Activists pressure Milan Fashion Week to go fully fur-free


By AFP
March 1, 2026


Anti-fur campaigners are hoping to step up pressure on Milan Fashion Week to ban brands who still use fur. - Copyright AFP Miguel MEDINA

Alexandria SAGE

Animal activists have been turning up the heat on Milan Fashion Week to adopt a fully fur-free policy, with dozens of protesters demonstrating outside the Giorgio Armani show on Sunday.

Although the Armani Group went fur-free a decade ago, activists hope the powerful luxury company can pressure the National Chamber of Italian Fashion (CNMI), which organises fashion week, to disallow brands which use fur from participating.

Sunday’s demonstration was one of several protests carried out this week in Milan by international anti-fur activists organised under the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT).

Behind a barricade and large banner saying “Milan Fashion Week Go Fur-Free”, activists with a megaphone yelled “Shame on you for what you do!” as Armani guests left the show.

Use of fur in the global fashion industry has dramatically fallen in recent years due to concerns about animal cruelty, changing trends and new synthetic alternatives.

But there remain notable holdouts, such as Fendi, owned by French conglomerate LVMH, a storied Italian luxury brand whose roots are in fur.

Pierre-Emmanuel Angeloglou, the chief executive of Fendi, sits on the board of directors of the CNMI along with brands like Dolce & Gabbana, Prada and Ermenegildo Zegna, which have already rejected fur.

Campaigners hope the anti-fur designers can convince Milan Fashion Week to ban fur, as London and New York have done.

Smaller fashion weeks, including in Berlin, Copenhagen and Amsterdam, have also gone fur-free.

“It won’t be Fendi that helps us reach our goal, because they have no interest in pushing this issue forward, but other brands might be able to contribute,” Alberto Bianchi, 25, one of the protest’s organisers, told AFP.

The CNMI did not respond to an AFP request for comment.

– Step forward? –

The activists had demonstrated Wednesday outside Fendi’s Milan headquarters where its runway show took place.

Inside, newly seated designer Maria Grazia Chiuri showed a collection that included “remodelled” furs, or old furs reworked.

Bianchi said that focus on recycling could possibly be seen as “a step forward” but cautioned that LVMH is still actively investing in the use of fur.

“I see it as a one-off move maybe to do a bit of greenwashing,” he said.

“As long as we still have fur farms in Europe and we still have the possibility of importing it, it’s a gesture that doesn’t change the underlying idea,” Bianchi added.

The coalition won a victory in late January when pressure campaigns led to shipping giant DHL and cosmetics company Wella withdrawing as sponsors of Milan Fashion Week.

Later this month, the European Commission is expected to rule on a 2023 citizens’ initiative that called on the EU to ban fur farms and the killing of animals such as mink, foxes, raccoon dogs or chinchillas solely for their pelts.

Activists cite the cruelty inherent in fur farming, in which the animals are crammed into tiny wire battery cages before being gassed or electrocuted.

Milan Fashion Week ends on Monday, with focus now turning to Paris Fashion Week — which similarly does not have an anti-fur policy.

 

H5N1 causes die-off of Antarctic skuas, a seabird

Skua deaths mark first wildlife mortality due to avian flu on Antarctica

University of California - Davis

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Scientists evaluate skua carcasses at Beak Island in Antarctica in March 2024.

view more 

Credit: Ben Wallis

More than 50 skuas in Antarctica died from the high pathogenicity avian influenza virus H5N1 in the summers of 2023 and 2024, marking the first documented die-off of wildlife from the virus on the continent. That is confirmed for the first time in a study led by Erasmus MC in The Netherlands and the University of California, Davis. It published this week in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.

A relative of gulls, skuas are predatory, large brown birds living mostly in polar and subpolar environments. Similar to raptors, they play an important ecological role as scavengers. That role could position them to further spread the virus across Antarctica, the report notes.

Scientists previously detected the virus in a kelp gull and two skuas in Antarctica found dead in January and February 2024. However, avian flu had not been confirmed as the cause of their deaths.

“We knew there were animals with the infection, but this is the first study to show they died of the viral infection,” said co-senior author Ralph Vanstreels, a wildlife veterinarian with the UC Davis One Health Institute within the Weill School of Veterinary Medicine. “It’s an important distinction in the early days of an outbreak.”

Expedition to Antarctica

In March 2024, the authors traveled to Antarctica on a research expedition shortly after the breeding seasons of skuas and penguins. 

They surveyed wildlife at 10 locations in the South Shetland Islands, northern Weddell Sea and Antarctic Peninsula. When they found infected or dead wildlife, they collected tissue samples and environmental samples for analysis and performed necropsies.

The team found and performed post-mortem examinations on carcasses of gentoo penguins, Adélie penguins and Antarctic fur seals, but H5N1 was not diagnosed as the cause of death of those animals.

“As the expedition progressed, it became obvious quickly that skuas were a major victim,” said Vanstreels.

The team detected H5N1 in skuas at three locations – Hope Bay, Devil Island and Beak Island, which experienced a mass die-off of south polar skuas.

“We diagnosed high pathogenicity avian influenza as the cause of death for nearly all of the dead skuas we found at Beak Island,” said first author Matteo Iervolino, a Ph.D. candidate at Erasmus MC in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. “There, I could really see with my eyes the impact this virus can have on these populations.”

Vanstreels called it a “crisis in animal suffering.” The virus hits the brain, causing neurological symptoms, like a twisted neck or abnormal stretching. The birds swim or walk in circles. Sometimes they stumble blindly into an object or fall out of the air. The authors emphasize that humans are partly responsible for the virus and for preventing its spread.

History and spread of H5N1

H5N1 virus was discovered in 1996 in Southeast China on a domestic goose farm. It went uncontrolled within the poultry industry for several years, during which it spilled over into wild birds and then spread to Europe, the Middle East, Africa and later to North America, South America and, in early 2024, to Antarctica.

The same lineage of virus now affecting Antarctic skuas previously decimated elephant seals and sea lions in Argentina, led to the loss of more than 400 million poultry, and has affected dairy cows, mink, foxes, bears, otters and many other mammals and wild birds.

It can also spread to people. About half of the approximately 1,000 people infected with the virus died.

“We let the virus slip out through our fingers when it first emerged in the poultry industry,” said corresponding senior author Thijs Kuiken, a professor at Erasmus MC. “Once it got into wild bird populations, we lost ability to control this virus. Now it’s established in wild bird populations in all the continental regions of the world except Oceania.”

More surveillance needed to prevent spread

Wildlife in Antarctica already face a harsh environment and many threats, from global warming and increased tourism to invasive species, overfishing and pollution. Avian influenza creates an additional stressor requiring further surveillance and monitoring to help prevent future spillover, the study said.

For example, the last census of skuas in Antarctica was conducted in the 1980s, when scientists counted about 800 breeding pairs. Without an updated accounting of the population, the true impact of 50 skua deaths remains unclear.

“Everything points toward this virus spreading further,” Kuiken said. “If nobody is watching, we won’t know what is happening.”

The HPAI Australis Expedition was funded by the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) and Ocean Expeditions. The study was funded by the European Union, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) and PTI Global Health.

 

---

Journal

Scientific Reports

DOI

10.1038/s41598-025-34736-3 

Subject of Research

Animals

Article Title

The expanding H5N1 avian influenza panzootic causes high mortality of skuas in Antarctica

Article Publication Date

3-Feb-2026

A skua stands with some gentoo penguins in the background in Antarctica.

Credit

Ralph Vanstreels/UC Davis

The research team boarded the Support Vessel S/V Australis in March 2024 to investigate how avian influenza may be impacting wildlife in Antarctica.

Credit

Antonio Alcami/CSIC

The cause of death for nearly all dead skuas found at Beak Island in March 2024 was avian influenza, the research team confirmed.

Credit

Ralph Vanstreels/UC Davis

A researcher conducts an avian autopsy of a dead skua in Antarctica.

Credit

Ralph Vanstreels/UC Davis

A skua perches on a cliff in Antarctica in March 2024.

Credit

Matteo Iervolino/Erasmus MC

 

Immunity to seasonal flu protects against severe illness from bird flu in ferrets

A study in ferrets — which have remarkably similar respiratory systems to humans — suggests that widespread immunity to H1N1 seasonal influenza virus may explain why exposure to H5N1 bird flu causes only mild symptoms in humans

Penn State

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — The fatality rate for H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza in humans historically has been high, with more than half of people dying. Why, then, is the current H5N1 bird flu outbreak — which has caused massive die-offs in wild birds, farmed poultry and even wild mammals — causing mostly mild symptoms in the people it has infected? New research, led by scientists at Penn State and the University of Pittsburgh and published today (July 23) in the journal Science Translational Medicine, indicates that immunity to a seasonal influenza virus known as pandemic H1N1 that began circulating in 2009, provides protection from severe illness from H5N1 in a laboratory animal model.

“Every person has been exposed to H1N1 as the virus caused a pandemic in 2009 and is now the predominant circulating influenza strain in 1 out of every 3-4 years” said lead author Troy Sutton, associate professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences at Penn State. “Our findings suggest that this immunity is protective against the more recent H5N1 strain and may explain why we’re seeing fewer cases and less severe disease than we would expect.”

H5N1 viruses from clade 2.3.4.4b emerged in 2020 and were carried around the world by wild migratory birds, where they have since infected farmed poultry, wild mammals and, most recently, dairy cattle. As of June 2025, 70 human cases of H5N1 have been confirmed in the United States with one death. Most of the individuals were exposed to dairy cows or poultry and exhibited mild symptoms of conjunctivitis, fever and cough, among others. By contrast, previous human infections with H5N1 resulted in far more severe symptoms, such as seizures and respiratory failure, and some infected people died from the infection or related complications.  

"We wanted to know why H5N1 2.3.4.4b was not causing severe outcomes so we investigated whether pre-existing immunity to seasonal influenza could be providing protection," said Katherine Restori, assistant research professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences, Penn State. Restori explained that this research was conducted in ferrets, which are widely recognized as one of the best animal models for studying influenza virus infections.

To conduct their study, Sutton and his colleagues, including Valerie LeSage, research assistant professor, University of Pittsburgh, who co-led the research, studied ferrets with immunity to three common types of seasonal flu: Influenza B, H1N1 and H3N2. They also studied a control group of ferrets that had no immunity to flu. Ninety days after infecting the ferrets with these common seasonal flu viruses, the team confirmed immunity by testing the animals’ blood for antibodies. Next, the team exposed the ferrets through an inoculation in the nose to a version of the H5N1 virus that caused an outbreak on mink farms in Spain in 2022.

They found that all the ferrets without immunity to the seasonal flu viruses, as well as those with immunity to Influenza B, became sick, lost weight and reached a humane endpoint. The H3N2-immune ferrets lost 10% of their body weight but all survived. In contrast, the ferrets with immunity to H1N1 did not lose any weight and all survived.

Next, the team studied the potential protective effects of the same three seasonal influenza viruses against the more recent H5N1 virus that has been circulating in dairy cattle. This time, instead of inoculating the ferrets with H5N1 in the nose, the team exposed ferrets with immunity to H1N1, H3N2, or without immunity to a seasonal virus, to ferrets already infected with an H5N1 virus from dairy cows. Sutton said by examining exposure to H5N1-infected ferrets, the team could assess the transmissibility of the virus in addition to the effects of pre-existing immunity.

The researchers found that upon exposure to ferrets with dairy cow H5N1 infections, ferrets without any influenza immunity rapidly developed severe and lethal disease. When exposed to H5N1-infected ferrets, all the ferrets with pre-existing immunity to H3N2 became infected and replicating H5N1 virus was detected in their noses. These ferrets lost weight and half of them reached a humane endpoint. In contrast, only half of the ferrets previously infected with the 2009 H1N1 virus became infected, and the infected animals were protected against disease and had very low levels of viral replication in the nose.

“These findings demonstrate that pre-existing immunity to the 2009 H1N1 virus or H3N2 virus reduces the severity of H5N1 disease, with H1N1 providing even greater protection than H3N2,” Sutton said. “This study provides a potential explanation for the mostly mild disease we are seeing in humans, as humans already have immunity to H1N1.” However, Sutton noted, as the H5N1 virus continues to circulate in animals, it has opportunities to evolve to become more dangerous.

Experiments using the mink H5N1 and dairy cattle H5N1 viruses were performed in Penn State’s biosafety level 3 Eva J. Pell Laboratory for Advanced Biological Research. This facility is approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and United States of Department of Agriculture for work with highly pathogenic avian influenza. All experiments were performed in compliance with all local, state and federal rules and regulations.

Other Penn State authors on the paper include Veronika Weaver, research technologist; Devanshi Patel, graduate student; Kayla Septer, graduate student; Cassandra Field, graduate student; Michael J. Bernabe, graduate student; Ethan Kronthal, graduate student; Allen Minns, research technician; and Scott Lindner, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology. Grace Merrbach, laboratory research technician, University of Pittsburgh, and Seema Lakdawala, associate professor of microbiology and immunology, Emory University, also are authors of the paper.

The National Institutes of Health, Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Response (CEIRR) and United States of Department of Agriculture supported this research.

At Penn State, researchers are solving real problems that impact the health, safety and quality of life of people across the commonwealth, the nation and around the world. 

For decades, federal support for research has fueled innovation that makes our country safer, our industries more competitive and our economy stronger. Recent federal funding cuts threaten this progress. 

Learn more about the implications of federal funding cuts to our future at Research or Regress.  

 

---

Journal

Science Translational Medicine

DOI

10.1126/scitranslmed.adw4856 

 

Is Europe doing enough to prepare for bird flu risks?

Copyright Alberto Pezzali/AP Photo

By Gabriela Galvin

Published on 26/05/2025 - 

Public health risks remain low, but experts in Europe are calling for more surveillance given the virus is so widespread among birds.

As bird flu spreads across Europe and jumps to more animal species, health experts warn that gaps in surveillance and preparedness could leave the region vulnerable to future threats to human health.

Avian influenza has been spreading at elevated levels worldwide over the past five years, including in wild and farm birds in the European Union. 

Hungary has reported the most outbreaks since last autumn, followed by Germany, the Netherlands, and poultry giant Poland.

But in recent years, bird flu has also spread to mink, cats, a captive bear, and other mammals, raising the risk that the virus will eventually reach people.

Tens of millions of birds and other animals have been culled to keep that from happening, but gaps in surveillance systems increase the likelihood that the virus could circulate undetected and become harder to control.

Related

• Bird flu cases spreading faster and with greater impacts - report

Since 2003, about half of the nearly 1,000 people infected with H5N1 bird flu globally have died.

Now, EU health officials say public health risks remain low, and there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. But preparations are already underway: the European Commission recently clinched a deal to secure more than 27 million influenza vaccines in case of a pandemic.

Monitoring bird flu

Officials are also eyeing an outbreak among dairy cows in the United States – which has spread to people, infecting 70 and killing one – as a reminder to monitor animals beyond birds and mink, which are more prone to infection.

“It's not a time to really sit back and relax and say, ‘oh well, this is just business as usual,’” Marion Koopmans, who directs the centre of excellence at the Global Virus Network and leads the viroscience department at Erasmus Medical Centre in the Netherlands, told Euronews Health.

Related

• Bird flu: UN experts raise alarm over growing risks to food supply

“It has really changed compared with just a few years ago,” she added. “It’s not a good situation to have”.

EU countries actively monitor wild birds and poultry for avian influenza. When they find infections, they must take steps to stamp out the virus, such as culling birds and imposing farm restrictions.

Now, with the US cattle outbreak in mind, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is working with member states to boost surveillance in cows and other mammals, according to Alessandro Broglia, one of the agency’s senior scientists.

“There is a kind of reactivity and enhanced preparedness in Europe, also to prevent the infection in cattle and other farm animals,” Broglia told Euronews Health.

Related

• EU experts warn: Emerging avian flu mutations could adapt to humans and increase risks

Vaccination is also playing a bigger role. In 2023, France began immunising birds, a move it says has helped its poultry industry recover after outbreaks ravaged its farms and annihilated tens of millions of birds.

And last summer, Finland became the first EU country to offer bird flu vaccines to people, doling out jabs to 10,000 workers who were at higher risk of infection.

Even so, EU audits have identified gaps in these systems that could be just large enough for the virus to slip through undetected.

Weaknesses in prevention

Over the past two years, they have found delays in setting up restriction zones to prevent the virus from spreading in Poland; “limited effectiveness” in Portugal's early warning system for poultry infections; shortcomings in investigations of suspected cases in Spain; and poor risk assessment, a lack of surveillance, and inadequately trained staff in Hungary that constitute “crucial weaknesses” that have not been rectified since the country was last audited in 2020.

Related

• 3-year-old girl in Mexico dies of bird flu in country's first human case

A Commission spokesperson told Euronews Health that Spain and Portugal have taken steps to fix these issues, but that it is “seeking additional commitments” from Hungary and Poland, which suspended poultry exports last month due to outbreaks.

Alexandre Fediaevsky, acting head of preparedness and resilience at the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), said that “in all countries, Europe included, there is still some room for improving biosecurity and early warning systems”.

But there has been some resistance from some farmers and poultry industry groups, who fear new rules and restrictions could threaten their businesses.

“We need to have some strategic dialogue with the industry,” Fediaevsky told Euronews Health, but “it will be a long process to really transform the production systems”.

Related

• Measles, beef fat, and bird flu: What Europeans say about RFK Jr’s Make America Healthy Again agenda

The EU and the US are not the only places grappling with elevated bird flu risks. Last week, the Commission said poultry and meat imports from Brazil had been halted after the country confirmed its first bird flu outbreak on a farm.

For now, bird flu appears to pose a greater risk to the EU’s food supply than to public health. However, Koopmans warned that without stronger measures to curb the virus’ spread among birds, the bloc could be caught off guard if human infections begin to emerge.

et's also not become negligent,” she said, “because this is how these viruses eventually trigger pandemics”.

A Dead World, Plastic-Wrapped to Preserve Freshness

If people who try to steer clear of plastics are still thoroughly enmeshed in them, what does that say for everyone else? And how worried should we all be?

A globe is covered in plastic wrap.
(Photo: Adobe Stock)


LONG READ


Richard Heinberg
May 26, 2025

Common Dreams

In the classic 1967 film The Graduate, a family friend of lead character Benjamin Braddock (played by Dustin Hoffman) offers him career advice: “One word. Plastics!”



I was 16 when The Graduate was released, and, like Hoffman’s character, completely uninterested in plastics as a career option. But here we are nearly six decades later, and I must admit that, from a purely economic standpoint, Benjamin Braddock received a smart tip.

World plastics production exploded over the intervening decades, from about 25 million metric tons in 1967 to roughly 450 million in 2024. The stock prices of plastics manufacturers soared as the industry expanded, capitalizing on research into new kinds of (and ways of using) synthetic, polymer-based materials. Seemingly endless varieties of vinyl, polystyrene, acrylic, and polyurethane could be extruded, injection-molded, pressed, or spun into a blizzard of products with a stunning array of desirable properties—including durability, disposability, flexibility, hardness, insulative properties, heat resistance, and tensile strength. Plastic was cheap and it could take on any shape or color. It was a magic material that could do almost anything. Soon it was everywhere: in toys, packaging, fabrics, paints, building supplies, medical devices, car interiors, electronics, and more.





The chemical stability of plastics meant that, as objects made of it were eventually discarded, shards and particles would make their way into the natural environment and persist there. Today, traces of plastic can be found everywhere on our planet—in rivers, the air, Arctic snow, at the tops of mountains and bottoms of seas, in plants and soil, and in the bodies of animals from insects to humans.

If fossil fuels enabled the modern age by providing the energy for industrial expansion, they also radically altered the materials that both support and imperil human life. Most plastics are made from fossil fuels, and, like it or not, we now live in an age of oil and plastic. Since fossil fuels are finite, depleting resources, this age will necessarily be brief in geologic terms. If there are future geologists and archaeologists, they will easily identify strata from our fleeting era by evidence of the rapid growth (and decline) of human numbers and their environmental impact, and by durable materials we have left behind—many of which will be plastics.

In this article, we’ll explore plastic’s impacts on humans and nature. And I’ll indulge in a little speculation on the world after plastic.

Humans: Swimming in Plastic

My wife Janet and I have been concerned about plastic pollution for years. We keep food in glass containers, and we use fabric shopping bags. And yet, looking around our house, I see plastic everywhere. The keyboard on which I type this article is plastic. So is the computer monitor in front of me. Even the cloth shopping bags we use (to avoid single-use polyethylene bags) have plastic as a fabric component and are sewn with nylon thread. If people who try to steer clear of plastics are still thoroughly enmeshed in them, what does that say for everyone else? And how worried should we all be?

Scientific data on the human health impacts of environmental plastic, and especially microplastics, has burgeoned in recent years. We eat microplastics, inhale them, and absorb them through our skin. They can impair respiratory and cardiovascular health and disrupt the normal functioning of digestive systems. Studies have shown that microplastics can induce persistent oxidative stress, inflammation, and DNA damage, and are implicated in chronic diseases like cancer.

One potentially existential impact, explored in Shanna Swan’s book Count Down (and my recent article on the subject) is the impact of plastics and other chemicals on sperm counts and women’s reproductive health. Men’s average sperm counts have declined by over half in the last 50 years. During the same period, estrogen-mimicking synthetic chemicals (including plastics) have proliferated in the environment. Correlation does not prove causation, but research has shown clear pathways by which plastics-related chemicals disrupt reproductive cells and systems. One of the most widespread disruptors of sperm cells is a group of chemicals called phthalates, which we absorb from plastic food packaging. Phthalates are easily measured in urine, and elevated levels typically follow the consumption of plastic-packaged cheese.

Often there simply is no option for receiving the health benefit of supplements, organic foods, medical care, and medicines without a concomitant exposure to health-compromising plastics.

Here's another correlation in which causation is implicated, though in this case still unproven: As sperm counts are declining, so are population growth rates, with global human population set to shrink in the decades ahead (many countries are seeing plummeting fertility rates, while others are still adding population rapidly). While some environmentalists are breathing a sigh of relief, since fewer people could translate to reduced pollution and resource depletion, growthist commentators see population shrinkage as a crisis requiring heroic pushback; hence the recent rise of pronatalism in many nations. Falling birthrates are usually ascribed to families delaying childbirth for economic reasons, but the reproductive impacts of chemical pollution cannot be ruled out as a contributing cause. In a recent article, chemistry professor Ugo Bardi argues that the link between plastics and plummeting fertility is real, and that the result will be, in the best case, a shrinking and aging population; in the worst case, extinction.

Just as frightening as losing the ability to reproduce is losing the ability to think. Recent studies have documented the presence of microplastics in the human brain. Of even greater concern is the finding that the brains of dementia patients tend to contain more plastic particles than others. Are plastics a cause of dementia? We don’t know yet.

Trying personally to avoid the dangers of plastics invites irony and contradiction. An example that springs to mind is the food supplements industry. Its products appeal to consumers who seek “natural” health benefits from vitamins and other micronutrients. Yet most of the health-promoting pills, powders, and potions that consumers take are delivered in plastic bottles; even glass bottles are often shrink-wrapped. Much the same could be said for pharmaceuticals: Most are plastic packaged. Similarly, the food industry, including its health-food segment, relies on sanitation and food preservation typically entailing plastics. Often there simply is no option for receiving the health benefit of supplements, organic foods, medical care, and medicines without a concomitant exposure to health-compromising plastics.

Nature: Shrink Wrapped



(Photo: Adobe Stock)

If the negative impacts of plastic affected only humans, it might be possible (though callous) to say that our overly clever species is just reaping its just deserts. However, those impacts are falling on other creatures as well, and on whole ecosystems. As a result, our entire planet is being transformed—and not in a good way.

Let’s start with water. As Jeremy Rifkin argues in Planet Aqua: Rethinking Our Home in the Universe, life is all about water. Unsurprisingly, plastic pollution is typically swept via storm drains into streams, rivers, and lakes, which supply drinking water for local communities.

Rivers then carry plastic particles (as well as plastic bags, toys, and other larger objects) into the oceans—which provide the world with food and oxygen, regulate the global climate, and are home to between 50 and 80% of all life on Earth. Intact plastic objects, such as single-use shopping bags, may entangle, or clog the digestive systems of, animals such as fish, whales, and sea turtles, in some cases causing them to die of malnutrition. Gradually, the churning of ocean waters breaks these objects down into smaller and smaller particles, which even more marine creatures ingest. Ocean plastics also impact the overall health and function of marine ecosystems by altering habitats, such as by changing the physical structure of coral reefs and seagrass beds. A widely cited 2016 report by the World Economic Forum estimated that by mid-century, plastics in the world’s oceans will outweigh all the remaining fish.

They don’t just harm the humans who have unleashed them. They impact all of life.

Microplastics are dispersed not just in water, but also in the atmosphere. In an urban environment, humans may be exposed to as many as 5,700 microplastic particles per cubic meter of air, and each of us may be inhaling up to 22,000,000 micro- and nanoplastics (i.e., particles less than a micron in size) annually. The human health impacts of airborne plastics are increasingly being documented; however, atmospheric micro- and nanoplastics likewise affect other creatures. They even change the weather by promoting cloud formation, thereby increasing rain- and snowfall.

From water and air, plastics pass into the soil. Also, plastics enter farm soils by deliberate human action—in processed sewage sludge used for fertilizer, in plastic mulches, and in slow-release fertilizers and protective seed coatings. Some estimates suggest that, altogether, more plastics end up in soils than in the oceans. Studies have shown that microplastics alter soil bulk density, microbial communities, and water-holding capacity.

From water, air, and soil, plants take up micro- and nanoplastics. Research suggests that microplastics generally have a negative effect on plant development, affecting both seed germination and root or shoot growth, depending on environmental conditions, plant species, and plastic concentration.

From water, air, soil, and plants, microplastics enter the bodies of humans and other animals. We’ve already noted impacts on human reproductive health. Similar impacts on hormones and sperm have been observed in wild mink in Canada and Sweden, alligators in Florida, crustaceans in the U.K., and in fish downstream from wastewater treatment plants around the world.

The environmental impact of plastics is complicated and often indirect, as plastics collect and spread other pollutants. While some plastics are themselves relatively inert, they accumulate other chemicals on their surface—including persistent organic pollutants (POPs), heavy metals, and antibiotics—and serve as dispersal vectors, thereby leading to an overall increase of toxicity and bioaccumulation in the environment.

In short, plastic particles are now systemically present worldwide. While it may be possible to remove large plastic objects from oceans, rivers, creeks, or shorelines, microplastics can’t be cleaned up at scale by any means currently widely deployed. They are part of the biosphere and are changing the way nature functions. They don’t just harm the humans who have unleashed them. They impact all of life.
The World After Plastics

Many folks’ first response upon learning of the dire impacts of plastics pollution is to explore alternative materials. Prior to the plastics revolution, people used objects made of wood, stone, metal, clay, glass, animal skin or bone, and plant fibers. In many instances we could revert to those materials, though often with a sacrifice of affordability or durability. Researchers are finding ways to increase desirable qualities in traditional materials; for example, one company promises to produce wood stronger than steel.

Bioplastics have been around for nearly two centuries in the form of the celluloid once used by the early motion picture industry and fountain pen manufacturers. However, because they often lack the durability of petro-plastic, bioplastics’ main current usage is largely confined to disposable cutlery and plates, and biodegradable supermarket produce bags. Ongoing research will likely expand the range and usefulness of bioplastic materials.

Plastics recycling has been explored since the 1980s; still, after nearly a half-century, most recycling facilities reject the great majority of plastic items that make it into recycle bins (most items go directly into trash bins and hence to landfills that leach toxics). There is research underway by plastics manufacturers to make their products more recyclable, but those efforts are in their infancy.

Even though it’s hard to avoid plastics, make your best effort.

Perhaps the best hopes for cleaning up some of the plastics already choking our environment lie with bioremediation processes using bacteria and mushrooms. Small-scale trials, using a variety of species, show promising results for removing plastics from water and soil, though the atmosphere will pose a bigger challenge.

The transition to alternative materials, the development of more useful bioplastics, the growth of plastics recycling, and plastics bioremediation all confront two formidable obstacles—scale and speed. Currently, the scale of these solutions is too small, and their rate of adoption is too slow to make much of a difference. That is unlikely to change without government regulations to discourage the use of current plastics along with subsidies to promote alternatives and cleanup efforts. Such post-plastic regulations and subsidies might be seen as one of the Big Solutions needed (along with the global energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables, intended to slow climate change) to keep the current global polycrisis from descending into an unstoppable Great Unraveling. But, with the advent of the second Trump administration, Big Solutions are no longer a priority for the world’s economic, military, and cultural superpower. Indeed, the Trump administration is overturning efforts to rein in a range of harmful chemicals and has thrown climate action into reverse gear. Without U.S. leadership, campaigns to forge global solution treaties will probably be stymied.

So, it is unlikely that government policy will halt the global proliferation of plastics and plastic pollution. In contrast, resource depletion, spasmodic economic and financial contraction, deglobalization, and war are more likely to be limiting factors.

Sadly, however, by the time falling rates of fossil fuel extraction close the spigot on world plastics production, we will be living in a world even more contaminated with plastics. And those plastics will continue to break down into ever smaller bits. They won’t fully decompose into harmless molecules for a very long time, if ever. While plastics are expected to last decades or centuries, one expert argues they may never really go away.

Even after the end of the age of plastics, its wake of destruction will persist. In the worst instance, if sperm counts continue to plummet, higher life could mostly disappear, at least for a few million years. Eventually, evolution will probably find a way to work around microplastics and the other hazards that humanity has generated in just the past century or two. But our species may not be part of that workaround.

What can any of us do in the face of this profound dilemma? First, treat plastics and toxics proliferation as the existential crisis it is. Educate others: Share this article with friends and sign up for the free live PCI online event, “Troubled Waters: How Microplastics are Impacting Our Oceans and Our Health.” Contact your elected representatives. Although President Donald Trump has embraced the fossil fuel industry, and federal health agencies are undertaking worrisome actions, there could be opportunities to raise the issue of plastics—many of which are produced outside the U.S.—with folks in the MAGA and MAHA worlds.
Second, take the crisis personally. Even though it’s hard to avoid plastics, make your best effort. There are multiple products, websites, and influencers to help you reduce your personal plastic consumption.

Third, make plastics reduction and cleanup a focus of community action. Spend an hour each week picking up plastic garbage in your local creek. Bonus points if you get some friends and neighbors to help. It may seem like a paltry response in the face of the enormity of the threat, but it’s certainly better than nothing. You’ll feel more engaged, less victimized. Maybe the exercise you get will improve your brain function and you’ll be able to think of even more and better ways to defeat the plasticization of our planet and our future.

Note: This is one of the most depressing articles I’ve ever written. Near the beginning of the article, I shared how my wife and I try (mostly unsuccessfully) to avoid plastic. I went on to build the case that humanity is toying with life on Earth, all for short-term profit and convenience. That’s truly dispiriting. I concluded with some ideas for de-plasticizing. I hope you’ll run with some of these ideas, and I just want to say that I intend to take my own advice and double down on my efforts to eliminate plastic from the scene.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Richard Heinberg
Richard Heinberg is a senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute and the author of fourteen books, including his most recent: "Power: Limits and Prospects for Human Survival" (2021). Previous books include: "Our Renewable Future: Laying the Path for One Hundred Percent Clean Energy" (2016), "Afterburn: Society Beyond Fossil Fuels" (2015), and "Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines" (2010).
Full Bio >