SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
global plastics treaty
Greenpeace Raises Alarm After Microplastics Found in Top Companies' Baby Food Pouches
"In the US alone, it has been reported that sales of baby food pouches skyrocketed by approximately 900% between 2010 and 2023, becoming a dominant format for baby nutrition," the report continues. Given the rising popularity of pouches, Greenpeace had SINTEF Ocean conduct laboratory testing of Danone's Happy Baby Organics and Nestlé's Gerber pureed baby food.
The researchers found up to 54 microplastic particles in Gerber yogurt pouches and up to 99 particles in Happy Baby Organics fruit pouches, on average—or as many as 270 microplastics per teaspoon in the former and 495 in the latter. They estimated that a full pouch of Gerber contains more than 5,000 particles, while Happy Baby has over 11,000 particles.
"Spectral analysis identified polypropylene (PP) and polyamide (PA), as well as tentatively identifying polyethylene (PE)," the report explains. "Particles tentatively identified as PE microplastic were the most abundant, occurring at similar levels in both products. This suggests that abrasion or degradation of the inner PE lining in contact with the food may contribute to the microplastic content in the food."
The experts also examined chemicals in the pouched food, and "tentatively identified 81 chemicals in the Danone fruit puree and 111 in the Nestlé dairy-based puree, which were also detected in the respective packaging materials," according to the report.
"Cross-referencing with the PlastChem database, an inventory of chemicals known to be used in or found in plastics, revealed that 55 of the substances found in the fruit sample and 28 in the dairy sample were identified as plastic-associated chemicals," the publication notes. "One chemical found in both the packaging and the yogurt was tentatively identified as 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol (2,4-DTBP), a chemical of concern. It is recognized as hazardous to human health and the environment, has been associated with endocrine-disrupting effects, and could also act as an obesogen."
(Image by Greenpeace International/"Tiny Plastics, Big Problem: The Hidden Risks of Plastic Pouches for Baby Food")
"Our findings are not occurring in isolation," the report emphasizes, citing other research on baby food pouches, infant bottles, and other plastic packaging, including breast milk storage bags. "Wherever we look with the right tools, we find the fingerprints of plastics permeating baby foods."
The document also acknowledges that "besides the potential health risks of microplastics and plastic chemicals on babies, concerns have been raised by public health nutritionists about the growing market for spout pouches and their nutritional impact on babies and toddlers, specifically the high levels of sugars and low mineral and vitamin content in many products."
"Overreliance on spout pouches is starting to be associated with growing levels of dental decay and obesity amongst young children," the report adds, pointing to warnings from the World Health Organization and the United Kingdom's National Health Service that "babies can eat too fast when they suck directly from the pouch."
Considering the findings, "delaying action is not just ill-advised, it's unethical," Greenpeace argued. "Governments must work nationally and globally to secure a strong global plastics treaty that dramatically reduces global plastic production, eliminates hazardous plastics and associated chemicals, and drives a justice-centered, at-scale transition to reuse-based systems."
Several rounds of negotiations on crafting a United Nations treaty to combat plastic pollution have been largely fruitless. In March, the chair of the talks, Chilean diplomat Julio Cordano, released a roadmap to renew the global push for a deal. Following that release, another round of talks is expected later this year or next year.
The Greenpeace report doesn't just put pressure on governments. It also says that "all companies that rely on plastic packaging must reconsider their business model, prioritizing baby food, baby products, and food contact packaging. Nontoxic, plastic-free, zero-waste, reuse-centered product delivery systems and packaging alternatives already exist in communities around the world."
"Nestlé and Danone, and other major consumer goods companies and supermarket chains must take responsibility by swapping flexible packaging for healthier alternatives and supporting policies that accelerate reuse system expansion," it stresses.
Graham Forbes, Greenpeace USA's global plastics campaign lead, declared that "this study is a wake-up call for parents everywhere, who trust these brands to put their kids first. Plastic-dependent companies like Nestlé and Danone owe families a clear answer: What are they doing to eliminate microplastics and chemicals from the products they sell to babies?"
"Plastic pollution is not just wrecking our environment, it's entering our bodies, starting from infancy," Forbes added. "How our food is packaged is designed for profit, not for people's health. Cutting plastic production and eliminating harmful chemicals is essential to protect human health, especially the health of our children."
Will World Leaders Deliver the Plastics Treaty Our Planet Needs?
What’s at Stake
The global plastics crisis poses an escalating threat to the environment, public health, and the economy. Currently, 99% of plastics are derived from fossil fuels—the main driver of climate change—and production is on track to triple by 2050, accounting for 20% of global oil demand within the next two decades. This surge in plastic production could use up a staggering one-third of the Earth’s remaining carbon budget, seriously jeopardizing efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Meanwhile, petrochemical and plastic markets face mounting economic challenges as overcapacity worsens, sustainable investments gain momentum, and regulatory pressures tighten. Despite stagnant demand and an oversaturated market, more than 1,400 new plastic production projects are planned by 2027. With historically low profit margins and warnings from credit rating agencies, economists have cautioned that expanding fossil fuel-based plastic production is both reckless and economically shortsighted. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) urges a production cap to address market imbalances and mitigate risks to the environment and the economy.
A meaningful global plastics treaty must cap production, stabilize market imbalances, align efforts with climate goals, address inequities, and curb the widespread devastation of plastic pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.
Where Do Negotiators Begin?
Negotiators will arrive in Busan with nearly 70 dizzying pages of draft text and more than 3,700 unresolved brackets—a signal that there is much divergence on what the treaty should or should not include. While INC Chair Luis Vayas has proposed a “non-paper” to streamline discussions, critics, including CIEL, warn that as it stands, it leaves key treaty provisions without suggested text and sets the stage for a weak and ineffective treaty. CIEL and Break Free From Plastic have put together a streamlined comparison of the non-paper and draft treaty text to inform and guide the negotiations.
Essential Elements of an Effective Plastics Treaty
As negotiations unfold, here are the key components a successful treaty must include:
A Cap on Global Plastic Production with Binding National Targets
Plastic’s toxic impacts permeate every stage of its life cycle. With plastic recycling rates below 10%, downstream measures are wholly inadequate to address this crisis. The solution must begin at the source: We need a treaty that caps plastic production. To align with global climate goals, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) recommends a minimum 70% reduction in plastic production by 2050, using 2019 as a baseline.
A treaty that fails to limit plastic production at its source will not only fall short of its mandate to end plastic pollution—it will fail humanity at a critical juncture. To meaningfully address this crisis, a global reduction target must be paired with ambitious, binding national commitments.
A treaty with a global production target but no binding national obligations risks becoming another “Paris-style” agreement—offering promises while delaying real action. Postponing decisions on national obligations is a dangerous gamble, with no guarantee of success. The first and most critical step toward meaningful reductions is preventing exponential plastic production growth. That’s why the treaty must mandate national measures to halt the expansion of production capacity, particularly for high-volume plastics driving the crisis.
Bans on Chemicals of Concern
Of the 16,000 chemicals used in plastics, more than 4,200 are known to pose serious health and environmental hazards and risks and have been linked to miscarriage, obesity, diabetes, cancer, and more. Nearly 10,000 of them lack adequate data, posing unknown dangers. Following the advice of leading scientists, the treaty must adopt the precautionary principle, globally banning entire classes of hazardous chemicals, mandating transparency, and prioritizing human and environmental safety.
Trade Measures
Plastics are a transboundary issue. Feedstocks, products, and waste flow across global markets, often circumventing regulations. The treaty must establish enforceable measures for tracking and managing trade, including rules for non-party countries that do not ratify, to prevent loopholes and maintain treaty efficacy.
Robust Governance Mechanisms
After the treaty text is finalized and entered into force, a Conference of the Parties (COP) will convene to ensure the treaty’s implementation, monitor progress, and address emerging issues. Future decision-making must avoid the pitfalls of consensus voting, which risks stalling progress. A dynamic treaty must empower regular COPs to swiftly address emerging issues and ensure long-term success by establishing the possibility for qualified majority voting when consensus cannot be reached.
Financial Mechanisms
The treaty must establish a dedicated financial mechanism to support the achievement of its objectives, with a particular focus on assisting low- and middle-income countries. Member States should embrace innovative funding solutions, such as implementing a globally coordinated fee on primary polymer production.
Challenges in Busan
Delay Tactics
As the INCs have already shown, Member States may attempt to dilute ambition and derail progress. These tactics can include a flood of procedural questions, denial of scientific consensus, claims of knowledge gaps, reopening agreed-upon text, and requesting additional information to delay decision-making.
Industry Influence
Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists have infiltrated previous negotiations. According to an analysis by CIEL, the number of lobbyists at INC-4 outnumbered European Union delegates. Strict conflict of interest policies and transparency measures are necessary to ensure that the treaty’s implementation is protected from the vested interests of these industries.
Compromise for Speed
As negotiators feel the pressure of a ticking clock, they may be tempted to scale back ambition, sideline critical topics, or adopt a weak, non-binding framework. Negotiators must balance urgency with ambition to ensure a treaty that meets its mandate.
Trump’s Influence on the Treaty
INC-5 negotiations come just weeks after Donald Trump’s reelection, raising concerns about how this may shape the U.S. delegation’s stance in Busan. Trump has made clear his alignment with an industry that not only undermines climate imperatives but is facing economic decline.
Despite this, most nations have shown a strong commitment to moving away from toxic, polluting plastics. The U.S. negotiating team remains under the Biden-Harris administration’s directive, and global negotiators must not let the recent election derail global progress. If the U.S. fails to advocate for an ambitious treaty, they risk being left behind as other countries forge the way.
What the World Needs from INC-5
The final plastics treaty must deliver more than lofty goals. We call on negotiators to deliver real, enforceable solutions that:
- Cap and reduce plastic production to curb plastic pollution at its source.
- Ban hazardous chemicals to protect human and environmental health.
- Establish clear trade and governance measures for efficacy.
- Commit to binding, ambitious national targets that align with human rights and climate goals.
The Moment of Truth
The world cannot afford a weak or voluntary treaty that prioritizes industry interests over human and planetary health. Leaders in Busan must rise to the occasion and deliver the bold, binding agreement we need to tackle the plastics crisis.
Without a robust treaty, we risk locking in decades of escalating plastic production, worsening climate impacts, and irreparable harm to ecosystems and communities worldwide. The time for incremental steps is over. It’s now or never.
The world is watching. Will INC-5 deliver the treaty we deserve?
Most Popular