An anonymous reader shares a Nature story: In March last year, researchers found that among a group of nearly 300 participants, people who had higher concentrations of plastics in deposits of fat in their arteries (arterial plaques) were more likely to experience heart attacks or strokes, and more likely to die as a result, than those in whom plastics were not detected. Since it was published, the New England Journal of Medicine study has been mentioned more than 6,600 times on social media and more than 800 times in news articles and blogs.

The issue of whether plastics are entering human tissues and what impacts they might have on health is understandably of great interest to scientists, industry and society. Indeed, for the past few years there have been news stories almost every month about peer-reviewed articles that have reported findings of plastic particles in all sorts of human tissues and bodily fluids — including the lungs, heart, penis, placenta and breast milk. And in multiple countries, policymakers are being urged to implement measures to limit people’s exposure to nanoplastics and microplastics.

Many of the studies conducted so far, however, rely on small sample sizes (typically 20-50 samples) and lack appropriate controls. Modern laboratories are themselves hotspots of nanoplastic and microplastic pollution, and the approaches that are being used to detect plastics make it hard to rule out the possibility of contamination, or prove definitively that plastics are in a sample. Also, many findings are not biologically plausible based on what is known — mainly from nanomedicine — about the movement of tiny particles within the human body.

For an emerging area of research, such problems are unsurprising. But without more rigorous standards, transparency and collaboration — among researchers, policymakers and industrial stakeholders — a cycle of misinformation and ineffective regulation could undermine efforts to protect both human health and the environment.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.