Plastic Overload

     The modern age is living in a consumer capitalist’s society, where the name of the game is mass production and profits. Innovation and science over time developed to readily produce cheap goods. Enter the world of plastics. Almost everything is made with plastics and for good reasons. One, plastic are sturdy, reliable, and cheap. Second, plastics are easy to produce and molded into various shapes and colors.

However, there’s a problem occurring with plastics. The oceans today are literally filled with all types of plastic, some too microscopic to clean out by conventional sewage waste (Doughty, et. al). Others break off bigger pieces, making its way into the ecosystem one way or another.

 Finally, the plastics that we come in contact the most, like water bottles carry a form of chemical that is extremely harmful to the human body (Main). These plastics are highly unnatural and toxic to the environment, animals, and humans (Greene). The goal of this essay is to address the problem with plastics; how this simple everyday object entered society and is now destroying the world’s ecosystem. Afterward, solutions such as legislation changes and new eco friendly ways will be discussed to combat the problem with a plastic overload.

     It all began in 1907, with the invention of Bakelite by the Belgian-born American Leo Baekeland (Knight).  The reason for choosing this starting point is for the fact that this was the birth of the modern plastic. Modern plastic are derived from fossil fuels, before they came from plants and animals (Knight). However, it was not until the 1930’s and 40’s, when plastics polymers began to be lucrative for the war effort (Knight). Knight a reporter for the BBC, puts it as, “What really drove the industry's growth was the war effort, as plastics were used in everything from military vehicles to radar insulation” (Knight).

After the World War II, the plastic industry was put to into a corner; they knew they had to find a new source of income from the development of such durable material. The companies turned to America’s mass consumer market (Knight). Some of the most plastics we used today exploded onto the market, for example the Tupperware, in 1948, furthering the growth of a dangerous toxic industry (Knight). Today, everywhere you look you find everything almost containing plastic materials; from the products you wear, to the packaging of the food you enjoy. These plastics that come from petro-chemicals are entering the waters of our oceans and harming the aquatic life (Greene). Some of plastics are directly touching our children’s lips that contain harmful chemicals. The plastic industry should be banned, or they should step away from fossil fuel made plastics.

     In 2012, according to Chelsea Rochman, an aquatic ecologist, about 280 million tons of plastic was produced globally (Rochman, et. al). Out of all this plastic that was produced only 140 tons was recycled or properly put in a landfill, the other remaining plastic was left to harm our earth and ocean (Rochman, et. al). According to the article, plastics can be extremely hazardous for the mere fact that they themselves are made of toxic chemicals, or that they suck up other toxic chemicals, making it difficult an aquatic life or mammals to properly develop (Rochman, et. al). “It is almost impossible to walk the countryside or on a beach without encountering bits of plastic,” says Rochman.

The troubling part is that many of the most developed countries are the once that turn a blind eye when they produce plastic that enters they ecosystem, for example, the United States, Japan, Europe, China, and Australia (Rochman, et. al). They do not label plastic waste differently from food or plants waste, which is one of the leading causes for the harsh amount of littering that occurs on our planet today (Rochman, et. al). If such legislation was properly passed throughout the countries to label plastic as a toxic chemical and not a food plant waste, maybe the planet would experience less devastation caused form a plastic overload.

     Additionally in 2012, the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal, Canada, stated that all sea turtle species, 45% of marine mammal species, and 21% of seabird species can be harmed due to plastics (Rochman, et. all). The plastics that do end up in the ocean also end up in the food chain of animals, due to many of them eating bit size pieces of plastic (Rochman, et al.). According to the article, laboratory and field studies found that fish, invertebrates and microorganisms eat micrometer sized particles, which come from synthetic (polyester or acrylic) clothing and cleaning products containing plastics (Rochman, et.al).

Over 50 percent of all plastics contain harmful chemicals, according to the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (Rochman, et.al). It is time to put a stop to the plastic era and all the environmental destruction it causes. Manufactures and governments must act. They must stop producing these chemicals for mass consumption of the plastic era. It is destroying our planet, and if things go the way they have been going, in 2050 the planet will hold another 33 billion tons of plastic (Rochman, et.al).

     One of the most important aquatic animals that are currently facing a decline in population due to plastics is the oyster (Greene). According to Greene, a reporter for the Los Angeles times, states the way oysters eat is by filtering out tiny particles through the water (Greene). Normally, this would either be phytoplankton, or algae; however it is now digesting small pieces of micro plastic that is harming the oyster’s digestive track.  Because many of these micro plastics enter the oceans due it being washed down the drain when people use cosmetics, toothpaste, and other types of hygiene products (Greene).

We can find these small bits of pieces of plastics across all the shores in the world, making this a real threat to the marine ecosystem (Greene). The article describes research conducted to study the effects on oysters when plastics enter the digestive system. The results were devastating. The oysters could not distinguish what was plastic from the same sized plankton. Due to them getting the lack of nutrition, obviously they had to expend more energy, and that was the consumption of more algae (Greene).

The destruction does not stop there, it also harms the reproductive system of oysters, and because of the amount of energy the body is trying to produce to digest the plastic, they are left with no energy to reproduce (Greene). As anyone can see, the plastics are causing a chain of effects in the ocean. Oysters are only one of many important aquatic lives that are being harmed by micro sized plastic by runoff that enter the sewer system. Micro sized plastics should be banned in all cosmetics and other sort of products. It is harming the water and its inhabitants; it also harms humans that consume such animals.

     Micro plastics are only one of many types of plastics that are in the oceans. Due to the unique physical feature they are becoming a great threat.  According to Rachel Doughty, a lawyer at environmental law at Greenfire Law, and Marcus Eriksen the Research Director and cofounder of the 5 Gyres Institute, say micro plastics are an emerging threat to wildlife and human health (Doughty, et. al). They may come off bigger pieces of plastic that gets degraded in constant exposure to UV radiation, where they would get washed down the gutter and enter the oceans (Doughty et. al).

Other types of micro sized plastics are called, micro beads, due to them being perfectly cylindrical. As stated by Doughty and Eriksen, “In 2012, pollution by micro beads was confirmed when micro beads were identified in the Laurentian Great Lakes of North America” (Doughty, et. al).The study found that out of the twenty one samples of micro beads collected at the Great Lakes, all twenty one matched two brands of facial cleansers, similar in color, size, and chemical composition (Doughty, et. al). There are watersheds that surround the Great Lakes, which have heavy populations nearby making it easy for any run off from the watershed to go into the Lakes (Doughty, et. al).

As discussed before, conventional and municipal sewage systems lack the ability to properly filter out micro plastics. Furthermore, the left over sewage collected at sewage plants is used as fertilizer, making the way for micro plastics to run off into the ocean and destroys the soil with the chemicals that it may have (Doughty, et. al). This is occurring all across the nation and the around the world. The most troubling factor is that many low income countries have plastic, but lack the funds to properly manage plastic and trash on a massive scale.

     Not only are animals affected by this terrible plastic problem, but humans are as well. After going over the oyster’s problem, one can assume that oysters are not the only aquatic life inflicted by the micro plastics, and or other plastics. Therefore, one can logically conclude that any type of sea animal a human eats, unless it was properly farmed and contained, will have traces amounts of some type of toxin caused indirectly, or directly due to plastic. These chemicals enter the aquatic food cycle due to lack of proper treatment and sheer ignorance, and end up in the human food cycle. This may cause unwanted diseases and illnesses to both humans and animals.

This is environmental destruction is also taking part on the land. For one, micro plastics end up in commercial fertilizer and over time ruin the soil along with the crops that humans consume (Doughty et. al). This can mess with the food supply, which is already looking bad enough, due to overpopulation, and further cause harm to humans that consume the crops that grew in that location.  Secondly, a lot of the mammals that are found in every part of the world are also digesting plastics. Many marine mammals such as seagulls have tiny bits of plastic in their stomach, due to them being attracted to the shiny plastics in the water (Rochman, et. al).  Scientists say humans are the cause for the extinction of the many animals, well it looks like plastic can be the number one culprit that has the biggest impact on the extinction of many species.

     A lot of people may be unaware of this, but the water that people get from a plastic bottle may not actually be that good for them, despite the refreshing taste. In a recent article published by Newsweek written by Doug Main, BPA or Bisphenol-A, is in many types of plastics we have around us. However, what is BPA? Well, BPA is a type endocrine disruptor that copies the chemical estrogen, a hormone that is significant in sexual development (Main).

Not only does it disrupts the endocrine system as stated in the Newsweek article, but twenty scientists say it can cause obesity, diabetes, problems with fertility, problems with the reproductive organs; and being exposed to it can cause cancers and cognitive disease such as ADHD (Main). There have also been studies found at the Brown University, where epidemiologist Joseph Braun, has shown a connection between early childhood exposure to BPA and problems that occur later on in the child’s life (Main).

     BPA was first synthesized in the 1930’s by a Russian chemist on the search for an artificial use of estrogen (Main). Over time, the manufacturing industry took a look at this chemical and noticed they could readily produce cheap plastic material by mixing this chemical with another one, overlooking the fact that it carries a toxic chemical (Main). Not only are these plastics inflicting devastation amongst humans it is also impacting the health of animals and plants alike (Main).

There was about a 100 studies conducted on the effects of BPA to animals, and majority of the studies showed the same effects that humans experience exposed to BPA (Main). According to the article as of 2012, 10 billion pounds of this material was produced worldwide (Main). It is about time to put an end to the use of BPA and make governmental agencies, such as the FDA to change their policies, because the current state of the world is being poisoned from the harmful plastics manufactures produce for profits.

     Currently, the Federal Drug Association and the European Food Safety Authority turn a blind eye when it comes to many of the things that may be harmful for us, after science has proven that their actions of “cutting corners” is hurting many people around the world. For instances, how micro beads are currently whipping out many species, but current laws around the nation fail to have a unified code on how to classify a micro bead (Doughty, et. al).

An example would be how California’s water quality criteria are drastically different from Maryland’s criteria. By doing so, states across the nation find different ways of appropriating taxes to clean pollutants in the water. This is why Californians pay a lot more in taxes trying to regulate pollution, while Maryland or places like Flint Michigan lacks it; however neither of the criteria specifically say micro plastics must be filtered out, which is a big problem (Doughty, et. al). Furthermore, there is not a single international law or treaty to ban the use of micro plastics in cosmetics and other products or on how to properly dispose of them (Doughty, et al). Therefore, it would set a good example to the world if the US and Europe took a stand against it and outright ban the use of this chemical that is having many ecological effects on the planet.

     Not only should there be a ban on micro sized plastics, BPA should also get banned from manufacturing use. It is agencies like the FDA, and its European sister that basically control the health regulations of the world, yet these same governmental agencies are the ones that are getting influenced by powerful manufacturing lobbying groups around the world that tell the EPA and  EFSA, on how to regulate. The fact there is no unified international ban on micro plastic or BPA is cataclysmic for the environment and human health. Due to money being involved in politics, many companies pay lobbying groups to influence the laws, which give them the leeway to use these cheap chemicals for profits, while almost ignoring the ecological devastation it has in the world. The time is now to put a ban on these cheap manufacturing chemical, the laymen call plastic.

     Besides doing a ban on these chemicals, companies around the world are currently finding innovative ways to tackle the problem with the plastic pollution. In the BBC article discussed earlier in the essay, Dr. Jeremy Tomkinson, a York-based consultant who advises the UK government on bio-fuels and bio-materials, thinks that the market is trying to find biodegradable types of plastics that are environmentally friendly, but still may be used for normal activities (Knight). This seems to be the way the direction is heading if big companies still want to remain important.

Biomaterials are not harmful for the environment and may help curtail some of the problems that are associated with the plastics. The planet cannot remain at its current state, and must become aware to consequences with plastics. Aquatic lives are falling like dominos. The planet’s soil is not in a good state with all the micro bit sized plastics in the soil. The human population is experiencing a myriad of disease and cancers due to the sole cause of plastic.  Governments and corporations must act now to save the planet from this plastic overload. Most importantly the individual must also act.

Doughty, Rachel, and Marcus Eriksent. "The Case For A Ban On Microplastics In Personal Care Products." Tulane Environmental Law Journal 27.2 (2014): 277-298.Environment Complete. Web. 07 May 2016.
Greene, Sean. "Plastic Microbead Pollution Harms Oysters, The Ocean's Critical Ecosystem Engineers, Study Finds." Los Angeles Times (CA) 09 Feb. 2016: Points of View Reference Center. Web. 07 May 2016.
Knight, Laurence. "A Brief History of Plastics, Natural and Synthetic." BBC News. BBC, 17 May 2014. Web. 20 May 2016.
Main, Douglas. "Bad Plastics." Newsweek Global 164.10 (2015): 48. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 17 May 2016
Rochman, Chelsea M., et al. "Policy: Classify Plastic Waste As Hazardous." Nature 494.7436 (2013): 169.MasterFILE Premier. Web. 17 May 2016.