This week, the EU Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed 122 major studies on micro- and nanoplastics in food packaging. Their verdict? 🚨 Most were deficient, unreliable, or corrupted. Not our words. The EU’s top food scientists. 2/

EFSA found: – Massive methodological flaws – Widespread misidentification – Rampant background contamination Many labs were “finding” particles that weren’t even in the packaging they were testing. 3/

In nearly half of the studies, scientists found exactly what they were looking for. In 11%, they “found” plastics that weren’t even present. In over 50%, the methods couldn’t detect anything meaningful. That’s not science. That’s a guessing game. 4/

EFSA called out their tools too: Raman spectroscopy? Too noisy. Infrared scans? Too vague. Lab environments? Contaminated. The result? False positives. Bad data. Media panic. 5/

So how did we get from sketchy lab data… To headlines screaming “Plastics in your brain”? Simple: 💰 Lawsuits 💸 NGO campaigns 📣 Clickbait journalism Fear sells. Especially when it fits an activist narrative. 6/

EFSA said something few are brave enough to say: These studies are not just flawed: They’re misleading the public. Wasting time. Fueling distrust. And creating fake enemies while ignoring real risks. 7/

They issued 6 urgent recommendations to fix this mess: – Standardized tests – Better methods – Contextualizing risks – Stop confusing background noise with real exposure Translation: “Clean up your act. Or stop publishing.” 8/

Here’s the kicker: EFSA reminded researchers to compare microplastic risks… …to real-world risks. Like, say, the food itself. Or alcohol. Or air pollution. Perspective matters. 9/

If only the same scrutiny were applied to: – PFAS hysteria – Pesticide fearmongering – Tylenol lawsuits – Anti-vax disinfo The activist-industrial complex has gamed the science. And now, science is fighting back. 10/

This isn’t just about plastics. It’s about trust. About truth. About whether we let science be hijacked by fear, funding, and political agendas. EFSA drew the line. Others should follow. 11/

Not all studies are equal. Not all data is gold. Not all scientists are honest. But evidence still matters. And we need institutions brave enough to say: “This is not good enough.” And… “You’re being misled.” Let’s reward those who do. 🔍 12/

EU Food Science Authority Condemns Bad Microplastic Studies: EFSA shows how most microplastic studies were deficient, unreliable and corrupted. 13/ https://www.thefirebreak.org/p...

Literature review on micro- and nanoplastic release from food contact materials during their use. 14/ https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wil...

@simonmaechling While your thread is just as catchy as the ideas you are trying to deny here, the conclusions you are drawing from this study seem to be an example of bad science too. The underlying study has a pretty narrow focus - it only looked at quantities of micro/nano plastics released

@simonmaechling There’s no need for people to be uncertain. Test your blood.

@simonmaechling @bryan_johnson can you add the findings from your research?

@simonmaechling @bryan_johnson can you clarify

@simonmaechling @G_S_Bhogal A claim I read was 100% of men have micro plastics in their testicles. Add “junk science” and I’m LMFAO. Thanks for exposing the flaws.

@simonmaechling EFSA role is only to assess how to detect in food. The larger lit shows how widespread mp/np are in environmental and earth science studies. Human studies not only confirm presence but also a growing body of very likely harms. Please dont spread misinfo.

@simonmaechling Putting science after junk is a compliment

@simonmaechling When I first heard on microplastics, I was skeptical. Checked all the boxes of an artificial panic to fuel a drive for funding. Media hysteria, problem vague enough be plausible but not easily measured, too perfect on-the-nose "scientific" results, etc

@simonmaechling This doesn’t mean that plastic isn’t harmful to human health and the environment. It just shows the need for more rigorous research on the matter.

@simonmaechling @grok where are microplastics found?

@simonmaechling I’m not doubting you, but I’d like you to cite reputable sources for every claim that isn’t supported by factual evidence.

@simonmaechling I almost got the impression that the plastic was as crispy as charcoal.

@simonmaechling Junk like this post 😁

@simonmaechling I’ve always questioned the claim that we eat a whole bank card worth of plastic each week. If we’re getting so much microplastics, why aren’t the packages visibly wearing? Logically, plastic won’t uniformly come off the packaging and leave a smooth surface.

@simonmaechling Not surprised. Can’t believe anything anyways. But I ask you this, where is the money at?

@simonmaechling Is there any truth to the dangers of heating food in or on plastic containers or using plastic utensils such as spatulas when cooking food on the stove?

@simonmaechling The hatred for anything petroleum based is insanity. RFK level insane.

@simonmaechling Good to know bro. Thanks. Good reading always. Stay around until the storm passes. The winds are strong and unpredictable, but if a sailors know how to set their sails to take advantage of even the headwinds, then, it is his storm 🤙🏻

@simonmaechling Oh yeah just like the ' junk DNA ' that our human body apparently contain ..like 90% right? Humans who arrogantly think they know better than God and attempt to justify their own ignorance to explain the consequences of their own limitations cannot be trusted as true scientist.

@simonmaechling Thank you. 🙏 I've been hearing about MNP being found in every organism (I don't doubt it), but I haven't seen any proof of the "great danger" they pose. (BTW, I felt like firebreak's article was more concerned about the "evil" activists than science. Your flood is better.)

@simonmaechling I have posted repeatedly about this. Plastics are chemically inert. They are not likely to be harmful. Nature is full of similar, chemically inert dust: grains of sand, cellulose. An exception: spikes of asbestos are so sharp that they go through cell walls and are harmful.

@simonmaechling @aDissentient Somethings got to kill you.

@simonmaechling how many natural polymers - as vegetal polyesthers, cutines, cellulose and lignine metabolytes, paraffines and so on - has been classified as *microplastics*, as *hydrocarbons* or both of them?