SMALL PARTICLES, BIG CONCERNS

INFORMATION WHIPLASH

A topic as hotly debated as microplastics can quickly gain momentum due to a mix of many different interdependent factors. The scientific community sees a need for a lot of research, as the small particles play a role in a wide variety of contexts. These include human and animal health, environmental risks, and disposal and replacement. The media report on the topic due to its overall societal relevance and because coverage is consistently read. The tone and style vary, ranging from objective and measured, to cautionary to alarmed. Industrial actors play a role, too. Their advertising and packaging frequently emphasise the lack of microplastics. All of this shapes perception within the general public, as the topic is always present. Returning to the statistics presented in the BfRshort forGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment Consumer Monitor, awareness of the topic among survey participants has been consistently above 90 % over the past years. The public is paying attention and information is available, yet the scientifically backed contextualisation is often lacking.

SUDDEN CHANGE? 

There are several examples. Since 2022, a claim has been making the rounds that consumers unknowingly ingest around 5 grams of microplastics per week through their food, an amount roughly equivalent to a standard credit card. This gripping little soundbite spread like wildfire and continues to reappear in society’s collective perception. Though experts have long since debunked this statistic – the calculation is faulty and the amount is severely overestimated – the misperception remains. In 2024, a study was published that found microplastic particles in deposits in blood vessels that supply the brain with blood. Another study, published in 2025, reported detecting particles in the brains of deceased people, thus creating another controversial starting point for concern. But how meaningful is all of this?

CLOSER LOOK NECESSARY

In order to examine the current state of knowledge and research questions from multiple perspectives, the BfRshort forGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment formed the “Working Group on Microplastics” several years ago. This multidisciplinary team brings together experts from across the institute. The group leads internal discussions and also analyses other studies if they promise new findings or cause a public stir. “For instance, we look at the methodology and the data collection to see if they are appropriate and assess the plausibility of the conclusions,” explains Dr Holger Sieg, who heads the working group. However, the claims made in several headlines or abstracts which seemed like breakthroughs have failed to pass scientific scrutiny so far. Holger Sieg adds that “Nevertheless, we consider the increasing amount of research on this topic to be very important. Due to many uncertainties and complexities surrounding this topic, however, a closer look is essential in order to contextualise findings. This is particularly the case for science communication.”