 |
|
|
|||||
A study published this week delves into the mystery of how the plastic objects we interact with daily shed tiny particles that creep into our bodies, brains, and guts. While the scientific focus has long been on how microplastics pollute our environment and impact wildlife, researchers are increasingly raising alarms about how the same contaminants can wreak havoc in the human body. The new research, published in the journal NPJ Science of Food, wove together data from 100 previous papers that studied microplastics, nanoplastics, and plastic particles. The results were compiled into an open database published by the Food Packaging Forum, a Swiss nonprofit that examines chemicals in food packaging. Microplastics and nanoplastics are plastic particles in the millimeter-to-nanometer range, with the latter causing even more concern among scientists because their microscopic size makes them able to slip into human cells. “This is the first systematic evidence map to investigate the role of the normal and intended use of food contact articles in the contamination of foodstuffs with MNPs [microplastics and nanoplastics],” said lead study author Lisa Zimmermann, scientific communication officer at the Food Packaging Forum. “Food contact articles are a relevant source of MNPs in foodstuffs; however, their contribution to human MNP exposure is underappreciated.” How we interact with plastic matters The new study looked at a broad range of food contact articles that included water bottles, cutting boards, food processing equipment, and packaging ranging from food wrappers to tea bags. Most food packaging contains plasticeven many items that seem like they dont, such as the paper that wraps around cold cuts and cheese, cardboard takeout containers, and glass bottles and jars, which often have a plastic-coated closure. The authors focused on how everyday objects used as intended can shed microplastics and how that shedding can worsen over the course of repeated interactions. Across 14 different studies, microplastic shedding was found to increase with repeated uses, including screwing a reusable water bottle lid on and off, washing a melamine dish, or putting plastic tableware into contact with hot foods. These findings are relevant for reused plastic [food contact articles] and should be considered when assessing the safety of FCAs across use cycles, the authors wrote. Based on their research, and its blind spots, they stressed the need for future studies to delve more deeply into how repeated interactions, heating, and washing affect the amount of microplastics being shed by kitchenware and food packaging that most of the worlds population might come into contact with countless times each day. The authors also found that the bulk of the research on microplastics focused on only a few kinds of objects that come into contact with food and drinks, like water bottles and tea bags. Similarly, more studies focused on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene over other common plastics, leaving a lot of unknowns about how much plastic is being shed by food packaging made out of other materials. Food and beverage containers can expose the human body to microplastics every time we interact with them but relatively little is still known about how that process works. That mystery is an ominous one, considering how ubiquitous plastics are globally in food packaging and preparation and how their presence is increasingly linked to reproductive, digestive, and respiratory problems, and potentially even colon and lung cancer. Plastics appear to have no trouble finding their way into the human body. Another recent study found that the adult brain can contain a plastic spoons worth of microplastics and nanoplastics, an amount thats seven to 30 times higher than what might be found in the liver or kidneys. Those kind of findings show that its imperative for future research to track down how all of that plastic is finding its way into the human body and what exactly it does once it gets there.
Category:
E-Commerce
This week on The Most Innovative Podcast, Josh and Yaz sit down with Fast Company senior editor Jon Gluck to discuss his powerful memoir that explores the unexpected twists and emotional terrain of his battle with cancer.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Supreme Court ended its term on Friday with a major decision in the closely watched birthright citizenship case, that is likely to have a profound impact on whether the lower courts can pause or halt President Donald Trump’s executive orderswhich many legal experts say constitute an overreach of presidential power. What happened? Ruling along ideological lines 63, the court’s conservative majority decided to curb injunctions from the lower courts that temporarily paused President Donald Trump’s plan to end automatic birthright citizenship via Executive Order 14160, which aims to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally, on temporary visas, or not “lawful permanent residents” at the time of the child’s birth. However, that right is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” To be clear, the Supreme Court justices did not rule on the merits, or constitutionality, of ending birthright citizenship. The Trump administration didn’t ask the court to rule on the issue itself, and instead asked the high court to rule on whether federal judges have the power to issue injunctions that would block Trump’s order nationwide, while litigation continues. The Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by federal judges, effectively sending back the rulings to lower courts. For the 28 states that have not challenged the birthright executive order in court, automatic citizenship could end for children born in the U.S. whose parents are undocumented immigrants, and some temporary residents and visitors, according to the New York Times. The court also stopped his executive order from taking effect for 30 days. Friday’s ruling is a significant victory for Trump, and a major blow to his opponents who have been trying to limit his executive orders. Trump calls ruling ‘monumental victory’ On Friday, speaking at the White House, Trump called the decision a “monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.” That’s the opposite of what Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, which argued “the Courts decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution.” And added, “The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.” In a separate dissent, Jackson called the majority decision an existential threat to the rule of law. In response, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority decision pushed back, and said No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligationin fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.” Trump first pledged to end birthright as early as 2015, and again in 2018, before issuing an executive order on the issue in January. Trump has instituted a crackdown on immigration since taking office that has lead to some immigrants, green card holders, foreigners, and even American citizens being detained by the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||