One study[0] shows that microplastics can cause irritation which could lead to problems. Any underlying condition, this could make it worse. But it's hard to identify conclusive evidence. You'll find pretty equal amount of studies claiming harm vs no-harm, which makes a lot of the whole thing suspect.
Clearly plastics are extremely stable so our bodies breaking them down into the chemical components is basically zero. A lot of the question of microplastics stems around whether or not your body holds onto them long term after ingestion and more importantly if that leads to any significant issues.
Personally, I'm still not concerned. It's not nearly as clear as asbestos in terms of health issues. The risk-reward model of plastics makes me believe it's here to stay for a long time.
Risk for whom, and reward for whom?
You imply that it is the people exposed to the risk that largely benefit when it is mostly a margin/profit reward for companies who continue to externalize the environmental costs of plastic onto everybody else.
Reminder that Coca-Cola alone produces more than 110 _billion_ PET bottles a year, without any responsability for their collection or safe disposal. [0]
Disposal of plastic, should be an operational cost for the likes of Coca-Cola, Nestle, Pepsico, Unilever, Kraft, Mars, etc.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/02/coca-col...
That argument would work for plastics that are used internally inside eg Coca-Cola.
But your next example talks about bottles handed out to customers. The benefit here is to those customers.
If eg customers were demanding glass bottles (because of some benefit), and demanding them enough to pay the difference in production costs (including shipping costs etc), Coca-Cola would gladly sell them glass bottles.
In any case, corporations are just legal shells. The real stakeholders are still people. Customers, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, rank-and-file workers and, most important in practice, managers.
Please provide evidence that this is market pull rather than company push? How many convenience stores provide a glass or aluminium alternative? How much advertising is done with PET bottles versus the alternatives?
> and demanding them enough to pay the difference in production costs (including shipping costs etc)
Plastic is cheaper because companies have externalized the cost of waste disposal. The environmental impact of plastic has a cost that current polluting companies are not paying.
Most beer comes in glass bottles. The economics that ostensibly make companies prefer PET over glass are just the same for beer as for soda. The difference is in consumer preferences.
> Plastic is cheaper because companies have externalized the cost of waste disposal. The environmental impact of plastic has a cost that current polluting companies are not paying.
Compare this alternative point of view:
Consumers prefers soda in plastic bottles over the alternatives, because they reap all the benefits, while the cost of waste disposal has been externalized. The environmental impact of plastic has a cost that current polluting customers are not paying.
Absolutely false, mass volume beer manufacturers would absolutely love to push for plastic beer bottles. However plastic is actually far more permeable to oxygen than glass and so beer slowly goes flat in plastic bottles, which is why they are forced to use glass. The reason is purely technical and has absolutely nothing to do with consumer preference.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing to the reality that plastics there are so many benefits and it's so entrenched as part of our lives that it's not going anywhere.
Regulation of clean up would be one great solution.
Science has a fairly decent track record at finding these things. Policy has a fairly shit track record at responding.
As the GP said, science has a good track record of identifying those things.
Basically phosphorus that has accumulated over a long time is flushed to the seas in a hundred years.
Do you per chance also advocate against 5G?
Please folks, use the downvote thoughtfully.
> They show that environmentally relevant microplastic concentrations led to reduced earthworm growth and elevated mortality as compared to a control. Futhermore, earthworms may transport microplastics into soils, from which they may leach into surface waters.
https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/news/microplas...
Chronic Microfiber Exposure in Adult Japanese Medaka (Oryzias latipes). Lingling Hu, Melissa Chernick, Anna M. Lewis, P. Lee Ferguson and David E. Hinton. PLoS ONE, March 9, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229962.
Overall this means ~80 % or so of microplastics are pretty much what parent says: biologically inert dust.