IPEN and World Health Organization Roundtable on Health in the International Legally Binding Treaty on Plastics Pollution
28 August 2024, Bangkok, Thailand. As negotiations on a UN Global Plastics Treaty continue, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) held an ad hoc intersessional in Bangkok for expert groups from 24–28 August 2024. The meeting provided a unique opportunity for experts worldwide to gather, share knowledge, and advance efforts to create a legally binding global instrument for preventing plastic pollution. International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) and EARTH members also gathered in Bangkok to host discussions on health concerns related to plastics and associated chemicals.
On 24 August 2024, the governments of the Philippines and Switzerland co-hosted a Roundtable Dinner Event on Health in the Internationally Legally Binding Treaty on Plastics Pollution. The event was attended by independent experts and delegates from a wide range of countries and organizations, including Angola, Belgium, Canada, Cameroon, Chile, Cook Islands, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, the European Commission, France, Germany, Indonesia, Lesotho, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, the Philippines, Peru, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Uruguay, and the World Health Organization (WHO).
The two-hour event provided essential insights and place-based experience from those working across diverse government agencies, academic institutions, and organizations. Jorge Emmanuel (Philippines) and Andrea Zbinden (Switzerland) chaired the roundtable. In their opening remarks, they explained that although those working in the health sector or health ministries may often see plastics as an environmental issue, we need to broaden our understanding of health by examining a safer approach to plastic circular economies, engaging policy decisions that respond to health risks, and coordinating across sectors and countries.
Dr. Tadesse Amera, Director of Pesticides Action Network (PAN) Ethiopia and Co-Chair of IPEN, moderated the roundtable. He proposed key avenues for discussion on protecting health, including 1) ensuring a health-protected circular economy, 2) implementing measures attentive to the entire plastics lifecycle, 3) integrating scientific knowledge into the treaty in a responsive manner, and 4) attending to lessons from past Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) that target human and environmental health.
Richard Brown of WHO also provided opening remarks. WHO estimates about two million deaths globally per year are related to chemicals. As a result, plastics and their associated chemicals have become increasingly central to discussions in the health sector. Brown asserted that the protection of health should be one of the core objectives of the UN treaty. WHO can contribute to assessing the health risks of chemicals and identifying the plastics used in healthcare settings that can be substituted or improved through redesign while maintaining vital health services.
■ Key discussions
Experts agree, advocating for transparency on the chemicals and risks associated with plastics. However, in practice, testing is challenging as there are 13,000 known chemicals currently used in plastics. Attendees discussed the feasibility of different measures, such as grouping chemicals with similar compositions to more easily regulate and avoid unfortunate substitutions. For example, this could reduce the risk of replacing a known harmful chemical with another risky substance that is not yet proven to be hazardous due to insufficient data.
Attendees were also attentive to the disproportionate risks or challenges different groups face. For example, Indigenous communities and waste pickers face increased chemical exposure. Additionally, many lower-income countries rely on an international treaty as they need more resources to regulate products and conduct safety testing, emphasizing the global nature of the issue. “If it is left up to the nation level, then it is very difficult to assess,” said Dr. Tadesse Amera. Further, countries lack equal access to technology that may allow for improvements in production and recycling stages.
Others raised the idea that testing is also tricky for wealthier countries, given the current state of science. Plastics transform during production due to intentional and nonintentional chemical additives, making chemicals highly complex. Identifying a particular chemical is challenging and time-consuming, let alone ensuring that it is nontoxic along its lifecycle, such as at the recycling stage. Some plastics contain other hazardous substances, such as pesticides, that further complicate downstream plastics recycling. Additionally, recycling releases chemicals and microplastics that are of particular concern when turned into food-grade materials or products for children.
Therefore, experts considered the feasibility of solutions in addressing immediate versus long-term goals. In the short term, reducing chemical complexity, such as removing additives that change the color of plastics, is one vital change that does not challenge the integrity of plastic packaging but can reduce chemical exposure. As Dr. Nudjarin Ramungul of Thailand noted, managing the chemical additives already in circulation may be more challenging. Still, a more feasible immediate step is to stop adding new chemicals. Experts suggested that a control measure on the release of chemicals should be a key concern for the legally binding instrument, and, over time, UNEP could develop a global substance list with obligatory actions, such as labeling substances of concern.
The role of the plastic industry is also central to these discussions. Jorge Emmanuel explained that the Montreal Protocol phased out ozone-depleting substances successfully due to buy-in and broad participation. Attendees suggested that solutions require regulatory drivers, incentives, and financial support such as loans or grants. The treaty should facilitate the development of a list of potential alternatives that could support phasing out substances of concern and drive down the costs of safer alternatives.
Attendees raised the need to bring the discussion from the roundtable to future collaborations and negotiations. As Kobeli Tsasanyane of Lesotho noted, we need to be willing to “walk the talk” by committing to action as leaders interested in a healthy, toxic-free future. As champions for the issue of health and plastics, attendees should bring this topic forward in support of the INC process. “We cannot lose sight of talking about health related to plastics,” said Claudia Taboada of the Dominican Republic. WHO will hold future workshops on plastics in the health sector, while the Dominican Republic will hold an event in September on the linkage between plastic pollution and human rights.
This global collaboration saw important discussions on the need for transparency and traceability of chemicals, the need to avoid substituting chemicals of concern with more risky substitutions, and the potential of grouping chemicals and developing a list of known chemicals that could provide safer alternatives. Lower-income countries advocated for feasible strategies and additional support for chemical testing. Attendees also discussed the need for a toxic-free circularity and the potential for greater integration across sectors, ministries, and collaboration with UNEP to enhance national capacities.
National health ministries remain quite detached from the plastics issue despite often being better funded than environmental ministries. There is a need to coordinate across sectors and increase communication between WHO and UNEP, as well as across scales from global to local. Ultimately, the roundtable demonstrates that the issue of a plastics treaty extends far beyond the environmental sphere. Health is a concern, from the open burning sites where plastics release toxicants to the hospital rooms filled with prolific plastic syringes and IV bags.
Finally, while the intersessional was helpful because it paused negotiations and created a space for sharing expertise between countries, transparency remains a challenge. Breaking from previous INC discussions, the Bangkok intersessional was closed to observers, including nongovernmental and civil society groups such as EARTH and IPEN. However, IPEN is a vital resource, as the organization has been researching the connections between plastics, chemicals, and health for over two decades. While the roundtable provided a space for additional conversation, it is vital that such discussion also remain accessible to public groups whose expertise is critical to developing a toxic-free future.
