Baltimore’s Plastic Pollution Lawsuit Cites Deeply Flawed Study

The city of Baltimore has filed a lawsuit seeking damages for plastic pollution. The defendants in the case are not individual citizens found polluting with plastics — they would likely be criminally charged — but instead are companies involved in making and using plastic packaging. These companies also are not accused of throwing plastic on the streets, city greenways, or into the harbor. Just as John Dillinger robbed banks because “that’s where the money is," lawsuits are brought against companies with large corporate coffers. In this case, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are both defendants (other defendants are named, too, but you’ll see shortly why these two are listed first).

What makes this lawsuit different from similar past attempts.

New York City launched a similar lawsuit last year, and I didn’t feel it was worth commenting on that particular case. What make this case different is a paragraph in the PR statement released by Milberg Law, one of the legal firms involved in this case:

“A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that microplastics are linked to serious cardiovascular problems, such as heart attacks and strokes. New research also traces more than 20% of the world's plastic pollution to just four companies. Defendants Coca-Cola (11%) and PepsiCo (5%) are at the top of the list.”

Related:California Legislators Want to Ban Plastic Bags. Period.

In April, I wrote in PlasticsToday about that new research, which traced “more than 20% of the world’s plastic to just four companies,” pointing out serious flaws in the sampling methods and how unsupportable the report’s conclusions were. Yet here is that research being used as justification for the lawsuit, and also for naming Coca-Cola and PepsiCo as the first two defendants. (Looks like Milberg Law is not reading my columns. Gotta fix that.)

Microplastics were not part of the research.

Even more maddening is the first sentence in the quote above regarding microplastics. You may recall that the researchers pointing the finger at Coca-Cola and PepsiCo were very clear that their sampling did not include microplastics. Yet here it is tied right back into that research.

You may also recall that the researchers threw out half of their samples since the manufacturer could not be identified. The research also involved worldwide sampling, none of which occurred in Baltimore. To somehow insist that Coca-Cola and PepsiCo can be responsible for 11% and 5%, respectively, of the plastic at issue is fantasy.

Surprising facts about plastic pollution.

Plastic pollution is a complex problem, and the data can be counterintuitive at times. It’s always surprising to find that the United States is the largest consumer of plastic but doesn’t even make the top 20 list for nations contributing to ocean plastic. It’s equally surprising that, on a per-capita basis, the United States is number eight on the list of plastic waste generators, behind the “green” European countries of the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland. 

Relying on overly simplistic research to devise an overly simplistic list of culprits is bad science and will make bad law. I would hope that these arguments (or similar) are used if this ever goes to trial.