Over the last few years, the world’s plastic problem has garnered a lot of public attention; in one incident, a viral video of a marine conservation biologist pulling a straw from a sea turtle’s nose received 47 million-plus views.
While normal plastic is generally regarded as a nuisance or even a danger, smaller and lesser-known microplastics pose an especially egregious threat to humanity’s well-being. In order to mitigate the negative effects of microplastics on human health, individuals and institutions alike must reevaluate their reliance on the material, take steps to reduce total plastic consumption and support political candidates that recognize the importance of environmentalism.
Microplastics, which are pieces of plastic that are fewer than five millimeters long, pose a heightened threat when compared to bigger plastics, since the total surface area increases when larger pieces get split into smaller pieces, thereby allowing for more chemical interactions between the plastic and its surroundings. Microplastics may be generated either on purpose, such as microbeads in face and body wash, or spontaneously as larger pieces of plastic like tires or synthetic textiles wear down. For example, even just one laundry cycle including a single synthetic garment releases over 1,900 microplastic fibers into the water system.
Because of current production and an overall lack of plastic regulation, microplastics have become omnipresent. Studies have found that microplastics literally rain down from the sky, embed into the Earth’s soil and subsequently end up in the food and water we ingest. Approximately 93% of bottled water tested contains microplastics, alongside 94% of U.S. tap water samples, 97% of selected fish species, 90% of table salts and several types of fruits and vegetables. Humans consume so much microplastic through these different sources that people ingest the amount of plastic equal to a credit card every single week.
The impact of microplastics on human health is a topic of limited but increasing awareness. While more research is needed, preliminary findings suggest that high levels of exposure to microplastics can lead to effects such as cellular and DNA damage, inflammation, neurotoxicity and metabolic harm. Plastics also leach chemicals that, once in our bodies, can lead to an array of problems.
For example, scientists have linked styrene, a chemical found in a wide range of plastics, to nervous system damage, hearing loss and cancer, while bisphenol A and phthalate exposure from plastics can lead to disruption of the endocrine system and reduced fertility in both men and women. Shanna Swan, a leading environmental and reproductive epidemiologist, recently noted in a webinar that phthalates, which give plastic durability, greatly contribute to reduced sperm counts in men, and because of their pervasive effect, median sperm counts are trending toward zero by 2045, threatening the very basis of humanity’s future.
The effects of microplastics on human health require innovative thinking. Significantly reducing plastic production is the optimal solution, since 91% of plastic is never recycled, and the majority ends up in landfills, where it breaks down and leaches chemicals. There are numerous steps that both individuals and institutions can take to reduce overall plastic waste and in turn limit the amount of plastic that degrades into microplastics.
Individuals can play a role in reducing plastic consumption by opting for clothes made of natural materials like cotton, linen, silk and wool and using clothing microfiber capture systems like guppy bags. Further, choosing to reuse items, such as with bags, utensils, food storage containers and water bottles, is another way to limit unnecessary plastic waste. If there is a need to buy something that comes packaged in plastic, sites like the Package Free shop or other zero-waste and plastic-free retailers can provide those with the economic means a selection of plastic-free alternatives to everyday items.
Given the implications of microplastics, Georgetown University must also take steps to reduce plastic consumption and waste. Georgetown should limit the excessive plastic that is available on campus, such as single-use tableware and cups at dining locations, while still being mindful that sometimes plastic is necessary for disabled students. Further, Georgetown should encourage campus clubs and organizations to consider their consumption of plastic and offer them resources to provide plastic-free alternatives during meetings and events.
Additionally, individuals can reduce their own exposure to microplastics by choosing tap water over bottled — as tap water contains significantly fewer microplastics — limiting meat and fish consumption, air-drying clothes and opting for glass, silicone or metal food and water containers whenever possible.
Despite these potential institutional and individual steps to reduce plastic consumption and exposure, the most important way to preserve human and global health is to support and vote for candidates that make environmentalism a priority. Individual actions are important, but they ultimately pale in comparison to the lack of broad systemic regulation regarding which chemicals are deemed safe and allowed to be mass produced.
While the plastic problem seems ubiquitous, the impact it has on global health warrants immediate attention. Individuals and institutions alike must commit to creating cultures that promote sustainability and put an end to plastics’ ubiquity.
Annabelle Pukas is a sophomore in the College. Environmental Echoes appears online every other Friday.