Boogeyman Plastics and Powerful Cartels

Based on the conversation between a columnist’s friend and that friend’s doctor, a newspaper columnist recently claimed that PET bottles are carcinogenic. Within a week, this claim was disproven by the relevant scientific authorities. Unfortunately, however, yet another unfair and unscientific stain has been cast upon plastics. Public perception has once again been manipulated.

For plastic packaging manufacturers, one of the most important—perhaps the most important—issues is the recurring and unfortunate allegation that plastics may be carcinogenic. As plastic is a relatively new material compared to alternative materials, plastic packaging producers belong to a young and dynamic industry.

As members of such a young, dynamic, and sensitive sector, we find ourselves under a heavy accusation regarding a matter directly affecting human health.

Our fundamental wish is that the business through which we earn our income does not contradict our social and moral responsibilities; in fact, it should support and satisfy them. Therefore, such accusations place on all of us the responsibility of correctly informing the public.

To begin with, to those who go so far as to imply that cancer practically began with the use of plastics, it is worth mentioning that the earliest evidence of cancer was found in mummies from Ancient Egypt dating back to 3000 BC.

Additionally, according to Dr. Denise McAloose, a pathologist from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), “Wild animals living in nature have cancer-related death rates similar to those seen in humans.”

Plastic packaging is currently used safely in all advanced countries around the world, including the U.S. and EU.

And logically speaking, our industry exports to hundreds of countries around the globe. The food packaging we produce—made of plastic—enters these countries, including the U.S. and EU, only after being tested and approved by their official health authorities. If there were a real risk, why would these countries expose their own citizens to it?
Even the tobacco industry, managed by giant global corporations, has been restricted, banned, or required to carry health warnings due to cancer risks. So why have products of the plastics industry—largely made up of SMEs—not been banned? Is the “plastics lobby” stronger than the “tobacco lobby”?
Are plastics more powerful than the enormous health costs that cancer creates, which governments try to prevent?

Of course not.

Plastics are the material of our century. Compared to steel, wood, or glass, plastics and the plastics industry are extremely young, yet in a very short time they have achieved a spectacular victory over these materials—and their industries. This is because plastics are easy to process, require less material, cost significantly less, and make life easier.

Plastics are the reason many products today are affordable.

For example, our cars are cheaper thanks to plastics. Think about it: 15–20 years ago, most components (dashboard, steering wheel, even now exhaust components) were made of metal; today, many of them are plastic. Glass bottles, cups, and kitchenware have become more affordable and accessible to the masses thanks to plastics.
Naturally, this created significant losses for competing industries such as steel, wood, and glass.

Worldwide, the plastics industry is mostly made up of small and medium-sized firms. In contrast, its rival industries—steel and glass—are dominated by giant corporations. Plastics achieved the impossible and took market share from industries many times larger than itself. In return, plastics became the target of smear campaigns financed with enormous budgets.
A slogan that may instantly come to mind—“Glass is Healthy”—is a perfect example. This slogan, from an industry that lost the huge beverage bottle market to PET bottles, is clearly intended to imply that “plastic is unhealthy.”

As a result, countless myths and misinformation about plastics have spread—magnified by media power and repetition—confusing consumers.

There are many examples, but one of the most striking was a TV report I recently watched. A so-called researcher made statements completely detached from scientific fact and without the slightest investigation. He claimed PVC cups were harmful (even carcinogenic), and that the risk increased when hot beverages were used. On top of that, he stated that foam cups were better because they had insulation.
Toward the end of the report, the TV channel added its own commentary, suggesting that paper cups were healthier. Unbelievable!

The first mistake: Nowhere in the world are cups made from PVC. Cups are typically made from PS, PP, or PET.
Even if, hypothetically, a PVC cup were made, it would deform when exposed to heat because PVC cannot withstand high temperatures.

Another mistake: The insulating property of foam cups has nothing to do with health; it only helps retain temperature and prevents heat from being felt externally.

Another false claim: Foam cups are not healthier than regular plastic cups. They are typically made of the same material—PS—so they are identical from a health perspective.

The claim that paper cups are different is also false. Paper cups do not soften because they are coated (laminated) with plastic. Therefore, the surface that touches the liquid is plastic—just like in a plastic cup.

Especially on the internet, many emails falsely attributed to health organizations warn people that plastics are dangerous. Perhaps you have received one yourself. When examined closely, these emails contain completely incorrect information—and even more interestingly, the health institutions they cite deny any involvement.
For example, a widely circulated email in 2007 claimed that drinking frozen water from plastic bottles was carcinogenic and referenced a study by Johns Hopkins Hospital. On January 15, 2008, Johns Hopkins published a statement on its website denying the claim and clarifying that they had absolutely no involvement.
(These and similar myths can be found at plasticmythbuster.org.)

Cancer—defined as the uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells—is one of the most serious health problems today. It is the second leading cause of death after cardiovascular disease. In Western societies, between 1 in 250 and 1 in 350 people are diagnosed with cancer each year. Among those over 60, the rate rises significantly.
Although exact statistics in our country are lacking, the rate is estimated to be about half of this.

The link between plastics and cancer was first proposed during studies carried out in the U.S. in 1987. Two main points were raised:

1. Some chemicals released during the production of certain plastics may be carcinogenic
   (e.g., vinyl chloride and dioxins during PVC production).

2. Chemicals that may migrate from certain plastics could disrupt hormone function
   (e.g., endocrine disruptors), which could indirectly increase cancer risk.

However, none of these claims have received full support from scientific authorities. Misleading statements made in this context are far from scientific reality. Scientific truth is determined by the Ministry of Health in Turkey, the FDA in North America, and EU Food Safety Regulations in Europe.
If even the slightest scientific risk is detected, measures are taken immediately—use, production, and distribution are banned. No manufacturer could legally produce or export a banned substance to Europe or America.

Today, many different types of plastics are used in food packaging and even in the space industry. Claiming that all plastics are harmful because a few chemicals may pose risks is like saying, “Cyanide is poisonous, so all chemicals are dangerous.”
Most chemicals used in medicine today save lives.

Even if we were to momentarily accept the false claims, the actual risk posed by plastics is less than 1% of the risk posed by smoking.

The UK Breast Cancer Foundation has approved that PET, PP, HDPE, LDPE, and PS are not carcinogenic to humans.

The conclusion is this:
Even though claims that plastics cause cancer lack scientific basis, we—members of the plastics industry—must do our part. We must combat those who exploit illness for unfair competition and profit by frightening and misleading the public. Through our associations, we must prevent the public from being deceived.

---

Now, let us return to where we started.
The columnist claimed that PET bottles contain Bisphenol-A, are carcinogenic, should not be used, and should be banned. He called on authorities to take action.

The Scientific Board of the Ministry of Health convened on the matter. They confirmed that PET bottles do not contain Bisphenol-A. They explained that Bisphenol-A exists in water dispensers (polycarbonate jugs), and even then, a person would need to drink 600 liters per day to exceed the limit.
That same day, other news outlets published headlines such as:
“HaberTürk’s PET Bottle Story Burst Like a Bubble.”

Yavuz EROĞLU
Vice President of PAGEV
General Manager of SEM Plastik