Study finds microplastics in nearly all American proteins: meat, fish and plants

(The Hill) — From chicken nuggets to tofu, American proteins have a microplastics problem.

An Environmental Pollution study published on Monday reviewed a wide range of meat, fish and vegetarian meat alternatives — and found that 88 percent of them contained some form of microplastics.

Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastics the approximate size of a grain of sand or a human hair, which carry a host of potential health risks.

Based on annual protein consumption habits of Americans, the scientists found that the average American takes in 11,500 microplastics per year — with the highest protein consumers taking in as many as 3.8 million plastic fragments and fibers.

Those samples included fillets from wild fish; shrimp from the Gulf; prepared meats like beef and chicken; and tofu and plant-based ground beef alternatives.

The findings represented “a startling reminder of just how prolific plastic pollution has become – humans live on land and yet seafood samples are just as likely to be contaminated with plastics as are terrestrial derived proteins,” study lead author Dr. Britta Baechler, a marine biologist and Associate Director of Plastics Science at Ocean Conservancy.

“And there’s no escaping them no matter what you eat, it seems. The plastic pollution crisis is impacting all of us, and we need to take action to address its many forms,” Baechler added.

The source of the microplastics is unclear.

While highly processed products had “significantly” more microplastics — breaded shrimp had particularly high levels, followed by fish sticks and chicken or plant-based nuggets — scientists cautioned that there was no type of protein that was safer than any other.

“The ubiquity of MPs across protein types suggests that where proteins originate: ocean, land, and animal production facilities, does not have a clear influence on overall MP contamination,” they wrote in the paper.

One possible reason why processing leads to more plastics may simply be that processed foods spend far more time in contact “in contact with plastic food production equipment (e.g., conveyor belts, and worker clothing) than minimally-processed products,” they wrote.

As in much recent reporting on plastics pollution, the scientists were left with significant lingering questions about both the source of the contamination and its impacts on human health.

A recent survey by the World Health Organization listed a wide range of possible health risks from nano- and microplastics pollution — before concluding that there isn’t enough research to really know what they are doing to the human body and making an urgent call for more studies to nail that down.

“It’s tempting to want to draw conclusions like ‘eat less of this and more of that’ to avoid microplastics in your diet but right now we still know very little about the microplastic burdens in commonly consumed foods,” said first author Madeleine Milne, formerly of the Rochman Lab at the University of Toronto.

“Our study adds to this knowledge but also demonstrates the need for further research to better understand the bigger picture, including where these microplastics are coming from and the potential human health risks[HD1] ,” said primary co-author Madeleine Milne, who conducted the research while at the Rochman Lab at the University of Toronto in 2022.