Quick search shows that we knew about lead hazards as early as the 1920s/1930s, but it took until the 1970s to get regulation about lead paint and gas - hoping we don't repeat that in this case
There’s also no clear definition of microplastics that I’ve seen. Different plastics have different toxicitiy
not always an option and to some this entire concern could be considered a luxury.
Who are you trying to communicate this issue to and what solutions are there that they’d find reasonable until governments address it? If it’s simply “don’t buy plastic” then I understand that I’m out of bounds. Perhaps along with many others.
Nice looking page.
The contamination is so widespread and is in things you can't avoid (like the air) but I have made some lifestyle changes that I hope decrease my exposure at least a little bit. I:
- don't drink water out of plastic bottles
- don't use any plastic dishes at home
- switched from using tupperware for food storage to mason jars
- use bedding made from natural materials (mostly cotton)
- prefer clothing made from cotton as opposed to polyester (exception: some exercise clothing)
- don't eat meat (this was not because of concern about plastic, but I think it's helpful here too)
My family mocks me for this, but I also hold my breath when I clean the lint filter in the dryer, because that cloud of dust that shoots up is, I believe anyway, a whole pile of breathable microplastics.
It's not like there's zero data to inform the risk calculation.
Hence the classic joke “As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data.”
No.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00405-8
(https://web.archive.org/web/20250211144614/https://www.natur... if you need)
Change to what?
It's not that we want to do humans trials. We do it because, apparently, it has been observed that it's unreasonable not to do it before applying something we observed in mice to humans.
I don't know what the most common sources of microplastic particles are, but the messaging needs to be such that people know we aren't getting rid of all plastics, just the stupid ones that are most responsible for potentially harming us. I think straws were banned because there was a video of a plastic straw stuck in sea turtle's nose, not because they're one of the top sources.
[1]: https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sh...
Plastic straws and caps attached to bottles - reason was that there are too many of them and people don’t behave properly and don't throw things in the trash and throw them on the ground where they are eaten by animals. At some British beach they counted >100 caps per 100 m (or something similar, it was a surprising number).
The fact that we haven't found the causal link yet is not proof that there isn't one. And a whole lot of correlation suggests that there is. Why should we not take this as yet another reason to regulate throwaway plastic?
I'd settle for "at all, even a little."
Government is always on your side!
The science linking that to specific outcomes/harm is almost non existent from what I understand.
Edit: to those downvoting - I'm not downplaying anything here, I agree they're concerning and we should be worried - just stating the fact that as far as I know the research on outcomes is very inconclusive at this point.
I know there are still people hanging on in their fields trying to do the right things, but the bullshit engine in DC is so strong now that nothing is believable. If you are working in scientific research in America today, your only career goal needs to be emigration.
And what defines a “microplastic”? There’s so many different types of plastics that all have different effects on the body
What’s really the health trade-off compared to having to monitor every tiny little thing
That's still the case.
>And what defines a “microplastic”? There’s so many different types of plastics that all have different effects on the body
It's not that hard to constrain it to synthetic organic polymers (aka plastics) that are small enough (smaller than 5.0 mm).
Even if there are some exceptions also considered plastics, this already covers 99% of the ones to worry about.
And the effects we worry about are from the presense of millions of hard synthetic micromaterials like that in the bloodstream, organs, and even the brain.
That's enough of a concern for the whole class, before we start to care about them "all having different effects on the body" (which is barely a given).
The inertness alone means boost in inflamattion, damaged cells, etc. Just consider that asbestos is biologically/chemically inert too - the issues come from inflammation, scarring, dna damage, etc.
But (and varying per microplastic case on lots of factors: composition, dyes used, etc), the chemical interaction can also play a role.
There are no "millions" of 5mm plastic pieces in your bloodstream. That's about a rice grain. If there would be even a single one between 5mm and 1mm it would cause an almost immediate obstruction.
Microplastics can be defined as < 5mm (e.g. EPA uses that definition), doesn't mean the larger ones are in the bloodstream, or even less so, the brain.
But such "sizable" ones in the environment can and are be broken down, digested, shed smaller micro- and nanoplastics by the loads, and so on.
I'd say that there's sure a health benefit for continuing studies on microplastics. Even if they're difficult to conduct, it's probably a good idea to learn more aboht microplastics and health because, barring some new way to remove microplastics, it seems likely that the ambient concentration of them will only increase in the future.
this is very much not the same thing as "microplastics cause chronic illness", even though it's worded in a way that clearly wants to make you think that.
The discourse around microplastics is pretty wild. The sport is finding them in random places, often at parts-per-billion or parts-per-trillion levels that we don't really use to look for most other substances. And the implication is essentially "progress bad" or "consumerism bad". No clear evidence of human harm, no realistic policy prescriptions - so what do we expect to happen, exactly? This it not a case of corporate greed or deception.
Our bodies also contain a fair amount of sand. Probably at levels higher than parts-per-billion. Is it bad? Sometimes! Where does the precautionary principle lead us on that?
I think you fail to understand the reality of the problem.
In western countries, plastic "trash" is not really the problem. It's highly visible and it would always be nice to reduce it of course.
The majority of uncontained environmental microplastics comes from vehicle tires and clothing/textiles. Clothing and other textiles (e.g., carpets) being the biggest source, more than 1/3rd. After that it's probably building materials, paints, machinery and factory parts, etc.
Disposal sites and messaging will not do anything. You can be a perfectly compliant goodly consumer who dutifully puts their old clothes in the trash and pays the disposal fees for their old tires or rides busses. You'd still be contributing enormously to environmental microplastic load.
All natural fiber clothes, cycle everywhere, don't wear sneakers or other kind of plastic or synthetic rubber shoes, don't have synthetic carpets or drapes, don't paint your house, etc... now you're starting to get somewhere.
But the machinery required for you to stay alive, moving goods and services around, pumping your water, people going to work to keep your electricity on, package your food, etc... all still pumping out microplastics.
Disposal and messaging just won't cut it. And without a bunch of astounding and vanishingly unlikely breakthroughs, getting rid of microplastics from the top 4-5 sources will make net zero CO2 look like a walk in the park. Therefore we have to accept microplastics at enormous scale and work with that. Not to say we shouldn't attempt to reduce it where possible of course we should, but it won't be reduced to insignificant. So I think what needs to be done is well funded research into the effects of existing and new types of plastics, and into new materials and techniques for cleanup or containment. That way we have a chance to discover and limit or ban the worst of the worst before they can become too pervasive.
As far as reduction goes, possibly some small incentives to avoid plastics in consumer items (clothes, carpets, etc) might help. The messaging really can not be the same idiotic and counterproductive alarmism and blame and guilt campaigns led by wealthy private jet and mega yacht owning billionaires of the climate change debacle. Just gently make people aware they could look for natural fiber clothes, perhaps modest and commensurate added costs on plastics manufacturers to fund this research and containment, etc.
> One 2023 study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found that microwaving plastic food containers releases more than 2 billion nanoplastics (smaller microplastics) and 4 million microplastics for every square centimeter of the container.
https://www.prevention.com/health/a65025549/can-you-microwav...
A principal concern is ingestion of microplastics via food packaging, utensils, cookware, etc. There are non-plastic substitutions available for many of these items, and a precautionary approach would be to regulate to require them, where it is economically feasible, until such time as the effects of microplastic ingestion are better understood.
And the time to do it is … very soon.
We do not have this luxuary with plastic. Controlled groups are not possible, asking that risks inherent to micro-plastics in human body are proven is therefore impossible.
To compare back to vaccines, it would be like vaccinating very single human, with a vaccine which is not tested and which purpose is unknown. Then asking someone to scientifically prove that this vaccine causes health problems as a condition to stop systematically vaccinating every single human.
The reason more microplastics in unhealthy tissue doesn't necessarily mean microplastics cause unhealthy tissue is that unhealthy tissue would be worse at removing substances irrespective of whether the substances cause the harm.
All microplastics out in the open will degrade to nanoplastics at some point, and those find it much easier to infiltrate the human body. They penetrate the blood-brain barrier.
This leads me to believe that it's literally impossible to avoid. The air/water supply must be getting more poluted by the minute with these things
[1] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/an/d4an0137...
55x for BPA? It's pretty annoying how wide an umbrella term microplastics are.
Would you like me to expand on the reasons endocrine-disruptions are the bigger risk? Or would you like me to explore other ways in which microplastics might be dangerous to your health?
On the other hand, as other commenters mention, a lot of the studies on microplastics are sloppily done and the conclusions are overreaching. These toxicology studies are certainly not up to the standard of the safety studies that are run on pharmaceuticals. The question is if they need to be in order for us to take action on microplastics. Personally, I think the risk/reward ratio is now clearly in favor of taking action on microplastics, even if I have some problems with the studies and I'm not as confident as the OP.
There is no avoiding it. We are all surrounded by plastics in the air, water, soil, etc.
pashmini•2mo ago