Story: Pressenza,  EcoWaste Coalition

Midway through the Plastics Treaty negotiations scheduled to end this Thursday August 14, IPEN notes that concerns for the threats to human health from toxic plastic chemicals are widely shared by delegates as momentum grows for a Treaty with global controls on harmful chemicals. In fact, more than 80 countries have endorsed a proposal by Switzerland and Mexico that outlines ways to protect human health from hazardous plastic chemicals through global controls.

Civil society leaders from IPEN pushes for a strong plastics treaty to address the root causes of the planetary pollution crisis.

Unfortunately, progress toward an agreement remains slow, primarily due to obstructive tactics by oil producing nations. These few countries have manipulated the consensus process to block the majority of countries that favor a Treaty that includes protections for health and the environment. IPEN has called for procedural changes that were adopted by previous multilateral environmental agreements to allow voting when consensus cannot be attained.

“As the negotiations continue, we urge delegates to remember the mandate: to end plastic pollution and protect human health and the environment, throughout the full life cycle of plastics,” said Yuyun Ismawati, IPEN Co-chair and Co-founder of Nexus3 Foundation in Indonesia. “As plastic production is forecast to triple in the coming decades, the only way to meet this goal is through limiting plastic production and controlling toxic plastic chemicals. A meaningful Plastic Treaty is urgently needed to resolve the plastics crisis.”

IPEN calls for eliminating chemical threats throughout the plastics life cycle, and for holding industry accountable for the harms caused by their products.

IPEN supports the proposal from Switzerland and Mexico as a positive step toward protecting health and the environment from toxic plastic chemicals. The proposal calls for an article in the Treaty (Article 3) to outline how plastic chemicals that pose health, and environmental threats can be globally regulated. The proposal is consistent with other global conventions that have a track record of success in creating global controls on toxic chemicals, e.g, the Stockholm and Basel Conventions, and includes:

  • A mechanism creating an initial list of hazardous plastic chemicals (“chemicals of concern”), with means for updating the list as new science on toxicity evolves;
  • Methods for transparency and traceability of chemicals of concern in plastic products;
  • Global, legally binding obligations.

While an important step, IPEN notes the proposal could be strengthened with a broader focus that is not limited to plastic products but covers plastics as a material that creates toxic threats throughout its life cycle.

IPEN remains concerned about the stalling tactics of oil-producing nations and procedural barriers that have blocked vital observers from participating meaningfully in many discussions. Scientists, Indigenous Peoples, labor sector representatives, and other stakeholders who have vital information and perspectives have been denied access through closed-door discussions and inadequate meeting spaces.

“IPEN members from around the world bring the perspectives of those who are most directly harmed by plastics to the Treaty negotiations. The Treaty deliberations must be open and accessible to include these voices who know first-hand how toxic plastics can affect human health and the right to a healthy environment we all deserve,” said Pamela Miller, IPEN Co-chair and Executive Director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT). “We stand committed to hold negotiators accountable for a Plastics Treaty that achieves the health protections we all need and deserve.