Microplastics databaseExplainerChecked 2026-10-01
Are microplastics bad for your health? What public agencies say, and the human studies
The views of WHO, EFSA, the FDA and others, and what heart and gut studies do and do not show
The answer
Public agencies say that at the levels found in food and water, no health risk has been shown. They also agree that the data needed for an assessment (amounts in food, amounts of very small particles, toxicity in humans) are lacking, and WHO writes that this does not mean it is safe.
The human studies are observational: people with more plastic in their bodies had more disease. Whether plastic is the cause is not known.
What public agencies say
| Agency, year | View |
|---|---|
| WHO, drinking water (2019) | “No firm conclusions can be drawn yet, but the data currently available show no obvious health concern.” Particles larger than 0.15 mm are expected to be poorly absorbed, and uptake of smaller particles is expected to be limited. WHO does not recommend routine testing and puts pathogen control first. |
| WHO, diet and inhalation (2022) | There are too few data to set a quantity for assessment, and too little evidence to judge health risk. “This does not mean it is ‘safe,’ as some have concluded.” |
| EFSA (2016) | A serving (225 g) of the most contaminated mussels holds about 900 particles, 7 μg. Even if all the additives in them leached out, the added intake of bisphenol A would be about 2%, and of PCBs less than 0.006%. Only particles under 0.15 mm can cross the gut, and absorption is 0.3% or less. There is no method yet to measure nanoplastics. |
| FAO (2017) | Using the same 7 μg estimate, less than 0.1% of the total intake of additives and similar substances, which is “negligible.” Fish eaten without the gut have low exposure; whole bivalves and small fish are different. |
| UK COT (2021) | A full assessment of the oral route “cannot yet” be made. There are no human epidemiological or dosing studies. More than about 90% leaves the body. |
| Government of Canada (2020) | No health concern has been identified, but there are not enough data for a solid assessment. Following the precautionary approach, it works to reduce release into the environment. |
| US FDA (2024) | “Current scientific evidence does not demonstrate that the levels of micro- and nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health.” |
| Germany’s BfR (2024, 2025) | Health risks from plastic particles in food are unlikely. It questions how the brain studies measured (the amounts measured are “implausibly high”). |
| FSANZ, Australia and New Zealand (2025) | An immediate health risk is unlikely. For fish it is likely negligible, and for shellfish very low. |
| EFSA (2025) | Materials that touch food release particles through abrasion and similar wear. Many studies tend to overestimate because of misidentification and contamination. At the request of the European Parliament it has started a health risk assessment, due to be completed at the end of 2027. |
| Food Safety Commission of Japan (2025) | It was raised as a candidate for FSCJ’s own assessment but set aside because “both WHO and European agencies say the information on content in food and toxicity in humans is insufficient.” Japan has set no specific regulation or standard. |
What human studies found (associations only; cause unknown)
- Heart and blood vessels: Among 257 people who had neck artery surgery, 20.0% of those whose plaque contained polyethylene had a heart attack, stroke or death in about 3 years, versus 7.5% of those whose plaque did not (4.53 times after adjusting for other factors; NEJM 2024). The authors state that this “does not prove causation” and that they cannot completely rule out contamination in the laboratory.
- In a study of 61 people, including heart attack patients, whose coronary artery blood was examined, the only factor independently linked to detection was smoking (2026).
- Gut: Stool from people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) held more than stool from healthy people (41.8 vs. 28.0 particles per gram, 2022). The authors themselves note that the disease may make particles stay in the gut longer, so which came first is unknown. A researcher at Kyoto University has published a comment (a rebuttal).
- Colorectal cancer: A comparison of 258 patients and 493 controls found more in the patients (2025). Because the study looks at people after they became ill, it cannot rule out the reverse direction (the disease causing the buildup).
- A 2026 review of 25 studies rates the risk of bias from confounding (other factors) and from how amounts were measured as moderate to high, and says there are limits to what it can say about cause.
Animal and cell experiments
- Inflammation, oxidative stress and other effects have been reported, but a review of 234 studies says results are inconsistent, and in many cases the effect does not grow stronger as the dose rises.
- Many experiments use spherical polystyrene at far higher concentrations than people take in, which makes them hard to apply directly to humans (the same review; the authors of the brain study make the same point).
- On the other hand, a 2026 paper argues that the same mechanisms hold at low concentrations too.
What about the chemicals in plastic?
- In EFSA’s 2016 estimate, even if all the additives in the microplastics (7 μg) from one serving of mussels leached out, the added bisphenol A intake would be about 2%.
- In 2023 EFSA cut the tolerable daily intake of bisphenol A sharply, from 4 μg to 0.2 ng per kg of body weight. We found no public assessment that compares this new value with amounts from microplastics (the 2016 estimate was based on the old value, so it cannot be compared directly).
- Assessments of raw materials and additives are collected on the pages for each type of plastic.
Where in the body have they been found?
Reports of findings in blood, placenta, breast milk, lungs, stool, arteries, brain, testes and more, and the criticism of the methods, are at → Where in the body have microplastics been found?
A 2025 review by researchers at Germany’s BfR says that particles have been found in organs, but a causal link between intake and health effects has not been shown, and the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about health effects.
Sources
- WHO, “Microplastics in drinking-water,” 2019
- WHO, “Dietary and inhalation exposure to nano- and microplastic particles and potential implications for human health,” 2022
- EFSA CONTAM Panel. EFSA J 2016;14(6):4501
- FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 615 (2017)
- EFSA 2025 literature review (EN-9733)
- US FDA, “Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Foods”
- BfR, “Microplastics in the brain,” 2025
- Health Canada / ECCC, “Science assessment of plastic pollution,” 2020
- FSANZ, “Microplastics in food”
- Food Safety Commission of Japan, Planning Expert Committee (Feb. 6, 2025), materials (Japanese)
- Marfella R, et al. N Engl J Med 2024;390:900-910
- Yan Z, et al. Environ Sci Technol 2022;56:414
- Xu, et al. 2025 (colorectal cancer)
- Paolisso P, et al. Eur Heart J 2026
- Chartres N, et al. Environ Sci Technol 2024
- Tran, et al. Environ Health 2026
- Vojnits K, et al. 2025 (review of animal and cell studies)
- Janzik R, et al. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2025 (BfR)
- EFSA CEP Panel. EFSA J 2023;21(4):e06857 (bisphenol A)
Last checked 2026-10-01. Research and regulations change over time. This page is a translation of our Japanese page; if they differ, the Japanese page is the reference.
This page lists facts from public agencies' documents, laws and peer-reviewed papers. Methods for measuring microplastics differ between studies, so numbers often cannot be compared directly. Public bodies such as WHO, FAO and EFSA do not currently recommend that individuals avoid any particular food because of microplastics.