Microplastics make their way from the gut to other organs, researchers find(medicalxpress.com)
medicalxpress.com
Microplastics make their way from the gut to other organs, researchers find
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-04-microplastics-gut.html
33 comments
Cross-linked polyethylene (the stuff in?water pipes) seems pretty safe. A lot more so than, say, lead pipes. That doesn't seem like the kind of plastic we should worry about, water pipes tend not to end up in oceans.
Then I remember I smoke cigarettes and drink too much and I will likely expire before I'm 70 anyways.
With all due respect, you might be a little depressed ?
With all due respect, you might be a little depressed ?
"Then I remember I'm depressed, smoke cigarettes and drink too much and I will likely expire before I'm 70 anyways."
I think you are on something [0], but then again, more poison is more bad.
[0] https://www.cuspuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Plastic-Pi...
[0] https://www.cuspuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Plastic-Pi...
This made my chuckle.
I'm going to be counting on this to keep up my neuroplasticity.
I finally get to say "in mice" though I think it'd be silly not to consider whether it translates to humans...
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP13435
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP13435
Instead of playing that gotcha game, can you hypothesize what differences in human anatomy would cause this to happen in mice but not humans?
There's a reason researchers use mice, and that's because physiologically, they are tiny humans.
There's a reason researchers use mice, and that's because physiologically, they are tiny humans.
Except the reason the "in mice" meme exists is because there are countless studies which produce an effect in mice which is not reproducible in humans.
In an absence of evidence, we cannot make one claim or another. "In mice" is just a good indicator that actual human research is needed.
I'm not a biologist so I'll leave the theory and research to qualified people.
In an absence of evidence, we cannot make one claim or another. "In mice" is just a good indicator that actual human research is needed.
I'm not a biologist so I'll leave the theory and research to qualified people.
What people misunderstand about mouse studies is they much better at telling if something is harmful than if it’s beneficial.
Toss a mouse in a vacuum, expose them to high levels of radiation, etc and the underlying similarities between mammal biology tells you quite a bit. Try and cure baldness and no it’s not that helpful in terms of if something works but it’s a great check it see if you accidentally made a neurotoxin.
So in this case we have quite strong evidence that microplastics from food can get into human bloodstreams. Is it worth testing? That just comes down to an arbitrary assessment of just much you’re willing to spend to reduce what little uncertainty remains.
Toss a mouse in a vacuum, expose them to high levels of radiation, etc and the underlying similarities between mammal biology tells you quite a bit. Try and cure baldness and no it’s not that helpful in terms of if something works but it’s a great check it see if you accidentally made a neurotoxin.
So in this case we have quite strong evidence that microplastics from food can get into human bloodstreams. Is it worth testing? That just comes down to an arbitrary assessment of just much you’re willing to spend to reduce what little uncertainty remains.
A famous counterexample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Warning_label_additi...
> However, in 2000, the warning labels were removed because scientists learned that rodents, unlike humans, have a unique combination of high pH, high calcium phosphate, and high protein levels in their urine.[36][37] One or more of the proteins that are more prevalent in male rats combine with calcium phosphate and saccharin to produce microcrystals that damage the lining of the bladder. Over time, the rat's bladder responds to this damage by overproducing cells to repair the damage, which leads to tumor formation. Since this does not occur in humans, there is no elevated risk of bladder cancer.[38]
> However, in 2000, the warning labels were removed because scientists learned that rodents, unlike humans, have a unique combination of high pH, high calcium phosphate, and high protein levels in their urine.[36][37] One or more of the proteins that are more prevalent in male rats combine with calcium phosphate and saccharin to produce microcrystals that damage the lining of the bladder. Over time, the rat's bladder responds to this damage by overproducing cells to repair the damage, which leads to tumor formation. Since this does not occur in humans, there is no elevated risk of bladder cancer.[38]
Worth remembering. False positive are notably less dangerous than false negatives, but very relevant to the discussion.
When something reliably kills mice do we routinely proceed to human trials?
If not, how do we know that things that are harmful to mice are harmful to humans any more often than things that are helpful to mice are helpful to humans?
If not, how do we know that things that are harmful to mice are harmful to humans any more often than things that are helpful to mice are helpful to humans?
The scientific method.
Is it really a gotcha if the actual study title ends with the words?
The gotcha is the cliche belief that the study is not relevant to humans because it is a mouse experiment.
Can Starbucks please stop packaging their tea in the plastic nets?
Hot tip, don't buy Starbucks ?
Always distribute the blame to the single consumer!
It really the only option though, so if it bothers them that much, they should avoid SB. Maybe if enough people boycott, SB will stop using plastic tea bags
This is how I’ve navigated the problem. I don’t go there as often as I otherwise would.
It would be nice if Starbucks made its product line more appealing, but it seems that their strategy centers around high-sugar items that could be more addictive, so I can understand why the concerns of tea drinkers is an afterthought.
Similarly, I would love a matcha latte that wasn’t full of sugar, but as far as I can tell they have no unsweetened soy milk option.
I guess many reading this would say: shocker, Starbucks isn’t healthy.
It would be nice if Starbucks made its product line more appealing, but it seems that their strategy centers around high-sugar items that could be more addictive, so I can understand why the concerns of tea drinkers is an afterthought.
Similarly, I would love a matcha latte that wasn’t full of sugar, but as far as I can tell they have no unsweetened soy milk option.
I guess many reading this would say: shocker, Starbucks isn’t healthy.
How about regulation?
Is there any high quality research into the health effects? I keep hearing about how microplastics spread, but not whether that's demonstrably bad.
I found this (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10151227/) , but it's a wildly broad overview, and includes claims both dubious and entirely believable, buried in tons of uninteresting stuff about how plastic can spread and how common it is.
I found this (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10151227/) , but it's a wildly broad overview, and includes claims both dubious and entirely believable, buried in tons of uninteresting stuff about how plastic can spread and how common it is.
I hear you, but with things we stand a chance of ingesting I really like to flip the onus. I think we can do better than we did with asbestos.
No RCTs that I’m aware of. Microplastics may contribute to heart disease. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2309822
Don't many things make their way from the gut to other organs? What does that mean? I'm all for reducing plastics, but what happens when we scaremonger and then end up with nothing is that people stop listening to warnings, even when they are true. Let's focus on real harm plastics cause that we are aware of and good solutions to disposable plastics until we have studies that definitively show harm from microplastics in humans.
You're asking for studies that show the effects of microplastics in humans. How do you think that gets established? Not all at once. This isn't scaremongering, it is how science happens, part of the pathway to establishing what those effects are. Knowing where microplastics can migrate through mammalian tissues is clearly relevant to your own stated end goal.
[deleted]
Then I remember I smoke cigarettes and drink too much and I will likely expire before I'm 70 anyways.
Don't know why I'm putting money into retirement, but then again God is cruel and I'll end up being be old, weak, dumb, and defenseless at 90. With no children to be my advocate, I'd likely end up being a victim of elder abuse. Hope my gluttonous and slothful life helps me avoid the nightmarish nursing homes.