A growing body of research highlights the alarming health and economic toll of chemicals commonly found in household and industrial plastics. Bisphenol A (BPA), di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been implicated in millions of cases of heart disease, stroke, and death worldwide. Researchers call for urgent action, but skeptics point to lingering questions about causation.

Plastics’ Silent Threat

An international team analyzed data from over 1,700 studies conducted across 38 countries. They found strong correlations between exposure to these chemicals and a range of serious health impacts. BPA, for instance, is a widespread additive used in food packaging, particularly as a lining for cans and bottles. The study estimated that BPA exposure contributed to 5.4 million cases of ischemic heart disease, 346,000 strokes, and 431,000 deaths globally in 2015 alone. The associated economic burden reached a staggering $1 trillion in lost purchasing power.

Similarly, DEHP, a phthalate commonly used in flexible plastics like shower curtains and medical tubing, has been linked to endocrine disruption. A 2022 study found increased DEHP metabolites in urine correlated with higher mortality rates. The most recent analysis attributes 164,000 deaths and $398 billion in global economic losses to DEHP exposure.

PBDEs, used as flame retardants in electronics, textiles, and car parts, pose additional risks. Exposure, primarily through inhalation, skin contact, or contaminated food, has been associated with neurological harm. Researchers estimate nearly 12 million IQ points have been lost due to maternal PBDE exposure, highlighting its potential impact on cognitive development.

Evidence and Controversy

While the findings are concerning, the study relied on observational data, making it difficult to establish definitive causation. For example, individuals with high exposure to plastics might also have dietary habits linked to cardiovascular diseases, such as frequent consumption of processed foods.

Statistician Kevin McConway, who was not involved in the research, urged caution. “This research can’t clearly establish the extent to which [these chemicals] cause extra ill health and higher death rates,” he explained. Despite these uncertainties, researchers like Maureen Cropper of the University of Maryland argue the evidence is sufficient to justify immediate action.

“Our goal was to quantify the damages associated with three of the best-studied chemicals in plastics,” Cropper noted. “The scale of their impact demands global attention.”

Toward Safer Plastics

The researchers advocate for a precautionary approach to plastic regulation, emphasizing the need to shift the burden of proof onto manufacturers. This would align with practices in pharmaceutical regulation, where safety must be demonstrated before approval.

“Protection of human health against the hazards of chemicals in plastics will require a paradigm shift in national chemical law in multiple countries,” the study states. The team calls for unified global policies that prioritize health over industrial convenience, warning that delays could result in further preventable harm.

As the plastic pollution crisis intersects with public health, addressing the risks posed by these chemicals is becoming increasingly urgent. With lives and billions of dollars at stake, the push for stricter regulation represents a critical step toward mitigating this hidden danger.

The paper is published in PNAS.

Got a reaction? Share your thoughts in the comments

Enjoyed this article? Subscribe to our free newsletter for engaging stories, exclusive content, and the latest news.