Perils of plastics: Risks to human health and the environment

Mar 19, 2010 by Richard Harth

Plastics surround us. A vital manufacturing ingredient for nearly every existing industry, these materials appear in a high percentage of the products we use every day. Although modern life would be hard to imagine without this versatile chemistry, products composed of plastics also have a dark side, due in part to the very characteristics that make them so desirable -- their durability and longevity.

Now Rolf Halden, associate professor in the School of Sustainable Engineering at Arizona State University and assistant director of Environmental Biotechnology at the Biodesign Institute has undertaken a survey of existing scientific literature concerning the hazards of to human health and to the we depend on. His findings, which appear in the latest issue of the Annual Review of Public Health, are sobering.

Today, plastics accumulate in garbage dumps and landfills and are sullying the world's oceans in ever-greater quantity. And plastics and their additives aren't just around us, they are inside virtually every one of us— present in our blood and urine in measureable amounts, ingested with the food we eat, the water we drink and from other sources.

Halden's study reiterates the fact that the effects to the environment from plastic waste are acute. Measurements from the most contaminated regions of the world's oceans show that the mass of plastics exceeds that of plankton sixfold. Patches of oceanic garbage—some as large as the state of Texas—hold a high volume of non-biodegradable plastics. Aquatic birds and fish are increasingly victims because biodegradation processes are inadequate to eliminate this durable refuse.

The magnitude of society's burden of plastic waste is only beginning to be fully appreciated. In the U.S., the average person produces a half-pound of plastic waste every day. Around the world, some 300 million tons of the material are produced each year—a figure poised to expand, as new forms of plastics are devised to serve a voracious global appetite. As Halden points out, this annual production alone would fill a series of train cars encircling the globe. "We're doomed to live with yesterday's plastic pollution and we are exacerbating the situation with each day of unchanged behavior," he said.

Adverse effects to human health remain a topic of fierce controversy, though a growing consensus is emerging that plastics and their additives are not always the benign companions we once assumed them to be. Halden says he accepted the invitation to write about plastics and human health "because the topic showcases the bigger problem of how to create a sustainable future for modern civilization."

Two broad classes of plastic-related chemicals are of critical concern for human health—bisphenol-A or BPA, and additives used in the synthesis of plastics, which are known as phthalates. Halden explains that plastics are polymers—long chains of molecules usually made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and/or silicon, which are chemically linked together or polymerized. Different polymer chains can be used to create forms of plastics with unique and useful properties.

BPA is a basic building block of polycarbonate plastics, such as those used for bottled water, food packaging and other items. While it has been considered benign in the form of a heavily cross-linked polymer, its bonds can break down over time, when plastics are repeatedly washed, exposed to heat or other stresses, liberating the building blocks of the chemical, which are toxic. BPA has been recognized since the 1940s as an endocrine disrupting chemical that interferes with normal hormonal function.

Adding to the health risks associated with BPA is the fact that other ingredients—such as plasticizers—are commonly added to plastics. Many of these potentially toxic components also can leach out over time. Among the most common is a chemical known as di-ethylhexyl phthalate or DEHP. In some products, notably medical devices including IV bags or tubing, additives like DEHP can make up 40 or 50 percent of the product. "If you're in a hospital, hooked up to an IV drip," Halden explains, "the chemical that oozes out goes directly into your bloodstream, with no opportunity for detoxification in the gut. This can lead to unhealthy exposure levels, particularly in susceptible populations such as newborns."

What are the overall effects of the plastics we unwittingly ingest? The literature Halden surveyed is ambiguous on this point, despite more than half a century of study. Part of the difficulty lies in the absence of good controls for studying health outcomes, as plastic exposure is a global phenomenon, and finding unexposed subjects for comparison is nearly impossible. It is known however that health effects vary depending on who is exposed—and when. Infants and pregnant or nursing mothers are at heightened risk for toxic exposure or passage of BPA and additives like DEHP.

This January, the FDA announced an important reversal of its 2008 claims regarding the safety of bisphenol-A, expressing new concern about "potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children," and pledging to collaborate with other federal health agencies to reevaluate the chemical's safety.

Studying the effects of low-dose exposure is tricky, usually requiring a very large number of study subjects. Instead, epidemiologists tracking the problem frequently base their conclusions on data gathered from individuals known to have unusually high levels of a chemical—often the result of high-level occupational exposure. Halden insists that further study on low-dose exposure is essential to settle the matter of health risks, noting some evidence in the literature suggests that high-dose studies may be inadequate to properly understand toxic effects from continuous low-level exposures.

Halden explains that while plastics have legitimate uses of benefit to society, their brazen misuse has led to a radically unsustainable condition. "Today, there's a complete mismatch between the useful lifespan of the products we consume and their persistence in the environment." Prominent examples of offending products are the ubiquitous throwaway water bottles, Teflon-coated dental floss and cotton swabs made with plastic PVC sticks. All are typically used for a matter of seconds or minutes, yet are essentially non-biodegradable and will persist in the environment, sometimes for millennia.

Despite the scourge of discarded plastics and the health risks these substances pose, Halden is optimistic that society can begin to make wiser choices and develop more sustainable products, formed from biodegradable, non-toxic chemical building blocks.

New forms of polymer, some made from renewable materials that are digestible by microorganisms, are being explored.

Ultimately, converting to petroleum-free construction materials for use in smart and sustainable plastics will become a necessity, driven not only by health and environmental concerns but by the world's steadily declining oil supply. As Halden emphasizes, the manufacture of plastics currently accounts for about 8 percent of the world's petroleum use, a sizeable chunk, which ultimately contributes to another global concern—the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

"We are at a critical juncture," Halden warns, "and cannot continue under the modus that has been established. If we're smart, we'll look for replacement materials, so that we don't have this mismatch—good for a minute and contaminating for 10,000 years."

Explore further: New tracers can identify frack fluids in the environment

Related Stories

Regulation of chemical in plastics probed

Apr 28, 2008

U.S. congressional Democrats said they are investigating the regulation of a potentially hazardous chemical compound used in baby bottles and other plastics.

Can Recycling Be Bad for the Environment?

Jul 14, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- By now, nearly everyone knows that it is important to recycle. It helps the environment. Even my six-year-old knows that. But what if it doesn't? While it seems pretty straightforward, in ...

Recommended for you

Historian unearths origins of Mexico's water crisis

1 hour ago

A historic three-year drought has left California bone dry. But the state, along with much of the Southwest, is not alone in its water crisis. Mexico, too, is facing a severe water shortage, and Stanford ...

Nepal to end rescue operation on trekking route

5 hours ago

Nepal was wrapping up rescue operations in its northern mountains Monday, saying all the hikers believed to have been stranded on a trekking route by a series of deadly blizzards are now safe.

Major breakthrough could help detoxify pollutants

19 hours ago

Scientists at The University of Manchester hope a major breakthrough could lead to more effective methods for detoxifying dangerous pollutants like PCBs and dioxins. The result is a culmination of 15 years of research and ...

User comments : 13

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WhiteJim
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
the plastic in the ocean needs to be mined and reclaimed for reuse. With large floating masses the size of Texas it should be a goldmine for factory ships that can collect the floating waste plastics and process them into usable raw materials. The problem is that it is cheaper to make new plastic than recycle. This is why perhaps the governments of the world should be the ones funding the factory ships to reclaim the floating plastics so that the reclaimed material can be sold at par with new plastics... which is the same way we recycle plastics on land.
zbarlici
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
ok thats a great idea but it doesnt address the point of the article..
Loodt
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2010
OK, we don't know for sure if there is a problem, but lets assume there is a problem, so give us that lovely lolly, and we'll come back in few years time to give you an answer that will require further investigation! Rent Seekers!

If there was a problem, the legal vultures would have dragged the manufactures to court, muy pronto!
googleplex
not rated yet Mar 19, 2010
I agree. I would add that it would be most cost effective to stop/fine the oceanic dumping of garbage before spending vast sums to clean it up.
If you have a leak in a boat it makes sense to plug the leak rather than just keep bailing it out.
The same argument goes for the toxicity. Is it cheaper to fine/ban toxins or to pay for cancer treatment.
Another big issue toxins are undetectable to consumers. A $1000 lab test on the food/lotion/drink is the only way to detect the toxin. Not good.
laserdaveb
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2010
g,it's not getting there from dumping per se.
Most is discharged from storm drainage systems.
The stuff we leave in the streets finds it's way
to the oceans.
operator
not rated yet Mar 21, 2010
what planet do you live on loodt? your paradigm of how the wrold is, is quite frankly strange. you don't accept AGW or that the ever expanding capitalist system actually pollutes our planet. yes very strange
you are aware of the nano sized plastic that now inhabits the most basic oceanic food chain, the phyto plankton and various single celled organisms.
you are also aware of the way the system is stacked hugely in favour of polluting multi-nations, yeah remember bhopal, union carbide sure got their arse sued there didn't they, not.
Loodt
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2010
Operator, how sad!

I live in world where I get paid in money. Do you live in world where you get paid in sea shells?

How big is your collection of shells and do they accept that at you local Deli?

Or do you just live of food stamps?

They had somebody to sue at Dhopal, who did they sue at Chernobyl again?
operator
not rated yet Mar 23, 2010
well loodt sea shells have previously been used as a resource enchange, i'd prefer seeds as a form of money though, much more useful then your idealised paper wealth.

i guess your american then as you mention food stamps, there are people and a whole world outside of the US you know.

really, you think there was due accountability for bhopal do you, or even the countless cases in your country where industy has polluted peoples and the land.
but no we need to keep worshiping your sacred cow of capitalsim don't we, don't ask questions about it, just accept the status quo and all that it entails.
Loodt
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2010
Operator

They had somebody to sue at Dhopal, who did they sue at Chernobyl again?

How big is your collection of shells and do they accept that at you local Deli?

You are such a deep thinker! Pity you haven't yet managed the art of reading and replying to direct questions!
operator
not rated yet Mar 23, 2010
loodt its you that seems unable to respond, you made reference to your believe that manufacturers and by default, industrial polluters would be sued, when in the real world this is pure bull. your assertion that the plastic accumulation in our oceans isn't actually a problem because if it was then those that would be deemed responsible would be sued is quite idealistic of you, quite naive of how capitalist industry works. and more importantly how plastics gets into our oceans, as laserdaveb mentioned.
and your focus on seashells is it seems just childish, justy because you don't have the imagination of a world where paper wealth isn't a part of it doesn't mean your present paradigm is correct.
operator
not rated yet Mar 23, 2010
oh an as for bhopal, maybe you have heard of it or maybe not, heres a link to the incident
http://www.bhopal.net/
googleplex
not rated yet Mar 30, 2010
Loodt & Operator.
There is a time lag between commercially using a toxin and scientifically proving in court that it is harmful. For a period of time most toxins have been legal until the weight of evidence (not withstanding human suffering and corporate profits). It is purely a matter of time before the lawsuits spring up.
Example, company A builds plastic factory near your home. After 30 years a cluster is identified by cancer statisticians. Then causality is proven by researchers. Then finally lawyers jump on the band wagon.
It saddens me that we know from day 1 that the toxin molecule is perfectly shaped to slide between base pairs in DNA and cause replication mutations, which compound and eventually give rise to cancer.
Yet we must wait. Dumb! The cost of the health care alone is reason enough to not take the risk.
The problem is systemic i.e. "assume safe until proven un-safe". This should be "safe when proven safe".
googleplex
not rated yet Mar 30, 2010
Also people are genetically unique. Individuals can have different tolerences to toxins based on their genetics. So you see there is no standard rat or monkey that are a gold standard of what is safe.