Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
communications earth & environment Perspective
A Nature Portfolio journal
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02105-7
Plastics matter in the food system
Check for updates
Joe Yates 1,MeganDeeney
1,JaneMuncke 2, Bethanie Carney Almroth 3, Marie-France Dignac4,
Arturo Castillo Castillo5, Winnie Courtene-Jones 6, Suneetha Kadiyala1, Eva Kumar 7,PeterStoett
8,
Mengjiao Wang 9&TrisiaFarrelly 10
Agriculture and food systems are major sources of plastic pollution but they are also vulnerable to their
diverse lifecycle impacts. However, this problem is not well-recognized in global policy and scientific
discourse, agendas, and monitoring of food systems. The United Nations-led Global Plastics Treaty,
which has been under negotiation since 2022, is a critical opportunity to address pollution across the
entire plastics lifecycle for more sustainable and resilient food systems. Here, we offer aspirational
indicators for future monitoring of food systems’plastics related to (1) plastic polymers and chemicals,
(2) land use, (3) trade and waste, and (4) environmental and human health. We call for interdisciplinary
research collaborations to continue improving and harmonising the evidence base necessary to track
and trace plastics and plastic chemicals in food systems. We also highlight the need for collaboration
across disciplines and sectors to tackle this urgent challenge for biodiversity, climate change, food
security and nutrition, health and human rights at a whole systems level.
Plastic applications across food systems
In 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted a resolution to
develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution,
known as The Global Plastics Treaty. This is an historic opportunity to
comprehensively address the full life cycle of plastics, including production,
design, use and disposal1.
From farm to fork and back to farms, food systems are major con-
tributors of plastics pollution, driven by an array of applications. Two
examples—food production and packaging—illustrate this relationship:
Agriculture, fisheries, and aquaculture utilise an estimated 3.5% of
global plastics, with diverse uses including polytunnels, mulches, feeding
equipment, nets, encapsulated fertilisers and seeds, irrigation, and storage
equipment2,3. To give a sense of scale, an estimated 13% of China’s cultivated
land mass is covered in plastic film mulch4,whileSpain’s“Mar de Plástico”
greenhouses and polytunnels are visible from space. Some of these
agricultural plastics may provide critical functions for productivity
and efficiency by controlling pests, mediating resource use, preventing
water stress, and reducing spoilage, thus extending growing seasons
and contributing to the supply and availability of fresh foods3.Forfarmers
and communities in precarious economic, environmental and humanitar-
ian circumstances these functions have been fundamental to economic
viability and may partially explain their rapid expansion across global
landscapes5. Beyond the farm gate, the $400-500 billion annual food and
drink packaging industry represents an estimated 10-20% of all plastics ever
produced6. Some of these plastics support the long supply chains of the
modern food system by preserving food, extending transportation time
and shelf life, and enabling the mass production and long-range distribution
of foodstuffs.
However, these long, complex and often vertically integrated supply
chains are recognised as part of an increasingly fragile food system that is
failing to deliver healthy and sustainable diets7. A predominant focus on
short-term productivity, efficiencies, and financial returns associated with
various food system plastic applications, including those used in the supply
of healthier foods, has obscured the externalities and true costs of these
diverse materials. This has opened the door to oversimplifications and
generalisations employed by petrochemical and plastic industries who claim
unequivocally that their products support food security, ensure food safety
and prevent food waste8. These claims simultaneously justify escalating
production of, and reliance on single-use plastics.
Expanding our appraisal to encompass entire lifecycle indicators
relevant to environmental, economic, and social sustainability and human
health presents a more comprehensive picture, revealing that many food-
related plastics may pose medium- to long-term threats to people and
planet. Only by understanding these trade-offs across various dimensions
canwedesignpoliciesandprogrammes that account for regrettable
consequences.
1Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK. 2Food Packaging Forum Foundation,
Zurich, Switzerland. 3Department of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4French National Institute for Agri-
culture, Food, and Environment (INRAE), Paris, France. 5Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands. 6School of Ocean Science, Bangor
University, Menai Bridge, UK. 7Independent Scientist, Helsinki, Finland. 8Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, University of Ontario Institute of Technology,
Oshawa, Canada. 9Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Bioscience, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. 10Transdisciplinary Science Group, Cawthron Institute,
Nelson, New Zealand. e-mail: Joe.Yates@lshtm.ac.uk
Communications Earth & Environment | (2025) 6:176 1
1234567890():,;
1234567890():,;
The entire plastics lifecycle
Even before reaching their intended applications across food systems, the
true costs of plastics begin mounting. More than 98% of plastic polymers are
derived from fossil fuels, requiring chemical and energy-intensive processes
that produce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other pollutants9.These
processes directly, indirectly, and disproportionately expose frontline, fen-
celine and other vulnerable communities, including Indigenous Peoples, to
toxic emissions to air, water, and soil.
Like all plastics, those used across food systems contain thousands of
chemicals. At least 4219 of these chemicals are of concern, associated with
hazardous properties like persistence, bioaccumulation, mobility and
toxicity10, and/or are known to disrupt the endocrine systems of humans
and other animals. Large numbers of plastic chemicals have not been
assessed at all, while many deemed safe have not been transparently tested
against the latest hazards-based safety criteria. Plastic chemicals migrate into
foodstuffs, contributing to a broad range of adverse health outcomes11,12.
An estimated two thirds of all plastics are short-lived and the vast
majority of plastic food and beverage packaging is single use13,14.Duringand
after their intended applications, plastics and their associated chemicals
contaminate the environment at staggering rates. The vast quantities of
plastics used in agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture and fisheries are uti-
lised for less than one year, poorly managed, lost or discarded, constituting
major sources of macro, micro and nano plastic (MNP) pollution2.While
plastic pollution of marine environments has gained widespread attention,
the situation in agricultural soils may be worse2, with evidence indicat-
ing significantly more MNPs in soils on farms using agricultural plastics than
in those that do not15. The use of biosolids for fertilisation which contain
anthropogenic MNPs and plastic chemicals (e.g. from washing of textiles or
post-consumer waste) also contribute to the contamination of soils16,17.MNP
contamination, by both conventional and bio-based/biodegradable plastics,
is shown to fundamentally undermine soil structure, biodiversity, element
cycling and carbon sequestration, presenting potentially profound medium
to long-term implications for food production2,18. Furthermore, MNPs and
plastic chemicals are shown to affect plant growth and are taken up by
crops19, representing a critical pathway into human diets.
Whether from agricultural production, food processing or food
packaging, ever growing volumes of MNPs inevitably accumulate in
foodstuffs and the environment where they are ingested and inhaled by
humans. MNPs have been found in human tissues, blood, placentas and
reproductive organs. The full human health consequences of this expo-
sure is yet unknown, but emerging evidence paints a concerning
picture12.
Plastics were never designed to be recovered20 and food system plastics
are among the most challenging to retrieve due to spoilage and single-use
design (i.e. packaging) and disintegration during use (i.e. agricultural
mulches). Less than 10% of plastics are estimated to have been recycled21,the
remaining landfilled, incinerated or polluting nature. Recycling itself is
resource- and often chemically- intensive, pollution emitting, and (re)
introduces further MNPs and toxicants22. Plastics combined from different
manufacturing sources are difficult to ascertain and control. As such,
recycled plastics, including food packaging, are unpredictable and equally
hazardous, if not more, than virgin plastics23 thus undermining aspirations
for healthy and sustainable circular food systems. Given the high capital
costs of waste management infrastructure and increasing plastics produc-
tion, most recycling systems worldwide cannot cope. In resource-
constrained settings waste management is often limited to open burning
which forms highly toxic, persistent dioxin compounds and particulate
matter that imperil livelihoods, ecosystems and public health24.Multi-
national food and beverage companies bear major responsibility for these
externalised costs of doing business25.
Implications of increased or decreased plastics use on food
availability and quality
There are understandable concerns around potentially decreasing the use of
plastics in specific food system applications in terms of the immediate effects
this may have on food production, availability and quality. This may be
becauseitisnotentirelyclearhowalternatescenarioswillplayoutforevery
application in different contexts. Whatisclear,however,isthatplasticsare
already undermining Earth’s vital support systems that underpin food
production, availability and quality.
Global plastics production is projected to triple by 2060, and by 2040
will already account for 19% of GHGs21,26. Increases in plastic production are
strongly associated with increases in plastic pollution, and will likely remain
so even with the most optimistic upscaling in recycling and recovery25,27,28.
Plastics and plastic chemicals currently in use and those already present in
the environment (‘legacy plastics’) are already exacerbating impacts across
all planetary boundaries—the fundamental systems upon which global food
production, availability and quality are reliant29–32. These plastics will con-
tinue to fragment into micro- and nanoplastics and leach toxic chemicals, or
absorb persistent organic pollutants, and contaminate the food chain33.
In light of this, further increasing plastics production presents con-
siderable risks for the future of food.
It is important to note that this plastic pollution comes from applica-
tions both inside and outside of the food system34,35. For example, as noted
above, while agricultural plastics are major sources of soil pollution, they are
not the only contributors. Others include fibres from clothes which con-
taminate sewage sludge used as fertilizer and tyre fragments from road run-
off in close proximity to arable land. As such, decreasing plastic use only on
farms without addressing wider systemic source s may not curtail impacts of
plastics on agricultural production. Conversely, because any type of plastic
production and pollution exacerbates pre-existing climate change impacts
on food systems (some more than others), this contributes to vicious cycles
which may necessitate greater use of plastics. For example, this may be the
case where mulches or polytunnels are required in increasingly arid regions.
These interactions and feedback loopsillustratetheneedforawholefood
systems approach to ensure synergies with broader multi-sectoral responses
to plastic pollution in all its forms.
To avoid regrettable substitutions and burden shifting, and to assess the
consequences of increasing or decreasing food system plastics it will be
important to apply essential use criteria (i.e. if the application is necessary for
the health, safety, or the functioning of society, and if safe and sustainable
alternatives are not currently available).
Missing in food systems agendas?
Despite the evidence, recognition of food-related plastics as a system level
challenge akin to climate change remains lacking in major ‘food system
transformation’agendas or debates. For instance, plastics gained little
attention throughout the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit despite calls from
plastics researchers. Similarly, the 2024 Global Policy Report on The Eco-
nomics of the Food System Transformation36 includes just one suggestion:
to increase the use of ‘bioplastics’. However, ‘bioplastics’are an ambiguous,
heterogeneous and questionable group of materials with both potential
benefits and harms, and currently subject to scientificcaution
37,38.Plastics
researchers recommend that the term should be avoided as it causes con-
fusion about whether the plastic contains biodegradable properties/can be
fully mineralised, bio-based, or both39.
Is a lack or harmonisation of data limiting the discourse around
plastics at the food systems level? Or, is a lack of discourse at the systems level
limiting the generation and harmonisation of data? Or both? Some clues
may be found in high profile food systems initiatives.
The Food Systems Countdown Initiative (FSCI)40,compiledbyalarge,
multi-disciplinary group of global experts is a timely ‘indicator framework
and holistic monitoring architecture to track food system transformation
towards global development, health and sustainability goals.’Despite con-
siderable evidence of direct and indirect implications across all Food Sys-
tems Countdown Initiative domains, plastics and their hazardous chemicals
do not feature in the framework, because, as the authors note: “indicators of
solid waste and chemical pollution attributable to food systems are
wanting”40. Closely linked to the Food Systems Countdown Initiative is the
Food Systems Dashboard41 which allows users to explore data relating to
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02105-7 Perspective
Communications Earth & Environment | (2025) 6:176 2
healthy and sustainable food systems. Of the 200+indicators, none are
specifictoplastics.
While these examples suggest that plastics are not well-tracked in
high level food systems surveillance, it is an oversimplification to suggest
that they are altogether absent. Indeed, some elements of some food
system plastics exist within established indicators. For instance, the
indicator attributing a third of global GHGs to food systems42 incorpo-
rates fuel chain, chemical inputs and incineration of plastic packaging but
does not capture the full GHG burden of many other plastics used in
agriculture, fisheries, storage and distribution. The analysis behind this
indicator also states that “organic biomass fraction in solid waste is
predominantly associated with food systems, while the non-organic
fraction is not predominantly associated with food systems”42.This
excludes the contribution of plastics to global waste streams, where for
instance, in the USA, food and its packaging is estimated to account for
over 45% of solid waste43. Nor does it capture the context-specific (mis)
management of food-related plastic waste across different geographies
that drives large variations in end-of-life emissions and onward impacts.
Harmonising evidence for a fuller picture of food system plastics
Such a near absence of plastics in global food system discourse and indicator
frameworks limits society’s attempts to assess the extent to which food
systems are (un)healthy, (un)safe, (un)sustainable and (in)equitable. It also
limits how the magnitude of the plastics problem is understood and
recognised throughout systems-level agenda-setting and discourse. Con-
sequently, policies and programmes may be misinformed with potentially
catastrophic unintended consequences. In some instances, this absence is
due to a lack of adequate data to support monitoring and decision-making,
however, some emerging data and indicators could be accelerated for this
purpose (See Box 1: Aspirational indicators for future monitoring of food
systems plastics).
Crucial research on specific food system plastics is accumulating,
particularly around agricultural and packaging applications, including life
cycle assessments44 and hazardous plastic chemicals10. However, research
agendas remain siloed among disciplines and/or food system sub-sectors;
while data remain skewed towards particular geographies or outcomes44.
Harmonised and interdisciplinary agenda-setting under a food systems
framework could offer several key benefits:
Firstly, interdisciplinary research collaboration would collectively
identify existing and persisting data gaps. This is important because cur-
rently there is no centralised database tracking specific polymers, chemicals,
applications, fates and impacts of food system plastics in different contexts.
Similarly, our collective understanding of the lived experiences and other
socio-cultural factors that determine decision-making processes relating to
different plastics used throughout the food system is lacking and would
benefit from enhanced collaboration and recognition of different forms of
knowledge45.
Secondly, identifying data gaps will strengthen calls for transparency
(including data disclosure, traceability and trackability) and accountability
among food system actors driving plastics production. By the time plastics
and their associated chemicals pollute (agro)ecosystems and contaminate
food and humans, their origins are difficult (if not impossible) to trace. This
hampers operationalising the polluter pays principle, extended producer
responsibility and circular food system aspirations, as recognised by the
Food Systems Countdown Initiative authors who “acknowledge the data
gap in material pollution attributable to food systems”40.
Thirdly, filling data gaps with robust evidence and knowledge will
enable the tracking and tracing of multiple pathways by which food
system plastics impact human and planetary health throughout their life
cycles. In turn, this will substantiate robust essentiality criteria46 needed
to determine whether context specific plastic applications or functions
are truly necessary for the health, safety and/or functioning of society,
and whether safe and sustainable alternatives are currently available
through a just transition.
The Global Plastics Treaty
The Global Plastics Treaty has been referred to as the most significant
multilateral environmental agreement since the Paris Accord. More than
just a global environmental treaty, its implications for food systems and
human health are fundamental since it has the potential to affect plastic use
across food production, processing, transportation, marketing, consump-
tion, disposal, and removal and remediation. “Food”is mentioned 17 times
in relation to food safety, food security and sustainability in the draft
compilation text following the fourth round of negotiations1and has been
frequently invoked by member state delegates, signifying just how central,
contested and complex this issue is.
Groundswell around the negotiations has already driven debate and
pressure around accountability and transparency, with over 3000 busi-
nesses, including many food companies, pledging to disclose plastic pro-
duction and use data, albeit narrowly defined, via the Carbon Disclosure
Project47. Similarly, linked to the negotiations, FAO has undertaken con-
sultations towards a voluntary code of conduct on sustainable use of agri-
cultural plastics48. While these are small steps, they indicate that momentum
and magnitude of the issue is moving constituents into action. The challenge
will be to knit such efforts together into a coherent body of interoperable
data that can guide robust (real world and modelling) studies to present clear
paths towards eliminating all but essential food system plastics, based on the
precautionary principle49,50.
Following ratification of the Global Plastics Treaty, national and
regional policy implementation will follow, including obligations and
compliance measures for member states, industries, and sectors. However,
the effectiveness of the treaty remains in question with vested interests
persistently seeking to weaken it e.g. through narrowing its scope and
control measures, and limiting the means of reaching an agreement. Among
these are hundreds of industry representatives, many with petrochemical,
plastics, packaging, and commercial food system ties, who have flooded the
treaty negotiations51. While it is legitimate for major drivers of the plastic
problem to be consulted on certain issues, we echo calls for the treaty
negotiations and other agenda-setting processes, including those directly
focused on food systems, to be protected against conflicts of interest52,53.
Furthermore, we support calls for an independent scientific subsidiary body
of the future instrument, including Conflict of interest-free food systems
scientists54.
Box 1 | Aspirational indicators for future
monitoring of food systems plastics
Examples of aspirational indicators for which data systems could be
developed to monitor food system plastics:
Plastic polymers and chemicals of concern
•Virgin plastics across food supply chains
•Recycled plastics across food supply chains
•Plastic chemicals of concern across food system plastics
Land-use
•Land exposed to agricultural plastics
Trade and waste
•Food-related plastics and plastic waste import/exports
•Plastic waste from food supply chains
Environmental and human health impacts/costs
•GHG emissions of full lifecycle of plastics used across food
supply chains
•Disease burden and costs of plastics (and plastic chemicals)
attributable to food supply chains
•Ecological, social and economic costs of plastic pollution
attributable to food supply chains
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02105-7 Perspective
Communications Earth & Environment | (2025) 6:176 3
As independent scientists collaborating across disciplines and geo-
graphies to ensure Global Plastics Treaty negotiations are informed by
robust independent evidence, we call on the food systems community to
recognise plastics chemicals, polymers, products, alternatives and sub-
stitutes, technologies, systems and services as an integrated and multiscalar
(global, regional, national) whole systems challenge for food. Elevating
plastics in food systems discourse and agenda-setting will enable colla-
boration toward effective solutions that centre people and planet.
Data availability
No data or code were used in this article.
Code availability
No data or code were used in this article.
Received: 13 November 2024; Accepted: 6 February 2025;
References
1. UNEP. Compilation of draft text of the international legally binding
instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment*.
(2024).
2. FAO. Assessment of Agricultural Plastics and Their Sustainability: A
Call for Action. (FAO, 2021).
3. Plastics can be used more sustainably in agriculture |
Communications Earth & Environment. https://www.nature.com/
articles/s43247-023-00982-4.
4. Sun, D. et al. An overview of the use of plastic-film mulching in China to
increase crop yield and water-use efficiency. Natl. Sci. Rev. 7,
1523–1526 (2020).
5. Tong, X. et al. Global area boom for greenhouse cultivation revealed
by satellite mapping. Nat Food 5, 513–523 (2024).
6. Schweitzer, J.-P. et al. Unwrapped: How Throwaway Plastic Is Failing
to Solve Europe’s Food Waste Problem (and What We Need to Do
Instead). (Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) A study
by Zero Waste Europe and Friends of the Earth Europe for the Rethink
Plastic Alliance, Brussels, 2018).
7. Clapp, J. Concentration and crises: exploring the deep roots of
vulnerability in the global industrial food system. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03066150.2022.2129013 1–25 (2022)
8. Plastics Industry Association. Farm to Table: Five Ways Plastics Help
to Feed the World. This Is Plastics https://thisisplastics.com/
environment/farm-to-table-five-ways-plastics-help-to-feed-the-
world/ (2022).
9. Jambeck, J. R. & Walker-Franklin, I. The impacts of plastics’life cycle.
One Earth 6, 600–606 (2023).
10. Wagner, M. et al. State of the Science on Plastic Chemicals -
Identifying and Addressing Chemicals and Polymers of Concern.
https://zenodo.org/records/10701706.https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.10701706 (2024).
11. Geueke, B. et al. Systematic evidence on migrating and extractable
food contact chemicals: Most chemicals detected in food contact
materials are not listed for use. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 63,
9425–9435 (2023).
12. Symeonides, C. et al. An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses
Evaluating Associations between Human Health and Exposure to
Major Classes of Plastic-Associated Chemicals. Annal. Glob. Health
90, 52 (2024).
13. United Nations Environment Programme. Everything you need to
know about plastic pollution. UNEP http://www.unep.org/news-and-
stories/story/everything-you-need-know-about-plastic-pollution
(2023).
14. Chakori, S., Aziz, A. A., Smith, C. & Dargusch, P. Untangling the
underlying drivers of the use of single-use food packaging. Ecol.
Econ. 185, 107063 (2021).
15. Cusworth, S. J., Davies, W. J., McAinsh, M. R. & Stevens, C. J. A
nationwide assessment of microplastic abundance in agricultural
soils: The influence of plastic crop covers within the United Kingdom.
Plants, People, Planet 6, 304–314 (2024).
16. Corradini, F. et al. Evidence of microplastic accumulation in
agricultural soils from sewage sludge disposal. Sci. Total Environ.
671, 411–420 (2019).
17. Weithmann, N. et al. Organic fertilizer as a vehicle for the entry of
microplastic into the environment. Sci. Adv. 4, eaap8060 (2018).
18. Yu, Z., Xu, X., Guo, L., Jin, R. & Lu, Y. Uptake and transport of micro/
nanoplastics in terrestrial plants: Detection, mechanisms, and
influencing factors. Sci. Total Environ. 907, 168155 (2024).
19. Singh, N., Abdullah, M. M., Ma, X. & Sharma, V. K. Microplastics and
nanoplastics in the soil-plant nexus: Sources, uptake, and toxicity.
Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 1613–1642 (2023).
20. Center for Climate Integrity. The Fraud of Plastic Recycling: How Big
Oil and the Plastics Industry Deceived the Public for Decades and
Caused the Plastic Waste Crisis.https://climateintegrity.org/plastics-
fraud (2024).
21. OECD. Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060.(OECD,2022).
22. Suzuki, G. et al. Global discharge of microplastics from mechanical
recycling of plastic waste. Environ. Pollut. 348, 123855 (2024).
23. Geueke, B., Phelps, D. W., Parkinson, L. V. & Muncke, J. Hazardous
chemicals in recycled and reusable plastic food packaging. Cambridge
Prisms: Plastics 1, e7 (2023).
24. Velis, C. A. & Cook, E. Mismanagement of Plastic Waste through Open
Burning with Emphasis on the Global South: A Systematic Review of
Risks to Occupational and Public Health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55,
7186–7207 (2021).
25. Cowger, W. et al. Global producer responsibility for plastic pollution.
Sci. Adv. 10, eadj8275 (2024).
26. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A New
Plastics Economy is Needed to Protect the Climate. https://unfccc.int/
news/a-new-plastics-economy-is-needed-to-protect-the-climate (2024).
27. Baztan, J. et al. Primary plastic polymers: Urgently needed upstream
reduction. Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2, e7 (2024).
28. OECD. Towards Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040. A Policy
Scenario Analysis. Interim Findings.https://www.oecd.org/
environment/plastics/Interim-Findings-Towards-Eliminating-Plastic-
Pollution-by-2040-Policy-Scenario-Analysis.pdf (2023).
29. Villarrubia-Gómez, P., Carney Almroth, B., Eriksen, M., Ryberg, M. &
Cornell, S. E. Plastics pollution exacerbates the impacts of all
planetary boundaries. One Earth 7, 2119–2138 (2024).
30. Persson, L. et al. Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary
Boundary for Novel Entities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 1510–1521 (2022).
31. Chrysafi, A. et al. Quantifying Earth system interactions for sustainable
food production via expert elicitation. Nat. Sustain. 5, 830–842 (2022).
32. Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within
environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).
33. Kvale, K., Andrews, Z. A. & Egger, M. Mind the fragmentation gap. Nat.
Commun. 15, 9831 (2024).
34. Yates, J. et al. A toxic relationship: ultra-processed foods & plastics.
Global Health 20,1–7 (2024).
35. McGlade, J. et al. From Pollution to Solution: A Global Assessment of
Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution - University of the Sunshine Coast,
Queensland. (2021).
36. Ruggeri Laderchi, C. et al. The Economics of the Food System
Transformation. Food System Economics Commission (FSEC),
Global Policy Report.https://foodsystemeconomics.org/wp-content/
uploads/FSEC-GlobalPolicyReport-February2024.pdf (2024).
37. Waldrop, M. M. Bioplastics offer carbon-cutting advantages but are
no panacea. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2103183118 (2021).
38. Brizga, J., Hubacek, K. & Feng, K. The Unintended Side Effects of
Bioplastics: Carbon, Land, and Water Footprints. One Earth 3,45–53
(2020).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02105-7 Perspective
Communications Earth & Environment | (2025) 6:176 4
39. Scientists’Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty (2023). Policy
Brief: The global plastics treaty: What is the role of bio-based plastic,
biodegradable plastic and bioplastic? (possible core obligation 8).
https://ikhapp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/SCEPT_Policy_
Brief_bio-based_biodegradable_plastics_V2.pdf (2023).
40. Schneider, K. R. et al. The state of food systems worldwide in the
countdown to 2030. Nat Food 4, 1090–1110 (2023).
41. Food Systems Dashboard. https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org/.
42. Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global
anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food 2, 198–209 (2021).
43. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Reducing Wasted
Food & Packaging: A Guide for Food Services and Restaurants.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/
reducing_wasted_food_pkg_tool.pdf (2014).
44. Yates, J. et al. A systematic scoping review of environmental, food
security and health impacts of food system plastics. Nature Food 2,
80–87 (2021).
45. Brock, S. et al. Knowledge democratization approaches for food
systems transformation. Nat Food 5, 342–345 (2024).
46. Scientists’Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. Policy Brief: The
Essential Use Concept for the Global Plastics Treaty.https://ikhapp.
org/material/the-essential-use-concept-for-the-global-plastics-
treaty/ (2024).
47. Carbon Disclosure Project. 3,000+companies disclose plastic
impacts for the first time ahead of landmark Global Plastics Treaty
negotiations - CDP. https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/plastics/3-000-
companies-disclose-plastic-impacts-for-the-first-time-ahead-of-
landmark-global-plastics-treaty-negotiations (2023).
48. FAO. Towards the development of a Voluntary Code of Conduct on
the sustainable use of plastics in agriculture. https://www.fao.org/
fsnforum/call-submissions/voluntary-code-conduct-sustainable-
use-plastics-agriculture (2023).
49. Cameron, James & Abouchar, J. The Precautionary Principle: A
Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for the Protection of the
Global Environment. LIRA@BC Law (1991).
50. The Precautionary Principle. International Institute for Sustainable
Development https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/
precautionary-principle.
51. Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Outnumber National Delegations, Scientists,
and Indigenous Peoples at Plastics Treaty Negotiations. Center for
International Environmental Law https://www.ciel.org/news/fossil-
fuel-and-chemical-industry-influence-inc4/.
52. Schäffer, A. et al. Conflicts of Interest in the Assessment of
Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution. Environ. Sci. Technol. 57,
19066–19077 (2023).
53. Canfield, M., Anderson, M. D. & McMichael, P. UN Food Systems
Summit 2021: Dismantling Democracy and Resetting Corporate
Control of Food Systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 661552 (2021).
54. Scientists’Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treat. Towards an
Effective Science-Policy Interface for the Global Plastics Treaty
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10996298 (2024).
Acknowledgements
The coordination of this paper was funded through UK Aid from the UK
Government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation via the Innovative
Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions (IMMANA)
programme, based at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical
Medicine. Authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable inputs
and suggestions.
Author contributions
All authors (J.Y., M.D., J.M., B.C.A., M.F.D., A.C.C., W.C.J., S.K., E.K., P.S.,
M.W., T.F.) contributed to the conceptualisation, writing, editing and
reviewing of this manuscript. J.Y. led the drafting rounds.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information The online version contains
supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02105-7.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to
Joe Yates.
Peer review information Communications Earth & Environment thanks the
anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Primary Handling Editors: Martina Grecequet. A peer review file is available.
Reprints and permissions information is available at
http://www.nature.com/reprints
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted
by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to
obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2025
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02105-7 Perspective
Communications Earth & Environment | (2025) 6:176 5
