Comment: packaging sheds an estimated 1,000 tonnes of micro- and nanoplastics into the global food supply annually, yet regulatory frameworks were never designed to catch it.
For decades, food packaging has been treated as an inert shield separating what we eat and drink from contamination. That assumption is now beginning to fracture. Every day, food and drink packaging is steadily shedding microscopic plastic fragments onto our plates. Yet while regulators have built extensive systems to monitor chemical migration, they have largely overlooked this fundamental question: what happens when the packaging itself becomes part of what we consume?
New research has shown that packaging sheds around 1,000 tonnes of micro- and nanoplastics into the global food supply each year. The average person ingests around 130 milligrams of these particles each year, equivalent to hundreds of millions of individual particles, simply by eating and drinking from packaging.
These findings add to a growing body of evidence that dismantles a core assumption underpinning food safety regulation worldwide: plastic packaging is an inert barrier between food and its environment.
Packaging ages and degrades during ordinary use, and a measurable fraction of what comes off ends up in whatever we are about to eat or drink. Many of those particles are small enough to cross the intestinal barrier, and they carry with them the plasticisers, stabilisers and colourants that were never chemically bonded to the polymer in the first place.
Yet the frameworks that govern food packaging safety focus almost entirely on the migration of chemicals from packaging into food. They do not ask whether the packaging itself is breaking apart into the food. We have systems for one kind of migration. We do not have systems for the other.
How exposure happens
What makes this harder to dismiss is how predictable the exposure turns out to be. The particles are generated by specific, identifiable mechanisms: exposure to sunlight, particularly ultraviolet radiation, which can amplify particle release by one to two orders of magnitude; repeated mechanical stress at high-friction points like bottle caps and zip-lock closures; thermal stress from hot-filling or microwaving. This reveals a structural feature of how plastic packaging ages and degrades during ordinary use.
A small number of packaging formats drive most of the exposure. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles alone account for roughly a third of total packaging-related intake. Multilayer carton packaging, by contrast, contributes almost nothing. The differences reflect design choices, material properties, and the specific ways certain formats are handled, stored, and exposed to stress.
This matters because it means exposure is reducible without replacing all plastic packaging with glass or metal tomorrow. The levers are specific and largely within reach: protect packaging from UV exposure during transport and retail display; redesign high-abrasion contact points; test packaging under conditions that reflect how people actually use it, rather than idealised laboratory scenarios. Simple engineering decisions could meaningfully cut the number of particles entering our food supply.
The regulatory gap
But without regulation, industry won't act at scale. Food packaging safety frameworks were built to catch chemical migration. They were not designed to detect the packaging physically breaking apart into particles and entering the food supply. This currently falls through every regulatory gap we have. The shift requires policymakers to treat micro- and nanoplastic emissions as a real and assessable risk category, not a future concern to be addressed once the science is settled.
The precautionary principle exists precisely for situations like this one. Waiting for definitive proof of harm before acting is a choice to allow continued exposure while the evidence accumulates. We made that choice with tobacco. We made it with leaded paint. Have we not learned enough from those episodes to act earlier this time?
Food packaging is the last thing our food and drink touch before they enter the human body. Every design decision, every storage condition, every supply-chain choice that determines how packaging ages before it reaches a consumer is a decision about what enters that body. The encouraging reality is that the same system that created this exposure can also choose to reduce it.
Julien Boucher is Co-CEO and Head of Research & Science at EA Earth Action.
From Pack to Plate: A Global Assessment of Micro- and Nanoplastics Migrating from Food Packaging into Food was produced by EA Earth Action and provides the first global synthesis of packaging-related MNP emissions into food, analysing seven packaging formats representing approximately two-thirds of global food packaging volumes.
Get our weekly digest
resource.co article ai
How will the government and DMOs address the challenges of including glass in DRS while ensuring a level playing field across the UK?
There's no easy solution to include glass in the DRS while maintaining a level playing field. Potential approaches include a phased introduction of glass, potentially with higher deposits to reflect its logistical challenges. The government and DMOs could incentivise innovation in glass packaging design and subsidise dedicated return points for glass-handling. Exemptions for smaller businesses unable to handle glass might also be necessary. Any successful solution will likely blend several approaches. It must address the differing priorities of devolved administrations, balance environmental benefits with logistical and cost implications, and be supported by robust consumer education campaigns emphasizing the importance of glass recycling.