
My Personal War on Plastic
The lining on the inside of a nonstick pan is made of plastic. When heated, it can release toxic fumes; when scratched, it can chip off, blending in with tasty bits of char and grains of pepper. 'Data indicates that there are no health effects from the incidental ingestion of nonstick coating flakes,' the company that produces Teflon says, noting that the government has deemed the cookware 'safe for consumer use.' Still, it warns people to turn their burners down and air vents up when they use their nonstick pans, and to avoid preheating them empty.
Other data, a lot of data, suggest that ingesting plastic can damage your organs, suppress your immune system, harden your veins, and predispose you to neurodegenerative diseases and cancer. Pet birds have died of the 'Teflon flu' after breathing in the smoke from their owners' overheated pans. (Birds' lungs are especially susceptible to toxic gases.) A story about a budgie did it for me. I tossed my nonstick pans into the trash, over my husband's objections.
Thus began my slowly escalating, dimly informed campaign to rid my body and life of plastics. I heard a local-radio report on colorectal cancer and impulse-purchased metal baby spoons for my kids at 3 a.m. I recalled a column on endocrine disrupters from who knows when and started drinking my iced coffee from a metal-lined tumbler. I read something about how flexible plastic is particularly problematic and threw out the cling wrap. I got rid of our black plastic spatulas too, after one of my colleagues reported that they might contain flame retardant, which you're really not supposed to eat.
I was doing my own research, by which I mean I was taking in data from disparate sources with differing degrees of credibility on a bewilderingly complicated issue and analyzing it with sophomore-year scientific literacy before making consumer decisions driven by single-issue neuroticism and a penchant for online shopping. I was also annoying the bejesus out of my husband, who kept asking where the pancake flipper had gone.
Then I read an article suggesting that microplastics might be behind the increasing incidence of type 1 diabetes, which I happen to have. I recalled all the molten Stouffer's lasagnas I had eaten as a kid. I needed to do something right now, but I realized that I had already purged the obvious offenders from the kitchen.
Before I could buy something expensive and relax, I stopped, for once. Was I actually reducing my exposure to dangerous chemicals? Was my family safer than it had been before I began my campaign? What kinds of plastic are truly dangerous in the first place? I had no idea. More than I wanted to spend hundreds of dollars at Williams-Sonoma, I wanted to know my enemy.
An encomium for the adversary: Plastics are amazing. The synthetic polymers are light and inexpensive, moldable and waterproof, stretchy and resilient. They are also new. The fax machine was invented before plastic was. Plastics have made us safer in a thousand ways: Much-castigated plastic water bottles make the storage and transportation of clean drinking water easy; single-use surgical gear is better at preventing infection than boiled linen. Plastics have also dramatically cut the cost of making and moving things, powering our modern consumer economy no less than gas and electricity have.
Judith Enck and Jan Dell: Plastic recycling doesn't work and will never work
Plastics are the consumer economy, to a remarkable extent. I knew that fleece and diapers were made from plastic. I was surprised to find out that tea bags, sponges, glitter, paint, cigarette filters, nail polish, chewing gum, toothpaste, mattresses, dental floss, wet wipes, and tampons commonly contain plastic too. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is half plastic composites. Even things that seem like they have nothing to do with plastic are plastic. Aluminum soda cans are lined with an epoxy resin, meaning my predominant source of liquid (room-temperature Diet Coke; not ashamed) essentially comes in a plastic bathtub.
This past spring, I decided to see how long I could go without using plastic. I woke up on linen and cotton sheets and glowered at my iced coffee, chilling in its off-limits plastic bottle in the refrigerator. Head aching, I went to get ready for the day. I couldn't turn on the light in my closet or my bathroom. Nor could I brush my teeth, or put on deodorant, moisturizer, sunscreen. The only outfit I could conjure up was a capacious linen shift and a saggy cotton-wool cardigan. No underwear or socks, because they have some stretch to them, and if something stretches, it's thanks to plastic. I could not traipse into my office looking like Gollum's great-aunt, nor could I commute without shoes on. Eighteen minutes after waking up, I surrendered.
Plastic is not just everywhere in our homes, but everywhere, period. The world produces so much plastic (more than 400 million metric tons a year, according to one estimate—roughly the combined weight of every human alive) that degraded nubbins coat the planet, detectable in the sedimentary depths of the Mariana Trench and the icy heights of Mount Everest.
The human body itself is part plastic: We are humans made of a human-made material. Scientists have found plastic in brains, eyeballs, and pretty much every other organ. We cry plastic tears, leak plastic breast milk, and ejaculate plastic semen. Fetuses contain plastic. Plastic is so ubiquitous that researchers, wanting to examine the effect of plastics on the human body, are struggling to find all-natural individuals to use as controls in studies.
Concerns over plastic exposure have exploded in recent years, with podcast bros, MAHA types, and crunchy moms joining environmentalists (and a number of physicians and scientists) in attempting to ditch the substance. Businesses have started offering direct-to-consumer blood tests for microplastics and related contaminants. (Until I started writing this story, the distinctions were lost on me: We are exposed to bits of plastic, known as nanoplastics or microplastics, and plastic-related chemicals, which can leach out of plastics. The latter can include PFAS, 'forever chemicals' with particularly worrisome health implications.)
Curious to know how plastic I am, I coughed up $357 (and some plastic particles, probably) and visited a Quest Diagnostics. 'I've never seen anyone get this test before,' the phlebotomist whispered, before puncturing my vein.
The results came back a week later: I had 2.06 nanograms of PFAS in every milliliter of my blood, an 'intermediate' quantity implying a 'potential risk of adverse health effects.' Specifically, the test found perfluorononanoic acid, perfluorohexanesulfonic acid, n-perfluorooctanoic acid, n-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, and perfluoromethylheptane sulfonic acid isomers swimming around in my blood.
Knowing what I already knew, I would have been shocked if the test had come back negative. But I still felt concerned. Quest provided me with a phone number to set up a consultation with a physician to discuss my results. I called, hoping someone could tell me what, if anything, I should do with this information.
The numbers were 'very good news,' the physician told me at first, saying that my report indicated the chemicals were 'not detected.' But some substances were detected, I pointed out. What did that mean?
'I see why you're confused; your level is higher,' she told me. 'You have to address this to the lab.' After a few minutes of poring over the numbers, she added, 'This is very confusing, even for me.'
We went back and forth on safe levels and detectable quantities before I asked her what it meant to test positive for these substances in general. 'There's not much for us to do but to alert you,' she said. 'Everything is made from chemicals, and things are made in China and they don't have high levels of quality control. That's what the modern world has to offer us.' She told me to watch out for breast cancer.
I was already doing that. I had read studies linking PFAS to developmental delays, liver damage, kidney cancer, and thyroid disease, among other conditions. Phthalates, used to make plastic flexible, are associated with early menopause and miscarriages. Microplastics and nanoplastics are mixed in with the sand on beaches and float in bottles of distilled water at the grocery store. Nascent research ties them to strokes and lung cancer. How many horrid diagnoses did I need to be on the lookout for?
I could be as vigilant as I wanted to be, but the Quest test was essentially meaningless. It gave me a point-in-time estimate of a handful of kinds of PFAS in my bloodstream. But it provided no sense of my lifetime exposure, nor could it help diagnose a current illness or predict my likelihood of disease going forward.
Kjersti Aagaard is a physician specializing in maternal-fetal medicine whose research demonstrates where the science is today. She recently co-authored a paper showing that the placentas of preterm infants contain more tiny plastic particles than those of full-term infants. Microplastic accumulation might alter blood-vessel development in the womb, increasing the risk of preterm birth, she told me. But she and her colleagues had 'no data' demonstrating how microplastics caused early deliveries, if they were causing them at all.
Still, scientists know more than enough to be concerned. Research indicates that plastic chemicals can bind to hormone receptors, kill cells, and damage DNA. Studies show that the degree of exposure to plastics corresponds to the incidence of disease. We don't know yet 'if this is 'Silent Spring 2.0,' ' Aagaard wrote in an email. We may not know for a long time. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to reduce the risks now.
That was my next project, and I conscripted Tracey Woodruff, the director of UC San Francisco's Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment. Yes, she said, there were straightforward, scientifically informed ways for people to protect themselves. Plastic and plastic-related chemicals have to get into your body to hurt you. You have to consume them, breathe them in, or absorb them through your skin. Cut off the supply lines and hamper the enemy.
She told me she sympathized with the urge to buy your way out of harm, but noted that wealthy people have more PFAS in their body than lower-income people, perhaps because they buy so much more stuff. Some fixes involve spending money, but many don't; people should just do what they can, she said. In the kitchen, opt for glass and stainless-steel containers, and throw away degraded plastic tools. Avoid doing anything to heat or agitate plastic, so quit putting plastic containers in the microwave and kiddie cups in the dishwasher. Food and beverages themselves carry plastic particles, so avoid processed foods. 'Eat less takeout and fast food, eat less packaged food, and eat more food prepared in your home; that can reduce your exposure,' she told me.
Elsewhere in the home, you can replace polyester rugs, vinyl fabrics, and microfiber towels with alternatives made from linen, cotton, leather, or wool. You can rip up your carpet and opt for bare wood floors. Hang plastic-derived garments to dry after washing them on a gentle cold cycle. 'Ugh, we were the original fleece family,' Woodruff told me. 'It's so great, lightweight, and warm. But it's recycled plastic,' so now she's trying to buy wool and denim coats from thrift stores instead.
Then, keep the battleground clean. Wash your hands. Take off your shoes in the house. Use a HEPA filter. The dust bunnies under your bed and the film on your stove vent contain contaminants, so scrub away grease and mop, dust, and vacuum. 'I don't want people to think, Oh, I should go out and buy industrial-strength cleaning products,' Woodruff said. 'Those contain toxic chemicals. You can clean everything with water and vinegar and baking soda.'
I began to put her recommendations to use. I bought a metal filter to make my own iced coffee. (Good luck finding an automatic coffee maker without plastic in it.) I started hang-drying a lot of the household's laundry and decided to try to buy natural-fiber clothing going forward.
Another point Woodruff made stuck in my head. 'People say the dose makes the poison, and that's fine if you are a healthy adult,' she said. 'But there's a range of how susceptible people are.' People who are pregnant, people with preexisting health conditions, people who work in industrial environments, people who live in polluted neighborhoods, and children are most vulnerable to the 'insult' of plastic chemicals.
I turned my attention to my kids. Sheets and blankets are important because you breathe so close to the fibers for so many hours. I replaced my younger son's with natural alternatives. Then I contemplated what to do about my older son, who is obsessed with dragons. A few years ago, I bought him a plastic-fiber duvet cover with dragons on it. I get sweaty looking at it. I needed to get rid of it.
'Why don't I get you a nicer comforter with dragons on it?' I said one evening, trying to be nonchalant. He looked at me like I had threatened to send him to an orphanage.
'No,' he said. The dragons were crucial for the household's safety.
'What if I put dragons above your bed, or around your bed?' No. 'What if I got dragon toys?' No. We had fought to a draw. I waited a few weeks, bought a soft cotton duvet cover, and threw out the dragon one without telling him, changing the HEPA filter while I was at it.
The HEPA filter itself was plastic, I noted while standing in my kids' room, awaiting the tantrum that, thankfully, never materialized. My boys' chewed-up stuffies were plastic. Their closet was filled with plastic clothes, their shelves stuffed with plastic-coated books, their backpacks and lunch boxes formed from plastic. That night, I dreamed about plastic. I was back in the hospital where I had given birth for the first time, sitting in a plastic wheelchair in the NICU, eating ice chips out of a plastic jug and absorbing plastic stitches into my skin. I took my older son, tiny enough to slip into a pint glass, out of a plastic box where he was being fed by a plastic tube and oxygenated by a plastic cannula.
My anxiety about myself was really about my children—about them growing up in a world where all the objects around them seem bound to hurt them, where too many corporations fight to pad their profits and hide the evidence, where problems are solved by individual action rather than collective responsibility. Until our government acts to protect us, we are both the home chef using the Teflon pan and the budgie choking on the fumes.
Throwing the pans out seemed, for now, like the least I could do. And the most I could do, too.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

16 hours ago
DuPont agrees to $27M settlement in water lawsuit
HOOSICK FALLS, N.Y. -- Chemical maker DuPont has agreed to a $27 million settlement to resolve a nearly decade-long lawsuit over the contamination of an upstate New York village's water supply. The deal was announced Wednesday by lawyers representing residents of Hoosick Falls, located northwest of Albany, just as the case was headed to trial in federal court this week. The settlement brings the total recovered in the class action suit brought in 2016 to more than $90 million, lawyers for Rochester-based firm Faraci Lange said. Three other companies — Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, Honeywell International and 3M —settled for a total of more than $65 million in 2021. DuPont was the last remaining defendant. 'We are gratified to have reached what we believe will be the final resolution of this case that will provide significant added benefit to the residents of Hoosick Falls and the Town of Hoosick,' said Stephen Schwarz. A spokesperson for Delaware-based DuPont didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment Friday. The DuPont settlement, which must still be approved by a federal judge, also includes another $6 million in funding for an existing medical monitoring program for exposed residents, according to attorneys. In their class action suit, Hoosick Falls residents claimed that a local Teflon fabric coating facility operated by Saint-Gobain and Honeywell caused local drinking water to become contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA. DuPont, which made Teflon materials used at the facility, and 3M, which made the PFOA used by DuPont in its products, were added as defendants to the lawsuit in 2018. PFOA was once widely used in certain industrial processes but is now considered a harmful 'forever chemical' because it can persist in the environment for decades without decomposing. It has been linked to a number of serious illnesses including kidney and testicular cancer and has recently been classified as a carcinogen.


The Hill
19 hours ago
- The Hill
DuPont agrees to $27M settlement in Hoosick Falls water contamination lawsuit
HOOSICK FALLS, N.Y. (NEWS10) — The village of Hoosick Falls is nearing a final victory against the companies that were accused of contaminating its water supply: DuPont has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit for $27 million. In 2016, a chemical called PFOA, which had been used in the making of Teflon at a fabric-coating plant in Hoosick Falls, was discovered in the village's water supply. PFOA is one of thousands of substances that are known as 'forever chemicals' because they persist in the environment for hundreds or even thousands of years instead of breaking down. Exposure to these chemicals, also called PFAS, has been linked to cancer and other health issues. PFOA in particular has been linked to kidney and testicular cancer, as well as conditions including ulcerative colitis and thyroid disease. The lawsuit was filed against four companies: 3M, Saint-Gobain, Honeywell and DuPont. 3M, Saint-Gobain and Honeywell settled in 2021 for $65 million. The settlement with DuPont is still awaiting final approval, but if it goes through, it will bring the total amount recovered in the lawsuit to $92 million. PFAS are commonly used in a wide range of nonstick, waterproof and stain resistant items including pans, dental floss, makeup, furniture and clothing. They have also become pervasive in U.S. waterways, tap water and human beings — and are estimated to be in the bloodstream of at least 97 percent of Americans. While virtually every American has been exposed to these chemicals, communities such as Hoosick Falls near factories or other areas where they are made or used in large quantities have seen outsized impacts from exposure. —Rachel Frazin contributed.


Health Line
3 days ago
- Health Line
Venus Williams on Uterine Fibroids: ‘My Doctors Told Me It Was Normal'
Venus Williams recently shared her journey with uterine fibroids, a condition that impacted her health and quality of life throughout her tennis career. Despite her severe symptoms, the Grand Slam champion's concerns were dismissed by doctors for years. Fibroids are noncancerous uterine tumors that often cause heavy bleeding, pelvic pain, and fertility issues. Experts emphasize self-advocacy and seeking second opinions if your symptoms are dismissed. Venus Williams, one of the most decorated tennis stars in history, recently opened up about her battle with uterine fibroids. Williams, 45, said the condition took a toll on her health, tennis career, and quality of life for nearly 30 years. In an interview with NBC News Now, the seven-time Grand Slam champion described how her fibroid symptoms, ranging from intense cramps to heavy bleeding, nausea, and persistent anemia, became a monthly battle. 'I was hugging the toilet, waiting for it to pass,' she shared. Williams said that although she knew she had fibroids, she didn't realize how large or severe they were, and her concerns were repeatedly dismissed by doctors. 'As bad as things were for me, crazy amounts of bleeding like you couldn't imagine … my doctors told me it was normal,' she said. During the 2016 Wimbledon tournament, the pain became so intense that Williams collapsed in the locker room. Her sister Serena Williams had to call for medical aid. 'I was lying on the locker room floor, unable to move,' she recalled. Williams said it wasn't until she found NYU Langone's Center for Fibroid Care that she finally received effective treatment for her fibroids. 'No one should have to go through this,' she said. 'You don't have to live this way.' Here's what to know about fibroids and their symptoms, and why clinicians may dismiss the condition. What are fibroids? While the exact causes of fibroids are not known, hormones and genetic factors may play a role in their development. 'Fibroids are noncancerous tumors of the uterus made of muscle and fibrous tissue,' explained Esohe Faith Ohuoba, MD, MPH, a board certified OB-GYN at Memorial Hermann Medical Group Kingwood and Memorial Hermann Convenient Care Center in Summer Creek, in Humble, TX. 'They can range in size from a seed to a melon,' she told Healthline. Ohuoba said that around 70% of women will develop fibroids by the age of 50, and that percentage increases for many women of color, specifically Black women, where the number rises to 80%. 'Black women are three times more likely to develop fibroids than white women. They also tend to be diagnosed younger, often in their 20s and 30s,' Obuoba said. Fibroids are often asymptomatic, which means you might not experience any symptoms at all. However, symptoms can include heavy or prolonged menstrual bleeding, pelvic pain or pressure, bloating, frequent urination, and pain during sex. 'In some cases, fibroids can impact fertility or pregnancy, and the chronic nature of these symptoms can interfere with work, relationships, emotional well-being, and overall quality of life,' said Arielle Bayer, MD, reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist at CCRM Fertility in New York City. Fibroid pain may be dismissed Fibroids have been somewhat elusive in clinical settings until recently. They're notoriously difficult to diagnose and often missed by doctors who might mistake their symptoms for another condition affecting reproductive health. Fibroid symptoms can be debilitating, however. As with Venus Williams, some women may find their pain is not taken seriously or is even dismissed in clinic settings. This may be particularly true for women of color. Ohuoba said a lack of awareness of the condition is a huge part of this issue. 'Unfortunately, patients do not realize their symptoms are a problem that needs attention because having difficulty or pain with menstruation is normalized,' she explained. She emphasized the importance of patient and clinician awareness and education. 'Even Venus mentioned seeing a social post that caught her attention and prompted her to learn more,' she pointed out. 'In clinical settings, lack of empathy and unconscious bias are reasons why women of color can be dismissed and minimized,' she continued. 'Furthermore, with fibroids specifically, there is a huge comfort with offering hysterectomy for fibroids first or in totality, which is another reason why symptom dismissal can occur.' Why self-advocacy is so important If you're experiencing symptoms that may be fibroids or another reproductive health issue, it's important to advocate for yourself to get the care you need. 'This is especially important because women of color often receive a delay in diagnosis, which can often lead to larger fibroids and more severe symptoms,' Ohuoba said. Bayer recommended trusting your instincts. 'If you feel your concerns are being minimized, it's OK to seek a second, or even third, opinion,' she told Healthline. 'Keep a detailed symptom journal and bring it with you to appointments. Don't be afraid to ask direct questions about imaging, diagnosis, and treatment options,' she added. Ohuoba said choosing your healthcare provider carefully is also key. 'Seeking out providers experienced in treating fibroids and understanding your health goals will help you feel empowered about your ability to navigate your diagnosis,' she said. How are fibroids treated? As awareness of fibroids broadens, more treatment options have become available. One approach is watchful waiting. 'This is where your healthcare provider will monitor you for changes,' Ohuoba explained. 'There are also medications such as hormonal birth control, GnRH agonists, and tranexamic acid,' she continued. Treatment may depend on whether preserving fertility is a priority. 'Uterine artery embolization (UAE) and ultrasound-based fibroid treatments are generally considered options when fertility preservation is not a priority,' explained Bayer. 'These approaches may be appropriate in select cases but are typically reserved as alternatives when childbearing is not a concern.' A hysterectomy is another option, which involves the complete removal of the uterus. For those who wish to maintain fertility, minimally invasive procedures like hysteroscopic or laparoscopic myomectomy are preferred. Alternatively, a newer treatment option known as radiofrequency ablation (Acessa procedure) uses heat to destroy fibroid tissue. 'This procedure is minimally invasive and uses small incisions in the abdomen that allow access to the uterus to target the fibroids,' Ohuoba explained. Getting a diagnosis for fibroids can be a challenge, especially for women of color. This underpins the importance of self-advocacy and finding the right healthcare professional.