This does not say that and it's irresponsible to summarize it that way. That's a letter addressing a specific study from 2024 (which did record baseline levels because that's a standard experimental design step), arguing that it used an inadequate control so may have had background contamination when reporting the level of microplastics found in bottled water.
A "cohort of core studies" were not involved, and nothing was "judged to have invalid methodology". The study authors also replied, arguing that their choice of blanks was actually the better one: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2415874121
There's been a slightly weird trend of people on HN that seem so eager to judge the microplastic story as overblown and unsupported that they're overstating and overextrapolating the smallest counter evidence into its own competing narrative, as if what we needed were more narratives. Resist this! That's not how good science or science communication is done.
What exactly was a commonly cited technique and where is this citation?
Regardless, you said "invalid methodology due to not recording baseline microplastic levels" when that was not the case and wasn't the letter's objection to the study's methodology.
> Thanks for calling me weird :) I guess the suggestion though is I'm paid by big plastic or something, no infact I'm just a guy reading papers who is scared of death like everyone else.
I said the trend was weird, but feel free to pick another adjective. Self contradictory, for instance. Sick of people overextrapolating from these "bombshell" microplastic papers, I will now overextrapolate from these "bombshell" methodological papers.
Look at the publications of the author of that letter and Cassandra Rauert, the lead author of the paper on detecting plastics in human blood that you linked below. Both of them have several publications on the almost universal contamination of the planet with microplastics and are clearly worried about the impact of this. Them insisting on and helping with better science from their colleagues is not laying the question to rest, it's a call to more rigorous action (literally[2]). It is scientific malpractice to call that "growing evidence that there is much less to worry about on microplastics".
That's not a feeling, for journalism anyway it's an explicit fact. The Accrediting Council for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC) - the primary agency that reviews and accredits journalism programs across the United States and whose mandates directly shape the curricula of over 100 universities - has changed their standards over the years away from emphasis on truth and towards emphasis on advocating change to institute certain policies. See https://www.acejmc.org/about/strategic-plan . They still mention truth, but almost tangentially among long lists of outcomes that journalists must pursue. The current generation of journalists were trained by these principles.
The Associated Press (AP) StyleBook https://www.apstylebook.com/ similarly polices the language that journalists use to favor certain policy outcomes, with some news organizations requiring compliance as a condition of employment.
“Relentlessly strive to assure information integrity, assuring that truth is gathered and reported.”
> 1. Reimagine teaching and learning of journalism/communication to serve the public.
> 2. Forge diverse and inclusive programs where differences are celebrated, equity is pursued, and diverse communities are served through improved communication and journalism instruction.
> 3. Relentlessly strive to assure information integrity, assuring that truth is gathered and reported.
Plastic packaging made 20% of EU's total packaging waste in 2023 out of which 42% were recycled/downcycled. Personally plastic food packaging is the biggest portion of my family's waste output.
Plastic kitchen utensils like black plastic ladles are not durable (they break easily), and visibly degrade when exposed to heat or acidic food, unlike metal or wooden counterparts...
Plastic kitchenware and food storage containers are also considerably less durable than equivalent metal or glass products. They also stain and degrade when in contact with acidic or other specific foods...
I take it you've worn synthetic clothes, need I go into detail about how uncomfortable that is?
On top of that, most of these are tied with fossil fuel supply and prices, and you can see for yourself what's going on with that right now...
p.s. I'm pretty sure use of metal, glass, and wood is not marxism...
What is OP fighting for? Idk, an unbiased view of reality, maybe?
The PNAS paper is a pretty good critique of contamination/baseline issues, and I agree some of the “microplastics are causing young-onset cancer” claims got ahead of the evidence.
But the broader concern still exists: people are clearly exposed constantly, particles are being found in human tissue, and there are plausible mechanisms for harm. So no, there is not "much less to worry".
Also - in terms of human tissue:
"The problem is that some small molecules in the fumes derived from polyethylene and PVC can also be produced from fats in human tissue. Human samples are “digested” with chemicals to remove tissue before analysis, but if some remains the result can be false positives for MNPs. Rauert’s paper lists 18 studies that did not include consideration of the risk of such false positives." (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/micropla...)
and Rauert's paper (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c12599)