its pretty difficult to dig up any solid evidence plastic pollution has effects on health beyond banned plasticisers, and even then. whereas plastic mitigation efforts often result in exacerbating actual issues like leading to more carbon emissions

sure, plastic waste should be responsibly handled. but plastics have major benefits to solving many other problems. in this case it's compounded by readers that have nothing to do with farming (or who have a garden and think they could live off of it) thinking farmers are trying to kill them

also, the article railing against landfills is part of the issue to me. plastic that is landfilled is absolutely responsibly managed plastic. we /want/ our waste to become part of geology, not keep circulating, if possible

> its pretty difficult to dig up any solid evidence plastic pollution has effects on health beyond banned plasticisers, and even then.

Indeed. The presumption that plastics are a health risk is created by simply repeating that they are, with a healthy dose of hypothetical thinking and the precautionary principle. Eventually it becomes fixed in the echo chamber as common "knowledge", like the idea that GMOs are bad.

I find this all very illiberal, the notion that people should be prevented from actions because of the mere possibility of negative consequences (as if that possibility could ever be entirely excluded.)

agreed. i think there are certain plastic materials for which the preponderance of evidence tends toward significant health risks, though; specific things that come to mind include bisphenol-a as an endocrine disruptor, polybrominated diethyl ether flame retardants in polyurethane foams as endocrine disruptors, and heavy-metal catalysts used to add photodegradability to some otherwise stable plastics. it seems completely irrational to me to generalize this to plastics in general