|
 |
Quick housekeeping note: today’s edition is partly paywalled for paid subscribers. Substack’s paywall language makes it sound like you’re only unlocking the video, but there’s a lot more to read below it, too. Cheers!
 |
| ||
By now, you have probably heard that microplastics are everywhere. You may have even heard it at this newsletter.
 |
|
That basic idea is still true: plastic pollution is in a lot of places. But lately, some scientists have raised serious questions about some of the more viral studies claiming that large quantities of tiny plastic particles have been found in nearly every part of the human body.
Essentially, these researchers are saying that many high-profile microplastics studies have not done enough to rule out microplastic contamination from the lab, the operating room, or the testing process itself. In other words, it’s hard to know whether the microplastics they detected really originated inside the body, or if they were introduced via the scientists themselves.
I don’t think this means we no longer need to worry about microplastics. But I do think it means that the science of exactly how much microplastics are in our bodies, and what it does once it gets there, is still being worked out.
But fortunately, today I’m not talking about microplastics. I’m talking about a related—and much better-established—part of the plastics problem: the hormone-disrupting chemicals used in plastic production, packaging, and other consumer products.
Some of these chemicals—like phthalates and bisphenols—are commonly known as plasticizers. And unlike microplastics, these chemicals have a long and disturbing scientific paper trail linking them to harm, particularly in pregnant people and babies.
Earlier this month, House Democrats introduced legislation that would ban these chemicals in food packaging. “Consumers should be able to trust that the food they put on their tables is safe, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, (D-IL) said in a statement to