The global plastics treaty negotiations are grappling with how to address health impacts of plastic pollution.
Countries are divided between embedding health language throughout the treaty or creating a standalone article.
While some advocate for strong legal obligations to protect vulnerable groups, others prefer voluntary cooperation, highlighting a key debate on the treaty's role in tackling health risks.
Article 19 addresses one of the most complex and politically sensitive elements of the global plastics treaty—how to acknowledge and act upon the health-related impacts of plastic pollution. Two main approaches have emerged: either embedding health-related language across relevant treaty articles or developing a standalone article that explicitly outlines obligations and cooperative actions related to human health.
There is broad recognition among states that plastic pollution presents risks to human health, particularly through exposure to hazardous chemicals, occupational exposure in the waste sector, and pollution of air, water and food chains. However, this shared understanding diverges significantly when it comes to the structure, legal framing and institutional linkages of a health-related article.
Several countries and groups, including the African Group, Guinea Bissau and the PSIDS, have advocated for a more ambitious and binding article that recognizes health impacts across the plastic life cycle. These submissions often emphasize the need to protect vulnerable groups—such as waste workers and frontline communities—and call for coordination with global health institutions, including WHO and ILO. Some have also sought alignment with broader frameworks like One Health, linking human, animal, and environmental well-being.
Other submissions, such as those from Brazil and Fiji, reinforce this ambition with concrete proposals around chemicals of concern, occupational safety, and inclusive health governance. These perspectives see the treaty as a platform to not only mitigate environmental impacts but also deliver co-benefits for public health.
In contrast, several member states—including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ireland—prefer a softer approach, focused on voluntary cooperation, capacity-building and research. These countries support integrating health concerns into the treaty but stop short of endorsing strong legal obligations. Saudi Arabia has gone further, questioning the relevance of a health article within this treaty and advocating for its removal entirely, citing jurisdictional concerns.
The ongoing discussion reflects a fundamental question in the negotiations: should the treaty proactively tackle health risks from plastics or defer to existing health frameworks?
This is a click to zoom map. View the larger image by clicking on it