Science-Based Analysis Suggests Microplastic Hype Brews Faster Than Supportive Evidence

Science-Based Analysis Suggests Microplastic Hype Brews Faster Than Supportive Evidence

I recently reported that a woman was suing the makers of Ziploc bags for failure to warn about microplastic exposure.

I have covered the topic of microplastics before, as it looks like it might be revving up to be the next big environmental cause to target big business and corporate dollars.  For example, hard on the heels of the lawsuit comes a report linking microplastic exposure to coffee consumption.

Your coffee cups might be a factory of microplastics, and you are likely drinking a bunch of them. Grabbing a to-go cup of hot beverage while running errands or heading for office is oddly satisfying, but you may not know the damage those plastic cups can do.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. produces an approximate of 25 billion polystyrene cups every year, or about 82 cups per person, as per Medium. In Australia, 1.45 billion single-use coffee or hot beverage cups are thrown out annually.

In a new study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials: Plastics, researchers focused on the impact of heat on plastic cups, and the results were concerning. The finding revealed that heat causes microplastilcs to release, making consumers prone to drinking them.

Interestingly, The Guardian had published several stories about microplastics. Now the publication is sharing a detailed account of the challenges faced by studies that have reported microplastics collecting in tissues. The piece highlighted one of their own reports, which asserted that human brain tissue was being affected.

However, by November, the study had been challenged by a group of scientists with the publication of a “Matters arising” letter in the journal. In the formal, diplomatic language of scientific publishing, the scientists said: “The study as reported appears to face methodological challenges, such as limited contamination controls and lack of validation steps, which may affect the reliability of the reported concentrations.”

One of the team behind the letter was blunt. “The brain microplastic paper is a joke,” said Dr Dušan Materić, at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany. “Fat is known to make false-positives for polyethylene. The brain has [approximately] 60% fat.” Materić and his colleagues suggested rising obesity levels could be an alternative explanation for the trend reported in the study.

Materić said: “That paper is really bad, and it is very explainable why it is wrong.” He thinks there are serious doubts over “more than half of the very high impact papers” reporting microplastics in biological tissue.

.@Mutnodjmet Relevant to your LI article on microplastics and loony lawsuits, you might find this article interesting. https://t.co/NpotO2Ks8V

— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) January 21, 2026

Another article, published in Toxicological Sciences, criticizes a study that claims to find microplastics in dog and human testicles and links them to lower sperm counts and changes in organ weight.

The authors of the letter argue that the original study’s methods were insufficient to support such claims, mainly because there was insufficient information about how samples were collected, stored, and processed to rule out contamination. They note that important quality checks—like blanks, controls, and clear detection limits—were not reported, so it is impossible to know whether the reported microplastic levels are real or could be false positives. They also point out missing details on how tissues were digested and separated, and that the study did not visually confirm particle size and shape, which are important for understanding how particles might affect biology.
​
The authors further question the use and validation of the pyrolysis–GC/MS method for measuring microplastics in biological tissues in this context, noting that key performance characteristics, such as precision, detection limits, the use of internal standards, and handling of difficult polymers like PVC and PET, were not addressed.

Finally, the contributors to this piece argue that real science must be applied to the study of microplastics. They argue that only with robust, reproducible methods and larger, well‑designed studies can researchers truly determine whether microplastics accumulate in the brain and whether they affect human health.

Given the amount of fraud in science publication, and the pressure for academics to fund their laboratories using our tax dollars to “save the planet” and “protect the children”, it is heartening to see news publications beginning to share articles that challenge a newly emerging narrative.

Image by perplexity.ai

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.