

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
To protect their markets, the petrochemical companies began a decades-long, coordinated effort to sell the public on plastic recycling—despite their knowledge that it was neither technically nor economically viable.
We’re all living in a world—and in bodies—more polluted with plastic than the one our parents grew up in. And with global plastic production increasing by 3-3.5% annually and expected to double by 2040 or 2050, our children, and their children, will inherit even more plastic particles in everything from their food systems to their internal organs.
Two new pieces of media shine a light on the enormous harm that these invasive plastics are causing to our health across generations—and how Big Oil and the plastics industry have not only caused this crisis but also are bent on continuing it with no end in sight.
The Netflix documentary Plastics Detox details how the endocrine-disrupting chemicals from plastics contaminate three generations: the mother, the fetus, and the fetus' developing reproductive cells—“a toxic trespass," according to an expert interviewed by the film’s producers. Following environmental and reproductive epidemiologist Dr. Shanna Swan as she strives to help couples struggling with infertility, the film shows how chemicals found in plastic are identified as major endocrine disruptors, significantly contributing to hormone dysfunction, lower sperm quality, and falling fertility rates.
Just as viewers begin to wonder, how did we even get here? How is there so much plastic in… well, everything? California Attorney General Rob Bonta appears on screen, succinctly explaining that “the entire plastics industry is built on a lie”—that we can simply recycle our way out of the problem. “The only reason that plastics today are ubiquitous is because the people were told that this product can be recycled,” Bonta explains. Investigations from the Center for Climate Integrity and others have revealed that the major fossil fuel and petrochemical companies that produce and sell plastics have long known recycling was not a technically or economically viable solution to plastic waste.
Attorney General Bonta has the right idea—we need to bring an end to the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lies.
On behalf of California, Bonta has filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against ExxonMobil that seeks to hold the oil giant, and the world’s biggest producer of the polymers used in single-use plastics, accountable for helping to create and push that myth.
A new book by journalist Beth Gardiner, Plastics Inc.: The Secret History and Shocking Future of Big Oil’s Biggest Bet, details the more than 100-year evolution of the plastics industry, including the industry’s deliberate efforts to reshape our society from one that, coming out of the Great Depression and World War II, reduced and reused its materials to one that simply disposed of them. Disposability equals profitability to the industry. Gardiner details how plastics’ inability to be reused or recycled was not a bug, but a feature. As one industry leader put it at the 1956 Society of Plastics Industry conference, “The future of plastics is in the trash can.” To actualize plastics’ true selling potential, the industry would have to “teach people how to waste.”
From there, the world’s leading petrochemical companies, with their ethos of single-use disposability, went on to create the plastic waste crisis. The American public, though, quickly became wary of plastic pollution and began to push back. In response, the industry first promoted landfilling and incineration to hide the plastic from view. But it quickly became clear that these disposal options would not placate a public frustrated by a flood of disposable plastics. People did not want more landfills, did not want incineration, and did not want plastic in the environment. This public outcry led to calls for bans on single-use plastics. To protect their markets, the petrochemical companies began a decades-long, coordinated effort to sell the public on plastic recycling—despite their knowledge that it was neither technically nor economically viable.
No amount of effort, investment, public education, or consumer diligence can overcome a material that resists recycling at a molecular level. Plastic’s intrinsic structure creates technical and economic barriers that make successful, safe, and scalable plastic recycling impossible—barriers that plastics producers identified in their own internal assessments as early as the 1970s. Rather than acknowledging these limitations, the industry has embarked on a nearly half-century long campaign to ensure the public never learned about them.
Now the world’s largest plastics producers make public commitments to expand the use and capacity of chemical (or “advanced”) recycling, even in the face of overwhelming evidence demonstrating that major economic and technical limitations remain unresolved. Chemical recycling operations continue to flounder as a result of predictable issues, including many of the same factors that industry insiders identified decades ago, while companies quietly retreat from their heavily publicized commitments once their public relations value has expired.
We are now awash in plastic. It is literally everywhere, quietly changing our human existence. Attorney General Bonta has the right idea—we need to bring an end to the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lies. Consumers are legally entitled to make informed decisions. Corporations cannot be given unfettered license to continue to sell us baseless false solution after baseless false solution. They must be held accountable.
"Unsure how any US citizen would feel comfortable deploying" to help fight the outbreak, said one doctor, "knowing our government would not make sure they are okay if something happened."
The United Nations' emergency relief office on Thursday was mobilizing $60 million to fight the rapidly spreading Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with the body's under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs saying relief teams are "fully mobilized" and "applying lessons from previous outbreaks," with a focus on building community trust and communicating with governments.
But with the Trump administration having dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and slashed funding and staffing for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) global efforts, the response is largely missing a key feature that helped with containment during the 2014 and 2019 outbreaks—the involvement of the US government and public health teams—and Secretary of State Marco Rubio signaled on Thursday that was unlikely to change.
In comments to the press, Rubio said the Trump administration's top priority is that Ebola doesn't reach the US—even if that means imposing travel restrictions against the guidance of the World Health Organization (WHO)—and described an approach that one disaster relief leader said was antithetical to the actions the US took in previous Ebola outbreaks.
"Our number-one objective on Ebola, before anything else, and we think it's terrible what's happening there to the people... Our number-one thing has to be, we can't have it affect the United States," said Rubio. "We can't have Ebola cases coming here."
Rubio: "We can't have ebola cases here. In fact, I think we had a flight last night headed to Detroit that was diverted." pic.twitter.com/S84FmWIq5b
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 21, 2026
The secretary of state noted that an Air France flight that had been headed for Detroit was diverted to Montreal on Wednesday after a passenger from Congo was found to have boarded the plane "in error."
The Department of Homeland Security announced new restrictions this week saying that all travelers who have been in the DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan in the past 21 days—including US citizens and permanent residents—can only enter the US through Washington Dulles International Airport.
When WHO declared the Ebola outbreak a public emergency of international concern last weekend, the agency noted that "no country should close its borders or place any restrictions on travel and trade."
"Such measures are usually implemented out of fear and have no basis in science," said WHO in its guidance, which also noted "state parties should be prepared to facilitate the evacuation and repatriation of nationals (e.g. health workers) who have been exposed" to Ebola.
Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International and a former USAID disaster relief official, said the message sent by Rubio was "insanely counterproductive."
By sending the message that the US is prioritizing that Ebola stays outside US borders above all, said Konyndyk, the Trump administration is telling "any US health workers that if they get infected trying to contain the outbreak, they won't be allowed home."
"In the 2014 outbreak we did the opposite, because we knew that posture would undermine the response and extend the outbreak," he said.
Dr. Krutika Kuppalli, who specializes in infectious diseases and deployed to West Africa in 2014 to help fight the Ebola outbreak that killed more than 11,000 people, said she did so "with the understanding that if something happened my government would take care of me."
"Unsure how any US citizen would feel comfortable deploying, knowing our government would not make sure they are okay if something happened," said Kuppalli.
The Trump administration's refusal to directly help US healthcare workers impacted by the outbreak has already resulted in two doctors being sent to European countries including Germany and the Czech Republic for treatment.
As he emphasized that Ebola cannot reach US shores, Rubio sent out messages of thanks to German and Czech officials for admitting the two medical workers to their hospitals.
With more than 170 deaths and about 750 infections suspected in the "rapidly" spreading Ebola outbreak and cases reported in Uganda as well as the DRC, public health experts are warning that the crisis is likely to "get worse before it gets better" and that its impact has likely already reached farther than initial numbers show due to a lack of surveillance on the ground.
Former CDC Director Robert Redfield told NewsNation on Thursday that "normally when we have these Ebola outbreaks, and I had three of them when I was CDC director, all of which were in the DRC, normally we recognize them when we have five, 10 cases, you know, at most."
"This one really wasn’t picked up until there was over 100 cases," he said.
WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Friday that the risk assessment for Ebola is "very high at the national level, high at the regional level and low at the global level."
As Common Dreams reported earlier this week, experts have pointed to President Donald Trump's cuts to foreign assistance and public health initiatives as reasons the outbreak had already spread as far as it did when the emergency was declared this week.
The State Department announced on Monday it was mobilizing $13 million in assistance to help contain the outbreak; the US spent more than $5 billion to fight to 2014 epidemic that hit several countries in West Africa.
"The United States cannot quickly reverse our abdication of leadership on the global health stage," wrote Dr. Craig Spencer, an emergency medicine physician who helped treat Ebola patients in 2014 and survived the disease himself. "But we can bolster our response to this crisis. There should be a steadfast commitment to working closely and coordinating with essential partners like the WHO. We need to mobilize funding and experts, speed up the development of new treatments, and increase resources for protective equipment and expanded testing."
"Plastic pollution is not just wrecking our environment, it's entering our bodies, starting from infancy," said one campaigner. "How our food is packaged is designed for profit, not for people's health."
Parents often reach for squeeze pouches of baby food to feed little ones on the go or because they aren't likely to break if dropped from a high chair, but research commissioned by Greenpeace International and released Thursday raises concerns about how the convenient packaging is exposing children to microplastics and plastic-associated chemicals, with potential health risks.
"In supermarkets worldwide, shelves are now lined with these soft plastic squeeze pouches of pureed baby food, promoted with safety and environmental claims such as 'BPA-free,' 'non-GMO,' 'pesticide-free' and 'organic,'" notes the group's new report, "Tiny Plastics, Big Problem: The Hidden Risks of Plastic Pouches for Baby Food."
"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."

"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.
What #Nestlé & #Danone are feeding to babies will shock you. A Greenpeace International report found microplastics in the plastic-pouched baby food of 2 popular Nestlé & Danone brands, Gerber & Happy Baby Organics.❌ No amount of #microplastics should be in a CHILD'S FOOD. Share if you agree.
[image or embed]
— Greenpeace International 🌍 (@greenpeace.org) May 21, 2026 at 4:45 AM
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."