58 pointsby ehwa377 hours ago11 comments
  • nstents8 minutes ago
    It will be interesting to see how much carbon dioxide is also created through this process.
  • spockz6 hours ago
    Maybe the only thing more worrisome than microplastics everywhere is unstoppable plastics eating organisms everywhere, eating through all plastics everywhere.
    • ch4s35 hours ago
      Usually these bioengineered yeasts need pretty specific growth conditions in order to eat in this case ethylene glycol, not raw finished plastic. In this case they say "plastic-derived substrates" which means they're pre-processing the waste plastic.
      • cortesoft4 hours ago
        Good thing microorganisms are famous for their slow rate of change in dynamic environments…
        • ch4s33 hours ago
          I'm not sure what this adds. The yeast here is chomping ethylene glycol for carbon, and tons of soil bacteria can already do that. And I should add that highly specialized industrial/lab yeasts have existed for a long time and aren't prevalent in the environment, they just don't like to grow outside of narrow(ish) conditions. Highly prevalent wild yeasts tend to eat a variety of sugars, not glycol.
          • 3 hours ago
            undefined
      • tantalor2 hours ago
        Of course, the lysine contingency.
      • shevy-java30 minutes ago
        > bioengineered yeasts need pretty specific growth conditions

        In a natural environment this will not hold. Organisms are unstable; they change all the time, simpler ones even more so. Mutants with a faster growth rate will, up to a certain maximum, take over from slower growing or growth-deficient mutants. There isn't really a compelling growth advantage for plastic-degrading organisms, which is one reason why plastic stays so long in the environment.

        All pre-processing steps further add to the cost, so we will year after year hear about it - and then wonder why nothing happens and plastics keep compounding in the ocean. And this is not new either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Chakrabarty

    • yubblegum11 minutes ago
      Flashback to The Andromeda Strain.
    • ryanisnan5 hours ago
      Reminds me of the Taumoeba escaping the Xenonite enclosures.
      • phoronixrlyan hour ago
        Yeah, that was for plot reasons...
    • fc417fc8024 hours ago
      Perhaps soon you'll be needing to apply stains or sealants to your outdoor plastic items. Maybe even purchase treated plastic products that we worry leach toxic chemicals into their surroundings.
    • 4 hours ago
      undefined
    • masklinn4 hours ago
      Timescale is the important bit. If organisms degrade plastics in a few hundred years then what plastics are uniquely valuable for will be quite fine indeed.
    • simmerup4 hours ago
      Why is that worrisome? Might give the fish a chance whose bellies are filling up with plastic rubbish
      • serf4 hours ago
        for all the reasons in the book/movie/television show 'The Andromeda Strain'.
    • piloto_ciego5 hours ago
      There’s a fantastically silly but fun book about this the name of which eludes me.
      • stevekemp4 hours ago
        Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters, a 1971 British sci-fi environmental disaster novel written by medical scientist Kit Pedler and television screenwriter Gerry Davis.

        No wikipedia page, but goodreads has it here:

        https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/99852816-mutant-59

        • piloto_ciego4 hours ago
          That wasn’t it; I just found it, it’s called Ill Wind by Kevin J Anderson
      • mocheeze5 hours ago
        Not plastic, but 'Cats Cradle' by Kurt Vonnegut has something kind of like that.
    • righthand4 hours ago
      Such as in The Andromeda Strain?
    • weaksauce4 hours ago
      there was a time in history before fungus came along and ate trees so there were just a huge amount of trees around that couldn't decay. (which is why we have coal actually) this could be something akin to that.
      • patwolfan hour ago
        I've heard that the prevailing theory now is that it wasn't the lack of fungus that made coal. Instead, the earth was covered in tropical wetlands, and trees couldn't decay in the anoxic water.
  • mbil5 hours ago
    If you don't eat your biomass compound goo, you can't have any PlastiYum bacterial sludge
  • autoexec2 hours ago
    > The researchers took PET plastic, discarded corn plant stalks and leaves, and other biomass and put it through a proprietary process called oxidative hydrothermal dissolution. Created by SIU Carbondale Geology Professor Ken Anderson, this method uses water and oxygen at high temperatures and pressures to break down tough material into microbe-accessible pieces. Then, those pieces are fed to the programmed yeasts, which transform them into a variety of new food ingredients, including proteins, fats and acids. Finally, the researchers add fiber, starch and sweetener to the mix and extrude it through a 3D printer, forming protein-rich cookies dubbed µBites (pronounced "microbites"). [https://phys.org/news/2026-08-yeasts-pet-plastic-crop-protei...]

    It kind of sounds like they made food out of corn plant stalks and leaves and "other biomass", added fiber, starch, and sweetener, but then just polluted the product with processed waste plastic as an additive. If this really is just using trash as a filler in actual food that's pretty dystopian. I'm sure companies would happily line up to sell their industrial waste products to food companies as an additive, but I'm not seeing the appeal in this for consumers.

    • Sha1rholder8 minutes ago
      Vegetables grown in shit, garbage, and pesticides are fine as long as the levels of harmful residues are low enough by the time they reach people's mouths. Not appealing, but also not that "dystopian"
  • waschl6 hours ago
    Is there any of this ”bacteria converting plastic to fuel/food/neutral stuff“ actually applied anywhere at scale under economically reasonably conditions?
  • shevy-java33 minutes ago
    This keeps on re-emerging every year.

    The primary issue that has consistently been a problem, is the cost.

  • ninalanyon6 hours ago
    There was a Doomwatch episode on his subject with airliners falling out of the sky bcause all the plastic had been eaten away.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomwatch#Series_One

  • thisisauserid5 hours ago
    In 2011 researchers identified a fungus named pestalotiopsis microspora. It gained widespread attention because it can digest polyurethane plastic and survive entirely in anaerobic conditions, making it a prime candidate for deployment at the bottom of landfills.

    I for one look forward to serving this underground deity.

  • metalman3 hours ago
    soilent goo, again!

    you, yes you, area "biomass compound", well maybe not quite yet, but soon, as these things go, but most definitly every last putrid smelly horrible thing is a "biomass compound", and when you add in plastic we are talking about most of the stuff found in millions of dumpsters, and most of the stuff actualy in dumps, or sewers.

    This then solves the whole issue of what is allowed to go in which can or bin, which is anything you cant get money for or find someone who will hall it away for free.

    I am very very sure that volunteers will soon show up wishing to "return to the great nutrient cycle"

    but there is nothing to worry about as I am positive that everything will be tested and cynicly proven to be safe for human consumption

  • hkt5 hours ago
    Honestly at this point I think the way to go may be to stop using plastics where they're not absolutely required, and to subsequently burn what goes into landfill while producing electricity and reclaiming heat. Better that than this.
    • fc417fc8024 hours ago
      Burn it? With all the talk of carbon capture? Recall that plastic literally consists of a mass of hydrocarbons. Why not bury it?
      • axus3 hours ago
        I think the legitimate answer was groundwater contamination, but that should be solved for other things we bury. I'm on board for non-biodegradable plastic trash sequestration
      • hktan hour ago
        I'd argue that if we are burning plastics we get to dodge microplastics, and we get a second use of hydrocarbons. Burn enough plastic, maybe we can displace some gas. Optimistic, I realise.
    • Loughla3 hours ago
      How do you define 'not absolutely required'?
      • hktan hour ago
        Easy cases might be single use plastics outside of a medical environment and anything where there isn't a substitute with adequate properties (I'd ignore economics here and let the market solve)

        Ultimately a tricky thing to define though, no argument.

        • BigTTYGothGFa minute ago
          > let the market solve

          That's how we got here in the first place.

  • itsrobreally5 hours ago
    And here I thought we were going to be fed insects when we hit final-stage capitalism
    • Jaauthor5 hours ago
      you are ... plastic insects.