Activity 3.3.3.1 Current Events in Plastic Pollution

In recent years, concerns about microplastics have gained significant attention due to their increasing presence in both the environment and human food sources. Microplastics are small particles that originate from a variety of products, including cosmetics, clothing, and plastic waste, which eventually break down into tiny particles. Two articles help shed light on this issue: one by Carbone (2019), which discusses how microplastic levels in the ocean have reached alarming new heights, and the other by Shultz (2025), which reveals that chewing gum may contribute to human ingestion of thousands of microplastic particles annually.

The purpose of the article by Carbone (2019) is to highlight new findings about the increasing presence of microplastics in the oceans. It aims to alert the public about the scale of microplastic contamination and its potential long-term environmental consequences. The article seeks to answer how microplastics have accumulated to such alarming levels in the ocean. The article also poses the question of how these high concentrations of microplastics might affect marine life and, by extension, human health. Sub-questions include what specific sources contribute most to this pollution.

The article assumes that the scientific findings it reports are accurate and that microplastics in the ocean pose a serious environmental and health risk. It also assumes that the impact of microplastic contamination will worsen over time if not addressed. The point of view of the article is primarily scientific, relying on the findings of researchers to frame the discussion. However, it could be argued that the article doesn't fully explore potential solutions to the problem, focusing more on the alarming statistics.

The article presents data from a study that shows microplastic levels in oceans are a million times higher than previously believed. The study’s findings are used to underscore the urgency of the situation (Carbone, 2019). The key concept here is environmental pollution, particularly related to plastic waste. The theory driving the article is that human activity, such as improper waste disposal and excessive plastic use, contributes significantly to the increase in oceanic microplastics.

The article implies that without intervention, the accumulation of microplastics in oceans will continue to grow, potentially causing harm to marine species and the food chain. This might result in more widespread health issues for humans who consume contaminated seafood (Carbone, 2019).

Shultz’s (2025) article aims to inform readers about how seemingly harmless habits, such as chewing gum, could contribute to significant ingestion of microplastics. The article provides an interesting connection between everyday actions and environmental impact. The article questions how many microplastic particles people ingest annually through chewing gum. It also explores whether other common consumer products may contribute to similar health risks. Sub-questions include the extent of microplastic contamination in other types of food and products.

The article assumes that the data on microplastic ingestion from gum is accurate and that the findings reflect a broader trend of microplastic contamination in daily life. It also assumes that people are unaware of these risks. Shultz’s (2025) point of view is geared toward consumer awareness, urging individuals to reconsider the environmental and health implications of their everyday behaviors. While the article is informative, it does not delve deeply into potential long-term solutions for reducing microplastic ingestion.

The article cites a study suggesting that people who chew gum could ingest up to 30,000 microplastic particles a year. This evidence is central to the article’s message, drawing attention to the pervasive nature of microplastics in everyday life (Shultz, 2025). The key concept here is the human impact of microplastic pollution. The article emphasizes how common products, like gum, can unknowingly contribute to the problem, highlighting a gap between environmental awareness and consumer behaviors.

The article implies that widespread microplastic ingestion could lead to health concerns, particularly as more studies link microplastics to various diseases. This may raise questions about consumer habits and the need for stricter regulations on microplastic-containing products (Shultz, 2025).

When comparing the two articles, it is clear that while both focus on microplastics, they address different aspects of the issue. Carbone’s (2019) article focuses on the broader environmental impact of microplastics in the oceans, emphasizing the alarming levels of contamination and the need for environmental action. In contrast, Shultz’s (2025) article zooms in on human consumption, specifically how daily activities like chewing gum contribute to microplastic ingestion. Both articles highlight the pervasive nature of microplastics but approach the topic from distinct angles—environmental versus personal health.

One key difference is in the scope of the articles. Carbone’s (2019) article takes a global perspective, discussing ocean contamination on a large scale, while Shultz’s (2025) article is more focused on individual behavior and its direct implications for personal health. Additionally, Carbone (2019) includes scientific data to show the extent of microplastic pollution, while Shultz (2025) draws on research related to consumer behavior and ingestion patterns.

Despite these differences, both articles highlight the growing concern over microplastics and the need for further action. They also share a common concern about the potential long-term consequences of microplastic pollution, both for marine life and human health.

Completing this assignment using AI assistance was a valuable learning experience. The process of analyzing the two articles allowed me to gain deeper insight into the growing issue of microplastics. By having AI help structure the analysis around critical thinking points, I was able to focus more on understanding the articles' arguments and implications. The AI’s help with breaking down each article into specific points was instrumental in identifying the articles' strengths and weaknesses.

One challenge was understanding how to evaluate the assumptions and potential biases in the articles. While AI provided useful guidance, I had to critically consider how certain assumptions, such as the accuracy of the data presented, might be questioned. Additionally, the reflection on how AI can help with such assignments made me realize that it’s important to remain cautious when using it. AI’s insights are valuable, but they need to be supplemented with critical human analysis.

Through this assignment, I learned that microplastics are a significant environmental and health issue that affects both the planet and individuals. The comparison of the two articles demonstrated how microplastics are not only an environmental concern but also something that directly affects our everyday lives, often without us realizing it.

Sources

Carbone, C. (2019, December 4). Oceans contain a million times more microplastic than we realized, alarming study claims. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/science/oceans-a-million-times-more-microplastic-than-we-realized

Shultz, C. L. (2025, March 26). If you chew gum, this is how many pieces of microplastic you could be ingesting every year. People. https://people.com/people-who-chew-gum-may-ingest-up-30-000-pieces-of-microplastic-a-year-11703025

OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (Version GPT-4) [Large language model]. Retrieved from https://chat.openai.com/