Context on Microplastics: What the Washington Post Left Out
A recent Washington Post column (“Should you drink bottled water or tap? The answer may surprise you,” Jan. 26) raised health and safety questions about microplastics as a factor to consider when choosing how you hydrate. While we appreciate public dialogue on water quality, the piece omits crucial context on the current state of scientific consensus.
The article quotes our organization as noting that microplastics are ubiquitous in food packaging—found in thousands of food and beverage products beyond bottled water. It also notes the lack of scientific consensus on the potential health impacts of micro- and nanoplastics, the fact there is no evidence for concluding water is a major route for oral intake of micro- and nanoplastics, and the dearth of certified testing methods.
However, the piece excluded other information we provided to its author, which provides specific details from regulatory agencies and scientists that support our position that there is not adequate evidence that these particles pose a risk to human health.
Consumers deserve the complete picture. Here is the context we shared with the Post that did not make it into the story:
The Science is Inconclusive. The column relies heavily on a “review” study that aggregated older research. As we noted to the Post, the authors of that very review acknowledged significant limitations, including few studies specifically on bottles, tiny sample sizes and inconsistent testing methods. The study of microplastics is an emerging field and, as of today, there is no certified testing method or scientific consensus on their potential health impacts.
Regulatory Bodies See No Current Health Risk. We pointed the Post to the clear positions of major food safety agencies:
FDA: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that 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."
EFSA: Similarly, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded in late 2025 that existing evidence of exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics from food contact materials including packaging, containers, processing machinery and kitchenware, is simply not strong enough to draw meaningful conclusions.
Media Skepticism is Growing. The scientific community is increasingly pushing back against alarmist interpretations of preliminary data. We highlighted recent coverage in The Guardian, which reported that many microplastic studies are now being viewed with skepticism by scientists due to potential contamination of samples and numerous studies did not consider that some human tissue can produce measurements easily confused with the signal given by common plastics. Additionally, a Bloomberg science columnist recently warned against overselling preliminary findings regarding microplastics.
In addition, the Post’s article recommended people avoid drinking bottled water that has been in a hot car, falsely claiming the heat can cause microplastic particles to multiply. The facts are: Single-serve bottled water products are packaged in PET plastic containers, which has been approved as safe for food and beverage contact by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and similar regulatory agencies throughout the world for more than 50 years. PET plastic does not contain ingredients capable of producing dangerous substances under conditions of normal use, including being subjected to hot cars and PET plastic is used in the containers for many other beverages, including soft drinks, juices, beer, wine and spirits.
Good hydration is critical for good health. Leaving out crucial context risks misleading consumers by suggesting a proven health risk where none has been established. This is a disservice to public health goals, especially at a time when obesity and diabetes rates are high; the consumption of bottled water in plastic containers should be encouraged, not discouraged.