Reacción a "The health impacts related to plastic emissions could double by 2040"

In my opinion, the article is of very high scientific quality. It is very well written and stands out for several reasons: the use of a transparent and reproducible methodology, the coherent integration of material flow models with life cycle assessment, and the clear translation of environmental emissions into comparable human health metrics (DALYs).

The work is particularly rigorous in documenting assumptions, scenarios, and sources of uncertainty, and, very importantly, it avoids speculative claims. The authors clearly indicate which effects are included and which are not, which I believe strengthens the study's credibility.

The study not only fits very well with previous evidence but also represents a significant qualitative leap. Currently, there is abundant literature documenting adverse effects of plastics at different stages of their life cycle, as well as LCA studies focused on climate emissions or pollution. However, to my knowledge, an integrated quantification of human health impacts on a global scale is not common.

This work confirms and reinforces previous findings indicating that primary plastic production is a dominant source of environmental and health impacts, and demonstrates that focusing exclusively on waste management is insufficient (key finding). Therefore, it provides a solid quantitative basis for justifying policies such as reducing plastic production, simplifying the chemical compounds used, and mandating transparency in material composition.

I also believe it is important to highlight that, in the current context of the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, the article provides directly relevant evidence to support a comprehensive life cycle approach, not limited to the end-of-life of products.

I would say that the most significant limitation is the exclusion of the direct effects of human exposure to chemical compounds present in plastics, microplastics, and nanoplastics, as well as the impacts during the product use phase. These exclusions are due to the lack of available data in LCA inventories, especially the lack of industrial transparency regarding the chemical composition of plastics. Furthermore, the study covers only a portion of the plastics universe (primarily municipal waste) and does not include sectors such as construction, textiles, electronics, or agriculture, which use potentially more hazardous polymers in larger volumes. This is important because it implies that the presented estimates likely underestimate the true health burden. Another relevant limitation is the high uncertainty inherent in long-term global models. Although the authors incorporate sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations from the P2O model, a complete quantification of the accumulated uncertainty is not possible.

However, all these limitations are explicitly acknowledged in the article and, in my opinion, do not weaken its central message. On the contrary, they reinforce the conclusion that even using prudent and conservative estimates reveals very significant health impacts, and that, therefore, the actual effects could be considerably greater.