Plastic production exceeds 460 million metric tons annually, yet around 20 million tons pollute land, water, and air every year. The upcoming INC 5.2 conference aims to address these issues. Without intervention, plastic waste could triple by 2060, fueling biodiversity loss, ecosystem damage, climate change, and emerging health risks.
In 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted a resolution to create a binding plastics treaty—sometimes called a “Paris Treaty for plastics”. That resolution formed the International Negotiating Committee (INC). Its task is to draft an International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI) addressing the entire lifecycle of plastics, from design to disposal.
Although INC concluded a fifth meeting in Busan (INC‑5) in 2024, key questions remained unresolved. INC‑5.2, meeting in Geneva from August 5–14, 2025, aims to finalize the treaty by resolving disagreements on:
- Scope: Should the treaty tackle only plastic waste or include production limits and chemical controls?
- Financial mechanisms: How will developing nations implement changes?
- Design and chemical standards: Will harmful additives be banned across the lifecycle?
This moment is critical, as negotiators confront entrenched corporate influence, particularly from petrochemical industries that oppose production caps and stronger chemical controls.
Plastic Pollution Poses a Major Health Crisis
Plastic-related chemicals cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. DEHP phthalates alone were linked to over 356,000 deaths in 2018. These were mainly due to cardiovascular diseases. Toxic plastics lead to endocrine disruption, fertility issues, and cancers. They also result in metabolic disorders and respiratory diseases. This is especially true for micro- and nanoplastics (MnP) that infiltrate humans.
Microplastics disrupt immune and endocrine function and may accumulate in multiple organ systems, raising long-term health concerns. Annual ingestion estimates reach 39,000–52,000 particles per person via food, water, and air.
Treaty negotiators must integrate health protections into treaty text explicitly. They need to ensure frameworks address exposure. Frameworks must also include toxicity testing and bans on hazardous additives.
Why a Treaty Must Address the Plastic Lifecycle
Treaty frameworks that only tackle waste may fall short. Without upstream action on plastic design, production volume, chemical additives, and harmful monomers, pollution will persist. Reuse and recycling alone are insufficient to curb the crisis
A comprehensive treaty should regulate:
- Design standards to minimise harmful chemicals
- Global phasing out of single-use items and toxic additives
- Health-based product safety tests prior to market release
- Financial support mechanisms for low-income nations to build waste and recycling infrastructure
- Political Stakes and Corporate Influence
Without meaningful limits on polymer production, the treaty risks being symbolic. Major fossil-fuel and petrochemical nations—like Saudi Arabia and China—have resisted strong production cap proposals. At the same time, civil society and scientists have voiced concerns about corporate dominance over negotiations.
Health advocates call for a treaty shaped by independent science, public health priorities, transparency, and safeguards against interference by vested interests.
Economic and Climate Benefits of a Strong Treaty
Plastic pollution imposes massive costs—estimated at $281 trillion from 2016–2040 just in environmental and health damages World Economic Forum. Additionally, plastics contribute about 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions through production and waste management.
In contrast, transitioning to circular economy models, encouraging digital product redesign, and restricting hazardous plastics can reduce waste, cut emissions, protect health, and offer economic savings globally.
What to Expect from INC‑5.2 in Geneva
The Geneva meeting will shape the final treaty text around these key issues:
- Production caps on primary polymers to curb plastic output
- Chemical transparency and negative lists banning toxic additives
- Circular design mandates for safer, reusable systems
- Inclusion of informal waste pickers in governance frameworks
- Financing mechanisms, such as levy systems, extended producer responsibility (EPR), and technical assistance for developing economies Beyond formal negotiations, Geneva will host public events, science dialogues, and advocacy forums that amplify marginalized voices and boost momentum for strong treaty outcomes
Public Health: Why the Treaty Must Act Now
The University of Birmingham and WWF recently published a report synthesizing nearly 200 peer-reviewed studies documenting health impacts from MnP and plastic additives. Their findings reinforce calls for early treaty sections explicitly dedicated to human health protections and the precautionary principle
\This echoes the success of the Montreal Protocol, which invoked precaution before full certainty. Many deaths and illnesses from plastic-linked chemicals could be prevented through early action.
What a Strong Treaty Means for People and Governments
An effective treaty could mean:
- Global bans on single-use plastics and toxic chemicals
- Safe packaging standards to reduce exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors
- Transition support for developing countries to build infrastructure
- Recognition and protection of waste worker communities as essential actors
- Binding health safeguards and reporting mechanisms to hold industry and governments accountable
For health providers and policymakers, such measures could reduce exposures that now contribute to infertility, cancers, diabetes, respiratory illnesses, and neurodevelopmental disorders.
What the INC‑5.2 Treaty Must Deliver
Treaty Scope
Approach should cover the entire plastics lifecycle, not just waste.
Health Integration
Include dedicated health protections and toxicant bans based on evidence.
Prominent Measures
Set production caps, chemical restrictions, and safe design standards.
Equity Focus
Ensure financial aid and capacity building in under-resourced countries.
Transparent Governance
Limit corporate influence, amplify civil society voices, and embed accountability.
Circular Economic Action
Drive reuse, recycling, innovation, and reduce reliance on virgin plastics.
A decisive INC‑5.2 outcome could offer a turning point in global health and sustainability. Without it, pollution, disease, and environmental degradation will continue.
As the INC‑5.2 meeting in Geneva approaches, the stakes could not be higher. Strong political leadership, science-based decision-making, and citizen activism can influence a global plastics treaty that protects human health, preserves biodiversity, and mitigates climate change.
Stronger rules on plastic production, design, chemical use, and waste will shape the legacy of this historic treaty. It’s time for nations to commit to lasting, enforceable solutions.
