Microplastics warning row intensifies ahead of key Madras HC hearing Friday

Industry players question the evidence of harm from PET packaging, while environmentalists seek wider regulation of microplastic sources ahead of the Madras HC hearing

The Madras High Court will on Friday take up the case in which it directed the Centre to mandate warnings about the presence of microplastics in food items and water packaged in plastic containers. 

While plastic industry players, consumer-facing companies and sector experts have raised concerns about the move, arguing that Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) bottles and plastic packaging are safe, environmentalists say this could be the beginning of efforts to regulate all possible sources of microplastics. Bisleri, one of the major players in the PET bottle industry, said there was no conclusive evidence that microplastics harm living organisms. 

“PET bottles and other plastics are regulated under stringent Indian and global standards. While research into the presence and potential impact of microplastics continues worldwide, no conclusive evidence of harm to living species has been established. Accordingly, neither the WHO nor any country in the world has called for restrictions on PET packaging,” said Angelo George, CEO, Bisleri. 

 

In February, the Madras High Court directed the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to warn consumers about the possible presence of micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) in packaged drinking water, salt and sugar sold in PET bottles and plastic packaging. 

The PET Packaging Association for Clean Environment challenged the HC’s direction before the apex court. On April 6, however, the apex court said there was nothing inherently objectionable about warning consumers if reports suggested the presence of microplastics. 

“There is no evidence to suggest that PET is a major source of microplastics, nor is there proof that it is unsafe,” said Vijay Habbu, scientific adviser to PACE and adjunct professor at the Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT), Mumbai. 

Environmentalists, on the other hand, are pushing for regulation, starting with PET. 

“The problem with microplastics is that they are small fragments of plastic, with chemicals embedded in them. They are found not just in PET, but also in clothes made from synthetic polymers, tyres and even cosmetics. The argument that the WHO has called it safe is based on an opinion it expressed more than a decade ago, not on a new study,” said Satish Sinha, associate director at New Delhi-based environmental NGO Toxics Link. 

Sinha and his team have studied the presence of microplastics in salt and sugar brands, as well as in water bodies and soil.

A recent analysis by veteran polymer scientist Chris DeArmitt, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, concluded that current evidence does not identify a microplastic-related health concern from compliant PET-bottled drinks at measured levels of exposure, while stopping short of claiming zero risk. 

“The presence of microplastics has been reported in the liver, kidneys, brain, heart and blood, based on various studies. There should be some regulation of their use. That is why some of the biggest sources, including single-use plastics, should be regulated initially,” said Sinha. 

The industry bodies, on the other hand, argue that useful consumer warnings inform people of a level of risk. However, the leading alternative package (glass) does not reliably reduce particle exposure, with studies finding higher microplastic counts in glass too.