We are coming to the end of the first #PlasticCentury.

Plastics were invented in the 1930’s, hailed as a modern miracle of materials technology.

In endless ways, plastics have bought positive changes and contributed to solutions for unimaginable challenges. They are uniquely invaluable materials.

However, the abuse of plastics’ versatility as a material and the overselling of its use as a by-product of oil has resulted in monetary profit over common sense.

Plastics and forever chemicals are an environmental crisis on such a scale that it’s almost impossible to quantify or imagine.

PFAS are found in highest concentrations in “compostable” takeaway packaging

Estimating the number of people affected by PFAS exposure, involves synthesizing data from epidemiological studies, environmental monitoring, and toxicological research.

While exact figures are hard to pin down due to the variability in exposure levels and health outcomes, here are some estimates and projections that can provide a sense of the scale.

Global Exposure
Widespread Presence: PFAS chemicals are found in the blood of almost all people tested, indicating nearly universal exposure at some level.

In the U.S., studies have shown that 98% of the population has detectable levels of PFAS in their blood.

Higher Exposure Areas: Certain populations, such as those living near PFAS manufacturing facilities, military bases where firefighting foam was used, or areas with contaminated drinking water, are at higher risk.

Health Impact Estimates
Cancer: One of the most well-documented health impacts of PFAS exposure is an increased risk of certain cancers, particularly kidney and testicular cancer. A study conducted by the C8 Science Panel, which was part of a legal settlement involving residents near a chemical plant in West Virginia, estimated that about 6.5% of those heavily exposed to PFOA (a type of PFAS) could develop kidney cancer as a result.

Other Health Conditions: PFAS exposure has been linked to other conditions like thyroid disease, immune system suppression, elevated cholesterol, and reproductive issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies have suggested that millions of people could be at increased risk for these conditions due to PFAS exposure.

Population-Level Estimates
U.S. Projections:

Cancer: The number of people potentially affected by PFAS-related cancers could be in the tens of thousands. For instance, in a study of a highly exposed population, the C8 Science Panel estimated that 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 20,000 people could develop kidney or testicular cancer due to PFAS exposure.
Thyroid Disease: A study estimated that approximately 16 million Americans could develop thyroid disease related to PFAS exposure.
Global Projections: Given the widespread presence of PFAS, the global impact could be much larger. If similar risks apply globally, millions of people could be at increased risk for these health outcomes. For example:

Thyroid Disease: If we consider similar rates of exposure and health impacts globally, tens of millions of people could be at risk for thyroid disease related to PFAS exposure.
Cancers: Globally, the number of PFAS-related cancer cases could be in the hundreds of thousands over time, depending on the level of exposure in different regions.
Uncertainties and Ongoing Research
Variability in Exposure: The actual risk to individuals varies greatly depending on their level of exposure, which is influenced by factors like proximity to PFAS sources, lifestyle, and occupational exposure.
Ongoing Research: As more data becomes available, particularly from ongoing longitudinal studies, estimates of the health impacts of PFAS may become more precise.

Conclusion
The best estimates suggest that millions of people worldwide are currently affected by PFAS exposure with increased risk for cancers, thyroid disease, and immune system dysfunction.

Numbers are likely conservative, as the full impact of PFAS exposure may not be understood for decades.

Wash-Hubs seeks to phase out the use of unnecessary plastics used in food packaging and all untested hardeners, binders and grease resistant substances. (Only a handful of these are adequately tested)

We will build a network of  serve-ware centres, owned by the community,  focusing on safer, more sustainable reusables.

“Compostables” are not sustainable options for mobile catering

and

Plastics are not suitable for reusables

We have accumulated a very substantial library of evidence to support these conclusions

Here are 60+ links

Plastics are not a suitable food packaging product unless they are used in non-contact, non-leaching ways. For example, on lids or seals, not in direct contact with food or liquid.

Plastics are not suitable as serve-ware containers.

The volume and types of plastics wrapping must be drastically reduced. Safer, cleaner fully recyclable and circular economic materials exist.

Stainless steel. Glass. Ceramic. Wood. Bamboo. Rubber. Silicone. Organic cloth.  All suitable alternatives for a variety of reusable food wrapping.