
In a world filled with plastics, study says plastics can be deadly. Now what?
In a world filled with plastics, study says plastics can be deadly. Now what? Evidence is accumulating that microplastics found nearly everywhere are also invading our bodies. What should you do?
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Trump signs paper straw order: 'I don't think that plastic's gonna affect a shark'
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday targeting paper straws, as "nobody really likes them."
Fox - 5 NY
The world has a plastic problem and it seems to be getting worse.
A study released in late April found that chemicals in plastics were potentially associated with as many as 350,000 heart disease deaths globally in 2018.
Evidence is also accumulating that the microplastic bits now found everywhere in our environment – from Antarctica to the Amazon – are invading our bodies and have been implicated in everything from heart disease to infertility. In addition, the chemicals used in plastic can leach out into food, potentially increasing risks for obesity, heart disease and other ailments.
The plastic industry rejects some of this research, saying it's not conclusive.
Plastic provides "unmatched safety, protection, and efficiency across countless applications while offering the potential for reuse and recycling," Matt Seaholm, CEO and president of the Plastics Industry Association, said in a statement to USA TODAY.
"Our industry prioritizes human health, which is why we are committed to ensuring that plastic is the most suitable and responsible choice for every application in which it is used," he said.
The nation's new Health and Human Services Secretary has historically been skeptical of the safety of plastics, writing in 2023, "Some of the toxic chemicals used in everyday items such as plastic packaging can cause cancer and birth defects."
Speaking at a Chemicals of Concern Policy Summit in North Carolina in April, Robert Kennedy Jr. said the agency would be investigating the potential human health effects of microplastics and the chemicals used in plastics.
But it's not clear what action if any the notoriously anti-regulation Trump administration will take to limit plastic production or the chemicals used.
So far, the only time President Donald Trump has spoken about plastic came in February, when he issued a 36-page national strategy reversing the promotion of paper straws instead of plastic.
So, should you reduce your plastic exposure?
Determining the true health impact of plastics, if any, has proven a daunting task. That's because they're everywhere and because, while the amount of exposure is likely to be important, it's not yet clear how much is too much.
Brett Sealove, chief of cardiology at Jersey Shore University Medical Center in Neptune, NJ, said he thinks it's too early to warn his patients about the possible health effects of plastics. But he thinks more useful information will come within a few years.
"Be on the lookout for new and better data to come," he said. "Right now there's no cause and effect, there are only associations, so you have to take them with a grain of salt," he said.
In the meantime, he says the first and most important thing people can do to lower their risk of a whole host of illnesses is to eat more vegetables, less processed food and exercise regularly.
"As a cardiologist, I would much rather you walk 30 minutes a day than focus on microplastics," Sealov said. "Yes, maybe don't microwave in plastic," he said. But get up and walk first and "we would be an endlessly healthier society."
What can you do to minimize your plastic exposure?
The only way to lower the overall amount of plastic in the environment is to limit plastic production, change manufacturing methods as well as buying habits, recycling and trash disposal systems, said Dianna Cohen, co-founder of the Plastic Pollution Coalition.
But until then what can you do to minimize the amount of plastic you take into your body? Here are some tips backed by research:
How did we get here?
Plastic is relatively new in the world. The first fully synthetic plastic was invented in 1907. By the 1930s, waste products from the petroleum and chemical industries were being used to make plastics. Production grew in the 1950s and 60s and exploded in the 1970s, when plastic became a ubiquitous part of modern life.
Today, about 400 million tons of plastic waste are produced each year, according to the United Nations. Plastic use in the United States has more than tripled since the 1980s and less than 10% is recycled.
Initially, plastics were believed to be inert, much like glass. They were thought of as chemically unreactive and generally harmless. Increasingly, studies are finding that some chemicals used to make different kinds of plastic rigid or flexible can affect biological processes within the body, often by disrupting hormones.
Is plastic hazardous to our health?
Plastic breaks down into ever smaller bits but it doesn't decompose. These microplastic particles are increasingly being found in people's bodies, entering when they eat, drink, or breathe them in.
These tiny, almost invisible plastic particles have been found in arteries, hearts, lungs, blood, placentas, breast milk, penises and testicles, among other body parts. A recent study found the average person's brain may contain the equivalent of one plastic throw-away spoon.
As studies begin to find connections between exposure to plastic and medical problems, doctors and scientists are increasingly concerned.
"We're conducing a vast, uncontrolled medical experiment in which we, our (children) and our grandchildren are the unwitting, unconsenting subjects," said Dr. Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician and director of the program for global public health and the common good at Boston College.
A study released in 2024 found the rate of heart attacks, stroke and death was 4.5-times higher in people who had microplastics in the plaque clogging their neck arteries, compared to those who didn't.
The actual cause of that increase isn't known and the researchers cautioned their findings can't be generalized to a wider population because other factors, such as socio-economic status, might be playing a role.
"The jury is still out on exactly how much gets into the human body but there's no question we're all getting exposed everyday," said Landrigan. "Now the evidence is beginning to come in that microplastics can cause disease."
Decreasing plastic in the environment
The only way to truly lower plastic exposure is to produce less and make the plastic we use easily and cheaply recyclable.
"If a bathtub is overflowing, you don't just start mopping – you turn off the tap," said Cohen. "Then you mop the floor."
The United Nations is currently negotiating a global plastic treaty that would reduce overall plastic production, improve the design of new products to make them easier to recycle and aid communities that have been disproportionally impacted by plastic pollution.
More than 99% of plastic is made from fossil fuels, Cohen noted. Despite pressure from a handful of petro-states including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait, "the majority of countries are rallying together for a strong treaty," she said.
HHS Secretary Kennedy strongly supported work on this treaty in a 2023 opinion piece, when he was running for president as a Democrat.
"In my administration, the U.S. will lead the way in forging an effective treaty, instead of watering it down at the behest of lobbyists for the oil and petrochemical industries," he wrote.
The next round of negotiations will take place in Switzerland in August.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'


Axios
30 minutes ago
- Axios
Exclusive: Zorro clinches $20M Series A for ICHRA health plans
Health benefits provider Zorro raised $20 million in Series A funding led by Entrée Capital, CEO Guy Ezekiel tells Axios exclusively. Why it matters: As employers wrestle with rising health plan costs, individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs) are gaining steam. Driving the news: Launched in 2020, ICHRAs were enabled by a Trump-era rule letting employers reimburse employees tax-free for individual health insurance instead of offering group plans. After a slow start, rule clarifications and compliance tools made them more accessible to midsized employers. Follow the money: Existing backers Pitango and 10D joined the round, which will be used to scale operations and improve support for employers. The Series A brings Zorro to $31.5 million total raised. The company is not yet profitable. How it works: New York City-based Zorro replaces traditional group plans with defined-contribution models. Employers set a budget; employees use Zorro's AI engine to select personalized plans, and brokers get real-time tools to compare group plans versus ICHRA-based options. When it onboards an employer, Zorro asks them to send their benefits roster from the previous year, asks about quality and budget priorities for the upcoming year, and helps predict what benefits employees might want next. Zorro has "several thousand" lives on the platform, per Ezekiel. Between the lines: Zorro's pitch hinges not just on cost control but on its ability to shift complex decision-making from HR to software — claiming that 75% of users enroll without human help. What they're saying: "We're giving the employer a line of sight to how his upcoming year is going to look," says Ezekiel. Reality check: While ICHRAs are gaining traction, they remain a small fraction of the employer market. Zorro's long-term success depends on widespread broker adoption and employee trust in AI-led benefit decisions. State of play: A February Bailey's report predicted the debut of several new ICHRA startups in 2025. Several others have secured recent funding. In April, Thatch raised $40 million in Series B funding led by Index Ventures and Venteur Health Insurance raised a $20 million Series A led by Informed Ventures and American Family Ventures. Remodel Health last December collected more than $100 million in a round led by Oak HC/FT and Hercules Capital.


USA Today
7 hours ago
- USA Today
This 1-year-old desperately needed a new liver. Her dad saved her life.
Hear this story Ross Marsh's daughter was only 2-days old when he knew something was wrong. His baby girl, Mackenzie, had turned yellow with jaundice. When the jaundice didn't clear up, Mackenzie was referred to the Children's Hospital Colorado. A liver biopsy later confirmed her doctor's suspicion: Mackenzie had biliary atresia, a disorder that appears in only about one in 12,000 babies, according to Cleveland Clinic. Mackenize underwent a procedure for the condition, but it wasn't enough. She needed a new liver in order to survive. "It was scary. It was nerve wracking," says Marsh, who is a firefighter in Colorado − as is his wife, Jennah. "At least in my line of work, we see horrible (stuff) all the time happening to people. ... This is just our cross to bear." Luckily, Marsh came to Mackenzie's rescue. He discovered he was a donor match for Mackenzie and could give her part of his liver. Thanks to robotic technology, surgeons at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital could perform the transplant with such great precision that Marsh was out of the hospital and back by then-8-month-old Mackenzie's bedside in two days. Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. "Eventually, she had her little smile back, and that was a big win for all of us," Marsh says. "Once we started to see her smile, we knew that things were getting better for her. She's just a smiley, happy little baby." Kids die waiting for liver transplants. This dad gave his baby daughter his own. Biliary atresia is a disease in which a baby's bile ducts become obstructed, meaning bile can't get out of the liver and into the intestine. Mackenzie first underwent a Kasai procedure to remove the blockage, but remained jaundiced and had trouble gaining weight. All in all, Marsh says his daughter spent about six months in and out of the hospital before her liver transplant. She needed a feeding tube through her nose due to malnutrition. "They put a central line into her bloodstream to deliver nutrition because her body just wasn't absorbing and processing it correctly," he says. "We ended up going in for a possible infection right before Christmas." Marsh and his wife had anticipated their daughter might need a new liver, so they got to work to make sure they were as healthy as possible, should they be donor matches. They didn't drink much to begin with but cut alcohol out entirely. They were already in good shape due to their jobs, but upped their workout regimens even more. "My wife and I both put in for the transplant," Marsh says. "And I was a positive match, just by luck." Many people need liver transplants, but people are often stuck waiting months for a potential match. The national average wait time for a liver transplant is about eight months. The average waitlist time at Children's Colorado for a pediatric liver transplant, thankfully, is shorter: less than two. One dad talked about the 'mental load': Then the backlash hit. Finding a donor fast can mean the difference between life and death. 'There are millions of healthy adults in the world who could be living donors, and yet, every year, about 40 children die across the United States, because no liver is available for them,' Dr. Amy Feldman, the medical director of Children's Hospital Colorado's liver transplant program, says. 'I dream of a world where living donor liver transplant prevents any child from dying on the waitlist.' Though Mackenzie's circumstances were grim, Marsh says he and his wife still found ways to stay grateful amid the challenges. Fellow firefighters stepped up to cover their shifts, so they could be with their daughter in the hospital. They also had insurance for the costly procedures, not something every family in similar straits can say. "When you live at the hospital for five, six months, there's terminally ill kids that are heartbreaking all (around you)," Marsh says. "So, we were able to rationalize: She can have a full, happy, healthy life once we get through this. And she's so young, she won't remember it." How he's celebrating Father's Day Now, Mackenzie is happy, healthy and rambunctious. She's been off her feeding tube since late April. Marsh calls in via Zoom from his home, where he says Mackenzie has been scooting around on the floor. "She's just McKenzie. She just likes to be a handful," he says. "Now, we're trying to figure out what normal life is for her. She's starting to not crawl yet, but she can scoot around, so she's just not such a little potato anymore. So now she's ending up underneath chairs and tables." Though they're out of the hospital, some signs of their family's medical saga linger. For instance, both Marsh and Mackenzie now have scars on their stomachs, right over their livers. "I think it's a pretty cool connection," he says. "We both have scars, and we'll be able to celebrate the anniversaries of the donation and make it, hopefully, exciting for her and not be a hindrance of like, 'Oh, I got this scary scar.'" Father's Day this year is also going to be different. Marsh says he has to spend it on duty − something he's used to as a firefighter. But, to him, holidays are the days you decide to celebrate them, not the days that come marked on the calendar. What health & wellness means for you: Sign up for USA TODAY's Keeping It Together newsletter Like so many other parents, Marsh says having a child has changed his outlook on life. "It's amazing how your perspective of what's important in life changes from before fatherhood till after fatherhood," he says. "I told Jennah before the surgery, 'If things go bad, make sure they get the liver. I don't care if I don't make it. She's number one. I'm number two.' Whether it's the surgery or just in life in general, to me she's more important."