Preface

The book The Plastics Paradox came into existence because my two daughters were taught misinformation at school and that made my blood boil. As a scientist and professional problem-solver, I know that the only way to solve problems is to start with facts. Attempting to solve problems based on missing or faulty information doesn’t work — in fact, it often makes matters worse.

In 2019, when I began fact-checking what we’ve been told about plastics and their effects on the environment, I forced myself to read over 400 peer-reviewed studies. Why so many? Well, this is a complex topic, and one needs to understand materials use, waste, litter, ocean plastics, degradation, microplastics, toxicity, and all the related topics in order to develop a full understanding.

The layperson bases their opinions on internet gossip and headlines, but the professional scientist must check all the evidence first and only then come to a conclusion. That’s a huge amount of work, which may be why no one else thought to do it. The other reason is funding. Creating The Plastics Paradox cost me hundreds of hours of unpaid time and thousands of my own dollars.

I intensely dislike writing books precisely because it is so much work, and unless you know Oprah or have the following of a J. K. Rowling, your books are very unlikely to ever be read, so your effort is likely wasted. Once I finished the book, I relaxed, knowing that I had done my duty as a scientist, and felt safe knowing that, like my first book, hardly anyone would ever hear about it, let alone read it.

I was wrong.

Readers began reaching out. They loved the book and asked about translating it into other languages. Exhausted, I declined. But then, something incredible happened: People began translating it themselves for free. Volunteers reformatted the text for new editions, and soon the book was available in English, German, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. To those generous individuals, I owe my deepest gratitude.

You might think this led to some kind of financial windfall. It didn’t. The book was offered as a free download — no email sign-up, no strings attached. Companies asked permission to print tens of thousands of copies to distribute freely, and I agreed. They sent copies to journalists, clients, and even politicians. One company mailed 535 signed copies, one for every member of the US Congress. Another sent signed editions to the Canadian Parliament. On 28 November 2024, MP Lianne Rood quoted the book in the Canadian Parliament in a discussion about amending the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, using The Plastics Paradox to demonstrate why plastic bans are unwise.

The book’s reach extended far beyond North America. Many thousands of copies were distributed across Europe and South America, with significant uptake in countries like Germany, Italy, France, and Brazil. As the message spread, so did invitations for podcast interviews, newspaper articles, radio spots, and TV appearances — not only national but even international.

Meanwhile, I kept reading. Over the past 5 years, I’ve spent thousands of hours unpaid poring over 5,000 peer-reviewed studies. Independence was crucial; no sponsors or hidden agendas influenced my work. Today, I’m recognised as the leading independent expert on plastics and the environment — not because I’m the smartest, but because I was foolhardy enough to put in the time and effort.

The message has gained traction, and I’m now invited to keynote conferences around the world. Despite all the travel and attention, my message remains simple: Facts lead to better futures.

So, why am I sitting at a keyboard again, writing yet another book? Am I a glutton for punishment? Maybe. But there’s a deeper reason. While The Plastics Paradox remains accurate, my understanding has grown. I’ve read 10 times more science since its publication, and my views have evolved.

This new book, Shattering the Plastics Illusion, aims to refine and expand what we know. In addition to summarising the latest facts, it offers a comprehensive perspective and actionable solutions for a brighter, more sustainable future.

Studies will be quoted verbatim “in blue italics like this” for maximum accuracy.

Let’s dive in…

Introduction

We all “know” a lot about plastic from the mainstream media and the internet. But here’s the twist: Confidence in those sources is at an all-time low. In other words, many of our beliefs about plastics — and countless other topics — come from information sources we’ve openly acknowledged as untrustworthy.

“Americans continue to register record-low trust in the mass media.”

“For the third consecutive year, more U.S. adults have no trust at all in the media (36%) than trust it a great deal or fair amount. Another 33% of Americans express ‘not very much’ confidence.”

Americans’ Trust in Media Remains at Trend Low, Gallup, October 14^th 2024

Makes you think, doesn’t it? People form strong convictions on important issues — even when they admit that their information sources are flawed. This phenomenon has a name: the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.

Worse, lies tend to stick when repeated enough, regardless of how smart you are. That’s the illusory truth effect at work.

“In line with previous work, we found individuals tend to believe repeated information more compared to new information.”

“Across seven studies, this tendency was not reliably and substantially related to cognitive ability…”

J. De keersmaecker et al., Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46 (2), pp. 204–215, June 2019

What is the truth, anyway? For the purposes of this book, let’s define it as “that which is backed by the most solid evidence.” Everything you’ll read here will be supported by evidence, with citations provided so you can verify it yourself. The facts in this book aren’t my opinions — they’re drawn from decades of peer-reviewed science. While others may twist the truth for profit, my goal is to give you the facts for free.

Here’s another critical piece of the puzzle: Negative news dominates, not because it’s accurate but because it’s effective. Studies show that bad news grabs our attention more than good news, which is why it’s everywhere. This media bias reinforces false narratives and skews our understanding of reality.

“Data from four US and UK news sites (95,282 articles) and two social media platforms (579,182,075 posts on Facebook and Twitter, now X) show social media users are 1.91 times more likely to share links to negative news articles.”

“Additionally, the heightened sharing of negative articles to social media may incentivise journalists to write more negatively, potentially resulting in increased negative news exposure even for individuals who rely solely on online news sites.”

J. Watson et al., Negative online news articles are shared more to social media, Nature — Scientific Reports, 14, 21592, 2024

This highlights the importance of rejecting false, sensational narratives. No matter how dramatic or exciting they may seem, genuine progress comes from relying on accurate, neutral, and vetted information from credible scientists.

Now, let’s take a closer look at some accusations levelled against plastic.

• We’re drowning in plastic.
• Plastic is filling up our landfills.
• Plastic pollution is everywhere.
• Plastics use too much oil.
• Plastics are bad because they are made of fossil fuel.
• Plastics increase greenhouse gas.
• We should switch to greener alternatives.
• The oceans are clogged up with plastic.
• Plastic harms turtles and whales.
• There will be more plastic than fish in the oceans by 2050.
• Plastics take 400 or 1000 years to degrade.
• Plastics are toxic.
• Plastics leach harmful chemicals.
• We eat a credit card of microplastic every week.

These claims have been repeated so often that they’re accepted as truth by the public, teachers, journalists, and even policymakers. But are they accurate? What does the evidence actually say? The rest of this book will put these statements under the microscope, comparing them to what scientists have discovered.

Everyone has an agenda, so let me lay mine out clearly. I am a crusader for truth. Why? Because finding the facts — and then acting wisely based on them — is the only reliable path to real progress. It infuriates me that people lie to us, manipulate us, and exploit our good intentions for their own personal gain.

As a scientist, my goal is simple: to provide you with accurate, unbiased information so you can make informed decisions. Whether you choose paper, metal, glass, wood, cotton, silk, or plastic is entirely up to you. It doesn’t matter to me — what matters is that your choices are based on facts, not deception.