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.

What Is Pollution Doing to Our Brains? 'Exposomics' Reveals Links to Many Diseases

News Feed
Friday, April 12, 2024

B1992, burgeoning population, choking traffic, and explosive industrial growth in Mexico City had caused the United Nations to label it the most polluted urban area in the world. The problem was intensified because the high-altitude metropolis sat in a valley trapping that atmospheric filth in a perpetual toxic haze. Over the next few years, the impact could be seen not just in the blanket of smog overhead but in the city’s dogs, who had become so disoriented that some of them could no longer recognize their human families. In a series of elegant studies, the neuropathologist Lilian Calderón-Garcidueñas compared the brains of canines and children from “Makesicko City,” as the capital had been dubbed, to those from less polluted areas. What she found was terrifying: Exposure to air pollution in childhood decreases brain volume and heightens risk of several dreaded brain diseases, including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, as an adult.Calderón-Garcidueñas, today head of the Environmental Neuroprevention Laboratory at the University of Montana, points out that the damaged brains she documented through neuroimaging in young dogs and humans aren’t just significant in later years; they play out in impaired memory and lower intelligence scores throughout life. Other studies have found that air pollution exposure later in childhood alters neural circuitry throughout the brain, potentially affecting executive function, including abilities like decision-making and focus, and raising the risk of psychiatric disorders.The stakes for all of us are enormous. In places like China, India, and the rest of the global south, air pollution, both indoor and outdoor, has steadily soared over the course of decades. According to the United Nations Foundation, “nearly half of the world’s population breathes toxic air each day, including more than 90 percent of children.” Some 2.3 billion people worldwide rely on solid fuels and open fires for cooking, the Foundation adds, making the problem far worse. The World Health Organization calculates about 3 million premature deaths, mostly in women and children, result from air pollution created by such cooking each year.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.In the United States, meanwhile, average air pollution levels have decreased significantly since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. But the key word is average. Millions of Americans are still breathing outdoor air loaded with inflammation-triggering ozone and fine particulate matter. These particles, known as PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter), can affect the lungs and heart and are strongly associated with brain damage. Wildfires—like the ones that raged across Canada this past summer—are a major contributor of PM2.5. A recent study showed that pesticides, paints, cleaners, and other personal care products are another major—and under-recognized—source of PM2.5 and can raise the risk for numerous health problems, including brain-damaging strokes.Untangling the relationship between air pollution and the brain is complex. In the modern industrial world, we are all exposed to literally thousands of contaminants. And not every person exposed to a given pollutant will develop the same set of symptoms, impairments, or diseases—in part because of their genes, and in part because each exposure may occur at a different point in development or impact a different area of the body or brain. What’s more, social disparities are at play: Poorer populations almost always live closer to factories, toxins, and pollutants.The effort to figure it out and intervene has sparked a new field of study: exposomics, the science of environmental exposures and their effects on health, disease, and development. Exposomics draws on enormous datasets about the distribution of environmental toxins, genetic and cellular responses, and human behavioral patterns. There is a huge amount of information to parse, so researchers in the field are turning to another emerging science, artificial intelligence, to make sense of it all.“Anything from our external environment—the air we breathe, food we eat, the water we drink, the emotional stress that we face every day—all of that gets translated into our biology,” says Rosalind Wright, professor of pediatrics and co-director of the Institute for Exposomic Research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “All these things plus genes themselves explain the patterns of risk we see.” When an exposure is constant and cumulative, or when it overwhelms our ability to adapt, or “when you’re a fetus in utero, when you’re an infant or in early childhood or in a critical period of growth,” it can have a particularly powerful effect on lifelong cognitive clarity and brain health.Neuroscientist Megan Herting at the University of Southern California (USC) has been studying the impact of air pollution on the developing brain. “Over the past few years, we have found that higher levels of PM2.5 exposure are linked to a number of differences in the shape, neural architecture, and functional organization of the developing brain, including altered patterns of cortical thickness and differences in the microstructure of gray and white matter,” she says. On the basis of neuroimaging of exposed youngsters, Herting and fellow researchers suspect the widespread differences in brain structure and function linked with air pollution may be early biomarkers for cognitive and emotional problems emerging later in life.That suspicion gains support from an international meta-analysis (a study of other studies) published in 2023 that correlated exposure to air pollution during critical periods of brain development in childhood and adolescence to risk of depression and suicidal behavior. The imaging parts of the studies showed changes in brain structure, including neurocircuitry potentially involved in movement disorders like Parkinson’s, and white matter of the prefrontal lobes, responsible for executive decision-making, attention, and self-control.In a 2023 study, Herting and colleagues tracked children transitioning into adolescence, when brains are in a sensitive period of development and thus especially vulnerable to long-term damage from toxins. Among brain regions developing during this period is the prefrontal cortex, which helps with cognitive control, self-regulation, decision-making, attention, and problem-solving, Herting says. “Your emotional reward systems are also still being refined,” she adds.Looking at scan data from more than 9,000 youngsters exposed to air pollution between ages 9 and 10 and following them over the next couple of years, the researchers found changes in connectivity between brain regions, with some regions having fewer connections and others having more connections than normal. Herting explains that these structural and functional connections allow us to function in our daily lives, but how or even whether the changes in circuitry have an impact, researchers do not yet know.The specific pollutants involved in the atypical brain circuits appear to be nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and PM2.5—the small particles that worry many researchers the most. Herting explains: Limits set on fine particulate matter are stricter in the United States than in most other countries but still inadequate. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency currently limits annual average levels of the pollutant to 12 micrograms per cubic meter and permits daily spikes of up to 35 micrograms per cubic meter. Health organizations, on the other hand, have called for the agency to lower levels to 8 micrograms and 25 micrograms per cubic meter, respectively. Thus, even though it may be “safe” by EPA standards, “air quality across America is contributing to changes in brain networks during critical periods of childhood,” Herting says. And that may augur “increased risk for cognitive and emotional problems later in life.” She plans to follow her group of young people into adulthood, when advances in science and the passage of time should reveal more about the effect of air pollution exposure during adolescence.Other research shows that air pollution increases risk of psychiatric disorder as years go by. In work based on large datasets in the United States and Denmark, University of Chicago computational biologist Andrey Rzhetsky and colleagues found that bad air quality was associated with increased rates of bipolar disorder and depression in both countries, especially when exposure occurs early in life. Rzhetsky and his team used two major sources: in Denmark, the National Health Registry, which contains health data on every citizen from cradle to grave; and in the United States, insurance claims with medical history plus details such as county of residence, age, sex, and importantly, linkages to family—specifics that helped reveal genetic predisposition to develop a psychiatric condition during the first 10 years of life.“It's possible that the same environment will cause disease in one person but not in another because of predisposing genetic variants that are different in different people,” Rzhetsky says. “The different genetic predisposition, that’s one part of the puzzle. Another part is varying environment.”Indeed, these complex diseases are spreading much faster than genetics alone seems to explain. “We definitely don’t know for sure which pollutant is causal. We can’t really pinpoint a smoking gun,” Rzhetsky says. But one pesky culprit continues to prove statistically significant: “It looks like PM2.5 is one of those strong signals.” To figure it out specifically, we’ll need much more data, and exposomics will play a vital role."This is a wake-up call,” Frances Jensen told her fellow physicians at the American Neurological Society’s symposium on Neurologic Dark Matter in October 2022. The meeting was an exploration of the exposome –the sum of external factors that a person is exposed to during a lifetime— driving neurodegenerative disease. It was focused in no small part on air pollution. Jensen, a University of Pennsylvania neurologist and president of the American Neurological Association, argued that researchers need to pay more attention to contaminants because the sharp rise in the number of Parkinson’s diagnoses cannot be explained by the aging population alone. “Environmental exposures are lurking in the background, and they’re rising,” she said.Parkinson’s disease is already the second-most common neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer’s. Symptoms, which can include uncontrolled movements, difficulty with balance, and memory problems, generally develop in people age 60 and older, but they can occur, though rarely, in people as young as 20. Could something in the air explain the increasing worldwide prevalence of Parkinson’s? Researchers have not identified one specific cause, but they know Parkinson’s symptoms result from degeneration of nerve cells in the substantia nigra, the part of the brain that produces dopamine and other signal-transmitting chemicals necessary for movement and coordination.A host of air pollution suspects are now thought to play a role in the loss of dopamine-producing cells, according to Emory University environmental health scientist W. Michael Caudle, who uses mass spectrometry to identify chemicals in our bodies. One suspect he’s looking at are lipopolysaccharides, compounds often found in air pollution and bacterial toxins. Although lipopolysaccharides cannot directly enter the brain, they inflame the liver. The liver then releases inflammatory molecules into the bloodstream, which interact with blood vessels in the blood-barrier. “Then the inflammatory response in the brain leads to loss of dopamine neurons, like that seen in Parkinson’s disease,” Caudle says.More evidence comes from neuroepidemiologist Brittany Krzyzanowski, based at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix. Krzyzanowski had an “aha!” moment when she saw a map highlighting the high risk of Parkinson’s disease in the Mississippi–Ohio River Valley, including areas of Tennessee and Kentucky. At first she wondered whether the Parkinson’s hotspot was due to pesticide use in the region. But then it hit her: The area also had a network of high-density roads, suggesting that air pollution could be involved. “The pollution in these areas may contain more combustion particles from traffic and heavy metals from manufacturing, which have been linked to cell death in the part of the brain involved in Parkinson’s disease,” she said.In a study published in Neurology in October 2023, Krzyzanowski and colleagues, using sophisticated geospatial analytic techniques, went on to show that those with median levels of air pollution have a 56 percent greater risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared to those living in regions with the lowest level of air pollution. Along with the Mississippi-Ohio River Valley, other hotspots included central North Dakota, parts of Texas, Kansas, eastern Michigan, and the tip of Florida. People living in the western half of the U.S. are at a reduced risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared with the rest of the nation.As to the hotspot in the Mississippi-Ohio River Valley, Parkinson’s there is 25% higher than in areas with the lowest air particulate matter. Aside from that, Krzyzanowski and her research team noted something especially odd: Frequency of the disease rose with the level of pollution, but then it plateaued even as air pollution continued to soar. One reason could be that other air pollution-linked diseases, including Alzheimer’s, are masking the emergence of Parkinson’s; another reason could be an unusual form of PM2.5. “Regional differences in Parkinson’s disease might reflect regional differences in the composition of the particulate matter, and some areas may have particulate matter containing more toxic components compared to other areas,” Krzyzanowsk says. Tapping the tenets of exposomics, she expects to explore these issues in the months and years ahead.The hunt is on for the connections between environmental factors and Alzheimer’s as well. USC neurogerontologist Caleb Finch has spent years studying dementia, especially Alzheimer’s disease, which affects more than six million Americans. As with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s numbers are rising in the United State and much of the world. Degenerative changes in neurons become increasingly frequent after the age of 60, yet half of the people who make it to 100 will not get dementia. Many factors could explain those discrepancies. Air pollution may be an important one, Finch says.Researchers like Finch and his USC colleague Jiu-Chiuan Chen are joining forces to explore the connections between environmental neurotoxins and decline in brain health. It’s a challenging project, since air pollution levels and specific pollutants vary on fine scales and can change from hour to hour in many areas of the globe. On the basis of brain scans of hundreds of people over a range of geographic areas, this much we know: “People living in areas of high levels of air pollution and who have been studied on three continents showed accelerated arterial disease, heart attacks, and strokes, and faster cognitive decline,” Finch says.Not everyone reacts the same way when exposed to pollutants, of course. Greatest risk for Alzheimer’s seems to hit people who have a genetic variant known as apolipoprotein E (APOE4), which is involved in making proteins that help carry cholesterol and other types of fat in the bloodstream. About 25 percent of people have one copy of that gene, and 2 to 3 percent carry two copies. But inheriting the gene alone doesn’t determine a person’s Alzheimer’s risk. Environmental exposures count too.A recent study by Chen, Finch, and colleagues published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease looked at associations between air pollution exposure and early signs of Alzheimer’s in 1,100 men, all around age 56 when the study began. By age 68, test subjects with high PM2.5 exposures had the worst scores in verbal fluency. People exposed to high levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air pollution were also linked to worsened episodic memory. The men who had APOE4 genes had the worst scores in executive function. The evidence indicates that the process by which air pollution interacts with genetic risk to cause Alzheimer’s in later life may begin in the middle years, at least for men.A separate USC study of more than 2,000 women found that when air quality improved, cognitive decline in older women slowed. When exposure to pollutants like PM2.5 and NO2 dropped by a few micrograms per cubic foot a year over the course of six years, the women in the study tested as being a year or so younger than their real age. This suggests that when exposure air pollution is lowered, dementia risk can go down.In parallel, an international study by the Lancet Commission concluded that the risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s, can be lowered by modifying or avoiding 12 risk factors: hypertension, hearing impairment, smoking, obesity, depression, low social contact, low level of education, physical inactivity, diabetes, excessive alcohol consumption, traumatic brain injury—and air pollution. Together, the 12 modifiable risk factors account for around 40 percent of worldwide dementias, which theoretically could be prevented or delayed.In light of all this, Finch and Duke University social scientist Alexander Kulminski have proposed the “Alzheimer’s disease exposome” to assess environmental factors that interact with genes to cause dementia. Where medicines have failed, exposomics just might help. Studies of Swedish twins show that half of individual differences in Alzheimer’s risk may be environmental, and thus modifiable; and while vast sums of research funding have been poured into the genetic roots of the disease, it could be that altering the exposome would provide a better preventive than all the ongoing drug trials to date. Environmental toxins broadly disrupt cell repair and protective mechanisms in the brain, the researchers point out. And factors like obesity and stress contribute to chronic inflammation, which likely damages neurons’ ability to function and communicate. The research framework of the Alzheimer's disease exposome offers a comprehensive, systematic approach to the environmental underpinnings of Alzheimer's risk over individuals’ lifespans—from the time they are pre-fertilized gametes to life as a fetus in the womb to childhood and beyond.For three decades, Rosalind Wright at Mount Sinai has wanted to trace critical problems in neurodevelopment and neurodegeneration to pollutants—from highway emissions to heavy metals to specific household chemicals and a host of other factors—but the mass of data has been overwhelming. With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and sophisticated neuroimaging technology, high-precision research using vast genomic databanks is finally possible. “I knew we needed to ask these kinds of questions, but I didn't have the tools to do it. Now we do and it’s very exciting,” Wright says.Using machine learning—an AI approach to data analysis—Wright looks at giant datasets that include the precise location of an individual’s residence as well as the myriad of pollutants he or she encounters. “It's no different fundamentally from other statistical models we use,” she says. “It’s just that this one has been developed to be able to take in bigger and bigger data, more and more types of exposures.” The resulting data breakdown should tell us which factors drive which types of risk for which people. That information will help people know where they should target their efforts to reduce exposures to risky pollutants, and ultimately how to lower risk of impairment and disease, brain or otherwise.The tools used by Wright and her colleagues are being trained on diseases like Alzheimer’s. If you put genes and the environment together, “you start to see who might be at higher risk and also what underlying mechanisms might be driving it in different ways in different populations,” Wright says. The exposome could also explains more subtle cognitive effects of pollution that may emerge over long periods, such as harms to attention, intelligence, and performance.To address environmental brain risks, it’s important to know which pollutants are present—another target of exposomic research. In the United States, the EPA has placed stationary environmental monitors all over our major cities, conducting daily measurements of small particulates from traffic and industry, along with secondary chemicals that emerge as a result. There are also thousands of satellites all over the globe calibrating heat waves that can alter how the pollutants react with each other.Pioneers like Wright are just starting to chart the terrain of environmental exposures that affect the brain. “As we measure more and more of the exposome, we may be able to tailor prevention and intervention strategies. New weapons include a silicone bracelet that we have in the laboratory. You wear it and it will tell us what pollutants you are exposed to,” Wright says. She also is exploring more ways to collect data on the toxins people have already encountered: “With a single strand of hair, we can tell you what you’ve been exposed to. Hair grows about a centimeter a month, so if we get a hair from a pregnant woman and she has nine centimeters of hair, we can go back a full nine months, over the entire life of the fetus. Or we can create a life-long exposome history when a child loses a tooth at age six.”“We're designed to be pretty resilient,” Wright adds. The problem comes when the exposures are chronic and accumulative and overwhelm our ability to adapt. We’re not going to fix everything, “but if I know more about myself than before, that empowers me to think, ‘I’m optimizing the balance, and I’m intervening as best I can.’ ”Additional reporting and editing was done by Margaret Hetherman.This story is part of a series of OpenMind essays, podcasts, and videos supported by a generous grant from the Pulitzer Center's Truth Decay initiative.This story originally appeared on OpenMind, a digital magazine tackling science controversies and deceptions.

The new science of "exposomics" shows how air pollution contributes to Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, bipolar disorder and other brain diseases

B1992, burgeoning population, choking traffic, and explosive industrial growth in Mexico City had caused the United Nations to label it the most polluted urban area in the world. The problem was intensified because the high-altitude metropolis sat in a valley trapping that atmospheric filth in a perpetual toxic haze. Over the next few years, the impact could be seen not just in the blanket of smog overhead but in the city’s dogs, who had become so disoriented that some of them could no longer recognize their human families. In a series of elegant studies, the neuropathologist Lilian Calderón-Garcidueñas compared the brains of canines and children from “Makesicko City,” as the capital had been dubbed, to those from less polluted areas. What she found was terrifying: Exposure to air pollution in childhood decreases brain volume and heightens risk of several dreaded brain diseases, including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, as an adult.

Calderón-Garcidueñas, today head of the Environmental Neuroprevention Laboratory at the University of Montana, points out that the damaged brains she documented through neuroimaging in young dogs and humans aren’t just significant in later years; they play out in impaired memory and lower intelligence scores throughout life. Other studies have found that air pollution exposure later in childhood alters neural circuitry throughout the brain, potentially affecting executive function, including abilities like decision-making and focus, and raising the risk of psychiatric disorders.

The stakes for all of us are enormous. In places like China, India, and the rest of the global south, air pollution, both indoor and outdoor, has steadily soared over the course of decades. According to the United Nations Foundation, “nearly half of the world’s population breathes toxic air each day, including more than 90 percent of children.” Some 2.3 billion people worldwide rely on solid fuels and open fires for cooking, the Foundation adds, making the problem far worse. The World Health Organization calculates about 3 million premature deaths, mostly in women and children, result from air pollution created by such cooking each year.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In the United States, meanwhile, average air pollution levels have decreased significantly since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. But the key word is average. Millions of Americans are still breathing outdoor air loaded with inflammation-triggering ozone and fine particulate matter. These particles, known as PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter), can affect the lungs and heart and are strongly associated with brain damage. Wildfires—like the ones that raged across Canada this past summer—are a major contributor of PM2.5. A recent study showed that pesticides, paints, cleaners, and other personal care products are another major—and under-recognized—source of PM2.5 and can raise the risk for numerous health problems, including brain-damaging strokes.

Untangling the relationship between air pollution and the brain is complex. In the modern industrial world, we are all exposed to literally thousands of contaminants. And not every person exposed to a given pollutant will develop the same set of symptoms, impairments, or diseases—in part because of their genes, and in part because each exposure may occur at a different point in development or impact a different area of the body or brain. What’s more, social disparities are at play: Poorer populations almost always live closer to factories, toxins, and pollutants.

The effort to figure it out and intervene has sparked a new field of study: exposomics, the science of environmental exposures and their effects on health, disease, and development. Exposomics draws on enormous datasets about the distribution of environmental toxins, genetic and cellular responses, and human behavioral patterns. There is a huge amount of information to parse, so researchers in the field are turning to another emerging science, artificial intelligence, to make sense of it all.

“Anything from our external environment—the air we breathe, food we eat, the water we drink, the emotional stress that we face every day—all of that gets translated into our biology,” says Rosalind Wright, professor of pediatrics and co-director of the Institute for Exposomic Research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “All these things plus genes themselves explain the patterns of risk we see.” When an exposure is constant and cumulative, or when it overwhelms our ability to adapt, or “when you’re a fetus in utero, when you’re an infant or in early childhood or in a critical period of growth,” it can have a particularly powerful effect on lifelong cognitive clarity and brain health.

Neuroscientist Megan Herting at the University of Southern California (USC) has been studying the impact of air pollution on the developing brain. “Over the past few years, we have found that higher levels of PM2.5 exposure are linked to a number of differences in the shape, neural architecture, and functional organization of the developing brain, including altered patterns of cortical thickness and differences in the microstructure of gray and white matter,” she says. On the basis of neuroimaging of exposed youngsters, Herting and fellow researchers suspect the widespread differences in brain structure and function linked with air pollution may be early biomarkers for cognitive and emotional problems emerging later in life.

That suspicion gains support from an international meta-analysis (a study of other studies) published in 2023 that correlated exposure to air pollution during critical periods of brain development in childhood and adolescence to risk of depression and suicidal behavior. The imaging parts of the studies showed changes in brain structure, including neurocircuitry potentially involved in movement disorders like Parkinson’s, and white matter of the prefrontal lobes, responsible for executive decision-making, attention, and self-control.

In a 2023 study, Herting and colleagues tracked children transitioning into adolescence, when brains are in a sensitive period of development and thus especially vulnerable to long-term damage from toxins. Among brain regions developing during this period is the prefrontal cortex, which helps with cognitive control, self-regulation, decision-making, attention, and problem-solving, Herting says. “Your emotional reward systems are also still being refined,” she adds.

Looking at scan data from more than 9,000 youngsters exposed to air pollution between ages 9 and 10 and following them over the next couple of years, the researchers found changes in connectivity between brain regions, with some regions having fewer connections and others having more connections than normal. Herting explains that these structural and functional connections allow us to function in our daily lives, but how or even whether the changes in circuitry have an impact, researchers do not yet know.

The specific pollutants involved in the atypical brain circuits appear to be nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and PM2.5—the small particles that worry many researchers the most. Herting explains: Limits set on fine particulate matter are stricter in the United States than in most other countries but still inadequate. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency currently limits annual average levels of the pollutant to 12 micrograms per cubic meter and permits daily spikes of up to 35 micrograms per cubic meter. Health organizations, on the other hand, have called for the agency to lower levels to 8 micrograms and 25 micrograms per cubic meter, respectively. Thus, even though it may be “safe” by EPA standards, “air quality across America is contributing to changes in brain networks during critical periods of childhood,” Herting says. And that may augur “increased risk for cognitive and emotional problems later in life.” She plans to follow her group of young people into adulthood, when advances in science and the passage of time should reveal more about the effect of air pollution exposure during adolescence.

Other research shows that air pollution increases risk of psychiatric disorder as years go by. In work based on large datasets in the United States and Denmark, University of Chicago computational biologist Andrey Rzhetsky and colleagues found that bad air quality was associated with increased rates of bipolar disorder and depression in both countries, especially when exposure occurs early in life. Rzhetsky and his team used two major sources: in Denmark, the National Health Registry, which contains health data on every citizen from cradle to grave; and in the United States, insurance claims with medical history plus details such as county of residence, age, sex, and importantly, linkages to family—specifics that helped reveal genetic predisposition to develop a psychiatric condition during the first 10 years of life.

“It's possible that the same environment will cause disease in one person but not in another because of predisposing genetic variants that are different in different people,” Rzhetsky says. “The different genetic predisposition, that’s one part of the puzzle. Another part is varying environment.”

Indeed, these complex diseases are spreading much faster than genetics alone seems to explain. “We definitely don’t know for sure which pollutant is causal. We can’t really pinpoint a smoking gun,” Rzhetsky says. But one pesky culprit continues to prove statistically significant: “It looks like PM2.5 is one of those strong signals.” To figure it out specifically, we’ll need much more data, and exposomics will play a vital role.

"This is a wake-up call,” Frances Jensen told her fellow physicians at the American Neurological Society’s symposium on Neurologic Dark Matter in October 2022. The meeting was an exploration of the exposome –the sum of external factors that a person is exposed to during a lifetime— driving neurodegenerative disease. It was focused in no small part on air pollution. Jensen, a University of Pennsylvania neurologist and president of the American Neurological Association, argued that researchers need to pay more attention to contaminants because the sharp rise in the number of Parkinson’s diagnoses cannot be explained by the aging population alone. “Environmental exposures are lurking in the background, and they’re rising,” she said.

Parkinson’s disease is already the second-most common neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer’s. Symptoms, which can include uncontrolled movements, difficulty with balance, and memory problems, generally develop in people age 60 and older, but they can occur, though rarely, in people as young as 20. Could something in the air explain the increasing worldwide prevalence of Parkinson’s? Researchers have not identified one specific cause, but they know Parkinson’s symptoms result from degeneration of nerve cells in the substantia nigra, the part of the brain that produces dopamine and other signal-transmitting chemicals necessary for movement and coordination.

A host of air pollution suspects are now thought to play a role in the loss of dopamine-producing cells, according to Emory University environmental health scientist W. Michael Caudle, who uses mass spectrometry to identify chemicals in our bodies. One suspect he’s looking at are lipopolysaccharides, compounds often found in air pollution and bacterial toxins. Although lipopolysaccharides cannot directly enter the brain, they inflame the liver. The liver then releases inflammatory molecules into the bloodstream, which interact with blood vessels in the blood-barrier. “Then the inflammatory response in the brain leads to loss of dopamine neurons, like that seen in Parkinson’s disease,” Caudle says.

More evidence comes from neuroepidemiologist Brittany Krzyzanowski, based at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix. Krzyzanowski had an “aha!” moment when she saw a map highlighting the high risk of Parkinson’s disease in the Mississippi–Ohio River Valley, including areas of Tennessee and Kentucky. At first she wondered whether the Parkinson’s hotspot was due to pesticide use in the region. But then it hit her: The area also had a network of high-density roads, suggesting that air pollution could be involved. “The pollution in these areas may contain more combustion particles from traffic and heavy metals from manufacturing, which have been linked to cell death in the part of the brain involved in Parkinson’s disease,” she said.

In a study published in Neurology in October 2023, Krzyzanowski and colleagues, using sophisticated geospatial analytic techniques, went on to show that those with median levels of air pollution have a 56 percent greater risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared to those living in regions with the lowest level of air pollution. Along with the Mississippi-Ohio River Valley, other hotspots included central North Dakota, parts of Texas, Kansas, eastern Michigan, and the tip of Florida. People living in the western half of the U.S. are at a reduced risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared with the rest of the nation.

As to the hotspot in the Mississippi-Ohio River Valley, Parkinson’s there is 25% higher than in areas with the lowest air particulate matter. Aside from that, Krzyzanowski and her research team noted something especially odd: Frequency of the disease rose with the level of pollution, but then it plateaued even as air pollution continued to soar. One reason could be that other air pollution-linked diseases, including Alzheimer’s, are masking the emergence of Parkinson’s; another reason could be an unusual form of PM2.5. “Regional differences in Parkinson’s disease might reflect regional differences in the composition of the particulate matter, and some areas may have particulate matter containing more toxic components compared to other areas,” Krzyzanowsk says. Tapping the tenets of exposomics, she expects to explore these issues in the months and years ahead.

The hunt is on for the connections between environmental factors and Alzheimer’s as well. USC neurogerontologist Caleb Finch has spent years studying dementia, especially Alzheimer’s disease, which affects more than six million Americans. As with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s numbers are rising in the United State and much of the world. Degenerative changes in neurons become increasingly frequent after the age of 60, yet half of the people who make it to 100 will not get dementia. Many factors could explain those discrepancies. Air pollution may be an important one, Finch says.

Researchers like Finch and his USC colleague Jiu-Chiuan Chen are joining forces to explore the connections between environmental neurotoxins and decline in brain health. It’s a challenging project, since air pollution levels and specific pollutants vary on fine scales and can change from hour to hour in many areas of the globe. On the basis of brain scans of hundreds of people over a range of geographic areas, this much we know: “People living in areas of high levels of air pollution and who have been studied on three continents showed accelerated arterial disease, heart attacks, and strokes, and faster cognitive decline,” Finch says.

Not everyone reacts the same way when exposed to pollutants, of course. Greatest risk for Alzheimer’s seems to hit people who have a genetic variant known as apolipoprotein E (APOE4), which is involved in making proteins that help carry cholesterol and other types of fat in the bloodstream. About 25 percent of people have one copy of that gene, and 2 to 3 percent carry two copies. But inheriting the gene alone doesn’t determine a person’s Alzheimer’s risk. Environmental exposures count too.

A recent study by Chen, Finch, and colleagues published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease looked at associations between air pollution exposure and early signs of Alzheimer’s in 1,100 men, all around age 56 when the study began. By age 68, test subjects with high PM2.5 exposures had the worst scores in verbal fluency. People exposed to high levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air pollution were also linked to worsened episodic memory. The men who had APOE4 genes had the worst scores in executive function. The evidence indicates that the process by which air pollution interacts with genetic risk to cause Alzheimer’s in later life may begin in the middle years, at least for men.

A separate USC study of more than 2,000 women found that when air quality improved, cognitive decline in older women slowed. When exposure to pollutants like PM2.5 and NO2 dropped by a few micrograms per cubic foot a year over the course of six years, the women in the study tested as being a year or so younger than their real age. This suggests that when exposure air pollution is lowered, dementia risk can go down.

In parallel, an international study by the Lancet Commission concluded that the risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s, can be lowered by modifying or avoiding 12 risk factors: hypertension, hearing impairment, smoking, obesity, depression, low social contact, low level of education, physical inactivity, diabetes, excessive alcohol consumption, traumatic brain injury—and air pollution. Together, the 12 modifiable risk factors account for around 40 percent of worldwide dementias, which theoretically could be prevented or delayed.

In light of all this, Finch and Duke University social scientist Alexander Kulminski have proposed the “Alzheimer’s disease exposome” to assess environmental factors that interact with genes to cause dementia. Where medicines have failed, exposomics just might help. Studies of Swedish twins show that half of individual differences in Alzheimer’s risk may be environmental, and thus modifiable; and while vast sums of research funding have been poured into the genetic roots of the disease, it could be that altering the exposome would provide a better preventive than all the ongoing drug trials to date. Environmental toxins broadly disrupt cell repair and protective mechanisms in the brain, the researchers point out. And factors like obesity and stress contribute to chronic inflammation, which likely damages neurons’ ability to function and communicate. The research framework of the Alzheimer's disease exposome offers a comprehensive, systematic approach to the environmental underpinnings of Alzheimer's risk over individuals’ lifespans—from the time they are pre-fertilized gametes to life as a fetus in the womb to childhood and beyond.

For three decades, Rosalind Wright at Mount Sinai has wanted to trace critical problems in neurodevelopment and neurodegeneration to pollutants—from highway emissions to heavy metals to specific household chemicals and a host of other factors—but the mass of data has been overwhelming. With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and sophisticated neuroimaging technology, high-precision research using vast genomic databanks is finally possible. “I knew we needed to ask these kinds of questions, but I didn't have the tools to do it. Now we do and it’s very exciting,” Wright says.

Using machine learning—an AI approach to data analysis—Wright looks at giant datasets that include the precise location of an individual’s residence as well as the myriad of pollutants he or she encounters. “It's no different fundamentally from other statistical models we use,” she says. “It’s just that this one has been developed to be able to take in bigger and bigger data, more and more types of exposures.” The resulting data breakdown should tell us which factors drive which types of risk for which people. That information will help people know where they should target their efforts to reduce exposures to risky pollutants, and ultimately how to lower risk of impairment and disease, brain or otherwise.

The tools used by Wright and her colleagues are being trained on diseases like Alzheimer’s. If you put genes and the environment together, “you start to see who might be at higher risk and also what underlying mechanisms might be driving it in different ways in different populations,” Wright says. The exposome could also explains more subtle cognitive effects of pollution that may emerge over long periods, such as harms to attention, intelligence, and performance.

To address environmental brain risks, it’s important to know which pollutants are present—another target of exposomic research. In the United States, the EPA has placed stationary environmental monitors all over our major cities, conducting daily measurements of small particulates from traffic and industry, along with secondary chemicals that emerge as a result. There are also thousands of satellites all over the globe calibrating heat waves that can alter how the pollutants react with each other.

Pioneers like Wright are just starting to chart the terrain of environmental exposures that affect the brain. “As we measure more and more of the exposome, we may be able to tailor prevention and intervention strategies. New weapons include a silicone bracelet that we have in the laboratory. You wear it and it will tell us what pollutants you are exposed to,” Wright says. She also is exploring more ways to collect data on the toxins people have already encountered: “With a single strand of hair, we can tell you what you’ve been exposed to. Hair grows about a centimeter a month, so if we get a hair from a pregnant woman and she has nine centimeters of hair, we can go back a full nine months, over the entire life of the fetus. Or we can create a life-long exposome history when a child loses a tooth at age six.”

“We're designed to be pretty resilient,” Wright adds. The problem comes when the exposures are chronic and accumulative and overwhelm our ability to adapt. We’re not going to fix everything, “but if I know more about myself than before, that empowers me to think, ‘I’m optimizing the balance, and I’m intervening as best I can.’ ”

Additional reporting and editing was done by Margaret Hetherman.

This story is part of a series of OpenMind essays, podcasts, and videos supported by a generous grant from the Pulitzer Center's Truth Decay initiative.

This story originally appeared on OpenMind, a digital magazine tackling science controversies and deceptions.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

1 in 3 Americans Live in Areas With Dangerous Air Pollution

Climate change is increasing the number of days people are exposed to hazardous pollution, affecting already disadvantaged communities the most.

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.Within five miles of Kim Gaddy’s home in the South Ward of Newark, New Jersey, lies the nation’s third-busiest shipping port, 13th-busiest airport, and roughly a half-dozen major roadways. All told, transportation experts say, the area where Gaddy and her neighbors live sees an average of roughly 20,000 truck trips each day.Researchers cite the exhaust produced by all of that road travel as a major reason why asthma rates among Newark residents is about twice the national average.“You hear of Newark every time somebody gets killed, it’s a homicide, but asthma is the silent killer—and that is a real health injustice,” said Gaddy, 60, who founded the South Ward Environmental Alliance, a local climate change advocacy group. “You know, asthma, heart attacks, respiratory illnesses—these are the things that harm our community.”Kim Gaddy, founder of the South Ward Environmental Alliance, said asthma is a “silent killer” in her hometown of Newark, New Jersey. Gaddy and her three children were all diagnosed with asthma; her eldest son died of a heart attack in 2021 at the age of 32. Courtesy of South Ward Environmental AllianceThe South Ward is hardly an outlier. A new report by the American Lung Association shows how polluted air continues to place the health of millions of other Americans in jeopardy.The lung association’s latest “State of the Air” report—an annual survey of air quality nationwide—found that more than a third of all Americans, or about 131 million people, are living in communities with unhealthy levels of air pollution.The report also found that from 2020 to 2022 the nation experienced more days with air quality that would be classified by the association as hazardous than at any other time over the past quarter century.While acknowledging the efficacy of a series of clean-air measures that have been enacted over the past 50 years, officials with the association said that the report also underscored how the warming planet continues to worsen levels of unhealthy air.

Fears grow over rising number of oil lobbyists at UN plastic pollution talks

Proposed global treaty to curb production represents challenge to producers of fossil fuels, from which most plastics are madeThe number of fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists at UN talks to agree the first global treaty to cut plastic pollution has increased by more than a third, according to an analysis.Most plastic is made from fossil fuels, via a chemical process known as cracking, and 196 lobbyists from both industries are at the UN talks in Ottawa, Canada, where countries are attempting to come to an agreement to curb plastic production as part of a treaty to cut global plastic waste, according to analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel). Continue reading...

The number of fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists at UN talks to agree the first global treaty to cut plastic pollution has increased by more than a third, according to an analysis.Most plastic is made from fossil fuels, via a chemical process known as cracking, and 196 lobbyists from both industries are at the UN talks in Ottawa, Canada, where countries are attempting to come to an agreement to curb plastic production as part of a treaty to cut global plastic waste, according to analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel).The 196 lobbyists registered for the talks represent a 37% increase from the 143 lobbyists registered at the last talks in Nairobi. This in turn was a 36% increase on the previous year’s number. Increased plastic production is a major part of the fossil fuel industry’s plans for the future, and any attempts to curb production, such as the ones being discussed at the UN talks, are an obvious threat to their profits.According to Carbon Tracker, BP expects plastics to represent 95% of net growth in oil demand from 2020 to 2040, and the International Energy Agency estimates plastic demand will make up 45% of growth for oil and gas mining to 2040.Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists are also gaining greater access to sessions with member states to push their agenda, according to Ciel.They outnumber the delegates from the European Union, and there are three times more fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists than independent scientists from the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastic Treaty.Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiations, speaking at the talks. He says he is confident a treaty can be signed next year. Photograph: Dave Chan/AFP/Getty Images“The outcome of these talks is of critical importance to countries and communities around the world, and it is vital to expose and confront the role of corporations whose agendas are fundamentally in conflict with the global public interest. Access to the negotiations is just one piece of the puzzle,” said Delphine Lévi Alvarès, global petrochemicals campaign coordinator at Ciel.“Some may argue that everyone enjoys equal access, but that is simply not true. Lobbyists are appearing on country delegations and are gaining privileged access to member-state-only sessions, where sensitive discussions unfold behind closed doors,” Lévi Alvarès said. “Beyond the troubling number of lobbyists present at the negotiation talks, behind-the-scenes industry lobbying activities and events take place around the world in the months leading up to negotiations.”The communities most affected by plastic pollution, including Pacific small island states, are at the talks in far fewer numbers and do not have the same access to meetings with member states, Ciel said.Tori Cress, communications manager at the environmental group Keepers of the Water, which is part of the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus at the talks, said: “Industry lobbyists are enjoying seats on state delegations while the communities most impacted by the plastic crisis struggle to have their voices heard.“While we are surrounded by industry-sponsored pro-plastics ads, Indigenous peoples’ representatives experience lack of access, are given extremely limited time to speak, and lack recognition even at the First Nations table. Plastics have poisoned our water and what happens to the water happens to people.”Discussions at the UN treaty talks in Ottawa are attempting to break a deadlock which has emerged between fossil fuel nations and others pushing for an ambitious treaty to deal with the whole lifecycle of plastic.But Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK and the chair of the UN intergovernmental negotiations for a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, said he was confident that negotiations would continue to bring about a global treaty for signing next year.Graham Forbes, Greenpeace’s head of delegation at the talks, said: “The influence and growing presence of fossil fuel and petrochemical industries are not what the people want, nor what the climate needs. The fossil fuel lobby is holding us back from negotiating a treaty that will end the plastics crisis. The UN member states must step up and deliver a global plastics treaty that will cut plastic production and end single-use plastic.”

If plastic manufacturing goes up 10%, plastic pollution goes up 10% – and we’re set for a huge surge in production

The more plastic, the more waste we produce. It sounds simple, but this discovery could help us find ways of ending plastic pollution.

Xavier Boulenger/ShutterstockIn the two decades to 2019, global plastic production doubled. By 2040, plastic manufacturing and processing could consume as much as 20% of global oil production and use up 15% of the annual carbon emissions budget. Most of the plastic we make ends up as waste. As plastic manufacturers increase production, more and more of it will end up in our landfills, rivers and oceans. Plastic waste is set to triple by 2060. Producers often put the onus back on consumers by pointing to recycling schemes as a solution to plastic pollution. If we recycle our plastics, it shouldn’t matter how much we produce – right? Not quite. The key question here is how close the is relationship between plastic production and pollution. Our new research found the relationship is direct – a 1% increase in plastic production leads to a 1% increase in plastic pollution, meaning unmanaged waste such as bottles in rivers and floating plastic in the oceans. Not only that, but over half of branded plastic pollution is linked to just 56 companies worldwide. The Coca-Cola Company accounts for 11% of branded waste and PepsiCo 5%. If these companies introduce effective plastic reduction plans, we could see a measurable reduction in plastic in the environment. The problem is only going to get more urgent. By the end of the current decade, experts estimate another 53 million tons will end up in the oceans every single year. That’s bad for us, and for other species. Plastics can cause real damage to our health. Our first exposure to them starts in the womb. In the seas, plastics can choke turtles and seabirds. On land, they can poison groundwater. Socially and economically, plastic pollution now costs us about A$3.8 trillion a year. This week, negotiators are gathered in Canada to continue developing a legally binding global plastics treaty. Plastic fantastic? In the 1960s and 70s, plastics were seen as a modern wonder. Soon, they became common – and then ubiquitous. Single-use plastics appeared everywhere. After being tossed onto roadsides or in rivers, these plastics can make their way to the ocean. Today, about 36% of all the world’s plastic pollution comes from the packaging sector in the form of single-use plastics. To find out how plastic production influences waste, we turned to global data from litter audits, surveys of waste in the environment. Data from these audits is useful to understand changes in types and volumes of plastic waste. We used five years of audit data from more than 1,500 audits across 84 countries. The audits showed 48% of the litter had a brand name, and 52% was unbranded. To assess production levels, we used data reported to a circular economy organisation by major plastics companies and compared it against levels of branded plastic pollution. We expected more production would mean more waste, but not such a direct correlation. The fact it’s a 1:1 ratio is eye-opening. What this means is as plastic-packaging producing companies scale up their operations, they directly contribute more waste to the environment. We found just 13 companies individually contributed 1% or more of the total branded plastic observed. All of these companies produce food, beverage, or tobacco products, usually packaged in single-use plastic. The Coca-Cola Company products were the top source of branded plastic pollution, representing 11% of all branded litter. Right now, companies get to sell their products in single-use plastics and the onus is on consumers to recycle or bin the plastic. This in turn creates high costs for local governments, who run the waste services. There’s also the cost of a degraded environment we all bear. Many major companies have made voluntary commitments to reduce plastic. However, many of these companies are missing their targets, suggesting these voluntary measures are proving ineffective. There’s a better alternative. Producer responsibility schemes could help to shift the costs and responsibility away from consumers and back to the producers. This is in line with the “polluter pays” principle – companies making products that become waste have the responsibility to ensure it’s appropriately managed. Where these schemes are up and running, such as in the European Union, companies often respond by changing how they package products. If it costs them money, they will act. The problem of single-use plastics Even when collected, single-use plastics are a difficult waste stream to manage as they have little or no recycling value. Sometimes these plastics are burned as fuel for cement kilns or used in waste-to-energy facilities. Recycling can be a surprisingly large source of microplastics, as mechanical recycling methods chew up bottles into tiny bits. Then there’s the fact recycling is not a circle, as the famous logo might suggest. The more we recycle plastic, the more degraded it becomes. Eventually, this plastic becomes waste. Read more: Plastic pollution: campaigners around the world are using the courts to clean up – but manufacturers are fighting back To stop plastic waste, stop making more plastic If recycling and landfilling can only go so far, the missing piece of the puzzle has to be capping plastic production. What would that look like? It would involve requiring manufacturers to steadily reduce the amount of plastic used in their products over time and adopt safe, sustainable plastic alternatives as they become available. Countries could: set measurable targets to phase out non-essential, hazardous and unsustainable single-use products, such as take-away containers, plastic cutlery and single-use plastic bags work to design safe and sustainable products to cut global demand for new plastic while increasing reuse, refilling, repairing, and recycling invest in non-plastic alternatives and substitutes with better social, economic and environmental profiles, such as old-fashioned reusables. What about the 52% of unbranded plastic waste? To tackle this requires better data and accountability, such as through an international open-access database of plastic producers or through international standards for package branding. Australia is moving towards this with its planned reforms for packaging. One thing is certain – current trends mean ever more plastic, and more plastic means more plastic pollution. Read more: The climate impact of plastic pollution is negligible – the production of new plastics is the real problem Britta Denise Hardesty receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and from The United Nations Environment Programme and in the past has received philanthropic funding. None of the funding received in any way relates to the work discussed or highlighted in this article. Win Cowger receives funding from Possibility Lab, Break Free From Plastic, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and McPike Zima Charitable Foundation. He is affiliated with the Moore Institute for Plastic Pollution Research. Kathryn Willis and Katie Conlon, Ph.D. do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Mega-warehouses heap more pollution on hard-hit Illinois neighborhoods

Proliferation of hubs for online shopping disproportionately sited in low-income neighborhoods or communities of colorHundreds of mega-warehouses have been built in Illinois for online shopping in recent years and the rise in delivery trucks is polluting neighborhoods already burdened with poor air quality, a new study says.Two million people in Illinois live within a half-mile of large warehouses, which are disproportionately located in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. Continue reading...

Hundreds of mega-warehouses have been built in Illinois for online shopping in recent years and the rise in delivery trucks is polluting neighborhoods already burdened with poor air quality, a new study says.Two million people in Illinois live within a half-mile of large warehouses, which are disproportionately located in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color.A new report by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) identified at least 2,400 leased warehouses covering 632m square feet – a 33% rise from the previous decade.“When you order a new toothbrush online or a new pair of shoes, these items are generally stored in large warehouses that are increasingly being built across our communities,” said Sam Becker, global clean air project manager at the EDF and author of the report.“They’re brought to your door generally by a truck that’s burning diesel, emitting harmful pollutants into the communities that it’s passing through.”Tailpipes of diesel trucks spew black carbon, nitrogen oxide and fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5, into the air. Exposure to these pollutants increases the risk of childhood asthma, pre-term births, heart disease and stroke. Children, elderly and pregnant people are especially vulnerable to traffic-related air pollution.The report findings show that these mega-warehouses are largely concentrated in communities of color. Hispanic, Black and low-income people live near warehouses at rates that are 195%, 137% and 125% more likely, respectively, than would be expected from statewide demographics.“Transportation systems are set up in a way that adversely affects communities of color and low-income communities,” said Cesunica Ivey, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California Berkeley.People of color are more than twice as likely as white people to live in areas with failing air quality. Decades of discriminatory practices known as “redlining” made way for zoning laws that permitted placing highways, industrial facilities and major shipping hubs in and around communities of color.“We built this economy where we rely so heavily on moving goods,” said Jose Acosta-Cordova, senior transportation analyst at the Chicago-based Little Village Environmental Justice Organization. “But the reality is that these facilities are killing our communities.”Many warehouses across Illinois rely on low-wage temporary workers, 85% of whom are Black and Hispanic.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“There’s not necessarily this dividing line between warehouse workers and the neighborhoods where they live,” said Zhenya Polozova, policy coordinator at the Warehouse Workers for Justice. “It essentially results in them not being able to escape the harmful impacts of diesel pollution at home or at work.”Illinois state legislature is currently considering the Warehouse Pollution Insights Act, a bill that would require facilities to report data on warehouse ownership, truck trips, and air emissions to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. If passed, it would also ensure that new warehouses install charging infrastructure that would support electric delivery vehicles.“We need to target the rollout of electric heavy-duty trucks in communities that are adversely impacted,” said Regan Patterson, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at UCLA. “Increase in warehouses is not only happening in one area, but nationally it’s continuing to replicate the same racial and socio-economic patterns of disparity.”Past EDF research has shown that roughly 15m people across 10 US states, and one in four people in New York state, live within a half-mile of a warehouse.

Survey finds that 60 firms are responsible for half of world’s 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.”

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.