Whether, as in most people, that plastic is distributed throughout the brain tissue (or, as in my case, has formed into an actual spoon) no one is OK with plastic in their brain. It’s not just gross—it’s unhealthy. The UNM researchers also discovered that plastic levels were 3 to 5 times higher in patients with dementia, while other research has implicated micro- and nanoplastics in heart disease, inflammation, cancer, altered metabolic function, and reproductive disorders.
Beyond the brain, microplastics have been found in the blood, liver, kidneys, testicles, placenta, breast milk, and even meconium (a baby’s first poop), as well as in every ecosystem, from the deepest ocean to the highest mountain peaks. The substances enter the body through eating, drinking, and breathing.
Given that plastic pollution is a universal concern not subject to the divisive politics of other environmental issues such as climate change, one might assume it would be easy to muster the political will to address it. Yet efforts to limit production run up against a major hurdle. The entire global supply chain depends on plastic, which permeates every aspect of transport, logistics, packaging, and manufacturing. The petrochemical industry is not wrong when it asserts the impracticality of reducing plastic production in the near term.
There are, however, some immediate steps that legislators can take to quickly reduce the amount of plastic that enters our oceans, soil, food, water, air, and bodies.
First is to improve waste recovery infrastructure. “Recyclable” labels notwithstanding, less than 10 percent of plastic is recycled today. That’s not because consumers haven’t been sorting their trash; the main fault lies with antiquated technology in materials recovery centers.
Furthermore, since the kind of equipment used in this work is in high demand worldwide, the bill (through its Domestic Content Bonus Credit) would give a boost to American manufacturers in a growing high-tech export industry.
Another important legislative priority is a national bottle bill, which would nationalize state-mandated deposits on beverage containers. Consumers would receive perhaps 10 cents for returning their used containers to the store or a collection center. The benefits would extend beyond plastic waste reduction; glass and aluminum recovery rates would increase, too.
By shifting manufacturer incentives, bottle bill legislation unleashes the creativity of business in a free market to innovate solutions to the plastic problem. It motivates businesses to expand supply channels for recycled content, to reduce packaging, and to develop reusable and compostable materials. The result will be to remove from the waste stream plastics whose ultimate destination is all too often the human body.
Together, the CIRCLE Act and a bottle bill would set ground conditions for the long-term changes in industrial logistics and consumer behavior, on which plastic reduction depends.
The CIRCLE Act bears a significance beyond its immediate provisions. Its bipartisan sponsorship points to the possibility of further coalitions between environmentalists and health activists. These two groups are natural allies, because we can never be truly healthy when the environment is not. Microplastics demonstrate that principle beyond doubt—what clogs our rivers, the oceans, and the bellies of waterfowl and whales ends up leaching poison into our brains as well.
Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, activists, and any elected officials who seek their support, should join with environmentalists and push vigorously for the CIRCLE Act and bottle bill legislation. It is a reachable win that will set the stage for future victories for health and the environment.
