Seems to be an opinion piece that doesn’t say much and uses many words to get there.

In the last half they described science using some concrete examples with microplastics:

But inevitably, the analytical researchers, mainly chemists, wrote horrified letters to journal editors. They contend, for example, that the methods being used can read ordinary bodily fats in a sample as plastics, potentially giving false readings; that there weren’t proper corrections for the amount of background plastic in the laboratory; and that more controls were needed.

The clinical teams have replied that there is a steep learning curve, and that this sort of work hasn’t been done in biological material before. Maybe some more controls would help, but more background plastics wouldn’t account for some things, such as that five-fold difference in heart attacks. And it isn’t at all clear whether any of these methodological shortcomings mean that there aren’t microplastics in humans, or that they aren’t having ill effects. They just raise uncertainties.

Eventually, the analytical experts will start working more closely with the clinical crowd, and they will all learn to measure microplastics robustly in human tissue and investigate possible impacts on health. That is, if the agencies that fund scientific research keep funding them.

And I think the rest of the argument is just that the longer it takes to get the uncertainties out of the science, the more opportunities there are for science deniers to manipulate the messaging and this process has happened multiple times (“from DDT to cigarette smoke, to ozone destroyers to greenhouse gases”).

All that seems accurate, but it fits in two paragraphs.