Fish Are Eating Lots of Plastic (washingtonpost.com)

Matthew Savoca, writing for the Washington Post: As you bite down into a delicious piece of fish, you probably don't think about what the fish itself ate -- but perhaps you should. More than 50 species of fish have been found to consume plastic trash at sea (alternative source - a little old). This is bad news, not only for fish but potentially also for humans who rely on fish for sustenance. Fish don't usually die as a direct result of feeding on the enormous quantities of plastic trash floating in the oceans. But that doesn't mean it's not harmful for them. Some negative effects that scientists have discovered when fish consume plastic include reduced activity rates and weakened schooling behavior, as well as compromised liver function. Most distressingly for people, toxic compounds that are associated with plastic transfer to and bioaccumulate in fish tissues. This is troubling because these substances could further bioaccumulate in people who consume fish that have eaten plastic. Numerous species sold for human consumption, including mackerel, striped bass and Pacific oysters, have been found with these toxic plastics in their stomachs. So why are fish eating plastic? According to studies cited in the report, plastic debris may smell attractive to marine organisms.

Comments

Re:I have a solution

[Mr D from 63]

Well, I eat Twizzlers, kind of the same thing.

Dire Implications

[93 Escort Wagon]

This is troubling because these substances could further bioaccumulate in people who consume fish that have eaten plastic.

This could be a disaster for the cannibals!

As an American who's born the brunt

[rsilvergun]

of 30 years of outsourcing, automation and cheap work visas this is the least of my worries. That's sort of the problem. It's hard to get worked up about problems like this when 60-80% of us live paycheck to paycheck (depending on which study you want to believe).

If you're an environmentalist then you've got to take care of the economy first. Otherwise the vast majority of people will ignore it in favor of more pressing concerns (rent, food, etc). Does that make the working class short sighted? You damn well bet it does. It's hard not being short sighted when you live paycheck to paycheck.

Re:As an American who's born the brunt

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Low wages and precarious employment are a very pressing issue indeed.

However, the main issue with environmental concerns is that although they're caused by consumerism, e.g. millions of tonnes of toxic plastics from food packaging dumped into the ocean, the solutions aren't more consumerism. Ordinary people can't shop their way out of environmental pollution. The only way to reduce pollution in the face of consumerism is through government regulation, i.e. preventing corporations from "externalising" costs, i.e. not taking responsibility for the pollution they cause.

Governments can't require that other countries abide by their own environmental laws but they can refuse entry or place substantial import tariffs on goods that have a heavy environmental impact.

It'd work if the corporations responsible for the environmental damage weren't in control of our governments and environmental agencies (AKA regulatory capture).

Re:As an American who's born the brunt

[Gavagai80]

It's hard to get worked up about problems like this when 60-80% of us live paycheck to paycheck (depending on which study you want to believe).

60-80% of residents of the world's wealthiest nation live paycheck to paycheck regardless of the size of their paycheck because all they know how to do is consume ever more. That's also the reason why there's so much plastic for fish to eat. You can solve both problems the same way.

I live in California, one of the most expensive states, and spend $13K a year while maintaining an apartment and car. So don't tell me you have to live paycheck to paycheck on $30K.

Re:As an American who's born the brunt

[jittles]

I live in California, one of the most expensive states, and spend $13K a year while maintaining an apartment and car. So don't tell me you have to live paycheck to paycheck on $30K.

You're going to have to provide more details than that. Are you in some rent controlled apartment in SF that you've been living in for the last 30 years? Because you couldn't get a studio where I grew up for $13k a year. Hell, I moved away for college to nowheres-ville so I could afford to move out and my apartment rent (in the ghetto) would have consumed much of that $13k you spend on ALL your expenses somehow. And that was years ago. That same apartment in the ghetto now would consume basically all of your $13k.

Re:Plastic Tastes Like Food

[GodfatherofSoul]

Some plastics look like jellyfish. It's a known problem for sea turtles that prey on them.

Re: Missing the real story

[Hognoxious]

Perhaps he's creating a replacement for systemd. We can hope, right?

Re:Go fish...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at you jiggling in your overstressed office chair because you thought you found an error in someone else's grammar, askance.

"Fish" is a collective noun, you nitwit. Fish as a concept. You can't count them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You dunce.

Re:So, not harmful?

[Sique]

Actually, eating plastic does harm the fish.

Some negative effects that scientists have discovered when fish consume plastic include reduced activity rates and weakened schooling behavior, as well as compromised liver function.

Thus your question is based on a false assumption.

Re:Cue the slavers

[MightyMartian]

Yes, how dare there be regulations to prevent build up of plastics in ecosystems, and ultimately in human stomachs. What a crime. People should be free to pollute, because that's their Invisible Hand-given right, and anyone who says otherwise is a filthy Communist.

Now excuse me, there's a metric tonne of rotting fish guts I need to drop adjacent to a certain AC's property, because the Invisible Hand says it's fine to make other peoples' lives unhealthy, and there's nothing they should ever be allowed to do about it, except die quietly.

Re: evolution

[amiga3D]

I have always been a little leery of eating fish. Whatever is in the water, is in the fish. Plastic is actually the least of my worries.

Re:So, not harmful?

[jandersen]

If eating the plastic doesn't harm the fish, and causes no harm to the people that eat the fish, then why is this in the "health and science" section of the Washington Post?

As others have already pointed out, plastic does harm the fish, even if it doesn't kill them outright. Not only does a lot of the plastic come as very small fragments, which may well pass into the bloodstream, but they also give off harmful chemicals. Since much of the plastic debris in the ocean has been floating around for decades, part of it will contain chemicals that are now banned. The problem of accumulation is exacerbated by the fact that many of the fish we eat, have eaten smaller, that have eaten something even smaller and so on; and on top of that, we catch a huge amount of fish that go directly into animal feed, so even if you never touch fish, you are still likely to be affected. Bon appetit.

Re:So, not harmful?

[Sique]

Yes, if fish have the same evolutionary speed than E. coli, we can expect fish to digest plastic correctly within 30,000 to 35,000 generations. It's just about to happen! Wait and see!

Re:So, not harmful?

[omnichad]

It would be more likely for a fish to form a symbiotic relationship with one of the microbes that can already digest plastics. Lots of bacteria in the human digestive tract, for example.