logo
6 Ways You Can Control Microplastics From Getting Into Your Food

6 Ways You Can Control Microplastics From Getting Into Your Food

Yahooa day ago

As you cook, store food and even brew your morning coffee or tea, you may be inadvertently adding microplastics to your food and drinks. These tiny plastic particles are increasingly showing up not only in our food but also in our bodies (Heads up: they've been found throughout the body, from the brain to the blood, liver and placenta).
A big way microplastics get into our food is through contaminated soil, water and air. But it can also happen right in the kitchen, through simple daily habits that you likely have a lot of control over. Whether you're chopping veggies on a plastic cutting board or reheating last night's dinner in a plastic container, you may be increasing your exposure to microplastics.
As of now, a lot more research is needed to get a better understanding of how microplastics and nanoplastics might directly affect or harm human health. But some early research results allow us to see that the potential health consequences may not be great. For example, research findings from one observational study show that microplastics found in arteries may potentially increase the risk of having a stroke and heart disease.
If you're concerned about your microplastic exposure — and how your kitchen habits may be playing a role — we have some good news. In most cases, you can lean into some simple, plastic-free swaps.
Here are six ways microplastics might be making their way into your food and drinks due to your kitchen habits, and what you can use instead.
Many people rely on plastic cutting boards because they're nonporous and can be easier to clean. But this may not be the best idea. When you cut food on a plastic cutting board, you're often putting microplastics directly into your food. And research shows that the stronger the cut, the more microplastics are released.
'Plastic cutting boards are one of the biggest exposure rates and one of the easiest things to switch out,' said Jennifer Brandon, a microplastics expert, oceanographer and founder of Wild Beacon Consulting.
In a study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, researchers found that people may be exposed to up to 50 grams of microplastics each year from using plastic chopping boards in the kitchen. 'For reference, a credit card is five grams, so that's a lot of plastic,' Brandon said.
Consider using a wood or bamboo cutting board.
If much of your meal prep involves reheating food in plastic containers, you may want to change your ways. When many plastic storage containers areheated, microplastics canleach into your food. Plastic containers that are safe to use in the microwave are typically labeled 'microwave safe,' according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But take-out containers, yogurt containers, margarine tubs and other containers designed for one-time use should not be used in the microwave, they say. Still, many experts have cautioned against heating food in plastic containers, even if they're labeled microwave safe.
'There was a study that heated a plastic food container with just water in it, and they found more than 10 million microplastics that were leached into the water that was in that container,' said Victoria Fulfer, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Rhode Island and researcher specializing in microplastic pollution at the 5 Gyres Institute.
Heating bags of frozen vegetables right in their plastic packaging isn't the greatest idea, either. Similar to microwave-safe plastic containers, packages of vegetables labeled as microwave safe should be fine to use. But there's not a lot of research available on this, and many experts advise against heating food in plastic. 'When you're heating them up, it's causing the bonds in the plastic to break, and that allows microplastics and nanoplastics and also those chemicals in the plastic to get directly into your food,' Fulfer said. 'And that can be a big problem because those are really small particles.'
A recent class-action lawsuit against Ziploc's parent company alleges that the company's 'microwave safe' marketing claims are misleading due to the potential for releasing microplastics when heated — however, the company maintains that the products are safe.
Swap out your plastic storage containers for oven or microwave-safe glass containers. These do not leach microplastics or chemicals into your food and are generally more durable.
And rather than heating plastic veggies directly in their plastic packaging, transfer them to a glass container to heat them in the microwave or to a pan for heating on the stove.
Do you tend to store your snacks and leftovers in plastic storage bags? If so, it may be time to find an alternative. 'These plastics are soft, so they shed plastic flakes easily, which can become a considerable health risk for those that often use these types of bags,' said Bryan Quoc Le, food scientist and food industry consultant.
In a 2020 study published in Scientific Reports, researchers found that simply opening plastic packaging — whether through snipping with scissors, tearing a bag, twisting or cutting with a knife — can generate microplastics. The amount generated varied depending on the thickness of the plastic packaging, but the researchers noted that this sends a warning about the importance of using care when opening plastic packaging for those who are concerned about microplastics.
Use reusable silicone bags, stainless steel or glass containers or beeswax wraps.
Plastic wrap can release plastic particles into food, 'especially when placed directly against hot food, since it is such a soft plastic,' Le said. 'Depending on factors such as the temperature and moisture of the food, this could pose serious problems because some of the plastic wrap could actually melt onto the food, which would become a major hazard.'
Cover your food loosely with aluminum foil (but do not put this in the microwave), or use reusable silicone stretch wraps, beeswax wraps or a glass container with a lid.
Do you still cook with plastic utensils? Research shows that these release substantial amounts of microplastic particles with normal use, which can then be ingested with food. When heated, this is an even bigger problem.
'As we use them on our hot pans — you've probably noticed if you use them at home — they start to melt a little, and plastic will come off of them,' Fulfer said.
Ditch your plastic cooking utensils and switch to products made of wood or metal, depending on what type of pan you're cooking with.
Many tea bags are made of a type of plastic called polypropylene. When you brew these tea bags in water that's been heated to a high temperature, the bag can begin to break down and release microplastics. Others made of nylon and cellulose have also been found to release microplastics.
Researchers in Spain and Canada, for example, found that plastic tea bags may release millions or even billions of microplastic particles when steeped in hot water.
'The danger of this is that these millions of microplastics and nanoplastics can enter the bloodstream and [gastrointestinal] tract, and can be quite small, and may be small enough to cross the blood/brain barrier, as we have seen with other nanoplastics,' Brandon said.
The safest option is to brew loose leaf tea in a glass or metal tea infuser or kettle. If you want to stick with tea bags, look for teas labeled as plastic free or those made of natural materials like 100% cotton, hemp or paper. If you go this route, keep in mind that while these shed fewer microplastics than those made of plastic, even paper tea bags are not always plastic-free.
If You're Wondering How Microplastics Even Get In Your Food, Read This
New Study Finds Big Increase In Microplastics Found In Human Brains
You Can't Totally Avoid Microplastics, But These 7 Things Can Help

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Most Chronic Hepatitis B Diagnoses in US Are Late
Most Chronic Hepatitis B Diagnoses in US Are Late

Medscape

time2 hours ago

  • Medscape

Most Chronic Hepatitis B Diagnoses in US Are Late

More than 75% of chronic hepatitis B diagnoses in the United States occur late — within 2 years before or after the onset of a liver complication — highlighting the need for improved screening to prevent poor outcomes. METHODOLOGY: Late diagnosis of chronic hepatitis B represents a missed opportunity to intervene early and prevent liver-related complications. Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of the Truven MarketScan database (2007 to 2021) to estimate the prevalence of late diagnosis of chronic hepatitis B in the US and associated liver complications. Eligible patients had chronic hepatitis B diagnosis and at least 12 months of insurance coverage prior to the first liver complication (cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], or liver transplant). A diagnosis was defined as late if it occurred within 2 years before or after the first liver complication, and non-late if was made more than 2 years before the complication. TAKEAWAY: Of 2608 patients included (mean age, 54.83 years; 29.7% women), 76.6% had a late diagnosis of chronic hepatitis B; among these, 44.5% were diagnosed at or within 6 months of their first liver complication, and 75.5% lacked a documented visit to a medical provider prior to their first liver complication. Among those diagnosed > 36 months after the first liver complication, 46% already had another liver disease. Despite treatment advances, the rate of late diagnosis remained stable between 2010 (78.8%) and 2019 (89.3%; P for trend = . 438). for trend 438). Among patients with a late diagnosis, 91.0% had cirrhosis, 81.5% had decompensated cirrhosis, 30.8% developed HCC, and 14.4% underwent liver transplant. Independent predictors of late diagnosis included male sex, alcohol use, and having Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) or Health Maintenance Organization/PPO hybrid insurance. IN PRACTICE: 'Our study suggests that the majority of [hepatitis B virus] diagnoses in the United States are likely incidental from the work-up of a liver complication. These patients can be seen as 'missed opportunities' for treatment and intervention to prevent disease progression and adverse hepatic outcomes,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Michael Le and Joanne K. Liu, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California. It was published online in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics . LIMITATIONS: This study excluded uninsured individuals and those covered by government insurance (eg, Medicaid), potentially underrepresenting higher-risk populations. Reliance on claims data may have affected the accuracy of diagnosis rates. Data on race, ethnicity, and foreign-born status were unavailable, preventing analysis of these important factors. DISCLOSURES: The authors received no specific funding for this work. No conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

Adverse Events Post-Colonoscopy Rise With Age but Are Rare
Adverse Events Post-Colonoscopy Rise With Age but Are Rare

Medscape

time2 hours ago

  • Medscape

Adverse Events Post-Colonoscopy Rise With Age but Are Rare

Although adverse event rates within 30 days after surveillance colonoscopy increase with age, peaking among patients aged 76-85 years, they remain infrequent, occurring in < 1% of procedures. METHODOLOGY: Guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopy for patients with precancerous adenomas due to an increased colorectal cancer risk but lack recommendations for stopping surveillance after the age of 75 years despite older adults experiencing increased comorbidities. Researchers analyzed data from 84,172 surveillance colonoscopies performed from 2010 to 2019 within a large integrated US healthcare system. Participants (59.5% men; 66.4% White individuals), aged 45-85 years, had a prior adenoma and were followed up to 30 days post-procedure for adverse events. Outcomes included emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths due to specific conditions (eg, colonic perforation and stroke), cardiovascular conditions, or any cause. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between age and adverse event risk, adjusting for various factors. TAKEAWAY: Adverse events occurred in < 1% of procedures, with gastrointestinal bleeding being the most common. Adverse event rates increased with age, with the highest rates observed in patients aged 76-85 years (69.6 events per 10,000 procedures), particularly for gastrointestinal bleeding (39.2 events per 10,000 procedures) and stroke (18.3 events per 10,000 procedures). Patients aged 76-85 years had significantly higher odds of adverse events than younger age groups in unadjusted analyses, but these odds were attenuated after adjusting for covariates. Significant risk factors for adverse events across all age groups included anticoagulant use, higher comorbidity scores, polypectomy, and advanced neoplasia detection during surveillance colonoscopy. IN PRACTICE: 'The findings suggest that the decision to perform colonoscopy surveillance after age 75 should be individualized based on patient preference, prior colonoscopy findings and procedure quality, comorbidities, and medication usage, rather than age alone,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland, California. It was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology . LIMITATIONS: Findings may not be generalizable, as all participants were insured and had access to comprehensive care. The observational design lacked a noncolonoscopy comparison group, making it difficult to attribute adverse events directly to the procedure. Limited numbers of certain adverse events resulted in wide CIs, and potential confounders like polyp size or number and sedation type were not adjusted for. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted within the National Cancer Institute-funded Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process consortium and supported by a career development grant from the same agency. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy Improves Survival in Lung Cancer
Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy Improves Survival in Lung Cancer

Medscape

time3 hours ago

  • Medscape

Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy Improves Survival in Lung Cancer

Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved 5-year overall survival among patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to findings from a phase 3 trial presented at the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. The survival benefit was more pronounced in patients who achieved a pathologic complete response or a presurgery clearance of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). METHODOLOGY: The phase 3 CheckMate 816 trial has shown that compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, nivolumab plus chemotherapy improvespathologic complete response rates and event-free survival in patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Based on these findings, this regimen was approved for this patient population in the US, EU, and other places. compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, nivolumab plus chemotherapy improvespathologic complete response rates and event-free survival in patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Based on these findings, this regimen was approved for this patient population in the US, EU, and other places. Researchers are now reporting the final, prespecified analysis of overall survival. In the trial, 358 patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone every 3 weeks for three cycles. Surgery was performed within 6 weeks of completing neoadjuvant treatment. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both were permitted. Primary endpoints were event-free survival and pathologic complete response. Overall survival was the key secondary endpoint. The median follow-up duration was 68.4 months. TAKEAWAY: The 5-year overall survival rate was 65.4% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs 55.0% with chemotherapy alone. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for death by 28% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .048). = .048). Among patients who received the combination therapy, the 5-year overall survival rate was 95.3% for those who achieved a pathological complete response vs 55.7% for those who did not. Overall, 24% of patients in the nivolumab group achieved a pathological complete response vs only 2.2% in the chemotherapy group. ctDNA clearance before surgery was a strong prognostic indicator, regardless of treatment. At 5 years, overall survival was 75.0% among patients with ctDNA clearance vs 52.6% in those without (HR for death, 0.38 in the nivolumab group and 0.39 in the chemotherapy-only group). The combination therapy was associated with consistent survival benefits across disease stage and PDL-1 expression levels. The 5-year lung cancer-specific survival rate was 74.9% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs 65.1% with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.65). No new safety concerns emerged, and there were no new deaths related to a trial treatment. IN PRACTICE: 'In this trial, we found that the use of neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone, along with long-term benefit regarding event-free survival,' the authors wrote. 'These findings support the hypothesis that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy can have a profound impact on the course of a patient's life when paired with the curative potential of surgical resection.' SOURCE: This study, led by Patrick M. Forde, MB, BCh, PhD, Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland, was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine and presented at ASCO. LIMITATIONS: Although the overall survival with nivolumab plus chemotherapy achieved statistical significance, the margin was narrow. Additionally, several subgroups in the exploratory analyses were too small for adequate statistical comparison, requiring cautious interpretation of these results. Black patients were underrepresented, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Five authors declared being employees of Bristol Myers Squibb, with some holding stock or stock options with the company. Several authors declared working as consultants or having other ties with various sources including Bristol Myers Squibb.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store