To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to fund
research into the health impact of plastic through a new National
Plastic Health Impact Research Fund.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health
and Social Care () (Con)
The Government are funding a broad portfolio of research in this
area through UK Research and Innovation and the National
Institute for Health and Care Research; both funders welcome
applications for research into any aspect of human health. Since
2018 the Government have committed over £100 million for research
and development and innovation support, to tackle the issues that
arise from plastic waste.
(CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and assurance that
the private sector and trusts and others are investing in this
area. But when almost four-fifths of people in this country have
plastic particles in their blood, which means most of us in this
Chamber if you think about it, and when these particles are
associated with cancer, diabetes and other, serious, chronic
illnesses, does the Minister accept that this really is a
priority? Does he accept that a proportion of the Government’s
R&D spending—we suggest 0.1%, which is hardly great—should be
allocated as a priority to investigating the impact of plastic
particles on human health, and how to tackle the problem?
(Con)
I have had the opportunity to speak to the chief scientific
officer in this space, so I am guided by the science here, and I
have also heard the impact from the Food Standards Authority,
which considers it unlikely that the presence of plastic
particles in food would cause harm. Further research in this
space will be reporting in March 2023, but currently there is
limited evidence to suggest that there is any harm.
(CB)
My Lords, the Environment Act includes the power to be able to
charge for single-use items, including plastics, to reduce
consumer consumption. Can the Minister tell the House whether or
not the Government intend to use this power and, if so, when?
(Con)
I am mindful that my brief as Health Minister is fairly large but
maybe not quite that large. But I note that in this space we have
already replaced plastic bags, very successfully introduced a
usage charge, and reduced consumption by 95% in the main
supermarkets, so that is a tool that we know works. But currently
there is limited evidence suggesting that it is a health
hazard.
(LD)
My Lords, while the global production of plastics continues to
grow, the literature tells us that there is still very limited
information about their long-term health effects. As we are
trying to shift behaviour so that people and businesses reduce
their use of plastic, for a variety of reasons, would the
Minister agree that more research into the health effects would
be helpful to support that public awareness effort?
(Con)
We have set up a research fund; as I say, £100 million has been
spent around plastic waste in the last few years. Again, I have
spoken to the chief scientific officers on exactly this, and if
there are good research proposals in this space, they are ready
to look, assess and commission them if they will be valuable
here.
(Lab)
My Lords, air pollution is the largest environmental risk to
public health. Can the Minister say what assessment has been made
of the contribution to that risk by the burning of plastic in
landfill?
(Con)
Again, my understanding from the science is that that is not a
concern here. The presence of nanoparticles in the bloodstream
has not caused concern to date. However, again, if there are good
research proposals in this space, that is exactly what the
research council was set up to look at.
(GP)
My Lords, the Minister has said a number of times that there is
limited evidence, yet we know, as the noble Baroness, Lady
Meacher, said, that there are microplastics in our blood. There
is evidence that nanoplastics cause change and inflammation in
skin and lung cells, and plastics also contain additives,
including bisphenol A, phthalates and polychlorinated biphenyls,
which are endocrine disruptors and alter reproductive activity.
Is a lack of knowledge, in the light of the Government’s supposed
attachment to the precautionary principle, an excuse for not
acting while all these risks are clearly evident?
(Con)
Again, the research bodies are very happy to look at any good
proposals. The only place I would disagree with this is on
whether you would want to ring-fence a certain amount to a space
when you do not know whether there is a health risk there.
Therefore, if there are good research proposals, we are
definitely ready to take that forward. I will caution against
some of the quotes where they are based on a sample size of 22
people, in terms of the common-sense study. That is why we place
caution on this, but if there are good research proposals, I say:
absolutely, please bring them forward.
(CB)
My Lords, while welcoming the plastic packaging tax in April this
year, I noted an alarming OECD report recently that plastic waste
entering the oceans is set to treble in the next 40 years. What
are our Government doing to fund credible plastic alternatives so
as to mitigate the problems at source?
(Con)
I understand that this is part of the £500 million Blue Planet
Fund that we put in place to help developing countries support
the marine environment, and we are a contracting party to the
OSPAR convention to participate in marine-limited monitoring
programmes.
(Con)
As the Department of Health and Social Care moves towards
prevention, is my noble friend the Minister aware of initiatives
within the National Health Service and across the health and care
system to reduce the use of plastic across our system?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend. Yes, the NHS is committed to a 10%
reduction in clinical single usage by 2045, and these plans are
set out in the NHS long-term plan document, Delivering a “Net
Zero” National Health Service.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has said several times that there is no
credible evidence that this is harmful. I just ask him to
contemplate whether it really can be good for the human body to
be pumped full of foreign material in this way. Would he have
given the same answer in respect of smoking, which, when it was
first promulgated and mass-marketed, was also seen as beneficial
to health?
(Con)
The phrase I used was that there is “limited evidence” in this
space. I reiterate that if a good research proposal is put
forward, funds are available there. The only point of difference
on this is that I do not believe we should ring-fence a definite
amount each year when the evidence does not yet exist that it is
a health risk.
(CB)
My Lords, the Minister suggested that his scientific advisors
told him that there was no evidence. Finding “no evidence” does
not scientifically prove that there is no evidence. It has been
said several times that if a scientific proposal was put forward,
it would be looked at. Accepting that plastic pollution is a
problem, should the NIHR not put out tenders inviting research
proposals?
(Con)
Again, my wording was “limited evidence”. There are many demands.
It feels as though every day I am up here being asked to spend
money on something else. As a responsible Minister, I must
prioritise spend in areas where it is needed. At the moment, I am
being guided by the science, which tells me that there is very
limited evidence in this space. If a good proposal is put
forward, we will welcome it and look into it. Until then, this is
not good use of public money.
