Plastic is inside all of us, yet we know little about its impact – the government has the power to change that

We breathe in, drink and eat plastic particles every day. However, little research has been conducted to fully establish what risk this poses to human health.

When plastic gets into the body, it can spread. Particles emitted from plastic prosthetic implants have been found in human organs like the liver, spleen and placenta. Research has also shown how plastic particles may harm our immune system.

Similarly, the presence of particles that the body can’t break down, including from micro- and nano-plastic pollution, is associated with chronic illnesses including diabetes, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

Over the next 20 years, $2.3 trillion (£1.65 trillion) will be invested in plastic production, doubling the amount generated, tripling the amount flowing into our ocean and significantly increasing all our exposure to plastic.

New clinical research on plastic and health is urgently required but is chronically underfunded. The UK government is perfectly placed to change that.

This year Whitehall announced its commitment to making Britain a world leader in research and development across health, life sciences and manufacturing, by boosting total government investment in R&D to some £15bn in 2021-22.

Part of this budget must be ringfenced to urgently understand how increasing exposure to plastic particles affects human health. That’s why today we’re joining Common Seas in calling on the government to rapidly introduce a new £15m National Plastic Health Impact Research Fund.

For a commitment of just 0.1 per cent of the UK’s total government R&D spend, Whitehall could transform humankind’s understanding of what is set to become one of the most profound public health challenges in generations.

Professor Susan Jobling, director of the Institute of Environment, Health and Societies and a professor of environmental toxicology

Professor Tamara Galloway, professor of ecotoxicology at The University of Exeter

Dr Stephanie Wright, lecturer in environmental toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, at Imperial College London

Henry Smith, Conservative MP for Crawley

For a full list of signatories, click here

If Boris Johnson thinks that mealy-mouthed platitudes placing the onus on to “personal responsibility” (while removing the legislative means of guiding behaviours) will absolve him and his government for direct responsibility for yet another catastrophically misjudged decision, then he is wrong. Johnson and Javid will bear direct responsibility for the results of the reckless experiment with the lives of the British people they are now embarking on, but it is the people who will pay.

It is clear that “herd immunity” is now the undeclared policy. Undeclared because the government knows that the cost will be many more deaths, if not directly from Covid, then of untreated cancers and other serious illnesses whose treatment is deferred by the upsurge in hospitalisations. This doesn’t even touch on the risk of vaccine-resistant Covid variants emerging from the petri dish of a partially vaccinated population.

All of this is unnecessary. Empirically, caution has been shown to work, as demonstrated over the past six months or so. In effect, this administration is now squandering the effort that the sensible majority of the UK population have put in. They are a disaster, a disgrace and are clearly prepared to play roulette with our very lives. They are unfit to govern.

Arthur Streatfield

Bath

John Simpson’s belief in yesterday’s Letters that we in Britain are all racist does a disservice to the hopes of all those who want this horrible trait to itself become history.  With respect, I think Mr Simpson’s theory is negative and divisive.

It is far better, surely, to absolutely deplore the crude and ignorant racism of this stupid minority and treat them as pariahs, as they deserve.

We should feel absolutely mortified by any of our compatriots who have behaved so abominably, and the outpouring of support for those on the receiving end of the insults shows that decent people were appalled.

I don’t see how telling victims of racism that Britain is universally racist is going to be anything other than deeply hurtful and frightening.

Mr Simpson’s assertion that all of us cut up by flashy drivers would, if we were honest, firstly wonder if the driver was black, genuinely surprised me. I can honestly say I have never, ever wondered that, my prejudice being in assuming the driver was male.

Penny Little

Great Haseley, Oxfordshire

In my naivety I became quite excited about the vote in parliament that perhaps would reverse the iniquitous foreign aid cut, but of course with the government’s huge majority and the whips no doubt in full operational mode, this was never going to happen.

Instead the end result is that there is a commitment that when certain fiscal criteria are met, then the 0.7 per cent target would be returned. Forgive me for my scepticism, because this could indeed take years and now our government has shown itself up in the most invidious of ways. Make no mistake that for Tory grandees such as Theresa May to state that this is frankly an awful idea, then this government has lost its moral and ethical compass.

I agree with your editorial that there must be sustainable damage limitation or the Global Britain brand is trashed before it has finished its vainglorious marketing exercise. The humiliating fact that world philanthropists such as Bill and Melinda Gates have stepped in to shore up this dire deficit is about as cringe-making for this government as it could possibly be. This is not principled conservatism but just playing to their fanbase and a swathe of the public who never saw or will ever see the huge benefits to the poorest in our world in the first place of this life-saving and altruistic foreign aid.

Judith A Daniels

Great Yarmouth, Norfolk

I find it strange that the same type of people who profess to want a great and global UK seem to think this is compatible with reducing foreign aid. Even leaving aside the lives which may be stunted or lost, the likely result is a diminished reputation.

Cole Davis

Norwich

The type of face coverings used by the general public over the past months offer minimal protection to the wearer. However, they offer a worthwhile level of protection to those around the wearer. We are about to change from the legally mandated wearing of face coverings to personal choice. This is going to reveal a lot about attitudes.

The person who goes into a shop without a face covering after 19 July is saying, “I don’t care about anyone except myself.” Imagine how those who work in the shop will feel. Responsible shops will want to protect their staff and reassure customers by insisting that all shoppers continue to wear face coverings. But are all shops “responsible”? It’s going to be interesting.

Bernard Cudd

Morpeth