Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Nearsightedness Has Become a Global Health Issue

News Feed
Tuesday, October 1, 2024

In 350 B.C.E. Aristotle noted that some people went about their days with what he called “short sight.” People with this condition, he found, would habitually narrow their eyelids to focus their vision—an observation widely credited as the first attempt at defining nearsightedness, or myopia. More than two millennia later, health officials are paying new attention to this old condition for a startling reason: myopia has reached epidemic levels worldwide.Myopia’s prevalence has dramatically increased in recent decades, now affecting as much as 88 percent of the population in some Asian countries. Although it seems most acute in Asian cities, myopia’s growing prevalence is by no means an exclusively regional trend. By 2050, according to one estimate, five billion people—half the world’s population—will be nearsighted. The U.S., which has been less diligent than some other countries in tracking myopia cases, saw a jump in prevalence from 25 percent of people aged 12 to 54 in the early 1970s to 42 percent in the early 2000s, according to the last major national survey of the condition.These statistics matter because myopia is a leading cause of visual impairment, and it can precipitate serious diagnoses that range from detached retinas to glaucoma.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.A search is now underway for tangible measures to stem this rising tide. An expert panel from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) released a report in September entitled Myopia: Causes, Prevention, and Treatment of an Increasingly Common Disease. It lays out a series of recommendations, one of which calls for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reclassify myopia as a disease that necessitates a medical diagnosis—a step that would encourage federal and state agencies, along with professional associations, to devote resources to reversing the situation. Notably, the committee also recommended that children spend one to two hours outdoors each day.Terri L. Young, co-chair of the NASEM committee that produced the report and chair of the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, talked with Scientific American about the implications of the myopia epidemic for people with myopia and policymakers.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]I’d like to begin with the most basic of basics. Could you define what myopia, or nearsightedness, is?I’ll start off with what a person with myopia experiences. Myopia is a condition in which an individual sees an object up close clearly but cannot see it clearly at a distance without optical correction. They have natural blurred vision at a distance.Optically, there is a detailed definition that involves the very basics of how we see. Scattered light rays that enter the eye pass through multiple ocular components that reduce the scatter to focus the rays onto the retina, which converts the light into an electrical signal that is transferred through the optic nerve. The optic nerve is similar to a telephone cable that connects the eye to the occipital cortex at the very back of the brain, where what is viewed is then processed and interpreted.The focus of those wavelengths that enter the eye and travel through all its optical components needs to coincide on the retina. In the case of nearsightedness, or myopia, the focus of the light occurs in front of the retina.Myopia seems to be getting more attention lately, both in the U.S. and internationally. Why is that?Myopia prevalence rates are at epidemic levels, especially in urban Asian communities, where in recent times upward of 80 to 90 percent of young individuals have developed myopia. There are large, government-sponsored myopia research institutes in many parts of Asia, including Taiwan, Singapore, China, Hong Kong and Japan.Take Singapore, for example. All young men there are required to perform [two years] of military service after completing high school. Many of these military conscripts, and in particular the ones who are being prepared to go into battle or fly fighter planes, often need glasses or other corrective means for their myopia to fulfill those functions, causing concern for national security.And what about in the U.S.?It’s now certainly an issue in the U.S. as well. Research on myopia is conducted primarily in ophthalmologic and optometric training and research academic programs. But it hasn’t garnered, for whatever reasons, the same sense of urgency and funding as is the case for other parts of the world.In the U.S., we don’t have good prevalence data for myopia and other refractive errors, such as astigmatism and hyperopia [farsightedness]. Health care in this country is so varied in terms of everything from access to dissemination of vision care; because we don’t have a nationalized health system, we also don’t have a national database to provide standardized tracking and reporting.Aren’t there already simple ways to deal with myopia, such as getting a new prescription for glasses? Why is it perceived as becoming a global health problem?Myopia correction is not just an inconvenience of glasses or contact lenses. It predisposes a person to other eye conditions that can lead to blindness. Higher degrees of myopia are associated with eye conditions: premature cataracts, glaucoma, retinal tears and detachments and myopic macular degeneration.What’s happened in Asian communities is that the baseline level of refraction, the deflection of wavelengths as they pass through the eye, is trending toward nearsightedness. This shift is reflected in more individuals with high-grade myopia, with its increased ocular risks, as I described earlier. So instead of that group reflecting 3 to 5 percent of myopic individuals, it’s risen to 10 percent or more.Access to quality vision care, with proper and standardized dissemination for all children, is a major issue in [the U.S.] There are many children who don’t have steady access to care and the opportunity for continued changes in spectacle correction as they grow. If they can’t see, they can’t learn. If they don’t learn, they may get discouraged. If they get discouraged, they tend to act out or to not perform well in school—which has lifelong educational, vocational and economic impacts.Is there some idea why this myopia epidemic is happening?Nowadays, children are indoors more often, and they’re not getting as much outdoor play. Outdoor light enables the visual system to process a variety of spectral wavelengths of light for a certain duration of time, and that affects normal eye development and growth. Our report reaffirms what has been in the scientific literature for more than 15 years: increased childhood outdoor time appears to be protective for myopia onset and development.In urban Asia, education is highly regarded, and children undergo indoor schooling for relatively more hours per day—routinely with additional tutorial sessions on evenings and weekends. In Singapore, for example, there are fewer green spaces, and living situations are generally more vertical because of limited land mass. There are fewer nonclassroom hours and places for children to go outside to view the horizon for extended periods of time. That’s becoming more of the case in the urban U.S. as well.What does being outside do to promote healthy eyes?There are different and varied light wavelengths that enter the eye from outdoor versus indoor exposures. And there are differences in luminance—higher-intensity versus lower-intensity light levels. In the report, there is a lengthy discussion on what is called the “visual diet”—the environmental factors affecting the myopic eye—and there is a consensus that more research is needed.What about the role of electronic devices in promoting myopia?That’s certainly a trend that has exponentially grown in activity and use in our younger generations. I am a pediatric ophthalmologist. I see two- or three-year old children in my clinic who are comfortably playing with cell phones. This close-up activity is generally indoors. The limited research findings regarding electronic device impact on myopia development are inconclusive, however. Reflected in our report, studies could not support unequivocal evidence that using digital devices, especially electronic small devices, is an influencer for this shift toward myopia.What measures have countries implemented to try preventing or correcting myopia in young people?The Singapore Ministry of Health instituted outdoor playtime or recess during school hours. There are now programs in China and in Taiwan where classroom settings have been altered with the use of glass walls or colored light bulb use to increase outdoor daylight exposure. Children are undergoing treatment with atropine eye drops, which in some reports diminishes the shift toward myopia over time in the school-age years. The effect of the drops is not curative, however, and there are concerns regarding unknown long-term effects because we don’t quite understand the specific biochemical actions of atropine. Diagnosed children are also prescribed multifocal contact lenses or eyeglasses [progressive lenses that have different prescription zones to correct vision at different distances].One of the main findings of the report that you co-chaired is the recommendation that myopia be classified as a disease. Can you explain why the consensus of the panel felt that was important?The issue needs escalation to a recognized disease category to underscore its short- and long-term visual health consequences, and to attract attention and funding dollars on multiple and varied fronts for effective screening, treatment, prevention and research study.It takes a multipronged team to elevate this issue. That groundswell would have to come from parents, educators and educator societies, local to national health care systems, local to national policymakers, public health experts, researchers, funding agencies, insurance companies, etcetera. All [of these groups] need to recognize that continuous vision screening starting in early childhood is important. In addition to implementation, the data from those screening visits need to be collated for national database entry for improved monitoring in this country.What do you think should be the main takeaway from this report?In this country, if we elevate this condition to be considered a disease and recognize its impact on our children and ultimately on our future workforce, that would be monumental.

Myopia is projected to affect half of the world’s population by 2050. A new report says it needs to be countered by classifying it as a disease and upping children’s outdoor time

In 350 B.C.E. Aristotle noted that some people went about their days with what he called “short sight.” People with this condition, he found, would habitually narrow their eyelids to focus their vision—an observation widely credited as the first attempt at defining nearsightedness, or myopia. More than two millennia later, health officials are paying new attention to this old condition for a startling reason: myopia has reached epidemic levels worldwide.

Myopia’s prevalence has dramatically increased in recent decades, now affecting as much as 88 percent of the population in some Asian countries. Although it seems most acute in Asian cities, myopia’s growing prevalence is by no means an exclusively regional trend. By 2050, according to one estimate, five billion people—half the world’s population—will be nearsighted. The U.S., which has been less diligent than some other countries in tracking myopia cases, saw a jump in prevalence from 25 percent of people aged 12 to 54 in the early 1970s to 42 percent in the early 2000s, according to the last major national survey of the condition.

These statistics matter because myopia is a leading cause of visual impairment, and it can precipitate serious diagnoses that range from detached retinas to glaucoma.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A search is now underway for tangible measures to stem this rising tide. An expert panel from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) released a report in September entitled Myopia: Causes, Prevention, and Treatment of an Increasingly Common Disease. It lays out a series of recommendations, one of which calls for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reclassify myopia as a disease that necessitates a medical diagnosis—a step that would encourage federal and state agencies, along with professional associations, to devote resources to reversing the situation. Notably, the committee also recommended that children spend one to two hours outdoors each day.

Terri L. Young, co-chair of the NASEM committee that produced the report and chair of the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, talked with Scientific American about the implications of the myopia epidemic for people with myopia and policymakers.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

I’d like to begin with the most basic of basics. Could you define what myopia, or nearsightedness, is?

I’ll start off with what a person with myopia experiences. Myopia is a condition in which an individual sees an object up close clearly but cannot see it clearly at a distance without optical correction. They have natural blurred vision at a distance.

Optically, there is a detailed definition that involves the very basics of how we see. Scattered light rays that enter the eye pass through multiple ocular components that reduce the scatter to focus the rays onto the retina, which converts the light into an electrical signal that is transferred through the optic nerve. The optic nerve is similar to a telephone cable that connects the eye to the occipital cortex at the very back of the brain, where what is viewed is then processed and interpreted.

The focus of those wavelengths that enter the eye and travel through all its optical components needs to coincide on the retina. In the case of nearsightedness, or myopia, the focus of the light occurs in front of the retina.

Myopia seems to be getting more attention lately, both in the U.S. and internationally. Why is that?

Myopia prevalence rates are at epidemic levels, especially in urban Asian communities, where in recent times upward of 80 to 90 percent of young individuals have developed myopia. There are large, government-sponsored myopia research institutes in many parts of Asia, including Taiwan, Singapore, China, Hong Kong and Japan.

Take Singapore, for example. All young men there are required to perform [two years] of military service after completing high school. Many of these military conscripts, and in particular the ones who are being prepared to go into battle or fly fighter planes, often need glasses or other corrective means for their myopia to fulfill those functions, causing concern for national security.

And what about in the U.S.?

It’s now certainly an issue in the U.S. as well. Research on myopia is conducted primarily in ophthalmologic and optometric training and research academic programs. But it hasn’t garnered, for whatever reasons, the same sense of urgency and funding as is the case for other parts of the world.

In the U.S., we don’t have good prevalence data for myopia and other refractive errors, such as astigmatism and hyperopia [farsightedness]. Health care in this country is so varied in terms of everything from access to dissemination of vision care; because we don’t have a nationalized health system, we also don’t have a national database to provide standardized tracking and reporting.

Aren’t there already simple ways to deal with myopia, such as getting a new prescription for glasses? Why is it perceived as becoming a global health problem?

Myopia correction is not just an inconvenience of glasses or contact lenses. It predisposes a person to other eye conditions that can lead to blindness. Higher degrees of myopia are associated with eye conditions: premature cataracts, glaucoma, retinal tears and detachments and myopic macular degeneration.

What’s happened in Asian communities is that the baseline level of refraction, the deflection of wavelengths as they pass through the eye, is trending toward nearsightedness. This shift is reflected in more individuals with high-grade myopia, with its increased ocular risks, as I described earlier. So instead of that group reflecting 3 to 5 percent of myopic individuals, it’s risen to 10 percent or more.

Access to quality vision care, with proper and standardized dissemination for all children, is a major issue in [the U.S.] There are many children who don’t have steady access to care and the opportunity for continued changes in spectacle correction as they grow. If they can’t see, they can’t learn. If they don’t learn, they may get discouraged. If they get discouraged, they tend to act out or to not perform well in school—which has lifelong educational, vocational and economic impacts.

Is there some idea why this myopia epidemic is happening?

Nowadays, children are indoors more often, and they’re not getting as much outdoor play. Outdoor light enables the visual system to process a variety of spectral wavelengths of light for a certain duration of time, and that affects normal eye development and growth. Our report reaffirms what has been in the scientific literature for more than 15 years: increased childhood outdoor time appears to be protective for myopia onset and development.

In urban Asia, education is highly regarded, and children undergo indoor schooling for relatively more hours per day—routinely with additional tutorial sessions on evenings and weekends. In Singapore, for example, there are fewer green spaces, and living situations are generally more vertical because of limited land mass. There are fewer nonclassroom hours and places for children to go outside to view the horizon for extended periods of time. That’s becoming more of the case in the urban U.S. as well.

What does being outside do to promote healthy eyes?

There are different and varied light wavelengths that enter the eye from outdoor versus indoor exposures. And there are differences in luminance—higher-intensity versus lower-intensity light levels. In the report, there is a lengthy discussion on what is called the “visual diet”—the environmental factors affecting the myopic eye—and there is a consensus that more research is needed.

What about the role of electronic devices in promoting myopia?

That’s certainly a trend that has exponentially grown in activity and use in our younger generations. I am a pediatric ophthalmologist. I see two- or three-year old children in my clinic who are comfortably playing with cell phones. This close-up activity is generally indoors. The limited research findings regarding electronic device impact on myopia development are inconclusive, however. Reflected in our report, studies could not support unequivocal evidence that using digital devices, especially electronic small devices, is an influencer for this shift toward myopia.

What measures have countries implemented to try preventing or correcting myopia in young people?

The Singapore Ministry of Health instituted outdoor playtime or recess during school hours. There are now programs in China and in Taiwan where classroom settings have been altered with the use of glass walls or colored light bulb use to increase outdoor daylight exposure. Children are undergoing treatment with atropine eye drops, which in some reports diminishes the shift toward myopia over time in the school-age years. The effect of the drops is not curative, however, and there are concerns regarding unknown long-term effects because we don’t quite understand the specific biochemical actions of atropine. Diagnosed children are also prescribed multifocal contact lenses or eyeglasses [progressive lenses that have different prescription zones to correct vision at different distances].

One of the main findings of the report that you co-chaired is the recommendation that myopia be classified as a disease. Can you explain why the consensus of the panel felt that was important?

The issue needs escalation to a recognized disease category to underscore its short- and long-term visual health consequences, and to attract attention and funding dollars on multiple and varied fronts for effective screening, treatment, prevention and research study.

It takes a multipronged team to elevate this issue. That groundswell would have to come from parents, educators and educator societies, local to national health care systems, local to national policymakers, public health experts, researchers, funding agencies, insurance companies, etcetera. All [of these groups] need to recognize that continuous vision screening starting in early childhood is important. In addition to implementation, the data from those screening visits need to be collated for national database entry for improved monitoring in this country.

What do you think should be the main takeaway from this report?

In this country, if we elevate this condition to be considered a disease and recognize its impact on our children and ultimately on our future workforce, that would be monumental.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Forty Years After the Bhopal Disaster, the Danger Still Remains

In many ways, we all live in Bhopal now. We must continue to fight for a future in which we all have the right to live in healthy environments.

Forty years ago this month, a Union Carbide pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, sprung a toxic gas leak, exposing half a million people to toxic fumes. Thousands of people lost their lives in the immediate aftermath, with the death toll climbing to more than 20,000 over the next two decades. Countless others, including children of survivors, continue to endure chronic health issues. In the United States, the events in Bhopal ignited a grassroots movement to expose and address the toxic chemicals in our water, air, and neighborhoods. In 1986, just two years after the disaster, this growing awareness led Congress to pass the first National Right to Know Act, which requires companies to publicly disclose their use of many toxic chemicals. In India, Bhopal victims have had a long struggle for justice. In 1989, survivors flew to a Union Carbide shareholders meeting in Houston to protest the inadequate compensation for the trauma they’d suffered. The settlement awarded each Bhopal victim was a mere $500—which a spokesperson for Dow Chemical, Union Carbide’s parent company, called “plenty good for an Indian.”  Union Carbide had the survivors arrested before they could enter the meeting. Meanwhile, their abandoned chemical factory was still leaking toxic chemicals into the surrounding neighborhoods and drinking water.  Nevertheless, Bhopal survivors never stopped fighting. They opened a free clinic to treat the intergenerational health effects caused by the disaster. They marched 500 miles between Bhopal and New Delhi. They staged hunger strikes. They created memorials to the disaster and established a museum to ensure that the horrors of their collective past are not forgotten.    The survivors even obtained an extradition order for Union Carbide’s former CEO, Warren Anderson, but the U.S. government never acted on that request. Forty years later, the factory in Bhopal has never been properly cleaned and is still leaking poison.  Unfortunately, the kinds of chemicals that flow through the veins of Bhopal survivors also flow through ours. The petrochemical industry has brought us together in a perverse solidarity, having chemically trespassed into places all over the world. According to one figure, Americans are exposed to dangerous chemical fires, leaks, and explosions about once every two days. In one dramatic example in early 2023, a rail tanker filled with vinyl chloride derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, forcing the evacuation of 2,000 residents.  Nearly all Americans now carry toxic substances known as PFAS in our bodies. These have been linked to cancer, liver and kidney disease, and immune dysfunction. And the continued burning of fossil fuels is killing millions of people each year around the world through air pollution.  Petrochemical and fossil fuel companies know they can only survive if they avoid liability for the damage they are doing to our health and the planet’s ecosystems. That’s why they are heavily invested in lobbying to prevent any such accountability. Polluting industries are certain to have strong allies in the coming Trump Administration, which plans to open even more land to fossil fuel production and, under the blueprint for conservative governance known as Project 2025, to slash environmental and public health regulations. But we can take inspiration from the people of Bhopal, whose fierce commitment to health and justice sparked a global movement. Earlier this month, on the fortieth anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, congressional allies of this movement including U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington, and Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, introduced a resolution designating December 3 as National Chemical Disaster Awareness Day. “Chemical disasters are often the result of corporations cutting corners and prioritizing profits over safety,” said Merkley, who chairs the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee. “These catastrophes cloud communities with toxic fumes, upending lives and threatening the health and property of those living and working close by.” He called for “stronger laws to prevent chemical disasters and keep our communities and workers safe.” This growing global alliance, which has been called the largest movement for environmental health and justice in history, is fighting for a future in which everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment. It’s a movement that unites us all. Because in many ways, we all live in Bhopal now. This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service. Gary Cohen is the president of Health Care Without Harm and a long time member of the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal. Read more by Gary Cohen December 18, 2024 3:25 PM

Study Miscalculation Has Everyone Talking about Black Plastic Spatulas Again. Experts Are Still Concerned

The scientists behind a popular study on the health effects of flame retardants in black plastic cooking utensils and toys made a calculation error but still say their revised findings are alarming

Should you throw out your black plastic spatula? A recent study that reported alarming levels of several flame retardants in common black-colored plastic items (including cooking utensils, toys and hair products) had many people suddenly taking stock of their inky array of plastic kitchenware and considering wood or metal alternatives. And the reasons for the concern were understandable: the study’s findings, published in Chemosphere, highlighted potential health effects from exposure to the flame retardants, particularly decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE)—a chemical the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned in 2021 for its apparent links to cancer and reproductive, developmental and immunologic toxicity effects.But this week the study’s authors issued a correction that suggests exposure to decaBDE from the tested products isn’t as close to the EPA’s safety reference level as they initially thought. The decaBDE exposure they estimated from the screened products is still correct, but it’s one tenth of the reference dose. The study had miscalculated the comparison by an order of magnitude.The amount of flame retardants in such products is “not as harmful, with respect to the EPA guidance, as [the researchers] originally stated, although, with these chemicals, they may be harmful when you’re exposed to small amounts over a long period of time,” says Andrew Turner, a biogeochemist at the University of Plymouth in England, who wasn’t involved in the research and studies the disposal and recycling of plastic consumer goods. “It’s difficult to put numbers on these chemicals.”On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The study authors issued an apology for the mistake in which they maintained that the “calculation error does not affect the overall conclusion of the paper.”“Our results still show that when toxic additives are used in plastic, they can significantly contaminate products made with recycled content that do not require flame retardancy,” says Megan Liu, a co-author of the recent study and science and policy manager at Toxic-Free Future, an environmental health research and advocacy group. “The products found in this study to contain hazardous flame retardants included items with high exposure potential, such as things that touch our food, as well as toys, which come in contact with kids.”Why might some black plastics contain flame retardants? Flame retardants are required in certain products (often including computers, TVs and other common electronic items) to meet fire safety regulations. To reduce the amount of e-waste and fossil fuels needed to make new plastics, some of these items are recycled into black plastics. But the problem is that “you could also recycle the flame retardants and other chemicals that are associated with that plastic,” says Stuart Harrad, an environmental chemist at the University of Birmingham in England, who wasn’t involved in the paper. “Now that’s fine to some degree, I suppose, if you’re only recycling the plastic into uses like TV sets, where you need to meet fire safety regulations. But the point is here is that that isn’t happening.”The new study’s main goal was to identify any flame retardant chemicals in various common products. The researchers screened 203 items, ranging from plastic sushi take-out trays to toy necklaces—and found 17 of them were contaminated with high levels of flame retardants. Fourteen of those products contained high levels of decaBDE.The U.S. has largely banned decaBDE and other polybrominated-diphenyl-ether-based flame retardants. New electronic goods use safer flame retardants, but older electronics that contain decaBDE could still be in many households or might have been only recently tossed out for recycling, Turner says. “When you talk about some electronic devices, they last quite a long time,” he adds. These older devices might only be reaching recycling plants now.The new study’s findings generally line up with past evidence that recycled plastics—and flame retardants—can end up in toys and cooking utensils, Harrad says. But it’s been unclear whether the mere presence of flame retardants in a cooking utensil pose any health threat to humans; there are many contributing factors, including the source, the dose, the duration of exposure and any other chemicals that may be present. In a 2018 study Harrad and his colleagues tested potential exposure from black plastic cooking utensils and found that uptake through the skin from simply holding them was negligible. But when they tested them in prolonged cooking experiments with hot oil, about 20 percent of the flame retardants in a utensil transferred into the oil on average. “That’s really because the oil, particularly hot oil, is going to be a pretty good way of extracting these chemicals,” Harrad says.How did the miscalculation occur?The authors of the new study estimated humans’ potential exposure to decaBDE from the plastic products by using the calculation in Harrad’s 2018 study. They applied this calculation to the median levels of decaBDE detected in the products they tested. This wound up being an estimated 34,700 nanograms per day of decaBDE. They then compared that figure with the EPA’s reference dose of 7,000 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day. (Some researchers note that this measurement was derived from lab tests and animal models, not direct human testing). To better assess human risk, the scientists calculated a reference dose based on a 60-kg (132-pound) person and initially found 42,000 ng per day, a value alarmingly close to the 34,700 ng per day of exposure they estimated from the new data. But 7,000 multiplied by 60 is actually 420,000. This may have been a simple math error, but the correction massively reduces how close the amount of exposure is to the maximum acceptable limit.The figure with the miscalculation was “contextualizing the levels that we saw in our study, thinking that it could be helpful for people,” Liu says. “This was really just one part of our study that isn’t even part of our key findings.”She and her co-authors have emphasized that the error shouldn’t detract from one of the study’s main conclusions: that none of these flame-retardant chemicals, especially those that have been banned, should be found, in any amount, in these products in the first place.“They're probably banging their head in frustration when they found out they made that calculation error,” Harrad says, adding that the rest of their findings “were perfectly plausible.”“The study does highlight the fact that we’ve not sorted this out yet—that we’re still finding these chemicals coming through into new goods that contain recycled plastics,” Harrad says. “We do need to step up our efforts to isolate these chemicals from waste and make sure that they don't get recycled.”So should you really ditch your black plastic spatula? Harrad says you should avoid leaving it in a hot pan or pot for long periods of time. Some experts don’t recommend reheating food in black plastic containers, although studies haven’t confirmed if this causes chemicals to leach into food. Importantly, “if you see that your black utensil is damaged in any way, just [get rid of it] and go for something else,” Turner says—pieces of the plastic could potentially break off into food.When looking for new cooking ware, Turner says that it’d be more sustainable, and potentially safer, to reduce the use of black plastic items and opt for a material or color that’s more easily recyclable. Liu says wood, stainless steel or silicone products are some safer alternatives. She adds, however, that people can’t “shop” their way out of a larger societal issue. “We can’t expect that everyone can immediately switch over to safer alternatives,” Liu says. “That’s ultimately why we’ve been calling on greater regulatory action at both the corporate and government level to regulate and restrict these harmful chemicals.”

Are Microplastics In the Air Putting Your Fertility At Risk?

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 18, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Microscopic plastic particles in the air could be contributing to...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 18, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Microscopic plastic particles in the air could be contributing to a wide variety of health problems, including lung and colon cancers.Tires and degrading garbage shed tiny pieces of plastic which become airborne, creating a form of air pollution that’s not very well understood, a new review says.“These microplastics are basically particulate matter air pollution, and we know this type of air pollution is harmful,” said researcher Tracey Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.Microplastics are less than 5 millimeters in size, smaller than a grain of rice, researchers said in background notes.Companies around the world produce nearly 460 million tons of plastic each year, and that’s projected to increase to 1.1 billion tons by 2050, researchers said.A major source of airborne plastic is driving, researchers noted. Tires wear down as they rub against the road surface, sending microplastics into the air.For the review, published Dec. 18 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, researchers analyzed data gathered on about 3,000 prior studies.The results showed that airborne microplastics can contribute to cancer, lung problems and infertility.Most of the studies in the review used animals, but researchers said the conclusions likely also apply to humans.“We urge regulatory agencies and policy leaders to consider the growing evidence of health harms from microplastics, including colon and lung cancer,” lead researcher Nicholas Chartres, a senior research fellow with the University of Sydney, said in a UCSF news release. “We hope state leaders will take immediate action to prevent further exposures.”SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco, news release, Dec. 18, 2024Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.