The evidence against plastic is mounting. But is it possible to cut it out of our lives?

Terry Sawyer and her husband were getting older, summiting their mid-40s and “creeping into the whole middle age health issue thing.” 

She developed joint pain her physician believes may be psoriatic arthritis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes stiff, swollen joints and a tell-tale scaly skin rash.

“I didn’t understand why this is normal now,” Sawyer remembers thinking about six months ago. “You didn’t hear your grandparents, or really even your parents, talking about so many autoimmune diseases.”

What she does remember clearly: The day in February when Dawson’s Creek actor James Van Der Beek died of colorectal cancer at 48.

“It’s kind of alarming that this is happening,” she said. “Something’s definitely wrong.”

The National Institutes of Health estimated that 8% of Americans — some 27 million people — are living with at least one autoimmune condition. Meanwhile, nearly half of new colorectal cancer cases occur in adults under 65, up from 27% in 1995, the American Cancer Society found earlier this year.  

READ MORE: What’s behind the alarming rise of ‘old age’ diseases in younger Americans? 

Sawyer wasn’t convinced that aging explained what she and her husband were experiencing. She wondered whether something in their environment might be contributing. After stumbling upon the documentary Plastic Detox, released in March, and reading a book by a professor who appeared in the film, Sawyer could no longer turn a blind eye to mounting evidence linking plastic-related exposures to health problems ranging from infertility and developmental problems in children to diabetes and heart disease. 

Earlier this year, she joined a growing number of Americans attempting to eliminate plastics from their everyday lives. She started by tossing out polyester bedding and pajamas. Then she ditched plastic utensils and food storage containers. 

The process has been much harder than it sounds. Plastic is nearly inescapable in modern life, and alternatives can be expensive, inconvenient or both. With federal regulators slow to restrict many of the chemicals that concern researchers, consumers who want to reduce their exposure are largely left to do so themselves.

What plastics do to the human body

Researchers have identified more than 16,000 chemicals used in or associated with plastics; 4,200 of those are classified as chemicals of concern because of their toxicity, persistence or ability to accumulate in living organisms. Chemicals like phthalates are often added to make plastics softer and more flexible. Bisphenol A, or BPA, is used to make certain hard plastics and resins more durable and lightweight. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are used in non-stick pans, clothes and personal care products to make materials resistant to grease, mold and stains. 

Tracey Woodruff, an epidemiology professor at Stanford University and a fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, said there is clear evidence that many of these chemicals can leach into food or beverages and then enter the human body. Determining what happens next is more difficult. 

Researchers can’t ethically conduct randomized controlled trials that would deliberately expose some people to potentially harmful chemicals. Instead, they rely on animal studies, laboratory experiments and observational studies that compare people’s real-world exposures with their health outcomes. 

In one review of 19 rodent studies, researchers found that exposure to the phthalate DIBP — found today in glues and paints and once used in personal care products — disrupted testosterone production and male reproductive development. In other studies, rats exposed to PFAS developed liver and pancreatic tumors and showed changes in liver function and thyroid hormones. In laboratory studies, PFAS interfered with the development of neurons, while certain types of PFAS suppressed immune signaling in human cells. 

Woodruff and other scientists combine laboratory experiments and animal findings with human observational studies in systematic reviews, examining whether different streams of evidence point in the same direction. 

Across that body of research, reproductive health has emerged as one of the clearest areas of concern, while pregnancy and early childhood appear to be particularly vulnerable periods of exposure.

“The best evidence is for the chemicals in plastics and reproductive health as well as impacts from exposure during pregnancy on birth outcomes and child neurodevelopmental outcomes. Emerging evidence is in a number of areas, such as cardiovascular health, bone health and respiratory impacts,” said Sheela Sathyanarayana, associate director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

Pregnancy and early childhood may be especially sensitive because the body changes so rapidly during those times. 

“These periods are when the fetus and infant are growing quickly, and organ systems are rapidly developing,” she said. “Therefore, exposures during this period can have longer lasting impacts because it can impact normal development.” 

Chemicals associated with plastics can reach the developing fetus and even breast milk, she said. 

But chemicals that leach out of plastics are only one part of the problem. 

Trying to live without plastic

About six months ago, Sawyer decided to slowly reduce the plastic in her life. She replaced her polyester and microfiber sheets and duvets with 100% cotton options she bought at an Amazon overflow auction in Charlotte, North Carolina, about 40 minutes northwest of her home. She envisioned herself breathing in plastic particles while she and her husband slept, and imagined all the invisible microplastics flying out of the fabric when she took them out of the dryer. 

Then Sawyer tackled her kitchen. She swapped plastic food storage containers for glass ones and started replacing plastic cooking utensils with wooden alternatives. She and her family ate at home more, because Sawyer could never be sure how restaurant chefs were preparing food. 

It’s all a work in progress, Sawyer said, but some aspects are harder than others. She hasn’t found a plastic-free toothbrush that matches her automatic one. She’s opted to make her own deodorant and use almond or coconut oil, which come in glass jars, rather than lotion in plastic bottles.

Sawyer has started phasing out packaged foods, but that has proven challenging and costly. 

“One thing we are starting to do, but we’re not quite 100% there yet, because of convenience, is trying to buy most of our food from the farmers market and trying to eliminate packaged food altogether,” she said. “That’s a big one, and that is hard because of convenience and also cost.” 

Sawyer doesn’t live close to any health food stores so she mainly relies on the local farmers market for plastic-free food items. That market is only open on Saturdays, and it’s far away.

Plastic, plastic everywhere

Scientists are increasingly studying the health impacts of microplastics, tiny fragments that break off larger items like plastic bags, clothing and tires. People can swallow or inhale the particles, and researchers have detected them in human blood, lungs and placentas. Smaller nanoplastics can even penetrate more deeply into tissues and cells. 

Woodruff says researchers are only beginning to study microplastics, but the emerging evidence is concerning. 

In a 2024 paper, Woodruff and colleagues examined 28 animal studies and three human studies and concluded that microplastics are “suspected” to harm reproductive, digestive and respiratory health. Animal studies linked exposure to poorer sperm quality and changes in reproductive hormones, inflammation and damage in the intestines, lung injury and impaired lung function.

In another 2024 study, researchers examined plaque removed from carotid arteries of people undergoing surgery for cardiovascular disease. They detected polyethylene — the most common plastic in the world — in the arterial plaques of 58% of patients and PVC, another common plastic, in 12%. Over three years of follow-up, patients whose plaques contained micro- or nano-plastics were more than four times likelier to suffer a heart attack, stroke or die.

The study offered provocative evidence that plastic particles in the body may be associated with disease, but it did not prove the particles caused disease or death. (Other scientists raised concerns about possible contamination during surgery and analysis.)

Scientists haven’t untangled how microplastics might cause harm.

“It’s going to be very difficult to disaggregate what is from the microplastics versus what is from the chemicals that are leaching off of plastics,” Woodruff said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not prohibit the use of plastic with food, but it has restricted or revoked authorization for certain chemicals in certain food-contact uses. The agency no longer authorizes BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups or infant-formula packaging, although those changes came after manufacturers had already stopped using it for those purposes. The agency also revoked authorization for certain types of PFAS in food packaging used to keep grease from soaking through fast-food wrappers, microwave-popcorn bags and takeout containers. As of 2024, the FDA said PFAS-containing grease-proofing agents are no longer sold in the country.

For the chemicals that remain authorized, the FDA generally evaluates how much is likely to migrate from packaging or cookware into food and whether that level of exposure is expected to cause harm. 

The regulatory agency has been more cautious about microplastics. The FDA says they have been found in food, but current evidence does not show that the amounts people are exposed to through food pose a health risk. The agency continues to review new research.

READ MORE: Physician tells Senate: ‘Something has gone seriously wrong in the FDA’

Some environmental health researchers think the FDA’s position is too cautious, arguing that regulators often look at one chemical and one product at a time rather than the many exposures people accumulate every day. 

The plastic-free premium

For Sawyer, knowing that plastic posed a risk was one thing. But deciding to use less plastic proved far easier than actually doing it.

Her Saturday trip to the farmers’ market has required big shifts in her life.

“I have to plan it. I have to make sure I have enough set aside money-wise, and I have to plan my weekend around that trip. So definitely losing convenience, but also spending a lot more money,” Sawyer said.

On one Saturday in early August, a vendor at her local farmer’s market was selling whole chickens for $48. She had just purchased the same thing — albeit wrapped in plastic — at the grocery store for $8. 

The cost of cutting plastic out of daily life varies widely by product. Of the best cutting boards recommended by Consumer Reports, the plastic options ranged from $1.75 to $12 each while wooden ones ranged from $6 to $108. 

Plastic-free laundry products also typically carry a noticeable upcharge. Of Consumer Report’s most recommended products, the Tide brand liquid and powder detergents — which come in plastic bottles and can contain plastic chemicals — cost between 20 and 30 cents per load of laundry while the plastic-free Tide “evo detergent tile” costs 95 cents. Consumer Reports has also found that plastic-free detergent sheets generally do not clean as well as traditional liquids or pods. 

Althea Chang-Cook, the home and kitchen writer for Consumer Reports, said plastic-free alternatives may last longer than the plastic version, saving consumers in the long run. She pointed to wax paper or silicone storage options in lieu of plastic storage bags. 

“Those do cost more upfront, but because they’re reusable and washable, ultimately, you know, they pay for themselves over time,” she said. But on the whole, plastic-free options are more expensive to manufacture, and that cost gets passed on to consumers. 

“The problem is that plastic is so cheap,” Chang-Cook said. 

Part of plastic’s cost advantage comes from its ties to the fossil fuel industry. Most plastics are made from petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas, tapping into the same vast production and refining infrastructure that supplies fuels and other products. Glass, by contrast, must be manufactured separately from raw materials such as sand, soda ash and limestone. 

Some weeks, Sawyer has to weigh her plastic-free agenda against her budget. A few stores near her import milk and cream in glass bottles from a farm in Virginia. 

“If I’m feeling like I can afford it, I will buy that,” she said. “Otherwise, I’m still buying the milk in plastic jugs. We drink coffee every day, and we use heavy cream in our coffee. And those come in paper cartons, but the inside of the paper carton is coated in plastic.”

Despite the higher costs, there are signs that consumers want alternatives. In a 2025 McKinsey survey of 1,000 Americans, 44% said the environmental impact of packaging was very or extremely important to them, and consumers ranked glass as the most sustainable packaging material, putting various forms of plastic near the bottom. Previous surveys have also found many consumers are willing to pay at least a small premium for more sustainable packaging, although price, quality and convenience continue to matter considerably more when people actually decide what to buy. 

Companies are responding. Established brands like Mars, Nestle and Burt’s Bees are experimenting with refillable containers, paper and compostable packaging and products that use less plastic, while a growing market of specialty brands sells everything from shampoo bars to reusable food-storage products. But those alternatives remain a sliver of the overall market, and newer materials can be substantially more expensive: some compostable packaging materials can cost four to five times as much as conventional plastic, according to McKinsey. 

Those who want to reduce their exposure without overhauling their lives can take small steps. Sathyanarayana recommends avoiding microwaving food in plastic, using glass or other nonplastic containers when possible and choosing fresh or frozen foods over heavily packaged foods. She also recommended taking off shoes before entering the house and, for households that don’t have central air conditioning, using a HEPA air filter.

Woodruff, the Stanford researcher, has also made swaps in her own life. She buys peanut butter and condiments in glass jars, replaced her plastic water bottle with stainless steel and swapped her plastic drip-coffee machine for a stainless steel French press. 

But consumers can only do so much. 

“I think people really care about it,” Woodruff said. “It’s frustrating, because you look around and you’re like, how do I deal with all this? There are solutions, but it requires real structural changes.”

Reducing plastic exposure on a meaningful scale would require changes much further upstream — manufacturers using fewer potentially harmful chemicals, companies designing reusable packaging and government regulation.

Recycling alone won’t solve the problem. A 2024 analysis by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that without policy change, global plastic production and use will grow by about 70% between 2020 and 2040, while recycled material will account for just 6% of the plastic being produced. Even major improvements in waste collection and recycling would leave tens of millions of tons of plastic waste improperly managed each year. 

If countries around the world adopt a combination of policies to limit unnecessary plastic production and use, design longer-lasting and reusable products, phase out chemicals of concern and improve recycling and waste collection, OECD estimated plastic leaking into the environment could fall 96% by 2040.

The OECD has proposed another approach that shifts more of the financial burden to companies making and selling plastic in the first place. Under policies known as extended producer responsibility, or EPR, manufacturers can be required to help pay for collecting, sorting and recycling the products and packaging they put on the market, rather than leaving those costs primarily to taxpayers and local governments. Versions of these programs are already used across Europe and Canada. 

Instead of asking Sawyer to pay $48 for a chicken that isn’t wrapped in plastic, the goal would be to make safer packaging and reusable options common enough that avoiding plastic no longer requires a lifestyle overhaul.

“We may have slowly drifted into a plastic life,” Woodruff said. “But it could be possible to manage our way out.”

Round out your reading

• All your questions about napping, answered.
• Trump’s $5,000 promise echoes past payouts that never materialized.
• Inside the effort to make data centers pay their share of electricity costs.
• Why did the Feds seize the ’largest Martian meteorite on Earth’?
• Photos and video show exactly where and when Trump visited Ground Zero after 9/11.