Check on Scare “Science”—Claims About the Human Health Dangers of Microplastics Are Collapsing

Since the rise of MAHA in US policy, journalists have been starting to question the findings of activist scientists, and instead of amplifying their campaigns and scary conclusions (as scandals and crises make better headlines), they are shining a spotlight on the nonsense being published, propagated and promoted on behalf of some undisclosed funders and special interests. In particular, in 2026, journalists are starting to wake up to the poor research, bad methodology and lack of integrity of scientists publishing their insignificant findings and questionable conclusions from “research” on microplastics and nanoplastics claimed to be present in humans and the environment.

The realization of bad science was slow to arrive. The Firebreak was one of the few sources to report last October about the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) literature review that concluded that almost all published microplastic and nanoplastic studies were littered with mistakes, poor methodologies and unjustifiable conclusions.

The Firebreak analysis of the EFSA report rejecting the validity of most micro/nanoplastic studies concluded with advice on what journalists should be covering each time (each week) another publication comes out making some ridiculous claim about the risks of our exposure to plastics.

I have been playing this game for far too long to imagine any mainstream media groups would forego the instant attraction of catastrophic/crisis reporting in favor of hard truths and scientific facts. Imagine my surprise when the first media group to find reporting integrity and report the reality of the anti-plastics tactics was The Guardian.