Scientists issue urgent call ahead of final plastics treaty talks: This is the world’s last chance to act
In a rare collective intervention, more than 60 global experts publish open letters demanding a binding UN plastics treaty grounded in science, justice, and bold political will
University of Portsmouth
In a rare collective intervention, more than 60 global experts publish open letters demanding a binding UN plastics treaty grounded in science, justice, and bold political will
- The UN plastics treaty INC-5.2 is the world’s best opportunity to secure a comprehensive, binding agreement tackling plastic pollution
- Scientists emphasise the need to phase out toxic additives and chemicals in plastics and reduce plastics production altogether.
- Plastic pollution is a health crisis, with microplastics and nanoplastics increasingly found throughout the human body – especially in vulnerable populations
With the final round of UN negotiations on a global plastics treaty fast approaching, a group of over 60 leading scientists from around the world has issued an urgent call for governments to agree on ambitious, enforceable action to tackle plastic pollution, such as reducing plastic production and prioritising human health.
The letters, published today in Cambridge University Press journal Cambridge Prisms: Plastics in the run-up to the resumed session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2), warn that the plastics crisis has become a defining environmental, health, and social justice issue of our time.
“This is not just a call for action, this is the scientific community bearing witness,” said Professor Steve Fletcher, Editor-in-Chief of Cambridge Prisms: Plastics and Director of the Revolution Plastics Institute. “We’ve watched the evidence pile up for decades. This treaty is a test of whether the world is prepared to govern plastics in a way that reflects the scale and urgency of the crisis.”
The authors argue that the stakes at INC-5.2 could not be higher: this is the world’s best opportunity to secure a binding agreement that tackles plastic pollution across its entire lifecycle.
The open letters provide a coherent evidence-based roadmap for treaty negotiators. Key demands include:
- Legally binding targets to cap and reduce plastic production. Phase-out of toxic additives and chemicals in plastics.
- Global health safeguards to protect human health. Structural inclusion of affected communities in treaty design and implementation - especially Indigenous Peoples, informal waste workers, and fence line communities.
- Independent scientific oversight insulated from corporate lobbying and greenwashing.
- Robust financing and compliance mechanisms to ensure treaty enforcement and support for low-and middle-income countries.
Many letters warn that low-ambition countries and industry lobbying risk derailing progress. The politicisation of science in treaty negotiations is another central concern raised in the letters.
Several contributors warn that without the meaningful inclusion of those most affected by plastic pollution, the treaty will fall short. They call for the structural involvement of Indigenous Peoples, small island states, women, young people, informal waste workers, and residents of pollution hotspots, not as afterthoughts, but as key voices in setting the agenda and shaping implementation.
Professor Max Liboiron, Department of Geography, Memorial University, Canada, said: “The current draft of the Global Plastics Treaty falls short by excluding Indigenous Peoples from decision-making roles while incorporating their knowledge in ways that are disconnected from their rights. This is not simply a call for “inclusion”; it is a call for governance infrastructure.”
Professor Tony Walker, School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Canada, said: “Subsidies and inadequate pricing of externalities have a major role in sustaining the current linear plastic economy, and thus preventing a needed transition towards a more circular economy, which focus on reducing consumption of plastics, phasing out single use plastics and provide a pathway towards a more regenerative and restorative plastic economy.”
The letters highlight the mounting evidence that plastic pollution is a health crisis. Microplastics and nanoplastics have been found throughout the human body. These exposures disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including Indigenous Peoples, waste workers, fence line communities, women, and children, groups who are least protected by regulation and often excluded from decision-making forums.
Dr Cressida Bowyer, Deputy Director of the Revolution Plastics Institute at the University of Portsmouth, said: “There is clear and growing evidence that plastic poses serious risks to human health. Yet the approach to health protection in the treaty still hangs in the balance. In order to operationalise the global plastics treaty objective to “protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution” the treaty must directly address human health impacts in the core obligations of the treaty.”
The authors call for cumulative risk assessment, exposure monitoring, and transparent chemical regulation. They remind negotiators that the costs of inaction are not abstract, but can be counted in cancers, reproductive harms, and respiratory conditions.
Susanne Brander, Associate Professor, Oregon State University, USA, said: “Incorporating strategic and robust global controls on hazardous chemicals in the plastic treaty is essential to protect human and environmental health, reduce societal costs, and ensure safer and more sustainable plastic chemicals and products. Chemicals of concern are currently intrinsic to plastics and largely unregulated.”
Others argue that trade remains a largely overlooked yet indispensable element in shaping an effective and equitable agreement. Trade, spanning plastic feedstocks, resins, products, and waste, forms the connective tissue of the plastics economy and must be embedded in the treaty’s architecture.
Professor Maria Ivanova, Northeastern University, USA, said: “To be effective, the global plastics treaty must address the realworld architecture of the plastics economy, where trade is the connective tissue. At INC-5.2, negotiators must seize the opportunity to design a treaty that is both environmentally ambitious and structurally sound. Trade must be reimagined as a tool for transformation. If trade is the connective tissue of the plastics crisis, it must also be part of the cure.”
An ambitious treaty has backing from over 100 countries. Yet INC-5.2 arrives after prolonged delays, consensus deadlock, and obstruction by a handful of low-ambition states. The letters argue that the treaty’s credibility and effectiveness now hinge on political courage, not scientific uncertainty.
“The scientific consensus is clear,” added Professor Fletcher. “The only question is whether governments will respond. This treaty could be transformative but only if it avoids the traps of voluntary commitments and techno-fixes. This is the world’s last chance to act boldly.”
The full collection of open letters is now available to journalists, negotiators, and policymakers ahead of the final treaty talks in August.
Notes to Editors
Letters
Cambridge Prisms: Plastics, Act boldly or fail: academic perspectives at a pivotal moment in global plastics treaty negotiations
About Cambridge University Press
Cambridge University Press is the academic and Bibles publisher of Cambridge University Press & Assessment. It publishes books and journals, serving customers in higher education through research, education products and services. It is part of the University of Cambridge, delivering trusted research and learning materials that spread knowledge, spark curiosity and aid understanding of the world we live in.
Journal
Cambridge Prisms Plastics
Method of Research
Commentary/editorial
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
How to incorporate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the Global Plastics Treaty
“The global community must take action”
Negotiations on the UN Plastics Convention start on 5 August
image:
Prof Annika Jahnke
view moreCredit: Sebastian Wiedling / UFZ
What are the UN negotiations on a global plastics treaty about?
Dana Kühnel: Through the Plastics Treaty, the UN aims to establish an internationally international legally binding framework to ensure that as many countries as possible to adopt standardised approaches to managing plastic. These include reducing plastic use and emissions, minimising harmful chemicals in plastics, and improving recycling methods in order to support a circular plastic economy. The agreement is intended to stand alongside the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.
Why is such an agreement needed?
Annika Jahnke: The production, use, and disposal of plastic are globally interlinked. The raw plastics come from countries such as India and Saudi Arabia; the plastic products are produced mainly in the Global North before being used worldwide. When there are no effective waste collection systems, plastic enters the environment and spreads in all directions. Like many other environmental pollutants, plastic does not stop at national borders and therefore causes transboundary problems. Plastic waste of all shapes and sizes can be found in virtually every corner of the Earth – from alpine glaciers and open oceans to the deep sea and remote island states . As a result, action must be coordinated between the countries. Furthermore, plastic is extremely persistent in the environment. If it sinks to the seabed, it degrades only very slowly because sunlight does not reach these depths and the temperatures remain consistently low.
Kühnel: We also know from forecasts that plastic production is expected to double by 2050. This increase creates an urgent need to better manage plastic production, use, and waste on a global scale.
What makes plastics so dangerous?
Kühnel: On one hand, there is a wide range of materials because the industry produces plastics using various raw materials, including polymers as the base material and functional additives such as plasticisers and UV stabilisers. Once in the environment, plastic weathers and breaks down, forming micro- and nanoplastic particles. Plastic waste harms marine wildlife that become entangled in larger items such as fishing nets. They also mistake both larger plastic fragments and micro- or nano-sized particles for food. The smallest ones can then enter the bloodstream through the intestinal wall. It is also certain that humans ingest plastic particles. It remains to date unclear how many of these particles remain in the body or are excreted. On the other hand, plastic-associated chemicals are released over time. More than 16,000 chemicals are used in plastics. Around one quarter of these are hazardous. They can negatively impact the environment and, amongst others, interfere with hormone function in humans.
So far, it has not been possible to agree on a global plastics agreement. What are the main areas of contention?
Kühnel: For example, one group of countries includes mainly oil-producing nations. It is in favour of managing plastic waste and increasing recycling – with the aim of reducing the amount of plastic entering the environment. However, it has little interest in curbing the production of plastics.
Jahnke: The “High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution”, which is led by Norway and Rwanda and includes the EU and Pacific small island developing states, takes a different position. It advocates further measures such as regulating the primary production of plastic, reducing single-use plastic products, controlling the use of plastic-associated chemicals, or replacing them with other less harmful substances. This group focuses on not only the waste problem but also the entire life cycle of plastic.
Overall, the negotiating parties so far remain far apart, particularly regarding the goals the international community should adopt and the extent to which individual states should be mandated to implement measures. It also remains unclear how the costs of removing plastic from the environment should be divided. The Global South and Indigenous peoples use less plastic than average but are disproportionately affected by its consequences. They are therefore calling for financial support from the main contributors to plastic pollution. Although many countries are fundamentally willing to contribute, they first want assurance that their ambitious demands are considered. At the conference in Busan (South Korea) in December 2024, there was little progress – and not only on this issue.
How can progress on this issue be revived?
Jahnke: Given the complexity of the problem and the need for multiple solutions, one approach would be to strengthen cross-sectoral collaboration. As outlined in our recent scientific publication, we believe it is urgent for scientists, policy-makers, regulators, the plastics industry, and civil society to engage in dialogue. This is the only way we can counteract plastic pollution quickly and comprehensively.
When would you say the conference was a success?
Jahnke: Ideally, a binding agreement would be reached on targets for plastic-associated chemicals, primary plastic production, and bans on plastic products of concern, which could then be negotiated at a Conference of the Parties (COP). These goals could be embedded in the agreement and later negotiated in detail by independent groups. In addition, regular updates based on the latest state of scientific knowledge are necessary.
Kühnel: Taking into account the entire life cycle of plastics – from resource extraction and production to disposal and recycling – would be an ideal outcome of the agreement. Regulation should address not only plastic waste but also plastic production – because that’s where the problems start. The global community must take action. The longer the delay, the more severe the problems become.
Further information:
- UFZ Press release, July 2025: “Underestimated sources of marine pollution”
- UFZ Press release, February 2025 “Nanoplastics at lofty heights”
- UFZ Press release, November 2024: “Environmental Impacts of Plastics: Moving beyond the perspective on waste”
- UFZ Press release, March 2024: “There are large accumulations of plastics in the ocean, even outside so-called garbage patch”
- Project website P-LEACH
- “High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution”
- “Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty”
Journal
Journal of Hazardous Materials
Method of Research
Commentary/editorial
Subject of Research
Not applicable
Article Title
Perspective article: Multisectoral considerations to enable a circular economy for plastics
Article Publication Date
21-Jul-2025
