Plastics, Microplastics, and Cancer: Market Implications

Plastic materials have transformed modern life, but emerging evidence raises concerns about their impact on human health. Scientists are investigating connections between cancer biology and plastic exposure, including: (1) the behavior of cancer cells on plastic surfaces in laboratory experiments, (2) the detection of microplastic particles in human tissues, and (3) trends in rising cancer rates.

This white paper reviews the scientific literature on these links and explores the potential implications.

We also analyze litigation risks and financial exposure for publicly traded companies – from plastic manufacturers to consumer goods firms – and consider which alternative material providers might benefit if plastics are implicated in health risks.

Finally, we evaluate the hypothesis that plastic particles could provide structural footholds for cancer cells to adhere and evade immune defenses, potentially facilitating tumor spread.

Scientific Links Between Plastics and Cancer

Cancer Cells on Plastic Surfaces (Laboratory Evidence)

It is well-established that cancer cells can grow on plastic substrates in vitro. In fact, most cancer research relies on 2D cell cultures where tumor cells are cultured on plastic dishes or flasks.

These plastic surfaces (typically treated polystyrene) provide a scaffold to which cells readily adhere and proliferate. The ease with which cancer cells attach to plastic in the lab illustrates that plastic can serve as a supportive surface for cellular growth. This raises an important question: if plastic particles are present inside the body, could they similarly act as scaffolds for cancer cells?

Historical studies of “solid-state carcinogenesis” suggest that the mere presence of inert solid materials can promote tumor development in animals. Experiments in rodents showed that implanting smooth plastic films under the skin could induce local sarcomas (connective tissue cancers) over time.

Tumor formation in those models was linked to physical aspects of the implant (size, surface area, shape), rather than leaching chemicals. Notably, large continuous plastic surfaces tended to be tumorigenic, whereas finely powdered plastics were not.

These findings imply that structural factors – like a surface for cells to grow on – can contribute to cancer risk. In a laboratory context, this is analogous to cancer cells happily growing as a monolayer on a plastic petri dish. In the body, it suggests that microplastic fragments (though much smaller than implanted films) might also provide surfaces to which cells could adhere.

Microplastics in the Human Body

Plastic does not remain confined to consumer products or the environment – it has entered our bodies. Microplastics (tiny plastic particles under 5 mm, including nanoplastics <1 µm) have been detected in human tissues and fluids across multiple organ systems.

Recent analyses and studies report microplastics in the lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys, and even in placental tissue and breast milk. One 2024 scientific review found evidence of microplastics in 8 out of 12 major human organ systems, as well as in blood, stool, semen, and urine.

Particles likely enter through ingestion of contaminated food/water and inhalation of airborne dust. Alarmingly, scientists in 2022 documented microplastics in human blood for the first time, indicating these particles can circulate systemically.

Microplastics have been detected in many human organs and tissues. Studies show that micro- and nano-scale plastic particles can circulate through the human body and accumulate in various locations, including the lungs, liver, kidneys, spleen, placenta, and even the brain.

Once inside the body, microplastics appear to persist. In a healthy individual, foreign particles might normally be broken down or cleared by the immune system.

Plastic, however, is not easily degraded biologically. Experiments have shown that nanoplastic particles taken up by cells end up sequestered in cellular compartments (like lysosomes) that fail to break them down.

In a recent laboratory study, human colorectal cancer cells were exposed to fluorescent polystyrene micro/nanoplastics; the particles entered the cells and were not expelled, even after the cells divided. Instead, the plastic particles were passed on to daughter cells during cell division and accumulated over time. This finding suggests that once microplastics gain entry into human tissues, they can bioaccumulate at the cellular level, potentially persisting for years or decades.

The presence of foreign plastic material in tissues can trigger biological responses. Microplastics can cause chronic inflammatory reactions: they induce cells to generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) and cytokines (cell signaling proteins), which can lead to oxidative stress and persistent inflammation.

For example, inhaled microplastics in the respiratory tract have been linked to lung inflammation and even precancerous changes in chronic exposure scenarios. A comprehensive 2022 review on microplastics and immunity notes that these particles can disrupt immune homeostasis – causing immune cells to release inflammatory signals and altering normal immune responses.

In essence, the body recognizes microplastics as foreign invaders (or irritants), which can lead to continuous activation of immune cells like macrophages. This persistent activation can paradoxically suppress effective immune surveillance against nascent tumor cells (as the immune system is busy reacting to plastic) and also create pro-inflammatory conditions that favor tumor development.

Rising Cancer Rates and Potential Environmental Contributors

Cancer incidence in humans has been on the rise globally, due to a combination of factors. An aging population and improved diagnostics explain part of the increase, but epidemiologists are concerned by rising cancer rates in younger age groups and in organs not typically associated with lifestyle risks.

According to the WHO’s latest global statistics, there were about 20 million new cancer cases worldwide in 2022, and this burden is projected to reach ~35 million annual cases by 2050 – a 77% increase. While longer lifespans contribute to higher cancer counts, certain trends defy easy explanation.

For example, colorectal cancer (CRC) rates have climbed sharply in adults under 50, increasing approximately 50% since the mid-1990s. This rise in early-onset CRC is “rapidly changing the landscape of disease” and the cause of the shift is unknown. Similar upticks have been observed in other cancers in young populations, fueling investigation into environmental exposures as potential contributors.

It is in this context that scientists are scrutinizing the explosion of plastic production and pollution over the past decades. Global plastic use has skyrocketed since the 1950s, introducing novel substances (plastics and their additives) into our air, water, food, and bodies.

Microplastics were essentially nonexistent in the environment a century ago, but are now ubiquitous. The timeframe of rising plastic exposure coincides with some of the concerning cancer trends (though correlation does not equal causation). Researchers stress that many factors (diet, sedentary lifestyle, infections, pollution, etc.) contribute to cancer, and isolating the effect of microplastics on human cancer rates remains challenging. However, early signs point to plastics as a plausible piece of the puzzle:

Many plastics contain toxic chemical additives known to be carcinogenic or disruptive to hormones (endocrine disruptors). For instance, certain flame retardants, plasticizers like DEHP, and bisphenol-A (BPA) are linked to cancers or hormonal cancers. These chemicals can leach from plastics into food or the body.
Chronic inflammation is a well-known risk factor for cancer (persistent inflammation can lead to DNA damage and promote tumor growth). As noted, microplastics can induce inflammation and even fibrotic changes in tissues. Over years of continuous exposure, this could increase the risk of tissue changes or malignancies.
Comparisons are being drawn to asbestos exposure, which causes cancer via a “particle” mechanism. Asbestos fibers lodged in lungs cause inflammation and DNA damage, eventually leading to mesothelioma decades later. Microplastics, especially fibers, in the lungs may pose a similar long-term cancer hazard, though more research is needed.

In summary, cancer rates are rising and microplastic exposure is nearly universal. Direct epidemiological links between the two are not yet proven, but the mechanistic evidence (discussed next) and early toxicity data signal that this is an area of concern. Leading scientists have begun referring to the situation as a potential “plastic health crisis”, calling for urgent research into whether our omnipresent plastics could be contributing to diseases including cancer.

How Microplastics Could Fuel Tumor Progression (Mechanistic Insights)

A growing body of research is now examining how microplastics behave in the tumor microenvironment (TME) – the ecosystem of cancer cells, immune cells, fibroblasts, and molecules that surround a tumor. Several recent findings suggest microplastics can interact with tumor biology in ways that promote cancer aggressiveness:

Enhanced Cancer Cell Migration: Laboratory experiments show that the presence of nanoplastic particles can make cancer cells more mobile. In one study, colon cancer cells exposed to 0.25 µm polystyrene micro/nanoplastics became significantly more migratory than unexposed cells. The plastic particles seemingly induced changes in the cancer cells that increased their ability to move – a key step in metastasis (the spread of cancer to new sites). The researchers observed that plastic-exposed cancer cells developed a higher propensity to invade surrounding tissue, hinting that microplastics might help fuel metastatic spread. This finding aligns with the observation above that microplastics accumulating in cells did not inhibit proliferation but instead were passed on during cell division, possibly acting as a persistent stressor that encourages invasive behavior.
Immune Evasion and Suppression: Normally, the immune system plays a vital role in patrolling for and destroying emerging cancer cells (immune surveillance). Microplastics may undermine this defense. A 2025 review in Oncology Letters concluded that microplastics can disrupt immune surveillance and alter immune cell function in ways that create a more tumor-permissive environment. The particles activate innate immune receptors (like Toll-like receptors) and cause chronic inflammation, which can exhaust or skew immune cell responses. For example, macrophages (immune cells that might otherwise attack tumor cells) can become dysfunctional after ingesting microplastics – showing oxidative stress, altered surface markers, and a shift toward a pro-tumor phenotype. In one mouse study, ingestion of polystyrene nanoplastics disrupted immune pathways in the TME and accelerated the growth of implanted ovarian tumors. The microplastics effectively helped the tumor by dampening the anti-cancer immune response. Thus, plastics may help tumors hide from or impair the immune system, akin to providing a smokescreen for cancer cells.
Direct Effects on Tissues and Extracellular Matrix: Microplastics can also harm the structural cells and matrix around tumors. Studies have found that plastic particles can cause structural damage to endothelial cells (which line blood vessels) and promote fibroblast activation. Endothelial damage could facilitate tumor cells entering the bloodstream (intravasation) or create leaky vessels that help tumors thrive. Activated fibroblasts (sometimes called cancer-associated fibroblasts when in tumors) can secrete enzymes and collagen that remodel the tissue scaffold in ways that assist tumor invasion. Moreover, microplastics may interfere with the extracellular matrix (ECM) – the protein network that holds tissues together. Research indicates that exposing gut cell models to microplastics compromised the intestinal barrier and altered wound-healing behavior of cells. In a tumor context, a compromised ECM or tissue barrier could make it easier for cancer cells to break through and spread.

In summary, mechanistic studies suggest microplastics can influence multiple hallmarks of cancer: they can make cancer cells more invasive, make the environment more inflamed but immunosuppressive, and damage normal barriers – all potentially boosting tumor progression. While these findings come largely from cell cultures and animal models, they raise red flags. The human body’s inability to clear microplastics means even low-level exposures could, over time, create a chronic state of irritation and immune dysfunction that tips the balance in favor of tumor growth.

Hypothesis: Do Plastics Provide Adhesion Points for Cancer Cells?

One intriguing hypothesis emerging from these observations is that microplastics may act as “stepping stones” or adhesion points for cancer cells in the body, allowing them to anchor and evade attack.

The concept is as follows: cancer cells traveling through the body (circulating tumor cells) often must survive detachment from the primary tumor and resist shear forces in blood or fluid.

If they remain suspended and exposed, immune cells like natural killer cells can recognize and destroy them.

However, if a cancer cell finds a surface to latch onto – even a tiny plastic fragment – it might gain a foothold that helps it withstand physical forces and form a microcolony.

Plastics could facilitate this in several ways:

Physical Anchorage: Cancer cells have a natural ability to adhere to surfaces (this is why they stick to plastic petri dishes so well). In the body, a free-floating tumor cell might adhere to a microplastic particle lodged in tissue or circulating. By attaching to the particle’s surface, the cell might be better able to implant into surrounding tissue (using the particle as a bridge to the tissue) instead of being flushed away. This is somewhat analogous to how metastatic cells adhere to blood vessel walls when seeding new sites – a plastic surface could be an intermediate landing pad.
Immune Shielding: A plastic particle with attached cells could be misidentified by the immune system as an inert foreign body rather than an abnormal cell cluster. The immune response to foreign bodies often involves walling them off with fibrosis (scar tissue) or aggregations of macrophages (granulomas). A cancer cell hiding on a bit of plastic might get enveloped in a fibrotic capsule along with that plastic, effectively concealing it from immune surveillance. Indeed, with larger implants, fibrous capsules often form, isolating the implant (and any cells on it) from immune attack. This could grant the cancer cell a degree of immune privilege, allowing it to persist and eventually grow.
Local Immunosuppression: As noted, microplastics incite chronic inflammation which paradoxically can lead to an immunosuppressive environment. For example, certain macrophages drawn to the plastic may turn into “wound-healing” or suppressive phenotypes (similar to tumor-associated macrophages). These cells release growth factors and suppress killer T-cells, potentially giving an attached tumor cell an advantage. The net effect is that the plastic-bound cancer cell might escape immediate destruction and proliferate under the cover of the inflammation-induced immunosuppression.

It must be emphasized that this adhesion/immune evasion hypothesis is still speculative. Researchers are just beginning to study how circulating tumor cells or micrometastases interact with environmental particulates.

However, the hypothesis is grounded in observed phenomena: cancer cells do stick to plastic readily, and microplastics disrupt immune surveillance.

Combined, it is biologically plausible that microplastic contamination in tissues provides new niches for early metastatic cells to take root. Over years, even a small enhancement in a cancer cell’s ability to survive or metastasize (due to plastic particles) could translate into increased cancer risk at the population level.

This area is ripe for further research – proving or disproving this mechanism will have important implications for public health.

Potential Implications and Risks for Industries

If the scientific connections between plastics and cancer risk continue to strengthen, the ramifications will extend far beyond the laboratory and clinic. Companies that manufacture or use plastics could face significant litigation risks, regulatory scrutiny, and financial exposure. Below we outline key considerations for various stakeholders:

Product Liability Risks for Plastic Manufacturers (Medical and Consumer Products)

Manufacturers of plastic materials and products – especially those used in medical or food-related applications – are on the frontline of potential liability. If plastic components are shown to contribute to cancer in patients or consumers, these companies may be targeted in lawsuits alleging failure to warn, design defects, or negligence. There is precedent for polymer-based medical products causing cancer and resulting in litigation:

Implantable Medical Devices: A notable example is the case of textured breast implants. Certain implants with a textured plastic surface (made by Allergan and other firms) have been linked to a rare cancer called breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). By 2019, this link was strong enough that Allergan recalled its textured implants, and as of 2024 over 1,100 lawsuits were pending against the company for cancer and injuries alleged from the implants. Plaintiffs claim the rough plastic surface harbored bacteria or triggered chronic immune reactions leading to lymphoma. Similarly, plastic surgical mesh products (e.g. polypropylene mesh for hernia or pelvic repairs) have been the subject of thousands of injury lawsuits (though focused more on tissue damage than cancer). These cases show that if a plastic product implanted or used in the body causes harm, manufacturers can face costly litigation and settlements.
Plastics in Contact with Food/Drink: Companies that produce plastic food containers, bottles, or packaging could face suits if it’s shown that ingesting microplastics or leached chemicals from their products led to cancer. For instance, if a certain brand of bottled water is found to contain high microplastic levels and down the line consumers in a class action tie this exposure to health issues, the bottler and possibly the resin supplier might be defendants. In the past, manufacturers of BPA-containing baby bottles faced a wave of regulatory actions and class actions once BPA (a plastic additive) was found to disrupt hormones. We could see a parallel where a plastic resin is found to shed carcinogenic microfibers, prompting product liability claims.
Cosmetics and Consumer Goods: Plastics used in cosmetics (like microbeads in scrubs, now banned in several countries) or other everyday goods could pose legal risk. Although microbeads were banned mainly for environmental reasons, if any health damage was tied to them, companies might have been liable for putting those particles in commerce. As science advances, plaintiffs’ attorneys may start to argue that companies failed to test or warn about the health effects of microplastics in their products, similar to arguments used against chemical companies for “forever chemicals” or against tobacco companies in earlier decades.

Manufacturers will likely defend by stating that causation is unproven or that regulatory agencies deemed materials safe. Still, to mitigate risk, prudent companies are already investing in research on safer alternatives (e.g. medical-grade polymers that don’t shed particles, or new filtration technologies to remove microplastics during production). Given the potential latency of cancer, a product on the market today could result in lawsuits a decade or more in the future.

Litigation attorneys are closely watching the evolving science – if a clear causal link is established (even in a subset of cancers), an onslaught of toxic tort cases against plastic manufacturers could ensue, possibly rivaling asbestos or tobacco litigation in scale.

Industries Reliant on Plastic Packaging or Products

Beyond the companies that actually produce plastics, entire industries that rely on plastic packaging may face indirect risks. Food and beverage companies are prime examples. Major beverage producers use billions of plastic bottles annually; food manufacturers wrap products in plastic films and containers. These companies could be impacted in a few ways:

Consumer Perception and Lawsuits: If the public begins to associate plastic packaging with cancer or health hazards, companies could be hit with consumer class actions or deceptive marketing claims. In fact, some lawsuits have already been filed on related grounds – for example, lawsuits accusing beverage companies of misleading consumers about the safety and recyclability of plastic packaging. (One case saw a major soda company sued for portraying itself as environmentally friendly while allegedly contributing to plastic pollution.) While those suits center on environmental claims, a health angle could emerge. A state attorney general or advocacy group might sue a food company for failing to warn that its product packaging leads to microplastic ingestion, posing health risks. New York’s Attorney General recently filed a lawsuit alleging that a leading food/beverage company’s plastic use “endangered public health” by polluting water with microplastics, an early test of applying public nuisance law to plastic health effects.
Regulatory Compliance Costs: Governments are responding to plastic pollution with stricter regulations that could indirectly address health concerns. For instance, some jurisdictions are setting limits for microplastic levels in drinking water and requiring testing. Companies selling bottled water or other beverages may need to implement costly filtration or change materials to comply. If health agencies start treating microplastics as a contaminant, standards for food-grade plastics could tighten (e.g. requiring that packaging not shed above a certain particle count). All this could increase costs for packaging-reliant industries.
Transition to Alternatives: Many consumer goods companies have public sustainability pledges to reduce plastic use. If plastics become viewed as a liability (legally or in consumer eyes), the pressure to shift to alternatives (like paper, glass, or aluminum packaging) will intensify. Companies that move slowly may lose market share to those boasting “plastic-free” packaging. This transition can carry financial strain – retooling packaging lines, sourcing new materials, and potentially higher material costs. On the flip side, it may reduce future liability by lowering consumer exposure to plastics from their products.

Chemical and Polymer Producers (Upstream Liability and “Polluter” Litigation)

The large chemical companies and oil & gas majors that produce plastic resins and raw materials could face systemic litigation risk if plastics are conclusively tied to diseases. We have seen analogous waves of litigation for other widespread hazardous materials:

Asbestos: Makers of asbestos products were bankrupted by lawsuits once asbestos was linked to mesothelioma. While asbestos is a different substance, the parallel is the ubiquity and latent health effects. Plastics are far more widespread; if a strong link to cancer emerges, the liability could be enormous and widely distributed.
“Big Plastic” Lawsuits: There are early signs of legal theory being tested to hold polymer producers accountable. In 2023, the state of California sued major petrochemical companies (naming an oil company among others) for their role in plastic pollution, comparing their tactics to the fossil fuel industry’s denial of climate change. The lawsuit alleges these companies misled the public about recycling and are responsible for the lasting harm of plastic waste. While focused on environmental damage, such suits lay the groundwork for future health-based claims – for example, a suit could argue the producers knew or should have known that microplastic contamination would harm human health. If internal documents ever reveal knowledge of health risks, liability would spike.
Persistent Chemical Additives: Many plastic producers are already entangled in litigation over additives like PFAS (perfluoroalkyl substances, often used in packaging and plastics for water resistance). PFAS, dubbed “forever chemicals,” are linked to cancer and have triggered massive settlements – 3M recently agreed to pay about $10.3 billion to settle claims over PFAS contaminating drinking water. This underscores how expensive widespread contamination can become for industry. Microplastics share some characteristics with PFAS (persistent, bioaccumulative, global distribution). A difference is that microplastics are physical particles rather than dissolved chemicals, which might complicate litigation, but the PFAS saga demonstrates courts are willing to hold companies accountable for pervasive pollutants that endanger health. The financial exposure can reach the tens of billions of dollars.

From an investor or portfolio manager perspective, companies heavily invested in plastics (whether manufacturing or using them) may carry an unrecognized contingent liability.

Just as analysts now factor in potential climate litigation or asbestos liabilities into valuations, we may see “plastic health liabilities” being weighed. Insurance companies might hike premiums for product liability coverage for plastic-related risks. Directors and officers of companies might face shareholder suits if they fail to disclose material risks from continuing to use hazardous plastics.

Potential Opportunities for Alternative Material Providers

If a shift away from plastics accelerates due to health concerns, it could benefit a range of companies that offer safer alternative materials or remediation solutions. Some examples:

Biodegradable and Bio-Based Plastic Makers: Companies producing compostable bioplastics (such as PLA made from corn starch, or PHA made by microbial fermentation) stand to gain if regulators and consumers seek non-persistent packaging options. These materials, while still “plastics” in a broad sense, are designed to break down more readily and might not form lasting microplastic particles. Startups and smaller firms in this space could see increased investment and partnerships with big brands seeking to replace PET or PE packaging. However, these companies will need to prove that their materials truly degrade and are non-toxic in the human body if ingested – an area for due diligence.
Traditional Material Industries (Glass, Aluminum, Paper): A pivot back to glass bottles, aluminum cans, and paper-based packaging is already underway in some sectors. Publicly traded companies in the aluminum can industry or container glass industry may experience growth as demand rises. For instance, aluminum is infinitely recyclable and doesn’t create microplastics, so beverage companies are exploring canned water and drinks instead of plastic bottles. Paper and cardboard packaging companies likewise could benefit (with the caveat that paper coatings and liners often contain plastics – an issue to resolve). Investors might increase positions in these sectors as part of an ESG-driven reallocation away from single-use plastic exposure.
Filtration and Cleanup Technology Firms: Businesses developing advanced filtration systems to remove microplastics from water (municipal water treatment, home filtration, or even blood filtration for medical purposes) could see opportunity. If regulations mandate microplastic removal from drinking water, for example, that’s a new market. Companies that innovate ways to capture microplastics in washing machine effluent (to curb microfiber pollution from clothes) or in industrial discharge might also find demand. Some of these are small tech companies or divisions of larger environmental engineering firms.
Consulting and Testing Services: As awareness grows, industries will need to monitor microplastic levels in products and supply chains. This gives an opening for analytical lab companies that can test for microparticles in food, beverages, or biological samples. Certification for “microplastic-free” products could become a selling point, analogous to “BPA-free” labels. Consulting firms that specialize in helping companies audit and reduce plastic usage (or find safer material substitutes) may also see increased business, as companies proactively seek to mitigate risks.

It’s worth noting that moving away from plastics can carry its own challenges – alternative materials may have higher costs or different environmental impacts (e.g. glass is heavier to transport, paper production has a carbon footprint, etc.). Nonetheless, from a legal liability standpoint, materials that don’t persist in human tissue and do not shed microscopic particles could drastically lower the risk of future cancer-related claims. Thus, attorneys and advisors may counsel clients to explore such alternatives as a risk management strategy in addition to an environmental one.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Plastics are coming under the microscope – literally and figuratively – for their potential role in human cancers. Scientific literature now documents how readily cancer cells grow on plastic in labs and hints that microplastic particles lodged in our bodies might facilitate cancer development or spread. Microplastics have pervaded human organs from the bloodstream to the placenta, and while direct causation of cancer in humans is not yet proved, the warning signs are flashing. Rising cancer rates, especially in younger people, demand that we scrutinize all possible contributors, including the tiny plastic fragments we unwittingly consume and inhale daily.

For litigation attorneys, this is a space to watch closely. The situation is reminiscent of earlier emerging hazards (asbestos, PFAS, tobacco) where early denials gave way to overwhelming evidence and massive legal judgments. Attorneys may soon be asked by clients: “Did exposure to plastics cause my cancer?” Preparing for complex causation arguments and lining up expert testimony on microplastic toxicology will be crucial. There may also be opportunities in pursuing novel claims – for example, representing communities in environmental justice cases if plastic facilities are linked to local cancer clusters, or suing companies that failed to replace known harmful plastic components.

For portfolio managers and investors, the key is to anticipate the economic fallout. Companies deeply tied to plastics could face regulatory bans, reputational damage, and litigation costs that hit their bottom lines. It would be wise to engage with these companies on their plans to mitigate plastic risks. Shareholder advocacy might push for disclosures about microplastic safety testing or phase-out timelines. Diversifying holdings into companies pioneering sustainable materials could hedge against the “plastic cancer” risk, which at present is not fully priced into markets. In essence, this may be a material ESG risk that has been underestimated.

For industry consultants and corporate decision-makers, the writing on the wall is that a proactive approach beats a reactive one. Waiting for definitive proof of harm could mean being caught flat-footed by lawsuits or suddenly stricter regulations. Instead, companies can start by mapping their plastic footprint: where might microplastics be generated in their value chain and how can that be reduced? R&D into safer product designs (e.g. minimizing shedding of particles), investing in robust filtration (so manufacturing waste doesn’t release microplastics), and substituting materials in high-risk applications (like anything implanted in the body or used by vulnerable populations such as infants) are prudent steps. Preparing clear warnings and instructions for unavoidable plastic use (similar to how medical device makers provide detailed risk info) can also help reduce liability.

In conclusion, while plastics have delivered immense benefits, their potential dark side is coming to light. The hypothesis that plastics in our bodies might create footholds for cancer cells, helping them hide from the immune system, is a stark reminder that materials science and biology are deeply interconnected. If this hypothesis holds true, the implications are profound – our prolific use of plastics could be an unrecognized factor in cancer development, meaning efforts to curb plastic pollution are not just about saving turtles or reducing landfill, but indeed about protecting human health on a global scale. Given the stakes, a precautionary approach is warranted. Regulators and companies might consider reducing certain plastic exposures now, rather than waiting decades for absolute scientific certainty (a lesson painfully learned with asbestos and smoking).

As one recent scientific commission put it, “plastic causes disease, disability, and death at every stage of its life cycle” – a strong statement that, if validated further, will shift the paradigm for liability and business strategy in the plastics era settlements, etc.).