PKG0022
Written evidence submitted by Rosemary Northover
Is it mal-practice to contaminate waste streams or to market a product with unknown properties, with potential health risks without any health warning to consumers?
I propose that the grading system of plastic is an insufficient tool and therefore not fit for purpose. If the grading system represented single use or health implications in relation to storage and potential leaching of endocrine changers, then it could be said that a consumer has the correct amount of information to make a choice in regards to which plastics to consume and the correct procedures for use. Or if the recycling strategies of the local councils specifically identified which plastic is recyclable for business in which area then a consumer can make an informed choice in regards to purchasing a product fit for recycling bearing in mind their geographic location.(Jackson, S. Palmer, L. 2014.) What this means essentially is that discarding a plastic bottle has different implications depending upon which county it is discarded.( W.A.G. 2010.) Plastic discarded in bins owned by private business and in public places incur an economic and ecological cost that deserves to be accounted for in policy. Clean drinking water is essential to life so forms part of the fundamental basic human right to life ( UN declaration of human rights article 3.) it is the council's, and the sustainability commissioners guardianship and responsibility to ensure the sustainability of the environment, ensuring resources for future generations.( W.A.G. 2010. W.A.G. 2015.) as specified in the towards zero waste article and the well being of future generations act 2015. If PET plastic poses a threat to the sustainability of water as a resource then economic factors in the decisions made in policy are defunct. Policy needs to reflect sustainability over financial interests of the petrochemical industry.(Hawkins, G. 2011. Watts,M.2012.)
Anthropology data
I am studying Anthropology at Lampeter University of Wales Trinity Saint David. In the first year my class was presented with interactions in the environment, a module in which the class collected waste from our own consumable products, a mass of plastic packaging grew into a sculpture of Gaia. During the course the grading system of plastic was noted as a system that not one participant in the whole class of approximately nineteen in number knew about or understood. In the years that have followed with my time in Lampeter I have worked in a catering/pub business in Ceredigion and undertook field work at festivals across the country. I have gathered photographic data from the local beaches of plastic unaccounted for in the environment.( see pics.) I have also photographed the campus bins throughout this time, consistently it seems that food related plastic packaging is the main waste filling the bins in these public places. I have witnessed first hand the lack of knowledge in general of consumers of plastic bottled drinks containing wine to water. The material plastics consist of can be indistinguishable to the consumer, (Plasgran.2017.) PET, PETE, HDPE, LDPE etc are all referred to in the chart as distinguishable products except for code 7 which is miscellaneous and yet is still used to produce drinks bottles specifically babies milk bottles.
Grades of plastic,
The table above ( page 1.) demonstrates the labelling system employed to deliver recycling information to consumers. (plasgran. 2017.) Each number represents a residue identification code. Number 1 is the most commonly used plastic for disposable drinks bottles, PET or PETE. PET contains phthalates which are well documented as being endocrine disruptors..(Mezcua, M., Martinez-Uroz, M., Gomez-Ramos, M., et al. 2012. ) Exposure to these chemicals inhibits growth, causes cellular mutations with known carcinogenic properties. Mainly human exposure is through contaminated food and water products from leaching also through environmental exposure of pesticides. (Mezcua, M., Martinez-Uroz, M., Gomez-Ramos, M., et al. 2012. Latini, G. 2005. Hamlin, H., Marciano, K. and Downs, C. 2015. Marin-Spiotta, E., Gruley, K., Crawford, J., et al. 2014. Rogers, J., Metz, L. and Yong, V. 2013.)
If a consumer does not have the grading system of plastic in their habitus, if it is not posted through the letterboxes of houses, if it is not displayed in public places such as supermarkets, or on recycling bags used for council collection, or on the side of a university bin, then how is it to be found in a consumer's informational model? Is plastic labelling fair to consumers, policy makers, small business and local services? The current grade system is designed for identification for recycling purposes, for the benefit of industry, designed for processing of recycled plastics into new usable products. The emphasis of the system is for industry identification in order to maximise profitability as opposed to consumer information and ecological concerns. (Plasgran.2017.)
Fieldwork and confusion, what is plastic?
At the moment , in my fieldwork studies, I focus on the confusion around plastic as a material. The issue as far as the consumer information is concerned, in the first instance, is of what does the plastic bottle actually materially consist? This is unknown to the average consumer. Conclusive evidence for the potential health risks of plastic, might seem difficult to obtain for a consumer. Evidence of plastic as a substance is slippery. Plastic comes in various forms which are generally similar,malleable, making identification of chemical structure impossible to see. Although absolute evidence of phthalates is well documented as being endocrine disruptors.( Although end products are recognisable and pose some kind of agency to the consumer, in their form as plastic bottles. (Hawkins, G. (2011). Fulfilling a preconception of convenience to the consumer. To carry a drink and discard the container is considered an everyday practice on campus, at the beach in a local catering business or at a festival. To reuse a plastic bottle for drinks is considered environmentally aware reusing in the first instance before eventually recycling. In line with the public campaign of reduce, reuse, recycle led by local councils. Unfortunately single use plastics and miscellaneous grades of plastic are re used unknowingly posing a health risk to consumers through leaching and due to bacteria build up on the surface of plastics. (Hamlin, H., Marciano, K. and Downs, C.2015. Heller, L. and Edelblute, C.2017. Muncke, J. 2011.)
Bins a plastic problem for landfill
In terms of the bins,focusing on single use plastics and disposable paper cups, which are usually plastic coated, mixed materials. The evidence suggests that this plastic packaging waste is effectively unknowingly purchased by consumers at point of sale and simply, then handed over to whomever owns the bins, as waste. Or recklessly disposed of in the environment. It seems that plastic creates a stream of landfill waste that could be redirected with proper labelling and infrastructure. Posing a threat to the water food systems as resources when discarded in the environment. (Marin-Spiotta, E., Gruley, K., Crawford, J. et al. 2014.) Consumer Conceptions about waste being the responsibility of others, of the local councils is prevalent. If it is out of the power of the councils to deliver recycling facilities and a system of grading plastic in relation to not only recycling but health and possible water contamination, then the responsibility of disposal guidelines, recycling and production of questionably safe or recyclable plastics must fall back to the industry, (World Health Organisation. 2015. Davies, H. 2017.) the producers of these plastics. For instance if plastic in Ceredigion has to be transported to Manchester before being recycled it is not viable for Ceredigion council to do so and so the plastic goes into local landfill. ( South West Wales Regional Waste Group. 2008.) Reasons why the journey may not be viable include the cost of hiring a local licensed waste carrier, which generally do not carry single use plastics or that the amounts are less or more than a licensed carrier might collect. Also for councils to meet the sustainability targets self sufficiency is part of the strategy in the waste hierarchy, to lower emissions visible or otherwise. Transport emissions can counter the benefits of recycling as can the emissions from industrial recycling. (Welsh Assembly Government. 2010.)
Consumer packaging waste makes up approx 40 percent of plastic waste (Plastipak Europe.com.2017.) rPET recycling includes 1% - 25% of recyclate to virgin resource material.( Plastipak Europe.com.2017.) this process of recycling is being invested in as a solution but with such a high virgin resource ratio to recyclate it does not seem viable, recycled products are only at the maximum 25% recyclate. strategically placing plastic processing facilities and effective council policies in the region of the waste production is an improvement on landfill or other disposal, but really to meet the sustainability directives the pressure must be on reduction at production source.(Bossle, M., Dutra de Barcellos, M., Vieira, L. et al. 2016. Davies, H.2017. Hawkins, G. 2011. South west wales regional waste group. 2008.)
Business at the point of waste, what gives?
As the responsibility falls to business (the bin owner) to dispose of their own waste through licensed carriers with limited provision for recycling of plastics it is far simpler to employ a landfill strategy. Mainly because of economics, regulation will cost money and businesses are reluctant to suffer losses.With most areas having a different private waste carrier subcontracted and limited to infrastructure and economics. I feel that the councils are overlooking this as a problem to the waste stream as it meets with the self sufficiency notion in the waste hierarchy. When all recycling avenues have been explored then the last goes to landfill. These issues really bring back the responsibility to the industry who should be producing sustainable products. It seems that the responsibility of business’ dealing with the waste is to use a licensed waste carrier which is a private business operating in the area. It seems that if there is insufficient infrastructure in the recycling of plastic generically then recycling single use plastics is deemed economically unviable. It is not economically, or ecologically viable to transport plastic for recycling over long distances. Mixed waste bins being used as onsite policies demand, limited waste carriers in the area licensed with the council to carry domestic waste limits the site owners to certain recyclable waste streams the council is responsible in delivering information and managing landfill sites but cannot provide all of the services needed for what is entering the waste stream. More attention needs to be directed towards the waste hierarchy.
Waste hierarchy
If desirability is a driving force at the top of the hierarchy, if a consumer desires to purchase a drink in a pet bottle, (Bpf.co.uk. 2017. Hawkins, G. 2011.) consumers are the driving force prevention is not possible if the industry is meeting some desire or demand from consumers. If then that consumer has not been informed of the information needed to make an informed choice, accounting for personal health,global sustainability and recycling infrastructure. The driving force of any sustainability programme in response needs to be on making the information available. This can only be achieved by working with big business, drinks producers for example on changing their mode of delivery. Firstly by labelling identifying the problems and then remedying them, not necessarily with the bigger or more local recycling facility but in the modes and materials of production of the saleable commodity.i.e. Changing to glass.(World Health Organisation. 2015.)
Biopolitical questions and water as a fundamental resource.
Biopolitical questions of bottled water are documented, the infrastructure of the bottled water industry is socially divisive and PET bottles are the technology that drive the bottled water industry, transporting water is expensive so glass is an undesirable option for production, (Hawkins, G.2011.) this is questionable when Welsh water company Ty-nant has built a successful unique business initially using only glass bottles. Athough this water in glass is reflected in the economic value of the product. Further health risks of plastic are represented in the issue of the great plastic gyres in the sea, plastic is congregating in the water system en masse. Retaining control over water resources is difficult due to its continuously flowing composition. With ideas of water scarcity and flooding leading to contamination of drinking supplies and perpetration of mis information through the media. bottled water contains a safe convenient narrative, an answer to global crisis’. This is a single aspect narrative from a global business perspective. (Hawkins, G.2011.) Policy needs to reflect a multifaceted approach to water, (Jackson, S. and Palmer, L. 2014.) as a resource, essential for life.(Marin-Spiotta, E., Gruley, K., Crawford, J. et al. 2014.) The continued increase in production of PET as a commodity is unsustainable. The plastic water crisis is looming with future generations set to encounter increased exposure to phthalates intrauterine and the damage to fish stocks and contamination of the soil is becoming increasingly documented as a major concern in the biosciences. (Latini, G. 2005.) The full implications of endocrine changing compounds are still unknown, until the science and technology catches up with the chemical footprint of substances used in production, how can there be a measure for safe levels in the environment? Policies immediate action is required to halt the increase in production.To move the plastics up the waste hierarchy more efficiently the focus of policy should be towards producing industries. A strong policy now for 2018, could make a huge difference in the outcome for sustainability of the global population and in meeting targets by 2025 for waste reduction.
The potential threat to humans is is at an epidemic level with production of plastics set to increase. Only through reduction at the industrial level in the petrochemical industry can these issues be adequately addressed.The bioaccumulation of petrochemicals, synthesised plastics in the water are amounting to a deadly risk for humans, action is needed now before the contamination is irreversible, by our own technological standards.
Microbe uncertain science.
The recent identification of a microbe that eats petrochemical based plastics could spell evolutionary disaster for the industry itself. If a microbe exists in the environment that can break down plastic then recycling plastic could become an unreliable process, the stability of the product could become subject to changes in the environment currently unforeseen. (Vidal-Linan, L., Bellas, J., Salgueiro-Gonzalez, N.et al. 2015.) Without further investigations into these process’ an immediate ban on production in its current form needs to be implemented. Anything else is piecemeal to the sheer extraordinary way in which the human is changing the planet we live on, and the resources available to support life.The leaching of chemical compounds out of petrochemical plastic particles could be the most dangerous invisible threat to the earth's water system. Studies are now showing levels of endocrine changing chemicals in the tissue of fish species, mussels and the devastating effects they can have on growth and reproduction in humans especially at small doses sustained over time. (the conclusions of how much this is affecting the human population is in its infancy.(Singh, S. and Li, S.2012. Hamlin, H., Marciano, K. and Downs, C.2015. Xu, E., Morton, B., Lee, J. and Leung, K.2015.) The conception of petrochemical plastic not being degradable is now being contested as it rapidly breaks down in water releasing dangerous toxins.
What are safe levels?
The research into phthalates as being endocrine disruptors is extensive. Levels considered to be safe are scientifically dubious as the full understanding of the chemicals released is not entirely understood. What it means to have such a mass of plastic leaching chemicals into the water system of the planet is unknown. PET bottles are often reused for childrens packed lunches even though the science of the leaching effect of plastic over time and the direct risk to human health is inconclusive it is concluded that these containers support bacteria which is harmful directly to those consumers. (Heller, L. and Edelblute, C.2017.) So aside from the phthalates potential poisoning of the food, drinks in these containers, (Hamlin, H., Marciano, K. and Downs, C.2015.Latini, G.2005. Muncke, J.2011. Mezcua, M., Martinez-Uroz, M., Gomez-Ramos, M. et al. 2012.) there is already a health risk in the form of bacteria build up on the surface when reused. Yet a plastic bottle comes with a mark to identify the recycling properties of the material for the easy identification of the material to the manufacturers this is not a system of identification for the consumer. Consumers put themselves at risk due to inefficient ill directed labelling. Leaving the degradation of plastics to the environment leaves the future quality of water and life as we know it to chance.( Marin-Spiotta, E., Gruley, K., Crawford, J.et al. 2014. Vidal-Linan, L., Bellas, J., Salgueiro-Gonzalez, N.et al. 2015.)
HDPE identity issues.
HDPE, LDPE are used in food grade products (Plasgran.2017.) the distinctive differences are unknown to the consumer and therefore pose a risk in terms of health due to lack of knowledge about the useful properties of the material without making it unsafe. Food grade HDPE is blown from the factory mould with air HDPE that is not food grade has a substance such as silicon added to the surface of the mould for ease of removal and leaves a residue, which is not food grade and leaches harmful chemicals if used for food. The manufacturer may have intended the container for other than food purposes but without efficient labelling these matters are easily confused by consumers. With unanswered questions that could possibly lead to health issues of future populations, then like tobacco should this product be labelled for ethical reasons?
In summary.
In this paper I have tried to identify some of the evidence to see whether PET bottles, and other plastic packagings are being sold to consumers without proper warnings. The grading system of plastic is designed to benefit the industry. In general consumers when questioned have no idea what these numbers on plastic mean. Facilities and capabilities of local infrastructure limit what is being recycled. Recycling plastics seems to go some way to counter the effect of plastic in the environment. Although it seems that the biosciences see the environment particularly water at serious risk of complete chemical transformation. Not just because of loose plastic in the great gyres of the sea but on a particular level as the plastic breaks down into micro particles.The invisible emissions of re processing plastics needs to be accounted for. Water is a whole earth system there is no separation of the sea, the clouds or the rivers as is seen in the paper by Mirin et al. The science says that consumers are being poisoned by these products in their immediate consumption and in the environment. The long term effects to growth and cellular mutations of the reproductive system in humans and the food chain (fish) is still unknown. The industry needs to reduce production, the market is driven by profit. Is it fair or sustainable to market a product based on profitability alone. To say that consumers drive the market cannot be seen as enough to increase production. If Consumers knew all the facts, that the oceans and the planet are in grave danger that the bottle being drunk from is poisoning their bodies, would a consumer make an informed choice to drive the market to increased production? Consumers are not being given the information to make informed decisions. What about small business, councils and the university? Why should local services and business pick up the cost of recycling a product, that is making big business rich enough to build massive infrastructure, recycling plants. These big business should be responsible for the immediate cost for local governments. Building infrastructure to deal with the waste draws heavily on the industry's virgin resources and does not address the problem of sustainability. If a recycled new bottle is constituently only 1% recyclate then the material plastic is still increasing in the environment, using between 75% - 99% virgin plastic residue. The bioaccumulation is still increasing even with the best recycling facilities. I conclude that It is malpractice to sell a potentially life changing, ecosystem changing bottle for the purpose of a quick drink, and profit. I believe that if a plastic bottle/wrapper can leach poison into the food being consumed then the consumer has the right to know. Sustainability and Justice should be aimed for as is set out in the WHO directive 2015. The waste hierarchy and the aim for zero waste 2050 will not be met unless strong actions are taken by government to put pressure on industry to change their mode of production and delivery.
Bibliography:
Bossle, M., Dutra de Barcellos, M., Vieira, L. and Sauve, L. (2016). The drivers for adoption of eco-innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 113, pp.861-872. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.033 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Bpf.co.uk. (2017). BPF [online] Available at: http://Www.bpf.co.uk/Sustainability/Plastics-Recycling [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Bpf.co.uk. (2017). The UK's Leading Plastic Trade Association. [online] Available at: http://www.bpf.co.uk [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Davies, H. (2017). The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 A Step Change in the Legal Protection of the Interests of Future Generations?. Journal of Environmental Law, [online] 29(1), pp.165-175. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqx003 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Editorial Board. (2015). Endocrinology, [online] 156(10), pp.3A-3A. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/endo.2015.156.issue-10.edboard [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Hamlin, H., Marciano, K. and Downs, C. (2015). Migration of nonylphenol from food-grade plastic is toxic to the coral reef fish species Pseudochromis fridmani. Chemosphere, [online] 139, pp.223-228. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.06.032 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Hawkins, G. (2011). Making Water into a Political Material: The Case of PET Bottles. Environment and Planning A, [online] 43(9), pp.2001-2006. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a44306 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Helal, S. and Elshafy, W. (2012). Health hazards among workers in plastic industry. Toxicology and Industrial Health, [online] 29(9), pp.812-819. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0748233712442728 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Heller, L. and Edelblute, C. (2017). Long-term metabolic persistence of gram-positive bacteria on health care-relevant plastic. American Journal of Infection Control. [online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2017.07.027 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Jackson, S. and Palmer, L. (2014). Reconceptualizing ecosystem services. Progress in Human Geography, [online] 39(2), pp.122-145. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132514540016 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Latini, G. (2005). Monitoring phthalate exposure in humans. Clinica Chimica Acta, [online] 361(1-2), pp.20-29. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cccn.2005.05.003 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Marin-Spiotta, E., Gruley, K., Crawford, J., Atkinson, E., Miesel, J., Greene, S., Cardona-Correa, C. and Spencer, R. (2014). Paradigm shifts in soil organic matter research affect interpretations of aquatic carbon cycling: transcending disciplinary and ecosystem boundaries. Biogeochemistry, [online] 117(2-3), pp.279-297. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10533-013-9949-7 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Mezcua, M., Martinez-Uroz, M., Gomez-Ramos, M., Gomez, M., Navas, J. and Fernandez-Alba, A. (2012). Analysis of synthetic endocrine-disrupting chemicals in food: A review. Talanta, [online] 100, pp.90-106. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2012.07.078 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Muncke, J. (2011). Endocrine disrupting chemicals and other substances of concern in food contact materials: An updated review of exposure, effect and risk assessment. The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, [online] 127(1-2), pp.118-127. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2010.10.004 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Niu, Y., Zhang, J., Duan, H., Wu, Y. and Shao, B. (2015). Bisphenol A and nonylphenol in foodstuffs: Chinese dietary exposure from the 2007 total diet study and infant health risk from formulas. Food Chemistry, [online] 167, pp.320-325. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.06.115 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
http://www.plasgranltd.co.uk/ [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
plastipakeurope.com. (2017). Plastipak - Plastipak. [online] Available at: http://www.plastipakeurope.com [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Rogers, J., Metz, L. and Yong, V. (2013). Review: Endocrine disrupting chemicals and immune responses: A focus on bisphenol-A and its potential mechanisms. Molecular Immunology, [online] 53(4), pp.421-430. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2012.09.013 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Singh, S. and Li, S. (2012). Bisphenol A and phthalates exhibit similar toxicogenomics and health effects. Gene, [online] 494(1), pp.85-91. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2011.11.035 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
South west wales regional waste group (2008). South west wales regional waste plan 1st review non-technical summary. pp.1-32.
Tang-Pronard, J., Andersen, H., Jensen, T. and Heitmann, B. (2011). Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and obesity development in humans: A review. Obesity Reviews, [online] 12(8), pp.622-636. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789x.2011.00871.x [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Vidal-Linan, L., Bellas, J., Salgueiro-Gonzalez, N., Muniategui, S. and Beiras, R. (2015). Bioaccumulation of 4-nonylphenol and effects on biomarkers, acetylcholinesterase, glutathione-S-transferase and glutathione peroxidase, in Mytilus galloprovincialis mussel gills. Environmental Pollution, [online] 200, pp.133-139. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.02.012 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Watts, M. (2012). A Tale of Two Gulfs: Life, Death, and Dispossession along Two Oil Frontiers. American Quarterly, [online] 64(3), pp.437-467. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aq.2012.0039 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
Welsh assembly government (2010). Towards zero waste.
Welsh assembly government (2015). Well-being and future generations (Wales) Act 2015.
World Health Organisation (2015). Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health:a state of knowledge review.. World health organisation and secretariat of the convention on Biological Diversity,2015.
Xu, E., Morton, B., Lee, J. and Leung, K. (2015). Environmental fate and ecological risks of nonylphenols and bisphenol A in the Cape D’Aguilar Marine Reserve, Hong Kong. Marine Pollution Bulletin, [online] 91(1), pp.128-138. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.017 [Accessed 28 Sep. 2017].
September 2017