Plastics in agriculture and food production: the state of affairs

Why are plastics everywhere?

In France, an estimated 6.4 million tonnes of plastics were used in 2022; around 20% of plastic usage occurred in agricultural and food systems. At present, the agricultural use of plastics mainly occurs on livestock farms and during greenhouse farming, to grow crops such as tomatoes. Most of the time, these plastics are films. In livestock farming, they are employed to conserve hay (e.g., wrapping, storing silage under tarps) because they promote anaerobic, moisture-free conditions. They can provide cover for crops or serve as mulch, suppressing weed growth by blocking light. 

In the food industry, plastics are utilised in food transport, packaging, and service (e.g., glasses, plates). Packaging protects food by limiting exposure to oxygen, water, carbon dioxide, and potential contaminants. From the very beginning, plastic packaging has also been used to convey information to consumers and as a vehicle for brand marketing.

Tangible symbols of disposability culture, plastics have played an essential role in allowing consumerism to emerge. Their existence has been crucial to the development of global markets, long distribution channels, and industrial agriculture. Fast food and ready-to-eat takeaway meals also became widespread thanks to plastics.

The petroleum industry is largely responsible for the success of plastics. Plastics were a way to create value from unused refinery byproducts and to develop new markets after the First and Second World Wars. There was a mutually reinforcing effect of petroleum industry growth, consumption patterns, and agricultural intensification, which resulted in the normalisation of plastics and plastic usage; thus, these products and practices are particularly entrenched.

How is all this plastic waste managed?

Plastics are generally made using petrochemicals. Biobased plastics—made from plant or microbial biomass—account for 0.7% of global plastic production (1.5% in France and Europe). Most plastics can theoretically be recycled, but, in practice, a large percentage are not. Additionally, most are not biodegradable under all environmental conditions. Average to high levels of biodegradation have only been seen for plastics produced by microorganisms or using starch or cellulose directly derived from biomass^[1], when composting, anaerobic digestion, or burial in soils has been used. These plastics are not biodegrading as they travel through dedicated waste collection and processing circuits; as a consequence, their presence negatively affects the quality of other plastic waste or sorted organic waste. 

Dealing with plastic waste is difficult for several reasons:

• First, from an economic standpoint, the only profitable form of plastic recycling involves PET bottles. It is also the only form of plastic recycling that is technically viable, along with the recycling of certain other polyethylenes.
• Second, from a design standpoint, many plastics are complex and display certain aesthetic or functional properties. Indeed, there exists a wide range of plastic types, each with specific characteristics. Even biobased plastics may contain some petroleum-based compounds. Managing such waste is challenging at best and impossible at worst. What's more, plastic design does not account for consumer expectations, which means efforts to identify simplified options or possible alternatives are limited.
• Third, there is a lack of transparency around plastic composition. For example, the latter is often unknown and also changes over the course of a product’s life cycle as a result of use and environmental conditions. Additionally, it is difficult to obtain comprehensive and reliable data on plastic production volumes and flows. Current data paint a fuzzy picture, especially given that collection and sorting systems vary widely.
• Fourth, sorting system design is a concern: higher-quality sorting systems—those that better separate out different material types—lead to more effective recycling or biodegradation. It can be ineffective to increase the volume of materials to be sorted if the result is mixtures of plastic types that must be treated differently. Deposit-return systems would encourage reuse but are rarely implemented.
• In reality, it is counterproductive to encourage recycling if there is not a simultaneous effort to reduce plastic consumption. However, transitioning to different reuse or sorting systems would significantly impact how local authorities handle the collection and reclamation of sorted waste. It can be challenging to call into question certain investments or revenues related to waste reclamation.

The above issues have resulted in a system that encourages higher levels of plastic production and waste while discouraging reduced usage or increased reuse. All of these issues contribute to serious system lock-in, a situation that can only be addressed through the collaborative efforts of many stakeholders. Consumers often feel a sense of responsibility about plastic waste, but they cannot spur systemic change on their own.

What do we know about plastic pollution?

Plastics are everywhere, even if we do not see them.

Few plastics biodegrade, meaning few plastics are broken down by microbes into compounds that can be assimilated by living organisms in the natural environment. However, plastic waste does disintegrate into smaller and smaller fragments (microplastics < 5 mm and then nanoplastics < 1 µm) following exposure to ultraviolet radiation, oxygen, and mechanical degradation by organisms such as microbes and insects. As plastics fragment, they release certain substances that are part of their make-up, such as bisphenols, or certain surface contaminants (e.g, heavy metals, pesticides) that were adsorbed during usage.

Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans is already well documented and was therefore not addressed by the collective scientific assessment. The assessment found that plastic pollution knows no borders. It is ubiquitous, easily spreading thanks to exchanges between soils, water bodies, and the atmosphere. All soils, even desert soils, are contaminated, and agricultural soils are likely more polluted than the oceans. Irrigation water also contains plastics. The entirety of life on Earth is affected. Everything we eat and drink is contaminated. It is known that compounds migrate between plastic packaging and food, a process that is accelerated by heating and in the case of certain food characteristics. Finally, we humans are contaminated too: we have plastics in our organs and bodily fluids (e.g., blood). The smallest plastic fragments, specifically nanoplastics, can traverse certain tissues, such as the intestinal barrier. 

Plastics contain compounds such as bisphenols and phthalates, which are endocrine disruptors with documented impacts on human health. They are involved in asthma and other respiratory diseases, fertility problems, cancers, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and obesity. It is estimated that the associated health care costs are around €33 billion in the European Union. Improved research methods are needed to study the health impacts of plastic particles themselves. However, it is known that they influence certain biological functions. Their mechanism of action involves oxidative stress, a phenomenon that affects all living organisms. Ecosystems experience a loss in functionality because, for example, plastics alter levels of water distribution and infiltration patterns in soils. As a result, less water is retained, and plant germination and growth declines. There are thus negative effects on overall health and, in the longer term, on food availability. 

How can we take action?

Government regulations can be an effective tool for promoting systemic change. Although restrictive, they sometimes manage to prompt economic shifts that better protect consumers and the environment. When regulations go hand-in-hand with campaigns for raising awareness and educating the general public, they can help establish new societal norms. Changing perceptions about the extent of plastic pollution remains key when it comes to prompting regulatory shifts. It now seems evident that global governance is necessary if we wish to standardise regulatory frameworks, coordinate efforts to reduce plastic production at its source, and ensure collective action to address a problem without borders. This understanding is at the heart of current United Nations negotiations focused on a legally binding international treaty aimed at fighting plastic pollution.

In these negotiations, countries are divided around the relative strategic use of recycling versus reduction. Petroleum-producing countries are on the side of recycling, while countries in the European Union are on the side of reduction. This debate is one of the challenges facing the international treaty, which is also concerned with the effects of plastic pollution on the environment and human health. A truly circular economy must prioritise reduction, followed by reuse, over recycling. At present, recycling actually boosts the production of virgin plastics. It is a very limited open-loop process that generates products with different applications than those of the original products. As a result, recycling does not encourage a reduction in plastic production. Furthermore, plastic recycling often utilises additives to restore the properties of plastics, rendering subsequent reuse or recycling difficult. It can also encourage plastic consumption, promoting the idea that using plastics is acceptable as long as they can be recycled. From a strategic perspective, biobased plastics are substitutions—they simply replace petroleum-based plastics without encouraging much-needed changes in practices.

Current regulatory frameworks in France and Europe are remedial rather than preventive. Furthermore, these frameworks apply to a small percentage of plastics: food contact plastics, although the relevant regulation does not apply to crops before harvest or to animals before slaughter; plastic waste, including packaging; and the best-known chemical substances. Depending on the specific framework, plastics are treated as materials, waste, or an assembly of substances. In fact, 16,000 different chemical substances can be used to generate plastics, if we include the additives used in certain formulations; only 6% of these substances are regulated at the international level. Research has evaluated the toxicity of 25% of these substances; it remains unknown for 66% of them.

Life cycle analysis (LCA) is used to assess the environmental impacts of plastics from the moment of their creation to their end of life in the environment. However, LCA fails to account for all aspects of sustainability (e.g., land use changes, biodiversity losses, or, more generally, micro- and nanoplastic pollution). Methodologies are being developed to handle the economic and societal dimensions of LCA. At present, LCA cannot be used on its own to assess the sustainability of various options. There are staggering estimates of the cost of plastics, given their impacts over the course of their life cycles, and of the cost of failing to take action on plastic pollution; however, we need greater clarity around the methods and data used.

Collective challenges and research needs

On May 23, 2025, at the end of the symposium presenting the assessment’s results, INRAE CEO Philippe Mauguin highlighted the challenges that must be tackled collectively, such as "addressing the gap in data regarding plastic composition and flows along the food supply chain, with the help of public authorities who can collect, centralise, and make available the relevant data". He proposed that the presence of plastics in the environment could be better characterised by capitalising on the long-term environmental observation and research facilities to which INRAE and CNRS operationally contribute. He emphasised: "In the search for alternatives, we must also account for an unavoidable reality of system lock-in: plastics result in time savings for consumers during meal preparation and for farmers during agricultural activities."

These concerns are global and call for systemic responses that combine science, public policy, and engagement by economic stakeholders. This collective scientific assessment arrives at a moment when international governance around the life cycle of plastics is taking shape, and it provides solid guidance that can inform future decision-making in France and internationally.