Sensationalism Over Science? Fact-Checking NPR’s Microplastics Coverage

It’s easy in our hyperconnected world to fall victim to fearful speculation about health threats supposedly lurking around every corner. Driven by revenue-hungry newspapers trying to attract readers and social media platforms designed to keep us scrolling, tantalizing but exaggerated claims about the dangers we face hit the headlines and then proliferate across the internet—often for months – before experts can catch up and fact check reporters and influencers.

There may be no better illustration of this phenomenon than the media coverage about microplastics and bottled water. Consider this 2024 NPR story by James Doubek: “Researchers find a massive number of plastic particles in bottled water,” the headline bellowed. The article and others just like it were amplified by high-profile health activists with millions of followers. “This raises an important question,” one user tweeted to her 600,000-plus followers. “Might simply drinking tap water be a healthier choice?”

The problem with this well-meaning question and the reporting that prompted it is this: there is simply no evidence that exposure to microplastics from bottled water (or any other product packaged in plastic) pose any risk to the public. We can see this by taking a closer look at the research and NPR’s coverage of it.

Detection doesn’t equal danger

The essence of NPR’s story boils down to this paragraph:

“Microscopic pieces of plastic are everywhere. Now, they've been found in bottled water in concentrations 10 to 100 times more than previously estimated. Researchers from Columbia University and Rutgers University found roughly 240,000 detectable plastic fragments in a typical liter of bottled water.”

A number of important qualifications are in order. First, the study cited in the article does not provide evidence that microplastics or nanoplastics in bottled water are harmful to human health. In fact, the study made no claims whatsoever about the health effects of plastic exposure. Detecting the presence of these particles, while technologically impressive, does not equate to demonstrating a causal link to adverse health outcomes.

Moreover, the best available research indicates that “the scientific evidence provided by current data on adverse effects of NMP on human health is low, because of substantial limitations of the available information, “the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded in a meticulous 154-page study published in 2022. “Human exposure to NMP [nano- and microplastics] is ubiquitous and occurs by all routes [air, water and soil]. Information on exposure from air, drinking-water, food and beverages is limited. Data on the characteristics of NMP and their quantification in each of these media are necessary, with better understanding of their sources.”

A study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine two months after NPR’s story appeared examined the link between microplastics and heart health. The authors stressed that “our results do not prove causality.” While acknowledging a “possible” association between cardiovascular health and microplastics, researchers added that the potential harm they found might be entirely unrelated to plastics and due to “the health status and behaviors of the patients.” And more recently, a study in France showed higher levels of microplastic particles in beverages packaged in glass than in plastic containers.

In sum, NPR’s emphasis on the total number of particles found in just three brands of bottled water highlights a risk that may not even exist. Interestingly, the researchers reported in a subsequent analysis that their filtered municipal test water “seems to have the same level of plastic contamination compared with bottled water,” indicating that microplastics are not unique to bottled water.

The broader point is that many substances, including naturally occurring compounds, are present in essentially all food and water without adverse effects. To its credit, NPR recently made this very observation in response to unsubstantiated concerns about heavy metals in cookies. “There's a saying in toxicology: ‘The dosage makes the poison,’” the news outlet calmly explained in April. “And this dosage … is so low that it's not a concern.”

Instead of emphasizing the “massive number” of plastic particles in bottled water, NPR would greatly benefit its audience by consistently applying that essential lesson from toxicology to all its health reporting.

Real benefits vs hypothetical risks

Entirely missing from NPR’s story was any analysis (or even acknowledgement) of this critical fact: people have safely consumed bottled water for decades, and it remains a critical source of clean, potable water, not only for everyday use, but in many contexts, such as during travel, emergencies, or in areas with unreliable tap water.

The health benefits of hydration and access to clean water are well-documented and substantial, whereas the potential risks of microplastics remain hypothetical and unproven. For example, consumers who have easy access to bottled water drink far fewer calories from sugary beverages than they otherwise would—greatly reducing their risk for harmful weight gain, which could set them up for a litany of severe diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease.

A balanced discussion should weigh such tangible benefits against the speculative harm of microplastic exposure. The media have a responsibility to carefully consider how their coverage could affect public health before rushing to warn consumers against drinking bottled water.

Conclusion: inform, don’t alarm

The study’s inconclusive findings draw attention to the need for consensus on testing methods for detecting nano- and microparticles, along with the greater question of whether there are any health risks from ingesting these very small particles. Conversely, NPR’s speculative tone risks misinforming readers about the health implications of microplastics in bottled water. A more cautious and evidence-based approach would emphasize the need for further research into the toxicological significance of these particles while acknowledging the proven benefits of bottled water in ensuring hydration and safety.

We encourage NPR and other outlets to provide balanced reporting, and we stand ready to help them prioritize scientific rigor over sensationalism.