Yves here. We’ve regularly linked to stories that document the seeming pervasiveness of microplastics in the environment and as a result, in human tissues, as well as evidence pointing to health damage, such as microplastics in the brain contributing to dementia. Some conventional water filter systems claim to filter microplastics. Yours truly, now in an area where water in plastic bottles is close to unavoidable (I’ll spare you details) has taken to the “boil and coffee filter” method. But that’s less effective with soft water.
By Neha Pathak, MD, FACP, DipABLM, who is dual board-certified in internal medicine and lifestyle medicine. She is on the medical team responsible for ensuring the accuracy of health information on WebMD and reports on topics related to lifestyle, environmental, and climate change impacts on health. Pathak is co-founder of Georgia Clinicians for Climate Action and Co-Chair of the Global Sustainability Committee for the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. Originally published at Yale Climate Connections
I was shuttling between patients, carrying my reusable water bottle from room to room to stay hydrated.
“You shouldn’t drink out of that plastic bottle while you’re pregnant,” a kind social worker – grandmother to five – warned me gently.
I smiled, reassured her: “I checked – it’s BPA-free.”
It was my first pregnancy, over 13 years ago. At the time, when it came to plastics and health, I knew that it was important to avoid BPA (bisphenol A), a hormone signaling disruptor – but that was pretty much it.
I thought of plastic as a pollution problem, not a health hazard.
But over the past several decades, researchers have uncovered not just the breadth of our plastic exposure but the alarming depths of its potential harm. These harms come not just from the massive explosion of the tiniest microplastic fragments in our environment but also from the chemical additives and contaminants that plastics carry.
Why Is Plastic a Health Concern Now?
Plastic production has increased 230-fold since the 1950s, and production is projected to triple by 2060. More than half the total plastic ever made has been produced since 2002.
Much of that growth is being driven by fossil fuel companies.
“They’re very deliberately redirecting their investment away from the production of gasoline into the production of plastics and petrochemicals,” says Philip Landrigan, pediatrician and director of the Program on Global Public Health and the Common Good and the Boston College Observatory.
The plastic boom means that carbon dioxide emissions from plastic production are projected to expand by 34% between 2015 and 2030. It also means that no place on Earth is free of plastic pollution.
Microscopic plastic particles have been found in every corner of the environment, from the peaks of Mount Everest to the depths of the Mariana Trench. The human body is no exception. Scientists have detected plastic particles in nearly every part of the human body – essentially, anywhere they have looked. They’ve been found in our lungs, liver, kidneys, blood, breast milk, placenta, colon, spleen, brain, and even reproductive organs like the testicles and ovaries. Emerging evidence of their impacts – ranging from inflammation to oxidative stress – suggests that plastic exposures may be fueling the growing wave of chronic disease.
What Is Plastic?
Every plastic has two components.
The first is a polymer – a long, spaghetti-like chain of repeating carbon molecules. More than 98% of this carbon backbone is made from the byproducts of oil, gas, and coal – the same fossil fuels that are warming the climate when we burn them.
The second component is a brew of chemicals added to give plastics different properties like flexibility, stability, or color. Over 16,000 different types of chemical additives are used to design the broad array of plastic products. These additives can leach out into the environment over time. Some of these chemicals are toxic, and most are very poorly regulated.
“Fewer than 20% have ever been tested for toxicity,” Landrigan says.
Plastic Production by the Numbers
- 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced since 1950.
- More than half of all plastic ever made was produced after 2002.
- Forecasts suggest plastic use will nearly triple by 2060 to 1,231 megatons compared to 2019. Megaton = 1 million tons
- Single-use plastics make up 35-40% of current production and are growing fast.
- The global plastic recycling rate is just 9% (only 5-6% in the U.S.), compared to glass (~75%), paper (~70%), and aluminum (~65%).
Source: The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health
The combination of the ramp-up of single-use plastics, which make up 35-40% of plastic production, and abysmal rates of recycling means that most of the plastic produced is fated to be created mainly to litter the planet – and our bodies.
How Microplastics and Chemical Additives Enter Our Bodies
We eat them. We drink them. We breathe them in.
Even fetuses can be exposed through blood traveling across the placenta.
That’s because plastic has a shedding problem.
Over time, tiny pieces from the plastic that litters our environment – toys, bottles, bags, food packaging, polyester clothing – break off. These fragments continue to break down into smaller and smaller particles. When plastic is heated – in the sun, microwave, or dishwasher, for example – it sheds even more.
Microplastics are plastic fragments smaller than five millimeters in length – the size of a pencil eraser – while nanoplastics are smaller than one micrometer, invisible to the naked eye.
These particles are pervasive in our homes – in indoor air, household dust, bottled water, tap water, meat, salt, fruits, vegetables, seafood, baby formula, and breast milk.
The chemical additives used in plastics can also leach into our food and water, pass through our skin, and migrate out of shedding microplastics. The most well-known of the toxic plastic additives are bisphenol A (BPA), added to make plastics harder; phthalates, used to make them flexible; and PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), also known as “forever chemicals,” added to make plastics resistant to heat, oil, and stains.
What Do Microplastics Do to the Human Body?
What happens to micro- and nanoplastics once they enter our bodies is not completely understood. A lot depends on the particle’s size, shape, and chemical makeup – for now, their long-term fate and the long-term risk to our health is an area of active scientific study.
Plastic particles that enter through our mouths generally move through our digestive system and are eliminated in stool. But the smallest pieces can collect in the lining of our gut or even migrate into our bloodstream. From there, these microscopic pieces can travel to organs like the liver, kidneys, and brain. Some of these plastic particles are eventually flushed out through urine or bile, but some collect in our organs.
When we inhale plastic fibers, larger pieces are caught in the lining of our nose or throat and can be cleared out when we exhale. But smaller pieces can reach deep into our lungs, where some can cross into the bloodstream.
But the question remains: Do these plastic particles harm our health?
We’re starting to piece together data from a variety of sources.
“Wherever we find plastics – in cell culture experiments, in vitro experiments, in animal studies – there’s always a problem,” says Dr. Sanjay Rajagopalan, a cardiologist and director of the Cardiovascular Research Institute at Case Western Reserve University.
Studies suggest these particles, along with toxic materials added or stuck to them, trigger inflammation, cell death, and tissue damage. In lab and animal model findings, microplastics and the dangerous chemicals they carry have disrupted gut and lung barriers, interfered with hormone regulation, and harmed sperm and egg cells.
Rajagopalan points to a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests real-world human health consequences. Researchers found microplastics in the clogged neck arteries of close to 60% of studied patients. After three years, people with microplastics had 4.5 times the rate of heart attack, stroke, and death compared to people without microplastics in their clogged arteries.
More Research Is Not Needed to Act
The phrase “more research is needed” is a familiar refrain when it comes to understanding the impact of plastic, in particular microplastics, on health. However, a growing foundation of evidence, including a detailed review by the Minderoo-Monoco Commission on Plastics and Human Health, lays out the case that there is enough evidence of harm to take action.
The commission’s report outlined converging lines of evidence showing that plastics cause disease, disability, and premature death across every stage of their life cycle – from fossil fuel extraction to manufacturing, use, and disposal.
Some of the strongest evidence of plastic-related diseases is linked to specific chemical additives.
BPA is one of the most well-known plastic chemicals and is part of a larger group of additives known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, substances that can mimic or interfere with the body’s hormone signals. This group also includes phthalates, PFAS, and certain flame retardants, all commonly found in everyday products.
“There is a lot of data linking specific plastic-related chemicals like certain phthalates, flame retardants, and PFAS with neurodevelopmental harm, including IQ loss and ADHD symptoms,” says Elizabeth Ryznar, a psychiatrist who focuses on the neuropsychiatric risks of plastic.
Phthalates may also play a role in more than 10% of heart-disease-related deaths across the world in people between the ages of 55-64. This is a key finding in a recently published article looking specifically at one particular type, di-2-ethylhexylphthalate (DEHP). Previous research has linked DEHP exposure to more inflammation in blood vessels, a response that can elevate the risk of heart attacks and strokes over time.
As for the health harms of micro- and nanoplastic particles themselves, the evidence is nascent but concerning.
| Organ system | Health effects linked to microplastics | Strength of evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Reproductive | Lower sperm quality | High |
| Digestive | Weakened intestinal immune function | High |
| Digestive | Inflammation and structural damage to the colon and small intestine | Moderate |
| Reproductive | Disruption of reproductive hormones and reduced ovarian follicles | Moderate |
| Respiratory | Lung injury, impaired breathing, chronic inflammation, and oxidative stress | Moderate |
In a recent analysis of human and animal studies, researchers reviewed the evidence for health risks in three major body systems: digestive, reproductive, and respiratory. The strongest evidence linked microplastics to impaired sperm quality and weakened gut immunity. There was moderate evidence to suspect harm to female reproductive hormones, gut inflammation, and lung function. The research findings also supported a link to colon and lung cancer that needs further study.
The Precautionary Principle and plastics
Given the growing evidence of harm, experts emphasize the importance of the precautionary principle: Although more research will always be needed to understand exactly how every organ system is affected, enough data exists to recognize that plastics are hazardous to our health.
This is especially true for pregnant women, infants, and young children who may be among the most vulnerable. When dangerous exposures to any substance happen during critical windows of development, the damage can have lifelong repercussions.
Microplastics have been identified in placentas and the first bowel movement that a baby has after birth, suggesting that plastics have made their way into the circulation and digestive tract of babies even before they are born. Early life exposures to microplastics and toxic chemical additives like BPA and phthalates may increase long-term risk for obesity, autism, and ADHD, changing the lifelong trajectory of a child and their family.
“The microplastics research is really early, but I’m a firm believer in the precautionary principle,” Ryznar says. “Our exposure is growing exponentially. We don’t want to wait 30 years for definitive proof – by then it’ll be too late and too many people will be harmed.”
As plastic production continues to boom, the environmental, climate, and health dangers loom large.
Though individuals can shift their behavior to minimize their personal risk and reduce demand for these hazardous products, it will take more than just personal choices to address the global health risks.
There is good news. More than 100 countries have implemented some form of ban on single-use plastics. Most of these rules focus on plastic bags, but some countries have also banned other items like straws and cutlery.
Landrigan also points to more coordinated action on the global stage.
“Over 100 countries are working to advance a Global Plastics Treaty that includes a cap on plastic production and transparency about chemicals. That’s where we need to go.”
Some Easy Wins That You Can Achieve at Home:
- Avoid microwaving food in plastic containers.
- Drink from glass or stainless steel instead of plastic bottles.
- Choose fresh or frozen foods over processed and packaged ones.
- Choose personal care products without microbeads, phthalates, or parabens.
- Ask your elected officials to take action.
“More than 100 countries have implemented some form of ban on single-use plastics. Most of these rules focus on plastic bags, but some countries have also banned other items like straws and cutlery.”
What about plastic use in agriculture? Everywhere, bales of hay wrapped in plastic; fields lined with plastic sheets; greenhouses made of plastic instead of glas. Or in fishing? A major part of the oceans’ thrash is made of discarded plastic nets. Or in retail? Bio-fruits and vegetables generously packed in plastic foil. Alas, all those economic sectors are represented by quite vocal and pugnacious lobbies…
Back to butcher paper, and picking out an actual cut of meat that the butcher’s assistant at the counter runs through the grinder and turns into hamburger, while you watch.
Here in Mexico it works out to about a ton per hectarea of plastic row covers, drip irrigation tape, and plastic pesticide containers. All of it non-recyclable.
There is a group here in Vermont/New Hampshire that is trying to recycle bale wrap. Tough thing tough as it needs to be as clean as possible and dry. Very hard to do in a lot of barnyards but I applaud and participate in the effort.
https://agriculture.vermont.gov/bale-wrap-wanted-recycling-program#:~:text=CRWFA will deliver totes (super,up and leave fresh ones.
The benefits are fantastic for farmers wrapping hay. I’ve often thought about how farmers would manage if bale wrap was banned. I know they used to do haying without wrapping it in plastic for storage but the losses were higher, feed quality down, and it’s getting harder to make good hay around here with less labor and available and good stretches of weather.
And exposing my own hypocrisy. Though I’ve used it in many instances as a builder, that plastic wood has got to go. It’s a perfect example of what’s harmful, from the dust that gets on your skin when cutting it to the dust sinking into the ground and who knows what it does to the environment then.
“Early life exposures to microplastics and toxic chemical additives like BPA and phthalates may increase long-term risk for obesity, autism, and ADHD, changing the lifelong trajectory of a child and their family.”
I don’t think that’s a very helpful sentence. Fast food is very clearly the reason Americans have an obesity problem. Likewise, even though Autism didn’t enter the DSM until the 1980’s, we suspect it existed long before the prevalence of plastic, and the same for ADHD. I’m sure there are exposure consequences to BPA and phthalates but there are probably more provable hypotheses than these three.
Also, it seems it’s becoming fashionable to use Autism and ADHD as the latest fear-inducing paranoia tactic, as if these are terribleterrible things, which they aren’t.
I had to take a deep breath before I replied to this comment. Autism is horrible. The people you meet who are out and about and call themselves “neuro-divergent” or autistic are at one end of the spectrum. They are like my nephew who was diagnosed at age 4. He could talk and was potty trained although both were later than average, but he struggled socially and couldn’t go to pre-school/the movies/restaurants without freaking out due to all the sensory inputs. He was in “special ed” starting in kindergarten, but my sister both worked the school system and spent huge amounts of time and $$ providing him with therapies and academic support. Today, he is a college graduate and works with kids who have behavioral issues. He is still socially awkward, but is a lovely person. He is a success story.
However, I have a close friend who whose son is about the same age who lives in a “home”. He was diagnosed as severely autistic as a toddler. His parents did their best and provided support,.medical care, etc. He is barely talks, wears a diaper, when agitated he bangs his head against things, engaging in repetitive behaviors like rocking soothes him. They will take care of him the rest of his life, and then his younger brother will take over when they are gone. They love their son, but the stress contributed to their divorce.
My own son had a developmental speech disorder and I spent a lot of time around kids “on the spectrum” Some of them just needed a lot of support, and they would get learn to talk, to interact, to get along in the world. Some of them were down right violent and the therapists had a hard time even dealing with them.
I honestly don’t understand people saying that autism is fine. If our children started becoming blind as toddlers, would we think it was fine because blind people contribute to our society?
Sorry, this was long, but I really was upset by the inference that autism is no big deal.
The “spectrum” concept allows a lot of high functioning people to be the public face of ASD and, by extension, autism. Putting any more negative slant on it gets you in trouble with the language police who want everything described in nicey-nice positive terms, like “differently abled” rather than “disabled”. This is a typical PMC tactic which tries to reduce everything to a verbal formulation, since reality is “just a social construct” to them, and low functioning people with ASD or even ADHD, which is not technically a spectrum disorder but is very widely diagnosed, are ill served as a result.
I would also dispute the argument that “fast food causes obesity”. Ultra-processed foods that were deliberately created to be cheap, only very briefly satisfying, and low in nutritional value, have definitely addicted many Americans (and are spreading around the world) and go way beyond the “fast food” category. These are “food-like substances” that take up anywhere from 40-60% of the shelf space in your typical chain grocery store, and they’re unavoidable in poorer communities where choice is limited. Fifty years of ever-increasing proliferation of ultra-processed foods actually closely mirrors the trend in ever-increasing proliferation of plastic products throughout the environment. It’s like a double-barreled shotgun aimed at public health. We’re rushing toward extinction, not just slowly slouching our way there. Oh, and that “BPA free” bottle is probably bisphenol-S instead! It’s a regulatory whack-a-mole.
Thank you Laura, for your candor. This deserves a response. I understand where you’re coming from, and I’ve had the same experience with autistic children but I’ve reached different conclusions.
There are various ways of looking at disability, I’ll mention two.
There is the medical model which says that a disability is where someone is fundamentally broken, miswired, incorrectly arranged, that their disability is a disease or illness or incorrection within them for which they need to be fixed, rearranged or cured. By this view there us such a thing as natural or normal, and people with disabilities are unnatural and not normal.
And usually this view logically and necessarily leads some to conclude that those who are disabled aren’t human.
My objection to this view is it’s a form of scientific racism, it’s the same view which ultimately leads to gas chambers. And indeed, in Nazi Germany the Germans tried to obliterate disability completely by sending all disabled people to the camps, along with Jews who were also viewed as less than human.
This was not limited to the Germans – many non-Nazi countries around the world attempted to do the same thing. Canada was sterilizing people with disabilities until the 1970’s in the hope that we could wipe out disability. Canada was also sterilizing natives for the same reason.
There’s also the social model which says disability comes about when society creates or structures things in a way which becomes a blocker for some – for example if I’m in a wheelchair and a building has only steps, then the disability is magically created by the constructed building. In other words, the disability is of someone else’s making and if it weren’t for those steps I would be perfectly able to participate in society. This is the view I hold – that disabilities are for the most part only due to society or social structures not adapting to different abilities.
To your example of being born deaf. If everyone all of a sudden were born deaf, and society was structured accordingly, then your hearingness would become a disability in a world structured around deafness. And there would be people saying you as a hearing person are not normal, broken, not human, incapable of experiencing the world in the same way as everyone else, incapable of using language properly, unnatural.
I’m someone who worked for a non-profit providing support for families of disabled children, including autistic and developmental disabilities ranging from very high needs to low. I’ve never met anyone, even someone in diapers who barely talks, and becomes violent, and thought they were less than human or that something was wrong with them.
I think it is we who should adapt, we who should create a world and support systems where even the different or weakest among us can fit in. I disagree with perpetuating stigmas that anyone is unnatural or born wrong or “lesser” in any way. So I’m always trying to say there isn’t anything inherently wrong with people with disabilities.
I think you and I can both agree that our society isn’t set up in a way that we can look upon people with disabilities and think they are just lovely as they are. We can only think of the horrors that await them due to a society which cannot adapt to their difference.
I applaud your willingness to support everyone regardless their needs. However it is really important to recognize that we’re talking about poisons with massively negative health effects that no one would want if they could avoid them. Saying that toxins cause autism doesn’t make autistic people subhuman – some people might make that leap, but that is not necessary.
Pretending that autism is ok because you’re afraid of how people might respond to admitting that autism is a major problem in a person’s (and their family’s) life really doesn’t fly. What we need to do is stop the corporations and their executives from making these poisons and making it extremely difficult to live without exposure to poisons.
If you don’t think that things like toxin-caused dementia; sperm-disorders, severe autism, chronic illness, and so on are severely negative and undesirable outcomes, you’re effectively saying there’s no urgency to stop producing these chemical poisons.
If I were a public relations expert and fossil fuel companies wanted me to craft a campaign to shame and discourage people for fighting their poisonous products, I would propagate exactly the perspective you’re saying: that saying autism is a severely undesirable health condition which we should avoid if possible is a way of making autism victims subhuman (it’s not) and just another form of scientific racism (also not). Not saying you’re a propagandist, but just pointing out how some seemingly-thoughtful attitudes can actually end up serving the billionaires who profit from the poisons.
I don’t believe these cause autism. Nevertheless I think we should stop producing chemicals and plastics anyway. However, even if we do, we’ll still have autism.
As I mentioned in my first comment, autism is believed to have been around a lot longer than plastics and industrial chemicals. While the diagnostic criteria was introduced in the 1940’s (and in the DSM in the 1980’s), many historical figures likely had autism – such as Isaac Newton, Nikola Tesla, Emily Dickinson, etc. There are also many historical, cultural and folklore examples.
For example:
Hugh Blaire of Borgue
Victor of Aveyron
Henry Cavendish
Indeed, if you’re attuned to autism you’ll notice things, such as Jesus in the New Testament constantly having to explain his parables because his disciples take his words very literally, a tad more literally than usual, which while not definitive does make one wonder. Or when you read that Immanuel Kant was famous for avoiding eye contact or great difficulty with socializing, was incredibly awkward to be around. Or when you read how Tesla engaged in stimming behaviours and needed to circle a building three times before entering it. It just clicks that autism has been around a while.
I’m sure RFK Jr. and MAHA are on this. Right after they deal with forever chemicals/PFAS.
/sarcasm
All my reusable water bottles are now glass and metal, mostly as re-gifts or hand-me-downs. I did splurge on lightweight titanium Nalgene-style bottle for backpacking. At home, I have a glass pitcher water filter that is rated for PFAS, heavy metals, and microplastics.
Note that aluminum cans may have plastic, as the interiors are coated in polymer or epoxy to protect the aluminum from corrosion.
“Better living through Chemistry”
“Woocoodanode?”