July 18, 2024

You may have read media reports about minute plastic particles — microplastics — swimming around in water bottles. Some of these reports raise alarming questions on the impact of small plastic particles on our health. But do we know enough to jump to these conclusions? What should shape our perceptions and approach?
Part of our perception is driven by advances in laboratory instruments and technologies that make it possible to detect extremely small particles at minute amounts, which was not possible just a few years ago. These new techniques have advanced to the point where they are able to detect parts per quadrillion and even higher resolutions of extremely minute amounts of chemicals in the environment and products.
A good analogy is the NASA Webb space telescope, which is identifying new galaxies that were entirely undetected by earlier instruments such as the Hubble telescope. Similar advances in instrumentation have led to reports that tiny, invisible particles float in bottled water products, with the implication that these particles are somehow “new” and, thus, a potential health hazard.
Wait for the evidence.
Unfortunately, communications around these ever-improving sophisticated detection technologies are seldom accompanied with caveats about how the presence of a potential contaminant does not necessarily equal risk. Sometimes media reports lead to a social amplification of perceived hazard and risk before any evidence is in.
A rigorous risk framework encompasses four elements: Findings of hazard (i.e., is it harmful?), dose-response analysis (how much we need to ingest before an effect is observed), exposure assessment, and a final summary risk characterization step. Such a risk framework is appropriate for looking at microplastics in bottles and addressing any potential concerns that may emerge before firm conclusions can be drawn about detection and possible effects.
Alarmist reporting gets ahead of the facts.
Experts from many disciplines — toxicologists, exposure experts, risk assessors, and others — will need to be tapped to advance environmental health on this question. More study is needed to avoid a whipsaw of alarmist reports that jump from one potential hazard to another, often based on detection alone with little other evidence. Exposure and toxicology work would be required to explore and complete a risk analysis of microplastics — shedding light on the issue instead of spreading uninformed rumors of damage.
The Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences Food Packaging Safety and Sustainability Committee funds research on promoting packaging sustainability, including safe recycled plastics. The committee embraces reliable, risk-based approaches to potential hazards. Without the use of a risk framework, haphazard alarms will continue to sound as detection technologies advance, often creating unwarranted consumer concerns.
Robust risk assessment needed.
Detection is important in guiding early enquiry about possible hazards but, by itself, should not lead to alarmist reporting. A robust risk assessment will provide more reliable answers on any potential health effects than any preliminary, detection-based reports.
We know that plastic containers do, indeed, contain some microplastics. Beyond that, this is a story that is just beginning to be told. We should treat it as such until more definitive findings of health impacts viewed through a measured risk lens emerge.
About the Author
You May Also Like