It isn’t just seafood that’s loaded with microplastic pollution. In a new study, scientists found microplastics in nearly 90 of sampled meats and meat-like alternatives – including seafood, chicken breasts, beef steaks, tofu, and plant-based burgers.

It’s become well-documented that seafood is often tainted with the presence of microplastics due to the shockingly high quantities of plastic in the planet’s oceans. For instance, a 2017 review found that regular eaters of fish and shellfish could be ingesting up to 11,000 microparticles a year.

However, until now, there’s been relatively little research into the prevalence of plastic in terrestrial protein sources, like beef and chicken.

To pry into the issue, scientists at Ocean Conservancy and the University of Toronto sampled 16 protein types, including highly processed protein products and minimally processed "fresh" products.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 90 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Single-use plastics should have been banned 10-15 years ago and we should be phasing out the rest of them now.

[–] rowrowrowyourboat@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Nearly half (44 percent) of the identified microplastics were fibers, while a third (30 percent) were plastic fragments. This is in tune with other studies that have shown plastic fibers from clothes and other textile products are the most prevalent form of microplastic in the environment.

More important than single-use plastics seems to be synthetic clothing.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Quality synthetic clothing is actually great. You can wear the same t-shirt 10 years in a row and it will look and feel like a new one. But cheap ones tend to fall apart faster than cotton variants.

[–] time_lord@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You know what else lasts 10 years? Quality cotton t-shirts.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

They don't really.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They should have been banned in the early 80's when we found out how dangerous they are. Humans refuse to be inconvenienced though.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's not a question of convenience. Plastics require several magnitudes less energy to produce goods than alternatives like metal, glass and wood. If we stop using plastics today our emissions will sky rocket so high the planet will start boiling.

We need to force governments to recycle better, because a lot of plastics are completely ignored in many countries.

Here's a quick example. My hobby is 3D printing and I live in the UK. The most common plastic in this hobby is PLA. It is both sustainable and recyclable. But Britain doesn't recycle it as part of household waste. There are companies here which offer PLA recycling, but they require at least 50L worth of PLA to pick it up from you. I use about 5kg per year, so even if I throw away everything I print, I will need 10 years to fill the recycling order. But since I only want to throw away failed attempts, it will take a lifetime to fill it.

If my council would start using hot composters instead of cold ones I could at least throw my PLA waste into compost with food and it would decrease into lactic acid, but the government doesn't give a shit, so all my plastic goes into landfill.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The plastic products are generally for convenience. I'm not talking about the production.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

Nope.