The fact that they have always been around suggest that there is no change to us as a result of their introduction. Plastics, however, have not always been around...
do you want to increase your risk of having a stroke (which is what the study suggests is happening with microplastics), or keep that risk level where it is?
put another way: would you go out and smoke cigarettes and expect no additional harm, because you are already exposed to environmental pollutants?
how is that relevant to the discussion of the introduction of plastics? wood is not a new material; we are not discussing a rationale for questioning the manufacture of wood.
I’d argue that’s just shifting the burden of proof. I’d like corporations to prove that something isn’t dangerous before they put it in the food I eat.
Besides, if other microparticles are dangerous, I’d rather not have even more of those, especially ones that haven’t been through thousands of years of human evolution.
I understand your claim; so we have lived forever with a baseline stroke risk (maybe zero) that is attributable to these microparticles. The addition of plastics, because they may block, will not certainly lower our baseline risk, and may (as this evidence suggests) increase it.