OPINION:
Have you noticed a wave of scary stories about plastics and plastic dust, aka microplastics? Have scientists suddenly found new evidence that plastics are a threat to our health, or is something else going on?
Someone once told me that if you want to understand what’s happening, it’s wise to follow the money. If we do that, we find that so-called green groups are making hundreds of millions and that the media are helping them because scary stories garner clicks, and clicks mean more advertising dollars.
So, there’s certainly a powerful incentive to propagate scary stories, and that would be fully justified, providing that there was a genuine, scientifically proven cause for concern. But is there?
The only way to know for sure is to read all the science. As a career scientist, I can tell you that it is tedious, so hardly anyone is doing it. Another reason that no one is doing it is that there’s no money in showing people facts and evidence, because they tend to be boring in comparison with scary fiction.
So, what does science vs. the media say?
Consumer Reports analyzed common food products for bisphenol A, known as BPA, and phthalates. The media reported these endocrine-disrupting substances are a threat to our health.
The Daily Mail ran this headline: “Startling new report finds hormone-warping chemicals in 99 PERCENT of food sold in American stores — which may raise risk of cancer, autism and infertility.”
Yet the report noted that BPA levels had gone down significantly compared with some years earlier, so regulations on BPA worked. It went on to say: “Regulators in the U.S. and Europe have set thresholds for only bisphenol A (BPA) and a few phthalates, and none of the foods CR tested had amounts exceeding those limits.”
So, why frighten people with a story that talks about potential danger when there is little to none? Because scaring people is profitable, that’s why. Analysis methods are so sensitive now that we can detect one-millionth of 1 part per million of anything.
But detecting something does not mean there’s a threat. We must compare the amounts found to the internationally agreed-upon safe exposure limits. We drink naturally occurring arsenic in our tap water, but it is generally within safe limits.
Another recent story claimed there are 240,000 plastic particles per liter of bottled water. That made the rounds of several well-known media outlets. What about the extensive scientific literature?
Scientists have proved that some ingested particles are responsible for millions of deaths every year. Breathing in asbestos causes about 100,000 deaths per year. Soot, wood dust and quartz (from soil) cause cancer in human beings. Hay contains microorganisms, endotoxins and mycotoxins. Those are proven dangers.
But what about plastic dust, aka microplastic? The public perception is that it is a new threat. Scientists know differently. Plastic dust has been tested for decades, just like other kinds of dust.
When tested, common plastic turns out to be one of the safest materials we encounter. Plastic exposure is considered “insignificant,” making up just 0.001% of the tiny particles we ingest. The key difference Is not in the fact we inhale, eat or drink the plastic but in the toxicity level of those particles. Most plastics we encounter (like water bottles) have no toxic impact. And our organs have a marvelous capacity to rid our system of these tiny invaders.
What about the specious claim that the ocean is filled with plastic particles being ingested by the fish we eat? It passes through their body without any effect. That is the real story when you read science, but of course, it’s not scary. No one reports on disasters, plane crashes or wars that didn’t happen. Fears are the most reliable storylines when you’re in the business of attracting eyeballs.
• Chris DeArmitt is an independent scientist with decades of experience solving technical problems for some of the world’s leading manufacturing companies. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.