We are scientists investigating chemicals in food packaging and cookware. Got questions about: sustainable packaging, endocrine disrupting chemicals, UN plastics treaty, compostables, bioplastics, microplastics, or other types of materials around ...

What's the connection between endocrine disrupting chemicals in every day life and the seeming growing prevalence of autoimmune diseases? Is this a newer phenomenon due to widespread use of materials humans never had before? Or perhaps environmental pollution? Or have we always been this way and we're better at diagnoses?

[Tom] This is a very important question. My reading of the literature on chemicals and immune disease issues might suggest that humans have always had autoimmune diseases, but these chemicals may increase the likelihood of having an autoimmune disease. A good example is that of autoimmune thyroid diseases. There is good evidence that Graves’ disease affected some of the leaders in Japan more than a thousand years ago. But the incidence today has been increasing. The story of “Dark Waters” where PFAS was linked to autoimmune thyroid disease is a good example.

[Scott} Numerous studies have linked PFAS to a variety of autoimmune disease, the chemicals analyzed to date broadly impact the immune system leading to a decrease the response to vaccines, and cause increases in the immune responses leading to autoimmune disorders.

[Ksenia] Also in relation to gut disorders like Crohn’s disease and irritated bowel disease etc, there is quite high plausibility that exposures to chemicals and microplastics can play a role in the more frequent manifestation of these conditions in the recent years.

Are there any truly safe non-stick pans?

Any non-stick pans containing Teflon are not safe, because they contain known hazardous chemicals that can migrate. Even non- Teflon pans have been found to contain PFAS. We recommend using a cast iron pan or stainless steel pan, even though these are not non-stick. If you season cast iron pans correctly they can be non-stick. - team answer
Terry: We use cast iron cured in the old-fashioned way. So I don’t worry too much about exposures to PFAS coming from the pan.

What recommendations would you give for trying to avoid ingesting microplastics from food and drinks? Plastics are used seemingly in everything we touch these days

[Dagny] Try to buy foodstuffs that are minimally processed and minimally packaged. Bring your own inert (stainless steel) containers and cotton bags. Shop at zero waste grocery stores or the bulk food section at your local grocery store.

[Pete, Cristina, Ksenia, Jane, Scott and others] First, begin by not using plastics in direct contact with food, for storage AND food processing etc. Also, not wearing synthetic clothing can reduce exposure to microplastics. Heating foods in plastics increases migration of chemicals and there are some studies indicating that microplastics may also be generated when plastics are heated. But there are some issues with correct sample preparation and analysis so more evidence is needed to confirm this as key source.

Do you all actually not wear synthetic clothes?

[Lindsey, FPF staff - not a PhD] I’m not on the Scientific Advisory Board but as part of my work with FPF I read reports about the substances and life cycles of all sorts of consumer products. For example, the World Economic Forum report on microplastics in the ocean which found that synthetic fibers are a major source. I still wear synthetics for gym clothes but I’ve been slowly moving away from synthetic materials wherever I can elsewhere - bought a woolen rug, went to the thrift shop specifically looking for linen clothes, etc. It is more expensive up front but in the long run I hope they last longer and cause fewer problems to me and ultimately wherever it ends up.

Has anyone investigated whether there's a correlation between newborns being fed pumped breast milk and later having developmental delays?

I've always wondered about all that plastic tubing, receptacle, plastic storage bags. And also about those small formula bottles-- the hospital sent us home with literal bags full of them when our child had trouble breast feeding.

You really initiated quite the discussion!

[Pete] All that plastic associated with childbirth is a problem. It is especially problematic for infants in neonatal intensive care units, in which plastic tubing made from PVC plastic, which leaches phthalates. Unfortunately there currently are few if any replacements for many plastic materials used in childcare. Some of those uses are deemed essential. A high priority should be placed on creating, through synthetic chemistry, sustainable replacements. Those uses deemed not essential should be eliminated forthwith. The European Union’s Chemical Strategy for Sustainability envisions major investments in chemical innovation to enable those replacements. But we are not there yet.

[Tom] The pumping kits contain these bottles with tubing, receptacle and storage bags and there is little to no information about how chemicals are migrating. If it is possible to switch out the plastic storage bags with glass containers that can be used might reduce your risk. We know it is difficult for new parents to navigate this!

[Jane, Scott, Jerry] We are concerned about ortho-phthalates that migrate from plastic products. If possible avoid plastics for infants, where possible but for some uses alternatives are still under development. You can use glass formula bottles for children, and then you hold the child while it’s drinking and help with holding the glass bottle–so you have an intimate moment with your child even though you cannot breast feed.

[Cristina] We have actually investigated chemicals migrating from plastic bags used to store baby formula, and they found that they migrate a lot of different chemicals, because these are actually complex multilayer materials, and the risks have not yet been fully investigated.

If possible avoid plastics for infants

There's microplastics in breast milk. Sure, the dose makes the poison, but at some point we have to admit that our individual decisions don't make a ton of difference in a polluted world.

[Lindsey, FPF staff - not a PhD] Yes, it's essentially impossible to avoid completely. Microplastics are in the air, the Arctic, the deep ocean... In the specific case of breast milk, there are so many positives of breastfeeding that even if it turned out microplastics were the same breastfeeding is still great.
We can't all do everything and honestly, consumers shouldn't be expected to shoulder all of these concerns on their own. We just have to pick our battles. What is it that we are personally willing to take on, what will we advocate for, how will we support others who are advocating for us, and when do we not engage. It can be a complicated and difficult question.

Beyond purchasing, what is the next best way to get PFAS out of our products? What regulatory body needs changed? What politicians need influenced?

[Martin Scheringer] The best way to get PFAS out of products is to ban their manufacture and use. Some US States have banned the use of PFAS in products and the EU is discussing a broad ban of most PFAS. The EU proposal contains all PFAS but there are some exceptions.

[Pete} The challenge of getting PFAS out of products is exacerbated by the fact that PFAS have been measured in rainwater all around the world at levels considered dangerous by regulatory agencies. No natural processes in our bodies or the environment destroy PFAS. That’s why they are called “forever chemicals.” Sooner or later they enter every environmental niche. This is an excellent example of why chemicals that are persistent in the environment like PFAS should never be manufactured or used.

[Terry} Ban the production and sale of almost all “forever chemicals”. Essential uses need to be debated and “essential” needs to be thoroughly justified. The term “forever chemical” means that Nature cannot dispose of it — except perhaps by burying it over eons. So if there is an adverse biological effect, it will manifest in the living things of our precious ecosphere. We have learned a great deal about the deadly dangers of PFAS and “forever chemicals” in recent years and decades (e.g. dioxins approach “forever” status)—it is time for our political leadership to act on that understanding and protect life. Have you seen “Dark Waters”? All the horrible dynamics within the chemical enterprise are there to be viewed so that you can make up your own minds about how much one leading company cared or didn’t care about its company town and, essentially, all living things..

[Terry} Ban the production and sale of almost all “forever chemicals”. Essential uses need to be debated and “essential” needs to be thoroughly justified. The term “forever chemical”means that Nature cannot dispose of it. So if there is an adverse biological effect, it will manifest in the living things of our precious ecosphere. We have learned a great deal about the deadly dangers of PFAS and “forever chemicals” in recent years and decades (e.g. dioxins approach “forever” status)—it is time for our political leadership to act on that understanding and protect life. Have you seen “Dark Waters?” All the horrible dynamics within the chemical enterprise are there to be viewed so that you can make up your own minds about how much one leading company cared or didn’t care about its company town.

[Maricel] In the US, several states have banned PFAS in paper-based food packaging, others are including bans for other materials and consumer products like carpets. THe US FDA has effectively banned long-chain PFAS in food packaging and there is an ongoing phase out of uses of short-chain PFAS as well.

[Tom] It is important to recognize that (e.g.) the US EPA is reviewing the toxicity of 6 individual PFAS. There are estimated to be over 12,000. How much sense does it make to spend 6 months to a year of experts time to find that an individual chemical (of part of a large group) is a health problem).

Are silicone products (food containers, cooking utensils) any safer than other synthetic materials like plastics, given the higher heat resistance?

[Cristina] They release polysiloxanes . Before using, you should put in the oven for 4 hours at 200C filled with a paste of flour and water and after this period throw out this paste and use the silicone mold. But please don’t spread on oil or butter on the mold before using. And don’t use with fatty or colored foods.

In what kind of packaging materials do I have more probability to find PFA's and/or BPH´s? Is it also a risk even in bio-based materials?

[Ksenia] PFAS: non-stick cookware, fast food wrappers in contact with greasy foods, pizza boxes. BPA and co: coatings in metal cans (still! Both food and drinks), also some reusable bottles, unfortunately… among others. Regarding bio-based materials: YES, it is absolutely a risk to “meet” those chemicals also in bioplastics and other bio-based materials such as paper. In fact, paper straws which are now often used instead of plastic straws have been found to be contaminated with different types of hazardous chemicals. This is because you need to make sure that they somehow do not disintegrate in your drink! - for which you would - aha - add some chemicals. So, the best solution is not to move from plastics to bioplastics or other alternative materials like paper, but try to eliminate single-use products as much as possible from your daily life!

Hi. Thanks for the ama!

Is all plastic at or near the same hazard level, or can that be standardized/ranked for easy reference? For example, can one rank relative risk from routine exposure to a Teflon pan, fast food wrapper, ziplock bag, etc? You mention in another comment that Teflon is bad, but if we store food in a ziplock bag, is that like a tenth as bad, or a thousandth? Are there any plastics treated in such a way as to have essentially zero risk?

[Ksenia] Hi, thank you for this very good question. People are working on quantifying the risks from different products, however, it is a complex task. There are many factors that need to be taken into consideration, including the different types of migrating chemicals which can cause different effects by themselves, the length of storage, the dose and frequency of foods that will be taken in this way (and we all have different eating habits), our genetic predisposition (susceptibility) to develop certain disorders, and and… So, there are general recommendations to try avoiding storing and especially heating (or freezing) food in plastics, but there are no quantitative measures which can yet be given for each product in this regard. In terms of comparing different alternative products, we are involved in a project UPSCORECARD which tries to rank different packaging and catering options based on several criteria, including sustainability, recyclability, chemical migration etc. You might like to have a look here: https://upscorecard.org/

Some questions on PFAS:

- What are the alternatives to PFAS? Are they available at scale ?

- Is there any substitution good practice example from a company?

- What is the state of the regulation (countries already banning PFAS and bans to come)?

[Terry] Well, our civilization did just fine without PFAS. Nature cannot handle PFAS. Here we have a case where the sumptuous technical and cost performances have trumped completely the health, environmental and fairness performances. The only way to handle PFAS is to stop making it. We will find our way to fill in the gaps when the HEF performances receive the status that is their due in a civilization with a sustainable chemical enterprise. This will require aggressive regulatory action now!

[Scott] Alternatives depend on the application. For example, instead of using microwave popcorn bags, make your popcorn in a stainless steel pan. For waterproofing shoes and textiles alternatives are also available–look for special labels at outdoor retailers. These products usually are wax-based.

What are the odds that the sharp increase in Type one Diabetes in recent years is related to plastics?

[Jerry, Jane, Cristina, Ksenia] The odds are good. Type one diabetes has an immune component, and many endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can interfere with the immune system, so it is plausible that they could affect disease burden. Many EDCs are associated with plastics. Actually, we published a new article today where we discuss the associations between some food contact chemicals and chronic disease (see here https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/news/a-novel-concept-for-improved-safety-assessment-of-fcms-guided-by-public-health-concerns ). Importantly, chemicals in plastic food packaging and other food contact materials are not routinely tested for their impacts on diabetes. In our opinion, there is an opportunity to prevent chronic diseases by properly testing chemicals prior to their placing on the market and use in plastic packaging etc.

What is the one most beneficial thing you can tell people to do in order to improve their plastic health? (i.e. stop drinking plastic beverage bottles, no lululemon, etc..)

[FPF] Chemical migration from plastic and other types of food packaging into food is greatest:

• Over extended time periods (for pantry foods, like flour, rice, polenta, etc.)
• At higher temperatures (so, when you head foodstuffs in plastics, or fill hot foodstuffs into plastic containers)
• With fatty and/or acidic foods (like sodas, tomato sauces are acidic foodstuffs, and oils, butter, cheese, meats, etc. are foods with higher fat content)
• When packaged in smaller serving sizes (like for children), because for smaller serving sizes you have a proportionally higher surface area compared to the volume of the food.

So if you have the option, store foods in inert containers (glass/steel/ceramic, or store leftovers in a bowl or pot with a lid on top), wait for foods to cool, put fatty foods in inert containers, and buy in bulk.

[Terry} Eat organic from a reliable supplier.

I read quite a while ago that cardboard packaging for food (e.g. breakfast cereal boxes) contains carcinogens. Is this true? If so, has there been any action at all from any industries to change this up?

[Ksenia] Yes, the question of carcinogenic chemicals in cardboard packaging has been coming up over and over again. At some point, the main concern were some components of printing inks used on packaging. Whether a specific brand (or, a packaging of a specific brand) that you could presently buy in a supermarket contains carcinogenic chemicals, we cannot say for certain. Many of the concern cases have been eliminated after they were discovered, since these issues, understandably, present huge risks for damaging brands’ reputation. A general recommendation here would be to avoid heavily printed cardboard boxes in general, i.e., go for as little printed packaging as possible. Or, try to buy in bulk. In fact, if you think about this, colorful printing on the packaging does not have any specific function apart from serving to distinguish brands among each other and attract consumers in this way. So, we as consumers do not need colorful packaging. Some brands have recognized this. And in any case, now they pay much more attention to what kind of substances are being used in printing inks, so, yes, in this regard the situation has improved a lot since the early scandal cases.

Are there some industries (eg. medical) that oil based plastics will always be necessary?

[Pete] “Always” is a loaded term. Companies making medical equipment from plastics currently have few if any alternatives. But some are making serious efforts to replace problematic chemicals, e.g., phthalates, from plastic. The European Union’s emphasis on investing in sustainable chemistry in their “Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability” envision large investments in creating new, non-hazardous materials, i.e., chemical innovation. If you accept “always” you discourage that innovation.

[Terry} Sustainability in the chemical enterprise is a direction not an endpoint! In the coming years and decades, any faithful pursuit of sustainability will require that we look via advanced testing at the products and processes we use to operate the civilization to optimize not just the technical and cost performances (which have dominated the value propositions since the modern chemical enterprise got its start—1856 is a good date) but also the health, environmental and fairness performances. I personally believe that the failure to change on the basis of compelling hazard and toxicity data emanating from modern science will spell the death of our civilization and the termination of family lines at least in highly chemicalized components of the civilization. I believe the, for example, disappearing Koreans, Singaporeans and, as is becoming clearer with time, Chinese, need to start measuring their fertility and correlating it with the contamination of their blood and other fluids by endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Y’all need some analysis/visualization help?

Maybe... I can't guarantee anything but happy to chat! We have a data analyst and communicator on the team but we do occasionally pull in freelancers for certain projects. Feel free to PM! - Lindsey (FPF data person)

What DOESNT contain micro plastics?

[Jane] Some researchers are studying biospecimens from the last century. Those are microplastics-free. Levels in biospecimens pick up around the 1950s – in parallel with increasing plastics production.
But better materials that contain no plastics are cotton and wool and stainless steel, glass, ceramics. Textiles are often mixtures so try to avoid those.

[Terry} It is astonishing how many everyday products will end up as micro- and nano-plastics. This is an area that will require immense research and development investment on the mandatory route our civilization must take toward a sustainable chemical enterprise if it wants to save the survival and humanity of humankind from the excesses of chemical products and processes built primarily on value propositions that hyperfocus on technical and cost performances.

Hello, what do you think about EVA films to substitute PVC based wrapping films. Are they better? Is it expected to improve recyclability on this materials?

[Ksenia] As far as I know, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) films also contain chemical additives, which, similar to PVC films, are added there to improve functionality. What regards recyclability, no, neither PVC films nor EVA films would have good recyclability. Trying to recycle wrappers is by default a failing affair, because a) too small mass to be economical to collect and recycle; b) too often soiled with food, which decreases recyclability as well (or makes it plain impossible).

[Terry} As with all polymers, one has to be concerned about the additives. Unless careful testing has been done for low dose toxicity (rarely done) there is always an unanswered question about relative toxicity.

[Cristina] PVC contains many plasticizers, while EVA contains less plasticizers. But the functionality is not the same, because EVA is usually applied in a blend with polyethylene.

Is there a link between childhood ADHD and plastic?

[Lindsey, FPF staff - not SAB] There is a link between ortho-phthalates (which are used in plastics) and ADHD along with other cognitive development and health concerns - autism, cardiovascular problems, fertility… (source). Also, there is evidence that the levels defined as “safe” may not actually be safe since they are largely based off of male fertility and there are a lot of other ways chemicals can affect human health, (source).

Does a material like silicone present the same risks as plastics? Or would it be a good replacement for food and beverages?

[Maricel & Ksenia] If we interpret “risks” as “risks for human health”, then we tend to say that silicones won’t make for a good replacement for plastics simply due to the fact that migration of chemical additives is also an issue in silicones. Baking molds made of silicones as well as cooking utensils made of silicones, both types of cookware were shown to release chemicals, more so upon heating. However, at the moment we can’t quantitatively assess, which materials bear higher “risks”, silicones or plastics. If we interpret “risks” as “risks for environment”, then we tend to say that silicones could make for more “environmentally friendly” materials because they are made essentially of sand. However, again, both types of materials use heavy loads of chemical additives to make them functional, so in this sense they do not differ much.

What are the perspectives of compostable materials at the End-of-life? Do you think is a good choice to improve the circularity of food packaging?

[Terry} There is not a single plastic today that can authentically support a “Circular Economy”.

[Ksenia] Provided you (a) manage to properly collect these materials, (b) bring them to composting facilities, which (c ) you have available at regular distances to enable (a) and (b), then, yes, it is a good choice. However, these conditions are often not met. Due to this, some of us used to call recycling/composting “a fig leaf of single-use products industry”. On a big scale, it (almost) never works.

Thanks for everything you do! I'm not sure how widespread this is but I've noticed my compostable k cups are individually wrapped in plastic to keep them fresh, and if you read the fine print, they're "compositable" by an industrial process only. What uh...say you about this, I guess?

[Lindsey, FPF staff not SAB] So, “compostable”, “biodegradable”, bio-based”, and other plastics are still at the end of the day plastic. They may be made from a different source material or have a different structure but they generally have the same chemical migration concerns as standard plastic. Many of the same additives are used. In fact, there was a study published last month looking at the effects of chemical migration on cells in a test tube (in vitro study) that found compostables had higher level of toxicity than standard plastic (source).

Concerning the “industrial composting” part: That definitely gets confusing. It’s difficult for consumers, who don’t know where it is appropriate to put it (source). And it can be difficult for local waste managers because not all organic waste streams can handle these materials. Some compostable plastics need very specific enzymes in order to break down. And no matter how it gets broken down, all of the chemical additives are then introduced directly to the compost.

This concern about introducing additives from compostable materials (plastic or paper) is something FPF brings up regularly in policy discussions and comments. Standards need to be developed on how to demonstrate or test safety.

It seems there’s so much to worry about and yet so little time, what should the layperson focus on when trying to limit their exposure to unhealthy chemicals and forever plastics?

[Lindsey, FPF staff not SAB] FPF has written an article explaining under which circumstances chemical migration happens more. I have copied some of the information here but the original article has more information and sources.

Chemical migration from plastic and other types of food packaging into food is greatest:

Over extended time periods

At higher temperatures

With fatty and/or acidic foods

When packaged in smaller serving sizes

So if you have the option, store foods in inert containers (glass/steel/ceramic, or store leftovers in a bowl or pot with a lid on top), wait for foods to cool, put fatty foods in inert containers, and buy in bulk.

[Lindsey] I copied the above text from another question. However, I think it is important to keep in mind that this shouldn't, and largely can't, be tackled by consumers alone. Do what you can but try not to stress about it during daily life. When I first started in this field I got overwhelmed with information and had trouble making decisions about buying anything. Encourage change where you can, support change when you see it... live your life.

Are paper based materials the next generation of materials for direct food contact packaging?

[Lindsey, FPF staff, not SAB] This is a big discussion in the field at the moment. Civil society organization European Environment Bureau recently released a report about paper packaging not being the miracle solution. Their press release explains some of the discussion.

If we (society) just want to change from one material to another without changing how we distribute and sell food then paper is the easiest change. But ultimately that is still single-use packaging. Some might get recycled, some composted but there are still problems with chemical migration from paper packaging and over-use of forest resources.

Both paper and plastic are non-inert materials which means that chemicals can move around in the material and leave the material into the food. A recent study got a lot of press looking at chemicals from paper cups and found it was still problematic (Wired). In this case the tested cups were coated in thin plastic but other studies show problems with paper directly too.

4) I've read some articles about organisms popping up that have started digesting/ breaking down microplastics. What are your views for the viability of these organisms playing a significant role in our ongoing issue?

[Lindsey, FPF staff - not a PhD] So this is getting a little outside my wheelhouse but here are my two cents. We don’t have a way to clean up the microplastics already in the environment. So the few wild organisms that can break down particles may be able to take an edge off. But only if we stop putting so much into the environment to begin with.
There are folks working on developing ways to commercially break down plastics using these organisms but I feel it would be better to use less plastics in the first place than bank on being able to effectively domesticate and scale these organisms as a cleaning technology.

Is silicone cookware truly safe? Or could it be a situation in 50 years where we figure out it was actually bad for us?

[Maricel & Ksenia] If we interpret “risks” as “risks for human health”, then we tend to say that silicones won’t make for a good replacement for plastics simply due to the fact that migration of chemical additives is also an issue in silicones. Baking molds made of silicones as well as cooking utensils made of silicones, both types of cookware were shown to release chemicals, more so upon heating. However, at the moment we can’t quantitatively assess, which materials bear higher “risks”, silicones or plastics. If we interpret “risks” as “risks for environment”, then we tend to say that silicones could make for more “environmentally friendly” materials because they are made essentially of sand. However, again, both types of materials use heavy loads of chemical additives to make them functional, so in this sense they do not differ much.

Copied from another answer.

My local co-op grocer uses plastic-like compostable containers for delivery to go items. Are those safe from the baddie chemicals?

Copied from another answer

[Lindsey, FPF staff not SAB] So, “compostable”, “biodegradable”, bio-based”, and other plastics are still at the end of the day plastic. They may be made from a different source material or have a different structure but they generally have the same chemical migration concerns as standard plastic. Many of the same additives are used. In fact, there was a study published last month looking at the effects of chemical migration on cells in a test tube (in vitro study) that found compostables had higher level of toxicity than standard plastic (source).

That's just one study but I would generally consider all plastics approximately the same in this regard. The Food Packaging Forum has some fact sheets on plastics and bioplastics if you're interested in reading a bit more about it.

Would you recommend non-stick pans?

Any non-stick pans containing Teflon are not safe, because they contain known hazardous chemicals that can migrate. Even non- Teflon pans have been found to contain PFAS. We recommend using a cast iron pan or stainless steel pan, even though these are not non-stick. If you season cast iron pans correctly they can be non-stick. - team answer

Terry: We use cast iron cured in the old-fashioned way. So I don’t worry too much about exposures to PFAS coming from the pan.

[Lindsey] Copied the above from an earlier answer. I would say "recommend" is a no. YouTube channel MinuteFood discussed PFAS and pans recently. If you want to learn a little more.

3)I try to garden some fruits and veggies at home in raised beds. Is there some at home available test to check for microplastics in water , in soil?

[Lindsey, FPF staff - not a PhD] Not that I know of, sorry. On the very small chance that you live in California, you may be able to ask the California Water Board about measurements in your region. California is working on a lot on measuring and regulating microplastics in drinking water.

Spouse thinks microwaving Annie’s Mac & cheese still in the plastic is the way to go. I disagree as does the Annie’s label. How is it different than when we put Saran Wrap over a bowl and wave it? What’s the answer?

[Lindsey, FPF staff - not SAB] While I normally hate to get into someone else's marital disagreements, you're right (and Annie's). What about putting it in a bowl with a plate on top? It's really best to avoid microwaving plastic whenever possible.

What's your take on crock pots? Ceramic inner container with a glass lid, but plastic on the outside. Is it safe?

[Lindsey, FPF staff not SAB] Fired ceramics and glass are both "inert" materials meaning that chemicals can't move from within or outside the material into food. I don't think you have anything to worry about.

2)Has anyone tracked particular microplastic pieces. Like does our body ever excrete them or once they are in our body we will only accumulate them/maybe eventually break them down?

[Lindsey, FPF staff - not a PhD] I will try to get my colleague who studies this stuff to answer your question more thoroughly tomorrow, but I can give it a start.

Basically, all of the above. A decent amount of the microplastics we eat, we also poop (study 2018). But some also get absorbed into our blood (2022), organs (2022, 2023), and when pregnant, into the placenta and fetus (2021). Then, this break down question... there can be effects from the physical plastic particles on our tissues as well as effects from the chemicals in the plastic leaching into our system as it breaks down. I, personally, am not sure the state of the science when it comes to distinguishing between when the health effects come from physical or chemical exposure. And keep in mind that this is a pretty new field. The scientific community is still trying to figure out the best ways to even study and measure microplastics...