Your tea bag is likely releasing billions of microplastic particles, according to a new study
Your tea bag is likely releasing billions of microplastic particles, according to a new study
Research from the Autonomous University of Barcelona in Spain found that individual tea bags steeped in boiling water can release billions of micro- and nanoplastic particles. Here's what to know.
Summary
A new study from Spain’s Autonomous University of Barcelona reveals that tea bags made from nylon, polypropylene, and cellulose release billions of micro- and nanoplastic particles when steeped in boiling water.
These particles, which can enter human intestinal cells, may pose health risks, potentially affecting the digestive, respiratory, endocrine, and immune systems.
Researchers urge regulatory action to mitigate plastic contamination in food packaging.
Consumers are advised to use loose-leaf tea with stainless steel infusers or biodegradable tea bags to minimize exposure.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Microplastics-in-Tea-Bags-FT-BLOG0125-fbe185307683459daf8feccdc42da6f0.jpg?format=webp&thumbnail=196)
No!
biodegradable tea bags
You want "compostable" or better, "home compostable". Biodegradable is a word that is completely twisted, and items that include plastics will use that word no matter how untruthful it is to the spirit of the meaning.
I think the new eu bottle caps as well(even when using milk cartons) becuse when you open it they usually have a piece sticking out on the cap that catches on the threads to keep it open, and sometimes i see small plastic pieces flying everywhere when i open one of them. Presumably the plastic catch is breaking pieces of the thread off.
No it doesn’t. This study is unscientific garbage and should be retracted.
Their “simulation” of making tea involved 300 teabags boiled in 600ml of water at 95 C while being stirred at 750rpm for an unspecified amount of time. They then took counts using undiluted samples of that liquid.
It isn’t clear why they chose such an absurd methodology, but it is absolutely spurious to draw conclusions from this about teabags used under normal conditions.
I've worked in a lab before. You would do it this way for a bunch of reasons.
First it's more reliable to measure something if there's a lot than a little. The effects of your measurement uncertainties and your error professional goes down. So better to measure 300 teabags than just 1 if you can find out the same thing from doing it that way.
As others have said, 95 deg C is hot, but it is well short of a boil.
The magnetic stir bar doesn't blend the water, it just moves it around into a swirl, even at 750 rpm because it's small.
If the ideal study would be to steep 1000 teabags in teacups with just-boiled water and measure the micro plastics to see how much is released on average, I can see why they did it this way instead when their focus was on what type of plastic is released vs exactly how much. I'm not sure the food and wine journalist did a great job walking the reader through this though.
"The study shows that, when brewing tea, polypropylene releases approximately 1.2 billion particles per milliliter, with an average size of 136.7 nanometres; cellulose releases about 135 million particles per milliliter, with an average size of 244 nanometres; while nylon-6 releases 8.18 million particles per milliliter, with an average size of 138.4 nanometres."
What do you mean no it doesn't?
So if you extrapolate the data, that's 1 teabag per 2 ml water. Let's be generous and say that 1 ml is about what you'd get in a cup of tea. That's 8.18 million to 1.2 billion particles per teabag depending on the type. Let's be generous and cut that in half due to the RPM of stirring. Maybe cut that in half again for that unspecified amount of time. Hell, let's cut it in half again because maybe you brew at lower than 95 C. On the low end, we still have 1 million plastic microparticles per teabag. That's insane.
I mean nothing about the methodology is even close to representing normal tea brewing behavior.
For starters, a typical cup of tea is around 300-350ml, not 2ml and certainly not 1, so the low end is already down to 23,371 particles even before accounting for the brewing technique.
Secondly, nobody holds their tea at an active boil while stirring it at 750 rpm. That’s virtually blending it. There isn’t a meaningful way to compare that to typical tea brewing behavior but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it produced 10,000x more particles.
You can't draw any real world conclusions from this methodology.
Apples are safe to eat even though the seeds contain arsenic. Take a bunch of seeds and put them in a blender and test it. That test will show them being toxic.
I would like to see a methodology that is closer to real world use. No way to know if it's a real problem.
C O O L
O
O
L
This warning only applies to the pyramid tea bags and not the paper sachet.
Phew! Thought I was giga fucked there for a minute
The square with crimped edges bags have plastic in the paper so that the edges will fuse closed.
What isn't releasing billions of microplastic particles? We're fucked.
When someone is getting laid and he drops a load in her, he’s probably injecting microplastics.
Just a thought for next time you are in bed with someone.
remember, microplastics are formed in the balls
I wonder if I am. Do I have enough in me that I'm emitting them?
Yes.
Has anyone checked how much particles I produce when I wash my fleece jacket.
Get yourself a Guppy friend 🙂
How did I read the whole page and still have no idea what the fuck it is? It's a laundry bag (?) that stops microplastics... And for all I know when I have sex with it, I supercharge it's nano particles to hunt plastics in the atmosphere with tiny lasers or something?
The whole site is a vacuous infomercial as far as I can tell.
Certainly not an expert in the field here, but I'm not sure there's much environmental benefit from laundry bags of that sort, given the collected microplastics optimistically end up - Germany excluded - collated in your local landfill.
Guppyfriend even recommends sealing them in a container for disposal to ensure they don't blow around during waste collection and transport. This assumes of course that you can successfully transfer microplastic fibres from a large bag into a small container without spillage, but that's a matter separate from my conjecture.
While I don't think any particular company that makes similar bags is purposefully guilty of this, the marketing strategy used to promote these as environmentally responsible products just smells like greenwashing to me.
The ones I've had are also made of synthetic materials, and so eventually break down and begin releasing their own fibres.
Frankly, the true environmental benefit I see is something I've never seen advertised: I can wash groups clothes I want kept from intermingling in the same load and therefore run the machine half as often.
Jokes on you, I don't wash my coats
We are supposed to wash coats?
Consumers are advised to ...
Consumers are advised to check whether tea bags in their region are even made of these materials.
Edit: Also, "billions"? The cookie warning is borked on the foodandwine.com article so I can't read it but: https://www.dpa-international.com/trends-and-features/urn:newsml:dpa.com:20090101:250109-99-540705/ "Tea bags releasing 'millions' of microplastics into tea, study shows" - where does that difference come from?
From the article:
To come to this conclusion, the team tested tea bags made from nylon-6, polypropylene, and cellulose, all typical packaging for teas. They found that when brewing tea, "polypropylene releases approximately 1.2 billion particles per milliliter, with an average size of 136.7 nanometres; cellulose releases about 135 million particles per milliliter, with an average size of 244 nanometres; while nylon-6 releases 8.18 million particles per milliliter, with an average size of 138.4 nanometres."
Seems more specifically it comes down to the brand rather than the region, though the article linked to by this one appears to be from 2021, so there’s a possibility things have changed
OMG. That's a good way to start the new year. Now my daily tea is going to be filled with guilt and worry.
Just buy paper tea bags or loose leaf tea. The article is talking about those stupid nylon “pyramid” tea bags.
A lot of the paper bags are coated in plastic. So loose is your best option.
Get a tea infuser. Loose tea tends to be 100x better quality anyway.
You can switch to loose leaf. I thought loose leaf sucked because the tea bits always got in it. Then I found a metal filter that has like, 180nm holes in it. Extremely fine mesh.
I use it more than paper tea bags now!
No it's not, because I use a stainless steel capsule and loose leaf tea, which is superior in every way (even if microplastics weren't an issue).
If you don't make your tea like this, do yourself a favor and upgrade to some quality loose leaf!
Edit: lol, I love that this is getting downvotes. Are there disposable teabag enthusiasts out there?
I wish stainless steel infusers weren't dogshit for rooibos :(
I've found the laser cut ones with super tiny holes are better than the regular mesh. There's also micromesh but it's more delicate.
There are also cloth options that might be better.
This is why I simply tear open the tea bags and dump them into a fine mesh stainless steel basket and set it in the cup.
I have yet to find loose leaf tea tasty enough to repeat buy but I do have 3-4 flavors of bagged tea I always keep stocked.
The biggest downside to doing my favorite bagged teas this way is it’s a pain to clean out the metal basket when I just want another cup the next day, but to me the trade off on sidestepping the microplastic issue is worthwhile
Looks like the risk comes from boiling tea bags made of these materials. Cold steep chads keep winning
So... Psychopaths?
You're a monster. I just wanted you to know that.
These "materials" included cellulose, which is just plant fiber.
Are we really going to start calling plant fibers "bioplastics" now in an effort to scare people?
Polymerized cellulose is by definition a biobased polymer, this isn't anything new. The study doesn't make any claims that polymerized cellulose is harmful. Calling them "plant fibers" is incorrect as they aren't derived directly from a plant, like say, cotton. These are manufactured using cellulose.
One thing to note with all these articles; so far, there are no major comprehensive studies that definitively show microplastics are a danger to the body, or show what levels are considered acceptable or not.
Considering the entire world population hasn't just collectively died in the last 50 years, I'm leaning towards the effects of microplastics being negligible, or at least a hell of a lot less dangerous than other established risks like processed meat or direct sunlight.
there are no major comprehensive studies that definitively show microplastics are a danger to the body
I'm not sure what your criteria for "major comprehensive study" is, but there are countless studies linking microplastics to all sorts of things. Most arterial plaques are full of microplastics. The massive drop of male fertility rates (50% globally) has been linked to microplastics. Microplastics have been demonstrated to interfere at the cellular level by mimicking hormones.
The specifics of everything that they're doing to us is still unknown. But we know many bad things microplastics definitely are doing.
We're WELL past "are microplastics bad?". We're at the point of figuring out how badly screwed we are.
Meanwhile cancer rates are sky rocketing and we don’t know why.
Perhaps leaning on the conservative side is smarter than going balls out on plastic because we are too ignorant to know the actual effects.
If we find that all the plastic pollution is what’s causing so much cancer then there’s nothing we can do about it because it’s already too late with how prevalent plastic pollution already is.
Pretty much every case of damage due to pollution is caused by ignorance and I don’t see this situation being any different.
Stroke rate increasing as well.
We tried that approach with leaded gasoline and paint, asbestos building materials, cigarettes, and a variety of other things over the past several generations. They didn't kill the entire world population, but things didn't turn out so well for the people who waited for definitive studies. Good luck with your gamble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics_and_human_health
The potential health impacts of microplastics vary based on factors, such as their particle sizes, shape, exposure time, chemical composition (enriched with heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), etc.), surface properties, and associated contaminants.[76][77]
Experimental and observational studies in mammals have shown that microplastics and nanoplastics exposure have the following adverse effects:
On the cellular level
Inflammation[78][79] Oxidative stress[80][78][81][82][77] Genotoxicity[83][82] Cytotoxicity[81][77]By systems
Cardiovascular[84][62] Respiratory[59] Inflammation in the lungs from inhalation[75] Disruption of hypothalamic-pituitary axis (HPA), including the Hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid, Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal, Hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular and Hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis[85] Reproductive toxicity,[85] decreased reproductive health, decreased sperm quality[85] Developmental abnormalities[85] Immunotoxicity[85][86][81][79] Endocrine disruption[85][87] Neurotoxicity[85] Metabolic disturbances[78] Disrupted gut-liver axis resulting in increased risk of insulin resistance[88] disrupted hormone function, potentially contributing to weight gain.[89][90]Epidemiological studies
Despite growing concern and evidence, most epidemiologic studies have focused on characterizing exposures. Epidemiological studies directly linking microplastics to adverse health effects in humans remain yet limited and research is ongoing to determine the full extent of potential harm caused by microplastics and their long-term impact on human health.[91][92]
There is plenty of reason to consider microplastics a major adverse health factor. The problem is that it is a relatively new field of research and making an epidemiological assessment is difficult as we are exposed to thousands of harmful substances, so knowing which effect comes from what is not a trivial thing to figure out.
