New findings from PlasticList show that food from Stanford’s dining halls have higher levels of plastics compared to other foods in the Bay Area, which may lead to health concerns.

The report, published on Dec. 27, found that Stanford’s beans, chicken, rice and cauliflower contain above-average amounts of certain plastic chemicals. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), bisphenol A (BPA) and bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA) were detected at the 89-93th, 50-60th and 99-100th percentiles, respectively.

In particular, dining hall foods were found to contain the most DEHA out of the over 300 foods sampled across the Bay Area. These three chemicals, in sufficient doses, have the potential to cause cancer, reproductive harm, reduced fertility and other effects.

“Everything you don’t want to happen in your body at the cellular level is associated with microplastics,” Desiree Labeaud, Associate Dean of Global Health at the Stanford School of Medicine, said.

Labeaud, who studies the intersection of plastics and epidemiology, said that scientists aren’t sure about the exact effects of most plastics. However, there is a consensus that most of them are harmful to humans. “When we ingest the plastic… we’re getting these toxins into our body,” she said.

Nicholas Chartres, a health researcher at the University of Sydney, said that “the primary source of plastics in the food production chain is migration from plastic packaging.” Last December, Chartres and his colleagues published research on the digestive, reproductive and respiratory effects of plastics on health.

The study found that plastics could cause “changes in lung function and lung injury,” Chartres said. 

“We saw damage to things like sperm quality [and] elevated levels of chronic inflammation, both in the lung and also in the colon,” Chartres said, which indicates the possibility of plastics causing lung and colon cancer.

In addition to being harmful on its own, plastic in food is commonly bound to other harmful substances, according to Chartres. “These tiny little particles [not only] damage the cells physically, but they’re vehicles for chemical contaminants,” he said.

However, PlasticList acknowledges that their findings are not conclusive. 

“These results represent point-in-time results of a small number of product samples and may not be representative of actual product contents,” they wrote in a statement on their website.

Yaroslav Shipilov, who led the PlasticList research group that tested Stanford microplastic content, is not too concerned with the results. “In the levels that you find it in the foods, I think people who don’t have any special sensitivities with their endocrine systems should be fine,” he said.

Jocelyn Breeland, chief communications officer of Residential & Dining Enterprises (R&DE), told the Daily that Stanford Dining, Hospitality & Auxiliaries (SDHA) cannot validate or substantiate their findings” due to these “significant limitations acknowledged by the testing agency themselves.”

According to Breeland, SDHA has food safety protocols that are more exacting than industry standards. These include supplier certification, advanced Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems that monitor and limit hazards in the food production process and regular third-party audits.

“SDHA remains committed to food safety excellence and maintaining our rigorous food safety standards,” Breeland said.

However, some students are concerned about the report’s findings.

“It’s just disgusting. I don’t want to be eating garbage and plastics, personally,” Zeinab Zreik ’26 said. She believes the report is a reflection of larger problems with health and quality of food at the dining halls.

“ I have a friend who always finds bugs in her food, and it’s gross,” Zreik said.

Shipilov sees the tests’ results as evidence of the lack of consistency in food safety standards. “If you go to Europe and you compare the levels there to the United States’ levels, you can see huge differences,” said Shipilov. “It’s very confusing as a consumer.”

For students looking to stay away from plastic contaminants, LaBeaud recommends staying away from single-use plastics and opting for alternatives such as glass containers. “If [students] could use something else, that’s probably one way to decrease microplastics,” she said.

However, LaBeaud believes that, beyond the actions of individuals, a governmental response is needed to truly reduce the harms of plastics in food.

“Even with good awareness, the issue is you go to the grocery store and everything is in plastic,” said LaBeaud. “We need policy change to really decrease and even explicitly stop the use of single used plastics.”

Chartres echoed this sentiment, saying that there is more than sufficient evidence to justify governmental action. “Once [microplastics] are in us and they get in our food, our water and our air, they’re very difficult to get out,” he said.