Clickbait Isn’t Science

In recent years, scientific research has increasingly found itself competing with click-driven headlines. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the public conversation around microplastics, where alarmist claims often travel faster than the evidence behind them. Too often, PET (polyethylene terephthalate, easily recognized by the #1 inside the triangle) bottles are swept into these narratives, not because of what the science shows, but because nuance is lost along the way.

NAPCOR supports rigorous, peer-reviewed research into microplastics and microparticles. Understanding their presence in the environment and any potential impact on human health is a legitimate and important scientific endeavor. But rigor matters. And at present, much of the research driving today’s most alarming headlines falls short of that standard.

Microplastics vs. Microparticles: A Crucial Distinction

One of the most persistent problems in today’s discourse is the lack of clear definitions. The terms microplastics and microparticles are often used interchangeably, although they are not the same.

Though there is no universally accepted definition, microplastics are generally referred to as plastic particles smaller than five millimeters that originate from specific polymer-based materials. Microparticles, by contrast, are a much broader category that encompasses particles of many different compositions, including natural materials, minerals, food additives, soot, and biological matter. Humans encounter microparticles every day through air, food, and water.

Many studies cited in headline-grabbing stories do not reliably distinguish between these categories. In some cases, analytical methods cannot differentiate plastic polymers from naturally occurring particles, fats, or post-collection contamination. When those distinctions blur, so do their conclusions.

When Headlines Outpace the Evidence

The current state of microplastics research raises more questions than it answers. Many commonly cited studies lack appropriate experimental controls and fail to identify the true sources of contamination. Compounding the issue, there are no standardized analytical methods for detecting and quantifying microplastics, which makes it impossible to compare findings across studies or place individual results in the proper context.

The result is a media ecosystem where preliminary or flawed findings are amplified into definitive claims. Each new headline escalates public anxiety without advancing scientific understanding. That is not how science is supposed to work.

A recent Bloomberg column underscored this exact problem, using the now-infamous “plastic spoon in your brain” headline as a case study of how extraordinary claims can spread faster than the evidence supporting them. As the columnist notes, subsequent scientific critiques revealed that the study’s techniques could not reliably distinguish plastic from naturally occurring biological materials, raising serious questions about the original conclusions. Yet the corrective analysis received a fraction of the attention. The result: bad science finds a home within the public domain.

What the Science Actually Tells Us About PET

Lost in many of these headlines is a crucial distinction: not all plastics are the same. PET is widely used in food, beverage, and healthcare applications due to its proven safety, durability, and recyclability. Any material used in contact with food or beverages must meet strict purity standards set by regulators such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority.

Despite alarming headlines, the FDA has stated that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that microplastics from plastic food packaging migrate into foods and beverages at levels that pose a risk to human health. These facts rarely make it into viral news cycles.

At the same time, PET is one of the most successful examples of circularity in action. It is designed to be recycled and remade, supports robust domestic recycling infrastructure, and plays a critical role in delivering safe, affordable access to food and water.

Moving from Fear to Solutions

If we are serious about addressing microplastics, we need to move beyond fear-driven narratives and toward evidence-based solutions. That means investing in waste collection and recycling systems, advancing standardized scientific methods, and holding all research to appropriately high standards.

The PET packaging industry is committed to being part of that solution. We support better science, better systems, and better outcomes for communities and the environment. What we cannot support is a cycle of sensationalism that undermines trust in science itself.

Read the Bloomberg column here and click here for an overview of microplastics.