The problem of plastics and what the UK government can do to help mitigate the issue

Add a comment

By Anton Shapland (BSc Economics)

[This essay was written for the Government, Welfare and Policy third-year undergraduate module. Students were tasked with writing a blog-style essay on a topic linked to a group poster project. Topics were chosen by students and reflect their own interests. The essay gave them experience of writing content in an engaging style for a non-expert audience. What you see below is one of this year’s top-marked blog-style essays. Christa Brunnschweiler]

Plastics are ever present in our lives; they are in our clothes, our packaging, our cookware, etc. They are more or less impossible to avoid, even when actively trying to do so. Plastics are more cost-effective than other materials, hence their widespread use. Take drinks bottles for example; these used to be made out of glass, but plastic bottles enabled companies to reduce their costs of transport and production, because they weigh less and are cheaper to produce. One of the major problems with plastics is that they are not biodegradable, meaning it can take thousands of years for natural processes to break them down. As a result, they pollute the environment, which has a severe negative impact on wildlife and peoples’ health. It is the responsibility of the government to intervene and correct situations where there is a third-party cost, like with plastics.

Plastic pollution is a global issue; in 2015, only 19.5% of global plastic waste was recycled, with 55% being discarded (Ritchie and Roser, 2018). A lot of waste plastics end up in rivers and waterways, resulting in plastic waste flowing into the oceans. In 2010, an estimated 8 million tonnes of plastic waste entered the ocean; in 2019, the UK emitted roughly 700 tonnes of plastic waste into the ocean, making it one of Europe’s largest polluters (Ritchie and Roser, 2018). As plastic production has continued to increase, plastic pollution has likely also increased. Plastic pollution falls into two main categories, macro and micro. Macroplastics are large pieces of plastics, such as plastic bags, straws, etc. These can be mistaken for food by marine life, or they can become entangled in them; 25-50% of sea-birds are estimated to die, if entangled (Wilcox et al., 2016). Microplastics, on the other hand, are small pieces of plastic, usually less than 5mm in size. Certain microplastics are produced intentionally, for use in cosmetic products, such as facial or body scrubs (primary microplastics). Alternatively, they come from the degradation of macroplastics by UV light, temperature, or other natural weathering processes (secondary microplastics) (Auta et al., 2017); they can also come from washing clothes made from synthetic fibres. These microplastics are passively ingested by marine life, resulting in ill effects such as liver toxicity in fish and affect the growth of algae. Microplastics are passed up the food chain when predators eat contaminated fish (Auta et al., 2017).

Whilst plastics pose an environmental threat, what is often completely over-looked, is the impact that plastics have on human health, which is equally as important. Humans can ingest microplastics by eating fish that are contaminated; roughly 36.5% of fish in the English Channel are contaminated with plastic and this rate is similar in other parts of the world (Lusher et al., 2013). Other sources of microplastics are sugar, honey, water (both bottled and tap water), the air we breathe, and disposable plastic cups which release thousands of microplastics when used for hot liquids (Cox et al., 2019) (Ranjan et al., 2021); the problem of microplastic pollution is huge. On average, a person ingests 5 grams of microplastics per week (Senathirajah and Palanisami, 2019). Although the long-term effects of consuming microplastics are not very well known, there is evidence to suggest that the ingestion of microplastics can cause lesions, neurological disorders, immune disorders and cancers (Prata et al., 2020). The negative impact of plastics on human health is not limited to microplastic pollution, but also comes from chemicals within the plastic. Plastic food packaging leaches endocrine disrupting chemicals (usually plasticisers) into food, which are ingested when a person eats the food; water packaged in PET and TetraPak is more estrogenic than water bottled in glass, and these plastics are commonly used for packaging (Wagner and Oehlmann, 2009). These endocrine disrupting chemicals affect peoples’ hormones, which is associated with changes in the nervous system, thyroid dysfunction and reproductive health issues; it is hypothesised that the widespread exposure to these chemicals, from packaging, is responsible for the rise in obesity and fall in fertility levels that have been observed (Kabir et al., 2015). Furthermore, biodegradable plastics were found to have similar chemicals as ordinary plastics (Zimmerman et al., 2020) and only breakdown under specific conditions (Rujnić-Sokele and Pilipović, 2017), so these are not great alternatives to traditional plastics.

It is clear that the current usage of plastics has resulted in unforeseen consequences on both the environment and peoples’ health, with the latter often being disregarded. The current situation with plastics needs to be addressed by the government, as the free market is not necessarily able to deal with the issue by itself.

However, plastics do offer advantages in terms of cost and weight reduction, durability and flexibility, over other materials; therefore, it is a case of weighing up the potential costs and benefits for the various applications of plastics, to determine where regulation is warranted. For example, plastics used to make automobile components weigh roughly 50% less than metal components, resulting in lower fuel consumption and pollution (Andrady and Neal, 2009). Such applications of plastics are not a problem, so long as they are disposed of properly after use.

Currently, the UK has some policies on plastics in place. In 2015, a 5p charge per plastic bags in supermarkets was introduced, reducing demand by 95%; the policy was then extended to all shops and the charge increased to 10p (GOV.UK, 2015). Another policy banning plastic microbeads in cosmetic products (primary microplastics) was introduced in 2018 (GOV.UK, 2018). In 2020, a further ban on straws, swizzle sticks and cotton buds made from plastics was introduced (GOV.UK, 2020). There is also a plan to introduce a tax of £200 per tonne of plastic packaging, if the packaging is not made from at least 30% recycled plastic, by April 2022. There are further plans to ban plastic cutlery, but this is not confirmed yet (GOV.UK, 2021). Furthermore, the devolved government of Scotland is planning to introduce a charge of between 20 and 25p on disposable coffee cups and other disposable drinks cups at establishments (Gov.scot, 2022); it is unclear whether this will also be imposed on disposable drinks containers which do not contain any plastics. These policies are a step in the right direction and help to reduce the amount of plastics entering the environment, helping to lessen plastic pollution.

There is little literature on the efficacy of plastic bans versus taxes, however both types of policy have been highly effective at reducing plastic consumption at source, which is the most effective way of tackling plastic pollution (Xanthos and Walker, 2017); in Ilam, Nepal, single-use plastic bags were effectively eradicated through bans (Bharadwaj et al., 2019). In theory, bans are more effective than taxes, as they completely stop the use of plastics; taxes seek to discourage the use of plastics, by increasing costs for consumers/producers, so do not necessarily eliminate their use completely. A tax on non-recycled plastic, as proposed by the UK government, would likely help to increase the amount of plastic recycled, but the problem of chemical leaching is worse with recycled PET drinks bottles (Gerassimidou et al., 2022), so the policy may have a negative effect on health.

Most literature on the regulation of plastics is focused on a few areas such as plastic bags and primary microplastics, which the UK has already addressed. It is difficult to come up with further, definitive solutions to plastics, due to a lack of literature; nevertheless, there is still scope for regulation, especially to reduce the negative health effects of plastics, as current policies only scratch the surface of the problem.

Although difficult to quantify, it is clear that the costs vastly outweigh the benefits of using plastics, for certain applications, such as plastic cutlery, disposable plastic cups, polystyrene packaging, and other forms of unnecessary plastic packaging. Therefore, I believe that a ban on production and use of these should be implemented (Xanthos and Walker, 2017). The government could also look into replacing plastic bottles with glass or steel bottles, and trial the policy on a small scale, to determine whether it would be practical. With food packaging, whilst certain applications of plastics are unnecessary, for example pre-packaged fruit, there are other areas where plastics are the most practical form of packaging, such as with ready meals, making regulating this area complicated (Knoblauch and Mederake, 2021). Therefore, the government should consult with retailers to eliminate as much plastic packaging as realistically possible. At the same time, there should be a ban on endocrine disrupting chemicals, as they are not exclusive to plastics and use of some is not prohibited. These policies would greatly reduce the amount of plastic waste and the health problems caused by plastics, as packaging accounts for nearly 50% of plastic waste (Ritchie and Roser, 2018). A transition period can be introduced, allowing companies to transition to alternative materials, reducing the potential for disruption (Clayton et al., 2021). I do not believe that bans on plastics in other areas are necessary, at this time, but the government should take action to ensure that these plastics are disposed of correctly, where recycling is not possible; they could be cleanly incinerated and used to generate energy (Gradus et al., 2017). By introducing more stringent regulation on plastics, the UK not only improves the health of its citizens and environment, but also sets an example for other countries; this can potentially result in large polluters introducing similar policies, further reducing global plastic pollution.

Bibliography

Banner Image by Nick Fewings on Unsplash

Leave a Reply