Scientists reviewed 7,000 studies on microplastics. Their alarming conclusion puts humanity on notice
Scientists reviewed 7,000 studies on microplastics. Their alarming conclusion puts humanity on notice
Global action is urgently needed to tackle microplastic – and the problem has never been more pressing.
In short, microplastics are widespread, accumulating in the remotest parts of our planet. There is evidence of their toxic effects at every level of biological organisation, from tiny insects at the bottom of the food chain to apex predators.
Microplastics are pervasive in food and drink and have been detected throughout the human body. Evidence of their harmful effects is emerging.
The scientific evidence is now more than sufficient: collective global action is urgently needed to tackle microplastics – and the problem has never been more pressing.
You're viewing a single thread.
So what effect does this have on the health of humans and other organisms? Over the years, scientists have changed the way they measure this.
They initially used high doses of microplastics in laboratory tests. Now they use a more realistic dose that better represents what we and other creatures are actually exposed to.
And the nature of microplastics differ. For example, they contain different chemicals and interact differently with liquids or sunlight. And species of organisms, including humans, themselves vary between individuals.
This complicates scientists’ ability to conclusively link microplastics exposure with effects.
In regards to humans, progress is being made. In coming years, expect greater clarity about effects on our bodies
Okay so the title was lying? We DON’T know what microplastics do to us. We expect it to be bad but haven’t found anything conclusive.
Read the actual paper:
Microplastics have been detected in more than 1300 aquatic and terrestrial species, including fish, mammals, birds and insects (Fig. 3) (23, 58, 63) and effects are evident at all levels of biological organization, from the subcellular level to the stability of food webs (64–66). Ingestion can lead to physical harm, such as food dilution, gastrointestinal blockage, or internal abrasion (65, 66), and chemical harm, due to the leaching of toxic additives or adsorbed pollutants, including endocrine disrupting chemicals, from the microplastics (67, 68).
The absorption of the smallest particles by the body can lead to toxicity triggered upon translocation (69), for which surface area of the microplastic is considered the toxicologically relevant dose metric (70). Effects vary widely according to the organism and the type and quantity of microplastics ingested, but endpoints with direct ecological relevance including reduced growth, survival, and reproduction have all been demonstrated in laboratory experiments.
Whether the particles and chemical substances show effects under natural exposure conditions strongly depends on the circumstances (71–73) but effects at environmentally relevant concentration have been demonstrated (74).
If they are saying gastrointestinal blockage is an effect of microplastics, I’m really worried about their methodology.
Oh well I guess we should trust your opinion on this instead of the scientists, since you apparently didn't even read this review article or its sources but already know more than them.
Scientists: "We have overwhelming evidence of how microplastics are negatively affecting life and ecosystems all over the world."
You: "But how does that affect me? I'm not being choked by microplastics."