By Bianca Kapteyn

One of the most compelling documentaries I’ve ever watched is Plastic People, directed by Ben Addelman and co-directed by author and journalist  Ziya Tong. The film explores humanity’s deep dependence on plastic and the growing body of scientific evidence revealing its profound impact on human health. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it; it’s one of those rare documentaries that stays with you long after the credits roll.

When I first watched Plastic People, I was taken aback. The realization that I had become, quite literally, a “plastic person” was an eye-opener. Scientists have detected microscopic plastic particles—microplastics and even smaller nanoplastics—in human blood, lungs, placentas, breast milk, liver, kidneys, and brain tissue. Plastic is no longer simply polluting our environment; it has become part of our biology.  In an interesting historical tidbit,  the term “microplastics “was coined in 2004 by British marine biologist Professor Richard Thompson.

But this isn’t just a human story.

Microplastics have been found in practically every corner of the environment scientists have studied—from the deepest ocean trenches and Arctic ice to mountain peaks, agricultural soils, rivers, lakes, rainwater, and the air we breathe. More troubling, they have been detected in countless species: plankton, fish, seabirds, whales, insects, reptiles, livestock, and companion animals. Every living creature depends on clean air, clean water, and healthy ecosystems. Plastic pollution threatens them all.

For those of us who share our lives with dogs, it’s difficult not to wonder what this means for them. Our companions drink water, breathe the same indoor air, walk on synthetic turf and asphalt, chew plastic toys, eat from plastic-lined packaging, and spend their entire lives immersed in the exact same environments we do.

Inside the House: A Conversation with Ziya Tong

To better understand this invisible landscape, I reached out to Ziya Tong—filmmaker, journalist, and recipient of the Order of Canada—to share her insights on how our awareness needs to evolve.

Bianca Kapteyn: Two years after Plastic People was released, what do you most wish people understood about microplastics that they still don’t?

Ziya Tong: “That there are many ordinary household items surrounding us that we tend to forget are plastic: our carpets, teabags, clothing, and so on. It is these ‘disguised’ plastic items that we often need to be most concerned with; while they appear benign, they release an extraordinary amount of microplastics.”

BK: As people who share our homes with dogs and other companion animals, should we be thinking differently about plastic exposure—not out of fear, but out of awareness?

ZT: “Yes. My sister recently changed her rug from a synthetic rug to a natural fiber rug, because her dog has the closest exposure to carpeting. As you saw in the film, synthetic rug fibers shed heavily and can be quite dangerous. I also think it’s important to remember the toys—especially those fluffy ones!—that our animals play with. Many of those ‘stuffies’ are made of plastics, and dogs have them in their mouths constantly.”

The Evolving Science: A Conversation with Dr. Jane Muncke

Tong’s point about indoor shedding and daily exposure is backed by a stark reality: dogs spend their lives close to the floor, where settled microplastic fibers accumulate. To understand how the scientific community’s view of these risks has shifted, I reached out to Dr. Jane Muncke, Managing Director and Chief Scientific Officer at the Food Packaging Forum in Zurich, Switzerland, who shared her insights via email.

BK: Since the release of Plastic People (2024), has the scientific understanding of microplastics and their potential health impacts evolved in meaningful ways?

“Yes, it has. We now know that studying human exposure to micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) is far more challenging than previously thought. We know that humans are exposed—this has been confirmed—but it is still not possible to identify the main sources of exposure, and what the levels in humans are.

We know now that the normal and intended use of plastic food contact materials can lead to the migration of micro- and nanoplastics. We know now that some types of MNPs do cause adverse effects, such as disruption of the immune system. But there are many knowledge gaps and, importantly, no regulatory requirements to reduce the generation of MNPs from the normal and intended use of plastics. Instead of waiting for more research—which may take years—we recommend mitigating exposures.”

BK: For those of us who share our homes with dogs and other companion animals, should we be thinking differently about plastic pollution and its broader implications for animal and environmental health?

DM: “Yes, there is an interesting twist to this, and it has to do with chemical risk assessment. In the past, chemicals were often tested using animals, because they cannot be tested directly in humans. Public sentiment to move away from animal testing for new chemicals has been very strong, but this has put us in an unfortunate predicament—because new synthetic chemicals are being placed on the market now without adequate safety testing.

This means that both humans AND animals are exposed to chemicals that have not properly been assessed for their adverse health impacts. The goal should be to reduce animal testing AND to prevent the placing on the market of new, untested chemicals, and ensure the removal of unsafe chemicals that are already on the market. For this, we need relevant scientific research, and we need policymakers who are willing to put human AND animal health first. Right now, it seems like the economic interests of the plastics industry and of the big food brands who depend on single-use plastic packaging are more relevant.”

By not adequately testing chemicals as is the case today, we are putting both animals and humans at risk. Animals are heavily exposed, and we are seeing consequences like declining fertility. In the UK, the work of Professor Richard Lea has specifically highlighted these ongoing fertility declines in dogs.

Escaping the Overwhelm: Practical Mitigation

After watching this documentary, I made a conscious decision to reduce the amount of plastic entering my own home—making better choices whenever I could. But escaping plastic is incredibly difficult. It’s everywhere: in household products, electronics, clothing, furniture, pet supplies, and even many products marketed as “environmentally friendly.” Avoiding it entirely is simply impossible.

That realization leaves many consumers feeling frustrated. When asked what practical advice she would offer to those wanting to reduce exposure without becoming discouraged, Dr. Muncke offers a grounded approach.

BK: Many people feel overwhelmed because avoiding plastic entirely is nearly impossible. What practical advice would you offer consumers who want to reduce their exposure without becoming discouraged?

DM: “There are some simple steps: reduce plastics where possible—especially in contact with hot foodstuffs and reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods which tend to have higher levels of MNPs and chemicals. For context, a recent Greenpeace report (Tiny Plastics, Big Problem) estimated up to 11,000 microplastics in a single baby food pouch.

Beyond diet, prefer natural fibers for clothing and home textiles, ensure frequent ventilation and vacuum cleaning, and consider using HEPA filters.”

Moving the Industry Forward

While individual choices protect our immediate households, systemic changes are required to prevent plastic waste from becoming environmental pollution in the first place.

This July, the Pet Sustainability Coalition (PSC), in partnership with rePurpose Global, launched its 2026 Plastic Recovery July campaign. This initiative brings together pet brands, manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and retailers to fund verified plastic recovery projects around the world. The campaign supports ethical recovery systems that intercept plastic waste before it reaches rivers, oceans, coastlines, and communities, where it would eventually fragment into the very microplastics now threatening global health.

Last year’s campaign successfully recovered more than 92,000 pounds of plastic while supporting more than 1,000 waste workers and helping protect vulnerable ecosystems like coral reefs and mangrove forests. This year’s effort aims to expand that footprint, supporting projects ranging from protecting whale breeding grounds along Colombia’s Pacific coast to strengthening women-led waste collection networks in India.

A Choice for the Future

No single campaign will solve the plastic crisis. Neither will one family refusing plastic bags or replacing a few food containers. But meaningful change rarely begins with one grand gesture. It begins with thousands of individuals—and organizations—choosing to act.

As dog lovers, we inherently understand stewardship. We pick up after our dogs because we care about our communities. We advocate for better breeding, training, nutrition, rescue, and responsible ownership because we believe our choices matter. Perhaps it’s time to extend that same proactive thinking to the material that has quietly infiltrated every corner of our lives.

Our dogs cannot choose the environment they inherit.

We can.