Showing posts sorted by date for query Air pollution and breast cancer. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Air pollution and breast cancer. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, August 23, 2026

 

Source: The 19th

DETROIT — Joyce Collins has buried nearly her entire immediate family.

Her father died in 1992 after cancer spread to his bones. Her oldest sister was diagnosed with lung cancer, later developed breast and brain cancer, and died in 2013. Another sister died from pancreatic cancer in 2007. Her mother died from colon cancer in 2020.

Now Collins’ 53-year-old nephew has prostate cancer.

Collins, 67, grew up around Southwest Detroit’s 48217 ZIP code, a predominantly Black and Latino community surrounded by some of Southeast Michigan’s heaviest industry. The Marathon Petroleum refinery operates there. Nearby River Rouge and Ecorse are also home to heavy industry. Families live among refineries, industrial facilities and major freight corridors with heavy truck traffic.

For decades, residents have asked what all of that pollution is doing to their health.

Women and girls across generations are pushing for an answer. Collins still shows up to neighborhood meetings, stays engaged in conversations about pollution and speaks openly about what families have endured. She has become one of the residents pushing for greater attention to the health and environmental burden surrounding their neighborhoods. At the same time, young people like 12-year-old Nala Hill are being trained to advocate for cleaner air. 

Detroit is working to control industrial truck traffic and airborne dust, the state is funding air-quality improvements inside residents’ homes, and community organizations are monitoring pollution and training young people to advocate for cleaner air.

On top of those efforts, key women in state and local government are also pressing for policy to address the cumulative pollution. While current efforts can reduce some of the exposure families face now, they do not resolve the larger question of how much additional pollution Michigan should allow in communities already carrying so much.

In Southwest Detroit, the pollution surrounding families does not come from one source. But Michigan’s permitting system largely still looks at it that way.

A refinery may be reviewed under one permit. Industrial dust falls under another set of rules. Truck emissions are dealt with elsewhere. No one fully weighs what all of those sources add up to in a community already carrying a heavy environmental burden.

New Jersey faced the same fight and changed its permitting system.

Now, regulators must consider what a community is already carrying before allowing certain facilities to open or expand there. In overburdened neighborhoods, that gives the state more power to require stronger protections and limit additional pollution.

Other states have followed suit: New York and Minnesota have both passed robust statutes that block or heavily restrict new permits if they add to the pollution load in already disadvantaged communities. Additionally, states like Colorado, Connecticut and Massachusetts have successfully codified frameworks that mandate cumulative health and environmental assessments before industrial operations can expand near vulnerable populations.

New Jersey state Senate Majority Leader M. Teresa Ruiz, a Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill, said the environmental justice law took years to pass.

“As this bill gained traction, community members came together to share deeply personal stories of children living with asthma and families unable to enjoy their own backyards because of pollution,” Ruiz said.

She said building a broad coalition around those experiences, backed by data, was critical. New Jersey had to confront a history in which policy repeatedly allowed polluting industries to concentrate in the same places, Ruiz said.

“Undoing decades of policy that worked in polluters’ favor and treated overburdened communities as dumping grounds and an opportunity for industry required years of persistent activism from residents, advocates and policymakers,” Ruiz said.

“Momentum grew in New Jersey because the conversation never lost sight of the humanity behind environmental justice.”

New Jersey state Sen. Troy Singleton, a Democrat and primary author of the law, said the issue belongs inside the broader national conversation about racial and economic inequality.

“For far too long, where someone lives has too often determined the quality of the air they breathe, the water they drink and the environment they raise their families in,” Singleton said. 

“This is not simply an environmental issue,” he said. “It is a matter of public health, economic fairness, and social justice.”

Singleton said the national racial-justice protests that followed George Floyd’s murder in 2020 helped create momentum for legislation that advocates had spent years building.

Three months after then-Gov. Phil Murphy, also a Democrat, publicly backed the legislation on Juneteenth 2020, New Jersey enacted the law. 

Its implementing rules took effect in 2023.

New Jersey’s rules now require applicants for certain facilities in overburdened communities to examine existing environmental and public-health stressors. The state can require additional pollution controls and community protections, and new facilities that would create disproportionate impacts face stricter barriers.

Ruiz said the law is already changing what facilities must do before receiving permits.

“Other states like Michigan can learn from New Jersey’s approach that while strong laws provide an important framework for protecting communities, their effectiveness depends on timely implementation and on sustained vigilance, advocacy, and partnership to ensure that new protections are upheld.”


Democratic state Sen. Stephanie Chang has spent years pushing for state policy aimed at reducing the pollution burden in Southwest Detroit and other heavily industrialized communities.

She pointed to 48217, the Marathon refinery and the cluster of other industrial facilities in and around Southwest Detroit as a public health concern, particularly for residents with asthma, COPD and other respiratory illnesses.

Marathon Petroleum did not respond to The 19th’s request for comment.

But Chang said getting legislation through Lansing has been difficult.

“We have bills that we’ve pushed forward that unfortunately have not made a lot of progress,” she told The 19th.

One of them is the Protecting Overburdened Communities Act, or POCA, which Chang and state Rep. Donavan McKinney, a fellow Detroit Democrat, introduced in 2025, drawing from New Jersey’s approach. The legislation would require the state to consider cumulative environmental impacts when reviewing certain permits in overburdened communities. McKinney, now the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s 13th Congressional District, would represent 48217 in Congress if he wins the November general election.

Opponents argue that the legislation would lead to administrative backlogs. Industry groups warn that restricting development in industrialized zones will stifle economic growth, causing businesses to relocate to states with more favorable regulations.

For Chang, the proposed legislation means regulators would have to look beyond what a single facility is proposing and consider what residents are already exposed to from the industries around them.

“When you look at areas like 48217 or other areas like on the east side, it’s important to consider the cumulative impact between multiple sources and also between multiple types of pollutants,” Chang said.

She also worked on legislation that would have created a state air quality enforcement and mitigation fund. Instead of pollution fines simply going to the state, Chang said the goal was “to redirect those fines back to impacted communities.”

That bill made it further but died on the House floor.

From inside state government, Regina Strong sees why residents can become frustrated when another permit moves forward in a community already surrounded by pollution.

Strong is Michigan’s first environmental justice public advocate and heads the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) office charged with elevating environmental justice concerns.

She said state regulators are still limited by existing laws. They can monitor pollution, use environmental justice screening tools and require protections where existing rules allow them. But they cannot independently create a cumulative-impact standard that lawmakers have not enacted.

“If they fulfill all of these things that the law says they have to do,” Strong said of regulated companies, “it becomes a, how could it not be approved?”

Changing that, she said, means changing the legal framework.

Strong said versions of cumulative-impact legislation have surfaced repeatedly during her more than seven years working in the state environmental justice office.

“It really is the long game, unfortunately,” she said.


Detroit City Council Member Gabriela Santiago-Romero said residents are still fighting environmental threats piece by piece.

Santiago-Romero represents Detroit’s District 6, which includes the 48217 ZIP code and much of Southwest Detroit.

“It seems like a lot of elected officials do not care that we have people that are dying of weird throat cancers and mouth cancers and asthma,” Santiago-Romero said.

Her office is trying to address one contributor: industrial truck traffic, much of it tied to the Ambassador Bridge, the busy international crossing connecting Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, and carrying commercial freight between the United States and Canada.

Santiago-Romero said Detroit has been working to create and codify truck routes to keep heavy vehicles away from residential streets. The work is complicated because roads throughout the area are controlled by different levels of government.

“We have an accumulation of pollution in our neighborhoods,” she said. “Not just Marathon, not just the Ambassador Bridge and heavy materials and waste. It’s also the trucks that are in our neighborhood.”

“And frankly,” she said, “it is a lot.”

Detroit has also adopted a fugitive dust ordinance, a local law aimed at reducing airborne dust from construction sites, scrap yards and other industrial operations. It requires certain businesses to create and follow dust-control plans so particulate pollution is less likely to drift into nearby neighborhoods, but Santiago-Romero said enforcement has been uneven.

“I feel like no matter what is passed by law, it’s not enforced,” she said. 

At the state-wide level, state Sen. Erika Geiss, whose district includes River Rouge and Ecorse, introduced a bill in June to address fugitive dust from bulk solid-material facilities. The legislation would require dust-control measures and real-time particulate monitoring. 

It was referred to the state Senate’s Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee on June 11 and has not advanced further.

These policies address real sources of pollution — and also illustrate the broader dynamic: One law addresses trucks. Another addresses fugitive dust. Another permit governs an industrial facility.


Strong said Michigan has tried to address some of the immediate harm through its Environmental Justice Impact Grant program. In 2024, $20 million went to 43 grantees. Three of them, Strong said, are based in 48217 or directly benefit residents there.

The investments are focused heavily on what happens inside people’s homes.

Strong said a grant to Bridging Communities is helping seniors improve indoor air quality and providing tools residents can use to better protect themselves. EGLE’s grant records say the project will collect air-quality data, provide air-cleaning equipment and offer education to older adults in the 48217 area. 

Another grant for upgrades to 10 Southwest Detroit homes went to EcoWorks, a Detroit nonprofit focused on sustainability, green building and energy education. The homes will get  solar panels, improved air systems, mold remediation, sump pumps and electric appliances. 

Strong described the work as “very personal to the people who live in the community,” including sump pumps for homes that have flooded, replacing gas appliances with electric ones, solar panels and better air-filtration systems.

“It’s a really important piece of how we can both have impact on individuals in the community while we work on the bigger policy pieces and the bigger pieces that are going to impact everybody,” Strong said. 

Strong said the third project also centers older residents, combining health education with improvements meant to keep outside pollution from entering homes.

That project, through St. Patrick Senior Center, will upgrade HVAC systems and provide health education to more than 300 Southwest Detroit seniors, according to EGLE. 


The communities themselves have also spent years trying to build protections outside government.

The Rev. Alex Hill has been involved in environmental justice work around 48217 for nearly three decades from inside New Mt. Hermon Missionary Baptist Church.

“There’s not a family in my church that has not been affected” by cancer, he said.

Years ago, Hill said, New Mt. Hermon helped environmental activist Rhonda Anderson with a door-to-door effort asking residents whether someone in their household had died from cancer. Flags were placed outside homes that reported a death.

Hill said nearly every house canvassed in parts of 48217 and neighboring 48218 had a flag.

The canvass was not an epidemiological cancer study. It did not establish causation or determine whether cancer rates in the community were statistically higher than expected.

But the flags remain part of how residents describe years of illness around them.

And they help explain why Democratic lawmakers in Michigan have been pushing the state to look beyond pollution one permit at a time.

New Mt. Hermon has provided space for organizing and has operated an air-monitoring system behind the church for roughly eight years. Hill and other activists have participated in toxic tours that take residents and visitors past industrial facilities surrounding Southwest Detroit, River Rouge and Ecorse.

Now Hill and Tri-City Community Development Corporation are working toward an even larger project.

On six acres near the church where the former Mark Twain Elementary School once stood, the organization has plans for a green space known as Eden Park.

Hill envisions trees, greenery and other tools that could help reduce pollution exposure. His plans also include mechanical trees, technology intended to capture carbon dioxide, that he hopes could eventually be used throughout surrounding communities.

Hill is under no illusion that community projects alone can erase decades of industry.

“The industries are not going anywhere,” he said. “That’s just a fact.”

But he also knows many residents cannot simply leave.

“The people in the community, most of them can’t afford to go nowhere,” Hill said.

This summer, Hill’s nonprofit organization, TriCity CDC, added another piece to its environmental work: teaching young people how to advocate for themselves. Its first Environmental Justice Youth Ambassadors cohort graduated this month, including 25 young people from Southwest Detroit, River Rouge and Ecorse.

Hill said participants spent roughly six to eight months learning about environmental justice, taking toxic tours, developing projects and presenting possible solutions. Those completing the program receive $1,000 stipends.

Among them is Hill’s 12-year-old granddaughter, Nala Hill.

“When we went on our first toxic tour, it really opened my eyes to see what was going on and how much every company was polluting our area and what we’re living in,” Nala said.

She said learning about the neighborhood made her want to become more involved.

“We can fight even more once you know about it,” she said.

Collins, 67, remembers her childhood in a community where neighbors knew one another and families looked out for each other. She remembers something else, too: waking up to orange dust settled across the cars outside.

“We as a people, we have to start standing up,” Collins said. “Somebody has to start saying something, for our children. For our children’s sake.”

In Southwest Detroit, some of those children, like Nala, are already learning how.


This article was originally published by The 19th; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.

Thursday, April 09, 2026

Breast implants, baby toys, paint: The surprising everyday sources of microplastics

The report also found that some climate technology could actually make microplastic exposure worse.
Copyright Tai's Captures


By Rebecca Ann Hughes
Published on 

The report also found that some climate technology could actually make microplastic exposure worse.

Microplastics can enter our bodies from a variety of shocking everyday sources, a new report has revealed.

Dr Heather Leslie, the pioneering scientist who first found microplastics in the human bloodstream, describes it as a "microplastic storm" driven by poorly understood exposure pathways.

Hospital equipment for premature babies, children’s toys and paint all pose potential risks, the study found.

Breast implants to baby feeding tubes: Microplastics in hospitals

Exploring Everyday Microplastic Exposures, funded by Plastic Soup Foundation and The Flotilla Foundation and authored by Leslie, highlights the vast scale of microplastic exposure in daily life.

These particles endanger human health by accumulating in organs and increasing the risk of inflammation, cellular damage, cancer and cardiovascular issues.

Drawing on over 350 peer-reviewed studies, the report maps microplastic release across five categories of everyday life: outdoor sources, indoor environments, children’s products, healthcare and personal care, and food and drink.

In hospitals, the research found that plastic particles can be introduced into the body via devices and treatments, with microplastic fallout in operating rooms recorded at up to 9,258 particles per square metre during a single shift.

Cardiac catheters, silicone breast implants, orthopaedic implants or intravenous fluid are all cited as sources with the potential of inadvertently dosing patients with microplastics.

Startlingly, premature babies fed intravenously in neonatal units are estimated to receive up to 115 microplastic particles over a 72-hour feeding period from the infusion circuits alone.

Children’s toys and paint: Microplastics at home

Children's products are also of significant concern, as building bricks, baby play mats and other products for children can release PET, polypropylene, polyethene and PVC into a child’s living environment.

As children naturally ingest more settled dust during play and breathe in more air per kilogram bodyweight, their exposure is proportionally higher than that of adults.

Baby formula intake also exposes babies to microplastics at levels from <1 to 17 microplastics per gram through packaging.

Another unexpected indoor exposure is via paint. Plastic is the main component of many paint products. As such, paint emits microplastics when it wears down or when old layers are scraped off.

A single coat applied across 100 square metres is estimated to contain between 17 and 68 quadrillion polymeric particles.

Climate technology could worsen microplastic exposure

Among the report's most striking findings is evidence that emerging climate interventions could make microplastic exposure significantly worse.

For example, stratospheric aerosol injection - a form of solar geoengineering being advanced by countries including the United Kingdom and the United States - involves dispersing vast quantities of particles high into the atmosphere.

Multiple patents already exist describing the release of particles, including micro-sized polymeric particles at altitudes of up to 20 km in the atmosphere, creating a potentially ‘tera scale’ source of intentionally added airborne microplastics and fallout

The research identifies that rainfall already contains microplastics with wear and tear from car tyres, synthetic textiles and clothing.

Plastic needs to stop being the ‘answer to every design question’

The report aims to empower people to reduce their own exposure through individual and collective action.

"Exposure is happening all the time, not only from products we recognise, but from systems and processes that most people would never consider,” says Leslie.

“This is not just about waste or environmental pollution, it is about the materials that manufacturers have built into our world, and the particles they continuously release into the spaces we live in.”

The report calls on policymakers to adopt a precautionary principle, accelerating health impact research and prioritising mitigation over 'paralysis by analysis.'

“When plastic stops being the answer to almost every design question - from teabags to towels to toys and beyond - humanity can end up successfully abating the microplastic storm," Leslie adds.

Monday, March 30, 2026

How Microplastics Threaten Marine Ecosystems and the Food Chain

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Microplastics, plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters, can be found in land, air, and water, and have infiltrated our food chain, resulting in far-reaching health consequences for humans and nonhumans alike. In 2020, scientists discoveredthe “highest level of microplastic ever recorded on the seafloor,” revealing the extent of their impact on the marine ecosystem.

The lead author of the study, Ian Kane from the University of Manchester, said: “Almost everybody has heard of the infamous ocean ‘garbage patches’ of floating plastic, but we were shocked at the high concentrations of microplastics we found in the deep-seafloor.”

These microplastics enter the marine ecosystem directly and indirectly, for example, from landfills, where they are carried by wind into rivers and seas. “It is estimated that 8 million tonnes of plastics enter the seas and oceans each year,” stateda 2021 study published in MDPI.

Mussels can act as sentinels to assess and monitor microplastic pollution. Globally distributed in both freshwater and saltwater ecosystems as filter feeders, mussels are both sensitive to environmental pollution and play a key role in engineering aquatic ecosystems by processing huge quantities of water.

With serious concerns about microplastic contamination of food, particularly seafood, and human bodies growing, mussels will inevitably serve as an increasingly important bioindicator of microplastic pollution from the present into the future.

The Impacts of Plastic Disintegration

Manmade, fossil fuel-based plastics don’t biodegrade like natural materials; instead, they break up into increasingly tiny plastic particlesScientists categorize these particles by size: those 5–10 millimeters are called “mesoplastics,” those between 1 nanometer and 5 millimeters (about the diameter of a pencil eraser) are called “microplastics,” and those 1 nanometer (a human hair is 80,000-100,000 times nanometers wide) and smaller are “nanoplastics.” While nanoplastics are too small to be seen, microplastics and mesoplastics are fairly visible.

Microplastics that are “intentionally produced” for inclusion in cosmetics or exfoliating products, such as soap scrubs and toothpastes, are typically manufactured as tiny beads or flat pieces of glitter. These ready-made microplastics are called “primary” microplastics. Primary microplastics also include nurdles—small pellets of plastic melted down into the plastic products we are familiar with. Nurdles are often discharged into waterways through industrial wastewater runoff from plastic production facilities, and during shipping fires and spills from cargo ships. About 445,970 tons of nurdles are estimated to directly pollute the environment globally every year, especially aquatic ecosystems.

Plastic particles that form due to the disintegration of plastic materials are called “secondary” microplastics. These particles may be pieces of plastic film, fibers (from textiles and rope), foam, hard or soft fragments, and lines (such as from fishing gear). They break down from plastic packaging, synthetic textiles, paint, and other plastic materials used in our homes. Plastic’s breakdown is accelerated by sunlight, extreme temperatures, exposure to bacteria, fungi, and water, and by weathering.

These particles were first documented in marine ecosystems in the early 1970s and have since been found in indoor and outdoor air, drinking water, fresh and processed foods, fresh waters, household dust, plants and trees, oceans, soils, and in animals—including humans.

Plastics are not only harmful to our health but also impose significant economic costs. “Estimates suggest that plastic pollution causes about $75 billion per year in environmental damages, with $13 billion of this tied to marine ecosystems. For example, plastic pollution can deplete fish stocks and impact coastal tourism by littering popular beaches. It can damage infrastructure like urban drainage systems. It can even de-operationalize or sink ships by entangling propellers or clogging water intake systems responsible for cooling their engines,” pointed out the World Resources Institute.

Microplastics Threaten Marine Life

While plastic particles have virtually contaminated the entire Earth due to their constant movement through the biosphere, marine ecosystems in particular are a major repository for mesoplastics, microplastics, and nanoplastics. Freshwater systems empty into the oceans, and populous coastal areas—especially those that have been industrialized—are major sources of microplastic pollution in marine ecosystems. About 80 percent of plastics in the oceans are estimated to have traveled there via rivers and other freshwater systems. Flooding and weather events can push microplastics into rivers in significant quantities.

A 2021 report by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) stated that plastic accounts for 85 percent of marine litter, and by 2040, we can expect the volume of plastic pollution to nearly triple if we don’t take preventative measures.

Fish and other marine animals are exposed to microplastics in waters and sediments, from the sea surface to the seafloor. Many animals, including some fish species that people eat, consume nurdles and other round microplastics because they resemble their usual food sources, such as fish eggs and other plankton. Some fish species and marine animals are attracted to the smell of weathered plastic particles. Even relatively small amounts of plastic can be deadly to marine wildlife. For example, a 2025 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests consuming the equivalent volume of less than one sugar cube of plastic can kill one in two Atlantic puffins; less than half a baseball’s size in plastics can kill one in two Loggerhead turtles; and the amount of plastic in less than a sixth of a soccer ball can kill one in two harbor porpoises.

Microplastic consumption has been linked to adverse health effects in marine animals, including mussels. “Circulatory system of fish is impacted by the microplastic bioaccumulation in their tissues, influencing a number of hematological indices that are connected with immunity, osmotic pressure, blood clotting, molecular transport and fat metabolism,” stated a 2024 study in Toxicology Reports. Microplastics and plastic chemicals have also been linked togastrointestinal blockages, neurological issues, starvation, toxicity, and reproductive issues in marine life.

Filter feeders, including mussels, have limited abilities to sort and reject plastic particles as they siphon water for food. Mussels pull in about one-fourth cup of sea water per minute, a huge volume for a small animal. Studies have shown mussels from different regions with varying quantities and types of microplastics in their soft tissues and digestive systems. Mussels and other filter-feeding shellfish ingest greater amounts of microplastics than other marine creatures. Like other pollutants, microplastics bioaccumulate up the food web, concentrating inside the bodies of predators as they consume prey.

Ingestion of polyester plastic fibers has been shown to stunt the growth of young blue mussels by more than one-third. Smaller mussels with lower growth rates and stressors like inflammation can reduce the survival of mussels, and thus the overall availability of food sources for animals that prey on them, from birds to crabs, starfish, whelks, and, of course, people. Microplastics have also been linked to cellular and molecular damage in mussels.

What’s more, chemicals commonly manufactured into plastics, such as heavy metalsphthalates, and PFAS, have also been shown to bioaccumulate in the marine food web.

Marine Microplastic Pollution Raises Human Health Concerns

Microplastics have been detected throughout the human body, in people’s bloodstreams, bones, bone marrow, brains, breast milk, urine and feces of adults and infants, hair, hearts, kidneys, livers, lungs, penises, placentas, saliva and sputum, semen, skin, spleens, stomachs, testes, throat and airways, uteruses, and veins.

The presence of microplastics in people has been linked toAlzheimer’s diseasedementia (in mice), Parkinson’s disease, and other neurodegenerative disorders; inflammation, heart attack, stroke, and death; they have been found in samples ofbladder cancer; and are suspected to harm human fertility and reproductive health. Exposure to microplastic particles is also linked to cell damage and death.

Exactly how and why microplastics cause harm is under investigation. But scientists do know that microplastic particles can contain any number of 16,000 plastic chemicals, at least 4,200 of which have already been linked to adverse human health effects, including causing cancer and disrupting hormones.

In fish, microplastics tend to accumulate in the gills and digestive system, so it would seem that eviscerating fish before human consumption would minimize exposure. However, gilling and gutting fish does not necessarily eliminate microplastics. What’s more, some seafood, including some bivalves, crustaceans, and oilfish like sardines, are typically eaten whole, and it’s not always possible or practical to excise microplastic hotspots in their bodies. Seafood may contain more microplastics during certain seasons due to changes in ocean currents, rainfall and runoff, flooding, and other factors that increase pollution.

“Researchers estimate that adults in the United States may ingest nearly 4 million microplastic particles per year from protein sources alone,” stated EarthDay.org.

Scientists are still determining the full range of risks linked to human consumption of microplastics. Recommendations on the frequency and type of seafood consumption, based on age, sex, and pregnancy status, currently exist in the United Statesand Europe to minimize exposure to chemicals like PCBs and mercury. However, pollutants on which such guidelines have been developed do not necessarily include microplastics.

The Way Forward

The fact that seafood—and other major sources of nutrition, including fresh fruits and vegetables—are increasingly polluted with microplastics is a serious concern for human health. Billions of people around the world depend on seafood as a key source of nourishment (not to mention their livelihoods).

Scientists continue to search for microplastics inside the flesh, gills, and guts of marine animals eaten as seafood, including mussels. Researchers have found microplastics in all of the most-eaten mussel species purchased from markets, with an average of 0.13 to 2.45 microplastic particles per gram of mussel meat. The most contaminated organisms were found in the North Atlantic and South Pacific. In another 2024 study, researchers found that 99 percent of seafood samplespurchased in stores and collected from fishing vessels on the U.S. West Coast contained microplastics, with shrimp being the most contaminated type of seafood studied.

The study and understanding of how microplastics affect food safety is still in its “infancy.” Advanced analytical methods can help ensure more accurate detection of microplastic levels in certain foods, thereby enhancing monitoring. Governments, meanwhile, need to step up regulations and ensure “specific practices in food production, processing, and packaging to minimize the introduction and spread of microplastics,” according to an article in Smart Food Safe. Greater Industrial and international cooperation to address the issue can lead to consistent standards to make the food chain safer from microplastics. Moreover, “Regularly updating methodologies and standards based on new scientific findings ensures that strategies remain effective and aligned with the latest knowledge,” added the article.

California is leading the U.S. in monitoring microplastics in the marine environment. In 2022, it established its Statewide Microplastics Strategy, focusing on identifying microplastic pollution trends, risks, and sources. Academics continue to focus on monitoring microplastics, increasingly in sentinel species like mussels, often with the help of community scientists.

Mitigating Plastic Pollution Needs to Start at the Source

Pressure from consumers and strong policies, such as bans and taxes on single-use plastic products, can help eliminate plastic that inevitably breaks down into secondary microplastics. These actions are necessary to force businesses to move away from plastic and adopt plastic-free practices and products. Other laws, like the European Parliament’s 2025 legally binding regulation implementing mandatory prevention measures relating to “pellet loss” and the U.S. Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, which “prohibits the manufacturing, packaging, and distribution of rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads,” further help address the issue of primary sources of microplastic pollution upstream.

Litigation is also another tool utilized by communities and organizations to hold polluters accountable. Some cases successfully target downstream pollution resulting from microplastics. Others are working to address longstanding systemic issues like racism that perpetuate the unjust targeting of underserved communities as “sacrifice zones” for industrial polluters. While some others are challenging polluters’ use of false and misleading marketing claims around their plastic products labeled as “sustainable” or “healthy.”

The key to mitigating plastic pollution is starting at the source, with fossil fuel extraction and plastic production. Ultimately, society needs to shift its reliance on fossil fuels and plastics toward safe, plastic-free reuse and regenerative solutions at a systemic level.

Plastic recycling is not a solution in and of itself; it actually can perpetuate plastic production and requires virgin (new) plastic and plastic additives, as plastic diminishes in quality with each round of recycling.

“Fossil fuel and other petrochemical companies have used the false promise of plastic recycling to exponentially increase virgin plastic production over the last six decades, creating and perpetuating the global plastic waste crisis and imposing high costs on communities that are left to pay for the consequences… As of 2021, the U.S. recycling rate for plastic is estimated to be only 5-6 percent,” according to a 2024 report by the Center for Climate Integrity.

Plastic and fossil fuel corporations have long pushed recycling as a solution to plastic pollution, when in reality, ceasing plastic production is the core solution. Inevitably, some recycling may be required in the future to address the plastic already in circulation, but recycling practices might be improved to prevent further harm. Similarly, while cleanups cannot solve the problem, they will inevitably be needed in the future to reduce the risks posed by microplastics.

Microplastics are a systemic pollution problem requiring a coordinated global response, such as a strong Global Plastics Treaty that addresses plastic pollution throughout its toxic life cycle. While negotiations on the treaty continue, countries need to take steps to reduce plastic production and use, and consumers need to make better choices to drive change at the individual level. These steps are necessary to mitigate the damage already caused by the unchecked plastic use and to ensure a more sustainable future.

This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.Email

Erica Cirino is a writer, artist, and author who explores the intersection of the human and more-than-human worlds. Her photographic and written works have appeared in Scientific American, the Guardian, VICE, Hakai Magazine, the Atlantic, and other publications. She is a recipient of fellowships from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY, and others, as well as several awards for visual art. She is a contributor to the Observatory.