News

EFSA to put microplastics under the food safety microscope

EFSA scientists will investigate the health risks of microplastics by 2027 – but what should food brands do in the meantime?

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) will investigate microplastics’ potential health risks. Microplastics – plastic particles smaller than 5 millimetres – have come under scrutiny in recent years, with public interest honing in on their role in causing adverse health effects. Following a request by the European Parliament, EFSA will provide a scientific opinion on the possible health implications of microplastics in food, water and air.

With EFSA stating that “major knowledge gaps remain”, a new scientific opinion is anticipated for the end of 2027. Designed to provide a deeper understanding of microplastics, the latest review will explore how the tiny particles enter and affect the human body, how they are transferred into food, and the methods used to assess their related risks. EFSA will also deliver updated dietary exposure estimates based on new data from the scientific literature.

Industry seeks scientific clarity

The risk of microplastic ingestion through food and beverages have been a research focus for scientists. Findings from 2024 show that consumers’ daily intake of microplastics through food and drink is estimated at anywhere between zero to 1.5 million microplastics.

In 2025, researchers carried out a comparative analysis of food types and quantification techniques to explore the industry’s exposure to microplastics in food. Published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, the scientists found that while research has recognised seafood as containing significant amounts of microplastics, other food groups are more contaminated. They found that meat, grains, and vegetables are sources of microplastics in our diet.

Salt products are also prevalent in terms of their microplastics content, with 94% of salt products tested by researchers found to contain plastic particles. Scientists also found that a single plastic teabag, brewed at 95°C, can release approximately 11.6 billion microplastics and 3.1 billion nanoplastics into a single cup.

Chewing gum is another significant source of microplastic contamination, with one 2025 study reporting that a single gram of gum can contain up to 637 microplastics, and 94% were released within the first eight minutes of chewing.

However, as reported in a recent Guardian investigation, scientists have cast doubt over the discovery of microplastics in the human body. With contamination and false positives both possible reasons for the growing concerns over microplastic detection, the potential health damage associated with microplastics and their chemicals has been brought into question.

Mitigating microplastics in manufacturing value chains

Efforts to eradicate microplastics have emerged and continue to govern manufacturing goals within the food and beverage industry.

“Microplastic contamination of food products can have multiple origins, which are not yet structurally assessed – especially in a complex food-chain, this is not easy to do,” a spokesperson for TNO, an applied sciences and technology company, told Ingredients Network, exploring how companies could begin to reduce microplastic migration in their products.

Examining businesses’ internal processes and those across the value chain is one approach companies could adopt.

“This would mean that every company has to look at their operations and assess the possibilities for microplastics contamination,” said TNO’s spokesperson.

Understanding the value chain to this extent would require manufacturers to explore how microplastics play a part in their external environment, such as water or other ingredients and their processes, including wear of plastic in machinery, equipment, plastic particles from cutting open bags, regardless of the packaging material or method.

Plastic-free packaging not the sole solution?

Rather than exploring plastic-free packaging options available to manufacturers, TNO suggested an alternative approach may be more effective. Instead, first apply the high-R strategies: refuse, rethink, and reduce. Next, build on the science and work to remove confusion and uncertainties.

“The difficulty is that not much is known about whether or how much packaging contributes to the microplastic contamination, and we don't know well enough how both the material and the process of packaging contribute to the possible microplastic contamination,” said TNO’s spokesperson.

Finally, it is important to understand how a plastic-free industry could impact the environment. “Moving away from plastic packaging could have huge negative implications for sustainability,” said TNO’s spokesperson.

Alternative sourcing options are not currently available to manufacturers if plastic contamination occurs before the packaging stage. “There is no structural microplastics monitoring, so it is hard to say if an alternative sourcing option of ingredients will help to reduce microplastics in products,” said the spokesperson.

The upcoming EFSA review, scheduled for release in 2027, will seek to bring clarity to microplastic understanding, including its presence in food and drinks, and its health impacts.