The harms fall hardest on those with the least power to resist
En Ginebra, representantes de casi 180 naciones intentan forjar el primer tratado vinculante contra la contaminación plástica, mientras la Organización Mundial de la Salud advierte que los químicos en los plásticos ya habitan los cuerpos de miles de millones de personas, alterando hormonas, dañando riñones y alimentando el cáncer. El peso de ese daño no se distribuye con equidad: recae con mayor fuerza sobre trabajadores, niños y comunidades cercanas a fábricas y vertederos. Siete países concentran la producción de los plásticos más comunes, y apenas 18 empresas fabrican más de la mitad de todos los polímeros del mundo, lo que convierte estas negociaciones en un enfrentamiento entre el poder económico concentrado y la salud de los más vulnerables.
- La OMS advierte con urgencia que los disruptores endocrinos presentes en los plásticos ya están causando infertilidad, enfermedades renales y cáncer en poblaciones que no tienen poder para escapar de esa exposición.
- Cinco rondas previas de negociación han fracasado en resolver el conflicto central: si el tratado debe obligar a reducir la producción de plástico o limitarse a gestionar sus residuos.
- Una coalición de países productores de petróleo y grandes economías emergentes —Rusia, Irán, Arabia Saudita, China e India— bloquea activamente cualquier mandato que amenace sus industrias plásticas.
- Solo 18 empresas, encabezadas por la china Sinopec y seguidas por ExxonMobil y Saudi Aramco, controlan más de la mitad de la producción mundial, concentrando tanto el beneficio como la resistencia al cambio.
- La sexta y posiblemente última ronda de negociaciones transcurre entre el 5 y el 14 de agosto en Ginebra, con diez días para salvar un abismo que cinco rondas anteriores no lograron cerrar.
Esta semana en Ginebra, negociadores de casi 180 países intentan redactar el primer tratado mundial vinculante para controlar la contaminación plástica. El director general de la OMS, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, fue directo: los químicos usados para fabricar plásticos son tóxicos, alteran los sistemas hormonales, provocan infertilidad, dañan los riñones y generan cáncer. Y ese daño no se reparte de manera uniforme: golpea con más fuerza a los trabajadores expuestos durante la producción, a los niños, a quienes laboran en economías informales y a las comunidades que viven junto a las fábricas y vertederos.
Las negociaciones llevan cinco rondas sin resolver sus desacuerdos fundamentales. Una coalición de países productores de petróleo —Rusia, Irán, Arabia Saudita— junto a grandes economías emergentes como China e India, se ha resistido a cualquier acuerdo que obligue a reducir la producción o a prohibir ciertos tipos de plástico. La sexta ronda, que comenzó el 5 de agosto y concluye el 14, podría ser la última oportunidad.
La razón del bloqueo se vuelve clara al observar quién produce qué. China fabrica el 34% de los cuatro polímeros plásticos más comunes; Estados Unidos el 13%; Arabia Saudita ocupa el tercer lugar. Solo 18 empresas producen más de la mitad de todos los polímeros plásticos del mundo: la china Sinopec lidera con el 5,4% de la producción global, seguida por ExxonMobil, LyondellBasell, Saudi Aramco y PetroChina. Los países y empresas que más se benefician del plástico son los que más tienen que perder con un tratado efectivo.
El tiempo se agota. Si los negociadores no logran tender un puente sobre estas divisiones en diez días, los químicos del plástico seguirán acumulándose en los cuerpos de miles de millones de personas. Y quienes menos poder tienen para resistirlo serán, una vez más, quienes paguen el precio más alto.
In Geneva this week, negotiators from nearly 180 countries are attempting to draft the first binding global treaty to control plastic pollution. The stakes, according to the World Health Organization's director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, are measured in human health and survival. Many of the chemicals used to manufacture plastics are toxic—endocrine disruptors that scramble hormonal systems, trigger reproductive disorders, cause infertility, damage kidneys, and fuel cancer. These harms do not distribute evenly. They fall hardest on workers exposed during production, on children, on people laboring in informal economies, and on communities living near the factories and dumps where plastics are made and discarded.
Tedros called on all negotiating nations to adopt and implement a treaty with real teeth—one that would actually protect people from the damage plastic pollution causes. The language was direct, almost urgent. But the talks have been difficult. Five previous rounds of negotiation have ended with fundamental disagreements still unresolved. A small coalition of countries—oil producers like Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, alongside major emerging economies including China and India—has resisted any agreement that would mandate reductions in plastic production or ban certain types of plastic altogether. The sixth and possibly final round began on August 5 and runs through August 14.
The concentration of plastic manufacturing reveals why these negotiations matter so much and why they are so contentious. Seven countries dominate global production of the four most common plastic polymers: polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate (the material in water bottles), and polystyrene. China alone accounts for 34 percent of production of these four resins—by far the largest share. The United States follows with 13 percent, Saudi Arabia with a significant portion, then South Korea at 5 percent, India, and Japan. Germany is the only European nation in the top ten producers, holding 2 percent. The picture becomes even more concentrated when you look at individual companies. Just 18 firms produced more than half of all plastic polymers globally in 2021. China's state-owned Sinopec leads the world, manufacturing 5.4 percent of all plastic produced on the planet. American companies ExxonMobil and LyondellBasell follow, as does Saudi Arabia's state petroleum company Saudi Aramco and China's PetroChina. The first European firms to appear on the list—Britain's Ineos, Austria's Borealis, and France's TotalEnergies—rank seventh, tenth, and eleventh respectively.
This concentration of power explains the negotiating deadlock. The countries and companies that profit most from plastic production have the most to lose from a treaty that actually works. A binding agreement that reduces production and bans certain plastics would reshape global manufacturing and cut into the revenues of some of the world's largest corporations and state enterprises. The alternative—allowing plastic pollution to continue unchecked—means the chemical burden falls on the world's poorest and most vulnerable people, those with the least power to resist or escape it.
The clock is running. Negotiators have ten days to bridge these divides and produce a treaty that both constrains production and protects health. Whether they will succeed remains uncertain. What is certain is that the chemicals in plastic are already in the bodies of billions of people, and the longer the world waits to act, the deeper the damage becomes.
Citas Notables
We call on all countries to negotiate, adopt, and implement a strong treaty that protects health from the harms of plastic pollution— Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General
The risks of plastic pollution impact disproportionately on vulnerable populations, including workers exposed on the job, children, informal sector workers, and communities near extraction and production sites— WHO statement
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the WHO care so much about this particular treaty? Isn't plastic pollution just an environmental issue?
Because plastic isn't just sitting in landfills. The chemicals in it—especially endocrine disruptors—are entering human bodies and causing real harm. Infertility, kidney disease, cancer. The WHO exists to protect health, so this is directly their mandate.
But seven countries produce two-thirds of the plastic. Couldn't they just agree to stop?
That's the problem. These aren't random countries—they're major oil producers and manufacturing powerhouses. China, Saudi Arabia, the United States. Their economies are built on plastic production. A real treaty would cut into their profits, so they're resisting any language that actually mandates production cuts.
So the treaty might pass but be toothless?
That's the fear. Previous rounds have ended with huge disagreements still on the table. If negotiators compromise too much just to get a deal signed, it might look good on paper but do almost nothing to slow production.
Who suffers most while this gets negotiated?
The people with no power in the system. Workers in plastic factories, children in communities near production sites, people in the informal economy with no safety protections. The wealthy can avoid exposure. The poor cannot.
What happens if they fail to reach a treaty by August 14?
That's unclear. They might extend talks, or they might walk away. Either way, plastic production continues, and the chemical burden on vulnerable populations keeps growing.