Washington Post Starts 2026 With Microplastic Misinformation
As 2026 gets underway, it's disheartening to see major news outlets like the Washington Post repeating the same mistake: prioritizing sensationalism over science in pursuit of clicks.
In a January 4 piece purporting to explain recent scientific research on microplastic and nanoplastic particles, reporter Shannon Osaka obscures key facts and promotes a fear-based narrative. The piece falls far short of the Post's standards for balanced journalism and contains critical errors.
Most alarmingly, Osaka relegated a significant finding about microplastics in food and drinks to the end of her story. Late last year, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), roughly the equivalent of America's Food and Drug Administration (FDA), released an extensive review of the research on microplastics. To her credit, Osaka included a quote from the American Chemistry Council that said EFSA concluded "most of the studies on microplastics in food so far didn’t meet minimum quality standards." But the expert agency said much more about the issue than that—including highlighting the finding that there is no increase of microplastics from opening and closing PET plastic bottles:
"The mechanical stressing of PET bottles by squeezing/crushing treatment had no influence on the particle numbers in the bottled waters, indicating that PET is tough enough and elastic enough to withstand such treatment. It seems that even if particles are generated by abrasion during closing/opening, the majority either fall outside of the bottle or are retained at the cap- neck interface and do not transfer to the water."
EFSA also noted that the release of microplastics from food packaging "is much lower than the results presented in many publications." In other words, existing studies likely overstate consumer exposure to microplastics from food packaging, including bottled water.
These are essential findings from the EFSA report. They suggest the popular understanding of microplastics, fueled by speculative and sensational coverage, exaggerates and misrepresents what scientists actually know about these particles. In fact, EFSA says there is still a great amount of work to be done, and that "there is no sufficient basis at this stage to estimate [micro- and nanoplastic] exposure from [food contact materials] during their uses."
Exaggeration: a common theme
Osaka's reporting follows a concerning pattern in which scientific studies are distorted into clickbait, with preliminary results brushed aside in favor of alarming conjectures not supported by the available evidence. Osaka claims, for example, that "The world produced 450 million tons of plastics in 2025, and that number is only expected to climb. If all of those plastics eventually turn into tiny microplastics, the planet will be facing one of the most prolific forms of pollution ever...".
Once again, there's much more to the story. According to one recent estimate, plastics account for less than 0.5% of total waste. Instead of making unsupported and unrealistic claims about what might happen to all the plastic produced last year, perhaps Osaka should have reported what scientists actually know about what happens to the plastic the world currently uses: in 2019, 49.2% of all global plastic waste was landfilled, 22.5% was mismanaged (inadequately disposed of), 19% was incinerated, and 9.3% was recycled, according to Our World in Data.
If journalists are truly interested in addressing health and sustainability concerns, they should focus on the full range of materials that work their way through waste systems and their consequences. Zeroing in on a tiny fraction of that totality misses the forest for the trees. By fixating on plastics, the media distracts from broader waste management challenges that require our collective attention.
At Bottled Water Facts, our mission is to promote journalistic accountability and ensure that consumers receive accurate, reliable information. The public deserves media coverage that reflects the evidence rather than ideological agendas or the need to boost engagement in the attention economy.
As we’ve noted before, when responding to similar coverage from the Washington Post, sensationalism serves no one, especially when it comes to the safety and sustainability of products that millions rely on for healthy hydration. It’s time for the media to stop scaring for clicks and start presenting the full, nuanced picture of the science around this important public health topic.