We Can’t Unbuild a World Made of Plastic
The hidden plastic problem reshaping soil, food, and human health
Too long, didn’t read:
Plastic revolutionized our world. It touches almost every aspect of our lives, making things more efficient and scalable, but it has a price.
We’re finding plastic in soil, air, water, and even our own bodies. Plastic doesn’t break down for centuries, making this a persistent and prevalent issue.
Given the potential for chronic health problems as a result of plastic, we have to ask ourselves if this is a problem worth solving.
Where our pile of plastic started
We don’t often think of plastic as an agricultural input, but we should. Plastic is woven into modern farming. It’s prevalent in every system we use, ingrained in the supply chain. Like virtually every other industry, plastic has replaced other materials anywhere it can. It’s efficient, cheap, and disposable. It’s quite literally everywhere. And that’s precisely the problem – plastic doesn’t stay put. Over time, it cracks, crumbles, and chips into something smaller and more insidious.
Microplastics are tiny plastic fragments, less than 5 millimeters, and they’ve quietly become one of the most persistent pollutants on Earth. They were first coined as a concept in 2004 by marine biologist Richard Thompson, who started finding microscopic plastic bits in sand and seawater. But the truth is, they’ve been around far longer, and the more plastic we produce, the more microplastic we have to deal with.
Plastics are a 20th-century miracle material turned 21st-century necessary evil. Widespread use of plastic started in the 1950s. In that time, we produced about 2 million tons globally in a year. In modern times, plastic production has grown to over 400 million tons per year. That equals about 9 billion tons of plastic that’s been produced to date. Less than 10% has ever been recycled. The rest goes to landfills, gets incinerated, or flows into oceans and soils and slowly degrades into smaller and smaller particles that never really go away.
We’ve built a system that depends on plastic. But we’re just now starting to ask: at what cost?
You’ve heard about plastic in the ocean, but that’s not the half of it
When we talk about plastic pollution, the ocean usually takes center stage. But by weight and impact, farmland may actually be the biggest sink for microplastics on Earth. Plastic mulch, irrigation tubing, fertilizer bags, seed coatings, and bale wrap all break down over time, embedding tiny fragments in soil. Farms also receive plastic unintentionally through sewage sludge (biosolids), animal manure used as fertilizer (because microplastic is passed through animals’ systems), contaminated irrigation water, and even wind-blown debris. One estimate suggests that farmland in Europe and North America receive more microplastics annually from sludge than oceans do from all sources combined. In U.S. soils, concentrations typically range from 82 to 340 particles per kilogram, and in some plastic-heavy zones, that number climbs into the thousands.
What happens once those particles settle in? Early studies suggest microplastics disrupt both the structure and biology of soil. They can change porosity and water retention, making soils too compact or too crumbly for healthy root growth. More troubling, they interact with chemicals in the field, binding to pesticides or heavy metals and forming toxic hotspots. Microbes may go dormant. Soil organisms that support fertility can suffer gut blockages or reduced reproduction. In one lab test, soybean germination dropped from over 90% to just 39% when soil contained 0.5% microplastics. Other crops like carrots, lettuce, and barley have shown stunted roots and oxidative stress, suggesting a pattern of subtle but cumulative harm.
And the ripple effects don’t end at the soil line. Microplastics can carry contaminants directly into plant tissue, with possible implications for food safety. Some evidence points to reduced photosynthesis and modest yield declines across staple crops. Not every field is affected equally, and not all studies show catastrophic results, but the consensus is forming: microplastics are an emerging agronomic stressor. And if it begins to show up in food, the risk shifts from agronomic to reputational. We could soon see calls for “microplastic-free” certification, or even restrictions on practices that contribute to long-term soil contamination.
That water bottle you’re drinking from will outlast you… And 20 generations after you
One reason plastics are such a vexing pollution problem is their incredibly slow degradation. Unlike organic materials that rot and metals that corrode, most conventional plastics don’t truly biodegrade; they fragment. The big pieces become smaller pieces, then become micro- and nano-particles, but those tiny bits may persist for geological timescales. The NOAA Marine Debris Program bluntly says that plastics “could stay in the ocean and Great Lakes for an indefinite amount of time.” There are some stats out there about plastic decomposition anyway. For example, a plastic shopping bag takes 10 to 20 years to break down. A plastic beverage bottle takes around 450 years. Styrofoam takes about 50 years. A disposable diaper goes up to 500 years.
These figures are rough guesses based on lab tests and observed environmental weathering. In truth, plastics never fully “go away”; even after centuries, you end up with microplastic powder and nanoplastic specks. Degradation rates also depend on conditions like UV exposure, temperature, and microbes. In landfills or deep ocean, where it’s dark and oxygen-poor, plastics could endure much longer than the earlier stated figures. Even so-called biodegradable or compostable plastics can persist if they don’t encounter the right conditions; many require industrial composters to fully break down. Researchers estimate that even under good conditions, traditional plastics might take thousands of years to mineralize completely into CO₂ and water, effectively making plastic pollution a permanent addition to the planet’s ecosystem.
This persistence is why environmental scientists talk of a “Plasticene” era. Every year we keep adding more plastics into the environment. Just 9% of all plastic ever made has been recycled, so the vast majority remains out there accumulating. We face a growing load of microplastics in soil and water that essentially cannot be removed and will not degrade. It’s an intergenerational impact: the plastic we discard today will be an inheritance for many generations to come.
Plastic surrounds us, but it also invades us
Here’s a question you don’t often hear, but you should start thinking about… How much plastic did I eat today? As plastics have infiltrated air, water, and food, humans are unknowingly eating, drinking, and breathing microplastics every day. But pinning down exact amounts is challenging. Early headlines said that the average person eats a credit card’s worth of plastic each week (around 5 grams). This attention-grabbing stat came from a 2019 WWF-sponsored study, which extrapolated from microplastic levels in drinking water, shellfish, sugar, and other foods. However, the “credit card a week” figure is likely an overestimate under current science. More recent reviews have pointed out methodological flaws in those early calculations.
A 2019 analysis in Environmental Science & Technology estimated that American adults ingest 39,000 to 52,000 microplastic particles per year from food and water, and inhale a similar amount from the air. That’s between 74,000 and 121,000 particles annually, which breaks down to between 200 and 330 particles a day. These are on the order of tens of microns to a few millimeters in size. That number also fluctuates dramatically based on how you get your drinking water. If you only drink bottled water, your yearly consumption of plastic from water only goes up by 90,000 particles. In comparison, those who only drink tap water are looking about 4,000 particles consumed per year from drinking water. This fluctuation extends to the types of food you eat as well, considering seafood tends to contain more microplastics than land-raised meats.
So while “credit card per week” makes for a catchy headline, a more grounded takeaway is that we each unwittingly consume dozens to hundreds of microscopic plastic specks every single day. Over a lifetime, that could be on the order of millions of particles in our digestive tracts.
We likely aren’t immune to health impacts
We’ve established that plastic is accumulating inside of us, but how much? And what does that mean for our health?
Studies have found plastic particles in human blood, lung tissue, even the brain and placenta. Some particles are small enough to slip past the body’s natural defenses, embedding in organs or circulating through the bloodstream. While concentrations are still low, in the parts per million or billion range, the idea that synthetic materials can cross into the very systems that regulate immunity, hormones, and development is deeply unsettling.
So far, the health effects aren’t fully understood, but the risks are mounting. Microplastics appear to trigger inflammation, disrupt digestion, and irritate the lungs. Some carry harmful chemicals like BPA or phthalates that are known endocrine disruptors tied to fertility issues, metabolic disorders, and developmental delays. Others may act as toxic sponges, absorbing pollutants like heavy metals and delivering them straight into our food and water. Perhaps most concerning, microplastics found in placental tissue suggest exposure may begin before birth, potentially shaping health outcomes for a lifetime.
We are the plastic generation. The scary thing is that we don’t fully know the impact of plastic in our bodies. All we do know is that it is likely hitting us at a chronic illness scale, causing inflammation and toxin exposure that can cause immune and hormone disruption, to microbiome imbalance. These long-developing effects are much less likely to get the attention that the dramatic acute illnesses caused by lead paint or asbestos did. And that’s why the evidence connecting plastic to major disease is lacking. Could plastic be found as the next substance causing major human disease? Unfortunately, only time and more research can tell.
So what now? If plastic is in our systems, soil and human alike, can we remove it?
Can we eliminate plastics?
Given the audience of this newsletter, we’ll use agriculture as a model for plastic elimination. Is it even feasible?
In reality, eliminating plastic from agriculture would be extremely difficult with today’s technology and demand for efficiency. The strategy, therefore, may be more about minimizing and managing plastic rather than outright elimination. A Nature commentary suggested focusing on “rational use and reduction, collection, reuse, and innovative recycling” as key measures for ag plastics. Essentially, use plastics smarter and recapture them after use so they don’t end up as pollution.
Policies could drive change too: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes for agricultural plastics could make manufacturers take back used films and containers (some regions already have pesticide container recycling programs, for example). Subsidies or cost-share for biodegradable alternatives could accelerate their adoption. And as waste disposal costs rise (or landfill bans on certain plastics appear), the economic calculus may shift farmers toward alternatives.
Can the “downfall” of plastic be capitalized upon?
Cotton Incorporated is successfully positioning cotton as the natural, microplastic-free alternative the market is now craving. Whereas synthetic fibers shed persistent microplastics that linger, cotton fibers biodegrade quickly in all tested environments, including wastewater, freshwater, saltwater, and soil. In fact, up to 90% of cotton microfibers can break down within 40 days, even when treated with dyes, softeners, or finishes. Meanwhile, polyester fibers remain largely intact, threatening to persist for centuries. Textiles are responsible for around 35% of ocean microplastic pollution, with washing synthetic clothing identified as a key driver.
Consumers don’t realize their clothes contribute to microplastic pollution, and cotton is filling that awareness gap. If you just take a look at the “discovercotton” Instagram account, you’ll see clear messaging that cotton is an eco-friendly fabric, making it a strategic tool for both environmental and reputational risk management. With cotton’s biodegradability, circular recyclability, and growing consumer demand, agribusinesses and textile players have fertile ground to pivot toward genuine plastic alternatives before the regulatory tide shifts further.
Furthermore, the Make America Healthy Again report recently flagged microplastics as a contributor to chronic disease, and global negotiations like the UN Plastics Treaty are now targeting them explicitly. If public health, food safety, and environmental policy converge, as they seem poised to do, the ground could shift fast.
We get it, microplastics are bad, but is replacing them worth the cost?
The case for plastic (or at least for caution)
It’s easy to vilify plastic, but let’s pause. If we’re going to be honest about the risks, we also need to be honest about the alternatives. And the truth is, ditching plastic might carry environmental, social, and economic consequences we’re not ready to face.
Start with the obvious: plastic is cheap, durable, lightweight, and endlessly adaptable. That’s why it replaced glass, paper, jute, metal, and even wood in food systems. But what happens if we try to swap it out? Bioplastics, compostables, natural fibers, etc., sound good in theory. But most require more resources to produce. If we pivot hard to plant-based inputs, we’re just moving tradeoffs. Land that could grow food might now grow packaging. Water needed for crops might go to fiber hemp or industrial starches. And ironically, many of the so-called “green alternatives” still behave like plastics in the environment, especially if they don’t end up in a commercial composting facility, which most people don’t have access to.
There’s also the economic layer. For many farmers, especially small and mid-sized ones, plastic is part of what makes margins work. It protects crops from spoilage. It stretches harvest windows. It reduces labor. Replacing it with something more expensive, more fragile, or more complicated could price people out of the supply chain entirely. Are we willing to make local food less accessible? Are we okay with higher costs trickling down to consumers, especially in regions already struggling with food insecurity? If the “solution” to plastic is a system that only works for the wealthy, have we actually solved anything?
When it comes to plastic, considering what we can control is crucial
Microplastics represent a huge consideration in pollution. They’re omnipresent yet largely invisible, potentially harmful yet hard to pin down. Plastics have delivered tremendous benefits to agriculture and food supply chains, but their unchecked use has a dark side that is coming back to haunt our soils, water, and bodies in minuscule form. The science is telling us that every acre of soil and every mouthful of food now carries a trace of our plastic legacy. The onus is now on us: farmers, industry, consumers, policymakers, to reckon with that legacy and chart a more sustainable course. It’s worth ending on a note of optimism: Human ingenuity got us into this plastic predicament, and human ingenuity can get us out.
Recent Articles
GM’s flex-fuel revival is good news for ethanol producers in Kansas Farmer
Position sorghum as the sustainable solution in Kansas Farmer
Cracking the code on India’s market for U.S. sorghum in Kansas Farmer
If you haven’t already, check out our previous newsletters.
About Serō Ag Strategies
At Serō Ag Strategies, we bridge farmers and supply chain partners by transforming complex agricultural data and policy into actionable insights. We also work to create and grow markets for commodity crops by aligning production with evolving demand, policy shifts, and sustainability goals. Combining multinational expertise with the personal touch of boutique consulting, we specialize in economic and sustainability analysis that drives strategic innovation.
Click here to learn more about Serō Ag Strategies.
Wow! I had no idea. Wondering if this problem could be a contributing factor in autism…?