A study published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal in June found that Malaysians eat an average of 502.3mg of microplastics daily per capita, most of which came from consuming fish. Malaysia was among the top 10 countries that consumed the most microplastic particles, according to the study by two professors with the National University of Defence Technology in China and Cornell University in the US.

More of such research is needed, but it must have harmonised research methods, says Professor Dr Moritz Müller, head of the Aquatic and Environmental Research Sciences (AquES) Research Group at Swinburne University of Technology in Sarawak.

Müller explains that when researchers use different methods to conduct research, it becomes hard to compare each report’s findings.

“If you take a sandy water sample, it’s not just plastic in there. There is phytoplankton, sediment and so on, and that needs to be removed first. And how it is removed has an impact on what is detected afterwards down the line in terms of plastic,” he points out.

“Certain chemicals digest certain materials and they can then leave some plastics behind, some less, others more. And then, there are questions about what kind of filter is used, what is the filter size, what kind of machine is used for detection … there are a lot of variables.”

Müller emphasises the need for reliable baseline data across the country because without it, it would be very hard to judge any kind of policy or framework impact.

“I cannot say we have 1,000kg less or 100,000kg less microplastics than before, because I just don’t know. Similar for the health impacts. There were various big studies this year but they were still reliant on computer models with a lot of assumptions made,” he says.

“The data we have now is the best we have at the moment. It’s not out of thin air but has been put together from various corners, and we don’t necessarily have our own dataset for our region. So, it’s very hard to see how things work or don’t work.”

Better policies to manage microplastics are needed, says Professor Ting Kang Nee, head of School of Pharmacy at University of Nottingham Malaysia, specifically ones that address sustainable practices, enhance waste management systems and reduce mismanaged plastics.

“Ongoing efforts are crucial to effectively tackle microplastic issues, including broader public awareness campaigns about the associated risks in drinking water and food sources, stronger waste management regulation enforcement and increased investment in research focused on technologies for removing microplastics from the environment,” says Ting.

“Academically, there should be a stronger emphasis on interdisciplinary research that not only examines the environmental impacts of microplastics but also explores their health implications and effective removal technologies.”

Müller says there is little discussion on the use of alternative materials and how to make these accessible to all levels of society, including the low income group (B40). Alternative materials typically come at a premium cost, making them inaccessible to this group.

“The choice [to have alternative materials] does not exist for a lot of society because survival is the main priority, not the environment. I find that solutions on this aspect are missing because a lot of the impacts [of climate change] are felt among the B40. But it is also a group of people we do not provide solutions for.”

The Global Plastics Treaty (GPT) negotiations could not result in a strong, legally binding treaty due to the conflicting ambitions of member states, each having their own ambition with the GPT, says Pushpan Murugiah, CEO of The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center).

He highlights oil and gas dependent countries like Malaysia, which showed no ambition to work on a stronger GPT, as they want to continue producing plastic for economic benefits.

This was the biggest source of conflict at the negotiations, where the “high ambition” countries called for a cut to plastic production, while “like-minded” countries wanted to focus on waste management instead.

Cutting plastic production is a tricky solution to navigate, considering that Malaysia is a primary plastic polymer (PPP) and plastic producer. As such, the Malaysian Plastics Manufacturers Association (MPMA) remains firm that it does not support production cuts as these do not address the root cause of plastic pollution.

“Think about this: road accidents cause millions of deaths globally every year. Why is there no car production cut to reduce accidents and deaths? Because cars are essential to our lives. It’s the same with plastic,” MPMA says in a statement to ESG.

“Acknowledging the fact that a car is essential, car manufacturers enhance the various safety features of a car and in line with the net zero agenda,” it points out.

There should be more focus instead on making plastic products more recyclable and reusable, MPMA believes. Improving the design of plastic products was one of the consensus achieved at the negotiations. Not only will this spur innovation, it will also create new business lines for the plastic industry in Malaysia, says the association.

“Applying the same concept, plastic manufacturers are already investing in R&D (research and development) to work towards improving the composition and design of plastic products, to ensure that these products are reusable and recyclable. Making products circular and building infrastructure to recover and recycle products is the key to address plastic pollution.”

On the other hand, Greenpeace Malaysia’s Zero Waste campaigner Weng Dun Xin believes that Malaysia was not ambitious enough, and did not present any specific positions on non-plastic substitutes like glass, metal, paper and natural fibres.

“Malaysia is rather weak and siding with other petrochemical countries. Hence, moving forward, the Asean Summit 2025 must gather strong leadership and foster the urgency to look into the plastic pollution crisis, with extended producer responsibility schemes, production reduction and a ban on single-use plastics,” says Weng.

Some other contentious aspects of the treaty that will be important for Malaysia are on chemicals of concern, says Pushpan. There are many chemicals that still lack hazard data but are being used in plastics. The treaty’s current draft removed the proposal to include an annex with groups of chemicals of concern.

On the other hand, there should be more financial assistance from developed nations. Malaysia supported the Conference Room Paper presented by the African Group of Nations, which proposed a dedicated independent multilateral fund through which developed countries could provide financial resources on a grant or concessional basis to developing countries.

However, the developed countries resisted and called for parties with high levels of mismanaged plastic waste and plastic or polymer production to take the lead in mobilising financial resources.

“It will be crucial for Malaysia to shift the narrative that plastic waste exports from developed countries to developing countries in Southeast Asia, including Malaysia, have saddled us with millions of tonnes of waste, further taxing waste management systems that lack enforcement capacity,” says Pushpan.

“Implementing transparent reporting, monitoring of PPP production, labelling of chemical content in plastics will require training and capacity building for a developing country like Malaysia. Access to funding through this treaty is pertinent.”