Health on the Negotiating Table: Stakeholder Reflections on the Plastics Treaty Draft

About this Event

This event provided perspectives on the chair’s non-paper of December 2024, that is the result of the first part of fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution (INC-5), which took place in Busan. The event will highlight perspectives from INC members and stakeholders on what improvements are needed in the chair’s text to ensure that the plastics treaty will protect human health.

Humans are exposed to many toxic chemicals and microplastics through inhalation, ingestion, and direct skin contact throughout the plastic lifecycle. While the health impacts of plastics are still a relatively new research area, scientific results to date indicate that plastic causes diseases, disability, and premature death at every stage of its life cycle.

The toxic chemical additives and pollutants found in plastics threaten human health globally. Scientifically-proven health effects include causing cancer or changing hormone activity (known as endocrine disruption), which can lead to reproductive, growth, and cognitive impairment. One hundred and forty-four chemicals or chemical groups known to be hazardous to human health are actively used in plastics for functions varying from antimicrobial activity to colorants, flame retardants, solvents, UV-stabilizers, and plasticizers. Exposure can occur throughout the life span of plastic products, from the manufacturing process to consumer contact, recycling, and waste management and disposal. Testing of human samples consistently shows that nearly all people have EDCs in their bodies. Microplastics contain chemical additives, which can leach out of the microplastics and expose the population. They can also bind and accumulate toxic chemicals from the surrounding environment, such as seawater and sediment, as carriers for toxic compounds.

Recent studies from IPEN show that nearly everyone is exposed to chemicals from plastic. In the study “Plastics Poison the Workplace – Chemical Exposures to Plastic Waste and Recycling Workers”, IPEN gave wristbands to 30 workers in Thailand- recycling workers, plastic waste workers, and office employees. Each participant wore a wristband for five workdays to capture skin-absorbed chemicals, which were then sent to an independent lab for testing. The lab analyzed 73 chemicals, including phthalates and bisphenols. Findings revealed that all workers were exposed to at least 21 different chemicals, with waste and recycling workers having the highest concentrations. In a second study “Toxics Plastic Chemical Exposure to Chemicals to Plastics Treaty Stakeholders“, IPEN equipped 12 delegates from Asia, Latin America, and Europe at the UN Plastics Treaty Summit in Busan, South Korea, with wristbands. Each delegate recorded at least 29 chemicals across the six categories.

The WHO called for pursuing the highest attainable standard of human and environmental health to be a core objective of the treaty and highlighted the need to address the known and predicted health risks and exposures associated with plastic polymers, chemicals and additives, microplastics, and nanoplastics at all stages of the plastics lifecycle.

Leading experts joining the panel of this event provided feedback on the chair’s text and highlight which important improvements could be made at INC5.2 to ensure the treaty will safeguard human health.

Geneva Beat Plastic Pollution Dialogues

The world is facing a plastic crisis, the status quo is not an option. Plastic pollution is a serious issue of global concern which requires an urgent and international response involving all relevant actors at different levels. Many initiatives, projects and governance responses and options have been developed to tackle this major environmental problem, but we are still unable to cope with the amount of plastic we generate. In addition, there is a lack of coordination which can better lead to a more effective and efficient response.

Various actors in Geneva are engaged in rethinking the way we manufacture, use, trade and manage plastics. The Geneva Beat Plastic Pollution Dialogues aim at outreaching and creating synergies among these actors, highlighting efforts made by intergovernmental organizations, governments, businesses, the scientific community, civil society and individuals in the hope of informing and creating synergies and coordinated actions. The dialogues highlight what the different stakeholders in Geneva and beyond have achieved at all levels, present the latest research and governance options.

Following the landmark resolution adopted at UNEA-5 to end plastic pollution and building on the outcomes of the first two series, the third series of dialogues will encourage increased engagement of the Geneva community with future negotiations on the matter.

Speakers

By order of intervention.

Miriam G. MEDEL GARCIA

Head, Environment and Global Health Team, Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva

Laura N. VANDENBERG

Associate Vice Chancellor and Vice Provost for Research & Engagement | Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst | Representative, Endocrine Society

Andrea ZBINDEN

Senior Policy Advisor, Focal Point for UNEP and INC Plastic Pollution, Federal Office for the Environment, Switzerland

Nanny SANTANA

International Relations Advisor, Secretariat of Environmental Health Surveillance and Worker Health, Brazil

Vito BUONSANTE

Law & Policy Advisor, IPEN

Megha RATHI

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Health, WHO

Rico EURIPIDOU

Health Care Without Harm

Halatoa FUA

Director, National Environment Service, Cook Islands

Highlights

Video

Summary

Setting the Scene: The Need to Protect Health in the Plastics Treaty

Miriam G. MEDEL GARCIA |  Head, Environment and Global Health Team, Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva

• The plastics treaty is about protecting people and public health, not just managing materials.
• As INC-5.2 approaches, addressing the full life cycle of plastics, recognizing plastic pollution as a rising global health threat as well as an environmental issue, is urgent.
• While plastic pollution makes up only 0.6% of the global economy, its environmental and health costs are rapidly escalating. Scientific evidence increasingly links plastics-related chemicals and microplastics to serious health effects, such as endocrine disruption and developmental harm. The impacts have already seen in vulnerable communities and this is why Mexico urges the treaty adopts a public health-based approach, aligned with the One Health principle, which it also championed in the pandemic treaty.
• One Health framework underscores the deep interconnection between human, animal, and ecosystem health, calling for coordinated solutions that integrate prevention, surveillance, and control of both health and environmental risks. While prioritizing human lives is important, all three components must be considered equally.
• In the context of plastic pollution, the One Health approach offers a strong basis for meaningful action, recognizing both the toxic effects of plastics and the need to protect biodiversity and ecosystems vital to human survival. Despite divergent views in treaty negotiations on how to address health, whether in general provisions, a standalone article, or not at all, Mexico’s stance is clear: health must not be an afterthought.
• Mexico strongly advocates for a dedicated health article in the plastics treaty, with clear obligations to:
  • Identify and protect vulnerable populations,
  • Integrate health risk assessments throughout the plastic life cycle,
  • Establish science-based exposure guidelines, with gender and age differentiation,
  • Collaborate with WHO, FAO, ILO, and others involved in plastics production and consumption.
• Health impacts are systemic and must be addressed comprehensively. The treaty should uphold human rights, including the right to health, environmental justice, gender equality, indigenous rights, and just transition principles.
• Nationally, Mexico has already taken steps like banning microplastics in cosmetics. Internationally, it supports multilateral action, such as the recent successful inclusion of two hazardous substances (fenton and carbosulfan) under the Rotterdam Convention, breaking a 10-year deadlock. This reflects a growing collective will in Geneva to act on hazardous chemicals and protect both health and the environment.
• Mexico reaffirmed its strong commitment to a science-based, people-centered, and internationally coordinated plastics treaty that addresses both environmental and health impacts.
• Mexico supports the recent World Health Assembly resolution on chemicals, waste, and pollution impacts on health, emphasizing forums where health and environment intersect.
• For the first time, Mexico has merged its health and environment agendas into one team at its Geneva mission, reflecting its recognition of their deep interconnection.
• It urges collaboration with WHO and other global bodies to ensure coherent, non-duplicative policies, and calls for these standards to be fully integrated into the plastics treaty.
• Mexico supports legally binding obligations on chemicals and polymers of concern (Article 3), with an evolving list based on scientific criteria, making the treaty both ambitious and adaptive.
• It advocates for depoliticized, technically informed discussions and supports regional and inclusive diplomacy, particularly with Latin American partners and Switzerland.
• The ultimate goal is to protect human lives, especially the most vulnerable, by embedding values like equity, sustainability, and well-being into the treaty.
• Mexico calls for measurable commitments, not just words, and sees multilateralism as the only path to solve the plastic pollution crisis, through coordinated, inclusive, and science-based international cooperation in order to build solutions that are fair, legitimate, and lasting.
• We are not negotiating technicalities. We are negotiating futures. The treaty is not only about preventing pollution but fundamentally about protecting human lives, especially the most vulnerable. It aims to give real meaning to the right to health and to shape a future where well-being, equity, and sustainability are essential and non-negotiable values.

Scientific Evidence of Health Impacts of Plastics

Laura N. VANDENBERG |  Associate Vice Chancellor and Vice Provost for Research & Engagement | Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts – Amherst | Representative, Endocrine Society

• Research over decades has shown that humans and wildlife are exposed to many chemicals, often unknowingly, including those found in plastics. Some of these chemicals have hormonal activity and are classified as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). These are particularly concerning because hormones are essential at every life stage, especially during development. Vulnerable groups, due to location or life stage, are more susceptible. Exposure to EDCs during critical periods can cause permanent developmental changes, as hormone-driven development cannot be undone or rewired later in life.
• The following three EDCs found in plastics that pose serious health risks are well-studied in many labs around the world:
  • Bisphenol A (BPA), found in consumer plastics, can linings, and household items. It leaches into the environment, affecting brain development, reproductive health, and increasing risks of hormone-related cancers like breast and prostate cancer.
  • Phthalates, used to make plastics flexible, found in medical devices, PVC products, and scented personal care items. Phthalates disrupt hormone production and reproductive functions, and are linked to infertility, thyroid dysfunction, obesity, and diabetes.
  • Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3), found in sunscreens and used in plastics and building materials for UV protection. The latter affects reproductive outcomes, thyroid function, and mammary gland development. Oxybenzone is harmful to marine life, contributing to coral bleaching; banned in some regions for this reason.
• Rising rates of hormone-related diseases globally, including cancers, metabolic disorders, and neurological conditions, are linked to these EDCs. A 2020 authoritative report by the Endocrine Society and IPEN compiles decades of research showing plastics pose a clear public health threat. With increasing plastic production and no sustainable waste solutions, prevention and regulatory action are critical.
• Global plastic production is continuing to rise and is expected to increase further. While bioplastics are being explored as alternatives to fossil fuel-based plastics, they also contain chemical additives that may leach and pose health concerns.

Towards a Chemicals Article in the Plastics Treaty

Andrea ZBINDEN  | Senior Policy Advisor, Focal Point for UNEP and INC Plastic Pollution, Federal Office for the Environment, Switzerland

• Protecting human health from the harmful effects of plastics is an urgent priority and must be central to the future plastics treaty’s goals. It is evident that an integrated approach is necessary across treaty obligations and the health community plays a key role in achieving this.
• A strong treaty article on plastic products and harmful chemicals is essential to protect human health, backed by growing scientific evidence. Transparency across the plastics value chain is crucial to avoid fragmented approaches and enable effective risk management. The treaty aims not to ban all plastics but to make them safer and more sustainable, fostering innovation and a circular economy.
• Building on Mexico’s leadership, Switzerland supports legally binding obligations to phase out the most harmful plastics and chemicals, promoting a two-tier approach combining global commitments and national actions.
• The treaty should require a global phase-out of the most harmful plastic products and chemicals, starting with a global list of restricted items already regulated in many countries with available alternatives. This list will reduce regulatory fragmentation, clarify business rules, and better protect vulnerable populations. It must include a mechanism to regularly update the list based on new science, allowing voting if consensus isn’t reached. Additionally, countries should identify and manage problematic plastics and chemicals specific to their national contexts to address local pollution and circularity challenges.
• An effective Article 3 should allow flexible, time-bound exemptions or phase-out dates to accommodate national circumstances while ensuring global harmonization. This approach will protect human health and the environment and also support a circular plastics economy. Switzerland is eager to host INC 5.2 in Geneva, aiming to foster a successful treaty conclusion.

Making the Case for a Health-Focused Article

Nanny SANTANA | International Relations Advisor, Secretariat of Environmental Health Surveillance and Worker Health, Brazil

• While environmental impacts are widely recognized, the health dimension is often overlooked. A dedicated health article (Article 19) in the global plastics treaty is essential to prevent public health risks throughout their life cycle, from production to disposal.
• Brazil has actively participated in treaty discussions, consistently pushing for health to be integrated into the treaty’s core provisions. The country emphasizes the importance of including a dedicated article on health in the global plastics treaty to ensure that human health is prioritized in efforts to combat plastic pollution. The proposed text, developed at INC-5.1 in Busan, reflects global consultation and aims to be inclusive, pragmatic, and science-driven. Brazil acknowledges that health risks from plastics are real, growing, and demand urgent action.
• The healthcare sector is both a victim and contributor to plastic pollution, as demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic with widespread use of plastic-based protective equipment. People are exposed to plastics both directly (through medical products such as IV bags, tubing, food packaging, children’s toys), but also indirectly (microplastics in the air, water and food).
• While research on the full health impacts of plastics is ongoing, there is already strong, well-documented evidence linking chemicals in plastics to serious health issues. These risks are not speculative and require coordinated action from policymakers.
• The global plastics treaty, particularly through a strong Article 19, can be a key tool in addressing plastic pollution. Plastic pollution disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations, such as low-income communities, children, waste pickers, children and marginalized groups. For instance, in Brazil, there is a large community of waste pickers who perform a critical role in recycling systems and they are often in daily contact with plastic waste. They may inhale toxic fumes from burning plastics, handle contaminated materials, and often lack access to protective gear.
• Marginalized communities are also most likely to live near landfills or incinerators, where exposure to pollutants is constant. A drastic plastic pollution that is not just an environmental and a scientific issue is also a matter of health equity. In this way, the role of Article 19 can be very important because it can turn science evidence into policy into practice.
• Brazil’s proposal for Article 19 aims to advance science-based strategies to strengthen institutional capacity in identifying and addressing the health risks associated with plastic pollution. The article emphasizes protecting human health, with particular attention to individuals in vulnerable situations, including workers in both the formal and informal sectors, especially waste pickers. It also promotes collaboration and information-sharing with relevant international organizations and stakeholders to ensure a coordinated, inclusive response.
• Article 19 would complement the provisions outlined in Article 18 on public information awareness, education and research. The core purpose of this Article is to ensure that the science surrounding plastic pollution translates into policy that safeguards those most affected, particularly in terms of their health. This is about ensuring that parties fulfill their responsibilities and are equipped with the necessary tools to protect human health.
• Without a dedicated health article, the treaty risks overlooking a fundamental dimension of the plastics crisis. The global plastics treaty has the potential to be a landmark agreement not just for the environment but for human health as well. This is an opportunity and a responsibility to build a treaty that protects workers, communities, and consumers that reflects the reality of scientific evidence in further pushes for the integration of health into environmental decision making.
• The inclusion of a dedicated health article within this treaty is essential to achieve a comprehensive, just and effective response to the plastic crisis to ensure that health remains at the forefront of efforts not just in words but also in actions.

Multistakeholder Panel Discussion: Reflections on the Chair’s Text

Vito BUONSANTE | Law & Policy Advisor, IPEN

• Plastics are not only an environmental issue but also a global health threat, as emphasized by IPEN throughout negotiations. From production to disposal, plastics release toxic chemicals—including known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors—into the air, water, and human bodies. These chemicals contaminate food systems, drinking water, and even remote ecosystems like the Arctic.
• With the adoption of Resolution 5/14 by UNEA in 2022, there was a significant opportunity to address the full life cycle impacts of plastics, as none of these should be overlooked and are backed by scientific evidence.
• A recent report launched during INC-5.1 in Busan highlights widespread human exposure to toxic chemicals used in plastics. Using wristbands to monitor chemical exposure, the study involved 30 participants—both waste sector workers in Thailand and office workers, including INC delegates. Results showed that everyone tested had chemical contamination, with waste workers showing significantly higher levels, underscoring disparities in exposure. This reinforces the urgency of recognizing the human right to a healthy and sustainable environment. The findings also stress the need for the global plastics treaty to address these inequalities and eliminate hazardous chemicals from plastics, especially in recycled materials, as additional IPEN studies have consistently shown widespread contamination.
• Following INC-5.1, some progress was made in developing the Chair’s Text, but significant work remains. IPEN’s analysis of the current draft—set to serve as the starting point for INC-5.2 in Geneva—highlights key concerns. These include the need for stronger measures to protect health and a more ambitious approach to reducing plastic production, especially given projected increases over the next few decades. Critically, the draft treaty currently lacks a global mechanism or binding obligations to reduce or eliminate toxic chemicals in plastics—an urgent gap considering the real and growing health impacts already being documented.
• A major concern with the current draft of the treaty, particularly Article 8, is that it still permits toxic recycling, allowing plastics containing hazardous chemicals to be recycled, which would result in a toxic circular economy that perpetuates chemical exposure. Additionally, effective implementation requires adequate funding, and the plastic industry, as a key contributor to the crisis, must be held financially accountable. Lastly, the treaty needs an efficient decision-making process; relying solely on consensus is unworkable in the face of strong disagreements. Instead, decisions should be guided by sound science and allow for majority voting where necessary.
• IPEN has outlined key recommendations for a health-protective global plastics treaty based on its 17-point platform developed in 2022. Their assessment of the current treaty draft shows it falls short and needs significant improvement. These measures aim to create a treaty that truly addresses the health and environmental harms posed by plastics. Key prescriptions include:
  • Maintaining a clear health objective and emphasizing a life cycle approach to plastic regulation.
  • Systematically banning toxic chemicals and toxic recycling, supported by a science review committee grounded in independent science.
  • Addressing regrettable substitution, where banned chemicals are replaced with similarly harmful ones, by banning groups of chemicals with shared toxic characteristics.
  • Ensuring chemical transparency, with the public having the right to know what chemicals are in plastics to enable informed decisions and protection for those handling them.
  • Supporting national plastic health assessments aimed at minimizing risks to human health.
• Communities in the Global South—particularly Indigenous peoples, waste workers, and children—are disproportionately affected by plastic pollution, suffering from illness, contaminated food and water, and shortened lifespans. They are not just stakeholders but the ones paying the highest price for inaction. The treaty must not reinforce the status quo by focusing solely on waste management. Instead, it must aim to transform the plastic economy, avoiding a toxic circular economy that recycles harmful chemicals.
• Through Article 3, there must be a clear mechanism to ban toxic chemicals and detoxify plastics, as continuing with business as usual is not an option.

Megha RATHI | Department of Environment, Climate Change and Health, WHO

• The World Health Organization (WHO)has actively engaged in the treaty process through submissions, information papers, and events, and continues to advocate for a health-protective treaty.
• WHO has outlined three guiding principles for integrating health into the global plastics treaty, aligned with WHO’s broader mission to protect human health and the environment.  The principles are the following:
  • Pursue the highest attainable standards of human and environmental health as a core treaty objective, aligning with the “health in all policies” approach.
  • Address plastic pollution across the entire life cycle, not just waste management—this includes toxic chemicals, micro- and nano-plastics, and air pollution.
  • Ensure access to safe, high-quality, affordable, and effective health products, recognizing the health sector’s reliance on plastics.
• The 76th World Health Assembly in 2023 passed Resolution 76.17, acknowledging that the production, consumption, and disposal of plastics—including microplastics and associated chemicals—pose risks to human, animal, and environmental health. This reflects growing recognition of the interconnectedness of health and the environment, aligning with the One Health approach. WHO has also made climate change and the environment a strategic priority in its new global program of work. Additionally, the resolution emphasizes the human right to a healthy, clean, and sustainable environment and underscores the need to act on upstream determinants to better promote and protect health.
• Informed, transparent decision-making based on the best available evidence is essential. As a leading expert body, WHO is committed to providing guidance and support to member states in shaping and implementing the plastics treaty and related health policies.
• Plastic pollution significantly contributes to the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, all of which have serious health implications. Plastics emit greenhouse gases throughout their life cycle (production, transport, disposal), particularly through incineration. Scientific evidence shows that plastics harm human health at every stage, with vulnerable populations, such as waste workers, Indigenous communities, immunocompromised individuals, and low-income groups bear the greatest burden.
• There is a growing body of research on the health risks of micro- and nanoplastics, underscoring the need for a life-cycle approach to plastics in the treaty. The use of single-use plastics is largely unnecessary, with reusable alternatives often available. Cigarette butts, as the most littered plastic item with no health or environmental benefit, are cited as an example of a product that should be eliminated entirely.
• Plastics used in the healthcare sector, while essential for sterility, durability, and affordability, pose significant health and environmental risks. Chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates leach from medical plastics into human bodies, and disposal through incineration releases carcinogens. Plastics account for over 30% of medical waste, much of which is poorly managed in low- and middle-income countries, often ending up in landfills or openly burned, causing further health hazards.
• There is a growing call for innovation in the health sector to replace hazardous plastics with safer alternatives, and to adopt reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies. These efforts must balance equitable access to quality healthcare with environmental protection and public health goals.
• The health sector plays a major role in the global economy, contributing nearly 10% of global GDP and about 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with 70% of emissions stemming from its supply chain. Therefore, it is essential that the plastics treaty includes and addresses the health sector explicitly, with no exemptions. The sector must also be pushed to innovate and adopt safer, more sustainable alternatives to plastics.
• The health sector is increasingly taking action on plastic pollution and its connection to broader environmental issues. Two key initiatives highlight this:
  • Alliance for action on climate change and health (ATACH): Launched at COP26, it now includes over 90 countries and focuses on creating low-carbon, climate-resilient, and sustainable health systems, recognizing plastics’ role in supply chain emissions and waste. WHO leads the secretariat and collaborates with governments, UN bodies, and other stakeholders.
  • Tobacco Convention Framework (FCTC): Recent COP decisions have emphasized aligning plastic pollution efforts with tobacco control, especially targeting cigarette filters, one of the most littered and harmful plastic items globally (e.g., 4.9 trillion butts pollute the planet, leaching micro- and nanoplastics).
• WHO calls for a health-protective plastics treaty that includes a strong preamble and clear objectives on health, no exemptions for the health sector, full transparency, product labeling, and accountability and finally multisectoral collaboration.
• Upcoming WHO events like the World Health Assembly and Executive Board meetings will include discussions on chemical pollution and may propose a global cigarette filter ban, underlining WHO’s continued commitment to integrating health into the treaty.

Rico EURIPIDOU | Health Care Without Harm

• Healthcare Without Harm is committed to transforming the healthcare sector globally, including through the reduction of plastics waste as waste audits in hospitals across Africa and Southeast Asia revealed that approximately 50% of hospital waste is plastic.
• A significant portion of this plastic waste is non-essential, mainly coming from food services and packaging. This highlights an urgent need to reduce unnecessary plastic use in healthcare, particularly in the Global South, where the trend of rising plastic consumption in hospitals is also evident.
• While plastics offer benefits in healthcare—being light, durable, and sterile—they also pose serious risks to human health, the environment, and the economy. Therefore, blanket exemptions for the healthcare sector in the global plastics treaty should not be included.
• Health must be central to the treaty. Exempting healthcare would be counterproductive, undermining progress in reducing single-use and toxic plastics, discouraging innovation, and delaying the shift to safer, more sustainable alternatives. Special considerations may be needed, but not full exemptions.
• A major concern is the projected rapid growth of the global medical plastics market—from $26 billion to $41 billion in just five years, driven largely by demand for single-use medical devices. PVC, a particularly harmful plastic, remains the most commonly used in healthcare.
• While healthcare contributes significantly to plastic pollution, it also has the power to lead the solution. As nearly 10% of the global economy, the sector can drive market transformation toward sustainable practices that reduce plastic waste and environmental harm. The post-COVID surge in single-use plastics further highlights this need. Many hospitals, particularly within the Global Green and Healthy Hospitals network, are already taking action—conducting waste audits, engaging in sustainable procurement, and actively working to reduce single-use plastics.
• In response to calls for exempting the healthcare sector from the plastics treaty, Healthcare Without Harm and partners launched a global campaign opposing such exemptions. They circulated a global sign-on letter urging treaty delegates to craft a strong, health-centered agreement without blanket exemptions for healthcare. The letter advocates for a human rights approach, limits on plastic production, detoxification, and transparency and traceability of harmful chemicals to prevent “toxic circularity”. Over 18 million health professionals from 88 countries have signed the letter, reaffirming that healthcare should lead by example in addressing plastic pollution, not be exempt from responsibility.
• This is a pivotal moment for health professionals to join the global call for a strong plastics treaty without exemptions for the healthcare sector.  They play an important role as sustainability champions, opinion leaders, and trusted voices in their communities. The message to treaty delegates is clear: the healthcare sector is uniquely positioned to lead transformation and must not be exempt from efforts to reduce plastic pollution.

Q&A

Q: Does Article 19 include references to biodiversity?

Nanny SANTANA: The article is still under negotiation (bracketed text) and will be revisited in INC-5.2. The current draft includes bracketed references to health and biodiversity.

Miriam G. MEDEL GARCIA: There is a strong link between human and environmental health, thus the need for a One Health approach, thus including biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration, should be explicitly reflected in the article.

Q: How are the health impacts of microplastics integrated in Article 19?

Laura VANDENBERG: This is a rapidly growing area of concern. Research has shown:

• Microplastics are found in protected human organs like the brain, placenta, and testes.
• These particles can enter the body through food, water, and air, crossing biological barriers.
• Microplastics can disrupt immune and physiological functions.
• Effects vary depending on size, shape, and chemical composition of the plastics.

Although demonstrating harm in humans may take decades, early lab evidence already shows cause for concern.

Halatoa FUA | Director, National Environment Service, Cook Islands

• Small Islands Developing States are disproportionately impacted by plastic pollution; they contribute little to global plastic pollution but face severe health and environmental consequences, with limited control over plastic imports.
• The treaty must be ambitious, inclusive, and health-focused, with no exemptions for the healthcare sector, and must protect vulnerable and marginalized communities.
• Managing plastics with harmful chemicals is both a health issue during use and an environmental hazard at end-of-life due to toxic leaching from landfilling, burning, and other disposal methods.
• SIDS like the Cook Islands lack the capacity to assess chemical compositions and their health/environmental impacts, the global plastics treaty must address environmental justice and protect the health of vulnerable populations, especially in SIDS.
• The plastic crisis is also a health crisis.
• As INC-5.2 approaches, Pacific SIDS will continue to advocate for accountability and a treaty that is ambitious, comprehensive, reflective of the full plastic lifecycle, fit for purpose and protective of human health.

Documents

• Presentation made during the event
• UNEP/PP/INC.5/INF/10: Information submitted by the World Health Organization
• Plastics Poison the Workplace – Chemical Exposures to Plastic Waste and Recycling Workers | IPEN | 2024
• Toxics Plastic Chemical Exposure to Chemicals to Plastics Treaty Stakeholders | IPEN | 2024

Links

• Road to Geneva | Plastic Pollution INC-5.2
• Geneva Beat Plastic Pollution Dialogues

Road to Plastic Pollution INC-5.2 Series

Previous Next

The Case for Observer’s Participation in the INC on Plastic Pollution and Other MEAs

Plastics Treaty | State of Play and Priorities for an Ambitious Outcome