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

The article attempts to quantify the impact of plastic on human health. To do so, it integrates a material flow model with a life cycle assessment. The study compares disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) under various scenarios, based on a projected 100% increase in production from 2016 to 2040. This figure, however, appears to be overestimated. An extrapolation of recent growth rates suggests a real increase of closer to 60%.

The study highlights a scenario that clearly improves health indicators: one that reduces the use of non-essential plastics and promotes reusable glass, paper, and compostable materials. However, the approach is somewhat confusing, as it does not precisely define which uses are non-essential or what would happen if alternative materials were used. Even so, the conclusion is clear: reducing plastic consumption decreases its impact.

The findings indicate that raw material extraction and polymer manufacturing are the main culprits behind health damage, resulting from global warming associated with production. This result, besides being counterintuitive, ignores the potential risk posed by chemical additives and microplastics and nanoplastics, which it excludes due to a lack of data on their composition and effects. This severely limits the analysis's ability to reflect the true extent of the damage.

Another weakness is that the study is limited to common plastics found in municipal waste (two-thirds of the total), excluding sectors such as construction, transportation, agriculture, and textiles. Furthermore, there is a geographical bias, as the inventories were primarily extrapolated from data from Europe and North America. In short, the premise is interesting, but the study's methodological limitations considerably diminish its value. Reducing the impact by cutting production is common to all industrial activity.