These Kitchen Items Are Hiding Millions of Microplastics. Here's What to Swap Them Out For
A recent study published in Nature Medicine and reported by CNN found significantly higher concentrations of microplastics in cadaver brain samples compared to liver and kidney tissues. Even more concerning, brain tissue from dementia patients in the study showed up to 10 times more microplastic buildup than tissue from healthy brains -- underscoring just how deeply these particles can embed themselves in our bodies.
The good news is you can take steps to minimize your microplastic intake. Before you cook your next meal, let's head to the kitchen and see which items among your food and cookware may be secretly hiding microplastics.
Are microplastics harmful?
Microplastics have become a serious problem for pollution, and now scientists worry about the potential health effects too. An estimated 22,000,000 micro and nanoplastics are inhaled by humans each year, and that is largely because they are so hard to avoid. You are exposed to microplastics in three ways: inhalation, ingestion or touch.
Microplastics have been shown to cause a number of issues in the human body. Microplastics and nanoplastics found in blood vessels have been linked to an increased risk of heart attack, stroke and, in severe cases, even death. Tissue inflammation, cell death and lung and liver impacts have all been noted. In animals and marine life, it also can cause oxidative and DNA damage, as well as cancer. Mice were shown to have reduced sperm count, ovarian scarring and hereditary metabolic disorders.
Much is still unknown about the exact effects of microplastics, but studies so far have been sobering. They've inspired many home chefs to reconsider what they use in the kitchen and put in their bodies.
Microplastics are plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters. Nanoplastics are much smaller and invisible to the naked eye, ranging from 1 to 1,000 nanometers -- a fraction of the width of a human hair.Where microplastics hide in your kitchen
Unfortunately, microplastics are more common than you think. These are some places they may be hiding in your kitchen.
Nonstick cookware
A new study found that plastic and nonstick cookware released microplastics into food during cooking, heightening one's exposure to these potentially harmful pollutants. Australian researchers estimate that Teflon-coated cookware contains thousands, maybe millions, of microplastic particles, while a simple crack or fracture in your pan could mean exposure to over two million microplastic particles.
Plastic food containers
Your Uber delivery could inadvertently be damaging your health, and it has nothing to do with what you order. With the rise of home delivery services, plastic containers are more common than ever, but these containers can easily add microplastics to your food when heated or washed. One study found that all reusable plastic takeout containers typically used by restaurants contain microplastics.
Plastic utensils
Plastic utensils can leach microplastics into your food when exposed to high heat levels.Studies also show that plastic utensils release microplastics into your food, especially when used with hotter foods. When you ingest the food, you also ingest microplastics that settle into your body and bloodstream.
Tea bags
It may come as a surprise, but microplastics could be hiding in your tea bags. When you brew tea, the bag is exposed to extremely high temperatures that can release its microplastics. This comes from polypropylene, a key component in the manufacturing of tea bags. Researchers at Spain's Autonomous University of Barcelona found that billions of microplastic and nanoplastic particles are released from a single tea bag for every millimeter of water it is submerged in.
Research has shown that a single plastic tea bag can release billions of microplastic fragments.Certain spices
Depending on how it is packaged, that bottle of paprika could be full of microplastics. Many spices today use plastic packaging, which is concerning because one recent study found microplastics in all plastic containers tested. This can result in food contamination, which has increased in recent decades.
Plastic straws
Plastic straws are especially concerning because studies show that they release microplastics and nanoplastics, which can then be directly inhaled. Unfortunately, plastic straws are extremely prevalent, with about eight million metric tons of plastic found in waterways each year. Once these straws and other plastics are in the water, they can affect not just the water but also the soil and animals found in it.
Canned food linings
BPA was a controversial material used in the manufacturing of canned food linings that could cause serious health effects. Today, non-BPA acrylic or polyester epoxies are more commonly used, but these are not proven safe either, as they too contain microplastics.
Kitchen material swaps to reduce microplastics
Luckily, you have alternatives. Before putting on your apron, consider adding these items to your kitchen to lower your risk of exposure to microplastics.
Wooden or stainless spatulas
There are alternatives to plastic spatulas. Consider trying out a wooden utensil set or one made from stainless steel. This can significantly reduce your exposure to microplastics while upgrading your used utensils.
Wooden or stainless steel utensils
Instead of plastic utensils, try to use stainless steel utensils that can be better for the body and also the environment. Wooden utensils can also be a great substitute, working as a more eco-friendly option for your kitchen.
Glass or stainless steel food containers
You can't do much about how restaurants choose to package their food, but you can avoid using them in the future. At home, try to stick to glass, ceramic and stainless steel containers to skip the microplastics.
Loose tea leaves and strainers or infusers
Tea bags can be filled with plastic, but a safer alternative could be loose tea leaves. Many companies nowadays offer loose tea leaves that can be used with a stainless steel strainer or infuser, which works the same as a tea bag but can be much healthier.
Spices in bulk or glass containers
To avoid potential contamination from your spices, switch to glass or ceramic packaging instead. This allows your spices to remain on your shelf without being infused with potentially harmful microplastics that can seep into your food.
Reusable metal or bamboo straws
Plastic straws take a toll on both the environment and your body, causing serious issues for both. A better alternative would be metal or bamboo straws that can be washed and reused. Even paper straws are a better alternative than plastic ones.
Reusable metal or bamboo straws are great alternatives to plastic ones.Fresh produce or frozen produce
Plastic linings in canned food can hold microplastics, so to eliminate your exposure, look for foods that are packaged in glass instead. You can also opt to use fresh and frozen foods and produce that skips the packaging altogether.
Cast iron, carbon steel or stainless steel cookware
Plastic cookware is common in many kitchens, but there are alternatives. Products like stainless steel skillets, frying pans and cast iron pans can all be great ways to upgrade your cookware without risking further exposure to microplastics.
The bottom line
Microplastics can lurk in our kitchens, hiding in our cookware and utensils and making their way into our food. Though research continues, microplastics have been shown to cause damage to the human body, causing huge concerns over the products we use and the materials used to make them.
However, hope is not lost. With a few simple changes, you can lessen your exposure to microplastics, thus better protecting your health. To learn more, here are the most common foods with microplastics and tips for reducing your intake.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
5 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Diet Swap Study Reveals How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Derail Weight Loss
In case you needed more incentive to cut down on ultra-processed foods, a new diet swap study out today reveals that people experienced greater weight loss while eating minimally processed foods than they did when they ate a nutritionally similar, ultra-processed diet. In a six-month trial led by scientists at University College London, study participants were assigned one of the two diet regimes to follow for eight weeks, and then took a four week break before swapping to the other diet for another eight weeks. Participants lost more weight while eating the minimally processed diet than the ultra-processed one; they also shed more unhealthy fat. The findings, published Monday in Nature Medicine, suggest that, among other things, ultra-processed diets are especially good at stoking people's food cravings, the researchers said. Ultra-Processed Foods Have Disturbing Health Effects, Large Review Finds Although there is some debate over what constitutes an ultra-processed food, there are generally considered products or ingredients that have gone through high levels of industrialized processing, like breakfast sausages, candy, or sodas. There is a growing mountain of evidence that suggests a diet rich in ultra-processed foods is less healthy overall than a diet made up of mostly whole foods, and that ultra-processed foods may raise the risk of certain diseases. Most of this research, however, only shows a correlation between ultra-processed diets and poorer health outcomes, and not a direct cause-and-effect link. Clinical trials can provide stronger evidence, but they're notoriously difficult to do in the world of nutrition science for many reasons, particularly funding, the researchers said. A New Diet Study Confirms Your Worst Suspicions About Ultra-Processed Foods The results highlight the importance of following government dietary guidelines, Dicken said. But the study also indicates that people who want to lose weight may see the most benefit from sticking to minimally processed foods. As to why the ultra-processed foods are worse for dieting, the researchers have their educated guesses. Ultra-processed foods tend to have more appealing textures and artificially boosted flavors, which often means they are softer or easier to eat, and tastier. Their appearance and packaging might also make them more visually appealing to potential customers. Interestingly, the volunteers in this study reported that both diets were equally satisfying to eat on average, but they also reported having better control over their cravings while on the minimally processed diet. Dicken noted that the researchers weren't able to directly test these potential explanations in this trial, though, so more research is needed to know for sure. The team has already launched their next study, which is testing out a behavioral support program to reduce people's intake of ultra-processed foods. But Dicken cautioned that it will take widespread societal shifts, not individual scolding, to change our collective diets for the better.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Want to lose weight? New study sheds light on how processed foods affect our health
People who cook minimally processed meals at home lose more weight than if they eat ready-made, ultra-processed meals – even if these foods are healthy, a new UK study has found. Food experts have long pointed to ultra-processed foods as a key driver of the obesity crisis, which affects about one in eight people worldwide. These foods are often high in saturated fats, sugar, and salt, for example crisps, frozen dinners, and processed meats. But they also include staples like wholemeal sliced bread and baked beans, meaning ultra-processed foods are not always unhealthy. That's prompted much debate over whether it's the ingredients or the processing itself that really matters when it comes to our health. The latest study, published in the journal Nature Medicine, indicates that minimally processed diets are better for weight loss – but that diets rich in ultra-processed foods can still be healthy as long as they meet nutritional guidelines. Related Butter linked to higher death risk while plant-based oils may boost health 'Completely cutting [ultra-processed foods] out of our diets isn't realistic for most of us,' Tracy Parker, nutrition lead at the British Heart Foundation, said in a statement. 'But including more minimally processed foods – like fresh or home cooked meals – alongside a balanced diet could offer added benefits too,' added Parker, who was not involved with the study. What the study found The findings are based on a small clinical trial involving 55 adults in England. Before the study, the participants tended to have poor nutrition diets made up largely of ultra-processed foods, and on average, they had a body mass index (BMI) of about 33, which is considered obese. The trial split adults into two groups. One group started on a diet of minimally processed foods like homemade spaghetti bolognese or overnight oats, while the other ate only ultra-processed foods like ready-made lasagnas or breakfast cereals. After a monthlong break, the two groups swapped, eating meals from the other diet for another eight weeks. Notably, both of these diets met the United Kingdom's guidelines for a healthy, balanced diet, which takes into account levels of saturated fat, protein, carbohydrates, salt, and fibre, as well as fruit and vegetable intake. The only difference was how processed these meals were. Related Diets rich in ultra-processed foods linked to higher risk of early death, new study warns By the end of the study, both groups lost weight – but adults lost twice as much weight when they were on the minimally-processed diets. They lost about 2 per cent of their weight on this diet, compared with about 1 per cent on the ultra-processed diet. 'Though a 2 per cent reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake,' said Samuel Dicken, a researcher who helped run the trial at University College London. 'Over time this would start to become a big difference,' he added. Over the course of a year, men on the minimally processed diet would be expected to lose 13 per cent of their weight, compared with 4 per cent on the ultra-processed diet, the researchers said. For women, the findings translate to a 9 per cent weight reduction on the minimally processed diet and a 4 per cent reduction on the ultra-processed diet. Dietary differences People tended to lose more weight on the minimally processed diet because of reductions in their fat mass and body water, which the researchers said suggested they had a healthier body composition overall. They also reported fewer food cravings on the minimally processed diet. There were no big differences between the two diets when it came to other health outcomes, such as blood pressure, heart rate, and blood markers that track liver function, blood sugar, cholesterol, and inflammation. The fact that people still lost weight while on ultra-processed diets indicates that these foods aren't all bad, independent experts said. 'The most interesting result of the study is that participants on both arms lost weight – which contradicts claims that ultra-processed foods result in weight gain,' Gunter Kuhnle, a professor of nutrition and food science at the University of Reading, said in a statement. The findings 'suggest that a diet meeting current dietary recommendations is not detrimental to weight maintenance, whether it is ultra-processed or not,' added Kuhnle, who was not involved with the study. Related Ultra-processed foods account for nearly half of calories eaten by UK toddlers, study finds The study also has some limitations, namely the fact that it included only 55 people who tried both diets. Independent researchers warned that it takes time for the body to get used to new eating habits, so longer studies with more people would be needed to understand exactly how ultra-processed foods affect our health. Even so, researchers said the results are in line with other studies showing that access to nutritious food is critical to our health and wellbeing. Dr Chris van Tulleken, one of the study's authors and a researcher studying how corporations affect human health at University College London, pointed to the 'wide availability of cheap, unhealthy food' as a key driver of obesity and poor health worldwide. He called for policy action to make unhealthy options less appealing, for example through warning labels, marketing restrictions, and taxes. The study, he said, 'underlines the need to shift the policy focus away from individual responsibility and on to the environmental drivers of obesity'.
New York Times
9 hours ago
- New York Times
Avoiding Ultraprocessed Foods Might Double Weight Loss
New research suggests that people can lose more weight by avoiding ultraprocessed foods, even those that are typically considered healthy. The study, published today in the journal Nature Medicine, is the largest and longest clinical trial yet to examine the effects of ultraprocessed foods on weight. Participants lost twice as much weight when they followed diets made up of minimally processed foods, like pasta, chicken, fruits and vegetables, as they did when they followed diets with ultraprocessed foods that met nutrition standards, such as ready-to-heat frozen meals, breakfast cereals, protein bars and shakes. Federal officials have been sounding the alarm about ultraprocessed foods, which account for about 70 percent of the food supply in the United States. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, said that ultraprocessed foods were 'poisoning' Americans, and called them a primary culprit of high rates of obesity and chronic diseases. Although numerous studies have linked ultraprocessed foods to obesity, most have been observational, meaning they can't prove that the foods directly cause weight gain. Two previous trials found that adults consumed about 500 to 800 more calories per day when their diets were made up of ultraprocessed foods than when they were made up of minimally processed foods. But those studies were small and short; the larger of the two, conducted at the National Institutes of Health, included 20 participants who followed each diet for just two weeks. Critics have argued that the results might have been different if the trials were longer, or if they included healthier ultraprocessed foods. The new study, though still small, was designed to address some of those concerns, said Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at University College London, and the lead author of the study. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
