Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

by ibbih • 8 months ago

121 67 8 months ago

pashmini• 8 months ago

We’ve seen it with lead, asbestos, and PFAS — decades of denial, then belated regulation, then generations living with the consequences. The only difference is timing —and whether you wait for policy to catch up or act on what the science already shows. Think it’s time to push for more studies on the health consequences of microplastics

cmuguythrow• 8 months ago

I have often wondered why the government doesn't do anything about this. Is the science not clear enough yet?

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

goelbab2• 8 months ago

It’s hard for science to prove because there’s no control group - everyone is exposed.

There’s also no clear definition of microplastics that I’ve seen. Different plastics have different toxicitiy

ibbih4• 8 months ago

It's a bit too much of an umbrella term for regulation to fix in one swoop, but if i were alive in the 50s and had the internet i simply would not buy lead-paint.

coldtea4• 8 months ago

Science works with cases with no control groups all the time

SeanAppleby• 8 months ago

Animal studies seem like the best tool for untangling this, and they indicate that high plastic doses cause a variety of health effects, some of which seem to align with broad health trends we see in our population over time, like in fertility.

It's not like there's zero data to inform the risk calculation.

tshaddox2• 8 months ago

For what it’s worth, you don’t need a randomized controlled trial if you can offer an explanation for how microplastics affect human health.

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.”

raincole• 8 months ago

Is the science not clear enough yet

No.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00405-8

(https://web.archive.org/web/20250211144614/https://www.natur... if you need)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39900298/

ibbih4• 8 months ago

Are the mouse studies not worrying enough for you to change your behaviour?

rocqua2• 8 months ago

How well does the link need to be proven before we act?

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?

pohl2• 8 months ago

Plastics are largely a petroleum product, right? That particular resource extraction industry pretty much has a lock on public policy.

nullorempty• 8 months ago

I have often wondered why the government doesn't do anything about this. Is the science not clear enough yet?

Government is always on your side!

p1necone• 8 months ago

The science is very clear on microplastics existing and being in our bodies.

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.

rose-knuckle17• 8 months ago

If the current US government started doing anything about it right now, i would immediately regard it as 100% horseshit. America won't be in any position to lead ... anything scientific, medical or even thoughtful for a generation or two, at least.

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.

113• 8 months ago

Governments aren't doing much about climate change and the science is very clear on that.

goelbab2• 8 months ago

Many of these microplastic studies [1-9] rely on small sample sizes (e.g., n=10 for brain tissue) and detection methods that could pick up contamination from lab equipment itself. It reminds me of when everyone was afraid of BPA

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

coldtea4• 8 months ago

It reminds me of when everyone was afraid of BPA

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).

rocqua2• 8 months ago

Do you happen to know whether the worry is about the inertness of microplastics, and hence the physical damage of the particles. Or is it in the plastics being chemically interactive with tissue?

krisoft• 8 months ago

smaller than 5.0 mm

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.

WastedCucumber• 8 months ago

What’s really the health trade-off compared to having to monitor every tiny little thing

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.

notatoad• 8 months ago

In diseased tissue samples of people with chronic illnesses (IBD [6], Dementia [7], heart disease [8]), microplastic prevalence is significantly higher than healthy tissue.

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.

pohl2• 8 months ago

Does it need to be the same thing, though, before we consider actions the Precautionary Principle might point toward?

chemotaxis• 8 months ago

And where does it point toward? Other some untenable position such as "ban all plastics", which may very well produce more harm?

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?

mr_toad• 8 months ago

I don't think there's any more room for not considering underestimating the importance of beginning to start the process-of mulling over the conceptualisation of starting to worry.

And the time to do it is … very soon.

tshaddox2• 8 months ago

The precautionary principle is bad epistemology and shouldn’t be used to argue in opposition to anything. If we’re considering actions to ban or reduce microplastics it should be backed by a reasoned explanation for why we should do so.

boudin2• 8 months ago

It's saying that there could be a link and a link has been found on mice. That and the fact that the human body is not supposed to be running partially on plastic should trigger some actions.

mcswell• 8 months ago

Exactly the same argument could be (and unfortunately, has been) made about vaccines. For all we know, microplastics could be making us healthier. I don't believe that's true, and I'm avoiding plastic where I can, but the fact that we have it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad.

quirkot• 8 months ago

it took me a minute to parse that sentence also. They are saying that health tissue makes up < 100% of the body, but that microplastics can be found in a full 100% of the body (healthy and non-healthy). Therefore microplastic prevalence > healthy tissue. It's saying that there is no part of the body that isn't impacted

equinoxnemesis• 8 months ago

I think it's saying there's more microplastics in unhealthy than healthy tissue is all, your interpretation is technically possible but phrasing it that way would be so misleading as to basically be lying.

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.

enether• 8 months ago

Aren't nanoplastics a larger concern?

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

HPsquared2• 8 months ago

I wonder if plastics, being non-polar, might accumulate in organs which are a bit on the "oily" side - the liver, adipose tissue, and the brain.

tigershen23• 8 months ago

Any thoughts on the temperature of plastics? Looks like a takeout container at 95C (soup, for example) can release 50% more particles than at 50C [1], but how much of overall ingestion comes from this source? Several friends of mine avoid takeout for this reason, is that rational?

[1] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/an/d4an0137...

ibbih4• 8 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTzw_grLzjw&t=427s

55x for BPA? It's pretty annoying how wide an umbrella term microplastics are.

pinko• 8 months ago

I've been having a good time chatting with Deep Research LLMs about this. The bottom line, for me, is that the risks of hot plastic -- to me as an adult, in, say, micromorts -- are dwarfed by the (also small but much larger) cancer risks of grilling steak all the time, so it's irrational for me to worry much about it. The endocrine-disruption risks to my teenage daughter, however, are less understood and make it worth avoiding too much hot plastic in our lives.

breakingcups2• 8 months ago

You're absolutely right — the risk of endocrine-disruption is much more dangerous and is being ignored by the majority of the population. What an insightful take!

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?

klevertree1• 8 months ago

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think microplastics, and the chemicals that leach from them, plasticizers, are incredibly serious issues. In fact, my company, NeutraOat (neutraoat.com), is creating a modified oat fiber supplement to trap plasticizers in the gut and remove them from the bloodstream.

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.

seethishat• 8 months ago

Saying, "I avoid plastic products" is kind of like saying "I never smoke" while sitting in a room filled with people smoking.

There is no avoiding it. We are all surrounded by plastics in the air, water, soil, etc.

magarnicle• 8 months ago

Surrounded is very much the word, depending on what type of clothing you are wearing.

metalman• 8 months ago

there are no arguments that propose the health benifits of micro plastics......

Microplastics: No longer a "maybe"

Related Stories