CNET's Confused Bottled Water Commentary Misleads Readers
Earlier this month, CNET ran a perplexing article called “Accidentally Eating Plastic? 8 Common Foods That Are More Likely to Contain Microplastics." Despite its veneer of caution and expert-guided recommendations, the piece undermines its credibility through unreliable sourcing, inexplicable contradictions and conclusions that ignore the latest research on bottled water safety. It's yet another example of the media putting its desire to produce sensational content ahead of its commitment to factual reporting, spooking the public with hypothetical concerns instead of informing them with sound science. Readers deserve a clearer, evidence-based perspective.
Experts without expertise
The article’s primary expert, Dr. Joseph Mercola, is not a reliable authority on this topic, or any other public health question for that matter. Mercola has been repeatedly criticized by the scientific community and regulatory agencies for promoting unproven health claims and selling supplements tied to those claims. The FDA has issued multiple warning letters to his companies for unlawful marketing.
"FDA is advising consumers not to ... use certain products that ... are being misleadingly represented as safe and/or effective," the agency wrote to Mercola in a 2021 letter threatening to seize his website inventory. Relying on Mercola to interpret microplastics research badly undermines CNET's claim of “expert-vetted” wellness advice.
Contradictions everywhere
More troubling than its dubious sourcing, the CNET piece contradicts its own thesis in multiple places. The author correctly notes the FDA's conclusion that “current evidence doesn’t suggest that the levels of microplastics in food are a risk to us.” Yet the headline and tone imply imminent risk, urging readers to overhaul their diets to avoid bottled water and other foods containing trace particles.
That advice is further convoluted by another of CNET's qualifications. “A balanced diet of protein, fruit and vegetables will ensure your body has enough fuel to function and thrive—microplastics or not.” This closing admission reveals the core truth: the presence of microplastics at detected levels simply does not pose a risk to public health, as the FDA has made clear.
Bottled water research ignored
The article’s treatment of bottled water is particularly misleading. It cites a single study while ignoring more comprehensive and recent research. In October, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a 53-page risk assessment concluding that bottled water is not a significant source of microplastic exposure for consumers. EFSA’s analysis of 139 studies found that particle release from PET plastic bottles is minimal under normal conditions and falls well within safe drinking-water limits. According to the EFSA, the majority of plastic particles "either fall outside of the bottle or are retained at the cap neck interface and do not transfer to the water (p 26)."
Furthermore, bottled water in the United States must meet strict FDA standards of identity and quality, which include rigorous testing for contaminants. FDA-regulated bottled water already complies with safety standards, some of which are more stringent than most municipal tap water systems meet.
Let's follow the science
Microplastics are an environmental and health question deserving serious study, but the levels currently detected in food and water do not warrant the suggestive framing CNET employs. Responsible journalism should explain the existing evidence without exaggerating hypothetical risks or relying on discredited sources.
The takeaway is clear: regulatory bodies on both sides of the Atlantic agree that current exposure levels pose no meaningful health risk. Articles that suggest otherwise, even unintentionally, do a disservice to public understanding. CNET’s piece contains partial truths wrapped in a narrative that prioritizes clicks over clarity. Consumers deserve reporting that reflects the full expert consensus, not selective scare tactics.