What Europe’s Food Safety Authority Says About Microplastics and Health Risks 

Why measuring exposure is far more complex than headlines suggest 

Over the past several years, a growing number of studies have reported the presence of microplastic and nanoplastic particles in foods and beverages. Some have suggested that plastic food packaging, including bottles,¹ infant feeding products,² and tea bags^3,4 may be a significant source of exposure. These findings have attracted widespread media attention and prompted consumer advice on how to reduce contact with plastics in everyday diets. 

Yet the science behind measuring microplastics in food is far less straightforward than many headlines imply. 

A recent comprehensive review by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),⁵ provides important context that has received little attention. The review concludes that while food-contact materials can release microplastics under certain conditions, the current evidence base is too limited and inconsistent to estimate human dietary exposure or assess health risks with confidence. 

This conclusion aligns with the FDA’s 2024 summary on microplastics and nanoplastics in foods, which states that although microplastics have been detected in certain foods, current scientific evidence does not demonstrate a risk to human health, and significant data gaps remain for exposure and toxicity.⁶ Similarly, BfR published a peer-reviewed assessment of the state of the evidence and concludes the available data are insufficient to establish causal links between microplastic exposure and human disease, while also emphasizing the need for improved analytical methods and risk assessment frameworks.⁷ 

Why This Matters for Policy and Public Understanding 

Food-contact materials play a crucial role in food safety, shelf life, and security. Claims that they are a major source of microplastic exposure carry significant implications for regulation, consumer confidence, and public health messaging. 

EFSA’s findings underscore a key point for policymakers and reporters. The presence of plastic particles in laboratory studies does not automatically translate into meaningful real-world exposure, and current methods are not yet reliable enough to determine whether there is a risk to human health. 

BfR further noted that the public perception of microplastics as an imminent health threat exceeds the strength of the available evidence. The authors also note that the variability in methods used, inconsistent particle characterization, and very limited human exposure data prevent any meaningful health conclusions. The FDA has a similar position and emphasizes the need for ongoing research while stating that current dietary exposure is not a demonstrated safety concern. 

What EFSA Reviewed 

EFSA conducted a systematic review of scientific studies published between 2015 and early 2025 that examined the release of microplastics and nanoplastics from food-contact materials during use. 

Out of more than 1,700 potentially relevant publications, fewer than 10 percent were judged to be of sufficient quality to include in the final analysis. In total, EFSA evaluated data from 101 food-contact materials across 81 studies. 

This alone highlights a central challenge. Much of the existing literature does not meet the standards needed to support regulatory conclusions. 

What the Evidence Shows 

Food packaging can release particles, but the data are limited

EFSA found that certain food-contact materials can release microplastic particles, particularly when subjected to mechanical stress, such as opening a bottle. Plastic bottles, food containers, cups, and tea bags dominate the available research. 

However, the evidence on how many particles are released, what sizes they are, and under what real-world conditions this occurs remains sparse and inconsistent. As a result, EFSA concluded that it is currently not possible to estimate dietary exposure to microplastics from food-contact materials.

FDA also notes that while microplastics have been detected in certain foods and beverages, current data are insufficient to determine how much people are actually exposed to in the real world or whether this exposure poses a health risk. 

Laboratory methods vary widely and limit comparability 

Studies use a wide range of experimental approaches, including heating packaging materials, adding food simulants, or directly analyzing food content. Test temperatures, storage times, and handling conditions differ substantially between studies. 

While these methods may help explore potential release mechanisms, they do not allow results to be reliably compared or generalized. The EFSA and BfR reports emphasize the lack of standardized, validated testing protocols is a major obstacle to drawing firm conclusions. 

Contamination remains a persistent concern 

A recurring issue across studies is the difficulty of distinguishing true release from background contamination. Microplastic particles, along with other particulate matter like dust, are ubiquitous in laboratory environments, food processing settings, and even ambient air.  

EFSA noted that many studies do not adequately control for contamination during sampling and analysis. In addition, materials used earlier in the food production chain are rarely examined, making it difficult to determine whether detected particles originate from packaging, manufacturing processes, or the broader environment.   

BfR also highlights these challenges, emphasizing that contamination control and standardized quality assurance and control procedures are prerequisites for a reliable exposure assessment. 

Analytical limits complicate interpretation 

Different analytical techniques measure different size ranges and properties of particles. Smaller particles are especially difficult to identify reliably, and interference from the sample itself can further complicate results. 

EFSA observed that many studies do not sufficiently address these limitations or remove non-plastic materials prior to analysis. As a result, confidence in reported particle counts and characteristics remains low. 

What About High-Profile Tea Bag Studies? 

EFSA’s conclusions are reinforced by a separate assessment from BfR, which examined studies reporting microplastic release from tea bags.⁸ 

The German assessment found that some commonly used laboratory methods can misidentify related by-products as microplastic particles. In many cases, particles detected after brewing were already present on the surface of the tea bag rather than newly released during use. BfR also assessed and concluded that the substances extracted from the tea bags do not pose a health risk in the very small amounts reported.  

Based on this analysis, the German authority concluded that it is unlikely that microplastics from tea bags pose a health risk under current conditions, while also noting that data remain insufficient for a full health assessment. 

What the Authorities Recommend Next 

EFSA identified several priority gaps that must be addressed before meaningful exposure or risk assessments can be conducted:  

• Standardized and validated test protocols, including reference materials, so studies are harmonized across laboratories 
• Reliable measurement of very small particles, including nanoparticles, to ensure scientists are measuring micro and nanoplastics and not contamination      
• Better characterization of particle size, composition, and quantity so that researchers actually know what material they are testing  
• Studies using real foods rather than only water or simulants – so real-world exposures can be measured 
• Data that place food-contact materials in context with other exposure pathways so that solutions can be targeted where needed 

FDA similarly emphasizes the need for improved analytical methods and more comprehensive exposure and toxicological data. BfR calls for harmonized methods and coordinated research efforts to better distinguish potential hazards from demonstrated risks.

EFSA recommends revisiting the state of the science in approximately five years, allowing time for improved methods and more robust data to emerge. 

The Bottom Line  

Studies reporting microplastics in food have captured public attention, but the underlying science remains uncertain. According to Europe’s food safety authority, current data do not allow regulators to estimate exposure from food packaging or assess related health risks.

This conclusion is consistent with the FDA and with the peer reviewed assessment conducted by BfR, both of which found that while microplastics are detectable in various environmental and food matrices, evidence linking current exposure levels to adverse human health outcomes remains insufficient. 

Careful interpretation is essential. Premature conclusions risk misleading consumers and policymakers alike. As with other emerging areas of science, progress will depend on standardized methods, transparent reporting, and replication across studies. 

For now, EFSA’s message is clear. The question is not whether microplastics can be measured in laboratory settings, but whether existing evidence is strong enough to inform policy decisions. At present, it is not. 

References and Media Quotes