Jan 15, 2026
3 min read
A "Ever" Report of the Gordion asks some studies of studies, students found in poorly addressed, warning that weak scientists could stretched public "society of public" society.
Our bodies may not be full of microplastics after all - researchers say the study is 'nonsense' and a 'joke'
Living in plastic can be great after all - or at least not as dangerous as we think.
Widespread in the environment, microplastics are found in the clothes we wear, the cleaning products we use, the food we eat, the water we drink and even the air we breathe.
For years, scientists have warned that these pesky particles can quietly accumulate inside our bodies, posing a threat to human health.But a new report in the Guardian shakes up that narrative.
Several experts told the outlet that some of the alarming claims about microplastics may be exaggerated;one called the skepticism a "bombshell."
"This is really forcing us to re-evaluate everything we know about microplastics in the body, which, as it turns out, really isn't much," Roger Kuhlman, a former chemist at the Dow Chemical Company, told the Guardian.
"Many researchers make extraordinary claims but don't even provide the usual evidence," he added.
Small particles, big questions
One of the first results suggesting that microplastics may enter the human body came in 2018, when Austrian scientists analyzed stool samples from people in eight countries and found that every sample contained them.
Since then, they have been found in almost every organ and tissue, from the placenta to the kidneys, lungs, and liver.
But The Guardian says at least seven have been disputed by other scientists after widely cited studies.A separate review pointed to another 18 as a major problem: human tissue itself can produce plasticity-like signals, leading to false-positive results.
This includes a report that made headlines last year that claimed the average human brain could contain the equivalent weight of a plastic teaspoon in microplastics.
"The brain microplastic paper is a joke," German microplastics researcher Dušan Materić, who wrote a letter protesting the study, told The Guardian.
He added: "This article is really bad and it's very easy to explain why it's wrong. Fat is known to be a false positive for polyethylene." The brain is [approximately] 60% fat.
The study's lead author acknowledged the study's limitations, but said the science is still in its infancy.
"In general, we're in the early stages of trying to understand the potential effects of MNPs (micro- and nanoplastics) on human health, and there's no recipe book for how to do it," said University of New Mexico professor Matthew Campen.
Receivables under attack
Some researchers have also expressed doubt about studies reporting particularly high levels of micro- and nanoplastics in the human body.
"From what we know about actual exposure in everyday life, it's biologically unlikely that this mass of plastic would actually reach these organs," Cassandra Rowart, an environmental chemist who led a review of studies that missed a major source of false positives, told The Guardian.
One of the studies his comments have been questioned about is a landmark 2022 paper that reported for the first time the presence of microplastics in human blood.
Its author, Professor Marja Lamoree of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, rejected allegations that the findings may have been tainted, saying the review had "misinterpreted" the data.
"I'm sure we found microplastics," he told The Guardian.
Other experts say they have never seen the kind of microplastic that some studies have found in human bodies.
"When particulate materials enter a living organism, including the human body, they undergo biotransformation," Fazel Monikh, an expert on nanomaterials at the University of Padua in Italy, told the Telegraph.
"Even if one could reach a protected area like the whole cell brain and then successfully visualize the identified state, it would not be able to sustain the visualization shown in most of the reported data," he explained.
“For these reasons, most of the results presented and their explanations are not scientifically convincing to me and my fellow experts in the field,” Monique said.
The Guardian report makes it clear that plastic pollution is undeniably widespread, and the critics it cites have no one to blame.
However, his concern is that the rush to publish, sometimes by an inexperienced team, may lead to shortcuts and bypassed scientific scrutiny.
Improving the quality of these studies is essential as poor data can stimulate "scaremongering," Rauert said.
"We get a lot of people contacting us who are very concerned about the amount of plastic in their bodies," he said.
The concern is that microplastics can carry toxic chemicals that cause inflammation and damage to cells in the body.Research shows that over time, it can disrupt hormones, damage gut microbiomes, affect cognitive function, reduce fertility, and increase the risk of chronic disease.
“We want to be able to get the right data so that we can properly inform our health agencies, our governments, the general population and ensure that the correct regulations and policies are implemented,” said Rauert.
While the public waits for science to catch up, even some experts who criticize studies of microplastics in the body say there is no reason to ignore the potential risks.
"We have plastic — I hope it's safe," Materich said."I'll take care of myself, stay safe."
This includes avoiding drinking from plastic water bottles and preparing food in plastic containers - two practices that research shows are major sources of microplastics in our food.
