SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
microplastics
Staring Down the Abyss of 2025
The basis of hope for a better future, I believe, is the courage to accept reality. A change of collective consciousness is our best shot at not only surviving but thriving.
Jan 05, 2025
2025 offers an intriguing mix of the certain and the uncertain.
Here’s what is certain: Democratic institutions will continue to crumble, witness the erosion of the rule of law in the U.S. and elsewhere; long-standing norms governing public affairs, such as a bar to prosecuting political opponents, will loosen their grip on behavior; countless species, especially among birds and insects, will go extinct; a host of “unnatural” disasters attributable to climate change, like wild fires and floods, will devastate wondrous landscapes and settled communities; politically or environmentally-induced mass migration, as experienced now in the various parts of the world, will become more pervasive; income inequality between the top 0.01% and the lowest 50% will increase; economic stability, as in the world-wide acceptance of the U.S. Dollar, will wane.
While not a certainty there’s reason to give added credibility to the risks of nuclear warfare, catastrophic climate tipping points, metastatic ethnic cleansing, and a world-wide pandemic, with mass extinction the result.
Within our own narrower, national context, certainties include the highest ever figures for extraction of natural gas and oil, continued increases in chronic diseases such as Type-2 diabetes and cancer, ballooning healthcare costs per capita, upward swings in gun sales and school shootings, dramatically increased levels of homelessness, and more intrusion of microplastics into the oceans and into our bodies.
An unfettered grasp of our situation can offer up considerable light, hope, even optimism; and it can strengthen our resolve and solidify our resilience.
Uncertain are the targets, timing, locales, extent of severity, and designation of victims related to these eminently predicable developments in the world and in our country. Unclear is what will constitute right and effective action in the face of this inevitable political, social, and environmental unravelling. Finally, the grounding for individual and collective action—spiritual moorings, moral anchors, forms of mutual aid—remains inchoate.
To be human is to know we are going to die. This is certain. With each passing day of 2025, my physical being will be undergoing its own forms of unravelling, making death more proximate. What I don’t know is when and under what circumstances it will occur. Nor do I know for sure what my attitude and affect will be should I be conscious at the time.
With increasing disintegration worldwide and the social fabric in this country fraying, what can one do, how should one approach and contend with encroaching forms of “death” in the world and in this country? What are citizens’ essential responsibilities? For me what are mine as a mate, a father, grandfather, and friend?
You, the reader, might conclude, as you absorb all this, “How pessimistic, how fatalistic!” It will likely surprise you that that is not my mind set at all. Rather I am of the mind that the truth indeed sets one free. An unfettered grasp of our situation can offer up considerable light, hope, even optimism; and it can strengthen our resolve and solidify our resilience. Take a hard look at the obverse: that burying unvarnished realities has improved our prospects. Hardly! Denial, obfuscation, euphemism, soft- pedaling, and distraction have not improved things. In fact, a strong case can be made that they have produced exactly the opposite, a deepening of our plight.
So I beckon my fellow citizens to adopt a different strategy, one that willfully accepts our dire circumstances, without wallowing in them, thus offering the chance of achieving more positive outcomes than our current predicament presages. The basis of hope for a better future, I believe, is the courage to accept reality. A change of collective consciousness is our best shot at not only surviving but thriving.
That I will die soon is certain. That 2025 heralds negative trend lines on multiple fronts is certain. But this is where the parallel can end. With a willingness on all our parts to accept our dire lot we can begin to veer away from what now seems a foregone conclusion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Scientists Who First Identified Threat of Microplastics Say World Must Now Act
"During the 20 years since our first study, the amount of plastic in our oceans has increased by around 50%, only further emphasizing the pressing need for action," said one leading researcher.
Sep 20, 2024
Some of the key scientists who first informed the world of the potential damage being done to natural systems by microplastics are now calling for world leaders to take decisive action to curb the introduction of these polluting materials into the environment—and they hope the looming United Nations treaty process on plastics can be a key vehicle for progress.
Alongside a new scientific review published cataloging the growing body of research on microplastics—defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters and "composed of polymers together with functional additives as well as other intentionally and unintentionally added chemicals"—the international group of scientists says concerted actions must be taken, including bans on certain materials and a focus on plastic pollution mitigation that puts less emphasis on consumer habits and recycling efforts by keeping microplastics out of the supply chain "in the first place."
According to the abstract of the review, published Thursday in the journal Science:
Twenty years after the first publication using the term microplastics, we review current understanding, refine definitions and consider future prospects. Microplastics arise from multiple sources including tires, textiles, cosmetics, paint and the fragmentation of larger items. They are widely distributed throughout the natural environment with evidence of harm at multiple levels of biological organization. They are pervasive in food and drink and have been detected throughout the human body, with emerging evidence of negative effects. Environmental contamination could double by 2040 and widescale harm has been predicted. Public concern is increasing and diverse measures to address microplastics pollution are being considered in international negotiations. Clear evidence on the efficacy of potential solutions is now needed to address the issue and to minimize the risks of unintended consequences.
Professor Richard Thompson of Plymouth University, who co-authored that first scientific study and coined the term microplastics just two decades years ago, says researchers now have more than enough evidence to show world leaders that serious action must be taken to curb the use of plastics, with special attention to the minuscule and microscopic forms of the material that are increasingly being found polluting ecosystems—both on land as well as in the sea—and embedded within living organisms, including humans.
"There are still unknowns, but during the 20 years since our first study, the amount of plastic in our oceans has increased by around 50%, only further emphasizing the pressing need for action," Thompson said in a statement put out by Plymouth.
In the statement, the university noted:
Since the publication of the first study in 2004, an estimated 7,000 research studies have been conducted on microplastics, providing considerable evidence in their sources and impacts as well as potential solutions.
Microplastics have been found on every corner of the planet, in more than 1,300 aquatic and terrestrial species, in the food and drink we consume, and in multiple tissues and organs of the human body.
With emissions of microplastics to the environment estimated to be up to 40 megatons per year, a number that could double by 2040, predictions indicate the potential for widescale environmental harm moving into the next century.
The research details how microplastics demand an international response due to their transitory nature. While they enter the environment in various ways—whether from direct release as fibers into the air from textiles or dust, discharged through water systems via runoff or sewage drains, or via breakdown or fragmentation—once discarded, the study says, "microplastics can travel far from their point of entry and are not constrained by national boundaries highlighting the importance of actions at a global level."
Professor Sabine Pahl, who teaches Urban and Environmental Psychology at the University of Vienna and is an honorary professor at the University of Plymouth, said, "Plastic pollution is completely caused by human actions. That's why we need research on perceptions of risks and benefits of plastic as well as other drivers of policy support and change, integrating a social science perspective."
With the next round of talks in the UN's Plastic Pollution Treaty set for November, the researchers said the negotiations offer a "tangible opportunity" for nations to act on this issue. "In our view," they wrote, "science will be just as important guiding the way toward solutions as it has been in identifying the problems."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Is the FDA Downplaying the Risk of Microplastics From Food Packaging?
The agency charged with keeping our food safe doesn’t think microplastics in food are a big deal, and claims they are probably coming from the food rather than the plastic it’s packaged in.
Sep 11, 2024
The Food and Drug Administration has entered the plastic pollution fray. This summer the agency published a web page ostensibly meant to calm consumers’ nerves about the recent spate of reporting on microplastic contamination. Despite the FDA’s clout, the publication relies on hand-waving and empty reassurances, which do nothing to instill trust in the agency charged with keeping our food supply safe.
Microplastics seem to be on the tip of everyone’s tongue these days. Sadly, tongues aren’t the only place researchers find microplastics in our bodies. The minuscule plastic particles have now been found in our blood, testes, and placentas. This came after researchers first established microplastics are present in every place they’ve looked, from the soil to Mount Everest. What’s next, tiny plastic particles passing through our blood-brain barriers?
It’s worth taking stock of how we got to this point of such widespread contamination. Every single thing made of plastic eventually breaks down. This happens due to environmental conditions such as friction, heat, and exposure to light. In the process, tiny plastic particles enter the environment and then degrade into smaller and smaller particles, with no end to the process. Plastic objects become microplastics, which eventually become nanoplastics. Each degradation stage makes it easier for the contaminants to enter our bodies, where they may release the chemicals used to make them. Nearly all plastic is made from oil and gas and then processed with myriad other chemicals—many dangerous toxicants or undisclosed. Research and testing have shown that some chemical additives and processing aids are likely leaching out of plastic food packaging.
Currently, the FDA should be using its full regulatory authority to combat the crisis of microplastics and nanoplastics in our food supply.
Plastic is a ubiquitous food packaging material, so it would seem logical to think that plastic packaging releases microplastics into the foods and beverages packaged within and into the outside environment. And some researchers have documented just that. However, the FDA makes the astounding claim that the microplastics and nanoplastics found in food are most likely from “environmental contamination where foods are grown or raised,” but not from food packaging. The agency claims to make this leap from logic due to insufficient evidence that microplastics and nanoplastics are migrating from plastic food packaging into food. Yet, evidence is beginning to surface, so why is the FDA confusing consumers about microplastics? Researchers tested bottled water for microplastics and found that their data shows contamination is likely coming in part “from the packaging and/or bottling process.” Others found a relationship between plastic bottle density and the pH of packaged mineral water with the amount of microplastic contamination found in the packaged waters.
Discounting plastic food packaging as a source of microplastic contamination is a stretch when we know that everything made of plastic degrades. It’s far more likely that the microplastics found in food came from various sources, including packaging, the food itself, the soil in which it was grown, and food processing equipment. The bigger remaining question is precisely what contamination is doing to our bodies. Researchers are beginning to scratch the surface of that question, and the results are problematic. Recent publications show that breathing microplastics into our lungs may be affecting respiratory systems, and microplastics that cross the blood-brain barrier could impact our behavior. We can expect many more headlines about microplastics and our health in the next few years.
By sounding so certain that food packaging is not a source of microplastics and nanoplastics, the FDA may be misleading and confusing consumers just because the number of studies showing evidence of microplastic migration is thin. A lack of evidence due to the developing nature of this research does not assure us there is no evidence waiting to be found. Unfortunately, this see-no-evil approach is precisely how chemical management happens in the U.S.; new chemicals are created and sold without safety testing.
We are witnessing the early stages of a widespread contamination moment, where communities begin to recognize what is happening, and decision-makers are expected to address concerns meaningfully. Currently, the FDA should be using its full regulatory authority to combat the crisis of microplastics and nanoplastics in our food supply. This problem will get bigger before it gets better due to the massive volume of plastics already in the world and because plastic is currently being made in greater and greater quantities. All the more reason for us to turn off the petrochemical plastics tap as much as we can, for instance, by stemming the widespread manufacture and use of single-use plastics that we lived without just a decade or two ago.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular