Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Survey finds that 60 firms are responsible for half of world’s plastic pollution

News Feed
Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Fewer than 60 multinationals are responsible for more than half of the world’s plastic pollution, with five responsible for a quarter of that, based on the findings of a piece of research published on Wednesday.The researchers concluded that for every percentage increase in plastic produced, there was an equivalent increase in plastic pollution in the environment.“Production really is pollution,” says one of the study’s authors, Lisa Erdle, director of science at the non-profit The 5 Gyres Institute.An international team of volunteers collected and surveyed more than 1,870,000 items of plastic waste across 84 countries over five years: the bulk of the rubbish collected was single-use packaging for food, beverage, and tobacco products.Less than half of that plastic litter had discernible branding that could be traced back to the company that produced the packaging; the rest could not be accounted for or taken responsibility for.“This shows very, very, very well the need for transparency and traceability,” says a study author, Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, a plastic pollution researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. “[We need] to know who is producing what, so they can take responsibility, right?”The branded half of the plastic was the responsibility of just 56 fast-moving consumer goods multinational companies, and a quarter of that was from just five companies.Altria and Philip Morris International made up 2% of the branded plastic litter found, Danone and Nestlé produced 3% of it, PepsiCo was responsible for 5% of the discarded packaging, and 11% of branded plastic waste could be traced to the Coca-Cola company.“The industry likes to put the responsibility on the individual,” says the study’s author, Marcus Eriksen, a plastic pollution expert from The 5 Gyres Institute.“But we’d like to point out that it’s the brands, it’s their choice for the kinds of packaging [they use] and for embracing this throwaway model of delivering their goods. That’s what’s causing the greatest abundance of trash.”The Guardian approached Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company.The Coca-Cola Company said: “We care about the impact of every drink we sell and are committed to growing our business in the right way.” It has pledged to make 100% of its packaging recyclable globally by 2025, and to use at least 50% recycled material in packaging by 2030.Nestlé said it has reduced its virgin plastic usage by 14.9% in the last five years, and supports schemes around the world to develop waste collection and recycling schemes.“Since launching our voluntary commitments to address plastic waste five years ago, we have significantly outperformed the market at large in reducing virgin plastic and increasing recyclability, according to the most recent report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,” it said.The company also supports the creation of a global legally binding regulation on plastic pollution which is being negotiated this week.However, while many of these companies have taken voluntary measures to improve their impact on plastic pollution, the experts behind the study argue they are not working. Plastic production has doubled since the beginning of 2000 and studies show only 9% of plastic is being recycled.When the team collected data on self-reported yearly plastic packaging production for each of these multinational companies and compared it with the data from their 1,500-plus litter surveys, their statistical analysis showed that every 1% increase in plastic production was directly correlated with approximately a 1% increase in plastic pollution.“Actually seeing this one-to-one increase, I was like, wow,” says a study author, Kathy Willis, a marine socio-ecologist from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia.“Time and time again from our science we see that we really need to be capping how much plastic we are producing.”However, Kartik Chandran, an environmental engineer at Columbia University, who was not involved in the research, said that while this new data was striking, the observation that 1% plastic production was equal to 1% plastic pollution was “a bit unrealistic” and “simplistic”.He said the data did not consider plastic pollution in China, Korea and Japan, nor take into consideration recycling or clean-up initiatives under way.A better analysis could be based on the net plastic flows into plastic production – also accounting for credits from the reuse of plastic materials – and the net plastic load ascribed as plastic pollution.The team behind the study, some of whom are participating in the talks being held in Ottawa this week to discuss a UN Treaty for Plastic Pollution, said their findings emphasised the urgent need for a globally binding treaty focusing on production measures.The talks will run to Monday, and Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK, told the Guardian earlier this week he was hopeful that countries would come together to secure an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution.“It is very important we are negotiating this treaty now. The world is in a triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. But while there are agreements in place for the first two, we have no legislation, no global agreement on plastic pollution.”

Study confirms Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are worst offendersFewer than 60 multinationals are responsible for more than half of the world’s plastic pollution, with five responsible for a quarter of that, based on the findings of a piece of research published on Wednesday.The researchers concluded that for every percentage increase in plastic produced, there was an equivalent increase in plastic pollution in the environment. Continue reading...

Fewer than 60 multinationals are responsible for more than half of the world’s plastic pollution, with five responsible for a quarter of that, based on the findings of a piece of research published on Wednesday.

The researchers concluded that for every percentage increase in plastic produced, there was an equivalent increase in plastic pollution in the environment.

“Production really is pollution,” says one of the study’s authors, Lisa Erdle, director of science at the non-profit The 5 Gyres Institute.

An international team of volunteers collected and surveyed more than 1,870,000 items of plastic waste across 84 countries over five years: the bulk of the rubbish collected was single-use packaging for food, beverage, and tobacco products.

Less than half of that plastic litter had discernible branding that could be traced back to the company that produced the packaging; the rest could not be accounted for or taken responsibility for.

“This shows very, very, very well the need for transparency and traceability,” says a study author, Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, a plastic pollution researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. “[We need] to know who is producing what, so they can take responsibility, right?”

The branded half of the plastic was the responsibility of just 56 fast-moving consumer goods multinational companies, and a quarter of that was from just five companies.

Altria and Philip Morris International made up 2% of the branded plastic litter found, Danone and Nestlé produced 3% of it, PepsiCo was responsible for 5% of the discarded packaging, and 11% of branded plastic waste could be traced to the Coca-Cola company.

“The industry likes to put the responsibility on the individual,” says the study’s author, Marcus Eriksen, a plastic pollution expert from The 5 Gyres Institute.

“But we’d like to point out that it’s the brands, it’s their choice for the kinds of packaging [they use] and for embracing this throwaway model of delivering their goods. That’s what’s causing the greatest abundance of trash.”

The Guardian approached Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company.

The Coca-Cola Company said: “We care about the impact of every drink we sell and are committed to growing our business in the right way.” It has pledged to make 100% of its packaging recyclable globally by 2025, and to use at least 50% recycled material in packaging by 2030.

Nestlé said it has reduced its virgin plastic usage by 14.9% in the last five years, and supports schemes around the world to develop waste collection and recycling schemes.

“Since launching our voluntary commitments to address plastic waste five years ago, we have significantly outperformed the market at large in reducing virgin plastic and increasing recyclability, according to the most recent report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,” it said.

The company also supports the creation of a global legally binding regulation on plastic pollution which is being negotiated this week.

However, while many of these companies have taken voluntary measures to improve their impact on plastic pollution, the experts behind the study argue they are not working. Plastic production has doubled since the beginning of 2000 and studies show only 9% of plastic is being recycled.

When the team collected data on self-reported yearly plastic packaging production for each of these multinational companies and compared it with the data from their 1,500-plus litter surveys, their statistical analysis showed that every 1% increase in plastic production was directly correlated with approximately a 1% increase in plastic pollution.

“Actually seeing this one-to-one increase, I was like, wow,” says a study author, Kathy Willis, a marine socio-ecologist from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia.

“Time and time again from our science we see that we really need to be capping how much plastic we are producing.”

However, Kartik Chandran, an environmental engineer at Columbia University, who was not involved in the research, said that while this new data was striking, the observation that 1% plastic production was equal to 1% plastic pollution was “a bit unrealistic” and “simplistic”.

He said the data did not consider plastic pollution in China, Korea and Japan, nor take into consideration recycling or clean-up initiatives under way.

A better analysis could be based on the net plastic flows into plastic production – also accounting for credits from the reuse of plastic materials – and the net plastic load ascribed as plastic pollution.

The team behind the study, some of whom are participating in the talks being held in Ottawa this week to discuss a UN Treaty for Plastic Pollution, said their findings emphasised the urgent need for a globally binding treaty focusing on production measures.

The talks will run to Monday, and Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK, told the Guardian earlier this week he was hopeful that countries would come together to secure an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution.

“It is very important we are negotiating this treaty now. The world is in a triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. But while there are agreements in place for the first two, we have no legislation, no global agreement on plastic pollution.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Lawsuit says PGE, Tillamook Creamery add to nitrate pollution in eastern Oregon

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of residents in Morrow and Umatilla counties, says nitrate pollution from a PGE power generation plant and from a Tillamook cheese production facility has seeped into groundwater, affecting thousands of residents in the area.

A new lawsuit claims Portland General Electric and the Tillamook County Creamery Association contribute significantly to the nitrate pollution that has plagued eastern Oregon for over three decades. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of residents in Morrow and Umatilla counties, says nitrate pollution has seeped into groundwater, affecting thousands of residents in the area known as the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area who can’t use tap water from private wells at their homes.PGE operates a power generation plant at the Port of Morrow in Boardman and the Tillamook County Creamery Association, a farmer-owned cooperative known for the Tillamook Creamery at the coast, operates a cheese production plant in Boardman. The two plants send their wastewater to the port, which then sprays it through irrigation systems directly onto land in Morrow and Umatilla counties, according to the complaint filed Friday in the U.S. District Court in Oregon.PGE and Tillamook transfer their wastewater to the port despite knowing that the port doesn’t remove the nitrates before applying the water onto fields, the suit contends.PGE’s spokesperson Drew Hanson said the company would not provide comment on pending legal matters. Tillamook Creamery did not respond to a request for comment.The new complaint follows a 2024 lawsuit by several Boardman residents that accused the Port of Morrow, along with several farms and food processors of contaminating the basin’s groundwater. The others named are: Lamb Weston, Madison Ranches, Threemile Canyon Farms and Beef Northwest.A state analysis released earlier this year shows nitrate pollution has worsened significantly in eastern Oregon over the past decade. Much of the nitrate contamination in the region comes from farm fertilizer, animal manure and wastewater that are constantly and abundantly applied to farm fields by the owners of food processing facilities, confined animal feeding operations, irrigated farmland and animal feedlots, according to the analysis by the state and local nonprofits. Those polluters are also the main employers in eastern Oregon. Steve Berman, the attorney in the newest case, said PGE and the farmer cooperative were not included in the previous lawsuit because their impact wasn’t previously clear. “We keep drilling down into new records we are obtaining from the regulatory authorities and activists and analyzing how groundwater moves in the area. Our experts now tell us these two entities are contributing as well,” Berman said. According to the complaint, PGE’s power generation plant at the Port of Morrow, called Coyote Springs, generates an estimated 900 million gallons of nitrate-laced wastewater each year from a combination of cooling tower wastewater, wash water and the water discharged from boilers to remove built-up impurities.From 2019 to 2022, PGE’s wastewater had an average nitrate concentration of 38.9 milligrams per liter – almost four times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant level, the complaint claims. PGE’s plant is not producing nitrates, Berman said, but rather is using groundwater with pre-existing nitrates and then concentrating the chemicals through its industrial processes. PGE’s plant is not producing nitrates, Berman said, but rather is using groundwater with pre-existing nitrates and then concentrating the chemicals through its industrial processes. and then spread pre-existing nitrates from groundwater and don’t add their own but concentrate the nitrates through their industrial processes, such as xxx.Columbia River Processing, the Tillamook Creamery Association’s cheese production plant, generates an estimated 360 gallons of wastewater each year from a combination of cheese byproducts and tank wash water, according to the complaint. From 2019 to 2022, Tillamook’s wastewater had an average nitrate concentration of 24 milligrams per liter – more than twice the EPA’s maximum contaminant level, the complaint claims. In addition, the association also sources its milk from Threemile Canyon Farms, a “megadairy” in Boardman that houses 70,000 cows and was named in the previous nitrate lawsuit. The dairy constantly applies high-nitrogen waste from its operation to its farmland, the earlier suit says. The lawsuit seeks to force remediation or halt the practices. It also demands that the companies cover the costs of drilling deeper wells for private well users who currently face nitrate contamination – an estimated $40,000 cost per well – as well as the costs of connecting households to municipal water systems and compensation for higher water bills paid by residents due to nitrate treatment in public systems. People who can’t use their contaminated tap water now must rely on bottled water for cooking, bathing and other needs. While there are plans to extend municipal water service to some of those homes, many residents oppose the idea because they’ve invested heavily in their wells and fear paying steep water rates.Critics say state agencies have not done enough to crack down on the pollution, with much of the focus on voluntary measures that have failed to rein in the nitrate contamination.Research has linked high nitrate consumption over long periods to cancers, miscarriages, as well as thyroid issues. It is especially dangerous to infants who can quickly develop “blue baby syndrome,” a fatal illness.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.