<p class="bodytext">If you think $3.7 trillion is India’s projected GDP for 2023–24, think again. That’s an estimate of the economic lifetime cost of pollution from plastic produced in 2019 alone. Low- and middle-income countries, like India, bear this cost disproportionately, up to 10 times higher than high-income countries. Recent revelations by the scientific community have exposed the dark side of the petrochemical and plastics industry, long hailed as a cornerstone of modern civilization, driving economic growth and innovation globally. To what, then, can we attribute the regulatory vacuum for chemicals in plastics and polymers in India? It suggests that deliberate and institutionalised ignorance can only be construed as deliberate and manufactured oblivion. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The #PlastChem project will soon publish a report and database revealing that a staggering 16,000 chemicals are used in polymer and plastics production, posing alarming threats to human health and environmental sustainability. About 33% (5,458) of these chemicals were assessed, and 25% (4,105) were found to be hazardous, 7% (1,192) less hazardous, and only 1% (161) chemicals are classified as not hazardous; the remaining 66% (10,839) chemicals have not yet been assessed. Despite global evidence of health and environmental impacts, India’s polymer and plastics industry largely operates without regulation regarding hazardous chemicals in plastic products.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Plastics permeate every aspect of daily life, from food packaging to medical devices. There is evidence that the chemicals used and added to produce plastics often leach into the air, water, and soil and enter our food and bloodstream through ingestion and dermal exposure when we touch everyday items such as furniture and toys. The burning of plastic releases toxic chemicals, while microplastics and nanoplastics, which result from the breakdown of larger plastic items, contaminate air, rainwater, and food items. Alarmingly, they have been found in human breast milk and placenta. Plastic chemicals and polymers, as well as plastic waste, have globalised supply chains, and their consequences know no bounds, whether geographic or temporal.</p>.<p class="bodytext">While data on chemical accidents and acute poisoning exists, information regarding chronic health impacts remains scarce. India mandates rigorous testing for food, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical producers to ensure that their products are safe for human use. They have to get approval certificates from regulatory agencies, like the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) for cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices. In complete contrast, plastic products are sold without any public information about their chemical composition and associated health effects. The infamous case of Dupont’s use of “forever chemical” C8 in Teflon manufacturing, despite knowing its health risks, underscores the urgent need for regulation. For decades, Dupont suppressed evidence linking C8 to cancer, miscarriages, and other health issues, putting profits ahead of public safety. This information became public only when some affected farmers took the company to court. The Global Plastics Treaty is an opportunity to bring about systemic change: improve transparency, phase out hazardous plastic chemicals and polymers, and promote the development of non-toxic plastics or non-plastic alternatives where appropriate. </p>.<p class="bodytext">India’s submissions (Part A, Part B) to the UNEP ahead of the third Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee undermine this historic instrument. India has suggested that the treaty should have “no binding targets or caps with respect to the production of plastic polymers” and that the “coverage of substances, materials, and products, as required, should be related to addressing plastic pollution.” It prioritised common but differentiated responsibilities and made no mention of the precautionary principle. Instead, it suggested that substitutes and alternatives to plastic polymers and products should only be accepted if they are technically feasible and economically viable. </p>.<p class="bodytext">India went on to suggest that “design standards for various products should be dependent on national circumstances and should not be harmonised at the global level... The products that are regarded as single-use in developed countries are commonly reused in developing countries.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">India needs a paradigm shift in its chemical regulatory framework and environmental stewardship. Instead of passively relying on voluntary industry disclosures and consumer complaints and accidents that prompt piece-meal action, scientists suggest that the world adopt a comprehensive approach to chemical safety that is based on independent science. India should develop its own inventory and contribute to a global inventory of plastic chemicals and polymers, including production and trade volumes, to promote transparency and traceability. There should be clear definitions and harmonised hazards criteria, such as those set out in the EU’s Chemical Strategy for Sustainability. Regulation should be grounded in the precautionary principle, and chemicals should be grouped based on their structure to “simplify prioritisation and preempt regrettable substitutions (i.e., marketing slightly modified chemicals possessing similar hazards)”. </p>.<p class="bodytext">A positive list of plastics, chemicals, and polymers should determine what can be used and be regularly tested for their potential to degrade and release chemicals. A negative list of chemicals and polymers with known hazards should be restricted and phased out. There must be greater transparency within the petrochemical industry, and they should be required to disclose the full list of chemicals used in the production of plastics. There should also be enhanced accountability for industrial pollution and the impacts of chemicals. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The findings of the Norwegian #PlastChem project serve as a wake-up call to the petrochemical industry and policymakers alike. We must dismantle the power dynamics, behaviours, and institutional structures that perpetuate a systemic unawareness concerning the detrimental impacts of specific chemical pollutants. This entrenched ignorance within our institutions primarily arises from the alignment of deliberate strategies employed by the petrochemical industry and related economic stakeholders, leveraging their exclusive knowledge of risks to evade accountability, and the routine functioning of scientific and regulatory frameworks. It is time for a fundamental reevaluation of how India approaches chemical regulation and environmental sustainability, with a focus on proactive measures to protect public health and keep our planet liveable.</p>.<p class="bodytext">(The writer is a public policy advocate and an adviser to the Centre for Financial Accountability) </p>
<p class="bodytext">If you think $3.7 trillion is India’s projected GDP for 2023–24, think again. That’s an estimate of the economic lifetime cost of pollution from plastic produced in 2019 alone. Low- and middle-income countries, like India, bear this cost disproportionately, up to 10 times higher than high-income countries. Recent revelations by the scientific community have exposed the dark side of the petrochemical and plastics industry, long hailed as a cornerstone of modern civilization, driving economic growth and innovation globally. To what, then, can we attribute the regulatory vacuum for chemicals in plastics and polymers in India? It suggests that deliberate and institutionalised ignorance can only be construed as deliberate and manufactured oblivion. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The #PlastChem project will soon publish a report and database revealing that a staggering 16,000 chemicals are used in polymer and plastics production, posing alarming threats to human health and environmental sustainability. About 33% (5,458) of these chemicals were assessed, and 25% (4,105) were found to be hazardous, 7% (1,192) less hazardous, and only 1% (161) chemicals are classified as not hazardous; the remaining 66% (10,839) chemicals have not yet been assessed. Despite global evidence of health and environmental impacts, India’s polymer and plastics industry largely operates without regulation regarding hazardous chemicals in plastic products.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Plastics permeate every aspect of daily life, from food packaging to medical devices. There is evidence that the chemicals used and added to produce plastics often leach into the air, water, and soil and enter our food and bloodstream through ingestion and dermal exposure when we touch everyday items such as furniture and toys. The burning of plastic releases toxic chemicals, while microplastics and nanoplastics, which result from the breakdown of larger plastic items, contaminate air, rainwater, and food items. Alarmingly, they have been found in human breast milk and placenta. Plastic chemicals and polymers, as well as plastic waste, have globalised supply chains, and their consequences know no bounds, whether geographic or temporal.</p>.<p class="bodytext">While data on chemical accidents and acute poisoning exists, information regarding chronic health impacts remains scarce. India mandates rigorous testing for food, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical producers to ensure that their products are safe for human use. They have to get approval certificates from regulatory agencies, like the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) for cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices. In complete contrast, plastic products are sold without any public information about their chemical composition and associated health effects. The infamous case of Dupont’s use of “forever chemical” C8 in Teflon manufacturing, despite knowing its health risks, underscores the urgent need for regulation. For decades, Dupont suppressed evidence linking C8 to cancer, miscarriages, and other health issues, putting profits ahead of public safety. This information became public only when some affected farmers took the company to court. The Global Plastics Treaty is an opportunity to bring about systemic change: improve transparency, phase out hazardous plastic chemicals and polymers, and promote the development of non-toxic plastics or non-plastic alternatives where appropriate. </p>.<p class="bodytext">India’s submissions (Part A, Part B) to the UNEP ahead of the third Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee undermine this historic instrument. India has suggested that the treaty should have “no binding targets or caps with respect to the production of plastic polymers” and that the “coverage of substances, materials, and products, as required, should be related to addressing plastic pollution.” It prioritised common but differentiated responsibilities and made no mention of the precautionary principle. Instead, it suggested that substitutes and alternatives to plastic polymers and products should only be accepted if they are technically feasible and economically viable. </p>.<p class="bodytext">India went on to suggest that “design standards for various products should be dependent on national circumstances and should not be harmonised at the global level... The products that are regarded as single-use in developed countries are commonly reused in developing countries.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">India needs a paradigm shift in its chemical regulatory framework and environmental stewardship. Instead of passively relying on voluntary industry disclosures and consumer complaints and accidents that prompt piece-meal action, scientists suggest that the world adopt a comprehensive approach to chemical safety that is based on independent science. India should develop its own inventory and contribute to a global inventory of plastic chemicals and polymers, including production and trade volumes, to promote transparency and traceability. There should be clear definitions and harmonised hazards criteria, such as those set out in the EU’s Chemical Strategy for Sustainability. Regulation should be grounded in the precautionary principle, and chemicals should be grouped based on their structure to “simplify prioritisation and preempt regrettable substitutions (i.e., marketing slightly modified chemicals possessing similar hazards)”. </p>.<p class="bodytext">A positive list of plastics, chemicals, and polymers should determine what can be used and be regularly tested for their potential to degrade and release chemicals. A negative list of chemicals and polymers with known hazards should be restricted and phased out. There must be greater transparency within the petrochemical industry, and they should be required to disclose the full list of chemicals used in the production of plastics. There should also be enhanced accountability for industrial pollution and the impacts of chemicals. </p>.<p class="bodytext">The findings of the Norwegian #PlastChem project serve as a wake-up call to the petrochemical industry and policymakers alike. We must dismantle the power dynamics, behaviours, and institutional structures that perpetuate a systemic unawareness concerning the detrimental impacts of specific chemical pollutants. This entrenched ignorance within our institutions primarily arises from the alignment of deliberate strategies employed by the petrochemical industry and related economic stakeholders, leveraging their exclusive knowledge of risks to evade accountability, and the routine functioning of scientific and regulatory frameworks. It is time for a fundamental reevaluation of how India approaches chemical regulation and environmental sustainability, with a focus on proactive measures to protect public health and keep our planet liveable.</p>.<p class="bodytext">(The writer is a public policy advocate and an adviser to the Centre for Financial Accountability) </p>
