At a quick glance they break it down into carbon dioxide at about a 50% consumption rate. The rest is excreted as biomass and degraded fragments (which I gather means shorter polymer chains and oxidation). Sounds really good if it’s true.
I agree this is probably overall a good thing, but I worry if this bacteria thrives due to the amount of plastic around what that would mean for the amount of CO2 produced.
And how much of the plastic remains in the food chain when animals eat the worms? This likely isn’t the good news that it appears to be on the surface.
I know an old lady who swallowed a fly….
Mostly because it was found not to be effective in trials, or it had some side effect that made it a bad idea. See thalidomide for an example of what happens when you don't test properly.
While the ability to counteract styrofoam pollution is of course good, sadly this doesn't apply to other plastics in general. Some plastics are physically hard or chemically much harder to break than polystyrene (PP, PVC, ABS, anything that it fiber reinforced) .
So, while the worms are nice, one should not hope they can help with other plastics.
On the plus side, this does show that all the plastic we have put into the environment has been a niche energy source just waiting to be exploited.
Now think about all the plastic surface area in the oceans and stuff, I bet there are other things, bacteria and microfauna, which are actively adapting to consume it.