this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
341 points (98.3% liked)

science

20847 readers
312 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (4 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.

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 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 2 years ago

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

[–] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Blame petrochemical/oil companies.

Plant based biodegrade plastic exist...

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

(☞゚ヮ゚)☞

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago