The Guardian supposedly dropped a bombshell when it reported recently that early research on the extent of microplastics in the human body is too fraught with errors to be taken seriously. It misses the point, and sets back efforts to address this pressing public health crisis. What is a lethal dose of plastics poisoning?
We don’t know yet, but some day we will. Last week, The Guardian framed arecent critique of early-stage studiesinto the extent of microplastics in the human body as a “bombshell”, and one study in the field as “a joke”. The broader field of research that’s being challenged here is young.
It’s trying to establish the extent to which tiny shards of plastics are collecting in human tissue, mostly in our livers, kidneys, arteries, blood, hearts, placental tissue and even our brains. The Guardian’s supposed exposé raises red flags about the methods used for collecting and testing samples, particularly those relating to blood and brain samples. It concludes that the findings are too error-prone to be taken seriously.
Read Full Article on Daily Maverick
[paywall]
The Guardian’s reporting here is misleading, and only serves to confuse the public. Just as science needed time to quantify the harms of long-term tobacco use, we need time to measure the extent to which microplastics are accumulating in our bodies and what the public health consequences will be. Yes, this is an emerging field of research, and should be subject to the same scientific rigour and journalistic critiques as any other.
But this fast-evolving area must be communicated responsibly, and with the public good in mind. Dismissing the first-round findings of such a greenfields area of scientific research as “scaremongering” will also play into the hands of those stalling global efforts to settle on aUN Environment Programme plastics pollution treaty. As we’ve seen with communicating other complex areas of science – carbon pollution driving climate collapse; food-like products polluting our bodies with the “oil spills” of obesity, diabetes and the supposedly self-inflicted cancers of lifestyle – the public often reaches for simple truths and silver-bullet solutions amid the often confusing messages that come through with early-stage scientific findings.
How many readers will now dismiss the whole field of research, and slip into the kind of hopeful denialism that many of us default to when we’re overwhelmed by the consequences of big polluting systems that seem too enormous for us to change? The “bombshell” term that The Guardian introduces into the article comes from the chemist Roger Kuhlman, who previously worked at the Dow Chemical Company – the kind of company that might benefit from downplaying the public health risks of microplastics in our bodies. A more appropriate expert to approach for comment on this issue would be someone schooled in public health, with a more intimate knowledge of the biology at work, and no vested interests.
[/paywall]
