
Visualising the amount of microplastic we eat - T-zex
https://graphics.reuters.com/ENVIRONMENT-PLASTIC/0100B4TF2MQ/index.html
======
rmah
The Reuters article is based on an article published by the WWF about a study
they commissioned at the U. of Newcastle (Australia). Press release is here
([https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?348337](https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?348337))
and the summary is here
([https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxvyl3v5s9d0a1v/PLASTIC%20INGESTIO...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/nxvyl3v5s9d0a1v/PLASTIC%20INGESTION%20Web%20spreads.pdf)).
If I'm reading this right, the study itself was a analysis of 50 other
studies, not original work. A brief about the methodology is here
([https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/plastic-
inges...](https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/plastic-ingestion-by-
people-could-be-equating-to-a-credit-card-a-week/how-much-microplastics-are-
we-ingesting-estimation-of-the-mass-of-microplastics-ingested)).

And, given the language "people could be ingesting...", "suggests people are
consuming...", I'm a bit suspicious of the numbers given. The study itself is
said to be under review for publication and has been for over six months now.
Anyone know if that's a long time, normal or short?

Not sure if this matters, but the naive math doesn't really work... they say
"about 2000 pieces a week" and that they were "fibers", and "about 5 grams".
The pieces are stated to be < 1mm in size. Assuming an average of 1mm x 0.1mm
x 0.1mm "fibers" (rather large IMO), that's 20 cu mm or 0.02cc. Given
plastic's density that's 0.03g, not 5g. I wonder if someone misplaced a
decimal point or confused mg with g.

~~~
professorTuring
Not long ago I watched a tv show from Spain that wanted to make some awareness
about this topic. They bought some fish and prawns and more seafood that
should contain "lots of microplastics".

They took all of it to a laboratory and the laboratory found nothing at all.
The presenter told the audience that it was surprising for him, and that they
thought that the results were a letdown for the purpose of the documentary but
that it was "good news" that we can still enjoy food without microplastics...

I would say that the results will vary vastly depending on the place you
obtain the samples, but anyway, we should change our relationship with
plastic...

~~~
mekoka
So we eat tons of the stuff every year. Now what? Try searching for "what
happens to ingested microplastic". To kill the suspense, most everyone looking
to scare you with huge numbers also seem to avoid answering that more
interesting question. But from the small amount of information that I could
gather, I suspect that the answer is too big of a let down (figuratively and
literally) to make interesting news. Happy trails to all looking for answers.

~~~
OnlineGladiator
Everything I've heard is microplastics can cause infertility.

[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/06/can-plastics-
cause-i...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/06/can-plastics-cause-
infertility)

[https://environmentjournal.online/articles/microplastic-
poll...](https://environmentjournal.online/articles/microplastic-pollution-
number-one-threat-to-humankind/)

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/24/toxic-
americ...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/24/toxic-america-
sperm-counts-plastics-research)

None of this is conclusive, but there's more and more evidence that
microplastics might be causing serious reproductive issues in humans.

------
inertiatic
I wish I had more options to consume less plastic.

I'm pretty sure most of the plastic I use doesn't get recycled for various
reasons, although I can estimate 90% of it by weight I do put in the proper
recycling can.

I also care enough to avoid plastic if given a reasonable alternative.

However for a bunch of consumer goods there is no reasonably priced
alternative.

I wish I could vote with my wallet and spend a significant (but not
prohibitive) percentage more for detergent or shampoo or whatever in another
container.

I can't help but feel like policy could help here.

~~~
mumblemumble
For shampoo, I'd recommend going with a solid bar. They're hard to find
outside of health food stores and the like, but oftentimes you can find them
being sold with only a simple paper wrapping for packaging, and a $5-10 bar
will easily last many times longer than bottled shampoo as long as you're
keeping it somewhere where it can get a chance to dry out between showers.
Conditioner is trickier; I've yet to find a solid conditioner that I like.

For detergents, we've recently switched to Dropps for both laundry and dish
detergent, and I've been quite happy. It's mail order, so not zero packaging,
but about as low as you can get, and they put some thought into designing a
box that's easy to re-use.

For dry foods, if there's a grocery store that sells in bulk in your area,
that can make a big difference. We made some cheap muslin bags that we take to
the store when we're stocking up; most food co-ops and Whole Foods will let
you provide a tare weight so you don't have to pay an extra $0.10 for the
weight of the bag. People like to malign Whole Foods for being expensive, but
their bulk section tends to be priced comparably to packaged options at
traditional grocery stores.

For razors, double-edge safety razors are an option, but a bit tricky to learn
to shave with. I've found I can also keep a standard Gillette Mach3 cartridge
going for a good 3 months by drying it after each use (and keeping it dry - no
storing in the shower), and "stropping" it on a tea towel before shaves. My
hypothesis is that it's corrosion, not use, that is the main limiter of a
blade's life span.

~~~
remarkEon
>For razors, double-edge safety razors are an option, but a bit tricky to
learn to shave with.

Beyond reducing your plastic footprint, this method of shaving is
_substantially_ cheaper - albeit with some upfront costs. I switched years
ago, and paid about $150 for a nice weighted blade handle, brush, and soap
dish and now I spend maybe $60 a _year_ on new razors and soap. The one draw
back I can think of, aside from the fact that you have to learn how to shave
like your grandfather (which isn't really a drawback, if you ask me) is that
you can't bring these razors through airport security in your carry-on.

~~~
tobias2014
I've switched to a shaving knife/razor a couple of years ago and don't regret
it. The knife maybe needs sharpening once a year or even less if you take care
to use the razor strop before every use. It was a one time investment and now
the costs are $0 (except for soap/gel).

~~~
remarkEon
Yeah, I plan to go full old-school soon. My fiancée's dad does it and while it
takes longer to shave it's quite clearly a) a better, closer shave and b) less
likely to irritate the skin, which I'm prone to.

------
JoeAltmaier
From the article: "but the scientific community is still only scratching the
surface of understanding just how much plastic we consume and how harmful it
could be."

Zero harm, so far. That's phrased like they're racking up lists of harm it
causes. But so far, zero. So 'scratching the surface' means 'haven't found
anything'?

~~~
justin66
> Zero harm, so far. That's phrased like they're racking up lists of harm it
> causes. But so far, zero. So 'scratching the surface' means 'haven't found
> anything'?

They've found an awful lot. They've determined that plastics containing
endocrine-disrupting chemicals for which there's no determined safe dosage are
floating around in our water and food in concentrations that were previously
unsuspected. Determining how much harm that is causing is, necessarily, the
last and most difficult step.

~~~
jjeaff
So, there is a hypothesis that those levels "could" be unsafe, but no
evidence?

~~~
justin66
That's a true but especially obtuse way of looking at things, yes. It would be
more intellectually honest to say that we're still measuring how much damage
these substances are doing to human health.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Again, that's speculation. With not a lot of evidence behind it. Folks have
been using plastics for what? 100 years now? Where's the epidemiological
evidence from that period? Where's the public health crisis?

No, I think this is overblown.

------
rgovostes
It's unlikely that I wouldn't notice eating a piece of plastic the size of a
sesame seed. Maybe occasionally, sure, but I sure notice tiny fish bones or
the slightest bit of grit in clam chowder, or egg shell in a cookie. If I'm
eating a bottle cap worth of plastic a week I would notice on a daily basis.

~~~
inetknght
Microplastics are generally smaller than sesame seed. Think of getting a drink
from fast food in a styrofoam cup. The acidity of tea or, particularly, soda
will eat away the styrofoam into microparticles which you then drink. Tasty
drink, yes?

~~~
icelancer
>> a drink from fast food in a styrofoam cup

This is effectively not a thing in the United States. The war on styrofoam is
nearly complete here.

~~~
hombre_fatal
Maybe in a single oddball city in the USA like Portland (though I would still
be surprised). Unfortunately, styrofoam is alive and well ubiquitously in the
USA outside of whatever bubble you're writing in from.

From the cups stacked at the free coffee booth in the lobby of a bank branch
to the vessel that a pho restaurant will use when you ask to take home the
rest of your soup to the McCafe I just bought this morning.

------
amelius
I'd like to see how much of it doesn't leave our digestive systems.

~~~
k__
This.

Obviously, my grandma isn't 40% plastic.

------
wodenokoto
up to 5mm long pieces are called microplastic. That seems huge to me. I'd
expected microplastic to be microscopic in size.

I was imagining things like plastic molecules wearing off the inside of an
overused water bottle and consumed with the water

~~~
jjeaff
I would definitely notice a 5mm plastic fiber in my food. At least
occasionally.

------
ekianjo
> In our lifetime, 20kg of plastic

Yeah and you can be pretty sure that kind of quantity does not stay in the
human body over 50 years+. So there is a factor of how much is in, and how
much gets out. This, and not all plastics are equal, and some (most?) of
hydrocarbons are fundamentally inert and unreactive and whether or not they
cause harm is a big question mark.

~~~
maerF0x0
The dumpster was a stark and seemingly intentional choice. They're trying to
communicate "we're trashing the planet, and our bodies"

------
velox_io
It would be interesting to see how micro-plastics differ from silica/ sand.
Something most of us have been exposed to, especially if you live near a beach
or other sandy environment.

One thing I do know is that not all sand is alike. There's the normal sand
that has been ground & rounded over millennia and 'sharp sand' used in
construction. Getting normal sand on your skin is a minor annoyance, and I'm
not aware of any real damage if some are inhaled. Sharp-sand is much more
irritating to the skin/ eyes, it feels more like fibreglass than the beach
variety, and I believe the sharp particles are the reason for silicosis as
they are not easily removed by mucus.

It would be interesting to know which category microplastics fall into. You
would think (hope) micro-plastic would be more like the natural 'soft' sand
variety than the more troublesome sharp sand.

------
hateful
Having just watched them movie Dark Waters[1], I'm surprised I hear more about
this than I do of that [2].

That said, while I'm glad that they're doing these studies, I'd like to here
something more conclusive.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_\(2019_film\))
[2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-
who-b...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-
duponts-worst-nightmare.html)

------
GuB-42
Is eating plastic really a problem? Plastic is inert, that's actually the
reason why there is so much of it in the oceans. But it also means that it
should go straight through our body, untouched.

The problem about microplastics seem to be more about its effects on marine
microorganisms than the fact that we are eating them.

~~~
DanBC
The plastic is inert, but the stuff stuck to the plastic might not be safe.
Microplastic is a lot of tiny pieces, which means it has a high surface area.
That can attract pollutants that stick to it.

Also, some of it is pretty small. It can be small enough to enter the
bloodstream when eaten, and we don't know what that will do.

So far we don't know if it's a problem or not.

------
Dirlewanger
Are there any like X-ray/etc. images of microplastics actually accumulating in
peoples' bodies? I know that plastics are a huge problem, and there's been a
lot of talk about microplastics in the past couple years, but I haven't seen
any definitive proof of it being a problem in our bodies.

~~~
throwaway_tech
> but I haven't seen any definitive proof of it being a problem in our bodies.

Plastic can be toxic...see BPA a building block for certain plastics.

BPA is a known endocrine disruptor, and numerous studies have found that
laboratory animals exposed to low levels of it have elevated rates of
diabetes, mammary and prostate cancers, decreased sperm count, reproductive
problems, early puberty, obesity, and neurological problems.

~~~
rb808
> BPA is a known endocrine disruptor, and numerous studies have found that
> laboratory animals...

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said that BPA is safe at the
very low levels that occur in some foods. This assessment is based on review
of hundreds of studies...

[https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-
and-h...](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-
eating/expert-answers/bpa/faq-20058331)

~~~
forgotmypwd123
Sorry, but the FDA isn't really trustworthy to the rest of the world
anymore...

~~~
aaronax
Whose claims DO you believe about BPA, and what are those claims?

------
guelo
I'm more concerned about dissolved plastic residues than the bigger plastic
particles. The particles have more of a chance of passing through your body
untouched. The unstudied plastic residues dissolved in your hot coffee are
much more likely going to be absorbed into your body.

------
huhtenberg
Monsieur Lotito would like to have a word.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito)

------
reeeeee
I wonder what the long term healh implications are going to be...

~~~
onreact
Many types of cancer, infertility, birth defects, damaged DNA as far as I
remember.

~~~
jakemal
Remember from what?

~~~
dqv
Nothing, nothing! OP is _not_ from the future if that's what you're implying.

------
aszantu
I wonder how much that would be on the carnivore diet, if you eat unprocessed,
it's probably less than anyone else consumes in plastic parts.

~~~
aoner
Would be more than a plant based diet since there are more chains in between
where plastic can accumulate (similar to heavy metals in fish)

------
neilwilson
We also consume a great deal of sand, dirt and indigestible organic matter.

The microplastic has been in the environment for a long time - reacting with
the ecosystem and potentially passing through quite a lot of digestive systems
before it gets to us.

The question is whether environmental micro plastic is any more harmful than
the micro quartz crystals we've been digesting and expelling since the dawn of
time.

Trying to trigger the yuck factor with visualisations isn't science. What's
the actual risk here?

~~~
titzer
Microplastics tend to attract other persistent pollutants [1] to their surface
and are linked to endocrine disruptors like BPA which have an undeniably
negative effect on human health. And the fact that microplastics (which
generally used to be macroplastics) have indeed passed through lots of other
digestive systems doesn't make them safer. It means the same microplastic
particles can kill over and over and over [2].

[1] [https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/08/Ocean-
Plastics-S...](https://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/08/Ocean-Plastics-
Soak-Pollutants.html)

[2] [https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/seabirds/laysan-
albatrosses-...](https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/seabirds/laysan-albatrosses-
plastic-problem)

~~~
neilwilson
The first article is full of 'could'. Where's the 'undeniable' bit at the
quantities we're talking about? The second article is large pieces of plastic,
not small pieces?

~~~
titzer
We could have a really long exchange about this but instead I'll just ask you
what you think happens to big pieces of plastic over time. The answer is that
they just keep getting ground down, killing over and over as they work their
way down the foodchain, killing smaller and smaller organisms, until they
eventually end up nanometer-sized. Nothing digests them. Who knows what those
do to individual cells. You should be worried.

~~~
neilwilson
We need to have a long exchange over this. My null-hypothesis - supported by
the evidence you have provided - is that the large plastic is doing the
killing and when it gets small it passes through with little effect - like
grains of sand. Because clearly grains of sand are bigger than nanometer and
they don't block up digestive tracts. The albatross didn't die from endocrine
disruption did it.

That's how science works. From your evidence my null hypothesis is proven.

We _should_ know what it does to individual cells - particularly if we are
creating scare stories around it.

------
devenson
5g of accidental plastic consumption per week sounds bogus to me. No link to
the actual study. Probably BS.

------
knolax
Has there ever been any case studies on people who have deliberately consumed
large quantities of plastic?

------
onreact
Tasty! That's a lot indeed.

Which types of diet contain more plastic than others?

I'm a vegan for example. Does this mean more or less plastic than average?

Which materials do not end up as microplastic? I assume natural fibres don't
but besides them?

~~~
DiabloD3
Are you a vegan that eats an exceedingly safe and clean diet?

Like, I'm pretty strictly Paleo, which means heavy on the whole foods, heavy
on the real ingredients from organic and safe sources, local if possible, the
only major difference between us _should_ be just that I eat meat and you
don't.

Reason I say this is, I know vegans out there who eat fake food because its
vegan... but its still fake food. If you are one of the vegans that eats like
me, people like us should be avoiding most of the plastic in the diet just by
our choices in where the food comes from.

You can't escape it due to the whole "biodegradable/recyclable plastic will
save the world" bullshit movement (which is where most of the microplastic is
coming from, sadly), but we should be avoiding most of it.

~~~
onreact
I guess by fake foods you refer to processed foods etc. but I'm not sure you
are right.

As far as I understand organic fruits and vegetables growing exposed to air
and rain would end up polluted a lot more than indoor farming products for
example.

Eating local also depends on where you live. Apparently most of the
microplastic that is around stems from car tires so that produce farmed near
highways or cities will be more polluted with microplastic than the one they
transport by plane from New Zealand.

------
egdod
The numbers in this article don’t pass the smell test, and there’s no evidence
of harm anyway. The sky is not falling.

