It's very hard to maintain a mental ranked list of health things to be worried about when hypothetical concerns get more attention/coverage the confirmed ones.
"despite no(?) evidence of harm"
If you look up most of the chemicals on the list, all of them have suspected health impacts and the most have been confirmed to be harmful in some degree or another.
For example:
DEHP - Endocrine disruption, disruptor of thyroid function, Ingestion of 0.01% caused damage to the blood-testis barrier... etc
I came here to be explained to how eating plastic is not only not bad, but actually good for you. And HN, as always, did not disappoint, like the other day when a guy here explained to me that lead is good for you and iron is poison, and if I disagree I should prove it to him.
> findings in models show inflammation, cell death, lung and liver effects, changes in the gut microbiome, and altered lipid and hormone metabolism.
Microplastics aren't anywhere near as well understood as sugar or alcohol. There's a growing body of research associating them with negative health outcones, inluding observing them causing harm on a cell level (i.e. not just correlational studies).
It's definitely not true that there isn't evidence of harm. There's a lot. It's more that this is a new field of research and not yet fully understood.
Cheap, ubiquitous plastics have revolutionized every industry (tools, food, automotive, etc...). We wouldn't be able to consume anywhere close to current level without them.
Not saying that's a good thing. But giving up plastics (not just in our personal life, but across the entire supply chain we rely on) would probably be harder for the average American than giving up alcohol for a drunk.
Yeah giving up plastic would be hard but we have to _start_ pushing it in the right direction. A person in 2025 might find it basically impossible to avoid microplastics but if we make changes now someone in 2040 might be able to do it
Yes but the worry is that it a significant amount doesn't pass through us and gets stuck inside our bodies. Not only our bodies, but animals and plants also. Plastics don't occur naturally and thus evolution has not provided life with a way of dealing with it. If you ignore the problem you're just going to end up with more and more microplastics in the environment and we don't know the long term risks, we've only been using plastics at scale for a couple of decades. We used to think asbestos, cigarettes, radium, pfas, leaded gasoline, cfk, etc was all fine and good and only found out about the adverse effects after prolonged exposure.
I think this new microplastic-in-food hysterics is just another way to milk money on "microplastic free" badges/tags: selling usual items under new "MPF" brand with increased costs.
Sugar and alcohol have had decades of attention and public health campaigns. HN doesn't care because it's not new or interesting news and they are fairly easy to avoid.
Can the conclusion of ‘no risk’ be supported by ‘no data’? One of the common pitfalls in critical thinking is to neglect the logic that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The ‘having plastic particles in your body is safe’ conclusion conjures up a classic error known as the ‘appeal to ignorance’ fallacy Locke (1690), which is, ‘there is no evidence against x. Therefore x is true.’ This type of statement has no place in rational thinking. Note that to propagate claims of this type is to unduly shift the burden of proof onto those seeking conclusive evidence.
...
The European Environment Agency’s two Late Lessons from Early Warnings reports (European Environment Agency, 2013, European Environment Agency, 1896-2000) highlighted the danger. The reports analyze the impact of past inaction (or action) on environmental damage caused by, for example, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and public health issues generated by exposure to asbestos or diethylstilbestrol (DES). Each case is deconstructed to identify patterns leading to delays in appropriate decision making. The insights led to recommendations regarding how to respond to new warnings with the precautionary principle, i.e. to act to reduce potential harm as the preliminary signs of harm are still arising. It is interesting to note that the EEA had difficulty in identifying any cases of overregulation of a pollutant that had turned out to be benign when all the science was in. Most early warnings turn out to be legitimate. The costs of inaction are often drastically underestimated (European Environment Agency, 2013).
"Where is the evidence that human exposure to microplastics is safe?", HA Leslie, MH Depledge, Environ Int. 2020 Jun 26;142:105807.
It's very hard to maintain a mental ranked list of health things to be worried about when hypothetical concerns get more attention/coverage the confirmed ones.