Break Free From Plastic

September 2026— Waste management must no longer be viewed only as a public health issue but must become a priority for climate action. That was one of the key messages of the “International Zero Waste Seminar: The Strategic Role of Organic Waste in Climate Action and the Democratization of Solutions,” organized by GAIA, Break Free From Plastic (BFFP), and the Zero Waste Chile Alliance.

The event brought together 50 representatives from more than 26 municipalities in Chile, 45 organizations from over 15 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, government officials, grassroots waste pickers, and academics, who shared experiences on public policy, composting, recycling, repair, and local waste management.

Methane was at the center of the discussion. Marcelo Mena, executive director of the Global Methane Hub, emphasized that “if we reduce methane emissions, the drop in temperature would be practically immediate,” and argued that reducing organic waste is one of the most effective and cost-efficient measures to move in this direction.

Juan Pablo Escudero, a researcher at UCLA’s Emmett Institute, highlighted the contribution of new technologies in identifying sources of methane. “The big climate action isn’t just about stopping the burning of oil. We have to look at waste,” he stated.

The seminar focused particularly on the potential of organic waste to produce compost, regenerate soil, and reduce emissions.

Mariela Pino, a methane mitigation campaigner for GAIA Lac, noted that “waste management is no longer just a public health issue” and that its connection to climate change requires a different approach. Pino argued that moving toward zero waste requires maximizing the recycling of organic and inorganic materials, implementing separate collection systems and source separation, and ensuring adequate funding.

She also highlighted the importance of linking waste management to soil protection and food production: “We have to view waste not only as a public health issue, but as part of a socio-environmental economy that generates significant benefits,” she said.

The case studies presented showed that these solutions are already being implemented. In the Quinta Normal municipality of Chile, for example, a pilot program for organic recycling at open-air markets is underway, while in Melipeuco, the municipality has been working since 2021 on a local zero-waste strategy in collaboration with local communities.

Meanwhile, Fértil Compostaje, a family-run farming business in Chile’s La Araucanía region, processes between 20 and 30 metric tons of agricultural waste to produce compost. Its director, Germán Jara, warned about the deterioration of agricultural soils and stated: “We’re not burying waste; we’re burying the solution to regenerate our soils.”

The role of grassroots waste pickers was another key focus of the meeting. Soledad Mella, from the National Association of Waste Pickers of Chile, called for the transition to zero-waste systems to incorporate those who have historically sustained material recovery. “A just transition isn’t about moving waste from one place to another—it’s about shifting power, investment, and opportunities toward those who sustain recycling,” she said.

From Brazil, Roselaine Mendes, international secretary of the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Waste Pickers (RedLacre), highlighted the importance of providing economic recognition for the work of waste pickers. “Simply making a living from the sale of materials isn’t sustainable. We need to be paid for our work,” she noted.

The seminar also addressed the progress and challenges of Chilean public policies, including the Extended Producer Responsibility Law, infrastructure for organic waste management, public education, and coordination among national, regional, and municipal governments.

For Magdalena Donoso, regional coordinator for GAIA and BFFP in Latin America and the Caribbean, the progress achieved is the result of the organization and perseverance of various stakeholders. “Agendas shift when those with unyielding determination decide to organize and take action before success seems possible, and they persevere because they refuse to accept that what makes no sense should continue to be perpetuated,” she stated.

The meeting concluded with a call to strengthen collaboration among governments, municipalities, social organizations, waste pickers, communities, academia, and the private sector to accelerate local solutions that reduce emissions, prevent waste, and move toward zero-waste systems.

PUBLIC STATEMENT BY LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ORGANIZATIONS FACED WITH THE LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN THE 2026 PLASTICS TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

September, 2026.

The undersigned organizations, which have been monitoring the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations since 2022, wish to express our deep concern and alert the public to the following facts:

Since the beginning of 2026, only so-called “informal” meetings have been taking place between heads of government delegations, and according to available official information, these modality of meetings will continue to be held to address the fundamental issues for negotiating the Global Plastics Treaty. These meetings are conducted behind closed doors and in confidence, without access for observer organizations, which severely limits the transparency of the process and prevents informed participation by civil society. This situation creates a worrying lack of transparency surrounding key discussions for the future of the treaty and marginalizes the voices of civil society organizations that defend the public interest.

The situation is such that during this year it has been impossible for us to fully exercise this role due to the working modality adopted by the chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), Ambassador Julio Cordano.

While heads of delegations hold meetings to address the substantive aspects of the negotiations, observer organizations have been relegated to virtual meetings with the INC presidency. During these sessions, the only available interaction mechanism is a chat, which is clearly insufficient to foster genuine dialogue. These virtual spaces neither substitute for nor can replace direct interaction between observer organizations and government delegations, which is an essential component for ensuring effective and meaningful participation in the negotiation process.

This format of online meetings with the INC presidency only allows us to learn general guidelines and organizational aspects of the process, information that is largely already public and does not offer real opportunities to exchange perspectives with national delegations, present evidence and recommendations during substantive discussions, or contribute to strengthening the positions that governments bring to the negotiating table.

We firmly believe that the participation of observer organizations cannot be limited to receiving information about decisions already taken or about the planning of the process. Meaningful participation requires access to spaces where the contents of the treaty are discussed, and the possibility of dialogue directly with government delegations before and during the definition of their positions. Excluding civil society organizations from these bodies reduces the transparency of the process and weakens the principles of participation and accountability that should guide the construction of a global treaty of this relevance.

We denounce this practice as contrary to the principles and standards of environmental democracy, which in our region are enshrined in the Escazú Agreement, particularly regarding access to information, public participation, and transparency in environmental matters. These principles require that decision-making processes be conducted with openness, timeliness, and effective participation of stakeholders.

Therefore, it is legally paradoxical that the president of the INC, who was a promoter of the Escazú Agreement in the region, adopts working methods that do not conform to the principle of progressivity, recognized in international environmental law as an obligation to advance in a sustained manner in the expansion and strengthening of access rights.

In this regard, the implementation of closed spaces and the restriction of substantive interaction between observer organizations and government delegations constitute a clear regression in the standards of participation previously achieved in the negotiation process itself, weakening the minimum democratic guarantees that should govern the drafting of an international instrument of this nature. Ultimately, these are implementing procedures that restrict the effective influence of observer organizations.

Even more concerning is the INC president's request that observer organizations appoint representatives from among our organizations. Implementing this measure will widen the gap between our organizations and government delegations, limit the diversity of voices, and diminish the wealth of scientific, technical, territorial, and public policy contributions that our organizations directly share with our governments during negotiations.

In this context, civil society organizations working to protect human health, planetary health, ecosystems, and independent science denounce our exclusion from discussion forums that define essential aspects of the treaty. This situation has limited our timely access to the debates, hindered our ability to understand the evolution of government positions, and restricted our capacity to contribute independent scientific evidence, technical expertise, and experiences from territories directly affected by plastic pollution.

Our role as civil society is to accompany the negotiations, understand and analyze the positions of our governments, and contribute to strengthening decision-making through evidence and independent recommendations free from industry conflicts of interest, incorporating the realities of the affected communities and territories and oriented towards the protection of the public interest, human rights, human and planetary health, and ecosystems.

For all the above reasons, we call upon the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee, Ambassador Julio Cordano, and the Board of Directors of the INC to reestablish mechanisms that guarantee effective, direct and meaningful participation of observer organizations in all stages of the negotiation process.

A global treaty on plastics can only aspire to be legitimate, solid and ambitious if it is built through a transparent, inclusive process that respects the principles of environmental democracy.

Signatories:

Acción Ecológica México, México   

Aliança Resíduo Zero Brasil

Alianza Basura Cero Chile

Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador

Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración GAIA 

AMAR Associação de Defesa do Meio Ambiente

BREAK FREE FROM PLASTIC

Centro de tecnologías aplicadas de Argentina

CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra, El Salvador

Coalición Ciudadana Antiincineración, Argentina

Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco, México

Colectivo Tz’unun Ya’ -Guatemala

Colectivo Viento Sur, Chile

El Poder del Consumidor, México

FAS, PANAMA

FUNAM, Argentina

Fundación Agua Clara, Venezuela

Fundación PlastiCo. Project, Ecuador

Hospitais Saudáveis, Brasil

Manos Abiertas La Bandada, Argentina

Mingas por el Mar, Ecuador

Organización Ecologista Piuke, Argentina

RADA, Chile

RAPAL, Uruguay

Red Dominicana de Estudios y Empoderamiento Afrodescendiente. República Dominicana

Taller de Comunicación Ambiental, Argentina

Taller Ecologista, Argentina

Toxisphera Associação de Saúde Ambiental, Brasil

Youth Accion Co:Lab

August 2026—Civil society organizations in Latin America and the Caribbean denounce the lack of opportunities for effective participation in the negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty and warn of the impact this situation has on the transparency and legitimacy of the process.

The organizations, which have been following the negotiations since 2022, note that throughout 2026, heads of government delegations have participated in so-called “informal” meetings to discuss substantive aspects of the treaty, while observer organizations have been denied access to these forums.

Instead, they have been invited to virtual meetings with the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), led by Ambassador Julio Cordano, in which the primary means of interaction available is a chat function.

“The Global Plastics Treaty cannot, under any circumstances, create new ‘sacrifice zones’ or consolidate existing ones—zones marked by opacity and decisions made without public input—and observers are working to ensure that this does not happen. Keeping them on the sidelines of delegate meetings is not merely a procedural decision: it is a political act that widens the gap between those who make decisions and those who suffer the consequences. If the treaty aspires to be fair, it must be participatory from the very beginning,” explains Cecilia Bianco of the Argentine organization Taller Ecologista.

According to the organizations, this approach prevents them from timely contributing independent scientific evidence, technical expertise, and the experiences of communities and territories affected by plastic pollution, as well as from understanding and contributing to the debate on the positions that governments bring to the negotiating table.

They also expressed concern over the INC Chair’s request that observer organizations designate single representatives. They believe this measure could limit the diversity of voices and reduce the range of scientific, technical, and territorial contributions available to the delegations.

The organizations maintain that the lack of substantive participation represents a step backward from the standards previously achieved in the negotiation process itself and runs counter to the principles of environmental democracy, particularly those related to transparency, access to information, and public participation established in the Escazú Agreement.

“We have insisted that the Escazú Agreement represents a benchmark of progress for our region. Therefore, it is concerning that, while Latin America and the Caribbean have made progress in recognizing higher standards of transparency, access to information, and public participation, the negotiations for the global treaty on plastics are adopting procedures that restrict the opportunities for participation that civil society had enjoyed in earlier stages of the process. This change represents a step backward in terms of participation and transparency, particularly given that these negotiations will shape responses to a global environmental and public health crisis.

“This situation is even more paradoxical in a region deeply affected by ‘Waste Colonialism,’ which historically has received and borne a disproportionate share of the impacts of plastic pollution and waste generated by other countries,” states Larisa de Orbe of the Mexican organization Acción Ecológica.

In light of this situation, the organizations are calling on INC President Ambassador Julio Cordano and the Executive Board to reestablish mechanisms that guarantee direct, effective, and meaningful participation by observer organizations at all stages of the negotiations.

The organizations maintain that a global treaty on plastics can only be legitimate, robust, and ambitious if it is developed through a transparent, inclusive process that respects the principles of environmental democracy.

Signatory Organizations

Acción Ecológica México; Alianza Resíduo Zero Brasil; Alianza Basura Cero Chile; Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador; AMAR Asociación de Defensa del Medio Ambiente; Libérate del Plástico; Centro de Tecnologías Aplicadas de Argentina; CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra (El Salvador); Coalición Ciudadana Antiincineración (Argentina); Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco (México); Colectivo Tz’unun Ya’ (Guatemala); El Poder del Consumidor (México); FAS (Panamá); FUNAM (Argentina); Fundación Agua Clara (Venezuela); Fundación PlastiCo. Proyecto (Ecuador); Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA); Manos Abiertas La Bandada (Argentina); Mingas por el Mar (Ecuador); Organización Ecologista Piuke (Argentina); RADA (Chile); RAPAL (Uruguay); Red Dominicana de Estudios y Empoderamiento Afrodescendiente (República Dominicana); Taller de Comunicación Ambiental (Argentina); Taller Ecologista (Argentina); Toxisphera Asociación de Salud Ambiental (Brasil).

Read the full statement here.

“One of CESTA’s longest-running programs is sustainable waste management. We began this discussion more than 20 years ago,” explains Silvia Quiroa, director of the organization, where she has worked for 29 years on tracking, monitoring, and advocacy efforts.

Waste management is, however, only one part of a broader mission. CESTA works to build sustainable societies and links environmental defense with food sovereignty, agroecology, biodiversity protection, and community empowerment. Within this framework, the fight against plastic is taking on an increasingly important role.

One of the tools CESTA uses with communities is based on something seemingly simple: identifying how much plastic is part of everyday life. The organization works with about 30 communities in different parts of the country, alongside community organizations, water and environmental committees, feminist organizations, and indigenous peoples. In these settings, they have examined the presence of plastic in kitchens, homes, and farm plots. The exercise aims to bring to light what often goes unnoticed.

“So we began talking with the communities: How can we gradually remove plastic from our lives?” says Quiroa. The answer is built on concrete actions. CESTA works, for example, with groups of women who recover recyclable materials; in addition to collecting reusable waste, they have created small businesses and campaigns to promote alternatives to plastic bags.

Cloth bags thus become a tool for raising awareness. The women take them to parks, fairs, markets, and shopping centers with a simple message: “I use cloth bags for my shopping.” Change is also being promoted among farming families and small businesses. The idea is to prevent every purchase of vegetables or legumes from automatically resulting in a new disposable bag.

For CESTA, questioning these everyday habits is part of a larger transformation: to stop accepting as normal a model based on products designed to be used for just a few minutes and then discarded.

Single-use plastics are one of the organization’s main areas of concern. They are visible not only in municipal collection systems but also on the streets and in storm drains, especially during rain. “Waste management as it is currently practiced in most municipalities is not sustainable,” says Quiroa.

For years, CESTA has challenged the linear model of producing, consuming, discarding, and transporting waste. Its approach focuses on reducing waste generation, separating materials, and processing them as close as possible to their source.

The organization has sought to demonstrate that this alternative is possible. In one of the municipalities where it carried out a pilot program, it worked with residents neighborhood by neighborhood to introduce waste separation at the source and collaborated with the municipality to prevent organic and recyclable materials from ending up mixed together.

The process included a collection center and a municipal composting facility. In addition to reducing the amount of waste sent to landfills, the experience showed that a different approach to waste management can result in lower costs for municipalities.

But for CESTA, infrastructure alone does not solve the problem. Education, organization, and political will are needed. That is why it also conducts training programs for municipal officials on sustainable waste management, plastic reduction, and public policy.

One of the changes Quiroa considers most significant has been bringing waste management and plastic pollution into the public discourse in El Salvador. “Before, nobody was talking about trash. As long as it got picked up, it didn’t matter,” she recalls.

The conversation has begun to shift. Some businesses have reduced the number of plastic bags they hand out or started charging for them. There’s also a greater willingness among people to ask about reusable alternatives. “People now ask, ‘Are you going to give me a disposable one or a reusable plate?’” she says.

For CESTA, these changes are important but insufficient. One of the main challenges is to dispel the notion that recycling alone can solve the plastic crisis. “Recycling isn’t the only solution,” Quiroa asserts.

The organization is committed to prioritizing reduction and reuse and to questioning the production model that generates increasing amounts of waste. CESTA has also participated in discussions about landfills and incineration, providing information to municipal governments so they can assess the impacts of different alternatives.

Community work is complemented by political advocacy. CESTA participated in drafting a proposal to regulate single-use plastics, which was presented to the Legislative Assembly with the support of female legislators from the previous session.

The proposal called for a five-year transition period to phase out these products and allow companies to adapt to other materials. The process stalled following political changes in the country, but for CESTA, the need for regulation remains. “A major challenge is changing the mindset of decision-makers,” notes Quiroa.

Added to this, according to the organization, is the influence of the plastics industry. “The plastics industry lobby is very strong. It wields a great deal of power in the country. It sits down with decision-makers,” she states.

In this context, CESTA seeks to challenge solutions that focus solely on recycling and to also shine a light on what happens before a product becomes waste: who produces it, how much is produced, what it is used for, and who bears the costs of its impacts.

CESTA’s track record in waste management made its incorporation into BFFP a natural fit. The organization already had extensive experience in this field and ties to GAIA, and becoming part of BFFP allowed it to connect its local work with an international network of organizations that share the same concerns. The exchange of information has been one of the main benefits.;

Research on microplastics, health impacts, corporate responsibility, and alternatives to single-use products has fueled CESTA’s work in communities. So too have the campaigns and communication tools developed by the movement.

For Quiroa, BFFP offers something that goes beyond information: the certainty that Salvadoran communities are not alone. “Knowing that we are part of a global movement where we are fighting for the same cause” is, for her, one of the movement’s greatest achievements over the past 10 years.

The global dimension is especially important because plastic, too, knows no borders. Decisions made by governments and transnational corporations in other regions can have consequences in El Salvador, especially since the country is one of the region’s leading importers of plastic waste.

The connection between the local and the global thus allows us to understand that what happens in one community is part of a much broader system.

As he reflects on BFFP’s first decade, Quiroa highlights the production and exchange of information, as well as the opportunity to coordinate experiences and strategies among organizations from different countries.

“I believe that the production of information is one of the most important things,” she says. For CESTA, this collaboration strengthens local advocacy and allows communities to learn about the experiences of other areas facing similar challenges.

The organization is also part of national coalitions with other organizations. Zero-waste work intersects with agendas related to environmental justice, the climate crisis, food sovereignty, and the defense of territories. “We’re just one more organization in that coalition,” says Quiroa.

For CESTA, this collaboration is also essential in addressing one of the movement’s greatest challenges: securing a global treaty on plastics that is ambitious and legally binding.

The organization believes the agreement must address the entire life cycle of plastic, from its production—not just when it becomes waste. “We need an international treaty—one that regulates companies throughout the entire life cycle of plastic production, not just when waste is generated, but throughout the entire production cycle,” states Quiroa.

For her, the negotiations will put governments’ priorities to the test: “We’ll see if governments really govern for the people or for transnational corporations.”

CESTA’s position is that an effective treaty must go beyond managing existing waste. It must address production, reduce single-use plastics, promote reuse systems, and establish clear responsibilities for those who benefit from this industry.

From “Use and Discard” to “Reuse”

10 years after the creation of BFFP, CESTA believes the movement must delve deeper into alternatives to the “use and discard” model. Among these, reuse plays a central role. “We have to delve deeper into that aspect,” says Quiroa. Reuse involves more than simply substituting one material for another. It means challenging the logic of consumption that turns objects into waste after a single use and reviving practices capable of reducing waste generation at its source.

It is a transformation that begins at the local level but requires public policies and structural changes to take root. A community that sorts its waste, a family that stops burning trash, a woman who sews a reusable bag, or a municipality that changes its waste management system are all small pieces of a larger transformation.

“The fight continues. BFFP has a lot of work ahead; it’s a movement that will grow—and keep growing,” says Quiroa. “The more communities, towns, and organizations that join this effort, the more we’ll be able to stop this monster of plastic growth and create the possibility of a different world,” she concludes.

21 August, 2026, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - Two new studies present a fuller picture of environmental and health conditions around plastic and paper waste recycling facilities in Kuala Langat, Malaysia. One study confirms significant river pollution and microplastic contamination near factory discharge points through direct water quality testing. The other reports elevated rates of self-reported symptoms among nearby residents.

Together, the studies offer some of the first community-level evidence on the potential public health and environmental footprint of Malaysia's plastic and paper waste recycling sector. Malaysia remains one of the world's leading destinations for imported plastic waste.

Key Findings include:

Study 1: This study directly tested river water near the discharge points of plastic and wastepaper recycling factories in the same region, offering evidence for some of the concerns raised by residents in the health survey, particularly related to water quality:

• Turbidity, or cloudiness, represents the suspended sediments in water. Malaysia's drinking water standards cap turbidity at 5 NTU for treated drinking water. The river water tested reached as high as 996 NTU — roughly 200 times that benchmark. High turbidity also blocks sunlight, making it easier for contaminants and pathogens to persist.

• • Conductivity and dissolved solids indicate how much salts, minerals and potentially industrial byproducts are present in the water. These were markedly elevated (38,452.33–41,676.33 μS/cm; up to 1,106 mg/L), compared with national standards of around 1,000 μS/cm for conductivity and 500–1,000 mg/L for total dissolved solids in river water. The salinity levels (21.71–23.87 ppt), were also far above the safe 0.5–2 ppt range set for rivers, indicating brackish water rather than freshwater, most likely caused by heavy industrial contamination.

• Dissolved oxygen, essential for both human and aquatic sustenance, was low (1.35–2.78 mg/L; standard: 4 mg/L), indicating severely degraded water quality.

• Microplastics were detected in every sample collected, though the specific polymer types were not confirmed.

• Most chemical pollutants tested, including phthalates, bisphenol A, and most VOCs, were below detection limits, except toluene, which was found at one sampling location (3.0 μg/L).

Study 2: A cross-sectional survey of 520 residents living near recycling facilities in Kuala Langat found notable rates of self-reported respiratory, eye and skin symptoms:

• Respondents frequently reported concerns regarding fumes, smoke, unpleasant odours, and dirty water in their residential areas.
• Many participants attributed these issues to nearby recycling facilities and waste-processing activities.
• A significant portion of respondents (66.3% regarding fumes/smoke and 73.9% regarding odours) had filed formal complaints, primarily to the Department of Environment (DOE). The DOE responded to some complaints and took some actions, yet there have been no further reports filed with the Ministry of Health, nor any resolution offered.
• Respiratory: Frequently reported symptoms included cough (33.7%), sore throat (31.0%), and runny nose (26.7%).
• Ocular: Common symptoms were itchy eyes (43.5%), watery eyes (40.4%), and red eyes (36.5%).
• Dermatological: The main reports included dry or cracked skin (35.7%) and itchiness (20.3%).
• Neurological: Reported symptoms included fatigue (34.6%), low energy (27.3%), and dizziness (26.7%).

Several symptoms were significantly associated with factors such as how long residents had lived in the area, smoking status, and second-hand smoke exposure. Most respondents also raised concerns about fumes, smoke, unpleasant odour and dirty water, which they associated with nearby factories and waste-related activity.

Read together, the two studies offer complementary evidence: a water quality study found measurable, significant degradation in river water near factory discharge points; and residents near recycling facilities widely reported health concerns since the factories were established. The authors caution that two studies should be read as complementary lines of evidence and investigation, rather than direct proof of a causal link between specific pollutants and symptoms.

Why is this important?

As Malaysia continues to import large quantities of plastic waste each year and recycling is concentrated in industrial areas, the researchers argue that community-level health evidence is essential for environmental health surveillance and risk management — particularly in developing-country settings where such research remains scarce.

"Our research in Kuala Langat proves a vital truth: if recycling pollutes our water with microplastics and causes respiratory illness next door, it isn't a solution—it's just outsourced pollution," said Dr Sharifah Norkhadijah Syed Ismail, University Putri Malaysia (UPM).

"Recycling shouldn't cost a community its health. When imported waste turns local rivers into microplastic hotspots, it’s clear: we need cleaner processing, not just green labels," said Dr Nurulain Mustafa Udin, University Technology Mara (UiTM).

"Imported waste doesn't just disappear when it gets recycled—it settles in our rivers and spills into the air our communities breathe. True sustainability means protecting local water and health, not just moving garbage across borders," said Dr Aida Sora Shamsuddin, University Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

The study highlights an urgent need for continuous environmental health surveillance, improved community engagement, and further research that integrates health assessments with air and water quality monitoring near such facilities.

About the Studies

Study 1: Investigating the pollution footprint of imported paper and plastic waste processing plants in Malaysia on water quality and microplastics [Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2026)]: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-026-02608-1

Study 2: Perceived health impacts among residents living near plastic and paper waste recycling facilities in Kuala Langat, Malaysia [Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2026)]: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-026-15741-z

For media enquiries or interviews with the study authors, please reach out to: Devayani Khare, Asia-Pacific Regional Communications Officer, Break Free From Plastic: devayani@breakfreefromplastic.org

About the Environmental & Occupational Health Society (EOHS) – a group of energetic and diverse practitioners and researchers brought together by a common interest in promoting distinction in prevention, research, and professional services across the environmental and occupational health field. https://eohsmy.wixsite.com/eohsmy

About Break Free From Plastic –  #BreakFreeFromPlastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 3,500 organizations representing millions of individual supporters around the world, have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the values of environmental protection and social justice, and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain—from extraction to disposal—focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions. www.breakfreefromplastic.org