There is a lot of misinformation about microplastics spreading online, creating confusion about the safety of plastic packaging. As research continues to develop in this field, it’s more important than ever for people to conduct their own due diligence and seek information from credible, scientifically-sound sources.

Below, IBWA addresses some common questions we’ve heard from consumers and provides evidence-based answers to help you separate fact from fiction.

What are microplastics and nanoplastics?

• According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “microplastics are very small pieces of plastic that are typically considered less than 5 millimeters in size in at least one dimension. Microplastics can be manufactured to be that size, such as resin pellets used for plastic production, or degraded to that size from larger plastics discarded into the environment. Nanoplastics are even smaller, typically considered to be less than 1 micron, in size. For reference, the diameter of a human hair is about 70 microns.” Both microplastics and nanoplastics have been detected in various environmental settings, including oceans, freshwater systems, air, soil, and even food and beverages. We are exposed to micro- and nanoplastics every day through air, food, and absorption through the skin from the use of personal care products. Research on their potential impact on human health and ecosystems is ongoing and evolving.

Should I be concerned about microplastics in bottled water?

• Bottled water is just one of thousands of food and beverage products (including soft drinks and juices) that are packaged in plastic containers. While many studies on micro- and nanoparticles have used water samples (tap and bottled), it is important to understand that researchers use water because it is the least complex testing medium. Conclusions that drinking water is a major route for oral intake of micro- and nanoplastics are not justified based on the current science available.

What are the dangers of ingesting micro- and nanoplastics?

• The potential health effects of ingesting micro- and nanoplastics are still unproven and unknown. The FDA says “it is not aware of scientific evidence that would support consumers being concerned about the potential level of microplastic or nanoplastic contamination in food, including bottled water.” FDA is the government agency responsible for setting rules and guidelines regarding appropriate packaging material composition, properties, and uses for food contact. Packaging materials that meet FDA standards are considered FDA-compliant and safe for use as a packaging material that comes into contact with food. FDA has determined that containers used by the bottled water industry are safe for use with food and beverage products—including bottled water—and they do not pose a health risk to consumers. FDA’s safety criteria require extensive toxicity testing for any substance that may be ingested at more than negligible levels. That means the FDA has affirmatively determined that, when plastics are used as intended in food-contact applications, the nature and amounts of substances that may migrate, if any, are safe.

Why are news articles citing scientific studies that say there is a threat to human health?

• Independent scientist Chris DeArmitt, PhD, FRSC FIMMM, cautions people to remember that when they hear the word “linked,” that does not mean causation, giving the example of how both ice cream sales and shark attacks increase in summer months, but those two things have nothing to do with each other. Read more here.
• There is scientific consensus that no credible evidence exists that shows the ingestion of microplastic causes health threats. As noted in the research “On the Creation of Risk: Framing of Microplastics Risks in Science and Media,” “Most scientific studies (67%) frame microplastics risks as hypothetical or uncertain, while 24% present them as established. In contrast, most media articles reporting on microplastic impacts (93%) imply that risks of microplastics exist and harmful consequences are highly probable.”
• FDA’s webpage on microplastics states there are currently no certified testing methods and no scientific consensus on the potential health impacts of micro- and nanoplastics. Because there is no scientific consensus on the potential health impacts of nano- and microplastic particles, media reports about these particles in drinking water (and food) do nothing more than unnecessarily scare consumers.
• FDA further notes: “Several studies have found microplastics and nanoplastics in both tap and bottled water; however, at this time, the scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics in water pose a risk to human health. Read more here.

Do people really eat a credit card’s worth of plastic every week?

• Scientists looked into the study claiming that people consumed a credit card’s worth of plastic each week, and they discovered a significant math error. The correct timeframe is not one week but rather every 23,000 years—a very big difference. A 2022 article published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters, “Ingested microplastics: Do humans eat one credit card per week?,” explains the calculation’s “severe errors” and notes that “great care must be taken when combining microplastic data of different measurements.”

After reviewing available studies, the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that no adverse health effects could be drawn from dietary exposure to micro- and nanoplastic particles less than 10 microns due to minimal scientific research. WHO’s recommendation is for more research to be conducted, as well as establishing standardized methods for measuring and quantifying nano and microplastics.

Like the WHO and FDA, the agency that regulates bottled water as a food product, IBWA strongly supports more research being conducted on microplastics and nanoplastics before any conclusions about their potential impact to human health or the environment can be made.