Effects of plastics in the food system on human health, food security, and the environment: a systematic scoping review

Background: Due to their characteristics, plastics are ubiquitous across global food systems, which is contributing to environmental pollution. Circular economy policies should account for the myriad effects of plastics across interdependent environmental, human health, and food security and economic domains. However, the available evidence is disparate, and researchers and policymakers do not share a common strategy for addressing this planetary health problem. We aimed to synthesise data from this diverse research landscape to facilitate multidisciplinary collaboration. Methods: In this systematic scoping review, we searched nine databases and 15 grey literature sources, for studies published from the year 2000 onwards (up to January, 2019). We sought to identify quantifiable evidence on major plastic types used in all processes from agricultural production to waste management (so-called farm to flush); and studies presenting quantifiable outcomes (direct or intermediate, beneficial or harmful) in relation to human health, food security, household economics, and the environment. Findings were presented in an evidence gap map. A full study protocol was registered with the Campbell Collaboration. Findings: 3362 studies were included in our review and evidence gap map. Between 2000 and 2019, a 4-times increase in published studies occurred, with China, India, and the USA accounting for 1175 (34·9%) studies, and low-income settings just 54 (1·6%) studies. Plastics used in agricultural production and processing, and storage and transportation were well researched (1869 [55·6%] studies and 1117 [33·2%] studies, respectively), with considerably less research of plastic use in the retail, consumption, and food waste disposal subsectors. Food security outcomes were most frequently captured (2546 [75·7%] studies), with human health (1602 [47·7%] studies) and the environment (282 [8·4%] studies) accounting for substantially less research. Agricultural plastics used to drive productivity or efficiencies were commonly researched (1730 [51·5%] studies), as was plastic packaging and effects on nutritional quality, longevity, or safety of foodstuffs (1090 [32·4%] studies). Little evidence was available regarding on-farm plastic pollution or contamination (34 [1·0%] studies), or regarding the effects of food system plastics on human health (39 [2·4%] studies). Just eight meta-analyses (0·2% studies) were captured, all exploring plastic mulching and row covers. Interpretation: The evidence base regarding the effects of food system plastics on planetary health domains is imbalanced. This review highlights key evidence gaps to fill before circular economy policies can truly account for benefits and harms across different domains. Funding: Co-funded by UK Aid from the UK Government, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, via the Innovative Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions programme

A systematic scoping review of environmental, food security and health impacts of food system plastics

Plastic pollution arising from food systems is driving policies for reduction, removal, reuse and recycling, but literature on plastic uses and outcomes across subsectors is fragmented. We use a systematic scoping review to describe the extent, range and nature of published evidence since 2000 on seven major plastic types used at any point within food systems and their quantifiable effects on the environment, food security and human health. Although the majority of publications focus on agricultural production, relatively fewer consider retail, household and food waste disposal plastics. Gaps in the research include evidence from low- and middle-income countries, health or food security and/or economic outcomes generated from human population studies—and the subsequent environmental and human health effects. A greater understanding of this disparate evidence landscape is essential to formulate coherent research strategies to inform potential policy actions and assess trade-offs across economic and environmental targets, human health and food security

Mapping the human genetic architecture of COVID-19

The genetic make-up of an individual contributes to the susceptibility and response to viral infection. Although environmental, clinical and social factors have a role in the chance of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of COVID-191,2, host genetics may also be important. Identifying host-specific genetic factors may reveal biological mechanisms of therapeutic relevance and clarify causal relationships of modifiable environmental risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes. We formed a global network of researchers to investigate the role of human genetics in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Here we describe the results of three genome-wide association meta-analyses that consist of up to 49,562 patients with COVID-19 from 46 studies across 19 countries. We report 13 genome-wide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19. Several of these loci correspond to previously documented associations to lung or autoimmune and inflammatory diseases3–7. They also represent potentially actionable mechanisms in response to infection. Mendelian randomization analyses support a causal role for smoking and body-mass index for severe COVID-19 although not for type II diabetes. The identification of novel host genetic factors associated with COVID-19 was made possible by the community of human genetics researchers coming together to prioritize the sharing of data, results, resources and analytical frameworks. This working model of international collaboration underscores what is possible for future genetic discoveries in emerging pandemics, or indeed for any complex human disease