#332 - AMA #67： Microplastics, PFAS, and phthalates： understanding health risks and a framework for minimizing exposure and mitigating risk
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
166.62494
Summary
For today's AMA, we focus on something that has gotten a lot of attention lately in the news, online, and social media, and as a result, we ve received an endless stream of questions, not only from our audience, but from our patients. And that topic is microplastics and all other accompanying chemicals such as BPAs, PFASs, and phthalates. Given the interest, we decided to dedicate an AMA to this topic. In this conversation, we dive deeply into what we know and what we don't know about these chemicals, why they seem to appear all of a sudden everywhere, how we're exposed to them, how much exposure we have, and how dangerous they may or may not be to our health. Ultimately, and perhaps most importantly, we propose a framework for how someone can think about avoiding and mitigating exposure to these chemicals.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey everyone, welcome to a sneak peek, ask me anything or AMA episode of the drive podcast.
00:00:15.820
I'm your host, Peter Atiyah. At the end of this short episode, I'll explain how you can access
00:00:20.280
the AMA episodes in full, along with a ton of other membership benefits we've created,
00:00:24.900
or you can learn more now by going to peteratiyahmd.com forward slash subscribe.
00:00:30.600
So without further delay, here's today's sneak peek of the ask me anything episode.
00:00:38.900
Welcome to ask me anything AMA episode 67. For today's AMA, we're going to focus on something
00:00:45.960
that's gotten a lot of attention lately in the news, online, social media. And as a result,
00:00:50.420
we've received an endless stream of questions, not only from our audience, but also from our
00:00:54.880
patients. And that topic is microplastics and all other accompanying chemicals, such as BPAs,
00:01:01.460
PFASs, and phthalates. Given the interest, we decided to dedicate an AMA to this topic.
00:01:07.760
In this conversation, we dive deeply into what we know and what we don't know about these chemicals,
00:01:13.540
why they seem to appear all of a sudden everywhere, how we're exposed to them, how much exposure we
00:01:20.080
have, and how dangerous they may or may not be to our health. Ultimately, and perhaps most importantly,
00:01:25.980
I think, we propose a framework for how someone can think about avoiding and mitigating exposure
00:01:32.120
to these chemicals. If you are a subscriber and you want to watch the full video of this podcast,
00:01:38.280
you can find it on the show notes page. If you're not a subscriber, you can watch a sneak peek of the
00:01:43.200
video on our YouTube page. So without further delay, I hope you enjoy AMA 67.
00:01:54.420
Peter, thanks for coming back for another AMA. How are you doing?
00:01:59.640
Before we get started today, quick question. Do you have a beverage in front of you?
00:02:04.540
What type of glass is that in? Is it a plastic? Is it glass?
00:02:10.440
Huh. Okay. Interesting then. That will be interesting for this AMA, which is going to
00:02:16.140
cover one topic, which is something that seems to be growing in interest. We've been getting a ton
00:02:21.560
of questions on, a ton of conversation online. That's microplastics and other chemicals such as
00:02:27.580
BPAs, PFAS, and phthalates. So what we did, gathered all these questions that have come through,
00:02:34.520
pull them together, and are ultimately going to try and help people understand,
00:02:39.840
should they be worried? What should they be worried about? What's dangerous? Based on all
00:02:45.040
that, what can they do about it? Before we get started, anything you want to add?
00:02:51.100
I think there's actually a lot I need to say before we dive into this for context. So I'll
00:02:56.640
preface maybe by saying the following. Obviously, people who are regular listeners of the AMA can
00:03:01.660
appreciate that these are not off-the-cuff remarks that we make here, and we put a lot of work into
00:03:07.680
doing this. When I sit up here and do these AMAs, I'm doing them based on the work that me and a team
00:03:12.940
of analysts have done for usually about a month in preparation for them. I think it would be safe to
00:03:18.840
say that in the six years we've been doing this, or is it seven or eight now? I've lost track.
00:03:26.260
To date, at least, this will go down as the AMA that has required the most work, that has probably
00:03:36.040
generated the most swear words, and probably resulted in the secretion of the most adrenergic
00:03:44.620
compounds from the adrenal glands. In other words, this has been a royal pain in the ass to prepare for.
00:03:52.200
And as recently as last night at 10 o'clock, I was emailing you saying, what the F? Why are we doing
00:04:01.200
this? It's a never-ending morass of information, most of which is incomplete. There's so much I could
00:04:10.240
say on this. And then the most wonderful thing happened, which always happens. Anyone has experienced
00:04:15.160
this if they think back to being in college. Even the night before the exam, you're like, I don't know
00:04:19.240
what the hell is going on. And the best advice is usually just go to bed, get a good night's sleep,
00:04:24.640
get up nice and early, fresh cup of coffee. And I think that sort of happened this morning.
00:04:31.440
Me and a couple of the other analysts went to bed, got up this morning, and all of a sudden,
00:04:36.680
I just had more clarity about, in my words, how to land the plane. And I took to writing a couple of
00:04:43.520
pages out. And I think I've got kind of a sensible way to make sense of something that is incredibly
00:04:50.800
noisy. So what I'm going to say at the outset is, if you are listening to this thinking that there is
00:04:57.360
a punchline and a one-word answer, I'm going to spare you the disappointment. This is a very nuanced
00:05:04.180
topic. If I could answer this in a word, I promise you I would, and I would never try to go through
00:05:13.840
the 75 pages of notes that our team has assembled to help me think about this topic. I swear to you,
00:05:21.200
there are a hundred things I'd rather be doing right now than going through this. However, it is
00:05:27.060
important in an area where there is so much uncertainty, so much asymmetry and such complete
00:05:34.580
and incomplete information that we have to understand the boundary conditions so that we
00:05:40.240
can each make a reasonably informed decision. So with that as my preamble, let's do our best to guide
00:05:48.120
people on a journey that we've been on and acknowledge our shortcomings, acknowledge where we wish we knew
00:05:53.500
more, where maybe others do know more, but leave people with a framework such that at the end of
00:05:59.600
this AMA, which will hopefully be sometime today and not tomorrow, everyone can sort of make a risk
00:06:06.440
based decision for themselves, for their families. Definitely. And it kind of reminds me of what Bob
00:06:12.800
Kaplan always used to say, right? Which is further from the shore, the deeper the water. So as we've kind
00:06:17.920
of like gone deeper and deeper on this, it seems more complicated, more complicated.
00:06:22.760
The last question I'll ask before we get started, that coffee you drank this morning,
00:06:26.940
was that in a glass mug or like a Starbucks paper mug with the plastic lid on top?
00:06:34.320
It was actually in a metal Yeti camping coffee cup. That's sort of my favorite way to drink coffee.
00:06:41.860
All right. So you redeemed yourself a little bit there, which is good. Starting off,
00:06:45.960
I think it'd be helpful as we kind of typically do definitions. What are microplastics? What's BPA?
00:06:52.560
What are these chemicals we're talking about? Let's just define them now. So as we say them going
00:06:57.540
forward, people understand what we're talking about. Part of this is you just have to suck
00:07:01.960
it up through the semantics. And part of the challenge is that some of the definitions are
00:07:06.480
not very helpful. So starting with microplastics, they're typically defined as any particles of
00:07:13.200
plastic that are smaller than five millimeters. Now, again, I realize that not everybody is facile with
00:07:19.400
the metric system, but anybody who is will realize five millimeters is huge. You can see five
00:07:24.480
millimeters. That's half a centimeter. So we're not really talking about that. I think most current
00:07:30.440
studies would really classify microplastics as those smaller than one millimeter, one-tenth of
00:07:36.100
a centimeter, about one-twenty-fifth of an inch. And then, of course, we talk about what are called
00:07:41.420
nanoplastics, which are particles that are smaller than one micrometer or micrometer. So one-one-thousandth
00:07:50.060
of a meter. So we abbreviate these as MNPs or micro-nanoparticles. And we should just acknowledge
00:08:00.440
that these things are completely ubiquitous. They're found anywhere that we have looked for them,
00:08:07.300
which is to say we find them in water. We find them in food. We find them in fruit, on fruit,
00:08:12.320
in vegetables, on vegetables, in meat, in the air. And therefore, micro-nanoplasticles or MNPs
00:08:18.720
are completely ubiquitous. Okay, you asked about BPA. Now, there are lots of these bisphenol chemicals,
00:08:27.520
but bisphenol A or BPA is the one that most people are familiar with. Ironically, the presence of BPA,
00:08:34.380
at least being used actively, has been reduced quite a bit over the past 15 years. But just
00:08:40.200
understand that there's a whole family of these bisphenols, and typically we substitute one for
00:08:44.760
the other. But what are they? They're chemicals that are used to make polycarbonate plastic.
00:08:50.140
Polycarbonate plastic is the hard plastics we have in our world. So if you think about all the places
00:08:55.000
where you use plastic and it's hard, I think of the Nalgene-type water bottles, epoxies, resins,
00:09:02.400
things like that, that's where you're going to have historically found a lot of BPA. Of course,
00:09:06.860
today, this is less the case, but the truth of the matter is they're now replaced by other
00:09:13.360
bisphenols, so BPS and BPF. And the truth of the matter is not clear that we know if those are any
00:09:20.400
better than BPA. So when I say BPA, I think it's just easiest to sort of think of the broad category of
00:09:26.660
these families. Another thing that we're going to talk a bit about, and I've talked quite a bit about
00:09:30.720
this in the past, is actually particulate matters of the 2.5 or smaller variant. These are abbreviated
00:09:36.200
PM 2.5. And again, it refers to particulate matters in the air that are smaller than 2.5
00:09:44.600
micrometers. So why is that important? Well, there's something relevant about a particle that's that small,
00:09:52.580
which is that if inhaled, it has the potential at least to become systemic. And the reason for that
00:10:00.060
has to do with the anatomy of the lung and the size of both the alveolar air sacs and the epithelial
00:10:08.300
linings of them, which again, it's not necessarily that intuitive that you could breathe something,
00:10:14.220
but that it is small enough that it could actually get across a cell barrier at the innermost part of
00:10:19.160
the lungs and enter the systemic circulation just as though it had been injected into you.
00:10:24.740
A PM 2.5 refers to any particulate matter that is inhaled in the air that is of that size or
00:10:31.880
smaller. Now, are there some microplastics or micro nanoplastics that fit that description? Yes,
00:10:38.720
but most are not. So most PM 2.5s are not microplastics. I forget the exact number. I know
00:10:46.540
it's somewhere. We did look it up. It's on the order of a few percent. I would say that the greatest
00:10:51.320
contribution to PM 2.5s probably come from air pollution. So anything that has to do with when
00:10:57.140
there's a fire, burning wood, obviously burning fossil fuels, but coal being hands down the leader
00:11:03.020
of this. I mean, natural gas combustion produces much less of this. And then we'll talk about
00:11:07.520
phthalates, which are another class of chemicals that are kind of like, I think of them as sort of
00:11:13.180
the opposite of the BPAs. So these are the things that are used in plastics to make plastic more
00:11:18.920
flexible, to have more bend in it. They're also found in products that we use like shampoos,
00:11:25.900
lotions, laundry detergents. It makes fragrances last longer. Now, there's been a constant regulatory
00:11:32.820
shuffling around all of these things, and I'm not going to get into it because I could just put
00:11:38.660
everybody to sleep right now. We're going to leave a ton of this in the show notes section where we're
00:11:43.120
going to kind of go through the regulatory machinations on this and which of these products
00:11:49.100
were banned and when and what got substituted in. But the bottom line is that the use of phthalates
00:11:55.300
are still currently allowed in food content application, but many companies have undergone
00:12:00.420
voluntary reductions in this. There doesn't appear to be any restriction in the use of phthalates for
00:12:06.680
personal care products. And I think this is probably where people are going to see their greatest
00:12:11.380
exposure to them. So I guess I'll stop there, Nick, but that's the whirlwind tour of what all
00:12:18.860
these different compounds are. Do we have any idea why it seems like we're now hearing about
00:12:26.100
microplastics being everywhere? It doesn't seem like that was always the case. So do we know why
00:12:31.780
there's been this huge uptick in this? Yeah, I think there's two things going on. So the first is that
00:12:38.520
obviously plastics are relatively new, didn't really exist much prior to the 1950s. And if you think
00:12:47.280
about it, I mean, they were pretty remarkable. So incredibly lightweight, remarkable strength to
00:12:53.200
weight ratio, resistant to rotting and corrosion and shattering. I mean, there are lots of reasons we
00:12:59.340
use plastic. So when you combine the fact that they've been increasing in their proliferation
00:13:05.380
population over the past 70 years, that would certainly explain why we might be seeing more
00:13:12.300
of them. But there's also a little bit of what is the expression, the drunk under the streetlight
00:13:16.500
problem. People are also looking at this more and more and more. In fact, if you don't mind,
00:13:21.620
if you could pull up, there's a figure we've got that shows the number of scientific publications
00:13:27.080
focusing on microplastics in the last 20 years. So if you go back, it's showing basically 2000 to
00:13:34.260
2020. It's a linear scale, but it's still pretty remarkable. It still looks like you're basically
00:13:39.660
watching Bitcoin from 2010 to 2020. That's effectively what's been going on. So I don't doubt that there are
00:13:48.100
more and more microplastics accumulating in the environment. That's likely, but we can't lose sight of
00:13:53.040
the fact that we're also looking for it nonstop. So one of the questions that I didn't come up with
00:13:59.340
a satisfactory answer to was, if you just look at the last five years, are we seeing a true increase?
00:14:06.820
I wouldn't doubt that there's more 2020 versus 1980. That strikes me as, hey, over that 40-year
00:14:13.060
period, I could really see it going up. But 2020 to 2025, is that a real increase or is that an
00:14:20.100
artifact of observation? You touched on a teeny bit when you were kind of going over the definitions,
00:14:25.980
but I think it'd be helpful to just dive into it a little deeper, which is how are humans being
00:14:30.400
exposed to microplastics currently? We should always be thinking about this through the lens of
00:14:35.760
relevant versus not so relevant exposure. But again, we're going to always try to focus on a relevant
00:14:40.520
exposure, which is an exposure that has the potential to accumulate. So the most common route of human
00:14:47.400
exposure is from inhaling plastic dust and fibers and from consuming food and beverages that contain
00:14:53.940
these micro nanoplastics. And again, that's why I prefer to talk about NMPs rather than just micro
00:15:00.420
plastics. Why? Because my concern about consuming a five millimeter piece of plastic is nil because it
00:15:10.040
can't be absorbed. It's going to come right out my body the next day. This is not the thing that we need
00:15:15.060
to be afraid of. So what are the foods and beverages we need to be concerned with? The highest places we
00:15:20.920
tend to see these are in seafood, salts, water, both tap water and bottled water, but also in fruits,
00:15:28.560
vegetables, meats, even beverages like milk, beer, and wine, which obviously contain water as well.
00:15:35.100
Nanoplastics in soil can accumulate within plants, and obviously the exposure gets magnified as you go up
00:15:41.080
the food chain. This again explains why we would see it in seafood, given that we understand the role
00:15:46.860
of plastics in the oceans. And that's why obviously you can see seafood and land animals accumulating
00:15:52.840
these as well. The epithelial barrier is the first line of defense. And remember, there's an epithelial
00:15:58.840
layer on the outside of your body that we can see, but there's also an epithelial layer on the inside
00:16:02.680
of your body. Everything between your mouth and your anus is also an epithelial layer. And that's why
00:16:07.840
generally micro nanoparticles don't enter the body through the skin or through the gut unless they
00:16:16.120
are small enough. We've already talked about it. The pulmonary epithelium requires them to be smaller
00:16:21.620
than 2.5 microns. And in the lining of the gut, it could probably be as big as 150 microns to be
00:16:30.580
absorbed. Do we know how much plastic humans actually consume? And is it even
00:16:37.100
knowable? You often hear numbers thrown around a lot. Curious what we know on that.
00:16:42.980
It's difficult to know, but I think we can probably put some brackets around it. So
00:16:46.740
first, there's a huge amount of variability based on a lot of factors. So where you live,
00:16:53.280
what type of food you eat, and what your source of drinking water is would probably be the three
00:16:59.840
biggest determinants of your exposure to MNPs. That's worth noting again, and I think it's worth
00:17:07.040
stating. Your geography, your source of food, your source of water plays the biggest role.
00:17:12.860
If you aggregate the data from all of the studies, it would suggest that humans are consuming,
00:17:19.820
and this is a broad range, so that's just unfortunately the nature of this stuff,
00:17:23.660
somewhere between 10 and 300 micrograms a week. This is 10 to 300 thousandths of a gram per week.
00:17:34.200
Now, a study that was published in 2021 estimated that on average, we consume about four micrograms
00:17:42.940
per week from fish and other sea things like crustaceans, mollusks, tap water, bottled water,
00:17:50.080
beer, et cetera, et cetera. The study simulated the expected exposure to amounts that agreed with
00:17:56.500
measured quantities in microplastics and stool. So I think this is probably an underestimate,
00:18:02.240
given that it didn't look at some of the other areas that have already been found to contain some
00:18:07.960
MNPs, such as fruits, meat, vegetables, potentially plastic off cutting boards, utensils,
00:18:13.760
plastics that may come from things we'll talk about, like reheating food and things like that.
00:18:18.700
So the point is that the mass of these things is pretty small, and that might not be the right
00:18:24.780
way to think about it, and we can talk about some of the misinterpretations of that stuff.
00:18:29.600
There was a recent study published in 2023. It was in Korea, and it estimated that the population
00:18:36.660
was consuming somewhere between 140 and 310 micrograms per week. That's a nice narrower band. It also
00:18:44.300
ports with largely the upper limit of the US-based study as well. I think that's probably the ballpark
00:18:51.340
of where people are consuming. How do those numbers compare to the credit card worth of plastic that
00:18:58.340
was all over the news? I think you couldn't go anywhere without seeing that we're eating or consuming
00:19:04.360
a credit card worth of plastic a week. So the numbers that we're seeing in those studies compared
00:19:09.680
to what that would be, how do those compare? Not even in the same zip code. So that soundbite
00:19:15.160
that humans consume a credit card worth of plastic refers to a report that estimated weekly consumption
00:19:21.360
was five grams of MMPs. That has been largely debunked, despite what you've said, which is the
00:19:28.720
prevalence in popular media. But, and I don't remember who famously stated that a lie will travel
00:19:34.240
around the world or halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to pull its boots on.
00:19:38.920
I don't even need to go into that. We'll link in the show notes to both the original analysis,
00:19:44.520
which came out of the university of Newcastle commissioned by the WWF was released, I think
00:19:50.680
in 2019. And then obviously the rebuttals to that, but yeah, the long and short of it is I don't think
00:19:57.360
any serious person believes that we're consuming five grams of plastic a week. Based on what we consume,
00:20:03.400
what do we know about how they're eliminated from our body?
00:20:07.000
The main way that these things are eliminated is largely through coughing and sneezing them out.
00:20:13.540
So anything that's coming into our lungs, we can get it out by a cough or a sneeze,
00:20:17.720
as well as urine and stool. So the largest particles, those that are greater than 10 microns,
00:20:25.260
will generally be removed with relatively high efficiency, regardless of how they enter the body.
00:20:32.540
It's really the smaller particles that are eventually going to make their way to the
00:20:37.540
immune system. If you were going to do a mass balance on this stuff, the majority to the tune
00:20:43.340
of 99% of ingested microplastics are going to be eliminated through stool. And this is a relatively
00:20:50.580
short transit time. We're talking about 24 to 72 hours. Plastics have a very difficult time crossing
00:20:56.400
the GI epithelium. So when you look at animal studies, we would see that it's about 0.3%,
00:21:04.400
maybe with a ceiling of about 1.7% of microplastics have the capacity to be absorbed across the GI
00:21:11.480
epithelium. And of course, it's heavily, heavily size dependent. So it's the particles that are going
00:21:16.960
to be less than 10 microns, which remember that's four times larger than what is required to get into
00:21:24.820
the lungs. So again, just think in the lung, we're anchoring to 2.5 microns or less. In the gut,
00:21:30.660
even though in theory, the gut could absorb something close to maybe a hundred, I think
00:21:36.160
that's more theoretical. And in practical terms, we tend to see it as 10 micron or four times that size.
00:21:41.300
So the bottom line is this, if you're encountering a microplastic that's less than 2.5 microns,
00:21:47.220
you could absorb it both in your gut or via your lungs. Now, when we go through this type of
00:21:53.340
analysis in urine, we again see that we also excrete microplastics through the urine, but this is less
00:22:00.000
than what we do through the gut. For the things that are not eliminated, where do they end up and
00:22:06.940
why are there growing concerns about that? So this is really the crux of what's going on.
00:22:12.420
Thank you for listening to today's sneak peek AMA episode of The Drive. If you're interested
00:22:18.320
in hearing the complete version of this AMA, you'll want to become a premium member. It's
00:22:23.620
extremely important to me to provide all of this content without relying on paid ads. To do this,
00:22:28.860
our work is made entirely possible by our members. And in return, we offer exclusive member-only content
00:22:34.940
and benefits above and beyond what is available for free. So if you want to take your knowledge of
00:22:40.040
this space to the next level, it's our goal to ensure members get back much more than the price
00:22:44.700
of the subscription. Premium membership includes several benefits. First, comprehensive podcast
00:22:50.820
show notes that detail every topic, paper, person, and thing that we discuss in each episode. And the
00:22:57.180
word on the street is nobody's show notes rival ours. Second, monthly ask me anything or AMA episodes.
00:23:04.720
These episodes are comprised of detailed responses to subscriber questions,
00:23:08.660
typically focused on a single topic and are designed to offer a great deal of clarity and
00:23:13.820
detail on topics of special interest to our members. You'll also get access to the show notes
00:23:18.320
for these episodes, of course. Third, delivery of our premium newsletter, which is put together
00:23:24.080
by our dedicated team of research analysts. This newsletter covers a wide range of topics related
00:23:29.640
to longevity and provides much more detail than our free weekly newsletter. Fourth, access to our private
00:23:37.120
podcast feed that provides you with access to every episode, including AMA's sans the spiel you're
00:23:42.940
listening to now and in your regular podcast feed. Fifth, the qualies, an additional member-only podcast
00:23:50.300
we put together that serves as a highlight reel featuring the best excerpts from previous episodes of
00:23:56.240
the drive. This is a great way to catch up on previous episodes without having to go back and
00:24:00.740
listen to each one of them. And finally, other benefits that are added along the way. If you want
00:24:05.940
to learn more and access these member-only benefits, you can head over to peteratiyamd.com forward slash
00:24:12.460
subscribe. You can also find me on YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter, all with the handle peteratiyamd.
00:24:18.660
You can also leave us a review on Apple podcasts or whatever podcast player you use. This podcast is
00:24:25.600
for general informational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine, nursing,
00:24:30.280
or other professional healthcare services, including the giving of medical advice. No doctor-patient
00:24:35.740
relationship is formed. The use of this information and the materials linked to this podcast is at the
00:24:42.060
user's own risk. The content on this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for professional
00:24:47.080
medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard or delay in obtaining medical
00:24:52.720
advice from any medical condition they have, and they should seek the assistance of their healthcare
00:24:57.600
professionals for any such conditions. Finally, I take all conflicts of interest very seriously.
00:25:03.600
For all of my disclosures and the companies I invest in or advise, please visit peteratiyamd.com
00:25:10.080
forward slash about where I keep an up-to-date and active list of all disclosures.