Thank you very much for inviting me today.

Success in plastics recycling has proven elusive even after more than 40 years of promises to improve it, and while the role of science in addressing plastic pollution is crucial, I caution against focusing the scientific and research effort on recycling. The latest Statistics Canada data indicates that approximately 8% of the more than four million tonnes of plastics discarded each year in Canada is recycled. The needle has not actually moved in 40 years, and it's not for lack of trying.

The problem lies not in recycling itself, but in the proliferation of material types and uses of plastic that make it extremely difficult to collect, sort and process in any safe, effective and economical way. As a result, we see troubling levels of plastic waste leakage, concerning especially because of the threat this leaked plastic poses to ecosystems and wildlife. Once in the environment, this plastic never really goes away. Plastic is a persistent and bioaccumulative pollutant.

While improvements to product design, collection, sorting and processing could reduce this post-use leakage, it is highly unlikely to make a significant dent in the amount of plastics in the environment. This is true especially if plastic production and use continue to grow at the pace at which they are growing today, which is much faster than the rate of GDP growth, for example. At this rate, we will be running in place even if recycling improves.

What's more, plastics—or more specifically microplastics—are being found in every part of the human body, including lungs, blood, brain, testicles and placenta. While scientific research is still in development on the main pathways and impacts of this extremely pervasive plastic poisoning, we know enough to know that our bodies are collectively being used as the world's biggest laboratory and that we should proceed with every caution when it comes to addressing plastic production, use, recycling and disposal.

We know that microplastics in our bodies are more likely related to the use phase of plastics than the disposal phase. Plastic is in the air, in water, in household dust and in the food we eat. It migrates from packaging and products as we use them, so recycling is not going to address the urgent issue of protecting human health from plastics. The same is true for so-called bio-based, biodegradable or compostable plastics. They all contain unknown chemical additives, and recent research has shown they all act quite the same as conventional plastics when leaked into the environment.

How did we get here? One of the main drivers of plastic pollution is profit-motivated chemistry, which has largely shown disregard for the public interest, even if it has produced some applications that have an undeniable social utility. Everything you can imagine is made out of plastic, as well as a huge number of things you never imagined and probably don't need. What's more, this plastic is a chemical soup of substances that are largely unidentified and unstudied from a safety point of view. Earlier this year, researchers identified 16,000 chemicals used in plastics. Of those, only 4,200 have been identified as hazards, while a whopping 10,000 have no hazard information at all. This is because profit-motivated chemistry does not readily make their formulations known, even to regulators and researchers.

The study I referenced also found that more than 400 chemicals of concern can be found in each plastic type, including food packaging, and that every material they tested leached hazardous chemicals. That's why focusing scientific research on recycling is absolutely the wrong public policy approach at this time. Public science desperately needs to catch up to private chemistry and prioritize the protection of the public and the environment. That must be the priority for Canada's science and research agenda.

Furthermore, governments should not be subsidizing plastic producers for recycling, which only amounts to a subsidy to continue business as usual. EPR is an approach supported by all levels of government in Canada. It is meant to ensure polluters pay the full cost of their activities, including those that have been externalized onto the environment and our health. If these producers, including those that make the plastic and those that use it in their products and packaging, believe it makes sense to invest in improved plastics recycling, they can and should do it. The government's job is to make sure these activities are safe, are without undue risks to the environment or human health, and are actually effective in achieving regulated requirements to address plastic pollution.

Throwing government time, money and intellectual effort at plastics recycling simply allows the businesses at the root of plastic pollution to continue overproducing and underperforming, at least when it comes to the environment and our health. It also lends credence to the corporate greenwashing that insists recycling can get us out of this mess.

Thank you.