At the mouth of the Fraser River where it meets the Pacific, I watch a great blue heron delicately picking its way through the shallows. What looks like seaweed tangles around its legs – but upon closer inspection, it’s a snarl of microplastic fragments and fishing line. This scene, just minutes from downtown Vancouver, has become increasingly common in waterways worldwide.
“We’ve spent decades focusing on plastic waste as an environmental issue, but we’re only beginning to understand it’s fundamentally a human health crisis,” says Dr. Maria Westerbos, founder of the Plastic Soup Foundation, when I speak with her via video call from her Amsterdam office.
A coalition of 33 international health experts and scientists published a call to action last week in the prestigious journal Environmental Health Perspectives, demanding world governments implement stronger regulations on plastics specifically to protect human health. The timing is deliberate, coming just months before the next round of United Nations negotiations on the global plastic treaty.
“The evidence linking plastic to serious health conditions has reached a critical mass,” explains Dr. Jane Muncke, managing director of the Food Packaging Forum and lead author of the paper. “We can no longer separate environmental plastic pollution from public health policy.”
The paper presents alarming evidence that microplastics – fragments smaller than 5mm – have been detected in human blood, lung tissue, placenta, and breast milk. Even more concerning are nanoplastics measuring less than 1 micrometer, which can cross cellular barriers and potentially accumulate in organs including the brain.
Plastic isn’t just one substance but a complex mixture of polymers and chemicals. A typical plastic product might contain dozens of additives including plasticizers, stabilizers, flame retardants, and PFAS “forever chemicals.” Many of these compounds are known or suspected endocrine disruptors, potentially interfering with hormone systems even at extremely low doses.
When I visited the BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute last spring, Dr. Sarah Davidson showed me lab results from her team’s study of phthalates – chemicals commonly used to soften plastics – in pregnant women and children in the Lower Mainland.
“What troubles me most is that we’re finding higher concentrations in children than adults,” Davidson told me as we examined the data. “Their smaller bodies process these chemicals differently, and their developing systems are particularly vulnerable to hormone disruption.”
Evidence from Health Canada’s biomonitoring program reveals that virtually all Canadians carry a measurable body burden of plastic-associated chemicals. A 2022 Environmental Defence Canada report found phthalates in 89% of participants tested, with higher levels in disadvantaged communities.
The problem extends far beyond individual exposure. In coastal First Nations communities across British Columbia, traditional food harvesting practices face growing threats from plastic contamination. At a community gathering in Bella Bella last year, Heiltsuk Nation elder Violet Neasloss described finding microplastics in harvested clams and salmon.
“Our relationship with these foods goes back thousands of years. They’re medicine, not just nutrition,” Neasloss explained. “When we find plastic in these sacred foods, it’s another form of environmental injustice.”
The health experts’ call to action emphasizes that plastic pollution disproportionately affects marginalized communities. Manufacturing facilities are often located near low-income neighbourhoods, while global plastic waste frequently gets exported to developing nations with limited infrastructure to manage it safely.
The current regulatory approach to plastics has significant gaps. Under Canada’s chemicals management plan, compounds are generally tested individually rather than as mixtures. This fails to account for how chemicals may interact to cause greater harm than any single substance – what scientists call the “cocktail effect.”
“The traditional toxicological approach of ‘the dose makes the poison’ doesn’t work well for endocrine disruptors in plastics,” explains Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a physician-scientist at Simon Fraser University who studies environmental health threats. “Some of these chemicals can have paradoxical effects at very low concentrations, particularly during fetal development or early childhood.”
The experts’ paper outlines concrete policy recommendations including:
Requiring comprehensive health impact assessments before new plastics enter the market
Eliminating hazardous chemicals from plastic production
Establishing stronger warning labels about health risks
Supporting research on plastic-free alternatives
Implementing the precautionary principle where scientific uncertainty exists
Industry representatives have pushed back against the call for stricter regulations. The Chemistry Industry Association of Canada maintains that plastic products undergo rigorous safety testing and that alternatives might create other environmental problems.
But Dr. Chelsea Rochman, an ecologist at the University of Toronto who studies microplastic pollution, argues that the rapid acceleration of plastic production demands a more precautionary approach.
“In the 1950s, global plastic production was about 2 million tonnes annually. Today it’s over 400 million tonnes and projected to triple by 2060,” Rochman told me during a research expedition on Lake Ontario. “We’re conducting a massive uncontrolled experiment on human and ecological health.”
Some solutions are already emerging. Vancouver’s ChopValue has built a thriving business transforming discarded chopsticks into furniture and home goods. The company has diverted over 100 million chopsticks from landfills while creating a circular economy model.
“We need to reimagine waste as a resource,” explains Felix Böck, ChopValue’s founder. “The problem isn’t just disposal – it’s our entire approach to materials and consumption.”
As international negotiators prepare for the next round of plastic treaty discussions, the health experts’ intervention adds urgency to what has largely been framed as an environmental issue. The paper’s authors argue that any effective global agreement must address the full lifecycle of plastics – from production and design to waste management – with human health protection as a primary goal.
For Dr. Westerbos of the Plastic Soup Foundation, the path forward is clear: “We need to stop treating plastic pollution as inevitable and start treating it like the preventable health crisis it is.”
