Much recent attention has focused on how microplastics – tiny pieces ranging from 5 millimetres down to 100 nanometres in diameter – are filling the seas and working their way into the creatures that live in them. That means these ocean microplastics are entering the food chain and, ultimately, our bodies.

But fish and shellfish aren’t our only food sources that can contain microplastics. And, in fact, other sources that don’t come from the sea might be much more worrying.

A portion of consumer-grade mussels in Europe could contain about 90 microplastics. Consumption is likely to vary greatly between nations and generations, but avid mussel eaters might eat up to 11,000 microplastics a year.

It’s harder to know how many microplastics we might be consuming from fish. Most studies to date have only analysed the stomach and gut content of these organisms, which are usually removed prior to consumption. But one study has found microplastics in fish liver, suggesting particles can get from digestive tissues to other body parts.

Microplastics have also been found in canned fish. Numbers identified were low, so the average consumer might only eat up to five microplastics from a portion of fish this way. The particles found might also come from the canning process or from the air.

Another marine food source of microplastics is sea salt. One kilogram can contain over 600 microplastics. If you eat the maximum daily intake of 5 grams of salt, this would mean you would typically consume three microplastics a day (although many people eat much more than the recommended amount).

However, other studies have found varying amounts of microplastics in sea salt, possibly because of different extraction methods used. This is a widespread problem in microplastics research that makes it hard or impossible to compare studies. For example, one study seems to only have looked for microfibres (tiny strands of artificial materials such as polyester) while a further study only looked for microplastics larger than 200 micrometres.

The sea salt study mentioned above didn’t attempt to remove and count all the microplastics from its salt samples and instead gave an estimate based on the proportion of particles that were recovered. This means it showed 1 kilogram of salt contained at least 600 microplastics – but the actual figure could be a lot higher.

Non-marine sources

Despite these findings, other research demonstrates that far more microplastics in our food are likely to come from other sources than the sea. Land animals also eat microplastics although – as with fish – we tend not to eat their digestive systems. There’s limited data about this part of the food industry, but a study of chickens raised in gardens in Mexico found an average of 10 microplastics per chicken gizzard – a delicacy in some parts of the world.

Scientist have also found microplastics in honeyand beer. We might be swallowing tens of microplastics with each bottle of the latter.

Perhaps the biggest known source of microplastics that we consume is bottled water. When researchers examined a variety of types of glass and plastic water bottles, they found microplastics in most of them. Single-use water bottles contained between two and 44 microplastics per litre, while returnable bottles (designed for collection under a deposit scheme) contained between 28 and 241 microplastics per litre. The microplastics came from the packaging, which means we could be exposing ourselves to more of them every time we fill up a plastic bottle in order to reduce waste.

There is also evidence that microplastics in food come from indoor dust. A recent study estimated that we could get an annual dose of almost 70,000 microplastics from the dust that settles on to our dinner – and that is only one of our daily meals.

So, yes, we are eating small numbers of microplastics from marine products. But it may only take drinking a litre of bottled water a day to consume more microplastics than you would from being an avid shellfish eater. And the other question scientists have yet to answer when it comes to microplastics in our food is how much harm they actually do

• Christina Thiele is a PhD Candidate in Marine Microplastics, University of Southampton; Malcolm David Hudson is an Associate Professor in Environmental Sciences, University of Southampton.
• This article originally appeared on The Conversation and is reproduced here with permission.

The health risk presented by air pollution depends on how much dirty air we breathe over time. Pollution levels in UK cities regularly exceed the limits set by the World Health Organisation. But people’s exposure to pollution can vary greatly between people living on the same street, or even the same house.

Currently, health authorities estimate exposure to air pollution based on outdoor pollution at a person’s home address. But we don’t just sit outside our front doors all day – we each follow our personal daily schedules. The environment at home, in transit and at work or school all affect our exposure to pollution. Knowing this can help governments to create more effective policies and provide better advice to the public on how to reduce their exposure.

By equipping volunteers with portable pollution sensors, scientists have shown that exposure to air pollution during the day can vary substantially. For example, commuting during peak hour can account for a significant proportion of the pollution we’re exposed to – even though commuting only takes up a small part of our day.

By contrast, being indoors is often associated with lower exposure to pollution, because buildings provide some protection against outdoor pollutants. But gas cookers, wood burners and household cleaning products can also create high levels of indoor pollution.

How habits influence exposure

With all these different sources and levels of pollution around us, our daily activities and habits have a big influence on how much polluted air we breathe. Even couples who live together can have different exposures: a person who stays at home may experience up to 30% less pollution than their partner who commutes to work.

A 24-hour measurement of a person’s pollution exposure, which varies throughout the day. McCreddin et al., CC BY-SA

Small changes in our daily routines can significantly reduce our exposure to air pollution. In a study in London, participants were able to decrease their exposure during commuting by 25% to 90% by choosing alternative routes or modes of transport. Active commuters who walk or cycle are usually less exposed to pollution than people travelling by car or bus – this might be because vehicles travel in a queue, so air pollution from the vehicle directly in front gets drawn in through ventilation systems and trapped inside. The air is also much cleaner on overground trains than on the underground.

Displaying public information about pollution hot spots and ways to avoid them can help. The Wellbeing Walk is a signposted backstreet walking route taking ten to 15 minutes between London’s Euston and King’s Cross stations, which exposes walkers to 50% less pollution than the main road. Since its launch in 2015, the number of people taking the healthier path has tripled. There need to be many more initiatives like this in cities.

Modelling human movements

Being able to tell when and where people are most exposed to pollution makes it possible to compare the benefits of different solutions. That’s why scientists have created computer models to simulate different scenarios. By combining information on outdoor pollution, pollution on transport and people’s travel routes, these models help us understand how people’s movements contribute to their personal exposure.

Computer exposure models for cities, including London, Leicester and Hong Kong among others, are beginning to give us a better picture of how people are exposed to harmful pollution. But the answers they provide are often complicated.

For example, the model for London suggests that on average citizens are exposed to less pollution than previously estimated. But many individuals still experience extremely high pollution during long periods on transport – so a lengthy commute by car, bus or underground could mean you’re among the most affected.

What’s more, the model does not yet account for pollution created indoors through cooking or wood burning. Including these additional sources of pollution may well shake up the results.

More data, please

The UK’s clean air strategy aims to halve the number of people exposed to particulate pollution above World Health Organisation guidelines by 2025. But surprisingly little is known about pollution levels inside our homes, schools and workplaces. If the strategy is to meet its goal, the government will need more data and better methods to estimate people’s exposure to air pollution.

Any model needs to be confirmed using actual measurements, to ensure we can trust what the model predicts about our exposure. Although the technology is advancing, portable pollution sensors are still bulky and heavy. Recruiting volunteers to carry these sensors wherever they go can be difficult. Phone-integrated sensors could make this easier in the future, but their reliability is still debated among scientists.

Improving outdoor air quality is currently a top priority in cities across Europe – and rightly so. But measurements and computer models are indicating that our exposure to pollution is much more varied and complex than currently estimated. We should build on this knowledge to develop measures that deliver the greatest reduction in human exposure and empower citizens to make healthier choices in their daily routines.

• Johanna Buechler is an Air Quality Policy Researcher at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Research Associate, UCL
• This article first appeared on The Conversation. It is reproduced here with permission.

Decades of research shows that dirty air can impair breathing and aggravate various lung diseases. Other potential effects are being investigated, too, as scientists examine connections between toxic air and obesity, diabetes and dementia.

But now University of Washington researchers say we should be adding psychological distress to that list. The higher the level of particulates in the air, according to their work, the greater the impact on mental health.

The study, recently published in the journal Health & Place, is thought to be the first to use a nationally representative sample of people in the US, cross-referenced with pollution data to evaluate the connection between toxic air and mental health.

A new trajectory

“This is really setting out a new trajectory around the health effects of air pollution,” said Anjum Hajat, an assistant professor of epidemiology in the University of Washington School of Public Health. “The effects of air pollution on cardiovascular health and lung diseases like asthma are well established, but this area of brain health is a newer area of research.”

Where a person lives can make a big difference to health and quality of life. Scientists have identified “social determinants” of physical and mental well-being, such as availability of healthy foods at local grocers, access to nature or neighborhood safety.

Air pollution, too, has been associated with behavior changes – spending less time outside, for instance, or leading a more sedentary lifestyle – that can be related to psychological distress or social isolation.

For this reason the study looked for a direct connection between toxic air and mental health, relying on date from some 6,000 respondents who were part of a larger national, study into economic and social wellbeing which has been ongoing since 1968.

High levels of particulates

Researchers then merged an air pollution database with records corresponding to the neighborhoods of each of the 6,000 survey participants.

The team focused particularly on measurements of fine particulate matter, a substance produced by car engines, fireplaces and wood stoves, and power plants fuelled by coal or natural gas. Fine particulate matter (particles less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter) is easily inhaled, can be absorbed into the bloodstream and is considered of greater risk than larger particles.

The current safety standard for fine particulates, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, is 12 micrograms per cubic meter. Between 1999 and 2011, the time frame examined in the study, survey respondents lived in neighbourhoods where fine particulates measured anywhere from 2.16 to 24.23 micrograms per cubic meter, with an average level of 11.34.

To picture just how small fine particulate matter is, consider this: The average human hair is 70 micrometres in diameter.

Emotional responses

Survey questions gauged participants’ feelings of sadness, nervousness, hopelessness and the like and were scored with a scale that assesses psychological distress.

What they found was that the risk of psychological distress increased alongside the amount of fine particulate matter in the air. For example, in areas with high levels of pollution (21 micrograms per cubic meter), psychological distress scores were 17 percent higher than in areas with low levels of pollution (5 micrograms per cubic meter). Another finding: Every increase in pollution of 5 micrograms per cubic meter had the same effect as a 1.5-year loss in education.

Researchers controlled for other physical, behavioural and socioeconomic factors that can influence mental health, such as chronic health conditions, unemployment and excessive drinking.

But some patterns emerged that warrant more study, explained primary author Victoria Sass, a graduate student in the Department of Sociology.

Exaggerating social inequality

When the data are broken down by race and gender, black men and white women show the most significant correlation between air pollution and psychological distress: The level of distress among black men, for instance, in areas of high pollution, is 34% greater than that of white men, and 55% greater than that of Latino men.

A noticeable trend among white women is the substantial increase in distress – 39% – as pollution levels rise from low to high.

Precisely why air pollution impacts mental health, especially among specific populations, was beyond the scope of the study, Sass said. But that’s what makes further research important.

“Our society is segregated and stratified, which places an unnecessary burden on some groups,” Sass said. “Even moderate levels can be detrimental to health.”

Air pollution, however, is something that can be mitigated, Hajat said, and has been declining in the United States. It’s a health problem with a clear, actionable solution. But it requires the political will to continue to regulate air quality, Sass added.

“We shouldn’t think of this as a problem that has been solved,” she said. “There is a lot to be said for having federal guidelines that are rigorously enforced and continually updated. The ability of communities to have clean air will be impacted with more lax regulation.”

To put that figure into perspective, according to a startling new report produced by the Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health, the death toll from pollution is three times higher than deaths from AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined and 15 times higher than from wars and other violence.

In many parts of the world, pollution is getting worse. The types of pollution we are exposed are also changing. For example, household air and water pollution, the forms of pollution associated with profound poverty and traditional lifestyles, are slowly declining.

However, according to the report, ambient air pollution, chemical pollution, and soil pollution—the forms of pollution produced by industry, mining, electricity generation, mechanised agriculture, and petroleum-powered vehicles—are all on the rise, with the most marked increases in rapidly developing and industrialising low-income and middle-income countries.

Chemicals – a great and growing problem

It notes particularly that chemical pollution “is a great and growing problem”.

“More than 140·000 new chemicals and pesticides have been synthesised since 1950. Of these materials, the 5000 that are produced in greatest volume have become widely dispersed in the environment and are responsible for nearly universal human exposure. Fewer than half of these high-production volume chemicals have undergone any testing for safety or toxicity, and rigorous pre-market evaluation of new chemicals has become mandatory in only the past decade and in only a few high-income countries. The result is that chemicals and pesticides whose effects on human health and the environment were never examined have repeatedly been responsible for episodes of disease, death, and environmental degradation.”

It acknowledges that many rich countries either outsource their production of these toxic chemicals to poorer countries, which then suffer the burdens of pollution as a result of manufacturing. Likewise many wealthy countries get rid of “pesticides, industrial waste, and toxic chemicals that are no longer permitted in North America or the European Union” by selling them off or dumping them in poorer countries.

Stark conclusions

“This is the first global analysis of the impacts of pollution—air, water, soil, occupational—together as well as exploring the economic costs and the social injustice of pollution,” says Bruce Lanphear, a health-sciences professor at Simon Fraser University, one of 40 commissioners involved in the two-year research project.  “Pollution, which is at the root of many diseases and disorders that plague humankind, is entirely preventable.”

The report, in the journal The Lancet, features solutions and recommends how the problem can be solved. It includes examples and case studies of pollution control success. Commission findings include:

• Pollution causes 16% of all deaths globally. Diseases caused by pollution were responsible in 2015 for an estimated 9 million premature deaths – 16% of all deaths worldwide – three times more deaths than AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined; and fifteen times more than all wars and other forms of violence. It kills more people than smoking, hunger and natural disasters. India, many countries in Africa and some South American countries have been hit particularly hard by pollution and in the most severely affected countries pollution-related disease is responsible for more than one death in four.

• Pollution disproportionately kills the poor and the vulnerable. Nearly 92% of pollution-related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Within countries, pollution’s toll is greatest in poor and marginalized communities. Children face the highest risks because small exposures to chemicals in utero and in early childhood can result in lifelong disease and, disability, premature death, as well as reduced learning and earning potential.

• Pollution is closely tied to climate change and biodiversity.Fossil fuel combustion in higher-income countries and the burning of biomass in lower-income countries accounts for 85% of airborne particulate pollution. Major emitters of carbon dioxide are coal-fired power plants, chemical producers, mining operations, and vehicles.  Accelerating the switch to cleaner sources of energy will reduce air pollution and improve human and planetary health.

The conclusion of the report is that we must “Make pollution prevention a high priority nationally and internationally” and that to do so would yield large gains in terms of human health, the environment and the economy.

That’s the conclusion of a unique global scientific study on the overwhelming prevalence of microplastics – ultra small pieces (less than 5 mm) of plastic debris resulting from the disposal and breakdown of consumer products and industrial waste.

“Our exclusive research found 83% of the tap water samples from 14 countries are contaminated with microscopic plastic fibres”, said Molly Bingham, founder and CEO, Orb Media, a US based non-profit digital media outlet.

“Scientists say they don’t really know how these microplastics reach our taps or what the health risks might be. But microplastics have been shown to absorb toxic chemicals from the marine environment, and then release them when consumed by fish and mammals.”

“I am concerned by the implications of our research. At the very least, I hope that our work triggers large scale, global research on plastic contamination and the ramifications for human health particularly that of children.”

A global problem

The tap water study, was designed by Dr. Sherri Mason a microplastic expert at the State University of New York at Fredonia, and Elizabeth Wattenberg at the University of Minnesota, School of Public Health.

In all they screened 159 half litre drinking water samples from 14 countries: Cuba, Ecuador, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Slovakia, Switzerland, Uganda the UK, and the US. Samples were taken from a variety of places including the government buildings in the US, the exclusive Sloane Club in London, a private apartment in Beirut, a household tap in Slovakia and a public spigot on the shores of Lake Victoria in Uganda.

Results showed that the contamination of tap water samples was distributed evenly across the globe.

The US had the highest contamination rate, at 94% of samples tested, with plastic fibres found in tap water sampled at sites including Congress buildings, the US Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters, and Trump Grille in New York.  Lebanon and India had the next highest rates.

European nations including the UK, Germany and France had the lowest contamination rate. However ‘low’ is a relative term since around 72% of samples from these countries were found to be contaminated.

The average number of fibres found in each sample ranged from 4.8 in the US to 1.9 in Europe.

The full story of the investigation, Invisibles: The Plastics Inside Us, can be read here.

No regulations in place

Earlier this year a study conducted by the US EPA sampled freshwater supplies in the Republic of Ireland and found worrying levels of contamination in tap water and well samples there.

Results showed that microplastics could pass through a public water supply filtration system meaning these non-biodegradable micro-particles can end up in rivers and oceans, potentially entering the food chain.

Currently, there are no regulations concerning the levels of microplastics in fresh waters, despite a significant abundance of microplastics in several freshwater systems. The study highlighted a number of areas of concern, including:

• Exposure to microplastics if present in drinking water or via consumption of food prepared using water containing microplastics;
• Consumption of freshwater fish, such as salmon or trout, which have been exposed to or have ingested microplastics;
• Accidental ingestion of water containing microplastics through bathing.

The study also identified 24 different species of molluscs, fish, birds, mammals and crustaceans, as being potentially at risk from microplastic pollution in Ireland, many of which are classified as endangered or vulnerable.

A human problem that humans have to solve

“In addition to microbeads washed into the sewer from the use of personal care products, synthetic fibres from clothing transported in washing machine wastewater are another significant contributor of microplastics found in urban wastewater treatment plants”, said lead researcher Dr Anne Marie Mahon of the Marine and Freshwater Research Centre at Galway Mayo Institute of Technology (GMIT).

“Although some microplastics are discharged with the wastewater into receiving freshwater systems, most of these fibres become trapped in sewage sludge at treatment plants, which include a settlement treatment process. Landspreading of these sludges on agricultural land poses risks to terrestrial ecosystems and potentially further risks to freshwater systems.”

Commenting on the Orb Media study Muhammad Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Prize laureate said: “Since the problem of plastic was created exclusively by human beings through our indifference, it can be solved by human beings by paying attention to it. Now what we need is a determination to get it done before it gets us.”

Microplastics contribute up to 30% of the ‘plastic soup’ polluting the world’s oceans. In developed countries they can be a bigger source of marine plastic pollution than plastic waste.

This form of pollution harms marine wildlife and accumulates in the human food web, with potentially negative consequences for health. The effects on fragile ecosystems, for instance the Arctic where microplastics could affect ice formation and melting, are still unknown.

For some time microbeads, tiny pieces of plastic that wash down the drain when we use products like cosmetic scrubs and whitening toothpastes, have bene the focus of everyone’s attention. But according to a recent IUCN report cosmetics only account for 2% of ‘primary microplastic pollution’ – plastics that enter the oceans as small particles, as opposed to larger plastic waste that degrades into small particles over time.

Dirty laundry

The report looked at primary microplastics released from household and industrial products across seven geographical regions. Sources of primary microplastics included synthetic textiles (polyester, polyethylene, acrylic or elastane), car tyres, marine coatings, road markings, personal care products, plastic pellets and city dust.

Between 15-31% of the estimated 9.5 million tonnes of plastic released into the oceans each year is primary microplastics. Almost 35% of this – by far the biggest share – comes from washing synthetic textiles.

Commenting on the report IUCN Director General Inger Andersen noted that daily activities such as laundry: “significantly contribute to the pollution choking our oceans, with potentially disastrous effects on the rich diversity of life within them, and on human health. These findings indicate that we must look far beyond waste management if we are to address ocean pollution in its entirety.”

Joao de Sousa, Marine Project Manager, IUCN’s Global Marine Programme added that the results shows that “solutions must include product and infrastructure design as well as consumer behaviour. Synthetic clothes could be designed to shed fewer fibres, for example, and consumers can act by choosing natural fabrics over synthetic ones.”

Designing better textiles is certainly part of the solution, but one that is likely to take time when you consider how many articles of synthetic clothing there are in the world that need replacing (and what do we do with the old ones?) Another piece of the puzzle is better filtration systems for washing machines but also for water treatment plants. But this brings up the problem – having removed this pollution what do we then do with it?

As for asking people to change their attitude to fashion – that too appears to be a long, hard struggle.

Not new information

The usual reaction to such reports is slew of media shock stories – as if this is new information that no one knew about before. But this is not new information.

Studies as far back as 2011 found that estimated 1,900 microfibres could get rinsed out of a single piece of synthetic clothing each time it’s washed.

At the time this seemed an incredible amount and researcher Mark Browne began contacting clothing manufacturers to alert them and ask if they’d help fund further research into the problem. Big brands like Patagonia, Polartec, Columbia, and others reportedly responded by saying that they didn’t think the fibres were anything they needed to worry about.

Browne is a former student of Richard Thompson, a senior lecturer and professor of marine biology at Plymouth University. Research by Thompson continues to inform this debate.

More and more sophisticated collection techniques employed by he and colleagues have shown that Browne’s early estimates of how much plastic is shed from laundry were likely a gross underestimate.

In a recent laboratory study they found that polyester and acrylic clothing sheds hundreds of thousands of plastic fibres each time it is washed. In fact, an average UK washing load of 6kg (13lb) released:

• 140,000 fibres from polyester-cotton blend
• more than 700,000 fibres from acrylic
• nearly half a million fibres from polyester

A big load

As research about the scale and risks of microplastics in the oceans has piled up – Patagonia took the plunge and financed its own small study, in conjunction with the University of California, Santa Barbara. This found that during laundering, a single Patagonia fleece jacket sheds as many as 250,000 synthetic fibres.

A beached whale in Norway was recently found to have huge amounts of plastic in its stomach, including 30 plastic bags which prevented it from getting enough nutrition to survive. According to the Patagonia study, the amount of plastic shed by globally by laundering 100,000 of its jackets each year is equivalent to the amount of plastic in up to 11,900 shopping bags.

Or looked at another way, enough plastic bags to starve nearly 400 whales to death.

Thompson’s response was that, while interesting, the fibre shed in Patagonia’s study is an underestimate, in part because it did not wash the clothes in detergent. Surfactants present in laundry detergent significantly increase the number of fibres released during a wash.

The problem has become so acute that the Women’s Institute in the UK has instigated a new campaign, Plastic Soup, aimed at stopping the plastic fibres released during laundering, from reaching the sea.

Tinkering at the edges of the problem?

When Patagonia first started selling fleeces made from recycled water bottles in 1993 everyone hailed it as genius – a way of showing that fashion can be socially and environmentally conscious.

Today many brands use recycled plastic, and several like G-Star now harvest ocean plastic to make clothes. These products save costs for the manufacturer at the production end and they have tremendous PR cache, but with washing they still end up shedding plastic back into the ocean – in a form that is harder to remove.

Patagonia tacitly acknowledges that its recycled plastic fleeces, which were intended to solve one pressing problem are breaking down into microplastic and therefore contributing to an entirely different environmental problem. It is to be congratulated for making the issue so visible on its website when other manufacturers don’t.

But there is no suggestion that it has any plans to stop selling these items. Indeed that production of polyester is outstripping that of cotton and wool, and it’s only expected to grow in the coming years as the fashion industry demands more of the stuff.

Green(er) wash?

Is the focus on designing better – or different – plastic clothes really the answer or is it just the kind of feel good marketing solution we’ve seen so many times before?

Examples that spring to mind include safer substitutes for BPA which turned out to be not so safe, safer pesticides like glyphosate which turned out to cause cancer, safer ways of smoking like e-cigarettes, which still deliver significant amounts of toxic chemicals directly to your lungs.

The new world of biosynthetics – plastics made from food waste or crab shells, leather made from pineapples or mushrooms, or fibres like lyocell made from eucalyptus trees – may sound promising but there is almost no data to show what their true long-term environmental impact is.

For instance, how much more energy intensive they are to refine and produce? What impact will using food crops to produce clothes have on food prices?  Some food-based plastics, for instance those made from soya and maize, are made from genetically modified crops (and Brazil has recently approved the release of GM eucalyptus trees), potentially increasing the acreage devoted to these crops. They are sold as ‘safe’ because we don’t eat them but there is no proof that this is the case.

NGOs like Mermaids, based in the Netherlands, have also released some consumer-focused guidelines. These include avoiding the use of detergents with high pH, powder detergents, and the use of oxidising agents. It also suggests washing clothing in cold water and softening hard water.

A small German company has just developed developing a special mesh bag, the Guppy Friend, which traps microfibres in the wash (Patagonia provided some start-up money).

Advice on how to dispose of the trapped plastic particles that collect in the bag, however is a little vague. They don’t biodegrade and the idea that they, along with other rubbish, can be safely incinerated is misleading. In spite of the bright shiny PR that surrounds it, incineration is a polluting ‘solution’ that simply returns microparticles to the air instead of the sea (although eventually they find their way to the sea as well).

All companies selling synthetic clothes – whether they publicly acknowledge the problem or not – are in the same boat and their responses are basically the same and tailored towards customer reassurance and having the least possible impact sales.

These responses are typical of any large company faced with the idea that its products are damaging the environment and/or people’s health: shift the responsibility onto the consumer and call for more research before taking definitive action. Such delays – we’ve seen them on other big issues like smoking and climate change – can be costly.

The most basic question we all have to answer now is: how much of our future are we willing to gamble away for the sake of a t-shirt?

The report, Every Breath We Take: The Lifelong Impact of Air Pollution is the result of a collaboration between from the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and the Royal College for the Protection of Child Health (RCPCH). In particular it resents the first time the RCP has spoken out on the issue of pollution health since 1972 – so it’s a long time coming.

Media reports focussed on the inevitable shock value of how air fresheners were killing us. Prior to the report’s publication today, inaccurate figures were bandied about suggesting that air fresheners kill 40,000 people in the UK each year (and then hastily corrected this morning).

There is no doubt that things like air fresheners and scented candles as well as household cleaners and even personal care products like spray deodorants contribute to indoor air pollution and can have an adverse effect on health.

But to say this was the central theme of this long overdue report (and indeed most reports continue to lead with the air freshener angle) deeply and disastrously trivialises its actual findings. Indeed air fresheners only merit 5 mentions in the 123 page report. Scented candles are not mentioned at all.

All ages are affected

The report starkly sets out the dangerous impact that air pollution – both outside and inside the home – is currently having on our health in the UK and elsewhere in the world.

This damage occurs across a lifetime, from a baby’s first weeks in the womb all the way through to the years of older age.

In the womb, during infancy and early childhood are vulnerable times because the young body is growing and developing rapidly. Studies show that the heart, brain, hormone systems and immunity can all be harmed by air pollution resulting in effects on growth, intelligence, and development of the brain and coordination.

Harm to babies and children will have an impact that lasts far into the future. For the same reason, any air quality improvements we make now will have long-lasting benefits, notes the report.

Unique vulnerabilities

Older people, and adults with long-term conditions, are also vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Improving air quality will help them to stay independent and well, benefiting individuals and easing the pressure on our NHS and social services.

The report also notes that while air pollution is harmful to everyone, some people suffer more than others because they:

• live in deprived areas, which often have higher levels of air pollution
• live, learn or work near busy roads
• are more vulnerable because of their age or existing medical conditions

Some chemicals in air pollution may be implicated in the development of obesity. It may be a vicious circle, because we also know that obese people are more sensitive to air pollution.

The health problems resulting from exposure to air pollution have a high cost to people who suffer from illness and premature death, to our health services and to business. In the UK, these costs add up to more than £20 billion every year.

Outdoor pollution

For the most part the report focuses on outdoor pollution. It finds that each year in the UK, around 40,000 deaths are attributable to exposure to outdoor air pollution linked to exposure to fine particulates (fine particles of pollution, that can sometimes contain heavy metals) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).A major source of these pollutants I the UK is cars, trains and public transport as well as farm and construction machinery.

Particulates and NO2 play a role in many of the major health challenges of our day and have been linked to cancer, asthma, stroke and heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and changes linked to dementia.

Air pollution can stay around for days or weeks after it’s created. One type of chemical may interact with others in the atmosphere, to cause even more pollution. Air pollution also crosses cities, counties and even countries, so local action is not enough on its own.

Indoor air

The report also highlights an often overlooked section of our environment – that of indoor space – not just homes but offices and schools as well as in the enclosed spaces in our cars and other vehicles. Factors such as, kitchen products, faulty boilers, gas stoves, open fires, fly sprays and air fresheners, can all compromise the air in these spaces. In particular while modern gas boilers produce very little particle pollution they do give off nitrogen dioxide.

Cooking, especially with gas, is also an important source of nitrogen dioxide and particles in the home. And while compared with coal fires modern gas boilers produce very little particle pollution, they are an important source of NO2 indoors.

Compared with coal fires, modern gas boilers produce very little particle pollution – but they do give off nitrogen dioxide. Cooking, especially with gas, is also an important source of nitrogen dioxide and particles in the home.

Putting the figures in context

It does not quantify the impact of things like air fresheners or scented candles but it does note that according to 2012 figures, indoor air pollution may have caused or contributed to 99,000 deaths in Europe.

It’s a startling figure but needs to be put into on text.

The 2012 WHO report on the global burden of disease which is cited, identified household air pollution as an extremely important risk factor accounting for an estimated 4.3 million deaths worldwide in 2012.Most of these deaths occurred in South East Asian and Western Pacific regions as well as Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Europe and the Americas account for only 4% of these deaths which are due mainly to stroke (34%) and ischaemic heart disease (26%), COPD (22%), acute. lower respiratory disease (12%) and lung cancer (6%).

This is not to say that deaths in Europe and the Americas are not important. Any death from avoidable indoor air pollution is one death too many.

But to ensure our ongoing health, the real impetus MUST be on fixing the all pervasive problem of outdoor pollution. Indeed the report notes that one important source of indoor air pollution is outdoor air gaining ingress through windows, doors and general building ‘leakiness’.

Recommendations

As a result the report offers a number of major reform proposals setting out what must be done if we are to tackle the problem of air pollution.

These include:

Put the onus on polluters. Polluters must be required to take responsibility for harming our health. Political leaders at a local, national and EU level must introduce tougher regulations, including reliable emissions testing for cars.

Local authorities need to act to protect public health when air pollution levels are high. When these limits are exceeded, local authorities must have the power to close or divert roads to reduce the volume of traffic, especially near schools.

Monitor air pollution effectively. Air pollution monitoring by central and local government must track exposure to harmful pollutants in major urban areas and near schools. These results should then be communicated proactively to the public in a clear way that everyone can understand.

Quantify the relationship between indoor air pollution and health. We must strengthen our understanding of the key risk factors and effects of poor our quality in our homes, schools and workplaces. A coordinated effort is required to develop and apply any necessary policy changes.

Define the economic impact of air pollution. Air pollution damages not only our physical health, but also our economic wellbeing. We need further research into the economic benefits of well-designed policies to tackle it.

Lead by example within the NHS. The health service must no longer be a major polluter; it must lead by example and set the benchmark for clean air and safe workplaces.

And what the public can do

The report also emphasises how the public can do their part to reduce pollutant exposure. It lists ‘6 steps to breathing better air’ for the general public, using the acronym BREATH:

Be aware of the air quality where you live

Replace old gas appliances in your home

Ensure you have an energy efficient home

Alter how you travel. Take the active travel option: bus, train, walking and cycling

Talk to your MP

Harness technology to stay informed and monitor air pollution effectively

So why have cosmetic manufacturers been so slow to get rid of microbeads?

In case you haven’t heard of them, microbeads are microscopic particles of plastic used widely in toiletries and beauty products such as toothpaste, shaving cream, shower gel and exfoliating scrubs. Each product can contain thousands of microbeads.

For example, the American non-governmental organisation (NGO) 5Gyres, estimates that one single care product (Neutrogena’s Deep Clean) contains 360,000 microbeads. One researchers in Holland found that microplastics made up 10.6% of one scrub (Exofonic scrub of L’Oreal).

The microbeads used in personal care products are mainly made of polyethylene (PE), but can be also be made of polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and nylon. Barely visible to the naked eye they are washed down our drains and into our waterways and oceans where turn our oceans into a plastic soup.

Microbeads cannot be removed in wastewater treatment plants and they are not biodegradable. Once they enter the marine environment, they are impossible to remove.

Microbeads attract pollutants like magnets and studies show that marine species are unable to distinguish between food and microplastics. So as marine creatures eat them they can be poisoned by them. But they can also be passed up the food chain and back into our bodies.

Human health implications

For the environment, microbeads pose a problem because many contain harmful chemicals like PCBs – which are hormone disrupting – along with other fat-soluble compounds known to cling to polyethylene, the plastic used to make them. These hormone-disrupting chemicals have a gender-bending effect, particularly on male fish problems and can damage fish eggs that causes impairments and nonviability.

Humans may also be affected. Some dental professionals claim that they can contribute to buildups of plaque, tartar and gingivitis by getting stuck under the gums. Amazingly given the potential risks, very little pre- or post-marketing research has been done to on human health effects.

The scale of the problem

The tiniest toxins can also often be the most toxic and troublesome and the scale of the problem is truly immense. Scientists have found evidence of microbeads in numerous bodies of water in the United States, including increasingly in the Great Lakes, the world’s largest source of freshwater.  For example;

• In 2013, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Superior reported that there were between 1,500 and 1.7 million plastic particles per square mile in the Great Lakes.
• A recent UNEP report estimates that microbeads and other plastic waste are responsible for at least $13 billion (£7.75 billion) in damage to marine ecosystems each year.
• Research has shown that over 663 species were negatively impacted by marine debris, 11% of cases due to microplastics. In one study, 35% of 670 fish (total of 6 species) had microplastics in their stomachs. The highest number of fragments found in one fish was 83.⁴

Things are changing

The scandal is that none of this has to happen. Natural, biodegradable and effective alternative ingredients such as ground grains and nut shells and salt crystals are readily available to use in cosmetics.

Positive action on behalf of manufacturers has meant that more and more of these microbeads are being removed from personal care products and replaced by naturally biodegradable alternatives.

In the wake of the overwhelming evidence of environmental harm Unilever announced in December 2012 that all of its products worldwide would be plastic free by 2015. Beiersdorf, Colgate-Palmolive and L’Oréal have made statements on stopping the use of microbeads – but no commitment dates has been given.

Procter & Gamble says that their products would only be free from microbeads by 2017 at the earliest.

Johnson & Johnson said it has already started phasing out microbeads and was no longer developing products containing microbeads. No date for phase out completion has been given.

But other big brands that still use microbeads include: Body Shop, Boots, Clarins, Clinique, Garnier, Gillette, Kiehl’s, L’Oreal, Neutrogena, Nivea, Olay, and St Ives.

Things are changing at a legislative level as well. In June 2014, the US state of Illinois passed a law banning the sale of products containing plastic microbeads by the end of 2017. Other states like New York, California and Ohio are trying to pass similar bans. Earlier this summer, New Jersey democrat U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. introduced the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2014, which would make a nationwide ban possible in 2018.