Commercial tea bags release microplastics, entering human cells

>do practitioners not distinguish between naturally-occurring polymers and synthetic plastics in this kind of microplastic/nanoplastic research?

They don't care. This is a junk paper that cites a bunch of other junk papers. It's published in the same junk journal that gave us the junk paper on black plastic kitchen utensils. I can't really say more without risking a defamation suit, but what you're looking at has nothing to do with science.

https://retractionwatch.com/2024/12/18/journal-that-publishe...

https://retractionwatch.com/2024/05/13/publisher-slaps-60-pa...

Thankfully they break down the results per material, so you can care about the other materials and ignore the cellulose results if you like. So, yes, the different types of material are distinguished from one another.

> The tea bags used for the research were made from the polymers nylon-6, polypropylene and cellulose. The study shows that, when brewing tea, polypropylene releases approximately 1.2 billion particles per milliliter, with an average size of 136.7 nanometers; cellulose releases about 135 million particles per milliliter, with an average size of 244 nanometers; while nylon-6 releases 8.18 million particles per milliliter, with an average size of 138.4 nanometers.

>the cellulose from a paper teabag

You have a mistaken understanding of paper teabags. They are made of paper, but during manufacturing the paper bag is sprayed with plastic to finish it

(And no, I’m not talking about the silky plastic pyramid style ones. Just the cheap paper ones)

Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10389239/

I suspect this is something like Tazo that has the little pyramids make of a nylon type material vs the basic Lipton type tea bag that's just a paper product.

It doesn't seem like the study adds very much over the "See also" link from 2019 (https://phys.org/news/2019-09-plastic-teabags-microscopic-pa...).

Anyway, it comes across like they're trying to warn about nylon or polypropylene being unexpectedly found in disposable tea bags that appear to be made of paper; but in the details you read that the microplastics are "derived from several types of commercially available tea bags" - a category which certainly includes bags very openly and obviously made of nylon (reusable, pyramid-shaped ones). There are tons of places reporting on this new study, but the idea doesn't seem to be new at all. (It also seems like common sense to me that immersing a fine plastic mesh in your food, and allowing it to reach close to 100 degrees Celsius, might be a risk for this sort of thing.) It wasn't new in 2019, either: see e.g. https://ratetea.com/topic/nylon-tea-bags/30/ .

But then, a bit of searching suggests that the disposable paper bags may indeed contain a significant amount of plastic (see e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10389239/ , although the tone of the writing here seems rather fear-mongering). The reporting would be much better if it made this sort of thing clear.

there are cellulose bioplastics maybe thats what they were testing?

> I’m surprised to see them characterize the cellulose from a paper teabag as releasing “microplastics.”

I don't think they called cellulose microplastic anywhere. The issue is that commercial teabags these days often aren't using pure paper teabags:

> The tea bags used for the research were made from the polymers nylon-6, polypropylene and cellulose

I believe the polymers are usually coming from the glue keeping the bag together. This is a known issue going back years [0].

0 - https://www.implasticfree.com/why-you-should-switch-to-plast...

"Microwood" is basically just cellulose, aka insoluble fiber, which naturally exists in our food. "Microsteel" is just elemental iron which is a necessary nutrient.

Microplastics are novel hydrocarbons that don't exist in nature. They're similar to cellulose but no organisms exist that eat them. They're believed to be nonreactive and therefore harmless but they might bioaccumulate which could be bad, or they might react with things in our bodies in unknown circumstances. We have limited experience with these molecules so it is hard to say.

> How does that compare with ... plastic-lined paper cups .. cling wrap that covers our food as we heat ... the Tupperware and other plastic containers we heat our food up in ... bottled water that sits inside plastic for months ... plastic bowls and utensils we use in our kitchens ... disposable serrated plastic knife...

For myself, I don't do any of the above (with the possible exception of the last one once in a while). I thought everyone knew those were a bad idea.

I do drink tea using tea bags though — and had no reason to believe there was plastic involved.

I've no idea why they chose teabags to study - one has to start somewhere, presumably - but I can answer the second question. The distinctive feature of plastics is the synthetic polymers that they contain, which classically feature bonds between oxygen atoms. These are extremely difficult for any organic process to break apart. Wood, however, can even be digested in small quantities, so 'microwood' will just break down into its constituent parts in the human body. The body can cope with metals and indeed has evolved to require a small amount, for instance in hemoglobin.

We aren't fully aware of the implications of microplastics on health, but the main cause for concern is that we have no easy way of getting them out (either naturally or medically) in the event that they are harmful.

We do know that microplastics may be reducing male fertility. I know there are others but I haven't done a ton of research [1]. Wood and stainless steel are different because we have evolved with these materials in our surroundings or at least something close to them. Also, wood, and even metals, do not have the staying power of plastic. We already do know that heavy metals are bad if they stick around in your body, but we do need metals in our diets as nutrients as well.

It should be assumed that anything that we have invented in the last 200 years should be guilty until proven innocent at this point imo. So many of the "modern marvels" have shown to have horrible health effects.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9134445/

If you microwave your consumables in plastic that is on you. Microwavable plastic is a marketing myth. Put your food on a plate or bowl and cover it with a wet paper towel.

I don’t do anything in that list you just mentioned, and I will probably stop drinking tea from a bag now. This is helpful research.

It is well established that heating plastic in a culinary context distributes significantly more microplastic into your food.

Microplastics are also well established endocrine disrupters.

Microplastics cross the blood brain barrier and may also permanently stay in your body.

To what extent are these harmful? In what dose, over how much time? I don’t think that’s established. You could be cautionary, or wait for more science about how long it takes to reduce your fertility. It may also be inescapable, plastic is likely a permanent earth pollutant now, in your clothes, dust in the air, food, water, and most things in your home, including ones you abrasives use inside your body, like toothbrushes. Maybe only very high doses (like drinking tea from teabags once a day) have a detrimental health effect. Many compounds are lethal in high doses, and healthy, benign, or required for survival in low doses.

I absolutely agree that meaningful context would be helpful, but I don't see that as disqualifying. I appreciate that research is opportunistic, as often oriented toward discovery of new things not yet understood, as much about building up our factual understanding as interpretation.

So sure, I want context, but I think this kind of exasperation is a bit misplaced, as I don't think the article or the research itself was intended to be a comprehensive account of the broader contexts you are looking for. If it was masquerading as such a thing, I would be in full agreement. So I think it's a fair point in general, but the way you are saying it here sounds an awful lot like you're holding up a stop sign and saying "don't do any more research!"

I think it's pretty reasonable to expect a bag made of a fine mesh of plastic to yield more tiny broken off pieces than something like plastic container.

Also once you put your mind to it it's actually pretty easy to avoid most of the things you mentioned. There are glass or metal alternatives to pretty much everything plastic. Maybe not for creating an airtight seal over something like leftovers, but I think it's reasonable to expect that the food can sit in glass and have a plastic roof and still be relatively free of microplastics.

More research is needed it seems pretty plausible that plastics, like asbestos, are only a hazard when friable.

>First of all, what's with the focus on tea bags? >Second, how do "microplastics" compare to micro-everything else?

Not sure I understand your criticism. I think choosing tea bags and microplastics in particular is a way to 'ground' a study and experiments into something practical, rather than something too broad, abstract, and/or un-relatable to consumers.

> ”from the cling wrap that covers our food as we heat it in the microwave, from the Tupperware and other plastic containers we heat our food up in”

You shouldn’t really be doing either of those things. Plastic tupperware will get damaged from heat if you use it in the microwave frequently, potentially contaminating your food.

It’s best to transfer food to a heat-safe container (glass or ceramic) before microwaving. And definitely don’t use cling film in the microwave!

I eat processed, ready-to-eat stuff at home, heavily use microwave for heating, but I don't do/use any of the things you mentioned. I generally prefer loose leaf tea, but sometimes tea bags are easier, so I only buy brands that use natural tea bags. It's possible to reduce exposure to pollutants if you're willing to sacrifice some convenience.

There is no evidence of harm. Your body continually rids itself of them. This is a lot of passion and angst over what may be nothing.

Tea drinkers in shambles

> First of all, what’s with the focus on tea bags?

Well, lucky for you, there's an entire scientific study detailing why they chose to study it and the methodologies they used. You know, the one linked in the article. It states:

> Among the different food containers releasing MNPLs, teabags stand out. Recent investigations have elucidated that teabags significantly contribute to the release of millions of MNPLs, adding to their daily ingestion by humans.

And this is just a snippet! Much more detail and context available within! The wonders of original sources.

>First of all, what's with the focus on tea bags?

According to the paper[0]:

> Among the different food containers releasing MNPLs, teabags stand out. Recent investigations have elucidated that teabags significantly contribute to the release of millions of MNPLs, adding to their daily ingestion by humans (Banaei et al., 2023).

The cited Banaei et al., 2023[1] says "At this point, special attention should be paid to the release of MNPLs from the herbal/teabags, since during the soaking and steering processes, some MNPLs inevitably detach and migrate to the water solution", citing [2]...which is retracted with this explanation: "2 of the reviews for this manuscript were fictitious. 2 reviews were submitted under the name of known scientists without their knowledge."

So, yeah. Sometimes it's interesting to follow citation chains a few steps.

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972...

One should avoid all the things which you mentioned and using a microwave at all.

The context is a comparison between good old paper tea bags.

Agreed. While some people are nit picking the comment here as “well don’t do any of those things,” it still doesn’t quantify the danger.

Recently read from “Made to Stick”: “Don’t just say popcorn has 40g of trans fats. Everyone knows trans fats are bad, but how bad is bad? Say popcorn has more trans fats in one serving than a whole day of greasy junk food”

I mean, why not? I get your point but before wide encompassing studies and meta studies, a lot of things will be looked at because we can look at them. It's like asking why investigate dolphin language instead of all animal communication.

If one had to study the entirety of a subject it would be impossible to do so in many cases. It is entirely reasonable for a researcher to pick one piece of the puzzle and study that. No it does not give the entire picture but it may help us understand the greater picture.

Lastly if this was anywhere else besides HN there is a microwood entering you joke to be made.

These are all questions that are pretty easy to answer these days; perfectly appropriate for asking to an LLM or search engine.

Long story shot - yes, this is a major problem. Yes, you're getting it from bottled water and plastic utensils and plastic lined cups. No, it's not like microwood.

This shit is being found in every organ of our bodies from our sex organs to our brains. It's found in most wild animal samples, it's found in rain, it's found on Everest's peak and in the Mariana Trench. And every indication is that it's getting rapidly worse, scaling up with our ever-increasing plastic production.

And there are perfectly good alternatives for the vast majority of this use, but the costs are a bit higher (since they're not being externalized onto the planet and our organs as much).

From the study linked in the article: "Overall, our findings contribute to a growing body of evidence on the pervasive nature of plastic pollution and its potential implications for human health. As the usage of plastics in food packaging continues to rise, scientific research and policymaking must address the challenges posed by MNPL contamination to ensure food safety and consumer well-being."

> I find it impossible to put this into any kind of meaningful context.

So? Your inability to find meaningful context in something is not important. Who are you and why should this article or study cater to you? Are you in the business of doing research on this topic? Or are you just an HN commenter?

Your ignorance is not a sign of anything other than you being ignorant, and your inability to do something is just that: lack of skill.

> First of all, what's with the focus on tea bags?

Because you can't just assume. You test. That's science. Just assuming (your suggestion) is anti-science. And something we should NOT base our science off of.

> Second, how do "microplastics" compare to micro-everything else?

That's not what this study is trying to determine. It set out to determine how much microplastics came from tea bags. Why increase the scope. Other people are studying that.

You really don't seem like someone who understands how this works. You don't put the puzzle together all at once, you put it together one piece at a time.

[dead]

[flagged]

Science loves proving science wrong. I'm glad science overcame science on the issue of blqck plastic

I think for most places in the world, tea is an activity done at home with own cups/glasses.

Or at least, say in China/Taiwan, the heated tea gets made cold in steel containers and then served cold in plastic cups (e.g. For milk tea) else all is ceramic.

The main point is that even who doesn't go to buy a tea elsewhere get in contact with microplastic. So, now many people might have to switch to loose leaf to avoid getting another source of microplastics in their daily lives.

Doesn’t the first product (bamboo topped lid) have a rubber ring to seal it?

The alternative for me isn't to ask for a mug, it's an argument for skipping all that and making it at home.

Just make sure the mugs weren't washed with Jet Dry...

Avoiding toxic and questionable substances really does get exhausting after awhile. It's everywhere. I'm able to draw a reasonable line (for me) without getting too nuts about it. Hoping AI ends up helping with this.

Or are they coated with wax/parafin?

“Chances are” is not science, it’s just obsessing over the current Scary Thing. You’re just making things up.

If you home-compost you get used to finding tea bag skeletons in the compost. For years I used to rip open the used tea bag, compost the tea and discard the bag.

In the last few years the largest two brands here (Ireland: Lyons and Barrys) have gone somewhere between "plastic free" and "biodegradable" (but not home-compostable). 95% of tea is sold in the form of tea bags here. https://livinglightlyinireland.com/2021/02/12/plastic-free-t... (article is from 2021, I think the title is suffering from a Wordpress date placholder)

Watch out who you shake hands with, you might absorb micro plastics from them if they use a lot of Tupperware.

These days many tea bags use polymers in their glue; and I don't think this article implied anywhere that cellulose is microplastic:

> The tea bags used for the research were made from the polymers nylon-6, polypropylene and cellulose

cellulose on its own is not a plastic but they make bioplastics out of cellulose that are plastics.

I wondered the same and unfortunately the manufacturers don’t publish the material of the tea bags. I am switching to loose tea and even when I only have tea bags i can take the tea out and brew it in reusable metal thing.

Here's a pretty complete list of UK brands: https://moralfibres.co.uk/the-teabags-without-plastic/

Nicer teas (pricier usually) come in cotton muslins - https://www.mariagefreres.com/en/tea.html?conditionnement=47. Their Marco Polo tea is my once a year splurge. The bag is tied with string - no glue.

The article made me check Yorkshire Tea and I'm not really quite sure. How bad are "plant-based plastics"?

> made from natural fibres like wood pulp and the seal is made with PLA - an industrially compostable, plant-based plastic

> ... so we're following WRAP's advice and avoiding the phrase "plastic free"

https://www.yorkshiretea.co.uk/our-packaging

https://www.yorkshiretea.co.uk/brew-news/plastic-in-tea-bags...

Should be a law to put the materials used on all products, not just foods.

I think it's just worded badly. They were testing three different bags.

[dead]

I'll take the micro cellulose particles. I already get cellulose in my food and I know my gut bacteria can digest small quantities.

or use a small metal or ceramic bowl to hold the tea -> zero plastic involved.

The nylon strength and stability making for counterintuitive trade-offs yet again. It's a ridiculously underrated material. (Does it fare worse or better if reused? I don't have a clue, but there are reusable nylon bags.)

Anyway, particle size probably matters, and I'm not sure it wins on that count.

Also anyway, you can get a steel tea holder, so the best way is to completely avoid plastics here. You can also probably get your leaves much cheaper in 200g or 1kg bags.

Well, no, because those measurements are per ml. A nylon bag uses many more mls than a paper bag using plastic glue.

I just use a French Press.

We've used refillable pods for years now.

Cafelat Robot

Nothing but metal and silicone.

To be fair, if you live in a developed country, you have organizations like the FDA which "should" be vetting the "food" on store shelves as "safe".

Now whether or not they actually do a good job at that task is a different question.

It's unfortunate that you'd expect millions of people to individually "do research" (i.e. consult their crystal-stroking astrologist nutjob friend on Facebook). There is no reasonable way for individuals to make informed decisions regarding each individual item they may eat.

The Good Place has a great little clip about just the difficulty of buying a tomato: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8m_5HDZF7w

If you buy tea from Starbucks in North America you're getting a nylon teabag. Maybe I should be more paranoid about microplastics but I avoid them because I can't just toss them in the compost like I can with paper- or silk-based ones.

Cellulose is supposed to be dietary fiber. For which there is a recommended daily intake amount.

Most tea bags in Germany aren't made from starch. Am I missing something?

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teebeutel

It’s just one of those areas where we weren’t quite fast enough to catch up with the U.S. in copying their mistakes. Though I think it is true that the tea bag used to be a German idea.

So we know that microplastics are everywhere. The thing that doesn't really seem clear yet is whether microplastics are actually harmful. Polyethylene, for example, seems quite harmless. (There are also generally harmless substances that become harmful in the right shape, e.g. quartz as fine dust or fibers)

Maybe in the "western world", but look up asbestos use and mining and export in brazil, china, russia and you may be horrified.

Yeah and similar to lead (and asbestos as someone else mentioned), once you see it you can't really un-see it.

The idea of re-heating food by microwave in a plastic storage container, or purchasing anything acidic or liquid from the grocery store that's stored in a plastic or plastic-lined container elicits a similar feeling in my brain to sleeping under popcorn ceilings or drinking water from a house with lead pipe plumbing.

Yet, in the U.S. at leaste, people have been doing this literally for decades without thinking twice :/

Yup. Seems like a great idea at the time, until it is both such a great idea that it becomes ubiquitous and we start looking at it more closely.

Kind of a proverbial 'boiling the frog' problem. A little bit of handling lead pipes or pumping leaded gasoline or inhaling or ingesting microplastics won't do anything. But when modern life gets so we're all bathing in the stuff all the time, the big problems are revealed.