An item a couple of months ago in the online international edition of UK-based publication The Guardian had caught my eye: “WHO launches health review after microplastics found in 90% of bottled water.” The news item detailed how researchers have found plastic fibers in popular bottled water brands.
While somewhat dated, having come out in mid-March, I still believe the Guardian report to be relevant. This is considering the widespread use of plastic bottles globally to retail drinking water and other beverages, as well as condiments, sauces, and other food items. Plastic bottles are also used for liquid medicine as well as tablets and capsules.
The Guardian reported that the World Health Organization (WHO) would review the “potential risks” to the public of plastic fibers or small plastic pieces — also known as microplastics — particularly in drinking water. In a previous study, high levels of microplastics were reportedly found in tap water.
But, a newer study found that more than 90% of the world’s most popular bottled water brands also contained microplastics. And the most common type of plastic fragment found in bottled water was polypropylene, which is used to make bottle caps. The bottles examined in the study were from the US, China, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Lebanon, Kenya, and Thailand.
The newer study, by scientists from the State University of New York in Fredonia, examined 259 bottles from 19 locations in nine countries across 11 different brands. And, an average of 325 plastic particles were reportedly found for every liter of water being sold. Also, of the 259 bottles examined, only 17 bottles were reportedly free of plastic.
What concerns me more is that The Guardian reported that the newer study “found roughly twice as many plastic particles within bottled water” compared with their previous study of tap water. This may be a bit obvious in the sense that bottled water is in a plastic bottle, unlike tap water. However, one is normally more inclined to think that “bottled water” is cleaner and safer than tap water. But this may not be the case with microplastics.
In fairness to bottling companies, the newer study is far from comprehensive. It has not been published in a scientific journal, and has not been through scientific peer review, according to The Guardian.
Moreover, a WHO spokesman had told The Guardian that there was not yet any evidence on impact on human health, although WHO would “review the very scarce available evidence with the objective of identifying evidence gaps and establishing a research agenda to inform a more thorough risk assessment.”
As I had written in a previous column, I believe that now there are just too many negative externalities associated with the use of plastic bottles and the retail of bottled water. Most plastic bottles end up in the garbage after use, and much of this garbage end up in our oceans. One estimate has it at over 46,000 pieces of floating plastic for every square mile of ocean.
There should be a concerted effort to minimize if not eliminate the use of plastic bottles for water and other beverages, for food, and for medicine. But, at the same time, there should be a major effort to research and produce alternatives. Public education will also play a big role in changing mind-sets and attitudes, for people to favor safer and sustainable alternatives to plastic.
The recent scientific revelation that bottled water is not necessarily “cleaner” or “safer” than tap water is a good start. In this line, we should seriously rethink the way we prioritize convenience over public safety and environmental impact. It is difficult to move away from using plastic, I know, but we do have to start somewhere. Little changes, over time, will go a long way.
I will be very interested to read the WHO review later on, and any other material or literature with detailed findings on the implications of the use of plastic containers to public health. And more experts should chime in on the economics of buying bottled water, and how effective marketing had convinced us to willingly pay a premium for quick and convenient access to “drinks.”
Disposable containers like plastic bottles make beverages conveniently accessible to us, but they can have adverse impact on people’s health as well as pollute our oceans and kill marine life. There is no doubt that there are “negatives” that go along with our use of plastic bottles, and economic and social and environmental costs.
One recourse, in lieu of legal prohibitions in the manufacture and use of plastic bottles, is national and local taxes.
In exchange for lowering excise taxes on fuel, for instance, the government can impose a small tax on the use of plastic bottles. It should be small at the start, to minimize impact on food costs and inflation.
But the tax can be made to gradually go up over time, to penalize further use of plastic. Meantime, producers can look for alternatives to plastic, to avoid the tax. And consumers can start weaning themselves from plastic. Consumers should be made to pay a premium, in the form of tax, not only for the convenience but also the negative externalities associated with the use of disposable plastic bottles.
People can always go to coffee shops with their own mugs or bring their own water containers to water refilling stations. Consumers can go to supermarkets and bring their own containers for sauces and condiments. Beverages can be sold in liquid dispensers. People should also get incentives or rebates for recycling.
The use of plastic bottles will eventually kill us. Perhaps not in the immediate, but it will kill us, surely. Even if microplastics can be filtered, the fact remains that plastic bottles end up mostly in dump sites and our oceans, resulting in pollution and death of marine life. As we slowly choke the Earth with our waste, we are also pulling tighter the noose around our necks.
Marvin A. Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippines Press Council.
matort@yahoo.com
