From the article: … Apparently there are a lot of people doing microplastics studies wrong, because it’s easier? It seems inefficient. Why all the me-too studies?
From the article:
A comprehensive literature review conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Food Contact Materials Working Group has shed light on the release of micro- and nanoplastics from food contact materials (FCMs), revealing both evidence of particle transfer and significant gaps in current research methodologies.
The review analyzed more than 100 studies published between 2015 and January 2025. While most studies focused on microplastics, data on nanoplastics were scarce. The majority of research used water or aqueous simulants to test particle release, with mineral water being the most frequently studied matrix. Real food matrices were rarely examined. Overall, there is no sufficient basis to estimate micro- and nanoplastics exposure from FCM during their uses.
…
Despite the volume of research, the review highlights widespread methodological shortcomings throughout the studies. These include inconsistent sample preparation, unreliable analytical techniques, and a lack of validated protocols for nanoparticle detection. For example, electron microscopy—commonly used to observe nanoplastics—can produce misleading results due to artefacts formed during sample drying.
Studies on packaged foods were largely limited to bottled water, and few traced micro- and nanoplastics contamination across the full food production chain. Mass-based measurements of particle release were rare, and size reporting often lacked dimensional information, complicating exposure assessments.
The review concludes, that while there is clear evidence of microplastic release from FCMs, the actual quantities are likely lower than many studies suggest. Nanoplastics data remain insufficient, and current evidence does not support reliable exposure estimates.
Apparently there are a lot of people doing microplastics studies wrong, because it’s easier? It seems inefficient. Why all the me-too studies?
Publish or perish, in short. Academics will rarely get enough funding to do things the "best" way, funding is usually not guaranteed beyond the next couple of years (which is a short horizon for...
Publish or perish, in short. Academics will rarely get enough funding to do things the "best" way, funding is usually not guaranteed beyond the next couple of years (which is a short horizon for anything greenfield), and career advancement depends on how many citations your work garners, in many cases. The culture has to adapt, or nobody would go into research. That cultural adaptation is normalized exaggeration of findings and stakes, as well as comfort with lax methods of interrogation and standards for data.
In cases where the scientists are highly motivated by the subject, this can be even worse. For instance, environmental researchers may be more willing to shrug off contamination if they already inhabit a paradigm that says their lab is obviously less polluted with microplastics than food in plastic wrap. Or if a psychologist is invested in a conceptual framework, they will remove "outliers" that make up significant quantities of the sample, or look at a p value of 0.2 as something negotiable.
As a compounding factor, there's a fair number of researchers who ended up in academia, not out of brilliance or passion or a burning desire to solve scientific problems, but because "more school"...
As a compounding factor, there's a fair number of researchers who ended up in academia, not out of brilliance or passion or a burning desire to solve scientific problems, but because "more school" was the easiest route forward and they just kept doing that until eventually they ended up where they were.
Language learner and sayings aficionado... Is this chock (my bold:ing) an autocorrect mistake of chalk, a personal misunderstanding of the saying or a new form that I'm not aware of (since the...
Language learner and sayings aficionado...
I'll chock this up to...
Is this chock (my bold:ing) an autocorrect mistake of chalk, a personal misunderstanding of the saying or a new form that I'm not aware of (since the meaning seems to be exactly the same)?
From the article:
…
Apparently there are a lot of people doing microplastics studies wrong, because it’s easier? It seems inefficient. Why all the me-too studies?
Publish or perish, in short. Academics will rarely get enough funding to do things the "best" way, funding is usually not guaranteed beyond the next couple of years (which is a short horizon for anything greenfield), and career advancement depends on how many citations your work garners, in many cases. The culture has to adapt, or nobody would go into research. That cultural adaptation is normalized exaggeration of findings and stakes, as well as comfort with lax methods of interrogation and standards for data.
In cases where the scientists are highly motivated by the subject, this can be even worse. For instance, environmental researchers may be more willing to shrug off contamination if they already inhabit a paradigm that says their lab is obviously less polluted with microplastics than food in plastic wrap. Or if a psychologist is invested in a conceptual framework, they will remove "outliers" that make up significant quantities of the sample, or look at a p value of 0.2 as something negotiable.
As a compounding factor, there's a fair number of researchers who ended up in academia, not out of brilliance or passion or a burning desire to solve scientific problems, but because "more school" was the easiest route forward and they just kept doing that until eventually they ended up where they were.
I'll chock this up as a good news story since microplatics in food products, water and all else are an ongoing point of concern in my household.
Maybe not so much "good news" as "the bad news we had wasn't accurate". In other words, the frown isn't now a smile, but a shrug.
I'll take that.
Language learner and sayings aficionado...
Is this chock (my bold:ing) an autocorrect mistake of chalk, a personal misunderstanding of the saying or a new form that I'm not aware of (since the meaning seems to be exactly the same)?
Well crap. I really thought that the spelling was less about writing with chock and more to do with whatever 'chock' is haha. Lesson learned