Experts from the European Food Safety Authority say it's time to temper the alarm
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently threw cold water on the media's preoccupation with microplastics. In a 53-page report scrutinizing a broad cross-section of major studies examining the effects of microplastic exposure, the agency's experts laid bare a critical fact that news reports have all too rarely acknowledged; the "science" behind the fear is bad—very bad, in fact.
Published in October 2025, this comprehensive data analysis of over 120 studies—drawn from a pool of over 1,700 studies published on this topic from 2015 to early 2025—explains that although microplastic contact does occur through packaging and utensils, the current available evidence does not support dramatic claims of widespread peril. The review calls for measured discourse, highlighting methodological inadequacies and data gaps.
EFSA's key takeaway is that just about every study you’ve seen or heard about dramatically overestimates how much microplastic actually ends up in your food or drink. The main culprit is inadequate lab work: airborne dust, sample handling, and even fatty acids from food are routinely mistaken for microplastics. EFSA put it bluntly:
“Many publications are affected by methodological shortcomings … with the consequence of frequent misidentification and miscounting.”
In the real world, the actual particle release is much, much lower than many media headlines claim or imply. EFSA’s own words:
“... [D]espite the uncertainties, the actual release is much lower than the results presented in many publications.”
Their conclusion:
“In view of all this, there is no sufficient basis at this stage to estimate [micro- and nanoplastic] exposure from [food packaging] during their uses.”
Translation: We don’t have good enough data yet to know how much (if any) risk there actually is from your Tupperware, soda or water bottle, or takeaway coffee lid.
So, what should you do in light of this study? Remember that commercially available bottled water is tightly regulated by experts whose job is to ensure that our food supply is safe.
The good news is that some members of the media are recognizing that microplastic coverage went overboard, exaggerating the risk far beyond what any existing study could justify. As Bloomberg Opinion columnist FD Flam noted on December 11:
"In the end, there’s no ethical justification for selective hype by journals or for the lack of skepticism among journalists and researchers. We don’t need to exaggerate claims to generate concern over microplastics and their potential harm to us and other living things."
Flam also added a critical observation about the need for humility among journalists, who have an obligation to report the facts to their readers without hyperbole. Reducing plastic pollution is a goal worth pursuing, but misleading the public is never acceptable:
“None of us is in a position to judge which falsehoods might benefit people. We should stick to the truth as best we understand it, and still do what we can to fight the pollution of our environment by plastic.”
Microplastics are everywhere – in the soil, air and water, and we need better research to fully understand their potential impacts. But when it comes to the plastic that touches your food and drink, the best science to date says the problem has been wildly exaggerated.