Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
As a health reporter covering chronic diseases for The New York Times, I often get ideas for articles from new medical research. And as someone who grew up near the ocean, I have long been aware of the vast amounts of plastic we as a society use and throw away — and the detrimental effects that such waste can have on the environment.
So in February, when I came across a study about the buildup of microplastics inside of human brains and other tissue, I was immediately curious.
In the study, researchers at the University of New Mexico described a novel way to identify and measure the amount of microplastics inside human bodies. They also showed that over time, as the amount of plastic in the environment has increased, so too has the level of microplastics in our brains.
The researchers tested human brain samples from 2024 and found nearly 5,000 micrograms of plastic per gram of brain tissue. Though there’s some uncertainty in the estimate, if you extrapolate that’s about seven grams of plastic per brain — a little more than the amount in a sturdy plastic spoon.
Though environmental scientists have been studying microplastics for decades, the biomedical community only started to study their effects on humans in the last few years. The researchers in New Mexico are at the leading edge of that effort.
In March, I traveled to Albuquerque to meet the researchers and watch them work. The lab, and their offices, are in the basement of the university’s College of Pharmacy, where portraits of researchers and poster presentations from conferences line the walls.
First, I sat in on a meeting where students, fellows and professors discussed their progress on various projects. The meeting reminded me how iterative — and laborious — the scientific process is: Scientists develop a hypothesis, devise a method to test it and collect and analyze data. Sometimes there’s a problem, and they have to throw out their work and start over. Sometimes the data suggests the opposite of what’s expected, so they tweak their hypothesis and run a new experiment. They often repeat this process many times before drawing conclusions.
The researchers showed me how they did experiments on microplastics, which are generally defined as plastic particles less than 5 millimeters long, but in the body can be much smaller. I saw the freezers where researchers store samples of human and animal tissue; the ovens where bottles of strong chemicals liquefy that tissue; the centrifuges that spin the liquid down so that researchers can extract solid plastics; and the fancy chemistry machines that help them identify the type and amount of plastic in the tissue sample.
For one ongoing experiment, the scientists analyzed data on the amount of microplastics in different regions of a single brain. In another, they studied the levels of microplastics in common processed foods, like Spam or single slices of cheese, as compared to more natural foods, like grass-fed steak. In a third, they were taking plastic waste collected on a beach in Hawaii, aging it and breaking it down further; eventually, the researchers will feed that plastic to mice and study the changes in their brains and behavior.
Though I was hoping to get some answers about how microplastics are affecting our bodies, I learned that it’s too early to know whether they are causing any specific health harm. Research in animals suggests that microplastics could have a negative effect on the gut, lungs and reproductive system, but it’s not clear how precisely those findings translate to humans. And the scientists at the University of New Mexico are just beginning to study possible links between microplastics and specific human health issues, including dementia, heart disease and preterm births.
I did walk away with a stark new understanding of the problem.
Before writing this article, I had not known that global plastic production had roughly doubled every 10 to 15 years since the 1960s — and much of that is in single-use plastics, like bags and packaging. Every time we use plastic, especially disposable plastic, it has the potential to end up in the environment and, eventually, in our bodies.
I learned enough to want to prevent microplastics from continuing to accumulate in my body. I already go out of my way to avoid single-use plastic, but I have made new efforts to reduce its contact with my food and body, swapping out plastic cooking utensils and food storage containers for those made of wood, stainless steel or glass, and I’m looking for clothes made of natural fibers instead of synthetic ones.
Still, plastic is everywhere — in the air, our tubes of toothpaste, our children’s pajamas and toys — and often products made of plastic are cheaper than the alternatives.
Considering what I now know about the prevalence of plastics in our world, I realize my efforts can only go so far.
Nina Agrawal is a Times health reporter.
The post In Microplastics, a Reporter Sees the Big Picture appeared first on New York Times.
