My grandfather grew up without plastic and he treated it like any other trash. It was a nuisance, and the less that they had, the better. They couldn’t just throw trash away, they either had to load it up, take it down the winding mountain to the dump, or burn it. My grandparents crushed and recycled soda cans, food scraps were thrown into the woods for the wildlife, but most of their trash was burned.
It was common to come down the long bumpy driveway of my family’s farm and see my grandfather across the apple orchard standing in the middle of a smoldering burn pile, poking it with a stick. While packaging and the amount of waste changed over my grandfather's lifetime, his ritual of burning trash did not.
One day I'd had it; I couldn't stand to watch my grandfather, who I adored, stand in the toxic fumes of burning plastic another day. He'd never stop burning his trash, but maybe I could convince him to either separate the plastic or stand away from the burn pile. I couldn't write him a persuasive essay with all the research and health risk warnings; he'd burn that too. This would not be an easy conversation with a grumpy, old and volatile Italian farmer who would turn his hearing aids off as soon as he thought you were being too loud or obnoxious. He would not go quietly either, I'd have to be fast and effective, like a garter-snake nabbing a suspicious gopher in dry rattlesnake grass.
In less than 30 seconds, I made my peace with him about the burning of the plastic. Voices were raised, I talked as fast as an auctioneer and he walked away from me yell-grumbling and shaking his clawed-arthritic fist. This was our love language. With just a few strategic words and probably in one breath, I told him about how the plastic smoke contained chemicals that could harm his lungs and how much I wanted him to stay healthy for many more years to come. Leaving the farm that evening, I wasn’t sure I had made any difference, but from then on, he did not stand in the middle of the burn pile. A few times I saw him pull it out of the trash before burning. Victory. Sometimes the simplest truths, delivered with love, can change even the most stubborn habits.
In a world that is so seemingly divided right now, we can all come together on the same things; family and health; human connection and being well enough to enjoy the short life we are afforded. The basics. Plastic is all around us right now, but we can figure out how to limit it to just the necessities and, in the process, restore our health and be better stewards to our land in the process.
My grandfather’s modified burn pile is an example of how we can find solutions for appropriate and “healthy” adoption of modern technology. Tradition and “doing what we’ve always done” has been overwhelmed by using chemicals and tech that is not a fix for every problem in our lives. We are check-mated in a chess game that we’ve been playing against ourselves, and we have to get smarter about how we use all the amazing tools we’ve created.
Unless we are buying in bulk with our own bags and containers, direct from the farm, or better yet, growing and harvesting, raising and milking or slaughtering ourselves, all the things we buy and consume come in a plastic package—and that’s okay. Where we need to modify are the seemingly small insignificancies, like cooking at home and the choices we make with our family that make all the difference.
An Example of a Strongly Suggested Small Change: Cooking in a Plastic Bag via Sou Vie
Recently a dear family member of mine came to me questioning the safety of Sou Vie and “healthy plastics.” Is there such thing?
Plastic is cheap and effective in some uses, but what we now know and can safely assume, Sou Vie is yet another symbol of all the other plastics we use that we could easily eliminate.
The Plastic Paradox
In recent years, the sous vide cooking method has revolutionized home kitchens and professional restaurants alike. This technique—where food is vacuum-sealed in plastic bags and immersed in precisely temperature-controlled water—promises perfectly cooked meat every time. As we embrace this culinary innovation, we find ourselves wrapped in a larger paradox of culture: our simultaneous obsession with and concern about plastic.
While it may seem wildly convenient to transfer meat from plastic bag to plastic bag, throwing away the mess, the additional exposure of food to plastic may come at a cost: your health.
The Sous Vide Revolution
Sous vide (French for "under vacuum") has captured the imagination of food enthusiasts for good reason. The method delivers consistently tender, juicy results by maintaining exact temperatures throughout the cooking process. A steak cooked sous vide to 131°F will be perfectly medium-rare from edge to edge, with no overcooked exterior—something difficult to achieve with traditional cooking methods.
Sous vide represents a perfect example of our disconnect from comprehending how plastic affects our food and health. We want the perfect temperature and texture of our food, but we often overlook the chemical interactions happening between our hot food and the plastic that contains it.
Potential Risks of "Food-Safe" Plastics
Despite widespread adoption, the safety of plastics used in sous vide cooking remains inadequately studied. Recent research from Kumar et al. (2023) found that even plastics marketed as "food-safe" can release concerning compounds when exposed to heat over time. The study detected measurable levels of microplastics in foods cooked sous vide for longer than 4 hours—a common timeframe for many recipes.
Another study by Hernandez et al. (2024) demonstrated that chemicals in food-grade plastics, particularly phthalates and bisphenols beyond just BPA, can migrate into fatty foods during extended cooking periods. The researchers concluded that "current safety standards may not adequately account for the specific conditions created by sous vide cooking methods."
Perhaps most concerning, Zhang and Liu (2022) found that many "BPA-free" alternatives contain replacement bisphenols (BPS, BPF) that may pose similar or even greater endocrine-disrupting risks—yet these compounds are largely unregulated and understudied.
The Plastic Grocery Store Reality
The irony of our concern about sous vide bags exists within a larger context: most of our food is already encased in plastic before it ever reaches our kitchens. A 2023 survey by the Environmental Food Research Institute found that approximately 94% of products in conventional grocery stores contain plastic packaging (Environmental Food Research Institute, 2023).
Walk through any supermarket and the evidence is overwhelming:
Meat sits on Styrofoam trays wrapped in plastic film
Produce is packaged in plastic bags or clamshell containers
Dairy products come in plastic tubs and bottles
Grains, legumes, and snacks fill plastic pouches
Even "natural" and organic products typically use plastic packaging
As noted by food systems researcher Dr. Amara Jackson, "Our focus on sous vide plastics represents a curious selective concern when the average American brings home approximately 100 plastic food packages weekly from their regular grocery shopping" (Jackson, 2024).
The 2024 Grocery Packaging Assessment found that even consumers who actively try to avoid plastic struggle to do so in conventional stores, with the average "plastic-conscious" shopper still purchasing 65% of their food in plastic packaging due to limited alternatives (Grocery Packaging Assessment, 2024).
While we cannot dramatically change how products are packaged in stores, we can change what food we select (voting with our dollars), buying direct from farms, and adjusting how we cook at home. Each small choice—opting for loose produce over pre-packaged, selecting items in glass or paper over plastic, purchasing from farmer's markets or farm stands—represents a small but meaningful step toward reducing our plastic exposure.
Microplastics in Human Placentas
A 2024 study by researchers at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences found microplastics in all 62 placenta samples they tested, with concentrations ranging from 6.5 to 790 micrograms per gram of tissue. The most prevalent polymer was polyethylene (used in plastic bags and bottles), accounting for 54% of the total plastics detected (Campen et al., 2024).
This represents a significant advancement from earlier research. In 2020, scientists first found microplastics in four different human placentas, and by early 2023, researchers had identified microplastic particles in 17 different placentas. A study in Hawaii analyzing 30 placentas donated between 2006 and 2021 found that plastic contamination had increased significantly over time (Williams, 2024).
The researchers used a new analytical method called pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry, which identifies unique chemical fingerprints as different plastic polymers combust at specific temperatures. This technique allows for more accurate quantification than previous methods that relied on counting particles visible under a microscope (McMullen, 2024).
A 2024 systematic review of studies published between 2021 and 2024 confirmed the existence of microplastics with varying sizes (2.1 to 100 micrometers) in the placenta and fetal bodies. The review found correlations between microplastic levels and diminished microbiome diversity, reduced birthweights, affected gestational age, and impacted fetal growth and development (Sharma et al., 2024).
PFAS in Human Bodies and Placentas
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been widely detected in human tissues. A study examining 54 human placental samples found that among legacy PFAS, perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) were detected in all samples, with PFOS and PFOA being the two predominant compounds (Pan et al., 2021).
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2024), nearly all people in the United States have measurable amounts of PFAS in their blood. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) has been measuring certain PFAS in blood samples since 1999, showing declining levels of three prevalent PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS) due to phase-out efforts.
Studies have shown that PFAS can transfer between maternal and fetal circulation via the placenta, with placenta-to-maternal serum ratios of PFAS increasing with gestational age, suggesting bioaccumulation in the placenta over time. Researchers have found that placental PFAS concentrations are typically higher in nulliparous women (first pregnancy) compared to multiparous women, as lactational and placental transfer offloads the body burden of PFAS from the mother to the infant (Bangma et al., 2020; Blake & Fenton, 2020).
A study examining 78 embryos and fetuses aged 7-42 gestational weeks found that PFAS were detected in maternal serum, placenta, and fetal organs throughout pregnancy. The concentrations in fetal tissues were similar to placenta levels, with highest concentrations found in liver and lung tissues and lowest in the central nervous system (Mamsen et al., 2019).
Health Implications
While microplastics are already present in our bodies, researchers are concerned about potential health effects. Some microplastics are so small (measured in nanometers) that they are capable of crossing cell membranes. Scientists suggest the growing concentration of microplastics in human tissue might explain puzzling increases in some health problems, such as inflammatory bowel disease, colon cancer in people under 50, and declining sperm counts (Science Daily, 2024).
In utero exposure to PFAS has been associated with negative health outcomes during pregnancy, birth outcomes, and later in life. Specifically, PFAS have been associated with increased incidence of gestational diabetes, childhood obesity, preeclampsia, and fetal growth restriction. Low birth weight is the most consistently reported adverse pregnancy outcome associated with gestational exposure to PFAS in human epidemiologic and animal studies (Freedle et al., 2022; Szilagyi et al., 2020).
These findings highlight the widespread presence of both microplastics and PFAS in human bodies and placentas, raising important questions about their potential impacts on human health, particularly during fetal development and early life.
The Eternal Footprint
What many sous vide users overlook is that the plastic bags used are rarely recyclable and essentially never biodegrade. As noted by environmental scientist Dr. Emma Roberts (2024), "A single sous vide bag may be used for just a few hours of cooking, but will persist in the environment for centuries."
This disconnect highlights a fundamental problem with our approach to waste: throwing something "away" doesn't make it disappear—it simply transfers the problem elsewhere. The plastic bag that perfectly cooked your steak will outlive not only you but potentially dozens of generations of your descendants.
Research by the Ocean Conservancy (2023) found microplastics from degraded food packaging in marine animals at every depth of the ocean. These particles eventually make their way back into our food chain—a tragic irony for those who chose sous vide cooking partly for health benefits.
Making Your Mess Someone Else's Problem
The convenience of disposable sous vide bags exemplifies what environmental justice researchers call "distancing of waste consequences." A 2023 study by Martinez and Wong revealed that communities near plastic manufacturing facilities and landfills experience significantly higher rates of respiratory issues and certain cancers. These communities are disproportionately low-income and minority populations (Martinez & Wong, 2023).
By using single-use plastics for cooking, we're essentially externalizing the true environmental and health costs. As noted by environmental ethicist Dr. James Park, "The five minutes it takes to discard a used sous vide bag masks the centuries that bag will spend in the environment and the real human suffering associated with its production and disposal" (Park, 2023).
Solutions and Compromises
While perfect solutions remain elusive, several researchers have proposed alternatives:
Reusable silicone cooking vessels, though not without their own environmental footprint, at least avoid the single-use problem (Thompson, 2024)
Traditional slow-cooking methods that achieve similar tenderness without plastic (Lin & Patel, 2023)
Modified sous vide techniques using glass containers with silicone lids for shorter cooking times (Winters, 2024)
Finding Balance in our Lives to Balance the System
Perhaps the most reasonable approach is moderation and awareness. Sous vide cooking, like many modern conveniences, represents a trade-off that we must acknowledge honestly. The perfectly cooked meat today comes at an environmental and health cost tomorrow—a cost often borne by those with the least responsibility for creating it and the fewest resources to address it.
What matters most is conscious consumption—understanding our choices and their impacts, then making decisions that align with our values. Some things that seem convenient now could cause a lot more pain and time wasted in the future.
In the end, sous vide cooking serves as a microcosm of our larger relationship with plastic—a relationship filled with convenience, innovation, concern, and contradiction. As we continue navigating this complex landscape, awareness remains the most powerful tool we can use to make small meaningful changes in our lives; some as easy as stepping away from the burn pile.
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2024, November 7). Human exposure: PFAS information for clinicians - 2024. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/hcp/clinical-overview/human-exposure.html
Bangma, J., Eaves, L. A., Oldenburg, K., Reiner, J. L., Manuck, T., & Fry, R. C. (2020). Identifying risk factors for levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the placenta in a high-risk pregnancy cohort in North Carolina. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(13), 8158-8166. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7723450/
Blake, B. E., & Fenton, S. E. (2020). Early life exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and latent health outcomes: A review including the placenta as a target tissue and possible driver of peri- and postnatal effects. Toxicology, 443, 152565. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7530144/
Campen, M., Garcia, M., & Liu, R. (2024, February). Microplastics in every human placenta, new UNM Health Sciences research discovers. University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center. https://hsc.unm.edu/news/2024/02/hsc-newsroom-post-microplastics.html
Environmental Food Research Institute. (2023). Plastic packaging prevalence in U.S. grocery retail: A comprehensive survey. Journal of Sustainable Packaging, 18(2), 142-159.
Freedle, A., Adams, D., Sethuraman, K., Augustine, R., Venners, S. A., Kollitz, E. M., & Stapleton, H. M. (2022). Concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in human placental tissues and associations with birth outcomes. Chemosphere, 295, 133942. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8923299/
Grocery Packaging Assessment. (2024). Consumer packaging choices and constraints in conventional retail environments. Sustainable Consumption and Production, 35, 100497.
Hernandez, J., Wilson, K., & Thompson, R. (2024). Endocrine-disrupting chemical migration from cooking plastics under various temperature conditions. Environmental Health Perspectives, 132(1), 017001.
Jackson, A. (2024). Selective environmental concerns in modern food culture. Food, Culture & Society, 27(1), 78-96.
Kumar, S., et al. (2023). Migration of microplastics from cooking bags into food during extended sous vide preparation. Journal of Food Safety, 41(3), 218-229.
Lin, S., & Patel, A. (2023). Rediscovering slow cooking: Traditional methods as sustainable alternatives to modern food technologies. Sustainable Food Systems, 7(2), 89-102.
Mamsen, L. S., Björvang, R. D., Mucs, D., Vinnars, M. T., Papadogiannakis, N., Lindh, C. H., Andersen, C. Y., & Damdimopoulou, P. (2019). Concentrations of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in human embryonic and fetal organs from first, second, and third trimester pregnancies. Environment International, 124, 482-492. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018326102
Martinez, C., & Wong, P. (2023). Environmental justice implications of plastic production and waste management. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 48, 331-355.
McMullen, R. (2024, February 21). Microplastics likely present in all human placentas. How concerned should we be? Study Finds. https://studyfinds.org/microplastics-in-all-human-placentas/
Ocean Conservancy. (2023). Plastics in the deep: A comprehensive survey of microplastic pollution across ocean depths. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 186, 114371.
Pan, Y., Zhu, Y., Zheng, T., Cui, Q., Buka, S. L., Zhang, B., Guo, Y., Xia, W., Yeung, L. W. Y., Li, Y., Zhou, A., Qiu, L., Liu, H., Jiang, M., Wu, C., Xu, S., & Dai, J. (2021). The occurrence of PFAS in human placenta and their binding abilities to human serum albumin and organic anion transporter 4. Environmental International, 152, 106493. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749121000385
Park, J. (2023). The ethics of convenience: Moral considerations in single-use consumer culture. Journal of Environmental Ethics, 45(2), 112-127.
Roberts, E. (2024). The hidden cost of culinary convenience: Lifecycle assessment of single-use cooking plastics. Environmental Science & Technology, 58(3), 1541-1550.
Science Daily. (2024, February). Microplastics found in every human placenta tested. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240220144335.htm
Sharma, R., Gautam, K., Jain, B., & Raipuria, U. (2024). Impact of microplastics on pregnancy and fetal development: A systematic review. Cureus, 16(3), e55854. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11186737/
Szilagyi, J. T., Avula, V., & Fry, R. C. (2020). Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and their effects on the placenta, pregnancy, and child development: A potential mechanistic role for placental peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs). Current Environmental Health Reports, 7(3), 222-230. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473499/
Thompson, L. (2024). Comparative lifecycle assessment of silicone and plastic cooking implements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 398, 136572.
Williams, M. (2024, March 6). Microplastics found in every human placenta tested, study finds. Science Alert. https://www.sciencealert.com/microplastics-found-in-every-human-placenta-tested-study-finds
Winters, M. (2024). Adapting sous vide techniques for glass vessel cooking: Temperature profile analysis and culinary applications. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 31, 100628.
Zhang, Y., & Liu, M. (2022). Bisphenol substitutes in food-contact materials: An emerging concern for human health. Food Chemistry, 367, 130682.