Especially when plastics as a whole are demonized, thanks to some questionable (and I’m being kind here) science. But a series called “Some plastics might be harmful, and some aren’t” isn’t exactly screaming streaming for Netflix, so when all else fails, go for the scare.
Here’s the Scare, Such as it is
First, let’s give a whole bunch of credit to David Zaruk (“The Risk-Monger”), who takes on the film’s emotional storytelling, its questionable fertility “detox” experiment, and its broader political context—and absolutely hammers it. In particular, he digs into how the film mixes personal narratives with weak evidence to create a sense of certainty that isn’t there. I won’t retrace that ground here.
But I can’t help including a great quote from the piece:
It’s “quite a remarkable jump” to assume that brushing your teeth with a bamboo brush and baking soda could make you fertile again.
Love this.
Instead, I’ll focus on two areas where the science matters most: what we can detect—and what those detections actually mean.
Look, and You Shall Find—Depending on How You Look
When you improve a microscope lens, the world doesn’t get dirtier—you just start seeing what was already there. Likewise, a better telescope doesn’t create new stars—it just reveals ones we couldn’t see before.
The same thing has happened in analytical chemistry.
Over the past few decades, detection limits have improved by orders of magnitude. Modern instruments can identify chemicals at parts-per-billion or even parts-per-trillion levels—amounts so small they would have been completely invisible not long ago.
Which leads to a familiar pattern:
- New technology detects something previously unseen
- Early studies report: “We found it.”
- The media translates this into: “This is dangerous.”
- Netflix turns it into a scary series—and people accept it unquestioningly.
No one makes this clearer than ACSH friend Dr. Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society. Joe has stated countless times during his career that advances in analytical chemistry have made it possible to detect chemicals at extraordinarily low levels—amounts that would have been completely invisible just a few decades ago.
Stuff is in your body. Now what?
More than 500 years ago, Paracelsus nailed it: it’s not the presence of a chemical that makes it dangerous—it’s the dose.
Simple. Obvious. Foundational.
And yet, somehow, we’re still arguing about it.
Weak Binding ≠ Big Effect
Shanna Swan, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, featured prominently in The Plastic Detox, has been advancing concerns about endocrine-disrupting chemicals for decades—claims that have long drawn skepticism from toxicologists and chemists. The film leans heavily on her authority, as if longevity and repetition can turn speculation into established science.
One of the most frequently cited examples in this literature—including Swan’s own work on human exposure—is bisphenol A (BPA), a plastic-related chemical often presented as a prototypical “endocrine disruptor”.
Share this article
The key question isn’t whether BPA can bind to estrogen receptors—it can. The question is how well.
And the answer is: rather poorly.
BPA vs. Estradiol: Binding Affinity
Multiple studies have shown that BPA binds to estrogen receptors hundreds to thousands of times more weakly than the body’s natural estrogen, estradiol. In practical terms, that makes BPA a very poor competitor in a system already saturated with far more potent endogenous hormones. To have a meaningful effect, it would need to be present at far higher concentrations than are actually observed.
This is basic receptor pharmacology. Weak binding at low exposure levels is unlikely to produce meaningful biological effects—in many cases, it is indistinguishable from no effect at all.
And this isn’t just theoretical. Large-scale animal studies tell a similar story. In the FDA-led CLARITY-BPA program—a two-year study examining long-term effects across a wide range of doses—there was no consistent evidence of adverse effects at exposure levels comparable to those experienced by humans.
Yet The Plastic Detox treats the mere ability of BPA to interact with hormone receptors as evidence of harm—without any discussion of potency, dose, or real-world exposure.
The Bottom Line
Plastic pollution is real. It’s visible. And it’s worth fixing.
But the leap from environmental nuisance to human health crisis is not supported by the evidence presented in The Plastic Detox.
We can now detect chemicals at vanishingly small levels. Some of those chemicals can weakly interact with biological systems. That much is true.
What does not follow is that they are harming us.
Weak binding, low exposure, and a lack of consistent effects in long-term studies is not the recipe for a public health crisis. It’s the recipe for confusion—especially when detection is mistaken for danger.
The problem isn’t that plastics are harmless.
It’s that this film mistakes possibility for proof—and calls it science.
I call BS.
Josh Bloom is ACSH’s Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Science. Josh earned his Ph.D. in organic chemistry at the University of Virginia, followed by postdoctoral training at the University of Pennsylvania. Find Josh on X @JoshBloomACSH
A version of this article was originally posted at American Council on Science and Health and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find American Council on Science and Health on X @ACSHorg
