Chemical Risks in Plastic Production

Plastic production involves approximately 16,000 different chemicals, including monomers, catalysts, processing aids, and additives such as plasticizers, flame retardants, fillers, colorants, and stabilizers. According to a recent study published earlier this month by researchers from Boston University (USA), the University of Western Australia (Australia), and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), three groups of chemicals alone—bisphenol A (BPA), flame retardants, and plasticizers—were associated with nearly six million cases of heart disease, stroke, and neurodevelopmental disorders among children born in 2015. The resulting economic damage was estimated at USD 1.5 trillion.

Draft Treaties Rejected

Luis Vayas Valdivieso, Chair of the Negotiating Committee, presented two draft treaty texts reflecting different national positions. However, representatives from 184 countries rejected both drafts.

• The first draft did not include caps on plastic production or restrictions on hazardous chemicals.

• The second draft avoided setting production limits but acknowledged that current levels of plastic production and consumption are “unsustainable” and require coordinated global action.

Opposition from Oil-Producing Countries

Representing oil-producing nations, Saudi Arabia argued that both drafts lacked balance and failed to adequately consider the perspectives of certain country groups. In particular, they contended that plastic production levels fall outside the treaty’s mandate.

Haendel Rodriguez, a delegate from Colombia, stated that the agreement had been “blocked by a small number of countries unwilling to reach a deal,” explicitly pointing to oil-producing nations.

Virgin plastics are derived from petroleum, coal, and natural gas. Earlier this month, climate scientists warned that efforts by the European Union and small island states to curb plastic production are facing strong resistance from oil-producing countries, including the United States under President Donald Trump. John Thompson of the U.S. State Department declined to comment when leaving the negotiations.

Reactions from Civil Society

Anti-plastic campaigners expressed disappointment with the outcome but welcomed the rejection of a weak agreement that failed to impose production limits.

“No treaty is better than a bad treaty,” said Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director at the environmental organization GAIA.

There is currently no clear indication of when negotiations will resume. Many delegates acknowledged the need to draw lessons from the impasse and explore new approaches.

Lessons from Past Environmental Treaties

Drawing on eight years of experience negotiating the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances, Dennis Clare, representative of Micronesia, said he was familiar with obstruction tactics employed by oil-producing countries.

“The failure is not in the negotiations themselves, but in the logic of continuing or moving toward an agreement in the presence of ‘dedicated blockers,’” Clare said.

He added that negotiating in a multilateral forum with nearly 200 countries is inherently difficult, but becomes particularly challenging without agreement on core objectives.

Clare suggested considering negotiations without the participation of so-called ‘blocker’ countries—namely oil-producing nations—as a possible way forward in addressing global plastic pollution.

Bao Bao (based on Reuters and The Guardian)