Plastics pollution led to $250 billion in disease over one year

New research shows that chemicals leached from plastic are making Americans significantly more sick and poor.

In 2018 alone, the hormone-disrupting effects of plastics in the nation's food and water led to an additional $25 trillion in health care costs, according to a study published Thursday in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

This equates to 5 percent of U.S. health care spending and more than 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), New York University researchers found.

To put this number in context, GDP growth in 2018 was approximately 3% year-over-year, with one-third of that consumed by chemicals such as PFAS, phthalates, and biophenols.

Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician at New York University School of Medicine, said the surge in plastic production is a “dangerous and unnatural experiment.”

“We are coming to terms with the reality that this is an urgent human health issue,” he added.

Researchers have found that microplastics and nanoplastics significantly increase conditions such as obesity, premature birth, cancer, and heart disease by interfering with the human body's chemical messengers.

“Hormones are signaling molecules that underlie basic biological functions such as body temperature, metabolism, salt, sugar, and sex,” says Trasande.

“When these hormones are hacked, they have wide-ranging effects from cradle to grave,” he added, with particularly detrimental effects on young children's “developing brains.”

In both cases, the scientists studied chemicals that can leach directly from intact plastic into food, as opposed to microplastics and nanoplastics, which are produced when plastic breaks down.

But their small size makes it easier for chemicals to migrate away from plastic particles, leading Trasande to call them “carrier pigeons” for hormone-disrupting chemicals.

Most of these costs ($161 billion) were due to polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), chemicals used as flame retardants in electronics, furniture, and textiles.

They easily enter the environment and become more concentrated as they move through the food chain.

About half of that, an estimated $67 billion, came from phthalates, additives used to make plastics such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more durable and flexible.

Because of their properties, phthalates are commonly used in products ranging from food packaging to plastic films used in greenhouses, from which the chemicals can leach directly into food.

Phthalates interfere with the body's ability to produce and process fat, contributing to obesity and diabetes.

But they can also mimic sex hormones and cause testicular cancer and breast cancer.

Finally, the health impact of perfluorinated and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS), a new class of plastics derived from coal tar known for their resistance to heat, water, dirt, and oil, is estimated at approximately $22 billion. I'm going up.

As such, PFAS are commonly used in products such as single-use food packaging, take-out containers, and industrial food processing.

But the same properties that make PFAS useful also make them very difficult for the body to break down. This compound is therefore known as the “eternal chemical.”

And although scientists have linked them to diseases ranging from cancer, liver and kidney problems, low birth weights in children, and thyroid disorders, Trasande says thyroid hormones are “crucial for a baby's brain. “Therefore, prenatal exposure is of particular concern.” development. “

The scientists stressed that the real impact of plastic pollution is likely to be much greater than the impact found in the study.

That's because they limited their investigation to only the most documented costs, the most documented diseases, and a handful of the most clearly harmful plastic chemicals.

These findings are therefore “an underestimate of an underestimate,” Trazande said.

The team also emphasized that there are clear solutions, both from a personal and policy perspective. This means that people and society can significantly reduce their exposure to all chemicals except PFAS by reducing their use of non-essential plastics.

Trasande cited a famous scene from the 1967 film “The Graduate,” in which an older relative advises Dustin Hoffman's character to consider a future in “plastics.”

Before the film was released, “glass and stainless steel were more widely used without affecting the ability of humans to live,” Trazande said.

“Plastics have essential uses, not the ones we're talking about. What we're talking about are non-essential uses that have exploded.”

He pointed to “cucumbers in plastic wrap,” or single-use plastic utensils sealed with a layer of single-use plastic.

But ultimately the scientists emphasized the importance of securing a binding agreement through a specific political process. It is an ongoing and widely popular United Nations attempt to secure a treaty to significantly reduce global plastic pollution.

As The Hill reported, this is a process in which the fossil fuel industry is trying to keep bans on dangerous chemicals or any kind of reduction in plastic production out of the discussion.

This impetus comes from what the fossil fuel industry is planning. Dramatically increase plastic production According to a study by Bennington College's Beyond Plastics program, this is to offset the decline in market share due to the growth of renewable energy.

But while the plastics treaty process has focused on environmental costs, it is equally important for negotiators and regulators to focus on human health impacts, the scientists said.

For Trasande, this movement is like a treadmill for plastic-induced diseases. When a plastic polymer or additive turns out to be toxic, the industry creates a new one, and the process continues in a cycle.

“We continue to identify the effects of new and alternative chemicals on the human body,” he said.

“But at some level, you have to step back and say, 'One percent of GDP is wasted on the impact on human health of an industry that makes money on people's backs.'”

That's “a problem. I don't think people really understand that or the need to speak out about it.”