Recent efforts by experts to raise alarms about the reliability of these studies have been met with strong pushback. Some of these studies purport to identify microplastics in human biological tissues. Dr. Cassandra Rauert, a prominent researcher in the field, emphasized that there are serious concerns regarding “more than half of the very high impact papers” that claim to find microplastics in tissues such as the brain, testes, placentas, arteries, and blood. Plastics are receiving unprecedented recognition as a leading health threat. This understanding might help transform our public discourse around what microplastic contamination in the human body really means.
Dr. Frederic Béen highlighted the importance of rigorous analytical methods, stating that “analytical work across multiple techniques is improving rapidly.” In addition to the fact that most studies fail to adhere to good laboratory practices, he indicated the issue of non-reproducibility. This is a recipe for potential false positives. His concerns echo those expressed in an expert review published in The Lancet, which termed plastics a “grave, growing and underrecognized danger” to both human and planetary health.
A new study has confirmed microplastics in human testes, making this a growing threat. This alarming finding has provoked widespread concern over their impact on male reproductive health. Prof. Matthew Campen was the lead investigator on a groundbreaking study on brain microplastics. We’re just still really trying to wrap our arms around all of the potential health impacts, he said. He noted, “In general, we simply find ourselves in an early period of trying to understand the potential human health impacts of MNPs and there is no recipe book for how to do this.”
Dr. Rauert’s recent paper identified 18 studies that did not adequately account for the risk of false positives, raising questions about their conclusions. Materić, another global leader in this emerging field, slammed many of those studies as “terrible.” Their findings would be so easily shoot-downable as incorrect. He stated, “That paper is really bad, and it is very explainable why it is wrong.”
Micro- and nanoplastic particles pose serious obstacles for scientific characterization. Their small size frequently supersedes the limits of today’s analytical methods, particularly when scientists are researching human tissue. Dr. Rauert further emphasized that some of these approaches are not effective for detecting prevalent plastics like polyethylene or PVC. These figments are a result of constant sabotages.
Even in light of these challenges, pleas for joint work among researchers were widespread. Prof. Lamoree advocated for a more cooperative approach, stating, “I really think we should collaborate on a much nicer basis – with much more open communication – and don’t try to burn down other people’s results.” This sentiment captures a promising, and clearly emerging, idea that coordinated, collaborative action would produce more consistent and useful data.
Dr. Rauert expressed concern over treatments claiming to cleanse microplastics from the blood, labeling them “crazy” and devoid of scientific backing. The recycling rate for plastic is abysmally low, with less than 10% being recycled, making the management of plastic waste even more difficult.
Researchers are advancing understanding of microplastics’ health implications. Most experts are hesitant to jump to conclusions without robust evidence to back them up. Roger Kuhlman remarked on the need for reevaluation, stating, “This is really forcing us to re-evaluate everything we think we know about microplastics in the body. Which, it turns out, is really not very much.”