AMERICA’S PLASTIC PANDEMIC

Cassandra Moore

The United States of America’s addiction to convenience has produced a poison that chokes the environment and infiltrates our bodies. This poison presents itself as a plastic bag, bottle, utensil, or any plastic that is used and then immediately discarded. While the decades flew by and people happily went about their plastic-powered lives only vaguely aware of plastic pollution, leaving a solution up to somebody else, a sinister, practically unstoppable plague was being created as a result of disposable plastic sloshing around the ocean for half a century. This plague comes in the form of microplastics. These are plastic particles so microscopic, and so pervasive, that the vast majority of people currently have microplastic inside their bodies. With possible solutions now being actively researched and developed, the United States of America is at a crucial point in history where every citizen, and every state, must come together against the disaster that is plastic pollution or else suffer the dark reality of a crisis beyond repair.

The history of disposable plastic in the United States is one of good intentions. The advent of modern plastic traces its roots back to an ivory shortage in the middle of the nineteenth century due to the popularity of billiards, a game which uses balls made mostly of ivory (Obermeyer). In order to ease the rising production costs of the ivory being used to make the billiard balls, and at the same time sparing the lives of the animals being slaughtered for their ivory, a synthetic polymer was created to replace the increasingly scarce material (Obermeyer). Soon it was discovered that the synthetic polymer could be manipulated and molded to be used for a multitude of useful purposes. According to Charlie Obermeyer,

The discovery of a viable synthetic material was revolutionary because nature can only provide so much wood, coal, and metal. Using a fully synthetic material in lieu of natural resources ostensibly meant that using this new product would be beneficial to the environment.

In other words, originally, plastic was genuinely believed to be a propitious invention. At the time, not knowing what we know now, plastic really was, and in many ways still is, a technological miracle. Plastic was saving the environment from the demands of industry and became a cheap alternative to natural materials. As everyone in the United States enjoyed the seemingly limitless benefits of disposable plastics for the better part of a century, largely indifferent or else ignorant to the pollution being produced for the sake of convenience, the crisis of plastic pollution would eventually grow to become substantially ungovernable.

The plastic produced by the United States of America has grown so refractory over the last century that it is now a predicament with the potential to negatively impact virtually everyone on earth. In 2016, the amount of plastic pollution being released into the oceans surrounding the United States on a yearly basis came out to about 42 million tons, or about 287 pounds of plastic per person, more than any other country (Root). In 2008, only 7.1 percent of the plastic produced in the United States of America was properly recycled (Kiener). Now being the largest producer of plastic in the world, the United States is beyond the point where the luxury that is disposable plastics can continue to facilitate the lives of United States citizens. The reason for this shift in what is reasonably viable in terms of disposable plastic is due to what becomes of disposable plastic once it degrades down to a microscopic level.

One of the most dreadful results of plastic pollution is microplastics. Coined in 2004 by Richard Thompson, a marine ecologist, to refer to plastic particles smaller than five millimeters, microplastic is an especially disastrous phenomenon due to its tremendously diminutive size and resistance to degradation and bioaccumulation (Lim). Most often microplastics are created when disposable plastics are discarded into aquatic environments where they’re exposed to sunlight and eventually photo-degrade due to the sun’s ultraviolet radiation (Kiener). There are a number of other ways microplastics are created, however, according to Jun Chen et al. of Advanced Science, who says, “MPs (microplastics) are unintentionally formed from the gradual fragmentation of mismanaged plastic wastes by photolysis, abrasion, and/or microbial decomposition.” At a certain point in a segment of discarded plastic’s lifespan it will begin to weaken and fragment into smaller pieces. The dangers caused by disposable plastics are no longer a matter of cutting the plastic rings when done with a six pack so that birds don’t get their heads entangled. It’s also no longer enough to forgo a plastic bag so that it doesn’t end up in the ocean where turtles mistake it for an edible jellyfish, ultimately resulting in the turtle’s death. The problem of plastic pollution has gone on so long with so little done that microplastics are being spread to every ecosystem within the United States.

Microplastics are outstandingly dangerous for a variety of reasons, all of them having to do with their minuscule proportions. Being less than five millimeters and virtually weightless, microplastics are able to be carried by air currents, joining all other forms of air pollution, to all habitats within the biosphere (Singh et al.). These microplastics travel through the atmosphere to places far away from where they originated to ultimately land in both aquatic and terrestrial environments, poisoning ecosystems that may have otherwise been safe from such pollution (Singh et al.). There are also recent studies to suggest that microplastics can be found in rain or freshly fallen snow (Singh et al.). In the cases regarding microplastics finding their way to terrestrial ecosystems, studies have mixed results on how much of a negative impact they tend to have on soil and the animals living within the soil. According to Alison Pearce Stevens, author of Polluting microplastics harm both animals and ecosystems,

Numbers of the larger organisms, such as ants and larvae, also decreased. It’s possible the plastic poisoned them. Or they might simply have moved to less polluted soils. The microbial communities didn’t seem much affected by the plastic.

With microplastic being such a relatively new phenomenon, we don’t yet know the full scale of the damage being done by microplastic’s ability to travel to all avenues of the biosphere. There is so much that is unknown, and precious little research being done to find out. What is known, however, is that this microscopic form of disposable plastic has found its way into the human body by means of respiration as a result of the plastic pollution being carried through the atmosphere.

While microplastics ravage marine ecosystems, scientists are only just beginning to understand the impact that plastic pollution is having on the ecosystem that is the human body. According to Emma Schmaltz et al. of Sciencedirect, people consume up to 52,000 microplastic particles a year. Disposable plastics are deteriorating into such tiny, microscopic pieces that, when consumed by people, have the ability to cause diabetes, obesity, and reproductive issues. According to Sardinha et al. of ACS Omega,

For example, it has been shown that nanoplastics impact negatively the composition and diversity of microbial communities in the human gut, which, considering emerging research evidencing the strong relationship between the gut and neural networks in the brain, could negatively impact the endocrine, immune, and nervous systems.

Plastic is now degrading into particles that are able to enter our bodies through the air we breathe as well as the food we eat. Plastic pollution is no longer an external matter that can be kept at a distance and left up to the invaluable few to find a solution. And now, as Sardhina et al. mentions, experts are identifying particles that are considerably more nanoscopic than microplastics.

There is currently no official term for anything smaller than microplastic, though there is one designation being used that is quickly becoming popular among experts. These particles are nanoplastics. The term “nanoplastic” was created only a few years ago by Julien Gigault et al. to categorize microplastics that are so microscopic that the methods currently in place that filter and capture microplastic are rendered useless (Mitrano). These nanoplastic particles are now inside the body’s of the majority of American citizens.

According to Christopher Rhodes of Science Progress, after taking samples of drinking water throughout the United States, it was found that 92% of drinking water contained nanoplastics. Recently, in March 2022, Heather A. Leslie and her colleagues reported in Environment International that plastic has found its way into human bloodstreams. Leslie et al. explains these findings,

This pioneering human biomonitoring study demonstrated that plastic particles are bioavailable for uptake into the human bloodstream. An understanding of the exposure of these substances in humans and the associated hazard of such exposure is needed to determine whether or not plastic particle exposure is a public health risk.

As of now, there is no reliable data detailing the possible ramifications of regularly ingesting plastic, nor the damage caused by having plastic being transported to all sections of the human body via the bloodstream. Ultimately, this lack of information, and the insufficient progress being made toward eradicating plastic pollution, is the consequence of the United States being decidedly not united in one of the most salient crises of the last century.

A massive obstacle in this perennial point of issue comes as a result of each state in the United States having their own methods and policies for dealing with disposable plastics. Consider this interview between Scott Nyquist and Rachel Meidl, in which she states that her research has led her to conclude that there are massive gaps in the necessary data we need to accurately address plastic pollution. Meidl claims,

Currently, it is difficult to conduct studies and draw valid, reproducible comparisons because there is no globally standardized approach. If we want to improve marine and human health, we need to create harmonized international methods. Otherwise, we cannot fully comprehend the effects of plastics on the entire ecosystem, including below the ocean’s surface, or in fresh water systems.

Since there are currently no standards to measure and collect data regarding plastic pollution, it’s small wonder that the United States has made such little progress. Meidl rules out the possibility of banning plastic as a solution until we’re able to categorize each individual problem being caused by plastic pollution. Meidl says,

Before instituting a ban, it’s critical to identify the problem being addressed. Is it marine health? Climate change? Phasing out fossil fuels as feedstocks in plastics production? Each has a distinct policy path.

According to Meidl there is no one single solution to eliminating plastic pollution. It’s paramount that all the different aspects of plastic use and production are understood by all relevant parties and then enact policies accordingly. If plastic is truly to be banned, as it must be in due course, there is the unavoidable question of how exactly to replace an all-purpose, miracle material, that has existed without rival for more than a century.

The main concerns people have with the idea of replacing disposable plastic seems to stem from how simple and inexpensive plastic is to produce compared to natural materials. This was, after all, the entire reason plastic was originally invented more than a hundred years ago. Even those who are environmentally conscious are hesitant to suffer the consequences of a ban on disposable plastic. In Tik Root’s article for the Washington Post he explains that the American Chemistry Council supported the idea of a federal approach to plastic pollution but was strongly opposed to the idea of banning plastic. Joshua Baca, the American Chemistry Council’s vice president of plastics, is quoted as saying,

Plastic is a valuable resource that should be kept in our economy and out of our environment. Unfortunately, the report also suggests restricting plastic production to reduce marine debris. This is misguided and would lead to supply chain disruptions.

Clearly, it’s not simply a matter of what is best for the environment. While the importance of the topic that is plastic pollution can not be understated, it won’t do to address this challenge if one cannot see the forest for the trees, so to speak. To focus on the negatives of disposable plastics and ignore the larger complications of banning plastic entirely would be doing a disservice to the subject at hand. The debate between what is economically viable and environmentally custodial seems to be one that must be concluded before clean, sustainable, and comprehensible change is made on a federal level. Once a reasonable replacement for disposable plastic is found, and enthusiastically agreed upon, only then will fears ease and minds change.

In order to rid modern society of its dependence on disposable plastics it’s of vital importance that an alternative is presented that will do the same job of disposable plastics without the negative impact on both living and non-living aspects of the environment. Doris Tang et al. of Sciencedirect recommends the use of algae. Algae can be used to create a bioplastic that would replace the disposable plastics currently being used around the country. According to Tang et al., while it’s possible to create bioplastic polymers using crop-based plants such as wheat and corn, it would someday become an issue of space and sustainability. This is what makes algae so special, as it can grow on comparatively less arable land and the cultivation time compared to agricultural plants is much shorter (Tang). Algae can also be used to biodegrade the plastic waste already scattered about marine environments (Tang). Microalgae in particular has been proven to degrade plastic by use of the toxins and enzymes generated by the microalgae (Tang). Bioplastics that are created using algae are practically identical to the current petroleum-based plastics while having none of the repercussions (Tang). Though, currently, bioplastics can be as much as 50% more expensive than conventional polymer plastics, researchers are actively working to make bioplastics more economically attractive (Cho). Thanks to the work being done to create a sustainable, eco-friendly alternative to the current polymer-based disposable plastics, there is still hope for the future of the biosphere and those who dwell within it. With the support, unification, and funds of every state in the nation, hope would inevitably become a matter of course.

The citizens of the United States are addicted to making their lives easier and disposable plastic continues to proliferate as a result of this dependence. The once noble goal of saving the environment by creating synthetic polymers, the very reason plastic was invented in the first place, has created a cankerous blight that damages both the living and non-living aspects of virtually every habitat in the country. The enticing convenience of disposing of a single-use plastic item, rather than washing and caring for a reusable item, has warped our society into a plastic-fueled mess with the environment taking the brunt of the damage. As the country currently stands, unless a reasonable substitute for disposable plastic is implemented nationwide, the job of ridding the United States of plastic pollution entirely is an exercise in futility. The United States must decide to live up to its name and finally unite the states in opposition to

Work Cited

Baca, Joshua. National Academies: Coherent and Comprehensive Policy Necessary to Reduce Plastic Waste in The Ocean, American Chemistry Council, 2021

Chen, Junliang, et al. “How to Build a Microplastics-Free Environment: Strategies for Microplastics Degradation and Plastics Recycling.” Advanced Science, vol. 9, no. 6, 2022, pp. e2103764-n/a.

Cho, Renee. “The Truth about Bioplastics.” State of the Planet, 7 July 2021

Gigault, Julien et al. Current opinion: What is a nanoplastic?, Environmental Pollution, Volume 235, 2018, Pages 1030-1034, ISSN 0269-7491

Kiener, R. Plastic pollution. CQ Global Researcher, 4, 157-184, 2010

Leslie, Heather A. et al., Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood, Environment International, Volume 163, 2022, 107199, ISSN 0160-4120

Lim, X. Z. et al. Microplastics are everywhere - but are they harmful? Nature News, 2021

Meidl, Rachel and Nyquist, Scott. “What to Do about Plastics: An Interview with Rachel Meidl.” McKinsey & Company, 2019.

Mitrano, Denise. “Nanoplastic should be better understood.” Nat Nanotech 14 (2019): 299.

Obermeyer, Charlie. “The History and Proliferation of SingleUse Plastic Products.” CleanUp News, 18 Feb. 2021, www. cleanupnews.org/home/history-of-plastics-and-recycling

Rhodes CJ. Plastic pollution and potential solutions. Sci Prog. 2018 Sep 1;101(3):207-260. doi: 10.3184/003685018X152948767 06211. Epub 2018 Jul 19. PMID: 30025551.

Root, T. U.S. is top contributor to plastic waste, report shows. The Washington Post, 2021

Sardinha, Jose et al. Plastic Pollution: A Perspective on Matters Arising: Challenges and Opportunities, ACS Omega, 2021, 6, 30, 19343–19355, July 23, 2021

Schmaltz, Emma, et al. “Plastic Pollution Solutions: Emerging Technologies to Prevent and Collect Marine Plastic Pollution.” Environment International, vol. 144, 2020, pp. 106067.

Stevens, Alison Pearce. “Polluting Microplastics Harm Both Animals and Ecosystems.” Science News for Students, 21 Dec. 2020

Tang, Doris et al. Nature’s fight against plastic pollution: Algae for plastic biodegradation and bioplastics production, Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, Volume 4, 2020