Every paragraph I read suggested wide variance in each contributing factor, "up to" isn't unusual. Also wide variance in the contributing factors.
Note two things, however: ① 5g/week isn't the sum of the very worst cases observed in the studies they added up. ② It's a sum of varying nonnegative terms, which means that the only way to get a really low sum (say 0.1g/week) is for every term to be in the smaller end of its range. If even one term is in the larger end of its range, then the sum is large, too.
Up to 5g means it's on the right quartile. 0.1g would be in the left quartile. The peak of the curve would be less than 5g. And by less I mean 2-3g or less not 4.9g. Sorry, but even under your model it's not possible to be "on average" 5g and also "up to" 5g. If the risk of multiple independent varying non-zero contributors is high enough I can score a big hitter then "up to" would be higher.
I am sure I injest microplastics but I want good science behind how I assess the risk.
One of their cites appears to be a paper on a catastrophic fire in a plastics feedstock factory in a rural location in south Asia. I am sure they got a lot of contamination. But Australia isn't importing those foods. The authors are in Australia. I'd really like them to indicate how much of this burden is in the supply chain in Australia.
The main reference paper (austria not australia this time) talks about plastics aggregation in shellfish. And a lot about BPA contamination of breastfeeding bottles. There's been a push to remove BPA from plastics in the food chain, so I would hope there would be some detail on how this is changing. A lot of the citations are on the cytotoxic qualities of plastics, but not on the indicative amounts in the food chain.
So my primary problem is that I want to believe we have a significant issue here. I truly do, I think petrochemicals and plastics contamination have to be take seriously. But I am concerned this paper is promulgating a magic scare number which is going to be challenged and wind up undermining the case.
Btw most of that 5g would be excreted. What isn't is hugely worrying. Do not use plastic bottled water, and try to limit your use of plastics in microwave cooking especially of oily and sugary foods (which maximise absorption of plastics and pthylates)
Comments
Every paragraph I read suggested wide variance in each contributing factor, "up to" isn't unusual. Also wide variance in the contributing factors.
Note two things, however: ① 5g/week isn't the sum of the very worst cases observed in the studies they added up. ② It's a sum of varying nonnegative terms, which means that the only way to get a really low sum (say 0.1g/week) is for every term to be in the smaller end of its range. If even one term is in the larger end of its range, then the sum is large, too.
Up to 5g means it's on the right quartile. 0.1g would be in the left quartile. The peak of the curve would be less than 5g. And by less I mean 2-3g or less not 4.9g. Sorry, but even under your model it's not possible to be "on average" 5g and also "up to" 5g. If the risk of multiple independent varying non-zero contributors is high enough I can score a big hitter then "up to" would be higher.
I am sure I injest microplastics but I want good science behind how I assess the risk.
One of their cites appears to be a paper on a catastrophic fire in a plastics feedstock factory in a rural location in south Asia. I am sure they got a lot of contamination. But Australia isn't importing those foods. The authors are in Australia. I'd really like them to indicate how much of this burden is in the supply chain in Australia.
The main reference paper (austria not australia this time) talks about plastics aggregation in shellfish. And a lot about BPA contamination of breastfeeding bottles. There's been a push to remove BPA from plastics in the food chain, so I would hope there would be some detail on how this is changing. A lot of the citations are on the cytotoxic qualities of plastics, but not on the indicative amounts in the food chain.
So my primary problem is that I want to believe we have a significant issue here. I truly do, I think petrochemicals and plastics contamination have to be take seriously. But I am concerned this paper is promulgating a magic scare number which is going to be challenged and wind up undermining the case.
Btw most of that 5g would be excreted. What isn't is hugely worrying. Do not use plastic bottled water, and try to limit your use of plastics in microwave cooking especially of oily and sugary foods (which maximise absorption of plastics and pthylates)