Slashdot Mirror


Microplastics Found In 90 Percent of Table Salt (nationalgeographic.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from National Geographic: New research shows microplastics in 90 percent of the table salt brands sampled worldwide. Of 39 salt brands tested, 36 had microplastics in them, according to a new analysis by researchers in South Korea and Greenpeace East Asia. Salt samples from 21 countries in Europe, North and South America, Africa, and Asia were analyzed. The three brands that did not contain microplastics are from Taiwan (refined sea salt), China (refined rock salt), and France (unrefined sea salt produced by solar evaporation). The study was published this month in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

The density of microplastics found in salt varied dramatically among different brands, but those from Asian brands were especially high, the study found. The highest quantities of microplastics were found in salt sold in Indonesia. Asia is a hot spot for plastic pollution, and Indonesia -- with 34,000 miles (54,720 km) of coastline -- ranked in an unrelated 2015 study as suffering the second-worst level of plastic pollution in the world. In another indicator of the geographic density of plastic pollution, microplastics levels were highest in sea salt, followed by lake salt and then rock salt.
Even though the study found that the average adult consumes approximately 2,000 microplastics per year through salt, it's not clear what the health consequences are.

3 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Re: it's not clear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cancer yes, Autism, No.

    The reason the microplastics are finding their way in, in the first place is due to plastic in the damn packaging. Salt, is just like sand, it will grind the coating off anything it touches, that includes plastic liners, pipes, cups, and so forth.

    At the current point in time, I think news like this is just going to push people away from buying salt, but does nothing about commercial uses of salt (think pre-packaged cooked goods.)

  2. Re:Dose? Concentration? by torkus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If if and if.

    But currently it's a buzz word with no known (good, bad or ugly) health implications. Also, what's the dosage from fish? Beef? Tap water?

    For plastics that don't dissolve in the stomach, particle size could matter greatly. For those that do, the bigger concern is what they break down into and if that's toxic.

    The article is horrible...i thought NatGeo was better than this kind of fear-mongering faux-science crap. The study I'm even less interested in given who it's authored by. Greenpeace is among the top-tier nonsense media out there.

    --
    You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  3. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thing is, the title of this article (including the original sourced news article) is again clickbait.

    It isn't 90% of table salt. I don't see that number anywhere in the study summary. And in fact, the summary of the article indicates it is looking at *sea* salt, as well as lake salt (some lakes are salty) and rock salt.

    News flash. Loads, and I mean loads of salt comes from inland salt deposits. In Canada, it mostly comes from salt dug up, from ancient sea beds in the Prairies. It's the same in the US too.

    Sea salt is the real problem here.

    And if sea salt is the problem? Then fish are going to be a problem. And anything you eat from the sea. Because whatever "bad things" plastics might do? They'd do it to fish, crustaceans, then you'd eat them... perhaps in *higher* concentrations than mere sea salt.