Seafood Isn’t the Microplastic Villain You Think It Is

Plastic particles are virtually everywhere, including in human testicles, blood, and brains. A study from earlier this year even found anthropogenic particles—materials made or modified by humans, including microplastics—in 180 of 182 analyzed edible fish. A team of researchers, however, claims that seafood has an unfairly bad rep when it comes to microplastic contamination.

In a study published last week in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters, scientists revealed misconceptions about the ingestion of microplastics via seafood and endeavored to set the record straight. They argue that the media has disproportionately reported about human exposure to microplastics in fish and shellfish, despite the fact that other sources are likely more problematic.

“Public perceptions about seafood contamination by PPs [plastic particles] have been shaped by media communications rather than scientific evidence, and these perceptions can inform behavior and public policy inappropriately,” the team wrote in the paper. “Our objective is to challenge perceptions with evidence and to discuss the extent to which concerns of PP contamination of seafoods are justified.”

Seafood-obsessed

Their investigation revealed that over 70% of media and scientific coverage on microplastics in food has focused on seafood, propagating a public perception that eating fish is the primary concern.

When I first came across this study, it felt like the researchers were missing the bigger picture. Don’t we have bigger problems to deal with than fighting over what gives us slightly more or less microplastics? For example, the fact that tens of millions of metric tons of microplastics might be released into the world every year?

But their point is that the misconception is shaping human behaviors in harmful ways. They reported that some individuals are lessening their seafood consumption because of it, forgoing the health benefits of fish and mussels.

“Seafood was one of the first foods tested for microplastics, partly because of assumptions that marine species would be most exposed and partly because it was easier to analyse,” Theodore Henry, a co-author of the study and a professor in environmental toxicology at Scotland’s Heriot-Watt University, said in a university statement. “That early focus created an impression that fish and shellfish are uniquely risky, but we now know other foods and drinks also contain microplastics.”

According to the team, evidence suggests that seafood contributes around the same amount of plastic particles as other foods like salt, honey, and chicken—potentially 1 to 10 microplastic particles per day. At 100 to 1,000 particles per day, indoor air is a greater source of exposure to humans than what we eat and drink.

Indoor air is the bigger problem

“A previous study reported that the presence of microplastics in mussels collected from the environment was lower than the amount of microplastics that falls on a plate of mussels during dinner time in a typical household,” Henry explained. He also added that there is “no evidence” that ingesting microplastics is harmful to humans, while admitting to knowledge gaps about exposure levels and health impacts. It’s also hard to find evidence that microplastics are bad for human health when we haven’t conducted any human trials.

Long story short: You can go back to eating your salmon fillet knowing that seafood isn’t more of a problem than everything else already is. But for the love of all that’s good, stop chewing gum.