[jroblak]

It's hard to take something like this seriously when it spends 3 (large) paragraphs scare mongering about the fact that fish "may" contain plastics, only to end with:

>> Even though current research shows we do not absorb most plastics, it’s possible that a small amount (about 1 percent) can still accumulate in our bodies over time. That number might change: research on microplastics in our food is still in its infancy, and while some studies have documented the detrimental effects of plastics on fish and other aquatic animals, we still don’t know much about their long-term effects on humans.

So, all current scientific evidence points to this not being a problem. But it _might_ _maybe_ _someday_!

edit - I've also never heard of any food safety guidelines that specify different storage temperatures for different species of fish. The whole thing is pretty suspect.

[deno]

> So, all current scientific evidence points to this not being a problem.

Do you mean our lack of current scientific evidence? The fact that we have no idea about long term effects of ingesting those plastics should be alarming enough.

I didn’t sign up to be a guinea pig for this experiment. Thanks to this article at least I know I’m part of one.

[pvaldes]

Anyone using a computer several hours each day will collect probably much more micro particles of plastic in its fingers; as our badly worn-out keyboards can tell us.

[Turing_Machine]

Note, too, that he abruptly switches from "microplastics" to "plastics" in mid-sentence.

As far as I know, the "detrimental effects of plastics" that have been "documented" are stuff like getting caught in six-pack rings, getting intestinal clogs, etc., none of which are likely to be an issue with microplastics.