1024�˹���

A 1024�˹��� researcher has joined experts around the world in calling out potential conflicts of interest around global plastics treaty negotiations and interfering with timely action on other health and environmental issues. 

The group of 35 international scientists are urging the implementation of strict guidelines to prevent the same conflicts of interest also affecting the UN’s upcoming Science Policy Panel on Chemicals. Their concerns and recommendations are outlined in a in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

The article says plastic and chemical industries are using similar tactics as Big Tobacco and Big Oil, to manufacture doubt and sow misinformation.

Professor Alex Ford from the 1024�˹���'s and Institute of Marine Sciences, said: “There is a long history of industries working from the same playbook to intervene with regulatory efforts. We saw how tobacco and oil industries hampered health and environmental regulation for decades, and plastic and chemical industries have followed a similar pattern of behaviour.”

The group’s warning comes as countries prepare to meet next week for the in Nairobi. Though some scientists and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had advised against it, the plastic and petrochemical industries had a presence and actively lobbied at the first two rounds of the negotiations. 

The scientists note that industry representatives continue to make misleading statements about the role of plastic in society, yet no action has been taken to curb these conflicts of interest. 

They have expressed concern that similar issues could arise in the development of the UN Science Policy Panel on chemicals, waste, and pollution. The UN Environment Assembly decided in 2022 to establish this Panel to support countries in their efforts to protect human and ecosystem health through scientific assessments. 

As the working group to create the Panel December 11-15, today’s paper is a call to protect its work from undue influence by companies with a vested interest in polluting chemicals.    

“Letting polluters have a say in pollution protections is the epitome of the fox guarding the henhouse,” said lead author Andreas Schäffer, a Professor at the Institute for Environmental Research, RWTH Aachen University. 

“Just like the tobacco industry was restricted from WHO’s work on smoking, the UN shouldn’t let the chemical industry’s hired guns dilute global guidelines for chemical and waste management.” 

The participation of industry in a UN intergovernmental science-policy body would not be unprecedented. For example, fossil fuel representatives co-authored major reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Science Policy’s Panel analogue for climate. 

To ensure the effectiveness of the Science Policy Panel, the scientists who co-authored the paper issue the following key recommendations that should be incorporated into the process:

• Define clear and strict conflict of interest provisions.
• Do not confuse the undesirable conflicts of financial or political competing interests with legitimate interests or biases.
• Establish regular audits of the Panel’s work to check for conflict of interest.
• Secure as much transparency as possible from organizations involved.

Professor Ford added: “It is really important that we raise awareness of the tactics used by nefarious companies to stymie policy and frustrate tighter regulation that might protect human health and the health of our ecosystems.

“To address these challenges, we are introducing classes on conflicts of interest to our environmental toxicology and pollution modules at the 1024�˹��� so that students understand the tactics used and the lengths some companies may go to which have conflicts of interest.”

Professor Ford has spent over 20 years working as an environmental scientist with expertise in Marine Biology, Environmental Toxicology, Parasitology. He has worked on several high-profile projects including a recent study , and looking at the effects of pollutants on wildlife and humans.