FDA authorized Zyn nicotine pouches without knowing what they were made of
statnews.com
statnews.com
Lots of dental stuff like Invisalign or even regular braces involve keeping plastic and adhesives in the mouth for long periods of time. I think even some gum (non-nicotine or otherwise) contain plastics technically.
The main contributor to microplastic ingestion is in the water you drink, this water is contaminated with either parts of your car tire or the synthetic clothes you wear
Anyone I know who is concerned about microplastics is worried about food packaging, water contamination, and clothing.
The fact that like damn near ever regulated issue of the 20th century some big moneyed interests will leverage that concern to create a regulatory moat for themselves, drive business to themselves by force of law, etc, etc. The bone the public will be thrown will consist of making the regulated problem some trivial amount less worse for a little while before the Nt order consequences screw us harder than the original problem in a few decades.
I don't think that's true, nor is it the claim being made.
The paper industry people are salivating over it too so they can sell paper bags and paper filter media and cardboard packaging, etc, etc.
Basically they see what the "green grift" people have going on and they want a copy for themselves.
If you're so certain the microplastic threat is overhyped, I would encourage you to publish a paper explaining and evidencing your rationale! As you mention, the ground is ripe for some controversy on this topic.
I have read many papers, I know about microplastics and my personal consensus is that they are not a big deal and the biggest sources of microplastics are from water contamination.
"The fact that like damn near ever regulated issue of the 20th century some big moneyed interests will leverage that concern to create a regulatory moat for themselves, drive business to themselves by force of law, etc, etc. The bone the public will be thrown will consist of making the regulated problem some trivial amount less worse for a little while before the Nt order consequences screw us harder than the original problem in a few decades."
This is a much more elegant way of wording prior to describe it.
If microplastics do turn out to be a big issue it's a public health thing and the government will be required to clean up the groundwater with extra filtration ect. Not something worth spending my time thinking about
Or are you just hoping that other people take up the issue in direct opposition to your own dismissiveness?
I don't expect everyone to have the same attitude as me, I am an engineer and work on my specific engineering problems that I am most educated and qualified to work on. I would not expect microplastic research scientist to start doing my job. That's the wonderful thing about this planet we live on, there are many different folks with many different skills, and everyone's lives are better for it.
I find your speech hereto be very reductive and confrontational for essentially no reason, and possibly because you skimmed over a phrase in my other comment "personal consensus"
I'm not asking you to take up microplastic research, or even to form a specific opinion about it. I'm actually arguing the opposite: that if you are ignorant on the topic and disengaged with it, then you shouldn't insist that: 1) it's a fake issue and 2) surely if it is real, someone else will figure it out.
The insistence that it's not a problem has actual causal impact on whether we ever figure something out here. Knowledge doesn't just poof into existence. It must be funded, and as you identified this type of research is typically funded by you and me.
The government funds research that it believes is important to the public. You insist that it is not only unimportant, but an actual grift. And yet you simultaneously believe that the government can, should, and will fund research into this grift to ascertain whether it's a problem.
You are arguing that the government shouldn't fund research on this problem (it's a grift), but then assuming that you will get the benefits of them doing so anyway (they'll tell you if it's not a grift). In other words, you are de facto depending on other people to force the government to do the research, while you argue for the opposite.
First of all. I never specifically said that the research is a scam. I am fully onboard with real research into the topic to explore the effects on health
"You are arguing that the government shouldn't fund research on this problem (it's a grift)"
That is NOT what I said, I specifically believe the so called "health and wellness industry" is capitalizing on largely unfounded beliefs that microplastics are already proven to be hazardous (not true).
If it turns out that microplastics are actually a serious health hazard, that doesn't even mean that the health and wellness industry is right, they just got lucky on another grift. They operate thousands of grifts every year often selling things that are blatantly dangerous.
I am pro good research. I am anti unregulated bullshit quackery like the below videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJpo2JtErPs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l60T39qLq9Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnM94jqAubU
Not sure what definition of "this whole issue" you're using such that you're not quite literally saying "this whole issue around microplastics has just become another grift."
> some trivial amount less worse for a little while before the Nt order consequences screw us
Also, are you suggesting that a pharma company like Philip Morris, with a yearly revenue of $40 billion, part of the TRILLION dollar pharma industry, is somehow less influential than the health and wellness industry?
There's a grift alright, and it's not some former FDA scientist selling it.
"Also, are you suggesting that a pharma company like Philip Morris, with a yearly revenue of $40 billion, part of the TRILLION dollar pharma industry, is somehow less influential than the health and wellness industry?"
Unironically yes, because they are heavily regulated since the early days of the tobacco industry.
If it's used in a way that gets people away from smoking, maybe it can have an impact of decreased cancer risk. If used by people who weren't going to smoke, then maybe the impacts to blood pressure, heart rate, and heart disease risk are going to dominate.
The "maybe you accumulate more microplastics" impact is a rounding error.
The reality is that products like Zyn are most popular in a young demographic that's not only NOT using it to quit smoking, it's actually just a supplement to their smoking. In many cases Zyn and Vaping lead to smoking, not the other way around.
Finally lets remember that safer means of delivering nicotine to the system exist, they simply aren't addictive, marketable, or profitable.
Like, maybe my vape runs out of battery while I'm out for a night of clubbing with my friends. Nicotine and alcohol get along like a house on fire, and I've got a bit of a habit, so I pop into a gas station. They're not selling vapes, they're selling cigarettes. So I buy a pack of cigarettes, smoke a couple, and probably end up ditching the pack once I get a hold of a charger because vapes are better in every way.
I'm in an age bracket where a lot of people picked up a nicotine habit in college, and literally zero of couple dozen users I know stopped vaping and started smoking cigarettes. Vaping's cheaper, more comfortable (no burning your throat), safer (not to be confused with "healthy"), and doesn't make you stink. And the single biggest reason nobody switches from habitual vaping to habitual smoking is that smoking provides less nicotine. You need to be slurping down cigarettes to get a similar hit.