Plastics in Perspective

Posted on 10 Mar 2026

Every picture tells a story! From microplastics to Medicare packaging, the following research gives perspective.

Climate Change

The biggest threat facing mankind is climate change, yet we choose to ignore the major role plastics play in reducing GHG emissions when compared to alternative materials, be they paper, board, glass, tin, or aluminium. The following research all substantiates this claim.  

• Denkstatt: - Impact of plastics on life cycle energy consumption (2010/11)
• McKinsey and Co: - Climate Impact of Plastics (2016)
• US National Institute of Standards and Technology: - Environmental Impacts of Plastics (2022)
• European Environmental Science and Technology: - Replacing Plastics is Worse for GHG Emissions (2024)
• University of Sheffield / Cambridge: - Replacing Plastics with Alternatives is Worse for GHG Emissions (2024)

Summary

There are many more. The research quoted includes GHG emissions from all the major industries using plastics, i.e. Packaging, Construction, Automotive, Textiles and Consumer goods.

These industries consume circa 90% of global plastics used. The reductions in GHG emissions, when compared to alternative materials, is estimated to be between 10% and 90%. These GHG reductions occurred in over 90% of all the researched applications.

Thus, we can either assume all the research quoted is flawed, or the use of plastics reduce GHG emissions by many millions of tonnes a year and that replacing plastics with alternative materials simply adds to climate change! The question has to be asked, why do we see supermarkets, brand owners, and WRAP promoting plastic replacement?   

Transport

In 2010, Denkstatt (Austria) also investigated the effect on transport of replacing plastic packaging with alternative material. They concluded that the increase in weight transported would be 100 million tonnes, incurring an additional 7 million additional lorry movements. For example, they estimated that 1 truck load of plastic bottles requires between 10-15 truckloads when glass is used. Therefore, using glass instead of plastic simply adds to climate change.

Plastic Packaging – Reduces Food Waste

In 2011, the United Nations Food Waste Report estimated that worldwide 1.3 billion tonnes (30% of all food produced) is wasted. Every year the resulting GHG emissions are responsible for 8-10% of all GHG emissions. Thus, only the USA and China generate more GHG emissions globally than food waste!

The largest percentage waste was estimated to be in fruit and vegetables (45%). It is indisputable that plastic packaging reduces food waste by maintaining the pack contents edible for longer and extending shelf life. Plastic wrapped fruit and veg, in particular, are criticized for ‘over packaging’. Yet, the plastic has a carbon footprint of circa 1-2% of the product it is preserving. Fruit, veg, meat, cheese, chicken, all benefit from extended shelf life when packed in plastic. Therefore, whenever possible, perishable foods should be plastic wrapped to keep them edible for longer.  

Summary

Plastic packaging allied to modern packaging technology, enables food to be kept edible for longer. This saves many millions of tonnes of GHG emissions. Environmentally, producing some ‘Over Packaging’ is preferable to food waste. As food markets around the world develop from farm gate to supermarkets, the demand for plastic packaging increases. However, less food is wasted, so it is logical to conclude that growth in plastic production when used for packaging for food is environmentally beneficial.

Microplastics and Nano Plastics

We have been aware that transmission of inhaled particles can enter our blood stream and organs for over 20 years (A Nemmar 2002). We are also aware that these particles can be harmful to humans. The WHO estimated in 2012 that there were 3.7 million deaths due to air pollution.

But what does the WHO say about microplastics? Three investigations have taken place 2019 – 2022 – 2023. The 2023 investigation reviewed hundreds of laboratory and environmental studies. The WHO conclusion was ‘Current evidence does not demonstrate a clear human health risk” – as always, they indicate ‘more research is required’.

Similarly, the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has investigated microplastics, their conclusions:

• Current exposure is very low
• Detecting microplastics has become more accurate
• No confirmed health risk have been identified
• Further research is required!

Summary

Logic suggests we have had microplastics in our bodies for some 70 years, ever since we first wrapped our food in plastic and adopted plastic clothing. Current detection technologies using electron microscopes ‘discovered’ microplastics in our bodies (along with other contaminants) circa 10 years ago, some 60 years after we commenced ingesting plastics. Yet medical science has not reported any adverse effects on humans from plastics in our bodies. It is also a fact that for over 70 years we have had blood and plasma, which has been stored for up to a year in plastic, introduced into our bodies down a plastic tube, from a plastic bottle. This process has helped to save millions of lives worldwide and is considered to be one of the greatest innovations in human healthcare. Inevitably it would also enter microplastics into our bloodstream.

Conclusion: - All the information provided here is factual and easily checked. For those who have bothered to read to this point, they will appreciate the benefits that plastics have brought to mankind improving all our lives and hopefully this information gives some perspective when the next anti-plastic post appears.

As ever, I welcome your view on any of the items considered and you are welcome to join me on LinkedIn for more regular updates.

https://www.nationalflexible.co.uk/twigg-s-times

#DontHatePlastic