 |
| V. Victoria Shroff |
Today’s paper was written by Marisa Benjamin, a recent graduate of the University of Toronto who studied under professor Angela Fernandez. Her paper examines plastic pollution in relation to wild animal rights and interests and is titled, “Animals vs. the Plastics Industry: Tracing the Challenges of Protecting Wild Animals from Plastics Pollution.”
I believe it’s time to classify plastics as persistent, bio accumulative and toxic pollutants. As I wrote in Canadian Animal Law (Lexis Nexis, 2025, pg. 587), “Federal environmental regulatory developments and court cases are ongoing pitting the plastics industry against health of humans and animals. Scientific studies clearly show the deleterious toxic effect of plastics on animals and humans.”
Artis777: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
I asked Marisa Benjamin the following four questions about her animal law research findings, and she responded as follows:
VVS: Why did you choose this particular animal law topic?
MB: I have been concerned about plastic pollution and its impact on wild animals for some time now. I’ve explored the topic through many different angles, but writing this paper was my opportunity to consider it from the perspective of wild animals’ rights and interests. There’s still so much we don’t know about the long-term impact of plastic pollution, but all the research I’ve seen unambiguously points to the following: (a) wild animals are severely impacted, (b) the harms to animals’ bodies and ecosystems are likely irreversible, and (c) the problem will not go away on its own. Writing about the topic allowed me to parse out what we know about plastic pollution’s impact on wild animals, what we are doing about it and what still needs to be done in Canada and internationally.
VVS: What gap in existing animal law scholarship does your paper address?
MB: My paper considers who is/who should be legally responsible for protecting wild animals from the plastics threat. When I started to research this topic, I learned that legal responsibility for wild animals’ rights to an unpolluted environment is unresolved in both animal law and environmental law. This is true within Canada and globally. Plastic pollution doesn’t care about borders, so intervening in the crisis ought to be a global, collective concern. And yet we still lack a clear answer within international law as to how to take accountability for wild animals’ interests when legislating across all stages of the plastic pollution lifecycle (production, to consumption, to waste management).
VVS: How does your analysis move beyond descriptive discussion to offer a normative or doctrinal contribution to animal law?
MB: I reviewed current and proposed Canadian and international legal frameworks for regulating plastics. I grounded my analysis of these frameworks in an understanding that they had to realistically account for industry opposition. Regulation of plastic is heavily influenced by oil and gas giants because plastic, as a product, is a breadwinner for the industry. Knowing that combatting plastic pollution is highly contested was the angle I used to take a realistic view of what has happened, why it happened and what can be done next.
VVS: If your paper could influence future litigation or legislation, what practical change do you envision?
MB: If my paper can do anything for future litigation or legislation, I would want it to instruct nation states to take accountability for protecting wild animals’ rights and interests even though that will cause countries to be in opposition to the oil and gas industry. Wild animals are directly impacted by this crisis, but they have been made to be silent stakeholders. Oil and gas companies are too powerful, so it is going to require equal or stronger power from nation states to legislate plastics with wild animals in mind. There is no downside to this approach: both non-human and human animals are suffering because of plastic pollution, so legislating with wild animals in mind will benefit humans, too.
Working conclusion
Marisa Benjamin’s animal law research paper highlights the pressing and frequently overlooked relationship between omnipresent plastic pollution and the rights and interests of wild animals. By examining the gaps in both animal law and environmental law, her work underscores the need for clearer legal responsibility and stronger regulatory frameworks addressing plastic and pollution across their entire lifecycle.
This paper reminds us that industry needs to be held accountable for the long-term toxic damage and consequences that their actions are having. Marisa shared that many individuals, herself included, feel somewhat helpless in the face of combatting plastic pollution and how we “have been fed propaganda that it is up to us to recycle, use sustainable materials at home and avoid plastic straws. But the truth is our personal impact as consumers is minuscule compared to what industry is doing.”
We need long-term thinking as these problems will not go away overnight. Countries must confront the seemingly unbridled power of toxic polluting industries and refuse to allow corporate interests to dictate legal and environmental policy.
Governments should legislate with wild animals, ecosystems and future generations in mind, not the short-term profits of plastic producers. Protecting wildlife from plastic and other pollution is not simply an animal law or environmental concern; it is an ethical and legal obligation shared by all countries.
For decades, powerful industries have externalized the true cost of plastic and other pollution, leaving wildlife and ecosystems to pay the price. This must end. Stronger international cooperation, binding regulations on pollution and strict accountability for producers are essential to stop the flow of plastic and other pollutants into natural habitats. Voluntary pledges and industry self-regulation have proven insufficient to curb the problems. Lawmakers must enact and enforce robust laws that limit plastic production, mandate sustainable materials and hold corporations financially and legally responsible for the environmental damage they cause. Polluters must no longer be allowed to evade responsibility while wildlife suffers the consequences.
Protecting biodiversity requires legislative courage and international cooperation to stand up to powerful industrial interests. By prioritizing sustainable materials, responsible consumption and enforceable regulation, societies can safeguard wildlife, restore ecosystems and ensure a livable planet for generations to come. And if you as a reader have ideas for how to hold big plastic accountable, please reach out.
Side note: For those interested in getting up to speed on all things animal law, including the future of animal law, please check out CLEBC’s April 1 Animal Law webinar.
V. Victoria Shroff, K.C., is one of Canada’s first and longest-serving animal law practitioners and the longest-serving in B.C. Shroff practises animal law in Vancouver at Shroff and Associates. She is also an adjunct professor of animal law at UBC’s Allard School of Law and faculty, Capilano University. Shroff is an associate fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. Recognized locally and internationally as an animal law expert, she is frequently interviewed by the media. The second edition of her book, Canadian Animal Law, was published in 2025 and is available at LexisNexis Canada. www.shroffanimallaw.com | LinkedIn.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.