Even if conducting RCTs on human subjects to learn more about the effects of plastics was considered ethical, at this point it seems like it would be virtually impossible. So many things humans consume come into contact with plastics somewhere in the supply chain, often with the end user unaware of it.. Goods that reach the consumer that are sold in cans or jars may have been produced using bulk ingredients from plastic containers, or may have been sourced from producers who make use of plastics in their handling, processing and/or bulk packaging. And even all that would not account for the casual environmental exposure that food has to plastics that have already found their way into nature (e.g., meat or fish that already contain microplastics consumed by the creatures in their native habitats).
I am old enough to remember when soft drinks first started appearing in non-returnable bottles, and how strange it felt to toss those containers after just a single use. But going back to returnable bottles may not be the answer either—there are other costs, such as hauling those containers back and forth, washing and sanitizing them, inspecting each one for damage, etc.—all energy consumers. I now buy milk in returnable containers that carry a deposit; the milk itself is from an in-county dairy. Purchasers take them back to the store after rinsing them out. But this is not a choice available to most people.
Years ago I first read of the theory that ancient civilizations (Rome comes to mind) fell because they slowly poisoned themselves by the use of lead drinking vessels. Wouldn't it be ironic if a millennium or two from now, historians were saying the same thing about us and plastic vessels!
I remember getting interested 40y ago in bioaccumulation as one route that resulted in increased toxicity. (Chemical changes of organochlorines in lower temperature combustion was another.) It will be good if this can be ruled out for the more obviously active compounds / residues. But an other issue for substances new to the biological environment, one that is related to persistence, is the absence of natural full degradation. A whole range of plastics become so physically finely divided in the environment they are seen for instance in the guts of micro-plankton animals and even in cells and tissues.
PS I remember finding black plastic sheeting poisoning my plant growth experiments. This kind of sheeting did get removed from food packaging along with other types after they had been tested, but I take your point about the impossibility of defining 'safety'.
A good and necessary topic. The second author mentions phthalates as "of particular importance," and I agree. These insidious chemicals are put in most synthetic fragrances, so a large population is getting these via perfumes, colognes, and laundry detergents--i.e., some people have constant low-level exposure.
Even if conducting RCTs on human subjects to learn more about the effects of plastics was considered ethical, at this point it seems like it would be virtually impossible. So many things humans consume come into contact with plastics somewhere in the supply chain, often with the end user unaware of it.. Goods that reach the consumer that are sold in cans or jars may have been produced using bulk ingredients from plastic containers, or may have been sourced from producers who make use of plastics in their handling, processing and/or bulk packaging. And even all that would not account for the casual environmental exposure that food has to plastics that have already found their way into nature (e.g., meat or fish that already contain microplastics consumed by the creatures in their native habitats).
I am old enough to remember when soft drinks first started appearing in non-returnable bottles, and how strange it felt to toss those containers after just a single use. But going back to returnable bottles may not be the answer either—there are other costs, such as hauling those containers back and forth, washing and sanitizing them, inspecting each one for damage, etc.—all energy consumers. I now buy milk in returnable containers that carry a deposit; the milk itself is from an in-county dairy. Purchasers take them back to the store after rinsing them out. But this is not a choice available to most people.
Years ago I first read of the theory that ancient civilizations (Rome comes to mind) fell because they slowly poisoned themselves by the use of lead drinking vessels. Wouldn't it be ironic if a millennium or two from now, historians were saying the same thing about us and plastic vessels!
Ugo and Lucas; thanks. Very good.
I remember getting interested 40y ago in bioaccumulation as one route that resulted in increased toxicity. (Chemical changes of organochlorines in lower temperature combustion was another.) It will be good if this can be ruled out for the more obviously active compounds / residues. But an other issue for substances new to the biological environment, one that is related to persistence, is the absence of natural full degradation. A whole range of plastics become so physically finely divided in the environment they are seen for instance in the guts of micro-plankton animals and even in cells and tissues.
PS I remember finding black plastic sheeting poisoning my plant growth experiments. This kind of sheeting did get removed from food packaging along with other types after they had been tested, but I take your point about the impossibility of defining 'safety'.
A good and necessary topic. The second author mentions phthalates as "of particular importance," and I agree. These insidious chemicals are put in most synthetic fragrances, so a large population is getting these via perfumes, colognes, and laundry detergents--i.e., some people have constant low-level exposure.