Loneliness and isolation – the hidden threat to health we cannot ignore
Around the world, an invisible threat is increasing the risk of disease, shortening lives and fraying the fabric of our communities. Social disconnection — when a person lacks sufficient social contact, feels unsupported in their existing relationships or experiences negative or strained connections — is an increasingly serious but often overlooked danger to health and well-being. There are several forms of social disconnection, including loneliness and social isolation.
Today, about one in six people globally report feeling lonely. Among adolescents and young adults, as well as people living in low-income countries, the rate is higher. But loneliness and social isolation are not just emotional states — they can be lethal. From 2014 to 2019, loneliness was associated with more than 871,000 deaths annually — equivalent to 100 deaths an hour.
We now have irrefutable evidence that social health — our ability to form and maintain meaningful human connections — is just as essential to our well-being as physical and mental health. Yet for too long, it has been ignored by health systems and policymakers alike.
The
Humans are hardwired for connection. From our earliest years, relationships shape our brains, our emotions and our chances of living a healthy life. Conversely, disconnection, whether through loneliness or social isolation, can have devastating effects. It increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, depression, anxiety, dementia and premature death. It can also result in poor school and work performance, and costs economies and societies billions a year.
But the good news is that solutions exist. The commission's report outlines interventions that work — from national policies and community programmes to campaigns and individual support strategies. It highlights a range of successful examples: peer-to-peer support for low-income older people in South Africa; 'social prescribing' of activities to older adults in the Republic of Korea such as music storytelling, gardening and self-help groups; integrating social connection into broader development policy in Djibouti; embedding it as part of ageing policies in Albania and in mental health policy in Spain; establishing dedicated national strategies in countries such as Denmark, Germany, Japan, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden; and campaigns to encourage small acts of kindness in Australia, Great Britain and the United States.
We call on all countries to prioritise social connection.
This is not only about personal health and well-being. It is also a cornerstone of economic prosperity, national resilience and social cohesion. Societies that foster trust and connection are more innovative, more secure and better able to respond to crises. The Covid-19 pandemic brought this truth into stark relief. As lockdowns forced physical separation, the human need for connection became unmistakable — and so did the costs of its absence.
The WHO Commission proposes a global roadmap built around five key pillars: policy, research, interventions, measurement and engagement.
The key actions it calls for are to develop national policies that integrate social connection into health, education and labour agendas; invest in research to better understand what works; scale up culturally relevant and cost-effective interventions; collect better data to track the problem and measure progress; and build a global movement to change attitudes and reduce stigma.
It is critical that this movement include the voices of those who have endured the pain of loneliness and social isolation because they understand what real solutions look like.
As leaders, we cannot afford to remain passive. Every day we delay is another day of lost potential, unnecessary suffering and preventable death. But if we act boldly, collaboratively and compassionately, and on a large scale, we can build healthier, more connected and more resilient societies.
Social health is not a luxury. It is a human need. And it must be a political priority.
is the director-general of the World Health Organisation;
is the co-chair of the WHO Commission on Social Connection, adviser on youth and women to the chair of the African Union; and
is the co-chair of the WHO Commission on Social Connection, and was the 19th and 21st surgeon general of the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
2 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
The warning labels that could be coming for your crisps
Decrypting the nutritional label on your favourite packaged food products might get easier sometime soon. But that doesn't mean you're going to like what it's going to say. (UNSPLASH) 'It's sort of hidden.' That's how 30-year-old Elvina Moodley describes the nutritional labels on the back of packaged food products stacked on grocery store shelves. 'When you're there, you're already in a rush and don't have the time to look at the small print on the back to see how much sugar or salt is in an item.' Moodley, like many South Africans, says she's never really understood how nutritional tables — the per serving amounts of calories, But big, bold triangle warning labels on the front of packages could mean making healthy choices will be a lot easier. South Africa's draft food labelling It would work, says Edzani Mphaphuli, executive director of the childhood nutrition nonprofit 'You might not know why smoking causes cancer, but when you see the label, you start to think, 'Okay, this might not be good for me,'' she says. 'But [many people] don't know that sugar causes cancer or that obesity is related to cancer. We just think about it as, 'I'm big,' and it ends there. There isn't a clear link that is made around that and hypertension (high blood pressure) and diabetes, and all of the other chronic diseases.' Why labels are hard to read Many familiar foods — from noodles and breakfast cereals to Currently, food labels in South Africa Even when it does appear, it's often in small writing and uses terms and measurements that an ordinary shopper would not understand, says Makoma Bopape, a nutrition researcher and lecturer at the 'It tells you how much of certain nutrients you get in, say, 100ml or in a serving size. But if you don't have a nutritional science [background] it's hard to know what that means.' That's why some countries have started to These labels help shoppers compare products, but they can also confuse them. A UK government A Chile warning Not all front-of-pack labels are equal. Research shows that clear warning signs that simply say the food is 'high in' sugar, salt or saturated fats are Chile was the first country to The result? After the regulations were enacted, Chileans bought In 2021, Chilean researchers Yet obesity rates continued to In France, manufacturers use what's called South Africa will use a similar system to Chile, but the label will come in the shape of a triangle. The warnings will cover between 10% and 25% of the front of the package, will be black on a white background and will be located in the top right corner. They will have the words 'high in' and 'warning' in bold, uppercase letters, next to an exclamation mark and an icon to represent the nutrient. This will help make the warning easier for people who can't read or don't speak English to understand. Because each nutrient will have its own warning symbol, if a product is high in more than one nutrient — or has any artificial sweeteners at all — a single package could carry up to four warning icons. 'They just want to fill their tummies' Still, what people — and their children — eat isn't always up to them, says Mphaphuli. 'Some parents can only afford cheap food that fills up the family the quickest, which limits their choice in what they consume.' In Most of these households are located outside of the metropolitan areas, where healthy, 'If in your spaza shop one apple costs the same as a bottle of highly concentrated juice that can be shared across days, you're going to go for the cheaper thing.' When people don't have enough types of food to choose from, they 'People say, 'At the beginning of the month, when I still have money, I get worried and I pay attention to what I buy. But as the month goes by, I just buy whatever I can afford,'' explains Bopape. 'They just want to fill their tummies.' Clear labelling alone won't be enough to reduce unhealthy eating, says Bopape. Warning signs need to go hand in hand with other policies such as sugar taxes, restrictions on advertising and the selling of unhealthy foods in and around schools. Moodley wishes healthy foods were more reasonably priced. But the warning labels will at least 'help us know what we're getting ourselves into'. This story was produced by the . Sign up for the .
Mail & Guardian
2 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
Plastic pollution a global health emergency, says Lancet report
Plastics cause disease and deaths, from infancy to old age and are responsible for health-related economic losses exceeding $1.5 trillion annually. Plastics are a grave, growing and under-recognised danger to human and Plastics cause disease and deaths, from infancy to old age and are responsible for health-related economic losses exceeding $1.5 trillion annually. These effects fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations, particularly babies and children, said the The Lancet on the eve of the expected final round of talks to conclude a The mandate for The report says the Given that less than 10% of plastic is recycled and waste can persist in the environment for decades, an estimated eight billion tonnes of plastic waste, or 80% of all the plastic ever made, now pollutes the planet. 'Yet, continued worsening of plastics' harms is not inevitable. Similar to air pollution and lead, plastics' harms can be mitigated cost-effectively by evidence-based, transparently tracked, effectively implemented and adequately financed laws and policies.' In parallel with the finalisation of the global plastics treaty, the report also announced the launch of an independent, health-focused global monitoring system — the Lancet Countdown on Health and Plastics. This will develop and track indicators across four domains: production and emissions; exposures; health and interventions and engagement. 'We know a great deal about the range and severity of the health and environmental impacts of plastic pollution across the full lifecycle of plastic,' 'These impacts fall most heavily on vulnerable populations, especially Decision-makers will need access to the best available scientific evidence to guide the implementation and development of the important treaty in the months and years to come, said Margaret Spring, one of the report's co-authors and the co-lead of one of the working groups in the new Lancet countdown. 'The countdown reports will offer a robust, independent and accessible data source that can help to inform development of effective policies addressing plastic pollution at the international, regional, national, sub-national and local levels,' Spring said. The report noted how plastic is the 'defining material of our age' with more than 98% of it made from fossil carbon — gas, oil and coal. Plastics are flexible, durable, convenient and 'perceived to be cheap', it said. They are ubiquitous in modern societies and have supported advances in many fields, including medicine, engineering, electronics and aerospace. 'It is increasingly clear, however, that plastics pose grave, growing and underappreciated dangers to human and planetary health. Moreover, plastics are not as inexpensive as they appear and are responsible for massive hidden economic costs borne by governments and societies.' These harms to human and planetary health are worsening, driven mainly by continuing annual increases in the production of new plastics. Early-life exposure to plastics and plastic chemicals is linked to increased risk of miscarriage; prematurity; stillbirth; low birthweight and birth defects of the reproductive organs; neurodevelopmental impairment, impaired lung growth and childhood cancer. 'Early-life exposures to plastic chemicals can contribute to reduced human fertility and increased risks of non-communicable diseases, such as cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease in adult life.' Plastic production is highly energy-intensive and releases more than two gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, and other climate-forcing greenhouse gases, into the atmosphere each year, harming health by accelerating climate change. Every year, an estimated 10 to 12 million tonnes of plastic enter the ocean. 'Many plastics appear to resist breakdown in the ocean and could persist for decades.' Microplastic and nanoplastic particles, which result from the breakdown of larger plastic materials, are an emerging threat to health. While their effects are still incompletely understood, more studies report the presence of microplastics in multiple human tissues and are 'beginning to link it to disease'. The report said that, in 2015, the health-related costs of plastic production amounted to almost $600 billion globally — more than the GDP of New Zealand or Finland. 'Chemicals in plastics, such as PBDE ( These estimates undercount the full costs of plastic-related health damages because they examine only a few countries and only a subset of plastic chemicals. 'The costs are externalised by fossil fuel and plastic manufacturing industries and borne by governments and taxpayers.' A key driver of the acceleration in plastic output is a pivot by fossil fuel corporations and nations that are the major producers of plastic and petrochemicals, in response to declining demand for fossil energy, the report said. 'For example, the Saudi Arabian Oil Company plans to channel about one third of its oil production to plastics and petrochemicals by 2030 and Shell has recently opened a new cracking plant in western Pennsylvania, USA, that will transform fracked gas from Appalachia into plastic pellets.'
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
New WWF report unveils alarming links between plastics and human health
Reducing plastic pollution is central to reducing the overall toxic burden on people and the planet and mitigating its far-reaching health and ecological consequences. Proving causality in public health is rarely straightforward, and plastics are no exception. But a comprehensive synthesis of the latest scientific literature (about 200 studies) by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the University of Birmingham has cast the spotlight on this complex and evolving field. The WWF literary synthesis, Plastics, Health, and One Planet: An Evidence-Based Call for Global Rules, highlights what the latest scientific research reveals about how micro- and nanoplastics, as well as six major groups of toxic chemicals commonly used in plastic products, could be causing a wide range of harm, not just to wildlife, but to us as well. Studies have found that these almost invisible threats could be linked to cancer, infertility, metabolic disorders and lifelong developmental harm. The findings strongly support a One Health approach, recognising that plastic pollution affects humans, animals and ecosystems through shared pathways and vulnerabilities. As world leaders gather to negotiate a global plastic pollution treaty in Geneva from 5 August 2025, they have a responsibility to agree on a treaty that puts the health of our planet, our health and that of future generations first. At this moment in human history we have an enormous opportunity to create change. Here's why it matters. Plastics are leaking into the environment, contaminating ecosystems and harming the animals that live in them. In water, they can be taken up by animals and move through their bodies and food webs, disrupting feeding, physiology and survival. On land, they can harm vital soil organisms, which may undermine soil health and food production. Toxic additives used in plastics have been detected in a wide range of species, from primates to soil-dwelling organisms, indicating widespread ecological exposure. Micro- and nanoplastics can enter the human body by inhalation, ingestion or through the skin. These particles have now been detected in vital human organs such as the lungs, placenta, intestine and even the brain. Recent studies suggest that they may accumulate in the arteries, exacerbating inflammation and potentially increasing the risk of cardiovascular diseases such as heart attacks and strokes. They can transport and release toxic chemicals, which are often introduced during manufacturing to give plastic products specific properties such as flexibility, durability or resistance to heat, fire and UV light. Studies of the toxicological impacts of chemicals added during production, including phthalates, bisphenols, UV stabilisers and alkylphenols, PFAS, flame retardants, as well as metals, metalloids and their compounds, have associated them with increased risk of a wide range of serious health outcomes. The evidence we have at our fingertips about the near-universal and involuntary exposure people, wildlife and nature have to plastic and its added chemicals demand precautionary action. The precautionary principle has guided a number of successful international agreements, such as the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which acted decisively on ozone-depleting substances before the science was fully settled, and thereby prevented millions of cases of skin cancer and facilitated the restoration of the ozone layer. The growing body of evidence, with more than 1,400 studies published since 2018 alone, must serve as a foundation for strong, science-based legislation rooted in the precautionary principle: while research continues to evolve, current evidence justifies decisive action now to minimise future harm. Due to the widespread use of plastics, micro- and nanoplastic particles are now almost omnipresent, found across every part of the planet from oceans, rivers and mountains, to soil, air, indoor environments, food and drinking water. Reducing plastic pollution is central to reducing the overall toxic burden on people and the planet and mitigating its far-reaching health and ecological consequences. The global plastic pollution treaty is our one opportunity to create a robust and effective global response to this worsening global crisis. WWF urges governments and negotiators to deliver a science-based, legally binding treaty that tackles plastic pollution at its roots. Protecting human, animal and environmental health must be a core function of the treaty. To ensure world leaders deliver a treaty that people and nature need, it must include four essential binding global rules that regulate the production and consumption of plastic across its entire lifecycle: Global bans and phase-outs of the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern, starting with an initial ban list; Binding global design requirements for a non-toxic circular economy; A comprehensive and accessible finance package and alignment of financial flows with the treaty's objectives; and Mechanisms for continuous strengthening over time. Decisions made during the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC-5.2) will determine the future for today's children and generations to come. Failure to agree on a strong, binding treaty risks turning a moment of hope into one of irreversible harm. This is a pivotal moment. Inaction now could lead to long-term consequences for people and nature. DM Zaynab Sadan is the Global Plastics Policy Lead for WWF. The lead researcher on the synthesis report is Professor Stefan Krause from the University of Birmingham.
