A new Netflix documentary, The Plastic Detox, explores a potential link between infertility and exposure to chemical additives in plastics – but is it a fair representation of the packaging industry?
Packaging Europe watched the documentary to explore its claims, and consults the reactions of industry voices to understand its reception.
The question of fertility
Epidemiologist Shanna H. Swan hosts the documentary. Through her work with the National Academy of Sciences, she has reported that the human sperm count declined twice as quickly in 2023 as in previous studies; “It was too fast to be genetic,” she explains to the viewer. “Then, it’s the environment.”
Swan goes on to define the concept of ‘phthalate syndrome’. She observes that a mother’s exposure to phthalates – chemicals often used to achieve flexibility in soft plastics – correlates with a decrease anogenital distance in male children. The shorter the anogenital distance, she argues, the lower the sperm count.
The documentary repeatedly describes plastics as “ubiquitous”, and Swan notes that consumers may not always know their packaging contains any plastic; she uses the example of tin and aluminium cans with plastic linings. Even so, she does not consider “plastic in and of itself” to be the problem: “It is the chemicals in it that have the ability to alter our hormones.”
This is why she warns the viewer that packaging formats designed for exposure to high temperatures, such as coffee pods and tea bags, could be leaching harmful substances into food and drinks.
To test her theories on infertility, Swan recruits six couples from the United States who have struggled to conceive. She advises them to avoid exposure to plastics, including by disposing of plastic packaging in their homes and instructing them to avoid it in future purchases.
“You can replace most of the plastics in your kitchen with metal, glass, ceramics, or bamboo,” she argues. On the topic of avoiding plastics in general, she comments: “It’s not straightforward. It’s not easy. But it’s super important.”
Even so, she concedes that “it’s a difficult thing to remove all the contaminants in your life. Endocrine disruptors are so pervasive, you’re being exposed even when you least expect it.”
Swan goes on to help the couples monitor their fertility over the course of twelve weeks.
“It’s not a quote, unquote ‘scientific study’,” she admits. “We have no control group. It’s very small […] It’s true that to understand patterns of disease, you need a large population. So, these results will be used to support an application for a larger study with government funding.”
At the start of the experiment, Swan claims to have identified phthalates in urine samples provided by the couples. She also takes semen samples from the male partners, stating that a fertile man should have a motile count greater than or equal to forty; one participant’s count is recorded at twenty-three, although it is unclear whether plastic exposure is the cause.
By the sixth week, Swan tells us that almost every participant has reduced their bisphenol A intake to non-detectable levels. Phthalate levels are also said to have dropped – and Swan notes that within the couples, the values have decreased in parallel between the male and female partner. In her view, this correlation could suggest that shared changes to their environment are the key factor.
At this point, the avoidance of plastic does not appear to have affected sperm count. However, Swan clarifies that it takes 70 days to produce new sperm, so she does not expect to see a drastic change until the final check-in. By week twelve, she notes that sperm count has noticeably improved among the participants.
“Our couples were able to keep their bisphenols down, many to undetectable levels, which is amazing,” Swan continues. “And while phthalates were more stubborn, we did see a meaningful reduction in the average.”
It is eventually revealed that two of the couples have successfully conceived and given birth to children. One couple is still expecting their child, with their due date coming after the documentary’s release.
The bigger picture
Swan isn’t alone in her concern about the impacts of plastics and their endocrine-disrupting chemicals on the reproductive process. Even in successful births, Antonio Ragusa, director of obstetrics at Fatebenefratelli Hospital in Rome, claims to have identified various types of microplastics in donated placentas and breast milk.
Philip Landrigan, director of global public health at Boston College, adds that endocrine-disrupting chemicals can impact three generations of a family: the pregnant mother, the baby she conceives, and that baby’s developing reproductive system. He refers to this effect as ‘toxic trespass’.
Reproductive biologist Sonya M. Schuh presents experiments in which chick embryos are exposed to phthalates and BPA compounds. Compared to control embryos, the treated chicks display extreme defects: cranial facial disruptions, protruding organs, malformation, and even a complete halt in development.
“These are reminiscent of many common human birth defects,” Schuh asserts.
The documentary posits that infants aren’t the only ones at risk. Leonardo Trasande, professor of environmental medicine at New York University, links some chemical additives to autism, ADHD, and cognitive deficits in children. Even in adults, he believes that ingesting phthalates and bisphenols could lead to early heart attacks and strokes, among other health issues.
On that note, epidemiologist Jasmine McDonald tells viewers that endocrine-disrupting chemicals have carcinogenic principles. These substances can encourage cells to divide faster, she explains; and when the human body can’t repair itself quickly enough, various cancers can develop, ranging from breast to prostate.
It is worth noting a ‘bombshell’ study reported by The Guardian earlier this year, in which numerous scientists raised concerns about contamination, false positives, and overestimated results in studies on microplastic contamination; it highlights that science is in an “early period” of understanding the health impacts of microplastic exposure.
Credit: Netflix
Nevertheless, the documentary continues. According to John Warner, co-founder of the Institute for Green Chemistry, most plastics were plant-based until the advent of petroleum-based plastics in the early 20th century. Pete Myers, chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, clarifies that there was less scientific understanding of endocrine disruption during this period.
Still, the documentary says that global plastic production continues to increase by 3-3.5% every year. At the current rate, the amount of plastics in the world is set to double by 2040 or 2050.
“I would say the approach of industry is to ignore the problem, to make more of these chemicals, to put more of them into plastic, and increase production,” Swan says. “No company is going to [stop] making a product willingly if it’s going to affect their bottom line.”
Arguably, this criticism does not apply globally; the documentary goes on to acknowledge other countries’ efforts to tackle plastic additives and the plastic waste crisis more broadly.
However, Hip Hop Caucus president Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr. shares an American perspective on environmental racism, especially the experiences of ‘fenceline’ communities – usually low-income, racial minority, or otherwise marginalized groups that live in close proximity to petrochemical facilities. For example, the documentary highlights that 68% of Black people in the United States live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant.
It pays particular attention to ‘Cancer Alley’, an 85-mile region between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana, where cancer diagnoses are particularly high. This is attributed to the number of petrochemical plants located in the area; the documentary follows Yearwood Jr. and activist Sharon Lavigne to a gravesite that stands directly between a cluster of homes and an industrial site.
“Their business plan is a death sentence to our communities,” says Yearwood Jr. “To make plastics, they’re killing us.”
The solutions
California Attorney General Rob Bonta appears in the documentary to discuss his lawsuit against ExxonMobil – more specifically, its accusation that the corporation misled consumers into believing the plastics they purchased would be recycled.
Bonta raises the statistic that only 9% of plastics are recycled today; he believes that corporations are hesitant to invest in recycling infrastructure and affect their own profits.
“The only reason that plastics today are ubiquitous is because people were told that this product can be recycled,” he argues. “People would not have purchased plastics, relied on plastics, and consumed plastics knowing that it was destroying the planet as we did so […] If plastic products are not recyclable, then it needs to be stated as such.”
ExxonMobil’s countersuit is not mentioned. The corporation has accused Bonta of blaming state-wide recycling inefficiencies on one company, and of working with a law firm connected to known critics of ExxonMobil in hopes of furthering his political campaign.
The documentary does show clips of a famous public service announcement from the nonprofit Keep America Beautiful, which ends with the slogan, “People start pollution. People can stop it.”
This is followed by a clip of comedian John Oliver appearing on late-night talk show Last Week Tonight and commenting: “Keep America Beautiful was funded in part by a plastics industry trade group and composed of leading beverage and packaging corporations, which might seem odd until you realize that the underlying message there is: it’s up to you, the consumer, to stop pollution.”
Caroline Will, communications coordinator of the Rethink Plastic Alliance, tells Packaging Europe: “While limiting exposure to plastics in our homes is a first protective measure, consumers should not have to vet every product before bringing it into their homes. It is the responsibility of EU policymakers and industry to set out rules and restrictions that protect European citizens from being exposed to harmful chemicals in plastic packaging and products in the first place.”
Landrigan admits to the viewer that “no country is doing a perfect job in regulating toxic chemicals and plastics.” In his view, though, “the European Union is the world leader.”
The documentary uplifts the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation and its ban on BPA in food-contact materials as positive progress.
The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) feels that more could be done: “The Plastic Detox documentary highlights changes people can make in their lives, but real solutions also require societal and regulatory action. That’s why HEAL advocates for modernizing EU legislation like REACH to prevent disease and protect reproductive and overall health for current and future generations.”
Plastics Europe tells Packaging Europe that safety is a “top priority” for the EU’s plastics industry, and that all its members are REACH-compliant: “We recognize that human exposure to chemicals in plastics is a growing societal concern globally. That is why Plastics Europe’s members are working continuously to ensure the safety of plastics and mitigate their potential impact on human health.”
The association highlights its contribution to scientific research into the health implications of microplastics, intended for use by policymakers and stakeholders alike: “This includes Brigid, a multimillion-euro, six-year (2022-2027) research project funded by the European plastics industry in a partnership with leading independent research institutes and academics, which aims to answer important questions about the potential effect of microplastics on human health.”
It also supports the enforcement of EU safety regulations at national borders: “This includes on imports, by investing in customs capacity, harmonizing controls, and using digital traceability tools, and independent, third-party certification to ensure imported plastics meet Europe’s strict safety, environmental and labour standards.”
The documentary also touches on the development of a Global Plastics Treaty as a “chance” at overcoming health impacts. While negotiations are still ongoing (and The Plastic Detox does not mention its delayed progress), WWF and the University of Birmingham previously published a report linking micro- and nanoplastics to cardiovascular diseases, cancer, infertility, and more – using their findings to advocate for a comprehensive Treaty.
“While research continues to evolve, several studies already show consistent and concerning links between many plastic additives and serious health effects,” the report reads. “This growing body of evidence must serve as a foundation for strong, science-based legislation to minimize exposure to MnPs and the toxic chemicals currently found in many plastics.”
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to packaging innovation in 2026
Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation: what to know in 2026
Everything you need to know about global packaging sustainability regulation
No comments yet