Are Microplastics a Hoax?

You have been misinformed about Microplastics

Microplastics are not a hoax, but the problem is not nearly as serious as you have been led to believe, and much of the information you know about them is false.

Traditional news outlets have lied about microplastics. I know it’s hard to believe!

New science is making the picture clearer.

It’s time to have a look at the REAL facts.

What Are Microplastics?

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles measuring less than five millimeters across—about the size of a sesame seed or smaller.

They originate in two ways: primary microplastics are intentionally manufactured small (like microbeads in cosmetics), while secondary microplastics form when larger items like plastic bags, bottles, or synthetic clothing break apart over time due to sun exposure and weathering.

Because plastics do not biodegrade, these microscopic fragments persist indefinitely, but the particles do get smaller and smaller over time. They have contaminated our oceans, soils, and drinking water, and can easily enter the food chain. Science shows they are now found everywhere, from deep-sea environments to human tissues.

When you go to the store and buy a healthy green salad, it normally comes in a clear plastic clamshell container or a soft plastic bag. Both of these plastics shed microplastic particles onto your salad before you even get it home. When you eat the salad, you consume them and they accumulate in your body.

The False Narrative From Traditional News

An important study was released in 2021 called Estimation of the mass of microplastics ingested – A pivotal first step towards human health risk assessment.

It concluded that “humans may ingest 0.1–5 g of microplastics weekly through various exposure pathways”.

That range of 0.1 to 5 g is a huge range. One reason it is so large is that we did not have very good data to arrive at these numbers. So it makes sense for scientists to give a large range. They are in effect saying, we don’t know the number, but our best guess is a range of 0.1–5 g. There is nothing wrong with that - it’s good science.

Traditional news and online creators saw an opportunity for a sensational news article. They latched on to the “5g” value and ignored the fact that it was a wide range. Why be honest with the public?

It turns out that 5 g is about the weight of a credit card. So they came with headlines like this:

• World Economic Forum: “You eat a credit card’s worth of plastic a week, research says”

• CTV News: “You consume ‘a credit card a week’ of tiny plastic: study”

• WWF International: “Plastic ingestion by humans could equate to eating a credit card a week”

Let’s think about this. A credit card a week is 52 a year, or 520 over the last 10 years. Does this seem realistic? Can you imagine the amount of plastic from that many credit cards floating around your body?

Such headlines are not only misleading but also scare people for no good reason except to get clicks. They are also unfair to researchers. No researcher ever said, You eat a credit card’s worth of plastic a week. They were honest and gave their best guess using a range of values.

No wonder people have stopped trusting science. Science is routinely misquoted by the news.

Read The Fine Print

The 2021 study mentioned above also had this to say: “Despite the breadth of scientific literature currently available on microplastics, uniform methods for collection, characterization and analysis have not been employed. The lack of agreement on standardized approaches amongst the scientific community has resulted in an acute shortage of readily comparable data”.

Translation: The data we have is suspect. Even scientists can’t agree on how to measure microplastics.

This fine print never made it to the news articles!

I am not criticizing the science. In the early days of a scientific investigation, it is normal to have different researchers trying things and comparing notes. It is part of the scientific process that the general public does not understand. This is a good thing.

But it points to the fact that microplastic science is still in its infancy. We need to be careful how we use the information.

New Data on Eating Credit Cards

A follow-up study looking at the methodology used to calculate the 0.1 - 5 g range found that even the 0.1g minimum was overestimated. This new study suggests that “a human eats a credit card's worth of microplastics every 23 thousand years”.

But …… even newer science suggests that even this number is an exaggeration of reality. Let’s have a look.

The Case Of Glove Contamination

A study released in 2026 shows that the nitrile and latex gloves used by scientists produce their own particles. These stearate salts can’t be differentiated from microplastics by most of the spectroscopy instruments used for testing. That means the current reported data for microplastic particles is much higher than it should be.

The gloves scientists use to prevent contamination are, in fact, contaminating the results and can cause overestimations of microplastics by 2000 false positives per mm².

It appears that this is only a problem when measuring smaller microplastic particles.

What does this mean? Some 72% of the reported data for microplastics prior to 2026 are not correct and overestimate the number of particles.

Microplastics in Blood

It is important to understand microplastics in the environment, but ultimately, what we really need to know is what happens to them in our bodies and in particular, in our blood.

Numerous studies of microplastics in blood, feces, urine, semen, placenta, arterial tissue, arterial plaque, thrombi, gallstone, tumors, bone marrow, testes and vitreous humor have been carried out using a technique called pyrolysis–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (Py-GC-MS).

A recent 2025 study looked at the accuracy of this method to see if the previously reported values for the quantity of microplastics are valid.

The study authors noted that even for environmental monitoring, Py-GC-MS is in its infancy, and the technique is not fully understood. The method is an indirect analysis technique with numerous interfering compounds. It concluded that for blood, in particular, it is not an appropriate technique.

Conclusion: the most commonly used technique for measuring microplastics in human tissues, namely Py-GC-MS, DOES NOT WORK!

Do You Have Microplastics On the Brain?

In 2025, Nature Medicine published a study that reported our braqins contain 4917 ug/g microplastics. They also reported high levels in the liver, the kidneys, and placentas. All of these measurements used the Py-GC-MS method.

The scientists who evaluated the Py-GC-MS method, as well as other scientists, have pointed out that the method is flawed. The technique used can’t distinguish between microplastics and fat in tissues. The reported numbers are probably due to fat in the brain.

Bottom line: science does not know how many microplastic particles are in the brain.

Our Current Knowledge of Microplastics

Microplastics are real. Plastic products do break down into small particles over time, and we can find them in the environment, including the air, water, soil, and in our bodies.

We don’t yet know how big a problem this is. We also don’t know the number of such particles, but the number is certainly much smaller than any news reports you’ve seen.

Microplastics seem to be able to travel from soil into plants, but this information may need to be reevaluated given the above recent studies.

Microplastic science is still very new, and the reality is that we don’t know how harmful they are or even if they accumulate in our bodies. There is currently almost no evidence that they harm our health.

We do know that plastic does give off several chemicals that are of concern. These include bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates and PFAS (forever chemicals). There is clear evidence that these can potentially cause problems in our bodies. It is best to decrease your exposure to them.

BPA can also leach out of paper. For a discussion about the dangers of composting paper, see: Is it Safe to Compost Paper and Cardboard?

How to Protect Against Plastics

The internet is full of terrifying claims about microplastics, BPA, phthalates, and PFAS (”forever chemicals”). While you cannot eliminate them, science shows that a few simple, practical changes can drastically reduce your exposure.

Key Takeaways

• Heat is the enemy: Never heat plastic.

• Ditch the nonstick: Avoid PFAS-coated cookware.

• Dust regularly: Plastics accumulate in house dust.

In the Kitchen

The single biggest source of exposure comes from what we eat and drink.

• Stop Microwaving Plastic: Even if a container says “microwave-safe,” heating plastic releases microplastic particles and leaches chemicals like BPA into your food. Always transfer food to glass or ceramic before heating.

• Ditch Nonstick Cookware: Scratched or overheated PTFE (Teflon) pans shed PFAS directly into your meals. Switch to stainless steel or cast iron.

• Skip Bottled Water: Plastic bottles are a major source of microplastics. Drink filtered tap water from a stainless steel or glass bottle instead.

Around the House

Chemicals like phthalates are heavily used in artificial fragrances and consumer products. Look for “fragrance-free” personal care items to avoid them. Finally, since broken-down plastic fibers settle into indoor air, wet-dusting and using a vacuum with a HEPA filter will keep you from breathing them in.

Science is Great!

While you read this post, you might be thinking that it is a good example of why we should stop believing in science, but the exact opposite is true.

One of the greatest things about science is that it is self-correcting. In the early days of understanding a new topic, science does make mistakes. It is part of the process. It uses the best information and tools that it has. Experiments are done, and results are published.

Then other scientists replicate the work or try the experiments differently. They either confirm the initial results or cast doubt on them. This process continues until most scientists agree on a subject. We then believe the results until someone upsets our understanding with some new study.

That may seem like chaos, but it is an organized way of ensuring we reach the right answer.

The study of microplastics is in its infancy. We are just starting along the journey to understand them. Stay tuned; more surprises are on their way. We just don’t know when or what they will be. And Reality Time will be here ready to report on the discoveries - so make sure you subscribe.