Antonio Ragusa
Caterina De Luca2*
Alessandro Svelato- 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Campus Bio-Medico University Hospital Foundation Rome, Rome, Italy
- 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fatebenefratelli Gemelli Hospital, Isola Tiberina, Rome, Italy
- 3Instituto de Salud Global, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale (ASST) Bergamo Est, Bolognini Hospital, Seriate, Italy
“Mutability of temper and inconsistency with ourselves is the greatest weakness of human nature.”
seph Addison
Introduction
The influence that environment has on gestation is without a doubt underestimated. Despite being equipped with great intelligence, mankind possesses some significant cognitive limits that prevent the correct evaluation of events and their correlation to the distant future.
It is challenging to measure human intelligence as it is subject to numerous interdependent variables (1–7), some of which are as follows:
• Good nutrition;
• Regular schooling and school quality;
• Fortification of certain food products;
• Laws establishing safe levels of pollutants;
• Musical training in childhood;
• Socioeconomic status; and
• Incidence of infectious diseases.
Even more challenging, if it is possible, is to compare human intelligence with that of other species (8, 9). We can agree with Philip Sopher when he argues that “with the current infrastructure, analyzing animal intelligence is nearly impossible” (10). In this regard, we could just consider how underwhelming our olfactive intelligence is when compared, for instance, to the olfactive capacities of a dog, which is able to recognize and identify thousands of different smells. Adjectives like “smart” and “dumb” are irrelevant in cross-species comparisons.
Mankind systematically overlooks environmental data and the dramatic analytical data published by current scientific investigations (11, 12).
The way in which humans treat plastic may be considered a good paradigm of what we call “the inconsistent human thought.”
In the last century, we observed all over the world an exponential growth in the global production of plastic, which has crossed over 350 million tons per year. This is one of the largest contributors to environmental pollution (13). Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a peak in discardable plastic production and consumption, primarily for personal protective equipment such as masks, scrubs, and gloves. Increased home deliveries caused an increase in non-recyclable plastic waste (14). Furthermore, unexpectedly and unscrupulously, big corporations, which recorded a reduction in fossil fuel sales, exponentially increased virgin plastic production (15).
Microplastics (MPs), defined as particles of < 5 mm, are derived mostly from plastic degradation in the environment (16). They are found in all the waters, oceans, lakes, rivers (17), soil (18), air (14), and food (19), especially in seafood (20, 21), sea salt (22, 23), and potable water (24, 25).
MP contamination can result from prolonged exposure, as well as after a single exposure (26, 27). There are three main pathways through which tiny MP particles may be absorbed: ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact (28). To penetrate tissues, the particle diameter is usually ~5–10 microns (29), but particles with a larger or smaller diameter can also enter the human body (28). Depending on their dimensions, it is hypothesized that particles can spread through passive diffusion or active phagocytosis (30).
MPs were originally described in sea animals' gastrointestinal tract (31). Scientists were then able to demonstrate micro- and nano-plastic cellular absorption and accumulation in organic tissues (32–35) and human blood (36).
Our group published studies conducted on human samples, showing MPs in the placenta (29). MPs have also been found in newborns (37), thus suggesting contamination since the earliest stages of life. These findings are a worthy concern, and more studies are needed to investigate the direct consequences of MPs on human health. Are microplastics harmful? In animal models, toxicity has been reported. Studies demonstrated MP interference with energy production, lipid metabolism, increased oxidative stress, and neurotoxic responses (38). MPs seem to exert toxicological effects on cell cultures, causing apoptosis, inflammation, mitochondrial and lysosomal dysfunction, and genotoxicity (28). They may interact in a disruptive way with the immune system, altering the expression of genes involved in the immune response on a genetic level.
In mice models, MPs can determine changes on a phenotypic level in gene expression and epigenetics, as was demonstrated by brain abnormalities in mouse pups, whose mothers were fed with plastic microparticles (39). Cognitive capacity alterations were discovered, showing an alteration of RNA expression, and MP infiltration was observed through immunofluorescence in the brain of pups.
If microplastics interact with human placental cells altering energy pathways as described in animal models, there could be numerous concerning consequences (40).
Recently, our group published a study that demonstrates for the first time MPs in intracellular compartments of the human placenta (41). Moreover, we were able to localize microplastics and link their presence with important morphological and structural alterations of the cellular intracytoplasmic human organelles (41).
Using variable pressure scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), we detected MPs within lipid membranes. They can be easily confused with cell organelles such as lysosomes, peroxisomes, lipid droplets, and multivesicular bodies. These have never been seen before even though many scientists study placentas, but there is a great difference between “looking” and “seeing”. This amply confirms Goethe's [1749–1832] acknowledgment: “We only see what we know.”
In all the observed samples, the stress of the endoplasmic reticulum is evident, seen as being dilated (cribriform aspect of the syncytium trophoblast cells); there are many vesicles discreetly electrodense, with secretory material inside, covered by ribosomes and not (degranulation) communicating with each other.
Intracytoplasmic organelle alterations, together with MP demonstration in all the samples examined, are a very important item since endoplasmic reticulum stress and mitochondrial dysfunction could play a decisive role in human non-transmissible disease (NTD) progression. This gives rise to the hypothesis that plastic environmental pollution is partially responsible for the epidemic of non-communicable disease (NCD) that characterizes the modern world.
Of great concern is the suspicion that MP exposure during critical periods, when adipocytes are differentiating and organs such as the pancreas, liver, and brain are developing, can induce effects that could manifest later in life, often as a full-blown disease.
Developing organisms are sensitive to foreign substances such as plastics in general or MPs. These interferents, like other polluting agents, can lead to abnormal gene expression in tissues, in terms of the number of cells, position, and imbalance between cell types, as well as an impaired organ structure and incorrect hormone signaling. This may lead to an increased susceptibility to disease/dysfunction throughout adult life.
There is ample evidence to support the fact that many chronic diseases, including obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndromes, may be linked to epigenetic changes in cells and tissues during intrauterine development.
Currently, we are studying placentas collected from uneventful pregnancies to better understand the functional consequences of microplastic detection in developing human beings, especially in relation to the current evolution of the global burden of disease, with increasingly high rates of NCD.
The inconsistency of human thoughts with regard to pollution is explained according to an evolutionist point of view. For millenniums, men considered the environment a hostile setting to conquer and invade. This may be due to the sense of impotence in front of the immense, destructive strength of nature. The description of life before the prevalence of technology in nature could be very similar to what is described by Hobbes in the Leviatano: “a perpetual state of war, nasty, brutal and short.” In the last century, we have witnessed a great evolution, thanks to enormous technological progress. Finally, nature has ceased to be hostile and unpredictable, thus becoming mathematical, linear, and predictable. Mankind now dominates and rules over nature, no longer being a victim of elements and now being able to manipulate nature to satisfy its needs and interests. Mathematics becomes practical, becomes soil and stone, and enters the urban, agricultural, and wild sceneries.
An increasingly big telencephalon (42) together with the opposing thumb (43) has allowed new technological development. Through technology, men stopped adapting themselves to the surrounding world, and nature had to adapt to mankind. This concept is synthetically illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. How we have become the greatest competitors in nature and the only beings that do not adapt, but rather modify the environment.
Although this may have given profit until a century ago, currently human technological capacities are so developed that they could easily lead to the dramatic destruction of nature, an event that is already starting to happen (44). This trend is destined to continue and become worse unless there is a dramatic change in our thought process. This is difficult to picture since the idea that the earth is an enemy to conquer is deeply rooted within the human mind. Respect for biodiversity is not taken into consideration. And just like this, in thousands of years, with an extreme acceleration in the past five decades, men have gone from being victims of nature to being executioners of nature (45). It is necessary to radically change our point of view to preserve our future generations. Nature is not hostile anymore; we have managed to control it. Now, we just need to learn how to respect it.
Another important problem is our perception of the world, which is extremely variable among individuals and not open to considering the long-term consequences of our actions (46).
An extraordinary example of blindness with regard to the future is smoking. It is well-known that there is a latent period between the beginning of smoking and lung cancer development, which may exceed 20 years (47). The fact that an adverse event such as lung cancer might develop in more than 20 years is a difficult concept to consider, thus making it acceptable to continue smoking (48). The blindness mankind shows with regard to the future is the same relative to the environment. Our minds and thoughts are completely occupied by the present moment. Just think about the incorrect use of the word “emergency”, everything seems to be an emergency, even the most chronic and age-old problems such as immigration, war, or plastic pollution (49). FMRI studies suggest that when we imagine our future selves, our brain stops acting as if we were thinking about ourselves while it starts acting as if we were completely different people (50).
In other words, as Jane Mc Gonigal states “your brain acts as if your future self is someone you don't know very well and, frankly, someone you don't care about” (51).
The last problem is the bias of the present, also called hyperbolic discounting: Human decisions are often made to obtain immediate gratification, ignoring the possibility of gain deferred over time. This attitude influences our behavior in at least three important areas of our lives: nutrition, professional life, and savings. In a study conducted by Read and van Leeuwen (52), 74% of participants chose fruits when deciding what to eat the following week, but having to decide what to eat right away, 70% chose chocolates. The same goes for money: We are very willing to take advantage of discounts in the present moment, postponing the worry about more demanding expenses to the future.
This attitude is also a sign of an immediate and insufficient vision of the world, a vision that prevents even expert rulers and politicians from making decisions that are valid in the long run (53). On the contrary, the planet's problems are structural and complex (54), and they must be addressed in this way. The world is a complex place, and the only way to comprehend and change it is to acquire some confidence in the term “complexity”. This will allow us to understand how we reached the threshold of destruction. Understanding how and why we have now entered the Anthropocene and opening our eyes to the deep reasons that lead us to ignore our future and that of the next generations will allow us to intervene in our incorrect behaviors in an adequate way, thus resolving the threats pollution hold in general and not only in pregnancy (55, 56).
In the following two paragraphs, we will briefly discuss the possible solutions to the problem of plastic waste.
Collective and political responsibility in the use and disposal of plastic
Plastic production and the use of disposable plastic products have a large economic impact from the raw materials used to produce plastic to waste management (13, 57, 58).
The plastics industry represents one of the largest industries in the world, with annual revenues estimated in billions of dollars (59, 60). The development of advanced production technologies and petroleum-derived materials, which are used in the manufacture of plastics, have made it possible to create products that are very cheap to produce and easily available on the market. However, the use of single-use plastic items is significantly contributing to environmental pollution and increased waste generation. This has led several governments to implement restrictions on the use of disposable plastic products, such as plastic bags, straws, plastic cups, and plates (61).
The decision to reduce single-use plastics could lead to an increase in demand for green products, such as biodegradable and compostable products, which can have a positive impact on the economy and the environment, fostering innovation and entrepreneurship. Furthermore, reducing the resources used in the production and management of single-use plastic waste could lead to greater economic efficiency in the long term. While reducing the use of single-use plastics may initially create a negative economic impact on plastic production, it may lead to more sustainable alternative solutions to produce plastic goods in the long run. However due to the large profit margin that the plastic industry currently has, we consider it unlikely that this regulation will happen spontaneously (62), but on the contrary, it should be introduced and regulated by supranational organizations (63, 64). We know that 55% of the world's plastic waste comes from just 20 companies (65). The report found, for example, that only three companies together (ExxonMobil, Dow, and Sinopec) single-handedly account for 16% of global single-use plastic waste. The regulation of these companies should not be impossible.
Another extraordinary step would be to give producers the responsibility for the disposal of plastic waste (66), especially single-use waste, in analogy, for example, to what battery manufacturers do (67).
In this way, much of the problem of the disposal of single-use plastic in the environment would be brilliantly solved because the companies themselves would organize a specific collection and possible recycling, which is now borne by citizens, the end users, who in many places in the world do not have the necessary economic possibilities and the appropriate policy to collect and recycle plastic waste.
The most important responsibility for plastic pollution is currently on the companies that produce it. However, as we will explain in the next paragraph, there is also an individual responsibility, which although quantitatively less important, has a leading educational role.
Individual responsibility in the use and disposal of plastic
We cannot eliminate the use of plastics from our daily lives, but we can certainly take steps to use and reuse them responsibly (68) by reducing consumption, recycling properly, and finding ways to reuse plastic products, thus minimizing our impact on the environment and moving toward a more sustainable future. There are many ways in which we can responsibly minimize these impacts. To solve the complex problem of plastic pollution, we must incorporate aspects of the importance of responsible consumption in solutions addressing the plastic pollution issue (69).
• One way to responsibly use plastics is to choose products made from recycled or biodegradable materials. Many companies now offer products made from recycled plastics or plant-based materials that provide similar functionality to traditional plastic products but are more sustainable (70).
• Another approach is to reduce our use of plastic altogether. This can be done by opting for products that are not packaged in plastic or by using reusable alternatives to single-use plastic products, such as reusable shopping bags, water bottles, and food containers. By reducing our plastic consumption, we can decrease the amount of plastic waste generated and minimize the environmental impact of plastic production (71).
• In addition to reducing consumption, we can also find ways to reuse plastic products. For example, plastic bags and containers can be washed and reused for storage or other purposes. Some companies even specialize in upcycling plastic waste into new products, such as recycled plastic furniture or clothing (72).
• Lastly, proper disposal of plastic waste is crucial. Plastic products should be recycled whenever possible, and discarded plastic should never be littered in the environment. Many communities have curbside recycling programs, and there are often recycling centers that accept plastic products that cannot be recycled in curbside programs (73).
By taking all these steps, we can minimize the environmental impact of plastic and move toward a more sustainable future.
Finally, by combining individual responsibility, collective political responsibility, and the responsibility of companies that produce plastic (74, 75), we could act to reduce the disposal of a practically indestructible and almost eternal product in the environment, which is considered one of humanity's greatest threats. For this reason, we must quickly become aware of the mental cognitive problems that prevent us from fully understanding and acting accordingly toward the solution of the problem.
Conclusion
Making a parallel with policies for decarbonization, what should we do to de-plasticize the global economy?
The initial decalogue, to address the problem, could be the following:
1. Sign international agreements to reduce the production of “virgin” plastic.
2. Give responsibility for plastic disposal to plastic producers and not to end consumers.
3. Gradually replace plastic with recyclable material of natural origin.
4. Increase the recycling rate of plastic materials.
5. Ban the sale of mineral water and soft drinks in plastic containers and abolish the use and production of single-use plastics (straws, bags, plates, cutlery, and plastic cups).
6. Use organic material for packaging.
7. Make natural plastic with algae, potatoes, corn, etc.
8. Buy bulk and non-plastic packaged foods.
9. Buy clothing made from natural and non-synthetic materials.
10. Teach all this in schools.
In his essay “The Man in Revolt,” Camus argued that “to be, man must rebel:” Only in this way is it possible to give meaning to one's existence, the reason for the revolt is “… In wanting to serve justice so as not to increase the injustice of the human condition, in striving for clear language so as not to thicken the universal lie and in focusing, despite human misery, on happiness.”
Author contributions
AR: conceptualization methodology, visualization, supervision, and project administration. AR and AS: original draft preparation and original drawings. AR, AS, DR, EZ, and CD: writing—reviewing and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Eppig C, Fincher CL, Thornhill R. Parasite prevalence and the distribution of intelligence among the states of the USA. Intelligence. (2011) 39:155–60. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2011.02.008
2. Fernando SD, Rodrigo C, Rajapakse S. The ≪hidden≫ burden of malaria: cognitive impairment following infection. Malar J. (2010) 9:366. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-366
4. Lynn R, Meisenberg G. National IQs calculated and validated for 108 nations. Intelligence. (2010) 38:353–60. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.007
5. Neisser U, Boodoo G, Bouchard TJ, Boykin AW, Brody N, Ceci SJ, et al. Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. Am Psychol. (1996) 51:77–101. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77
6. Neisser U. Rising Scores on Intelligence Tests: Test Scores Are Certainly Going up All over the World, but Whether Intelligence Itself Has Risen Remains Controversial. Vol. 85. JSTOR (1997). p. 440–7. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27856851 (accessed September 19, 2022).
7. Rindermann H. The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: the homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nations. Eur J Pers. (2007) 21:667–706. doi: 10.1002/per.634
8. Hebb DO, Williams K. A method of rating animal intelligence. J Gen Psychol. (1946) 34:59–65. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1946.10544520
9. Colombo M, Scarf D. Are there differences in “intelligence” between nonhuman species? The role of contextual variables. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:2072. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02072
10. Sopher P. What Animals Teach Us About Measuring Intelligence. Available online at: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/what-animals-teach-us-about-measuring-intelligence/386330/ (accessed September 19, 2022).
11. Williams AT, Rangel-Buitrago N. The past, present, and future of plastic pollution. Mar Pollut Bull. (2022) 176:113429. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113429
12. Patz JA, Khaliq M. Global climate change and health: challenges for future practitioners. JAMA. (2002) 287:2283. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.17.2283-JMS0501-3-1
13. GESAMP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Part 2 of a Global Assessment. (2016). Avalaible online at: http://www.gesamp.org/site/assets/files/1275/sources-fate-and-effects-of-microplastics-in-the-marine-environment-part-2-of-a-global-assessment-en.pdf (accessed September 19, 2022).
14. Souza Machado AA, Kloas W, Zarfl C, Hempel S, Rillig MC. Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob Change Biol. (2018) 24:1405–16. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14020
15. Vallette J Murtagh C Odriozola V Weber J Libaut B. The New Coal: Plastics and Climate Change. (2021). Available online at: https://www.beyondplastics.org/plastics-and-climate. (accessed September 19, 2022).
16. Plastics Europe. Plastics - the Facts. (2021). Available online at: https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Plastics-the-Facts-2021-web-final.pdf (accessed September 19, 2022).
17. Hartmann NB, Hüffer T, Thompson RC, Hassellöv M, Verschoor A, Daugaard AE, et al. Are we speaking the same language? Recommendations for a definition and categorization framework for plastic debris. Environ Sci Technol. (2019) 53:1039–47. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05297
18. Tanentzap AJ, Cottingham S, Fonvielle J, Riley I, Walker LM, Woodman SG, et al. Microplastics and anthropogenic fibre concentrations in lakes reflect surrounding land use. PLoS Biol. (2021) 19:e3001389. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001389
19. Prata JC. Airborne microplastics: consequences to human health? Environ Pollut. (2018) 234:115–26. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.043
20. Barboza LGA, Dick Vethaak A, Lavorante BRBO, Lundebye AK, Guilhermino L. Marine microplastic debris: an emerging issue for food security, food safety and human health. Mar Pollut Bull. (2018) 133:336–48. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.047
21. Cho Y, Shim WJ, Jang M, Han GM, Hong SH. Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in market bivalves from South Korea. Environ Pollut. (2019) 245:1107–16. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.091
22. Van Cauwenberghe L, Janssen CR. Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption. Environ Pollut. (2014) 193:65–70. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.010
23. Karami A, Golieskardi A, Keong Choo C, Larat V, Galloway TS, Salamatinia B. The presence of microplastics in commercial salts from different countries. Sci Rep. (2017) 7:46173. doi: 10.1038/srep46173
24. Kosuth M, Mason SA, Wattenberg EV. Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer, and sea salt. PLoS ONE. (2018) 13:e0194970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194970
25. Mason SA, Welch VG, Neratko J. Synthetic polymer contamination in bottled water. Front Chem. (2018) 6:407. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2018.00407
26. de Sousa FDB. Plastic and its consequences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Environ Sci Pollut Res. (2021) 28:46067–78. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-15425-w
27. De-la-Torre GE, Pizarro-Ortega CI, Dioses-Salinas DC, Ammendolia J, Okoffo ED. Investigating the current status of COVID-19 related plastics and their potential impact on human health. Curr Opin Toxicol. (2021) 27:47–53. doi: 10.1016/j.cotox.2021.08.002
28. Pironti C, Ricciardi M, Motta O, Miele Y, Proto A, Montano L. Microplastics in the environment: intake through the food web, human exposure and toxicological effects. Toxics. (2021) 9:224. doi: 10.3390/toxics9090224
29. Ragusa A, Svelato A, Santacroce C, Catalano P, Notarstefano V, Carnevali O, et al. Plasticenta: first evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int. (2021) 146:106274. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274
30. DeLoid GM, Cao X, Bitounis D, Singh D, Llopis PM, Buckley B, et al. Toxicity, uptake, and nuclear translocation of ingested micro-nanoplastics in an in vitro model of the small intestinal epithelium. Food Chem Toxicol. (2021) 158:112609. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2021.112609
31. Schymanski D, Goldbeck C, Humpf HU, Fürst P. Analysis of microplastics in water by micro-Raman spectroscopy: release of plastic particles from different packaging into mineral water. Water Res. (2018) 129:154–62. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.11.011
32. de Sá LC, Oliveira M, Ribeiro F, Rocha TL, Futter MN. Studies of the effects of microplastics on aquatic organisms: what do we know and where should we focus our efforts in the future? Sci Total Environ. (2018) 645:1029–39. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.207
33. Deng Y, Zhang Y, Lemos B, Ren H. Tissue accumulation of microplastics in mice and biomarker responses suggest widespread health risks of exposure. Sci Rep. (2017) 7:46687. doi: 10.1038/srep46687
34. Reineke JJ, Cho DY, Dingle YT, Morello AP, Jacob J, Thanos CG, et al. Unique insights into the intestinal absorption, transit, and subsequent biodistribution of polymer-derived microspheres. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2013) 110:13803–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1305882110
35. Avio CG, Gorbi S, Milan M, Benedetti M, Fattorini D, d'Errico G, et al. Pollutants bioavailability and toxicological risk from microplastics to marine mussels. Environ Pollut. (2015) 198:211–22. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.12.021
36. Leslie HA, van Velzen MJM, Brandsma SH, Vethaak AD, Garcia-Vallejo JJ, Lamoree MH. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ Int. (2022) 163:107199. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199
37. Zhang J, Wang L, Trasande L, Kannan K. Occurrence of polyethylene terephthalate and polycarbonate microplastics in infant and adult feces. Environ Sci Technol Lett. (2021) 8:989–94. doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00559
38. Lim X. Microplastics are everywhere — but are they harmful? Nature. (2021) 593:22–5. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-01143-3
39. Jeong B, Baek JY, Koo J, Park S, Ryu YK, Kim KS, et al. Maternal exposure to polystyrene nanoplastics causes brain abnormalities in progeny. J Hazard Mater. (2022) 426:127815. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127815
40. Janssen BG, Munters E, Pieters N, Smeets K, Cox B, Cuypers A, et al. Placental mitochondrial DNA content and particulate air pollution during in utero life. Environ Health Perspect. (2012) 120:1346–52. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1104458
41. Ragusa A, Matta M, Cristiano L, Matassa R, Battaglione E, Svelato A, et al. Deeply in plasticenta: presence of microplastics in the intracellular compartment of human placentas. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:11593. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811593
42. Rakic P. Evolution of the neocortex: a perspective from developmental biology. Nat Rev Neurosci. (2009) 10:724–35. doi: 10.1038/nrn2719
43. Karakostis FA, Haeufle D, Anastopoulou I, Moraitis K, Hotz G, Tourloukis V, et al. Biomechanics of the human thumb and the evolution of dexterity. Curr Biol. (2021) 31:1317–25.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2020.12.041
44. Chu EW, Karr JR. Environmental impact: concept, consequences, measurement ?. In: Reference Module in Life Sciences. Elsevier (2017). Available online at: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780128096338023803 (accessed May 5, 2023). doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.02380-3
45. WWF. Living Planet Report 2020 - Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss. In: Almond REA, Grooten M, Petersen T, editors. Gland: WWF (2020).
46. Janecka, I. Sensory processing and systems science: There is more than meets the eye. Am J Psychol Cogn Sci. (2015) 1:117–39. Available online at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
47. Funatogawa I, Funatogawa T, Yano E. Impacts of early smoking initiation: long-term trends of lung cancer mortality and smoking initiation from repeated cross-sectional surveys in Great Britain. BMJ Open. (2012) 2:e001676. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001676
48. Janecka IP. The essence of health and longevity. Education. (2020) 8:828–46. doi: 10.12691/education-8-11-3
49. Stephen C. Stop Overusing the Word ≪Emergency≫. (2012). Available online at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-17/stephen-carter-stop-overusing-the-word-emergency#xj4y7vzkg (accessed May 2, 2023).
50. Qin P, Northoff G. How is our self related to midline regions and the default-mode network? Neuroimage. (2011) 57:1221–33. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.028
51. Mcgonigal J. Our Puny Human Brains Are Terrible at Thinking About the Future. (2017). Available online at: https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/why-people-are-so-bad-at-thinking-about-the-future.html (accessed September 19, 2022).
52. Read D, van Leeuwen B. Predicting Hunger: The Effects of Appetite and Delay on Choice. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. (1998) 76:189–205. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2803
53. Fauré E, Arushanyan Y, Ekener E, Miliutenko S, Finnveden G. Methods for assessing future scenarios from a sustainability perspective. Eur J Futures Res. (2017) 5:17. doi: 10.1007/s40309-017-0121-9
54. Bierbaum R, Cowie A, Barra R, Ratner B, Sims R, Stocking M, et al. Integration: To Solve Complex Environmental Problems. Washington, DC: Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel to the Global Environment Facility (2015).
55. Bizzarri M, Naimark O, Nieto-Villar J, Fedeli V, Giuliani A. Complexity in biological organization: deconstruction (and subsequent restating) of key concepts. Entropy. (2020) 22:885. doi: 10.3390/e22080885
56. Favela LH, Amon MJ. Reframing cognitive science as a complexity science. Cogn Sci. (2023) 47:e13280. doi: 10.1111/cogs.13280
57. Diggle A, Walker TR. Environmental and economic impacts of mismanaged plastics and measures for mitigation. Environments. (2022) 9:15. doi: 10.3390/environments9020015
58. Boisseaux P, Hopkinson P, Santillo D, Smith C, Garmulewicz A, Powell Z, et al. Environmental safety of second and third generation bioplastics in the context of the circular economy. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. (2023) 256:114835. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114835
59. Global Plastics Industry - Statistics & Facts. Available online at: https://www.statista.com/topics/5266/plastics-industry/#topicOverview (accessed May 2, 2023).
60. Plastic Market Size Share & Trends Analysis Report By Product (PE PP PU PVC PET Polystyrene ABS PBT PPO Epoxy Polymers LCP PC Polyamide) By Application By End Use And Segment Forecasts 2022 – 2030. Available online at: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/global-plastics-market (accessed May 2, 2023).
61. Knoblauch D, Mederake L. Government policies combatting plastic pollution. Curr Opin Toxicol. (2021) 28:87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.cotox.2021.10.003
62. Subramanian M. Plastics tsunami: can a landmark treaty stop waste from choking the oceans? Nature. (2022) 611:650–3. doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-03793-3
63. Evode N, Qamar SA, Bilal M, Barceló D, Iqbal HMN. Plastic waste and its management strategies for environmental sustainability. Case Studi Chem Environ Eng. (2021) 4:100142. doi: 10.1016/j.cscee.2021.100142
64. Loy ACM, Lim JY, How BS, Yiin CL, Lock SSM, Lim LG, et al. Rethinking of the future sustainable paradigm roadmap for plastic waste management: a multi-nation scale outlook compendium. Sci Total Environ. (2023) 881:163458. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163458
65. Plastic Waste Makers Index. Available online at: https://cdn.minderoo.org/content/uploads/2023/02/04205527/Plastic-Waste-Makers-Index-2023.pdf (accessed May 2, 2023).
66. Waste Batteries: Producer Responsibility. Avaailable online at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/waste-batteries-producer-responsibility (Accessed May 2, 2023).
67. Peng B, Tu Y, Elahi E, Wei G. Extended Producer Responsibility and corporate performance: effects of environmental regulation and environmental strategy. J Environ Manage. (2018) 218:181–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.068
68. Landrigan PJ, Raps H, Cropper M, Bald C, Brunner M, Canonizado EM, et al. The Minderoo-Monaco commission on plastics and human health. Annals of Global Health. (2023) 89:23. doi: 10.5334/aogh.4056
69. Cai W, Tremblay LA, An L. Enhancing consumption responsibility to address global plastic pollution. Mar Pollut Bull. (2022) 183:114089. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114089
70. Hejna A, Barczewski M, Kosmela P, Mysiukiewicz O, Sulima P, Przyborowski JA, et al. Mater-Bi/Brewers' Spent Grain Biocomposites—Novel approach to plant-based waste filler treatment by highly efficient thermomechanical and chemical methods. Materials. (2022) 15:7099. doi: 10.3390/ma15207099
71. Eco-friendly Packaging Alternatives for Your Business. Available online at: https://www.british-business-bank.co.uk/finance-hub/business-guidance/sustainability/eco-friendly-packaging-alternatives-british-business-bank/ (accessed May 2, 2023).
72. Kedzierski M, Frère D, Le Maguer G, Bruzaud S. Why is there plastic packaging in the natural environment? Understanding the roots of our individual plastic waste management behaviours. Sci Total Environ. (2020) 740:139985. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139985
73. Damgacioglu H, Hornilla M, Bafail O, Celik N. Recovering value from single stream material recovery facilities – An outbound contamination analysis in Florida. Waste Manag. (2020) 102:804–14. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.11.020
74. Saadeh D, Al-Khatib IA, Anayah FM. Evaluating strategies for sustainable recovery and recycling of plastic waste in the West Bank of Palestine: the perspectives of plastic companies. Environ Monit Assess. (2023) 195:233. doi: 10.1007/s10661-022-10842-x
75. Brigham K. How the Fossil Fuel Industry Is Pushing Plastics on the World. (2022). Available online at: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/29/how-the-fossil-fuel-industry-is-pushing-plastics-on-the-world-.html (accessed May 2, 2023).
Keywords: human placenta, microplastics, raman microspectroscopy, human decisions, cognitive biases, plastic manufacturing industry
Citation: Ragusa A, De Luca C, Zucchelli E, Rinaldo D and Svelato A (2023) Plastic, microplastic, and the inconsistency of human thought. Front. Public Health 11:1145240. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1145240
Received: 06 March 2023; Accepted: 11 May 2023;
Published: 05 June 2023.
Edited by:
Renata Sisto, National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (INAIL), ItalyReviewed by:
Luisa Campagnolo, University of Rome Tor Vergata, ItalyEnrico Bergamaschi, University of Turin, Italy
Copyright © 2023 Ragusa, De Luca, Zucchelli, Rinaldo and Svelato. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Caterina De Luca, ZGVsdWNhLmNhdGVyaW5hMzMmI3gwMDA0MDtnbWFpbC5jb20=