastics that are created from the degradation of larger plastic products once they enter the environment. Such sources of secondary micro-plastics include single use plastics, water and soda bottles, fishing nets, and more.Both types of micro-plastics are recognized to persist in the environment at high levels although it is likely that secondary micro-plastics are more abundant.
Size matters in the definition. Generally, micro-plastics are defined as less than 5 millimeters (mm). The range of 5 mm (size of a grain of rice) down to 1 mm (size of a pin head) is considered ‘large’ in comparison to an abundance of even smaller particles (less then 0.3mm). An even newer definition comes from the discovery of even smaller particles now called nano-plastics (1 to 999 nanometers). The smaller end range would be the size of a virus. In other words these particles are invisible without the aid of powerful microscopy.
Size also matters in terms of the detection of micro-plastics in the environment. Many of the earlier studies counted particles that were either visible to the naked eye or easily detected with standard microscopy. However the early studies were concluding that only a small percentage of the ‘missing plastic’ could be accounted for. To investigate further Melanie Bergmann, a marine ecologist with the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) led a comprehensive study in the Arctic. This study revealed 100 to 1,000 times as many micro-plastic particles frozen in Arctic sea ice compared to earlier studies. Two thirds of what the team found, using analytic instruments that read the chemical signature of plastics, was around 11 micrometers in diameter (about the size of a human red blood cell). Such sized particles were significantly lower than the detection limit of earlier studies. In fact, now it is speculated that some particles are so small that they more resemble a chemical actually dissolved in water.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS
from whoi.edu
We are only beginning to understand the significance of the environmental and health impacts from micro- and nano-plastic particles. Firstly, it’s widely known that a broad range of species, ingest the particles. To date, micro-plastics have been found in over 100 different aquatic species. This does indeed make sense as the small particles resemble food for smaller aquatic species such as plankton, bivalves and small fish.
Since the topic of micro-plastics is still an emerging field of study, many of the effects of the micro-plastics on fish health are still unknown. However, several recent lab studies have shown a link between the ingestion of microplastics with stunted growth rates, reduced appetites, and the potential for reduced reproduction rates. These studies have also shown a correlation between the ingestion of microplastics by larval fish and an increased mortality rate among those fish as a result of the plastic getting stuck and blocking the fish’s digestive tract.
For human populations, even less is known. If the plastic particles remain in the digestive track of fish, it is likely that they would not become part of the human diet. However, smaller fish such as sardines and anchovies are often eaten whole – thus the possibility of human consumption would then occur. Bivalves such as clams and oysters are filter feeders. If exposed to micro-plastics they would accumulate the plastic fibers, which would in turn result in human consumption since bivalves are eaten whole.
Small plastic particles can also absorb other toxic chemicals that may exist in some ecosystems. Like a miniscule Trojan horse, the particles can then ferry in hazardous chemicals and help them accumulate up the food chain.
Perhaps an even greater threat is the airborne particles as they can be inhaled like any other air pollutant. The first study to measure plastic fallout from the atmosphere was published only in 2015. The recent attention to the issue means that there are only a handful of measurements of airborne plastic, and little sense of how the numbers might vary from place to place, depending on weather conditions and where the material is ultimately coming from. Alarmingly, there is growing concern about nano-plastics that are so small they can possibly enter cells and move into tissues and organs. Currently the ability to detect these particles in food and blood samples, etc. does not exist.
The research to date marks the first wave in what is likely to be a flood of such studies in the coming years, directed towards an effort to fill in the picture of how micro-plastics and nano-plastics move around the environment, affect wildlife and affect human health. This research will hopefully lead to increased regulations concerning plastic manufacturing and use. One example – On December 28, 2015, President Obama signed an Act (Microbead-Free Waters Act) banning plastic micro-beads in cosmetics and personal care products. This was long overdue and their use as exfoliates should never have been allowed in the first place.
It is obvious the plastics industry and our dependence on the products requires a comprehensive review that will lead to effective regulations, extensive research, and societal awareness. Such topics will be covered in an upcoming article.
References
Earth Has a Hidden Plastic Problem—Scientists Are Hunting It Down, A Thompson, Scientific American, August, 2018
Microplastics Are Blowing in the Wind, A Thompson, Scientific American, April 2015
(2018, June). What are microplastics?. Retrieved from
THE CRYING INDIAN – If you watched TV during the 1970s and 80s you would likely have seen one of the most iconic ads ever made. A buckskinned, black braided Native American (but called “Indian” in those days) is seen paddling down a pristine river but eventually enters a polluted harbor. He paddles his boat to a bank strewn with litter. As he exits his boat and wanders near a road someone flings a bag of trash from a moving car. The trash scatters at his feet. The Native American then looks into the camera; a single tear is seen rolling down his cheek. The narrator booms –“People start pollution. People can stop it.”
The ad in many aspects is a fraud. The “Crying Indian” is neither Native American nor crying. He was played by an Italian actor known for playing natives in western movies. The ad was sponsored by the organization “Keep America Beautiful”. What eventually became clear, the Keep America Beautiful organization was founded, and is still mainly funded, by the beverage and packaging industries. While anti-littering campaigns should certainly be lauded, the sinister reality behind this campaign was to shift blame for packaging waste in the environment towards the users of the products rather than the manufacturers. Thus began THE MYTH OF PLASTICS RECYCLING.
THE NUMBERS IN REVIEW – In my October 26, 2020 article – “We Are Drowning in Plastics”, I presented dramatic statistics concerning plastic waste. A quick review of the main facts:
6 billion (approximately) tons of plastic materials have been produced in the period 1950 to 2015 (Science Advances, 2017)
The estimate to update that number into 2020 – approximately 9 billion tons
Of the 6 billion tons of plastic ever made up to year 2015 – 9% has been recycled, 12% has been burned, and the remaining 79% has ended up in landfills or in the environment.
The amount of plastic entering the oceans (earth’s last sink) is over 9 million tons each year. This is only a fraction of the total plastic waste generated.
WHAT THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY KNEW – For decades, we have been sorting trash believing that most plastic could be recycled. But the truth is, the vast majority of all plastic produced can’t be or won’t be recycled. In a joint investigation, NPR (U.S. National Public Radio) and the PBS series Frontline found that oil and gas companies — the makers of plastic — have known this reality all along, even as they spent millions of dollars telling the public the opposite.
The main points from this investigation are:
Plastics industry had “serious doubt” recycling would ever be viable
The investigators dug deep into various archives and found internal correspondence. For example, the investigators state — “A report sent to top industry executives in April 1973 called recycling plastic ‘costly’ and “difficult.’ It called sorting it ‘infeasible’, saying ‘there is no recovery from obsolete products.’ Another document a year later was candid: There is ‘serious doubt’ widespread plastic recycling can ever be made viable on an economic basis.”
The industry promoted recycling to keep plastic bans at bay
The investigators interviewed three former top officials from the plastics industry who revealed that the industry promoted recycling as a way to beat back a growing tide of awareness about plastic pollution along with calls for banning certain products (late 80s, early 90s). Recycling, the former officials told NPR and Frontline, became a way to pre-empt the bans and sell even more plastic. In fact the industry projection is to triple production by 2050.
More recycling means fewer profits for petrochemical companies
The more plastic is recycled, the less money the industry will make selling new plastic. And those profits have become increasingly important with the declining market for fossil fuels. In essence the petrochemical companies are aware that a successful recycling operation will become their competitor. Or, if they undertake recycling themselves, it will reduce profits. It’s much cheaper (and thus more profitable) to make new products from raw materials than to make an inferior plastic product from waste.
The sad truth is that is that the plastics industry has promoted recycling mainly to sell more products. The public has been lead to believe that the recycling triangle on the bottom of plastic packing means the item can be recycled. The truth of the matter? – It’s complicated.
Is it really necessary to package lettuce like this? These plastic containers are made of #1 PET thermoform and are usually used for berry containers, salad containers, tomato containers, etc. They are not readily recyclable.
WHAT PLASTICS ARE THERE? WHICH ONES CAN BE RECYLCED
Recycling is determined by two factors: the market and city or municipal government programs. If there’s an organized recycling program along with a demand in the market for the plastics collected, then recyclers and companies will pay for post-consumer recyclables. The market demand is quite limited in reality, and it greatly depends on the type of plastic.
In general terms there are two broad categories of plastic – thermoset plastics and thermo-plastics. Thermo-plastics are plastics that can be re-melted and re-moulded into new products, and therefore, recycled. Thermoset plastics contain polymers that cross-link to form an irreversible chemical bond, meaning that no matter how much heat is applied, they cannot be re-melted into new material and hence are not recyclable.
Examples of plastic containers that can be recycled in curb side programs. These are #2 – HDPE – see table below.
In more specific terms, the following are the various formulations of plastics, what they are used for, the approximate proportions in the waste streams (up to and including the year 2015) and the possibilities for recycling. Note – the numbers – 1 to 7 referenced appear on the plastic items usually in a small triangle.
Similar to #1 – mostly accepted in blue bin programs
3
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
2 forms – a) rigid – for plumbing, windows, bank cards and b) non rigid – inflatable products, electric wire insulation, etc.
5
Some items can be recycled – but there are difficulties in separating.
4
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
Plastic bags, food wrappings, squeezable bottles,
20
Only a few items can be recycled. The big issue is single use bags as they get caught in the sorting machines.
5
Polypropylene (PP)
Bottle caps, straws, coolers, diapers, clothing and carpet fibers, and some food packing – yogurt, margarine, etc.
19
Most cannot be recycled through curb side programs
6
Polystyrene (PS)
White Styrofoam – used in packaging and also for rigid food containers
6
Most municipalities do not accept Styrofoam products in curbside recycling programs
7
Other – category 7
A grab bag of plastics not found in any other category.
24%
Mostly non recyclable
# – Refers to the number found in the triangle on each plastic item — % – Refers to the estimated percentage of each kind of plastic in the waste stream – up to 2015.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECYLING – In general – it is the plastics with the numbers 1 and 2 (mostly) that can be recycled in curbside recycling programs. Others usually need to be taken to recycling locations or are simply sent to landfills or incinerators. Careful citizens will take the time to sort their plastics and take, to recycling depots, those items not permitted in curbside bins. However, the main concern is that a large majority will simply put all plastic items in curbside blue boxes. In such cases – likely the majority – the items that cannot be recycled will be considered trash.
Mixed material such as zip lock bags can be a problem. For instance – take away coffee cups. While the outside of the cup is made of paper, inside is a thin layer of plastic. The PP (Polypropylene) film protects the liquid from seeping into the paper (and thereby burning you) and keeps your warm drink from cooling too quickly. Because there are two different materials, the cups cannot be recycled unless the materials are separated, which is impossible to do by hand and requires a special machine.
Any plastic material with food residues on (or in) it CANNOT be recycled. In order for plastics to be transformed into recycled goods, they must be of decent quality. So, it is important to wash the plastic before it goes in the blue box.
To sum up – most plastic we use cannot be recycled. The plastic industry knows this and yet continues to extensively market plastic for multiple uses. We users can do more by becoming aware and refusing to use single use plastic or buying items that are inappropriately packaged. However, regulation is the only way to revers the troubling trend towards increasing plastic use. Canada for instance will ban single use plastic in 2021. But this is only a start.
UPCOMING – 2 more articles.
The serious concern about micro-plastics
Long-term solutions – yes – we can get out of this mess.
