Earlier this year, a frightening claim wiped the headlines and social media: “You have a spoon of plastic in your brain.”
The warning, based on a study published in Nature Medicine, caused a cultural firestorm, dominating news cycles, taps and dining table discussions. It was the kind of sense that was designed to become viral, and it did.
But this is what did not go viral: the follow-up.
A researcher from the CNRS inspects pieces of microplastic collected from the river Rhone in Arles, South France on 10 April 2025. (Christophe Simon/AFP via Getty images)
Experts later marked the study for a critical error: to quantify microplastics in samples, the study trusted the study with limitations in distinguishing plastics from other materials, which led to potential false positives.
Why do large museums change climate change instead of celebrating the spirit of America?
An independent expert noted: “The method is praised to detect its ability to detect smaller micro and nanoplastics than other methods, but it gives you many false positives if you do not remove sufficient organic material from the sample.
The nuance did not make it to the headlines.
This emphasizes a broader problem: there are no worldwide standardized methods for the collection, detection and quantification of microplastics. Some microplastic studies cannot identify whether the particle is a mineral, an organic material or something else, but still incorrectly identify and claim that they are microplastics.
And without standardized methods for identifying and quantifying the different types of particles, it is difficult to generate reliable data and to assess their actual impact.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states: “Although there are many studies into microplastics in food, the current state of science is limited in its ability to inform the risk assessment of the regulations … Due to various factors, including a constant lack of standardized definitions, reference material, a couple of or preparing procedures and preparation procedures and preparation procedure and preparation procedure and preparation procedure and preparation process”
The oil reserves of Alaska are the national security shield of America
Nevertheless, recent coverage has prioritized as a drama over scientific nuance, causing confusion instead of clarity.
Let’s be clear: microplastics are real. Daily life, from tire fabric to synthetic fibers, produces these particles. They are in the environment and possibly our body. But only presence is not a crisis.
The real question is what this means for human health and how to respond responsible. The FDA has made it clear that “current scientific evidence does not show that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics that are detected in foods pose a risk to human health.”
When we deal with preliminary investigation as a fixed science – or worse, viral clickbait – we lose the ability to make smart decisions. This applies in particular in the case of materials such as PET, the plastic used in food packaging, bottles of water and medical supplies. PET is one of the safest, rigorously tested plastics, approved worldwide by supervisors, including the FDA and EFSA.
Why is this wrong information dangerous? Because trust undermines safe and sustainable materials such as PET, which is both lightweight and recyclable.
Marijuana is not harmless. The opposite is true and the evidence continues to grow
According to Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), a PET bottle produces considerably lower emissions of greenhouse gas (BKG) than alternative containers such as glass bottles or aluminum cans, and requires less energy to produce. It makes safe hydration possible, reduces food waste and makes modern health care possible.
Yet consumers are asking more and more cap, not because science changed, but because the headlines did. That decoupling has real consequences.
This is precisely why it is so important for our regulatory authorities to conduct and tackle the lack of standardization in microplastic research and to develop methods and standards that make consistent and similar results possible in research. Only then will we be able to have a more disciplined public conversation around microplastics that we can be sure is based on reliable evidence, and that the confusion stops comparing apples with oranges.
Click here for more the opinion of Fox News
This is not all to reject the wider challenge of plastic pollution. Our industry – and society – must invest in better systems: smarter product design, stronger recycling infrastructure and more rigorous scientific research. But meaningful progress starts with clarity, no confusion.
The public deserves facts. Not just newspaper heads.
Click here to get the Fox News app
