This opinion was written by Andre Picard and was published in the Globe & Mail on January 9, 2026.
A man rides a motorbike past a pile of plastic waste in Vietnam’s Hung Yen province, in November, 2025. More than 450 million tonnes of plastics are manufactured each year.
‘There’s a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?” is a memorable line from the classic 1967 movie The Graduate.
Almost six decades later, the admonition to think about plastics is more timely and urgent than ever. But not because of the business opportunity – instead, it’s because of the growing realization that plastics are having an adverse impact on our health.
“Plastics are a grave, growing, and under-recognized danger to human and planetary health,” a recently published study in The Lancet medical journal stated bluntly. “Plastics cause disease and death from infancy to old age and are responsible for health-related economic losses exceeding US$1.5-trillion annually.” Think about it, indeed. Globally, more than 450 million tonnes of plastics are manufactured each year. Annual production has grown 400-fold since the Second World War, and is expected to hit a staggering 1.2 trillion tonnes by 2060.
What are all those plastics used for? Water bottles, tires, computers, food packaging, medical equipment, airplane parts, shampoos and just about any other product you can imagine.
It’s hard to overstate how revolutionary plastics have been, facilitating incredible advances in many fields: Medicine, engineering, food production, electronics, aerospace and more.
But the same qualities that make plastics useful – namely, their strength and durability – make them difficult to dispose of.
Plastics are essentially immortal. They end up in landfills and waterways, and in the air.
The majority of plastics end up being burned, while most of the rest pile up in the environment. It is estimated that the equivalent amount of a garbage truck full of plastics are dumped into oceans every minute of every day.
Despite our dutifully putting plastic waste out by the curb, very little of it is recycled – less than 10 per cent. It goes to the dump instead. That’s because plastic recycling is technically difficult and economically unviable. Let’s not forget, either, that plastics are made using fossil fuels. The plastic-manufacturing process releases about two gigatons of CO2 and other greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere annually, contributing to climate change.
So, in addition to the planetary harm, what is all this doing to the health of humans, and other mammals?
In recent years, there has been growing interest in microplastics and nanoplastics, the tiny and often invisible bits of plastic that seep and ooze into our air, water and food.
Author and climate activist Assaad Razzouk calls microplastics the “mother of all oil spills.”
While it can take thousands of years for plastic to fully degrade, tiny microparticles are continually shed, especially when plastics are heated or burned.
One study, commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund, estimated that the average person inadvertently consumes up to five grams of plastic weekly – the equivalent of eating a credit card. (Some scientists have challenged the methodology, but the image remains a powerful one.)
Research suggests microplastics are accumulating in our brains (and other organs), and are common in breast milk and our bloodstreams. Animal research suggests exposure to microplastics can affect fertility and cognitive ability, and increase cancer risk, to name only a few worries.
There are, after all, more than 16,000 chemicals used in the manufacture of plastics. Some of them are toxic and carcinogenic; the potential impacts of many others are unknown.
The fossil-fuel and plastics industries argue there is no hard evidence that microplastics actually harm the health of people – the same arguments used by Big Tobacco to justify selling cigarettes, and by Big Oil to dismiss the effects of climate change.
The ultimate impact on human health is unclear because this sort of research is extremely complex, but it’s certainly not good.
There are certainly ways to mitigate the harms being caused by plastics and microplastics. Chief among them is reducing the unnecessary use of plastic products, particularly single-use plastics. Do we really need to produce 500 million bottles of water each year?
We could drastically reduce the use of plastic additives that are clearly harmful, like the widely used Bisphenol A (BPA), the chemical DEHP phthalate (which helps makes plastics more flexible), and the group of flame-retardant ethers known as PBDEs. We could also get a lot better at recycling, which principally requires better sorting.
“Plastics are the defining material of our age,” The Lancet has stated. As a result, plastics and microplastics are found everywhere, from the depths of the ocean to the highest mountains.
How we address the ubiquity of plastics, and their unintended consequences, will define the health of humanity, and the planet, in the years to come.
This article was written by Leslie Kaufman and was published in the Toronto Star on December 7, 2025.
Despite clear evidence that plastic is clogging oceans and beaches and breaking down into microplastics that enter our bodies, humans are continuing to produce the material at accelerating rates.
The result: Global plastic pollution will hit 280 million metric tons per year by 2040, or a dump truck’s worth every second.
That is one of the alarming statistics from Breaking the Plastic Wave 2025, a report by the Pew Charitable Trusts with ICF International. In August, talks to forge an international treaty to rein in plastic pollution collapsed as countries that produce the majority of the material blocked proposals to limit the amount of new plastic created. Meanwhile, recycling rates have remained low. It compiles data from recent research and then runs it through a model to predict outcomes under different policy scenarios. Winnie Lau, director of Pew’s Preventing Ocean Plastics project and one of the authors, said the team “wanted to pull it all together in one integrated analysis to look at impacts across the board.”
If the world continues on the current trajectory, the outlook for 2040 is bleak, the report warns. Global production of new plastic is set to increase by 52 per cent, twice as much as wastemanagement systems. Plasticrelated greenhouse gas emissions are expected to surge by 58 per cent, to 4.2 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year — enough that, if plastic production were a country, it would be the current thirdlargest emitter.
There are some 16,000 different chemicals in plastics and scientists have identified more than one fourth of those as possibly harmful to human health. In the five years since the last Pew report, a wave of research has attempted to understand in particular how a class of chemicals known as endocrine disrupters, widely used in makeup and cookware, may affect digestive, reproductive and cognitive function.
Pew also modelled the global health impacts associated with the making and disposal of plastic (excluding microplastics) and related pollution. The authors estimate the world’s population will lose 5.6 million total years of healthy life in 2025 and 9.8 million years in 2040. Primary plastic production accounts for the majority of this via links to cancers and respiratory diseases.
Countries and communities already have tools at their disposal to reduce the manufacture and use of plastics drastically. In Pew’s ideal scenario, subsidies for plastic production would be eliminated and waste collection would be greatly expanded. If that happened, nearly 100 per cent of consumer packaging could be collected and recycling rates could double, the authors write.
But even under perfect conditions, they concede, microplastics would be much harder to control. The main sources of microplastics are vehicle tire dust, paint and agriculturerelated products — for example, fertilizer sold in plastic pods that dissolve into soil and plastic sheeting that is used for mulch. There are few straightforward substitutes for these materials.
One antiplastics group welcomed the report. Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and a former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator, did say, however, that the authors were overly optimistic in projecting that plastic recycling would grow substantially with different policies in place.
“There’s a good reason why the plastics recycling rate has never reached double digits,” she said. “It’s because its chemical and polymer complexity makes largescale recycling technically and economically infeasible. We’re wasting valuable time by relying on a system that has not worked for decades.”
U of T researchers hope their study will spark further regulation limiting singleuse plastics
This article was written by Kevin Jiang and was published in the Toronto Star on October 23, 2025.
A shocking amount of microplastics — equivalent to the combined weight of around 18 cars — is estimated to flow through the Don River into Lake Ontario a year, seeping into the local food and water systems, researchers from the University of Toronto have discovered.
A similar tide of larger plastic items, mainly consisting of plastic bags and wet wipes, was also detected in the Don. The combined extent of the river’s plastic pollution eclipses that of similar rivers surveyed in the U.S., the study found.
“The amount we found in the Don was actually higher than the Chicago River,” said Chelsea Rochman, a professor of aquatic ecology at the U of T. “A lot of the plastic in the Don River also stays in the Don River, which is concerning when you think about the animals that live in there.”
Few places have gone untouched by microplastics. The tiny plastic shards, ranging between five millimetres to one micrometre in size, have been found everywhere from our soil and waterways to the Arctic and the sea floor. They’ve been detected in most human organs, including the brain, heart, and lungs.
The authors hope their results will help spark further regulation limiting the use of singleuse plastics in order to stem the swelling microplastic tide.
The paper, published Thursday in peerreviewed journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, found an estimated 522 billion microplastic particles — weighing approximately 36,000 kilograms in total — flow through the Don into the lake every year.
The researchers estimate another 20,000 pieces of larger “macroplastics” pass through the river annually, amounting to a total 160 kilograms of mass. The largest slice of these plastics, around 40 per cent, consisted of plastic bags and wet wipes, said Jacob Haney, the study’s lead author and a PhD student.
“There were way more microplastics being exported than macroplastics,” Haney said. “The bigger pieces, they tended to get caught in the river and not make it to Lake Ontario versus the microplastics.”
To reach their results, the team sampled water at four sites of the Don from 2022 to 2023, in storm flow and base flow conditions.
Haney said their study is part of a larger set of studies — researchers also surveyed the Ipswich River near Boston, Mass. as well as the north branch of the Chicago. But neither contained as many plastics as the Don: “We were surprised to see the Don River topped the other rivers,” Rochman said.
She also said many macroplastics came from “mismanaged waste, overflowing garbage cans, illegal dumping” or general littering.
Many of the wet wipes originated from flushing of the sheets down the toilet, she said These wipes then get deposited into the sewage system, which is connected with storm drains: “When you get a heavy rain, sometimes the sewage gets backed up and it will go empty out into the Don,” Rochman explained.
The sources of microplastics are myriad. Some are released as the larger plastics slowly break down in the Don. Others are flaked off as plastic products degrade, such as tiny fibres from clothing or microscopic chips of paint.
A lot of microplastics come from car tires releasing particles from wear and tear. Haney believes the region of Highway 401 that overlaps with the Don is thus “likely a huge source of microplastics.”
A great deal of research suggests that microplastic contamination can have profound consequences on marine ecosystems, from causing physical harm to modifying animal behaviours. What’s more, these particles can accumulate in the bodies of fish and other animals — so when we eat fish from the Don or Lake Ontario, we’re ingesting their microplastics as well.
Rochman’s team has investigated the microplastic content in sport fish from Humber Bay: “We have found hundreds of pieces of microplastics in the stomach of an individual fish. We find tens to hundreds of pieces in the muscle or the filet, the parts that we eat.
“That’s not typical. When we go out in the ocean to look at microplastics, we find maybe zero to 10 pieces in a fish. Here, we never find zero pieces.”
While the health risks associated with microplastics remain elusive, studies link the particles and their chemical additives with a greater risk of heart disease, cancer, neurodegenerative disease, infertility, birth defects and organ damage.
Rochman is pushing for more initiatives to clean up the Don.
Researchers estimate another 20,000 pieces of larger macroplastics pass through the river annually
This opinion was written by Thomas R. Verny and was published in the Globe & Mail on September 26, 2025.
Plastic pollution is the result of human actions and decisions. We must find a solution
Thomas R. Verny is a clinical psychiatrist, academic, award-winning author, poet and public speaker. He is the author of eight books, including the global bestseller The Secret Life of the Unborn Child and 2021’s The Embodied Mind: Understanding the Mysteries of Cellular Memory, Consciousness and Our Bodies.
In the 1967 film, The Graduate, Dustin Hoffman portrays a 21year-old young man contemplating his future. A family friend pulls him aside and earnestly suggests that he should pursue a career in “plastics.” Though hardly anyone paid attention then, the advice turned out to be remarkably prophetic – and oblivious to its dire unintended consequences.
Less than 60 years later, plastics are everywhere. Relatively inexpensive and versatile, they are used in packaging, textiles, foams, car parts, cosmetics, home appliances, toys, bottles, automobile tires, paint … in fact, there is hardly anything manufactured or shipped that does not contain plastic. Excessive reliance on and improper disposal of plastics have gradually led to ever-increasing plastic pollution of the land, oceans and air.
Global plastic use is projected to grow from about 9.2 billion tons in 2017 to 34 billion tons in 2050. [1]. Even if we stopped the production of plastics entirely, the breakdown of plastics already in our environment into toxic particles will continue.
Plastic is a synthetic or semisynthetic polymer with numerous physicochemical properties, and its fragmentation can give rise to particles that can enter our ecosystem, where a process of constant breakdown facilitates their dispersion and absorption by different species, affecting multiple organs and systems. As if that was not concerning enough, we are now finding that the plastic debris can degrade into microplastics, that is, particles less than five millimetres in length, or even smaller nano-plastics, 1-100 nanometres in length, a size invisible to our eyes. I shall refer to them henceforth as MNPs.
Recently, delegates from 180 nations met at the United Nations office in Geneva to end the plastic pollution of the world. One hundred nations favoured a treaty that would reduce the reckless growth of plastic production and put global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Since plastics are made mostly from fuels such as oil and gas, the United States and other oil-producing countries including Saudi Arabia, successfully opposed any limit on the productions of plastics. Upon adjournment, Bjorn Beeler, co-ordinator for the International Pollutants Elimination Network said, “Consensus is dead.” [2].
Twenty years ago, a paper published in the journal Science revealed the buildup of tiny plastic particles and fibres in the environment, coining the term “microplastics.” [3]. The widespread presence of MNPs in humans and the remotest parts of our planet has now been demonstrated in 7,000 studies. [4]. MNPs have been detected in more than 1,300 animal species, including fish, mammals, birds and insects. [5].
This August, just before the failed meeting in Geneva, an international group of experts summarized the current state of knowledge in the Lancet, one of the most reputable medical journals in the world. “There is no understating the magnitude of both the climate crisis and the plastic crisis,” said Philip Landrigan, the chief investigator. “They are both causing disease, death and disability today in tens of thousands of people, and these harms will become more severe in the years ahead as the planet continues to warm and plastic production continues to increase.”
MNPs are in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat including seafood, table salt, honey, sugar, beer and tea. The scientific evidence of their harmful effects on all living beings is emerging. The problem has never been more pressing. [6].
Of course, not everyone in the scientific community agrees with Dr. Landrigan. In his book, Shattering The Plastics Illusion: Exposing Environmental Myths, Chris DeArmitt argues that unfounded claims distort the public’s perception of plastics. [7]. He refers to studies such as one by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration that states: “the presence of environmentally derived microplastics and nano-plastics in food alone does not indicate a risk and does not violate FDA regulations unless it creates a health concern.” [8]. Unless it creates a health concern? How strange that the FDA has managed to stay utterly blind and deaf to the existence of myriad health concerns.
Plastics contain complex mixtures of chemicals, including the polymer backbone and additives, as well as unreacted starting substances, residual processing aids and non-intentionally added substances such as impurities and reaction byproducts. These chemicals can be released throughout the entire plastic life cycle. A study from Norway identified 4,219 chemicals of concern, representing one-quarter of all known plastic chemicals. These are persistent, bio-cumulative, mobile or toxic. Considering that 10,726 plastic chemicals lack official hazard classifications by regulatory agencies or industry, it stands to reason that there could be more chemicals of concern in plastics than the ones identified here. [9]. Additionally, uncontrolled landfilling or incineration can further exacerbate chemical releases. [10].
MNPs impact the feeding and digestive capabilities of marine organisms, as well as hinder the development of plant roots and leaves. [11]. Healthy and sustainable ecosystems depend on the proper functioning of microbiota; however, MNPs disrupt the balance of microbiota. [12].
Global plastic use is projected to grow from about 9.2 billion tons in 2017 to 34 billion tons in 2050. Even if we stopped the production of plastics entirely, the breakdown of plastics already in our environment into toxic particles will continue.
Other threats arise from chemicals in plastic such as BPA, phthalates and heavy metals like lead known or suspected to cause disruption to nervous, reproductive and immune systems, cell death by oxidative stress (an imbalance of free radicals and antioxidants), lung and liver impairments, inflammation and altered lipid and hormone metabolism. [13].
For animals, the physical properties of plastics may lead to harm such as blocked intestines. Animals are also injured when the plastics they ingest release the chemicals they contain. Some marine organisms seem to be eating more plastics and fewer nutrients. All this can be passed up the food chain to humans.
While we eliminate some MNPs through urine, feces and exhalation, many persist in our bodies forever. What happens once they enter our bodies is a question that worries a growing number of scientists and clinicians.
Some of the substances in plastics act as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). This is a very serious threat to our health because EDCs have been linked to declining sperm counts, altered puberty timing, infertility and developmental abnormalities in the reproductive organs. [14].
A review of maternal cell transport by way of the placenta (prenatally) and breast milk (postnatally) has shown that MNPs and many classes of EDCs can cross the neonatal gut, enter circulation and settle in various organs of offspring including the brain. [15,16, 17]. During pregnancy, maternal exposure to MNPs and EDCs may affect fetal growth, brain development, and longterm disease risk. [18].
Early-life exposure in children is particularly concerning, as hormonal systems are still developing, making them more vulnerable to permanent effects. Recent studies highlight the potential for MNP exposure during the perinatal and early-life periods to disrupt neurodevelopmental health. [19].
EDCs are also associated with metabolic disorders such as obesity, diabetes and thyroid dysfunction, since they can alter energy balance and glucose regulation. [20].
Neurodevelopmental outcomes, including attention deficits, lower IQ and behavioural changes, have been reported in populations with high exposure. [21]. Furthermore, some EDCs, like bisphenol A and certain pesticides, are suspected carcinogens, raising apprehension about increased cancer risk. [22].
MNPs enter our bodies by way of contact with our skin, inhalation or ingestion. Depending on how they gain access to the body and where they lodge, MNPs can cause various illnesses in humans. Because of their small size they can penetrate many of the body’s natural defence barriers. MNPs accumulate in the respiratory system, digestive and circulatory systems, liver, spleen and brain. [22]. MNPs have been identified in virtually every human tissue, including placenta, sputum, breast milk, sperm and testicles [20, 21, 22].
In March of this year, according to preliminary findings presented at the American Heart Association’s Vascular Discovery 2025 Scientific Sessions, people with plaque buildup in their carotid arteries carry greater amounts of microplastic particles in those arteries than individuals with healthy vessels. The levels were especially elevated among those who had suffered a stroke, transient ischemic attack or shortterm vision loss linked to blocked arteries. [23].
When MNPs successfully enter the central nervous system through the blood circulation, cerebrospinal fluid or the olfactory nerve [24], they trigger a cascading series of pathological events. The primary mechanisms identified are the induction of oxidative stress, robust neuro-inflammatory responses, mitochondrial dysfunction and direct structural damage to neurons and synaptic connections. [25]. Over time, this chain reaction of pathological events precipitates alterations in neurotransmitter balance, impaired neurogenesis and accelerated neurodegenerative processes.
After entering the central nervous system, MNPs do not distribute evenly. Evidence indicates they accumulate in the hippocampus, amygdala, cerebral cortex and substantia nigra. These structures are essential for cognition, emotional regulation and motor control. Their damage accounts for cognitive and behavioural impairments documented in numerous experimental studies. [26].
While organs such as the liver and kidneys are efficient in excreting foreign compounds, the brain appears less capable of eliminating MNPs leading to a gradual buildup over time. The brain is affected not only by direct MNPs presence but also by remote inflammatory signals originating in the gut, thereby introducing a secondary, system-wide pathway for neurotoxicity. [27].
A 2025 mouse study [28] found that MNPs may act as powerful environmental agents that, when combined with a genetic susceptibility, can accelerate the onset and progression of conditions like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. This has profound implications for public health, suggesting that MNP exposure is a modifiable risk factor for neurodegenerative disease progression like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
R. A. Carlos recently reported on an alarming five-fold increase in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) on the island of Guam from 2016 to 2022. He reviewed 95 studies and concluded that the increased trend paralleled the widespread exposure of young children to microplastics. [29].
Through progressive damage to brain regions involved in learning, memory, emotional regulation, anxiety and motor control, MNPs erode the neural substrates underlying behaviour and psychological health. Although they may not directly produce clinical “personality changes,” current evidence indicates that MNPs induce a spectrum of neurobiological and functional impairments that are likely to manifest as marked shifts in cognition, mood and behaviour. [30, 31].
Today, less than 10 per cent of plastic is recycled. [6]. There is much work to be done. Each one of us should avoid anything plastic. Governments at all levels need to impel plastics manufacturers to disclose their chemical composition, and redesign them so that they do not release microplastics or known chemicals of concern.
Microplastic pollution is the result of human actions and decisions. We created the problem and now we must create the solution.
To see the footnotes for this story, go to tgam.ca.
This article was written by Olivia Rudgard and John Ainger, and was published in the Toronto Star on August 16, 2025.
Efforts to agree on a treaty to curb the proliferation of plastics stalled Friday, leaving nearly three years of negotiations in limbo.
Delegates walked away from the United Nations meeting in Geneva without an agreement, after convening earlier in the month in order to break a deadlock over how to address the threat that plastic pollution poses to human health, wildlife and ecosystems.
Chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso adjourned talks early Friday morning after delegates objected to a text they said lacked mandatory requirements to phase out harmful chemicals, contribute to a fund to pay for cleanup and remediation or limit production. Negotiations would resume at an unspecified future date, organizers said.
“Countries decided that it was better to leave with no treaty than a weak treaty,” said Christina Dixon, ocean campaign leader at the Environmental Investigation Agency, who was observing the talks.
Plastics production continues to grow explosively, according to a 2024 report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. It doubled between 2000 and ’19, from 234 to 460 million tons. Without more ambitious policies, the amount of plastics produced around the world is set to reach 736 million tons by 2040.
Of the 16,000plus chemicals in plastics, more than onefourth are known to be hazardous to human health, while the majority have never been tested for toxicity, according to a recent paper in Nature. These chemicals appear to be found in every major plastic type, the study found. In the final meeting, countries expressed dismay an agreement was still out of reach.
“Our work has been frustrated and we are incredibly disappointed that we have not been able to agree a treaty,” Emma Hardy, the U.K.’s water minister, said in the closing plenary early Friday.
Fabienne McLellan, managing director of OceanCare, a nonprofit, said the most recent draft presented by the chair wasn’t strong enough and delegates had declined to agree on a treaty that was insufficiently binding.
“This is a missed opportunity that the ocean cannot afford,” she said in an emailed statement.
Over six rounds of negotiations, delegates struggled to bridge a divide between two groups. The majority of countries favoured a treaty that would cap the amount of plastic produced and set limits on certain toxic chemicals while a smaller group, led by oilproducing countries including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, wanted to keep the agreement’s focus on plastic waste collection and better recycling.
During the most recent set of talks, the U.S. aligned itself with this second group, saying it opposed restrictions on business and commerce.
This article was written by Jennfier McDermott and was published in the Globe & Mail on August 16, 2025.
Negotiations to reach a major treaty to end growing plastic pollution around the world fell apart on Friday, with delegates in Switzerland adjourning with no immediate plans to resume.
The consequence of the failed talks is devastating, as it leaves no clear path for nations to collectively address the mountains of plastic that are filling landfills, clogging oceans and showing up in chunks on beaches and other public places.
“Consensus is dead,” Bjorn Beeler, international co-ordinator for the International Pollutants Elimination Network, upon adjournment.
Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tons of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70 per cent by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it’s also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics.
The final decision, or lack thereof, underscored the influence of the United States and other oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, which opposed any limit on the productions of plastics, made mostly from fuels like oil and gas.
Nations had worked for 11 days at the United Nations office in Geneva. But they were deadlocked over whether the treaty should reduce exponential growth of plastic production and put global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics.
The negotiations were supposed to be the last round and produce the first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, including in the oceans. But just like at the meeting in South Korea last year, the talks ended with no agreement.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, wrote and presented two drafts of treaty text in Geneva based on the views expressed by the nations. The representatives from 184 countries did not agree to use either one as the basis for their negotiations.
China’s delegation said the fight against plastic pollution is a long marathon and that this temporary setback is a new starting point to forge consensus.
For any proposal to make it into the treaty, every nation must agree. India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Vietnam and others have said that consensus is vital to an effective treaty. Some countries want to change the process so decisions may be made by a vote if necessary.
The biggest issue of the talks has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things like better design, recycling and reuse.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the U.S. opposed cutting plastic production or banning chemical additives in the treaty. The U.S. supported provisions to improve waste collection and management, improve product design and drive recycling, reuse and other efforts to cut the plastic dumped into the environment.
Canada, which has been instrumental in bringing countries to the table and hosted the fourth round of talks in 2024, didn’t push other countries to adopt a cap.
In a briefing Friday, Environment Canada officials said they know that many countries are opposed to a production cap – so Ottawa didn’t press the issue.
This article was written by Jennifer McDermott and was published in the Globe & Mail on August 15, 2025.
Activists stage a protest Wednesday during negotiations for a landmark global treaty on plastic pollution in Geneva.
Meeting will reconvene Friday after several delegations said current text was unacceptable
Negotiations on a global treaty to end plastic pollution will draw to a close Friday, as nations remain deadlocked over whether to tackle the exponential growth of plastic production.
A new draft of the treaty was expected Thursday, the last scheduled day of negotiations, and a meeting for all of the delegates was scheduled. It was repeatedly postponed until just before midnight. Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, called delegates to the assembly hall, but said consultations on the revised draft were still continuing.
He adjourned in less than a minute and quickly left the stage. Some in the audience gasped. They will reconvene Friday.
Andreas Bjelland Eriksen, Norway’s Minister for Climate and the Environment, said prolonging the meeting was much better than ending it Thursday. Norway and many other delegations have said the current treaty text is unacceptable.
“It means that the chair still believes that it’s possible to drive this process forward. That’s great,” he said.
The draft of the treaty released Wednesday wouldn’t limit plastic production or address chemicals used in plastic products.
Instead, it’s centred on proposals where there’s broad agreement – such as reducing the number of problematic plastic products that often enter the environment and are difficult to recycle, promoting the redesign of plastic products so they can be recycled and reused, and improving waste management.
It asks nations to make commitments to ending plastic pollution, rather than imposing global, legally binding rules.
French President Emmanuel Macron said the “lack of ambition” in the draft treaty was unacceptable, and that agreeing to a global treaty against plastic pollution “is our opportunity to make a difference.”
“Every day, our health is more threatened. What are we waiting for to take action?” he wrote on LinkedIn. “I call on all states present in Geneva to adopt a text that meets the environmental and health emergency. For our health. For our environment. For our children.”
The talks involve representatives from 184 countries and more than 600 organizations.
Mr. Eriksen said Norway’s representatives won’t leave Geneva with “just any treaty.” Norway is helping to lead a coalition of countries called the High Ambition Coalition that want a comprehensive approach to ending plastic pollution, including reducing production.
“We are going to be flexible, but at the same time ambitious in our positions, and work with every single hour that we have left to bring this to a conclusion, a positive conclusion, because the world needs a plastics treaty now.”
Mr. Eriksen said he’ll stay “cautiously optimistic” until the bitter end.
Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tonnes of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70 per cent by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production as well as tackle cleanup and recycling. Many have said it’s essential to address toxic chemicals.
Powerful oil and gas-producing nations and the plastics industry oppose production limits. They want a treaty focused on better waste management and reuse. They have raised different concerns with the draft text, saying it doesn’t have the scope they want to set the parameters of the treaty or precise definitions.
Luay Almukhtar, head of Iraq’s delegation, said Iraq would not support a treaty that reduces the production of polymers used to make plastics because it’s not in the country’s interest and it could negatively affect society and economies.
But he said Iraq supports restricting certain chemical additives for some applications and reducing some single-use and short-lived plastic products. Limiting those products, in turn, would reduce plastic production, he added. He hopes to leave Geneva with a treaty.
“Plastic pollution is a big environmental issue and we have to work together to defeat it. That’s why we are here,” he said. “We try to be a bridge, in the middle, on this issue and we are also practical. It’s a balanced approach between environment and economy.”
It’s the sixth time nations are meeting and the 10th day of negotiations. Talks last year in South Korea were supposed to be the final round, but they adjourned in December at an impasse over cutting production.
World split on putting a limit on production in draft treaty
This article was written by Jennifer McDermott and was published in the Toronto Star on August 14, 2025.
Negotiators working on a treaty to address global plastic pollution discussed a new draft of the text Wednesday that wouldn’t limit plastic production or address chemicals used in plastic products.
The biggest issue of the talks has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things like better design, recycling and reuse. About 100 countries want to limit production as well as tackle cleanup and recycling. Many have said it’s essential to address toxic chemicals.
Powerful oil and gasproducing nations and the plastics industry oppose production limits. They want a treaty focused on better waste management and reuse.
Countries with very divergent views expressed disappointment with the draft. It could change significantly and a new version is expected Thursday, the last scheduled day of the negotiations.
When they convened Wednesday night, Colombia’s delegation said the text was entirely unacceptable, because it was unbalanced and lacked the ambition and global obligations needed to end plastic pollution. The delegation said it wouldn’t accept the wording as the basis for negotiations.
The head of Panama’s delegation to the talks, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, stood up and cheered. Many delegations made statements to agree, including Mexico, Chile, Ghana, Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom, the European Union and the group of small island developing states.
“Let me be clear — this is not acceptable for future generations,” said Erin Silsbe of Canada.
Oil and gasproducing nations raised other concerns, with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and others saying that the draft doesn’t have the scope they want to set the parameters of the treaty or precise definitions.
The United States said six articles cross red lines, but didn’t say how.
India’s delegation, on the other hand, said the draft is a “good enough starting point.”
The draft contains one mention of plastic production in the preamble, reaffirming the importance of promoting sustainable production and consumption of plastics. It doesn’t contain an article on production from a previous draft. There is no mention of chemicals.
The new provisions seek to reduce the number of problematic plastic products that often enter the environment and are difficult to recycle and promote the redesign of plastic products, so that they can be recycled and reused. Parties to the treaty would improve their waste management.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, wrote the draft based on the views expressed by nations over the course of the negotiations. He told them he did it to move them closer to a legally binding instrument, and they can shape and improve it, as well as add and delete wording.
With little time left, he said, it’s time to build bridges, not dig in over red lines.
It’s the sixth time negotiators are meeting to try and hash out new international deal to end crisis
This article was written by Jennifer McDermott and was published in the Toronto Star on August 6, 2025.
Nations kicked off a meeting on Tuesday to try to complete a landmark treaty aimed at ending the plastic pollution crisis that affects every ecosystem and person on the planet.
It’s the sixth time negotiators are meeting and they hope the last. A key split is whether the treaty should require cutting plastic production, with powerful oilproducing nations opposed; most plastic is made from fossil fuels. They say redesign, recycling and reuse can solve the problem, while other countries and some major companies say that’s not enough.
Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee that aims to develop a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, said: “We are pretty sure nobody wants plastic pollution. Still, we have not been able to find a systematic and an effective way to stop it.”
Only a treaty can mobilize the necessary global action, said Angelique Pouponneau, lead ocean negotiator for 39 small island and lowlying coastal developing states. At home in the Seychelles, Pouponneau said, plastic contaminates the fish they eat, piles up on beaches and chokes the ocean to undermine tourism and their way of life.
“It’s the world’s final opportunity to get this done and to get it done right,” she said. “It would be a tragedy if we didn’t live up to our mandate.”
United Nations Environment Programme’s executive director Inger Andersen said the issues are complex, but the crisis is “really spiralling” and there’s a narrow pathway to a treaty. She said many countries agree on redesigning plastic products to be recycled and improving waste management, for example.
“We need to get a solution to this problem. Everybody wants it. I’ve yet to meet somebody who is in favour of plastic pollution,” Andersen said.
Between 19 million and 23 million tons of plastic waste leak into aquatic ecosystems annually, which could jump 50 per cent by 2040 without urgent action, according to the UN.
In March 2022, 175 nations agreed to make the first legally binding treaty on plastics pollution by the end of 2024. It was to address the full life cycle of plastic, including production, design and disposal.
Talks last year in South Korea were supposed to be the final round, but they adjourned in December at an impasse over cutting production. Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tons of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70 per cent by 2040 without policy changes.
About 100 countries want to limit production as well as tackle cleanup and recycling. Many have said it’s essential to address toxic chemicals.
Panama led an effort in South Korea to address production in the treaty. Negotiator Debbra Cisneros said they’ll do so again in Geneva because they strongly believe in addressing pollution at the source, not just through downstream measures like waste management.
“If we shy away from that ambition now, we risk adopting an agreement that is politically convenient, but environmentally speaking, is ineffective,” she said.
About 300 businesses that are members of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty — companies such as Walmart, the CocaCola Company, PepsiCo and L’Oréal — support reducing production along with increasing recycling and reuse. The coalition includes major food and beverage companies and retailers who want an effective, binding treaty with global rules to spare them the headaches of differing approaches in different countries.
Some plasticproducing and oilandgas countries firmly oppose production limits. Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter of one common type of plastic, has led that group in asserting there should be no problem producing plastic if the world addresses plastic pollution.
The U.S. doesn’t support global production caps or bans on certain plastic products or chemical additives to them.
The State Department says it supports provisions to improve waste collection and management, improve product design and drive recycling, reuse and other efforts to cut the plastic dumped into the environment.
“If the negotiations are to succeed, the agreement must be aimed at protecting the environment from plastic pollution, and the agreement should recognize the importance plastics play in our economies,” the State Department said in a statement to the Associated Press.
How high will negotiators aim? For any proposal to make it into the treaty, every nation must agree. Some countries want to change the process so decisions may be made by a vote if necessary. India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and others have opposed that, arguing consensus is vital to an effective treaty.
Negotiators are discussing making some provisions optin or optout to avoid a stalemate. Bjorn Beeler, international coordinator for the International Pollutants Elimination Network, said that would mean a treaty without teeth or obligations, with little value.
Cisneros said that if carefully crafted, it’s an option to find some common ground.
Greenpeace will be in Geneva calling for at least a 75 per cent reduction in plastic production by 2040.
“We will never recycle our way out of this problem,” said Graham Forbes, who leads the Greenpeace delegation.
About 80 government ministers are attending talks that will last 10 days — the longest session yet, with adjournment scheduled for Aug. 14.
“ It’s the world’s final opportunity to get this done and to get it done right. It would be a tragedy if we didn’t live up to our mandate.
ANGELIQUE POUPONNEAU LEAD OCEAN NEGOTIATOR FOR 39 SMALL ISLAND AND LOWLYING COASTAL DEVELOPING STATES
This article was written by Olivia Le Poidevin and Valerie Colcovici, and was published in the Globe & Mail on August 5, 2025.
A women takes a selfie with The Thinker’s Burden, by Canadian artist, activist and photographer Benjamin Von Wong, in front of the UN office in Geneva on Monday. The remix of Rodin’s iconic sculpture was created for global plastics talks.
U.S. policy rollbacks and pressure from oil-producing countries threaten agreement as delegates gather for talks in Geneva
Hopes for a “last chance” ambitious global treaty to curb plastic pollution have dimmed as delegates gather this week at the United Nations in Geneva for what was intended to be the final round of negotiations.
Diplomats and climate advocates warn that efforts by the European Union and small island states to cap virgin plastic production – fuelled by petroleum, coal and gas – are threatened by opposition from petrochemical-producing countries and the U.S. administration under Donald Trump.
Delegates will meet officially from Tuesday for the sixth round of talks, after a meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) in South Korea late last year ended without a path forward on capping plastic pollution.
The most divisive issues include capping production, managing plastic products and chemicals of concern, and financing to help developing countries implement the treaty.
Delegates told Reuters that oil states, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, plan to challenge key treaty provisions and push for voluntary or national measures, hindering progress toward a legally binding agreement to tackle the root cause of plastic pollution.
Government spokespeople for Saudi Arabia and Russia were not immediately available for comment.
Andres Del Castillo, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), a non-profit providing legal counsel to some countries attending the talks, said oil states were questioning even basic facts about the harm to health caused by plastics.
“We are in a moment of revisionism, where even science is highly politicized,” he said.
The U.S. State Department told Reuters it will lead a delegation supporting a treaty on reducing plastic pollution that doesn’t impose burdensome restrictions on producers that could hinder U.S. companies.
A source familiar with the talks said the U.S. seeks to limit the treaty’s scope to downstream issues such as waste disposal, recycling and product design.
It comes as the Trump administration rolls back environmental policies, including a longstanding finding on greenhouse gas emissions endangering health.
More than 1,000 delegates, including scientists and petrochemical lobbyists, will attend the talks, raising concerns among proponents of an ambitious agreement that industry influence may create a watereddown deal focused on waste management, instead of production limits.
The petrochemical industry said it continues to support a global treaty and has been urging the U.S. administration and Congress to “lean in” in negotiations.
Stewart Harris, spokesperson for the International Council of Chemical Associations, said the U.S. in particular has an opportunity “not just at the negotiating table, but really on the implementation of the agreement” to promote the use of new technologies in mechanical recycling and advanced recycling, which turns plastic waste into fuels, globally.
Plastic production is set to triple by 2060 without intervention, choking oceans, harming human health and accelerating climate change, according to the OECD.
“This is really our last best chance. As pollution grows, it deepens the burden for those who are least responsible and least able to adapt,” said Ilana Seid, permanent representative of Palau and chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).
Small island states are particularly affected by plastic waste washing ashore, threatening their fishing and tourism economies. They stress an urgent need for dedicated international funding to clean up existing pollution.
“Plastics are a concern for human health because [plastic] contains about 16,000 chemicals, and a quarter of these are known to be hazardous to human health,” said Dr. Melanie Bergmann of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany.
Jodie Roussell, global public affairs lead at food giant Nestlé and a member of a 300-company coalition backing a treaty to reduce plastic pollution, told Reuters that harmonizing international regulations on packaging reduction and sustainable material use would be the most costeffective approach.
French politician Philippe Bolo, a member of the global Interparliamentary Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, said that a weak, watered-down treaty that focuses on waste management must be avoided.
Mr. Bolo and a diplomatic source from a country attending the talks said the potential of a vote or even a breakaway agreement among more ambitious countries could be explored, as a last resort.
Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, however, said countries should push for a meaningful pact agreed by consensus.
“We’re not here to get something meaningless … you would want something that is effective, that has everybody inside, and therefore everybody committed to it,” she said.
My Climate Change Website 