Emissions from plastics life cycle linked to health harms of global warming, air pollution, and toxic chemicals
The adverse health impacts associated with emissions across the full life cycle of plastics could double by 2040 unless immediate action is taken, new research suggests.
The research identified health harms at every stage of the life cycle of the plastics we use: from the extraction of fossil fuels, the feedstocks for more than 90% of plastics, and material production to their eventual disposal or release to the environment.
The study team, led by researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) with colleagues from the University of Toulouse and the University of Exeter, used modelling to compare the adverse health impacts of several different future scenarios of plastics production, consumption and waste management between 2016 and 2040.
Their modelling suggests that, under a 'business as usual' scenario, by 2040 the negative health impacts from plastics could double, with greenhouse gas emissions and associated rising global temperatures accounting for 40% of the health harms. Air pollution - predominantly from plastics production processes - would account for 32%, and the impact of toxic chemicals released to the environment across plastics life cycles 27%. The remaining health harms (less than 1%) relate to reduced availability of water, impacts on the ozone layer, and increased ionising radiation.
The research is published in The Lancet Planetary Health.
The study is the first of its kind to assess the number of healthy years of life lost ('disability-adjusted life years' or 'DALYS' - a measure of harm) due to greenhouse gases, air pollutants, and toxic chemicals emitted across the life cycle of plastics at a global scale. These emissions are linked to the health impacts of global warming, respiratory illnesses, cancers, and other serious diseases.
The model found that if the plastics system continues with no change to policy, economics, infrastructure, materials or consumer behaviours, (the 'business-as-usual' scenario), annual health impacts could more than double from 2.1 million DALYs in 2016 to 4.5 million DALYs in 2040. Overall, the study estimates that the global plastics system could be responsible for cutting 83 million years of healthy population life between 2016 and 2040.
The research team also explored what would happen under alternative future scenarios with varying levels of actions to address the plastics problem. They found actions to increase plastic waste collection or recycling in isolation had little impact on reducing global health burdens. Combining all measures in a full system change was shown to be the most effective method, reducing the global health burden of plastics by 43% in 2040 (compared to the business-as-usual scenario).
The study found that emissions from primary plastics production were the leading cause of health effects in all scenarios, and reducing production, without substituting plastics for other materials, would bring the greatest results for health. Transitions to renewable energy could alleviate some effects in terms of global warming and air pollution, but they do not address other harmful outputs from plastic production and waste management.
Megan Deeney, study author and Research Fellow at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), said: "Our research shows that the adverse health impacts of plastics stretch far beyond the point at which we buy a plastic product or put plastic items in a recycling bin.
"Often the blame is put on us as individual consumers of plastics to solve the problem, but while we all have an important role to play in reducing the use of plastics our analysis shows systemic change is needed 'from the cradle to the grave' of plastic production, use and disposal. Much more ambitious action from governments and industry transparency is needed to curb this growing global plastics public health crisis.
"Industry non-disclosure and inconsistent reporting of plastics' chemical composition is severely limiting the ability of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) to inform effective policy to protect humans, ecosystems and the environment."
Co-author Professor Xiaoyu Yan, of the University of Exeter, said: "We've shown that repurposing modelling methods which are usually used to evaluate environmental footprint of individual products and technologies are an increasingly important tool to tackle sustainability questions at a much larger scale. Our study shows that this approach can help uncover the massive impacts of plastics on human health throughout the life cycle. We now need urgent action to reduce the impacts of plastics on the environment and ultimately human health."
The authors note that the study is based on modelling and available emissions data, which involves inherent limitations. For example the model could not include the potential health impacts associated with the use stage of plastics (when plastics are actively used by consumers and industries), nor with many chemicals contained in plastics, microplastics and nanoplastics formed across the plastics life cycle, due to gaps in the data and a critical lack of transparency from producers on plastics composition.
The authors state that ensuring transparency through mandatory, harmonised and global reporting and data sharing mechanisms is crucial to growing scientific research that can effectively inform policy: "The current trajectory is not tenable but we have real, feasible alternatives. Global action that centres on substantial, collective reductions to plastics production and eliminating the use of hazardous chemicals across products are needed at scale to protect people and planet."
The research was funded through the Innovative Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions (IMMANA) programme.
Publication
Megan Deeney et al. 'Global health burdens of plastics: a lifecycle assessment model from 2016 to 2040'. The Lancet Planetary Health 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanplh.2025.101406
