While, technically, it is, but the packaging might make it harmful for us. As per a November 2024 study published in Chemosphere, researchers tested three different brands of tea bags for exposure of microplastics, which are also degraded plastic bits that do not breakdown and found that it could impact human health.

What were the findings?

The team found that brewing tea in polypropylene, essentially plastic bags, or a common tea bag material actually released over a billion particle per milliliter of tea. In fact, what we think as the paper bags, made of cellulose and mesh nylon bags also shed millions of plastic particle per milliliter.

John Meeker, a professor of Environmental Health Sciences and Global Public Health at the University of Michigan School of Public Health said finding such high amounts of micro and nanoplastics in a product that is supposed to be consumed is a cause of concern.

How was the study conducted?

The researchers first extracted plastics from brewed tea and then exposed them to human intestinal cells that absorbed the plastic particles. It showed that microplastics could remain in the body even after drinking the tea.

The study author Alba Garcia-Rodriguez, a researcher in the Department of Genetics and Microbiology at the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona said the research calls attention to the path of substantial exposure to plastic particles which are also found in everyday lives. "We have to be concerned about the huge number of single-use plastic that humans are exposed to daily," she said.

How was the test conducted?

Similar tests have been conducted previously. In 2019, a Canadian study was the first one to test nylon and polyethylene tea bags which released 11.6 billion microplastics and 3.1 nanoplastics, measuring less than a micron into a single cup of tea.

In another study from 2023, conducted by Garcia-Redriguez and colleagues, one brand of tea bags were tested that was made of polylactic acid, a biodegradable plant-based plastic. The study showed that it released 1 million nanoplastic particles per tea bag.

For this 2024 study, the research team set broadened their scope by testing out for various materials. They obtained empty tea bags made from three commonly used materials: polypropylene, nylon, and cellulose.

The team simulated typical tea-brewing conditions (without tea leaves) by steeping the bags in sterile water heated to 95°C (203°F) while stirring continuously. They then measured how many plastic particles each material released.

The results revealed that polypropylene bags shed the highest amount of microplastics—approximately 1.2 billion particles. Cellulose paper bags came next, releasing 135 million particles per milliliter, while nylon mesh bags released 8.18 million particles.

The study revealed that hot temperature water exposure and also the stirring of spoon can cause tea bags to "leach plastics".

When the plastics were exposed to humans, it showed that cells absorbed the microplastics, including the mucus cells, as they had the highest uptake of particles. After 24 hours, the particles reached the nucleus of the cells, which houses the DNA.

Health Impacts

Experts find the results concerning, as ingested microplastics could enter the bloodstream after targeting tissues in the gastrointestinal tract, potentially spreading to other organs. While chemicals added during plastic production have been linked to issues like endocrine disruption and cancer, the health effects of ingested microplastics remain unclear. Scientists caution against drawing conclusions, noting that human studies on microplastics are still limited and much more research is needed.

How can one reduce the exposure to plastics? The best way possible is by buying loose leaf, even when you are using green tea, which, is mostly used in tea bags, as a way to make it instantly. In case you are in rush, you can always use the steel infuser to use it as a replacement of plastic tea bags for an instant cup of tea.

Common preservatives added to foods to prevent spoilage and increase shelf life may be linked to a higher risk of several cancers and Type 2 diabetes, according to two new studies from France.

“These are very important findings for preservatives that are not only widely used in the French and European markets, but also in the United States,” said senior author Mathilde Touvier, principal investigator of the NutriNet-Santé study used for the research, as per CTV News. The NutriNet-Santé study, launched in 2009, tracks more than 170,000 participants by comparing their web-based diet and lifestyle reports with medical data recorded in France’s national health-care system.

“These are the first two studies in the world to investigate the link between exposure to these food additives and cancer and Type 2 diabetes,” said Touvier, who is also director of research at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris. “That means we must be cautious in interpreting the findings. The results clearly need confirmation.”

Katz, who was not involved in the research, is a preventive and lifestyle medicine specialist and founder of the non-profit True Health Initiative, a global group focused on evidence-based lifestyle medicine.

Cancer And Preservatives: Is There A Link?

The cancer-focused study, published in The BMJ, examined the effects of 58 preservatives among nearly 105,000 people who were cancer-free in 2009 and followed for up to 14 years. Only participants who regularly completed detailed 24-hour, brand-specific food questionnaires were included. Those consuming the highest levels of preservatives were compared with those consuming the least.

Researchers closely analysed 17 preservatives eaten by at least 10 percent of participants. Eleven showed no link to cancer. However, six preservatives that were associated with cancer are classified as GRAS, or “generally recognized as safe,” by the US Food and Drug Administration. These include sodium nitrite, potassium nitrate, sorbates, potassium metabisulfite, acetates, and acetic acid.

Sodium Nitrite Linked To Cancer

Sodium nitrite, commonly used in processed meats such as bacon, ham, and deli meats, was linked to a 32 percent higher risk of prostate cancer. Potassium nitrate was associated with a 22 percent increased risk of breast cancer and a 13 percent rise in overall cancer risk. The World Health Organization has long classified processed meat as carcinogenic, with a well-established link to colon cancer.

Sorbates, particularly potassium sorbate, were associated with a 26 percent higher risk of breast cancer and a 14 percent increase in overall cancer risk. These preservatives are commonly used in wine, baked goods, cheese, and sauces to prevent the growth of mold and yeast.

Potassium metabisulfite, widely used in winemaking and brewing, was linked to a 20 percent increase in breast cancer risk and an 11 percent rise in overall cancer risk.

Acetates, which are derived from natural fermentation and added to foods such as meat, sauces, breads, and cheese, were associated with a 25 percent higher risk of breast cancer and a 15 percent increase in cancer overall. Acetic acid, the main component of vinegar, was linked to a 12 percent increase in overall cancer risk.

Other preservatives were also examined, including antioxidants like vitamin C and vitamin E, plant-based extracts such as rosemary, and synthetic additives like butylated hydroxyanisole. While these substances are often linked to lower cancer risk when consumed as part of whole foods, their effects may differ when added as isolated compounds, Touvier explained.

Only two antioxidant preservatives were linked to cancer. Sodium erythorbate and related erythorbates, derived from fermented sugars, were associated with a 21 percent higher risk of breast cancer and a 12 percent increase in overall cancer risk.

Erythorbates are commonly used to prevent discoloration and spoilage in poultry, soft drinks, and baked goods. Sodium erythorbate is also frequently added to processed meats to speed up curing. While observational studies can be affected by uncontrolled variables, an editorial published alongside the research noted its strengths, including detailed dietary assessments and adjustments for preservatives from natural sources and other food additives.

Both studies adjusted for factors such as physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, medication use, and lifestyle habits. “The finding that specific classes of preservatives are associated with increased risk of certain cancers remained consistent even after these adjustments, showing the issue deserves serious attention and further study,” Katz added.

Type 2 Diabetes And Preservatives

The second study, published Wednesday in Nature Communications, explored the association between preservative intake and the risk of Type 2 diabetes in nearly 109,000 NutriNet-Santé participants who did not have diabetes at the beginning of the study.

Of the 17 preservatives analysed, 12 were linked to nearly a 50 percent higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes among those with the highest consumption.

Five preservatives already linked to cancer, potassium sorbate, potassium metabisulfite, sodium nitrite, acetic acid, and sodium acetate, were also associated with an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, with risk rising by 49 percent.

A sixth preservative, calcium propionate, a white powder used to prevent mold and bacterial growth, was also linked to a higher diabetes risk.

The study also found that several antioxidant additives were associated with increased diabetes risk. Additives linked to a 42 percent increase included alpha-tocopherol, the most readily absorbed form of vitamin E; sodium ascorbate, a buffered form of vitamin C; rosemary extracts; sodium erythorbate; phosphoric acid, commonly found in sodas, processed meats, and cheese; and citric acid, a preservative and flavour enhancer with little nutritional value.

Because these are the first studies to examine the role of preservatives in the development of cancer and Type 2 diabetes, further research is needed to confirm and expand on the findings, said Anaïs Hasenböhler, the lead author of both studies and a doctoral researcher at Université Sorbonne Paris Nord.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rolled out a new set of dietary guidelines on Wednesday, Jan. 7, introducing a food pyramid that looks strikingly different from what most people remember. Emphasizing protein and healthy fats while reducing the role of grains, the updated recommendations represent a clear break from previous federal guidance. The accompanying food pyramid graphic almost completely reverses the old model, both in appearance and in the food groups it promotes.

During a White House briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt highlighted the changes, saying the announcement aligned with President Donald Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s mission to "Make America Healthy Again."

Also Read: New Food Pyramid 2026 Reshapes Dietary Guidelines For Americans Under RFK Jr

If you’re used to the pyramid from the early 2000s, it may take a moment to adjust to the new look. Here are some of the major differences between the old and new food pyramids.

New Food Pyramids 2026: What Does The New Food Pyramid Look Like?

The U.S. had stopped using the pyramid as a guide back in 2011, switching to a plate-style visual for dietary recommendations. Now, under RFK Jr.’s leadership at HHS, the pyramid is back—but flipped. The upside-down triangle now places the foods that should make up most of your diet at the top, while foods to eat sparingly sit at the bottom.

RFK Jr.’s New Food Pyramid vs Old Food Pyramid

It’s not just the graphic that’s changed. The hierarchy of food groups has shifted as well. Grains, once the largest and foundational part of the diet, are now the smallest segment at the bottom. Meanwhile, protein, dairy, healthy fats, fruits, and vegetables dominate the top of the pyramid.

Here’s a detailed look at RFK Jr.’s New Food Pyramid vs Old Food Pyramid and what it means for Americans, based on reporting from USA Today.

1. Focus Shift

Old Food Pyramid: Grains and carbs were the base, while proteins and fats were limited. The focus was on low-fat foods and staples like bread, pasta, and cereal.

RFK Jr.’s New Food Pyramid: Whole foods, protein, and healthy fats take center stage. Red meat, cheese, fruits, and vegetables are placed at the top, and refined grains play a smaller role.

2. Protein and Fats

Old: Saturated fats and animal proteins were discouraged. Fat was often treated as the main dietary enemy.

New: Protein and healthy fats, including saturated fats from meat and dairy, are now seen as essential. Federal nutrition leaders have officially declared an end to the “war on fat.”

3. Processed Foods

Old: Highly processed foods, added sugars, refined carbs, and chemical additives were allowed in moderation.

New: There’s a strong push to reduce ultra-processed foods, added sugars, and refined carbs. The emphasis is now on minimally processed, real foods.

4. Dairy

Old: Low-fat or skim dairy was recommended; full-fat options were generally discouraged.

New: Cheese and other dairy products are now at the top of the pyramid, allowing for full-fat milk in both general diets and school meals.

5. Sugar and Additives

Old: Sugar intake was suggested to be limited, but highly processed foods weren’t heavily flagged.

New: Added sugar is more strictly controlled, and processed foods are clearly marked as foods to minimize.

6. Overall Approach

Old: The diet centered on lowering fat, balancing calories, and relying heavily on plant-based staples such as grains.

New: The focus is on nutrient-rich, protein-heavy meals, healthy fats, whole foods, and cutting down refined carbohydrates. The guidelines aim to address obesity, chronic disease, and overall health.

How Does The New Pyramid Reflect Dietary Trends?

The new food pyramid, unveiled by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., signals a major shift in U.S. nutrition advice, emphasizing more protein and healthy fats while reducing grains. This change mirrors growing trends in American diets, where high-protein eating patterns and skepticism of high-carb, ultra-processed foods are increasingly common, according to USA Today.

Practically, protein and dairy, especially full-fat dairy, now dominate the pyramid, replacing the previous grain-heavy base. Saturated fats are no longer demonized; instead, they are considered healthy in moderation. Federal nutrition leaders have officially ended the “war on fat.” These updates also reflect recent survey findings showing that high-protein diets are a top trend in the U.S., with most Americans actively trying to increase their protein intake.

In a world where colourful vitamin gummies line supermarket shelves and powders promise instant wellness, many people are left wondering: should I really rely on supplements, or is eating well enough? Experts say the answer isn’t as simple as choosing one over the other.

Why Natural Foods Come First

Dr. Hari Kishan Boorugu, Consultant Physician and Diabetologist at Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, emphasizes that “whole, natural foods should always come first.” Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, fish, yogurt, and healthy oils are packed with vitamins, minerals, fibre, antioxidants, and other plant compounds that work together to support digestion, immunity, heart health, and gut microbiome balance. “Supplements can’t fully replicate the synergy of nutrients found in real foods,” he adds.

Supplements, including tablets, capsules, powders, and even gummies—are meant to fill specific gaps. They are particularly useful for people with diagnosed deficiencies, dietary restrictions, pregnancy-related needs, ageing-related bone health, or medical conditions that affect nutrient absorption. But Dr. Boorugu cautions that “self-prescribing or overusing supplements can lead to nutrient imbalances or even toxicity, especially with vitamins A, D, E, and K.”

The Truth About Gummies

Gummies have become popular for their taste and convenience. Yet, experts warn that they are not a substitute for a balanced diet. “Many gummies contain added sugar and inconsistent doses of nutrients,” Dr. Boorugu explains. They can support your nutrition, but only when used responsibly and under medical guidance.

Supplements As Support, Not Shortcuts

Ruchika Rajbans, Founder & CEO of Arechar Group and creator of Vitagoli, says people often ask her, “Do I really need supplements? Isn’t eating well enough?” Her answer: ideally, yes—food should cover your nutritional needs—but real life often interferes. Stress, lack of sleep, overworking, and hormonal changes can affect how well your body absorbs nutrients.

“Supplements are gap fillers, not meal replacements,” Ruchika explains. “Whether in gummies, tablets, or powders, what matters is the quality of the ingredients and whether there’s evidence backing their benefits.” She adds that wellness isn’t about chasing trends or formats; it’s about understanding your body, reading labels carefully, and making informed choices.

Experts agree that balance is key. Prioritize a varied, nutrient-rich diet, maintain a healthy lifestyle, and use supplements only when necessary, preferably with medical guidance. Real nutrition starts on your plate—not in a capsule or gummy.