this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
344 points (98.0% liked)

science

20195 readers
469 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 90 points 2 years 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

They don't really.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago
[–] Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] oDDmON@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Actually 20th, if the scene from The Graduate was any indication.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 32 points 2 years ago

... there is no way 10% of our food doesn't contain microplastics

[–] Aielman15@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

Ugh, I hate it when my plastic has meat in it.

[–] Godric@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Y'all need to up your game

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago

No, stop grinding your plastics.

[–] MaxVoltage@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago
[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I fucking hate plastic 🥲

Well stop eating it you dummy 😊

[–] BloodSlut@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago
[–] Someology@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I keep hearing George Carlin's old comedy routine about how we evolved because Mother Earth needed plastic for reasons, and now that we've made enough to last a very long time, she can get rid of us...

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 6 points 2 years ago

I swear I'm not fat! I just have a lot of microplastics in me.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago

Yes. Microplastics is slower gray goo.

How is it not 100%? I thought that there wasn't any source of water on Earth that doesn't have microplastics.

[–] sagrotan@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (4 children)

For years, we got our farmers and hunters where we get our meat, search on your vicinity, it's not only better, it's cheaper in the long run. You'll notice that you'll eat less meat, but better one. Stop the supermarket overlords.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Microplastics and forever chemicals are going to be a problem to localvores too.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Friend, they’ve found microplastics in fish from the bottom of the ocean. Even if you shoot your own deer, you’ll still be finding microplastics.

[–] NMBA@mstdn.ca 6 points 2 years ago

@sagrotan @MicroWave
There’s no way wildlife can replace industrial meat. That’s an extinction plan.

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 4 points 2 years ago

There are micro plastics in the rain