I did, and found that the 1996 paper that helped launch the movement against endocrine disruptors, was retracted in 2001 because the data was made up.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-0...
(I'm not making any claim here about whether endocrine disruptors in our environment are a problem or not. Maybe they are. But I don't like to be told "just Google X" because that can be used to support any nonsense nowadays. Just give me a good reference and I'll try to figure out whether it's credible.)
Evidence on the health effects of Bisphenol and Pthalates (commonly used chemicals in plastics):
- Influence in hormone dependent types of cancer https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31471387/
- Influence in Cardiovascular disease https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32438096/
- Influence in Female and male fertility https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31238688/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32046352/
- Cofactor in Diabetes: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31286379/
There are a number of long-term costs not captured in these business decisions:
- The energy cost of recycling a PET bottle is much greater than producing a brand new one from crude oil. This creates the wrong kind of incentives for recycling
- Plastic degrades everytime it is recycled. Google plastic "downcycling". In an ideal circular economy old plastics would still have to be replaced with "new" crude oil plastic with additional energy and emissions costs.
- The cost of plastic collection and _sorting_ (which manufacturers aren't paying for)
- The environmental and disposal costs of unrecycled plastic, a PET bottle will take at least 450 years to fully decompose. [1]
- The Health costs of the calamity of micro-plastics contaminating our food supply and ground water. Simply google "plastic endocrine disruptors".
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/02/coca-col...
[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/plast...