Plastic — it’s in our cars, our homes and even our food. A recent study linked pesky microplastics that make their way into our meals with higher risks of heart attack, stroke and death. But which foods have the most microplastics?
CNN pulled together a collection of research to determine which foods are highest in potentially dangerous plastics. For instance, 90% of both animal and vegetable protein samples tested in a February study were positive for microplastics. Before that, a 2021 study revealed fruits and vegetables can absorb microplastics through their root systems.
From Himalayan pink to traditional black, salts can be packed with plastics — so can sugar. Tea bags can release plastic into brews, around 11.6 billion microplastic and 3.1 billion nanoplastic particles per serving.
For every 100 grams of rice, consumers risk eating 3 to 4 milligrams of plastic. That number increases to 13 milligrams when consuming instant rice. Water bottles, meanwhile, contain around 240,000 plastic particles per liter of water.
It is important to note, however, that research concerning the effects of plastics on human health is still in its infancy. The recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine discovered only a correlation between microplastics and increased risk of heart attack, stroke and death.
“There are so many unknowns,” Bernardo Lemos, an adjunct professor of environmental epigenetics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told Harvard Medical School last year, “but we are seeing more data that suggest microplastics affect human biology.”
According to Australian Microplastic Assessment Project research director Scott P. Wilson and EPA Victoria chief environmental scientist Mark Patrick Taylor, there is still reason to be cautious of plastics in our foods.
“The history of environmental health is replete with examples of what were initially considered suspect chemicals that avoided proper regulation because of what the US National Research Council refers to as the ‘untested-chemical assumption,’ they reported to the Conversation. “This assumption arises where there is an absence of research demonstrating adverse effects, which obviates the requirement for regulatory action.
“In general, more research is required to find out whether or not microplastics cause harm to human health. Until this evidence exists, we should adopt the precautionary principle; absence of evidence should not be taken as evidence of absence.”
