Summary of Scientific Review
Overview
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.
What is the truth, anyway? For the purposes of this review, 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 review aren’t 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.
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.
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?
As scientists, our 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 us — what matters is that your choices are based on facts, not deception.
The following text is a summary of a comprehensive and independent review of thousands of scientific studies. Anyone wishing to see more information, including citations to the original studies, can visit the Fact Check Section or read the book Shattering the Plastics Illusion, which is provided free of charge.
MATERIALS USE
We now know that materials generate around 20–25% of greenhouse gas emissions and that reducing total materials use is a positive move. Plastics make up less than 1% of materials we use, either by weight or by volume, so if we really want to make a difference, then it is time to talk about the other 99% of materials, rather than obsessing over plastics to the exclusion of all else. Plus, replacing plastic with alternatives requires 3–4 times more material and would be a large step in the wrong direction.
There is a push to limit plastic production, but as we see, that would be a counterproductive policy because replacing plastic increases materials use by fourfold.
WASTE
Waste generation mirrors materials consumption, which is logical when you think about it. Again, plastics represent under 1% of all waste and replacing them results in a 4-fold increase in waste. To illustrate this point, take your family to the kitchen and weigh a plastic bag, then a paper bag. Weigh a plastic straw, then compare it to one made of paper, metal, or glass. The results are profound and irrefutable.
Similar to the case for materials, limiting access to plastic materials or taxing them would push people to alternatives, which would result in a tremendous increase in waste.
FOSSIL FUEL
Plastics are maligned because they are made of fossil fuel, but a closer look reveals that to be an overly simplistic and misleading view. 85% of a barrel of oil is burnt, which truly is a waste of fossil fuel. In contrast, only around 5% is consumed to make plastics, which is a far wiser use of resources; also remember, at the end of life, plastic can still be burnt to recover the energy and make electricity. Not only that, but the net effect of plastics is to reduce fossil fuel use because they make cars, planes, and trucks lighter (for increased fuel economy), prevent food waste (from damage and spoilage), and insulate buildings so less energy is needed for heating. Alternative materials require far more fossil fuel to manufacture because they are more energy and resource intensive. Lastly, the majority of plastics can be made using plant-based oils instead of fossil fuel anyway, if we need to do that in the future. Such non-fossil plastic alternatives are already available at scale.
When it comes to fossil fuel, plastics production and use reduces fossil fuel use, so any action or policy that encourages a move to alternatives would be unwise and counterproductive.
GREENHOUSE GAS
Greenhouse gas (GHG) is one of the primary concerns for many. Here again, we find that the contribution of plastic has been grossly exaggerated. Plastic production creates about 3–4% of GHG, but plastic use reduces GHG by a larger amount by making vehicles lighter, preventing food waste, and insulating heat. If GHG is a concern for you, then the biggest improvements can be accomplished by driving less, flying less, and eating less meat. One return plane trip creates more GHG and uses more fossil fuel than a lifetime of PET bottles. For materials, concrete and iron/steel are by far the largest contributors, and that is where most of our efforts should be directed.
As we can see, when it comes to materials use, waste, GHG, or fossil fuel consumption, no one genuinely interested in making the world a better place would rant about plastics while completely overlooking the other 99% of the impact, and yet that is what we see today. Anyone with a genuine concern should check the evidence before deciding what to do — i.e. “check the facts before you act” — as I like to say. Acting on emotion before checking the facts often makes matters much worse, not better.
GHG mirrors the case of fossil fuel because burning fossil fuel creates carbon dioxide. The use of plastics is the best option for greenhouse gas reduction, so encouraging or forcing a move to other materials would be unjustified.
MISMANAGED WASTE “POLLUTION” AKA LITTER
There is mismanaged waste in the world, but solutions are known and already in place in many countries. We know that tax on the sale of goods can be used to provide waste receptacles, collection, and proper disposal. Some countries have not yet caught up, but the pathway is clear with no special technology needed.
Scientists have discovered that what people now call plastic “pollution” is simply items that were littered in one place, then moved. So, rather than being a problem caused by companies or materials, it is a problem created by human behaviour. That is important because we have proven solutions for litter, and they are education, deposits, and fines. Blaming companies or materials for litter is unjust and counterproductive.
Litter is caused by people. The solution to littering is called a trash can and encouraging people to use them.
THE OCEANS
Claims that the oceans are choking in plastic are based on a wild, long-disproven guess. The idea that millions of tons of plastic enter our oceans every year was simply invented, and we are told such numbers to this day, even though multiple massive studies spanning decades show measured amounts that are low and not increasing.
A sea turtle would have to swim 100,000 miles to run across a piece of plastic bag, so every image you have ever seen of a turtle with a bag around its neck is a lie created in Photoshop. How can we create a better future based on fiction and scare tactics?
Sadly, attempts at regulation completely ignore abandoned nets and other fishing gear that are scientifically proven to be what causes harm to birds, turtles, whales, and other marine life. Instead, they plan to regulate the 0.03% of ocean plastic, like bags, straws, and bottles, which are not responsible for harm. What a tragedy, and yet that is what UNEP’s INC-4 and INC-5 are doing.
When it comes to the oceans, policies that would actually help are regulations on fishing nets to prevent them from being discarded, which harms marine life, as well as adjusting shipping routes to avoid whales and limiting ship speeds to reduce harm to them.
DEGRADATION
We are told that plastics don’t degrade even though we see them degrade before our very eyes. There are thousands of studies spanning decades on plastic degradation. The global market for plastic stabilisers is in the billions of dollars per year. Why would anyone buy stabilisers for plastics if they really were stable? They wouldn’t. Plastics degrade rapidly, more rapidly than most materials (concrete, ceramics, glass, metals) and at a similar speed to paper and wood.
Luckily, we can tune the degradation rate of plastics with those stabilisers, so a thin shopping bag contains very little stabiliser and degrades quickly outdoors. A thicker plastic pipe contains much more stabiliser and better stabilisers while providing safe, clean drinking water with an expected durability of a hundred years or more. So, the idea that plastics are bad because they don’t degrade is both false and unjust discrimination.
Encouraging degradation is not a sound policy because it increases environmental impact. Durable materials tend to reduce impact. Also, degradation means converting plastic into carbon dioxide (a GHG) without capturing the energy. Burning them converts them to CO2 too, but at least then you can use the energy to make electricity, which makes more sense. Degradable materials also increase littering.
TOXICITY & MICROPLASTICS
Pretty much everything is toxic when the concentration is high enough. That includes oxygen, table salt, and alcohol. So, how do common plastics compare? The answer is that decades of testing show them to be some of the safest substances we have. Long-term tests show them to be safer than alcohol, table salt, caffeine, or copper, to name just a few examples.
Plastic particles, aka microplastics, are as safe as clay (i.e. dirt) or cellulose, which is what plants and trees are made of. Exposure levels are incredibly low, and most particles pass right through us. It would take tens of thousands of years to ingest just 5 g of non-toxic plastic particles. Meanwhile, we ingest 200,000 times more inorganic particles, including proven toxins and cancer-causing substances. So, while dust can pose dangers, focusing on the plastics component is a red herring.
In fact, scientists found we are only concerned about microplastics in the first place because we have been misled by certain scientists and by the media. They made a big deal out of a small problem, probably to get rich and famous.
There is no new policy required here because there is already extensive regulation with ongoing testing to ensure our safety.
LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS / LCA
Life cycle analysis (LCA) is the only way to know for sure how much impact each option causes (including GHG, fossil fuel use, pollution, waste, and more). It is standardised and has been honed over decades. Even so, there remains a temptation to cheat, and thus, it is wise to check every life cycle study, rather than relying on just one or two.
Looking at hundreds of LCAs, we find that plastic is the alternative that has the least impact in over 90% of applications studied. So, if you are not sure how to minimise your impact, then picking plastic is usually the correct choice, as proven by science.
It is not just packaging where plastic minimises impact; the same applies to water pipes, textiles, and many other use cases. One reason plastics minimise impact is that you can get the same job done using far less material, which is also why expanded polystyrene turns out to have such a low impact; after all, it is around 98% air.
It also turns out that the least impactful choice is also the least expensive, which is great news because you can help the environment and save money at the same time. Unfortunately, at present, people are spending more on alternatives that increase impact because they have been misled by NGOs, the media, and companies looking to sell products based on false advertising and greenwashing.
Any move to limit access to our greenest choice e.g. through plastic production limits, would be unjust and harmful, resulting in vastly more materials used, waste, litter, GHG, and fossil fuel use. The same applies to taxing plastic. Taxes focused on the lowest-impact choice would just drive people to alternatives that are scientifically proven to increase harm.
RECYCLING
The perception is that we desperately need recycling to reduce the use of virgin plastic, to make plastics green, and to prevent litter. In reality, life cycle analyses show that plastics are often the lowest-impact option even with low or no recycling. Recycling is like the icing on the cake because it makes the impact of plastics even lower.
There is no correlation between recycling and litter because people choose to drop litter whether or not it can be recycled. Solutions to littering revolve around changing human behaviour, as mentioned previously.
The public is unaware that plastics recycling is well established and works well on a large proportion of common plastics like PE, PP, PET, PS, and PVC, which further reduces the energy needed by 70–80% compared to virgin (new) plastic. Mechanical recycling works and is the correct approach.
We are told by people trying to sell glass bottles or aluminium cans that we should pick that material because of a higher recycling rate, but that is a false argument. We should instead choose the material with the lowest impact then recycle that. That is the way to save the environment and save some money at the same time.
MISINFORMATION
With the advent of social media, it has never been cheaper and easier to spread misinformation. Surveys show that people have little trust in the media, and yet they have formed strong opinions about plastic based exclusively on myths from the very media they do not trust.
Today, every layperson seems to think that their opinion is as accurate as the opinions of actual experts. People who have never read a single study are happy to tell a scientist who has read thousands of studies that the scientist is wrong. Such delusional thinking is unhelpful and betrays an ego that is completely out of control. Instead, the level of conviction we have on a topic should be proportional to the amount of evidence we have to support that conviction.
Speaking of convictions, it would be helpful if we saw some charlatans at NGOs, in the media, and in the greenwashing companies fined and convicted for their deeds against society. Perhaps ensuring there is a price to pay would make them think twice.
The plastics industry needs to do vastly more to share the science, not to “defend” plastics but simply to set the record straight. They need to push their trade associations to do their job and spend their resources on this vitally important activity.
CONCLUSIONS
Looking at plastics in isolation leads to incorrect conclusions. Therefore, we take a holistic view, including the impact of plastic materials relative to other materials and the consequences of replacing plastic with alternatives. This allows us to identify solutions proven to decrease impact and help preserve the environment.
There is a famous quote from George Bernard Shaw that goes like this:
“Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.”
If you have read this, then you are the 2%, and I salute you. However, that places a great responsibility on you because, with the rest of society flying on autopilot, we are the few who must make an outsized effort to preserve and protect our environment for future generations.
As we stand at the crossroads of environmental progress, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: much of what we believe about plastics is rooted in misinformation. The data is clear — plastics, when used and managed responsibly, are not the villains they have been portrayed to be. Instead, they are a vital tool in creating a sustainable future.
Imagine a world where decisions are guided by evidence, not fearmongering. Where the focus shifts from vilifying plastics to addressing the real issues — mismanaged waste, ineffective recycling systems, and the human behaviours that cause litter. This is a world in which we harness the unique advantages of plastics to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prevent food waste, and create innovative solutions for everyday challenges.
We’ve seen how misinformation has steered public opinion and policy in the wrong direction. Powerful entities have exploited good intentions to mislead, distract, and profit, while real solutions have been ignored. But there is hope. By embracing science and rejecting sensationalism, we can reclaim the narrative and ensure that decisions are driven by facts, not fear.
To generations that follow, we want you to know that science holds the key to progress. Truth, backed by rigorous research, has the power to dispel myths and pave the way for meaningful change. It is our duty, as stewards of this planet, to seek out that truth, challenge deceptive narratives, and make choices that benefit both humanity and the environment.
The responsibility lies with all of us. For policymakers, it means crafting regulations based on comprehensive data rather than sensational headlines. For industries, it’s about continuing to innovate and prioritise sustainability. For individuals, it’s a call to reject misinformation, recycle responsibly, and hold ourselves accountable for the waste we produce.
So, we leave you with this: What kind of future do we want to create? One dominated by fear and falsehoods, or one where informed decisions lead to progress and prosperity for all? The answer lies in your hands.
HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT PLASTICS
AND THE ENVIRONMENT?
Our AI Chatbot called Verdant is here to help…
Just click on the question bubble at the lower right hand side of the screen and our custom helper will answer your questions accurately based on peer-reviewed science from our international team of scientists.
DO YOU STILL HAVE QUESTIONS?
The book Shattering the Plastics Illusion: Exposing Environmental Myths has the full story including comprehensive peer-reviewed science. Best of all it is provided free of charge and endorsed by the Plastics Research Council and other professional scientists from all over the world.
WANT TO HELP SHARE TRUTH?
The Plastics Research Council is committed to making sure people see the science because at the moment people are making bad choices and bad policies based on fiction. But we can’t do it alone. We’re up against a misinformation campaign that has millions in funding. If you’re tired of the nonsense and want to fight back, then contact us to make a difference.
SCIENTIFIC CITATIONS
Americans’ Trust in Media Remains at Trend Low, Gallup, October 14th 2024
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
J. Watson et al., Negative online news articles are shared more to social media, Nature — Scientific Reports, 14, 21592, 2024
Materials and the Environment: Eco-Informed Material Choice, Michael F. Ashby, Butterworth-Heinemann / Elsevier, Oxford, page 18, UK, 2009
H. Bruyninckx: Global Resource Outlook 2024: Bend the Trend, UNEP, p. 26, 2024
E. Elhacham et al., Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass, Nature, 588, pp. 442–444, December 2020
T. Gutowski et al., Why We Use More Materials, Philosophical Transactions A, The Royal Society, 375, 20160368, 2017
E. G. Hertwich, Increased carbon footprint of materials production driven by rise in investments, Nature Geoscience, 14, pp. 151–155, 2021
J. M. Allwood & J. M. Cullen, Sustainable Materials: With Both Eyes Open, Cambridge University Press, 2018 – From International Energy Agency Data
H. Pilz, B. Brandt, and R. Fehringer, The impact of plastics on life cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, denkstatt GmbH, 2010
N. G. McCrum. C. P. Buckley & C. B. Bucknall, Principles of Polymer Engineering, Oxford University Press, UK, 1988
R. Lord, Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement, Trucost, 2016
M. Tabone et al., Sustainability Metrics: Life Cycle Assessment and Green Design in Polymers, Environmental Science & Technology, 44 (21), pp. 8264–8269, 2010
Elizabeth Royte, Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash, Little, Brown and Company, 2016
M. Liboiron, Municipal versus Industrial Waste: Questioning the 3-97 ratio, Discard Studies, 2016
D. A. Tsiamis, M. Torres, M. J. Castaldi, Role of plastics in decoupling municipal solid waste and economic growth in the U.S., Waste Management, 77, pp. 147–155, 2018
L. J. J. Meijer et al., More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine plastic emissions into the ocean, Science Advances, 7, 2021
E. Carpenter & S. Wolverton, Plastic litter in streams: The behavioral archaeology of a pervasive environmental problem, Applied Geography, 84, pp. 93–101, 2017
P. W. Schultz et al., Littering in Context: Personal and Environmental Predictors of Littering Behavior, Environment and Behavior, 45 (1), pp. 35–59, 2011
V. Patel et al., Cigarette butt littering in city streets: a new methodology for studying and results, Tobacco Control, 22, pp. 59–62, 2013
R. Basuhi et al., Evaluating strategies to increase PET bottle recycling in the United States, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 28, pp. 916–927, 2024
L. Weiss et al., The missing ocean plastic sink: Gone with the rivers, Science, 373 (6550), pp. 107–111, 2021
J. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Science, 347 (6223), pp. 768–771, 2015
A. Cózar et al., Plastic debris in the open ocean, PNAS, 111 (28), pp. 10239–44, 2014
F. Galgani et al., Are litter, plastic and microplastic quantities increasing in the ocean?, Microplastics and Nanoplastics, 1 (2), 2021
K. L. Law et al., Distribution of Surface Plastic Debris in the Eastern Pacific Ocean from an 11-Year Data Set, Environmental Science & Technology, 48, pp 4732-4738, 2014
C. Ostle et al., The rise in ocean plastics evidenced from a 60-year time series, Nature Communications, 10 (1622), 2019
Lebreton et al., Industrialised fishing nations largely contribute to floating plastic pollution in the North Pacific subtropical gyre, Nature Scientific Reports, 12, 12666, 2022
M. L. A. Kaandorp et al., Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debris, Nature Geoscience, 16, pp 689-694, 2023
K. De Wolff, Gyre Plastic: Science, Circulation and the Matter of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, PhD Thesis, University of California, San Diego, 2014
P. G. Ryan et al., Rapid increase in Asian bottles in the South Atlantic Ocean indicates major debris inputs from ships, PNAS, 116 (42), pp 20892-20897, 2019
R. Stafford & P. J. S. Jones, Viewpoint – Ocean plastic pollution: A convenient but distracting truth?, Marine Policy, 103, pp 187-191, 2019
N. Voulvoulis et al., Examining Material Evidence – The Carbon Footprint, Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London & Veolia UK, ACC, 2019
Denkstatt – The impact of plastic packaging on life cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, Executive Summary July, 2011
D. Dolci et al., How does plastic compare with alternative materials in the packaging sector? A systematic review of LCA studies, Waste Management & Research, pp 1-19, 2024
E. Avery et al., Polyethylene packaging and alternative materials in the United States: A life cycle assessment, Science of the Total Environment, 961, 178359, 2025
E. Horsthuis et al., Closing the Perception-Reality Gap for Sustainable Fresh Food Plastic Packaging, Procedia CIRP, 122, pp 647-652, 2024
T. Sokolova et al., Paper Meets Plastic: The Perceived Environmental Friendliness of Product Packaging, Journal of Consumer Research, 2023
Food Packaging Sustainability – A guide for packaging manufacturers, food processors, retailers, political institutions & NGOs, denkstatt, 2020
L. Peake, I. Cripps, Plastic promises: What the grocery sector is really doing about packaging, The Green Alliance Trust, 2020
Imogen E. Napper, Richard C. Thompson, Environmental Deterioration of Biodegradable, Oxo-biodegradable, Compostable, and Conventional Plastic Carrier Bags in the Sea, Soil, and Open-Air Over a 3-Year Period, Environmental Science & Technology, 53 (9), pp 4775–4783, 2019
T. Ojeda et al., Degradability of linear polyolefins under natural weathering, Polymer Degradation and Stability 96, 703-707, 2011
M. Srikanth et al., Biodegradation of plastic polymers by fungi: a brief review, Bioresources & Bioprocessing, 9 (42), 2022
P. Xiang et al., Systematic Review of Degradation Processes for Microplastics: Progress and Prospects, Sustainability, 15, 12698, 2023
US FDA – Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Foods
M. Ogonowskia, Z. Gerdesa & E. Gorokhova, What we know and what we think we know about microplastic effects – A critical perspective, Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 1, pp 41–46, 2018
Nur Hazimah Mohamed Nor et al., Lifetime Accumulation of Microplastic in Children and Adults, Environmental Science & Technology, 55, 8, pp 5084–5096, 2021
J. A. Styles & J. Wilson, Comparison between in vitro toxicity of polymer and mineral dusts and their fibrogenicity, The Annals of Occupational Hygiene., November, 16 (3), pp 241-250, 1973
C. Völker, J. Kramm and M. Wagner, On the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and Media, Global Challenges, 4 (6), 1900010, 2020
Lenz, K. Enders, and T. G. Nielsen, Microplastic exposure studies should be environmentally realistic, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113 (29), E4121–E4122, 2016
D. Wu et al., Pigment microparticles and microplastics found in human thrombi based on Raman spectral evidence, Journal of Advanced Research, 49, pp 141–150, 2023
T. Gouin et al., Screening and prioritization of nano- and microplastic particle toxicity studies for evaluating human health risks – development and application of a toxicity study assessment tool, Microplastics & Nanoplastics, 2 (2), 2022
V. Gálvez-Blanca et al., Microplastics and non-natural cellulosic particles in Spanish bottled drinking water, Scientific Reports, 14, 2024
J. A. Merski et al., Oral Toxicity and Bacterial Mutagenicity Studies with a Spunbond Polyethylene and Polyethylene Terephthalate Polymer Fabric, International Journal of Toxicology, 27, pp 387–395, 2008
G. Suaria et al., Microfibers in oceanic surface waters: A global characterization, Science Advances, 6 (23), 2020
R. Beiras & M. Schönemann, Currently monitored microplastics pose negligible ecological risk to the global ocean, Nature Scientific Reports, 10, 22281, 2020
Analysis of Greenpeace’s Business Model & Philosophy: Greenpeace wants a piece of your green, Drs. M. Connolly, R. Connolly, W. Soon, P. Moore & I. Connolly, 2018
Plastics Additives report Fact Sheet, The Global Partners for Plastics Circularity, 2024
P. Schmid et al., Does the reuse of PET bottles during solar water disinfection pose a health risk due to the migration of plasticisers and other chemicals into the water?, Water Research, 42, pp 5054-5060, 2008
C. DeArmitt, The Plastics Paradox: Facts for a Brighter Future, 2020