The Minority Must Not Halt the Global Fight Against Plastic Pollution

New research shows that pollution caused by plastic chemicals poses an increasingly severe crisis for public health and the environment. That is why it is deeply problematic that a handful of countries were able to block a global plastics treaty.

Plastic pollution is no longer a future scenario but a reality. In the EU alone, at least 22 million tons of plastic are released into the environment every year. The amount of microplastics in nature is steadily increasing, and the particles are now found everywhere: in the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe.

Plastics contain more than 16,000 chemicals. New research from NGI, NTNU, and Swiss research institutes, published in Nature, shows that around 4,200 of these are hazardous because they are toxic and degrade only slowly. As a result, they accumulate in nature, where they may have unexpected consequences for human health and the environment.

Harmful chemicals from plastics have been detected in humans' lungs, blood, and placentas.

Unfortunately, as research and knowledge increase, so does the number of these harmful substances. Many people are familiar with PFAS – per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances. Lesser known is trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), one of the smallest PFAS, which is rapidly increasing in the global population and is suspected of negatively affecting fetal development.

The list of other severe health impacts is growing – including cancer, hormonal disorders, weakened immune systems, cardiovascular disease, infertility, and impaired brain development. These are not distant risks, but problems we already see today.

Conflicting Interests

Norwegian authorities have been a driving force in tackling plastic pollution and have worked since 2014 to establish more substantial global commitments. Negotiations on a global plastics treaty began in 2022 and have been marked by strong divisions. Norway and Rwanda lead the so-called High Ambition Coalition, which aims to end plastic pollution by 2040. This network of more than 100 countries has pushed for a comprehensive agreement regulating the entire value chain – from production and design to consumption and waste. A smaller group of countries, often PetroStates with significant economic interests in oil and plastics production, have opposed this and want to limit the treaty to waste management. They claim that plastic production itself is not the problem. This minority of countries blocked the agreement in Geneva this summer.

The science, however, is precise: without regulating production to reduce volumes of new plastic and ensuring safer use of chemicals in plastics, we will never succeed in stopping plastic pollution.

A Common Call from Scientists

When the international community gathered in Geneva, Switzerland, from August 5–14 to negotiate, the goal was a comprehensive agreement that would:

• Reduce global plastic consumption
• Ban certain plastic products
• Reduce the use of hazardous chemicals in plastic production
• Facilitate a more circular plastics economy, including better waste management

Toward the end of the Geneva negotiations, concern grew so great that 58 leading scientists – myself included – sent an open letter to the European Commission. We warned against an agreement that ignores science and fails to address the real risks from plastic chemicals, microplastics, and nanoplastics. Recycling alone is not enough. To succeed, the agreement must take a holistic life-cycle approach, including reducing the production of unnecessary and harmful plastics.

The Ambitious Must Take the Lead

Norway and the High Ambition Coalition have been key drivers. Now, Norway, the EU, and other ambitious countries must continue demonstrating global leadership. The EU has the resources, research capacity, and experience to set a new standard.

Going forward, we must ensure that only plastics with real societal value are produced and that these are safer and more sustainable than today. This requires international criteria, common standards, testing, and labeling. This will create equal competitive conditions and foster innovation and more sustainable trade.

For plastic packaging produced in large volumes, there must be strict control of the chemical composition so that the packaging can be recycled and reused. This must be a clean waste stream beyond PET bottles, one type of plastic that can be recycled and reused. The recyclable plastic waste stream must be separated from plastic waste, which has a chemical composition that makes it unsuitable for reuse. Globally, only 9 percent of plastics are recycled, and there is concern that many hazardous chemicals end up in this recycled material. The challenge of reducing the risks of chemical pollution from plastics can only be solved through better control of chemical composition, reduced volume, and higher recycling rates.

Previous experiences with regulating environmental toxins and air pollution show that ambitious measures are needed—measures that protect people and nature while driving innovation and green solutions.

The Road Ahead

Although the Geneva negotiations did not result in a final agreement, there is strong hope, as a large majority of the world’s countries want to move forward. This struggle concerns clean air, safe water, and healthy ecosystems – but also future health, economies, and jobs. This must be done with or without the support of PetroStates.

We must not underestimate the risks of plastic pollution. That is why we cannot let a minority stop the effort. The fight against plastic pollution must continue – and it must be strengthened.