EU Food Science Authority Condemns Bad Microplastic Studies
EFSA shows how most microplastic studies were deficient, unreliable and corrupted
Not a day goes by where some study isn’t published on some micro or nanoplastic found in the environment, humans or animals. These plastics come from synthetic industrial products, are not supposed to be there and therefore, you should be afraid and angry. The studies are ritually amplified almost immediately by anti-plastics activist groups and media organizations.
Cottage industries have been built by NGOs, tort law firms and environmental service companies, all lining up to contract analytical laboratories to manufacture data on plastics and the chemicals they use. Dutifully published in obscure journals, each study claimed microplastic exposure from artificial turf, plastic bottles, food packaging, detergents or any other common products. They detected the presence but failed to demonstrate any known health risks from these exposures to inert substances.
Flipping through these studies, mostly published by lab technicians, I had to wonder how they were able to find such large amounts of micro and nanoplastics in common everyday products. Their hyperbole became hypnotic as claims of millions of microplastics and nanoplastics were being detected circulating in our bodies and crossing the blood-brain barrier. Two decades ago, the risk management world used to worry that one of the problems with nanotechnologies was that we could not measure particles in the environment at the nanoscale. Somewhere along the line, the technicians seemed to have been able to have solved that problem.
As remarkable as all of these studies are, it seems that the scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) were also wondering about the same thing.
Deficient, Unreliable and Corrupted
This week, EFSA published a literature review of studies on microplastics and nanoplastics migrating from food contact materials (FCM). From the 1711 documents published between 2015 and January, 2025, 122 were selected for review. Most studies concern microplastics, “while data on nanoplastics were almost entirely absent”.
The results of the review by the European Union’s food safety experts were candidly frank and critical. Almost all studies detecting microplastic and nanoplastic exposure were deficient, unreliable and corrupted; they overstated their findings and had weak methodologies.
Many publications are affected by methodological shortcomings in test conditions, in sample preparation, and by deficiencies in the reliability of analytical data, with the consequence of frequent misidentification and miscounting. ... In view of all this, there is no sufficient basis at this stage to estimate MNP exposure from FCM during their uses.
This is diplomatic science-speak for concluding that most studies claiming microplastic and nanoplastic exposures were baseless.
Flawed Analytical Methods
The EFSA literature review examined all of the analytical testing methods and equipment, concluding that none of them could be trusted to properly identify microplastics and nanoplastics.
Although being the preferred method, Raman (vibrational spectroscopy) analysis is challenging because MNP may contain or can be mixed with organic substances such as additives, oligomers, pigments or others. These may give Raman signals which interfere with polymer signals and can even be similar to them, giving rise to misidentification of particles. Consequently, the quality of measured Raman spectra may be compromised and decreased to levels where unambiguous identification is not possible.
44% of the studies found particles the researchers had been looking for. 11% of the studies claimed to have found polymers that were not in any of the food contact materials they were testing. “In the remaining studies, the detection and identification methods used did not allow a conclusion. Inconsistencies may result from contamination, inadequate identification methods, … or limited spectral resolution.”
This is quite a stunning observation by a normally balanced and sober scientific agency: the technologies you are using are compromised, your methods to identify microplastics are inadequate and in 56% of the studies, you could not even find what you were looking for. But then EFSA got even more damning.
Background Contamination
A large part of the failures in the findings was due to background contamination of the testing materials, other migrating materials or chemicals detected from the food itself. The EFSA literature review concludes:
Many publications are affected by methodological shortcomings and uncertainties. Reported findings are strongly influenced by weaknesses in test conditions, pitfalls in sample preparation and deficiencies in the reliability of analytical data with the difficulty of distinguishing release of MNP originating from FCM from other particle sources. These other sources include background contamination (during analysis, from the environment of the FCM or from the food itself) or substances that mimic MNP, such as lipophilic chemicals with low solubility in water (migrating during testing at elevated temperatures) and precipitating during cooling.
These failures are sometimes not discussed or acknowledged in the publications and are practically never identified by journalists and activists charged with amplifying the anti-plastic fear campaigns. The European Food Safety Authority scientists identified a series of poor lab practices allowing background sources and mimicking substances to enter into the test environment. That should be news.
Stop Wasting Our Time
How can so many studies fail and yet the public narrative is saturated with perceptions that our bodies and the environment are flooded with microplastics and nanoplastics? How many of these studies were contracted for the purpose of activist campaigns and lawsuits? Why is the media not reporting this?
The EFSA literature review concluded with six recommendations to address the research shortcomings and gaping data gaps.
It is recommended to fill the identified gaps on:
the lack of validated test protocols including polymer MNP standards and recovery tests using those standards;
the paucity of information (and suitable analytical methods and their combination) on the release of nanoparticles (<0.1 µm) and microparticles <1 µm;
the identification of the composition of any purported MNP, their size and their quantity (number-based and mass-based);
the contact between non-polar FCM plastics and non-polar fatty food/simulants;
the testing of real foods (other than water), considering possible mimicking substances;
the need to estimate dietary exposure to MNP from FCM and place into perspective with other exposure sources
In other words, there is a lot of work to do before any research on microplastic exposures from food contact materials could be considered reliable, significant and legitimate.
Perhaps the most interesting recommendation the European Union scientists made was Number 6: Researchers should put these miniscule microplastic exposures into perspective with exposures to other toxins. The risk from exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics from food contact materials is far lower than exposures to other mundane risks (including the food it is packaging). This again is diplomatic science-speak for telling the researchers and the activists campaigning against plastics to “Go out and get a life!”.
The Firebreak felt it important to publish a brief summary of this damning EFSA report. Although EFSA provided no information about microplastics that would make the public afraid or outraged (and thus would likely not be reported on by the mainstream media), it is still important to understand how these activists are trying to frame a false narrative.
What is the story that the media and the public should then be looking at?
There are a large number of studies making claims that microplastics and nanoplastics are in our food and bodies.
EFSA scientists concluded that most of these claims were not possible or were corrupted.
The media should consider how funding is determining how these studies are designed, conducted and published.
Perhaps the media should focus on the interest groups providing this funding and how they are willing to distort the findings to weave useless conclusions into their campaigns.
But this is just one example of activist abuse of the research community, politicizing science for the purpose of their campaigns, lobbying and lawsuits. EFSA and other EU agencies should do similar literature reviews on the weak, manufactured activist studies on PFAS, pesticides, e-cigarettes, ultra-processed foods, and most recently, Tylenol. This abusive activist behavior is destroying trust in science.