this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
362 points (98.1% liked)

science

14741 readers
567 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It isn’t just seafood that’s loaded with microplastic pollution. In a new study, scientists found microplastics in nearly 90 of sampled meats and meat-like alternatives – including seafood, chicken breasts, beef steaks, tofu, and plant-based burgers.

It’s become well-documented that seafood is often tainted with the presence of microplastics due to the shockingly high quantities of plastic in the planet’s oceans. For instance, a 2017 review found that regular eaters of fish and shellfish could be ingesting up to 11,000 microparticles a year.

However, until now, there’s been relatively little research into the prevalence of plastic in terrestrial protein sources, like beef and chicken.

To pry into the issue, scientists at Ocean Conservancy and the University of Toronto sampled 16 protein types, including highly processed protein products and minimally processed "fresh" products.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 101 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Single-use plastics should have been banned 10-15 years ago and we should be phasing out the rest of them now.

[–] rowrowrowyourboat@sh.itjust.works 63 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Nearly half (44 percent) of the identified microplastics were fibers, while a third (30 percent) were plastic fragments. This is in tune with other studies that have shown plastic fibers from clothes and other textile products are the most prevalent form of microplastic in the environment.

More important than single-use plastics seems to be synthetic clothing.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

And even worse than that? Tires. Now if only we could connect a bunch of cars together and put them on some kind of metal rail with metal wheels instead...

2020 report found tyre dust contributes 78% of the total mass of microplastics

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/land-use-biodiversity/rising-microplastics-seas-puts-pressure-tyre-industry-2023-07-17/

The report says that tires generate 6 million tons of particles a year, globally, of which 200,000 tons end up in oceans. According to Emissions Analytics, cars in the U.S. emit, on average, 5 pounds of tire particles a year, while cars in Europe, where fewer miles are driven, shed 2.5 pounds per year. Moreover, tire emissions from electric vehicles are 20 percent higher than those from fossil-fuel vehicles. EVs weigh more and have greater torque, which wears out tires faster.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemicals

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're spot on. Tires are the biggest contributor to micro plastics.

[–] arin@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's in the air you breathe as well, goes straight from your lungs to your blood and everywhere in your body

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Quality synthetic clothing is actually great. You can wear the same t-shirt 10 years in a row and it will look and feel like a new one. But cheap ones tend to fall apart faster than cotton variants.

[–] time_lord@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You know what else lasts 10 years? Quality cotton t-shirts.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

They don't really.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Thrift stores throw away most of the clothing they get. $5 shirts on Shein are obviously garbage, but even the stuff sold in malls is basically single use.

Know tons of people who’d rather toss/“donate” something than sew a button back on.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago (5 children)

They should have been banned in the early 80's when we found out how dangerous they are. Humans refuse to be inconvenienced though.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 months ago

Or there are some megacorps that teach us that so we grow up not even remembering there were any alternatives. Reusable containers were a thing just like paper bags and paper wraps, refills can become a thing one day, but in the supermarket I see individually packed old cucumbers like they are dicks in a condom, and I cringe at the thought they'd be trashed just like that.

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

How dangerous are they? I see lots of articles about them being in everything but not much about what they actually do when they get inside you.

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago

We don't know yet, and that's a little scary.

[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

Tiniest pieces of plastic from for example tires would classify as fine dust particles, which is like a containerword for tiny particles from any kind of material, as long as it'stiny enough it counts as PM. PM10 and PM2.5 is somewhat researched. Breathing in fine dust particles often and in large quantities for sure ain't healthy, correlation with lung irritation, asthma, etc. Whether it's specifically the plastic share of the PM that's bad: still unknown I think.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

[–] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Blame petrochemical/oil companies.

Plant based biodegrade plastic exist...

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but they cost a few pennies more. So that's not possible.

[–] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

(☞゚ヮ゚)☞

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

That’s why “recycling” is so popular I think. The industry knew that there would be pushes against plastic, and came up with an ingenious way to make you the one “responsible” while also selling you the fairy tale that we could just reuse the stuff forever. People feel good about themselves for putting stuff in the blue bin, without realizing the near certainty that it’s going to end up in the landfill too.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's not a question of convenience. Plastics require several magnitudes less energy to produce goods than alternatives like metal, glass and wood. If we stop using plastics today our emissions will sky rocket so high the planet will start boiling.

We need to force governments to recycle better, because a lot of plastics are completely ignored in many countries.

Here's a quick example. My hobby is 3D printing and I live in the UK. The most common plastic in this hobby is PLA. It is both sustainable and recyclable. But Britain doesn't recycle it as part of household waste. There are companies here which offer PLA recycling, but they require at least 50L worth of PLA to pick it up from you. I use about 5kg per year, so even if I throw away everything I print, I will need 10 years to fill the recycling order. But since I only want to throw away failed attempts, it will take a lifetime to fill it.

If my council would start using hot composters instead of cold ones I could at least throw my PLA waste into compost with food and it would decrease into lactic acid, but the government doesn't give a shit, so all my plastic goes into landfill.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The plastic products are generally for convenience. I'm not talking about the production.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago
[–] Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world 39 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 82 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Lmao I’m stealing that

[–] oDDmON@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Actually 20th, if the scene from The Graduate was any indication.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 33 points 10 months ago

... there is no way 10% of our food doesn't contain microplastics

[–] Aielman15@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

Ugh, I hate it when my plastic has meat in it.

[–] Godric@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Y'all need to up your game

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 5 points 10 months ago

No, stop grinding your plastics.

[–] MaxVoltage@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago
[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I fucking hate plastic 🥲

Well stop eating it you dummy 😊

[–] BloodSlut@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago
[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 7 points 10 months ago

I swear I'm not fat! I just have a lot of microplastics in me.

[–] Someology@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I keep hearing George Carlin's old comedy routine about how we evolved because Mother Earth needed plastic for reasons, and now that we've made enough to last a very long time, she can get rid of us...

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 10 months ago

Yes. Microplastics is slower gray goo.

How is it not 100%? I thought that there wasn't any source of water on Earth that doesn't have microplastics.

[–] sagrotan@lemmy.world -5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

For years, we got our farmers and hunters where we get our meat, search on your vicinity, it's not only better, it's cheaper in the long run. You'll notice that you'll eat less meat, but better one. Stop the supermarket overlords.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Microplastics and forever chemicals are going to be a problem to localvores too.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Friend, they’ve found microplastics in fish from the bottom of the ocean. Even if you shoot your own deer, you’ll still be finding microplastics.

[–] NMBA@mstdn.ca 7 points 10 months ago

@sagrotan @MicroWave
There’s no way wildlife can replace industrial meat. That’s an extinction plan.

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 4 points 10 months ago

There are micro plastics in the rain

load more comments
view more: next ›