A recent article published by The Guardian has caused upheaval in the activism community after reporting that much of the science behind the health impacts of nanoplastics and microplastics is deeply flawed.
It’s a remarkable moment for The Guardian – which has received major financial support from the Rockefeller network and repeatedly published stories aimed at the U.S. energy industry – to tout “Exclusive” reporting about “Bombshell” pushback against existing microplastics research.
The article has prompted a heated back-and-forth among researchers and reveals fault lines within the campaign that could undermine a vast network of politically charged academic research and litigation aimed at U.S. energy and industrial companies.
Widespread Criticism of Multiple Studies
The Guardian pulls no punches in its criticism of existing microplastics studies and cites multiple researchers who warn faulty science would lead to problematic rules and regulations.
“High-profile studies reporting the presence of microplastics throughout the human body have been thrown into doubt by scientists who say the discoveries are probably the result of contamination and false positives. One chemist called the concerns ‘a bombshell.’”
“…The Guardian has identified seven studies that have been challenged by researchers publishing criticism in the respective journals, while a recent analysis listed 18 studies that it said had not considered that some human tissue can produce measurements easily confused with the signal given by common plastics. There is an increasing international focus on the need to control plastic pollution but faulty evidence on the level of microplastics in humans could lead to misguided regulations and policies, which is dangerous, researchers say.” (emphasis added)
Scientists quoted by The Guardian took aim at a high-profile study published by the journal Nature that was widely covered by media, including The Guardian, that claimed a rising trend of microplastics and nanoplastics in the brain. Within months, that study came under intense criticism.
“However, by November, the study had been challenged by a group of scientists with the publication of a ‘Matters arising’ letter in the journal. In the formal, diplomatic language of scientific publishing, the scientists said: ‘The study as reported appears to face methodological challenges, such as limited contamination controls and lack of validation steps, which may affect the reliability of the reported concentrations.’ One of the team behind the letter was blunt. ‘The brain microplastic paper is a joke,’ said Dr Dušan Materić, at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany.” (emphasis added)
The article goes on to cite numerous other studies where experts have expressed major doubts about quality and validity, with criticisms including an “analytical approach used is not robust enough to support these claims” and “fundamentally unreliable” research.
The doubts amount to a ‘bombshell’, according to Roger Kuhlman, a chemist formerly at the Dow Chemical Company. ‘This is really forcing us to re-evaluate everything we think we know about microplastics in the body. Which, it turns out, is really not very much. Many researchers are making extraordinary claims, but not providing even ordinary evidence.’” (emphasis added)
Kuhlman went even further on this LinkedIn page:
“The Guardian recently published a much-needed exposé of the flawed methods and procedures underlying many reports of microplastics in our bodies. It’s great news for careful scientists whose voices have been suffocated by faulty, sensationalist reports, and for all of us who care more about the functioning of our internal organs than siccing it to Big Plastic.”
Elsewhere, other experts have said many of the studies have not followed a best practice approach to research.
“While analytical chemistry has long-established guidelines on how to accurately analyse samples, these do not yet exist specifically for MNPs, said Dr Frederic Béen, at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: ‘But we still see quite a lot of papers where very standard good laboratory practices that should be followed have not necessarily been followed.’” (emphasis added)
Additional scientists have said the technology used in many studies simply doesn’t have the capabilities to produce accurate results, according to Dr. Cassandra Rauert, an environmental chemist at the University of Queensland in Australia.
“‘I do think it is a problem in the entire field,” Rauert told the Guardian. “I think a lot of the concentrations [of MNPs] that are being reported are completely unrealistic.’”
“‘This isn’t a dig at [other scientists],’ she added. ‘They use these techniques because we haven’t got anything better available to us. But a lot of studies that we’ve seen coming out use the technique without really fully understanding the data that it’s giving you.’ She said the failure to employ normal quality control checks was ‘a bit crazy.’”
Crossfire Among Researchers
The article prompted fierce backlash among many of the scientists who conducted the research in question and opponents of U.S. energy and industrial companies, with The Guardian – long a home for anti-industry coverage – published multiple rebuttals, including from Dr. Philip Landrigan, the Director of the Global Observatory on Planetary Health and a professor at Boston College. Landrigan called for additional research into microplastics while acknowledging “there is work to be done in refining, standardizing, and harmonizing the analytical techniques for examining microscopic particles in tissue samples.”
Likewise, the Washington Post published a lengthy article featuring multiple back-and-forth statements between researchers on the validity of existing research.
“Many scientists quickly responded, saying that there is no doubt that the tiny particles are entering human bodies. But Materic’s comments underscored how there are still questions about how much plastic is accumulating in human organs — largely due to critiques of one particular method of analysis.”
The Guardian article also prompted widespread coverage from additional outlets, including the New York Post, Fast Company, Vox, which wrote, “Settled science, right? Well, hold on a second,” and The Cool Down, which noted that “researchers fire back.”
Even the editorial board at The Guardian applied a slap on the wrist to the researchers deploying the flawed science.
“The risk is that in a febrile political atmosphere in which trust in science is being actively eroded on issues from climate change to vaccinations, even minor scientific conflicts can be used to sow further doubt. Given that there is immense public and media interest in plastic pollution, it is unfortunate that scientists working in this area did not show more caution.” (emphasis added)
Since the publication of The Guardian article, other researchers have come forward to warn about the underdeveloped science to measure microplastics. Imperial College London and the University of Queensland led a group of more than 30 scientists globally calling for “improved standards for how microplastics are detected” and noted that “recent claims regarding their ubiquitous presence in human samples may be less certain than they appear.”
Notably, this group was supported by the Minderoo Foundation, an Australian non-profit that’s played a key role anti-plastics campaign.
What’s the Impact?
The Guardian article is not only prompting debate among research, but has far-reaching impact on the role of nonprofits and litigation.
Landrigan, the Boston College professor, mentions in his rebuttal to The Guardian the launch last year of the “Countdown on Health and Plastics” in partnership with the medical journal The Lancet, that aims to “identify, track, and regularly report on a suite of geographically and temporally representative indicators that monitor progress toward reducing plastic exposures and mitigating plastics’ harms to human and planetary health.”
The Countdown is funded by the Minderoo Foundation in collaboration with Boston College and the University of Heidelberg and the Centre Scientifique de Monaco.
At the same time, the Minderoo Foundation, founded by Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest is the sponsor of the Intergenerational Environmental Justice Fund, which is currently financing a lawsuit against a major U.S. energy company over plastics recycling.
The Washington Free Beacon reported last year:
“Andrew Forrest, an Australian billionaire environmentalist, is quietly funding litigation in the United States targeting … an oil company whose ventures directly compete with his business.”
“The foreign agent registration filings show that the Intergenerational Environment Justice Fund—which was founded by Forrest and is tied to Forrest’s Australia-based social and environmental nonprofit, the Minderoo Foundation—is paying California-based law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy to pursue eco litigation.”
Yet, there has been limited transparency about these various relationships and funding streams as the Free Beacon notes, specifically around the actions of the Minderoo Foundation:
“While the complaint cited the Minderoo Foundation’s ‘plastics waste makers index,’ it failed to disclose that Forrest’s nonprofit is backing the litigation. Then, four weeks after filing the complaint, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy registered as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice.”
It means that the Minderoo Foundation is both funding scientific research at Boston College, while at the same time, involved in lawsuits against U.S. energy companies.
The Guardian article has surely opened the proverbial can of worms in the plastics ecosystem, with widely cited research now coming in for withering criticism while further exposing a web of academic and nonprofit funding against major industries.
