INC-4: Global Plastic Treaty doomed if “recycling diversion” continues, warns NGO founder

03 May 2024 --- At last week’s fourth round of negotiations for a global plastics treaty (INC-4), The Plastic Health Council — a group of scientists advocating for stringent reduction policies — held a talk on the link between plastic exposure, cancer and other serious diseases. Over 120 members of the US State Department, Defra and the plastics industry attended the discussions. 

Sian Sutherland, co-founder of advocacy group A Plastic Planet, who moderated the discussion, tells Packaging Insights about her experiences at the event, the council’s insights and her opinions on what needs to change in the run-up to INC-5 in November. 

“[The event] gave us newfound collaboration and agreement from vast swathes of scientists, delegates and campaigners on the measures needed to protect the planet and humankind from the toxic mess we face. Not one person at the negotiations was unaware of the impact of the material — on everything that lives on our planet, including ourselves,” she says. 

“There is agreement for a short burst of intersessional work ahead of the next round of negotiations in November, but there are some glaring omissions in what will be discussed.” 

“There was no discussion of primary plastic polymers, upstream solutions or reduction measures and a lack of focus on the health crisis that plastic has created means we are setting ourselves up to fail. It is clearly a huge miss to not have had more intersessional work between prior INCs and an officially appointed scientific advisory for all UN Delegates.”

The Plastic Health Council in a panel discussion at the INC-4.Health Scientists’ Treaty 
The Plastic Health Council meeting was used to advertise the groups’ alternative treaty stipulations, which include: Recognizing the real financial impact of plastic-related health damage, eliminating plastic production subsidies, cutting virgin production by 70% by 2040 and immediately stopping consideration of chemical recycling processes. 

The talk also focussed on Dr. Lukas Kenner of the University of Vienna and his latest research into the connection between microplastics and the acceleration of cancer tumor growth. 

Dr. Pete Myers, founder and chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences, discussed the “extraordinary” levels of exposure humans are now suffering from endocrine-disrupting chemicals used to make plastics.

Dr. Christos Symeonides, a consultant general and developmental pediatrician at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, explained how much plastic will descend from local weather systems onto the city of Ottawa during the negotiations, making inhalation and exposure to microplastics unavoidable. 

“When we all admit what we irrefutably know, especially on health, what we focus and collectively insist on in the treaty becomes crystal clear,” says Sutherland. “How many of the 8 billion citizens of the world are being fully represented in these negotiations? Yes, again the 1% are winning. There is no justice in this plastic crisis.” 

Lobbyist presence 
Complaints were again raised about the number of petrochemical industry lobbyists at the event, which were estimated to have risen 37% since the INC-3. 

“The impact is undeniable. From the promotion of ‘life-saving’ plastics on mobile poster trucks to billboards in the Westin Hotel and other meeting venues, the counter-attack was everywhere,” says Sutherland. 

“These lobbyists are the voices of industries responsible for the 99% of plastics derived from fossil fuels. They are the architects of our addiction, now pressing even harder to steer the treaty conversation away from primary polymer production control toward waste management and recycling.” 

Numerous scientists emphasized the impact plastics have on public health.Due to this interference, Sutherland says the “real work” in the negotiations was held in sidebar conversations and rarely in the main plenary, “where you witness constant delay tactics from the oil-producing member states.” 

“The rhetoric always sounds positive, but the reality dawns early that this treaty may be doomed, and we need to all coalesce and fight harder than ever before if we want a robust treaty that has any significant impact,” she says. 

“Country delegates say one thing in private but another in public, with very few members, states digging their heels in for true accountability from industry who ideally want the plastic to remain their material of choice. Rwanda and Peru must be applauded for their persistence as many of the bigger countries are failing to represent and protect their citizens in this entire process.” 

Delegates from Rwanda and Peru jointly presented a resolution that would cut global plastic production by 40% before 2040. The motion is now supported by 29 member states. 

The build-up to INC-5 
Ahead of the final negotiation round in November, set to be held in South Korea, Sutherland says a holistic and binding treaty needs to not only place limits on plastic production but ensure humankind is shielded from the toxic plastic chemicals as much as possible. 

“It will only be delivered if each member state listens to science and not the petro lobbyist in their ear. An effective UN Treaty poses a direct threat to the petrochemical industry’s bottom line, but delegates would be wise to remember that the long-term impact of plastic on humanity will dwarf any concerns surrounding profit,” she says. 

“We all, even the plastics industry themselves, know recycling will not solve the problem. The focus on recycling is a diversion, a way to protect vested interests while the planet drowns in plastic. It is a tactic to dilute the power of the treaty, to keep us fixated on the end of the pipeline rather than turning off the tap.”

Leaders must focus on health, she stresses, and the rest will become inevitable. “We don’t seek to recycle any other poisons in this world so why are we insisting on recycling plastic now the truth is known.”

“The science is clear. We can no longer afford to pay lip service to the evidence. Member states can no longer backtrack on declarations and then settle for a watery mix of provisions designed to keep in place the take-make-waste model of consumption. Anything other than the protection of human health being at the core of this treaty will ensure that this crisis goes on unabated.”

By Louis Gore-Langton