Microplastics

Microplastics are defined as pieces of plastic broken into pieces ranging in size from 5 millimeters to less than 100 nanometers that pollute our oceans and threaten both marine and human life. Scientists have discovered microplastics in 114 aquatic species, and though considerable research is being conducted, the full extent to which microplastics are affecting fish is not yet known. Humans may be consuming small quantities of the microplastics that are found in the guts of fish, which could lead to adverse health effects as the plastics and chemicals that are bound to these pollutants make its way up the food chain and onto our plates.

The risks associated with microplastics has the potential to cause significant environmental, economic, and social damage if corporations are found to be responsible and if they are proven to cause harm to humans when ingested. It is essential that companies become aware of this issue to avoid facing allegations of liability and negligence.

Background

Microplastics make their way into the ocean from a large variety of sources. Annually, 5-14 million tons of plastic flow into the ocean from coastal areas and this material is broken down by heat, sunlight, wind, and the waves to create microplastics that aquatic life ingest, mistaking it for food. Furthermore, microbeads, miniscule pieces of manufactured polyethylene plastic that are often found in health and beauty products serving as an exfoliant, easily penetrate water filtration systems and end up in the world’s natural water resources. Microbeads first started being used in personal care products in the 1970s, meaning that these harmful pollutants have been building up in the ocean for almost 50 years.. The effects of microplastics have only begun to be questioned recently and therefore research on the subject has only started in the past decade. In 2015 President Obama signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act, which banned plastic microbeads in personal hygiene and beauty products in an effort to combat this growing crisis. Microbeads, though problematic, only encompass a small part of the problem. Microplastics can be made from a variety of sources and are usually result of the breakdown of the plastic that is already littered throughout the ocean.

Though policy has been put in place to mitigate the potential for damage that microbeads pose, the best way to prevent further harm to marine life is to resolve the issue at its source: single use plastics. This threat cannot be solved by individuals or companies on their own-- the problem is systematic, and the only way to reduce the harmful impacts is to change the way plastics are used in everyday products and packaging.

Injuries and Damages

Though scientists have yet to discover direct evidence of the short or long-term effects on human health, there are many indications that microplastics cause adverse health effects from observing aquatic life. Studies show that microplastics block digestive tracts and alter feeding behavior in birds and marine life. Liver damage and inflammation has been observed in fish due to microplastics as well as in earthworms, illuminating the fact that these pollutants are present almost everywhere, from the oceans to the soil on land. In April 2019, French researchers claimed to have found 11,400 pieces of microplastic per square meter per month present in the air of the Pyrenees mountains. This is especially troubling because it proves that microplastics can travel through the air, putting more people and animals at risk of encountering harmful bacteria and chemicals. Studies examining human cells have also suggested that exposure can be linked to numerous medical issues such as cancer, heart attacks, and respiratory health concerns.

Furthermore, growing scientific evidence has linked microplastics to the passage of the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) through the environment, which are toxic chemicals that were banned in the 1970s. During the manufacturing process, a combination of chemicals are added to microplastics that allow the plastic to absorb toxic contaminants from the environment, which is now ending up in humans’ food and water supplies. Though DDT and PCBs are now banned in the United States, much of the population is still clearly exposed to these chemicals through our water, seafood, and even the air we breathe.

Though research into this topic is still in development and a full assessment of the risks for humans has not yet reached a conclusion, these chemicals and plastics pose a risk to human health and should be taken seriously. The United National Environmental Program acknowledged in a 2019 report that additives in plastics can possibly lead to lung inflammation, carcinogenicity, and gene mutation in humans. Furthermore, the damage that microplastics do to our environment is irreversible and contributes to global warming and climate change.

Legislation and Regulation

President Obama signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 on December 18, 2015, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the manufacture and sale of rinse-off cosmetics containing intentionally-added plastic microbeads. In 2014, Illinois was the first state to take action and ban personal care products containing microplastic, and has continued to inspire legislation around the country. In 2018, the California legislature committed to reducing plastic pollution and waste by requiring restaurants to offer straws only upon request, increasing funding for recycling centers and offering incentives for those who recycle. Additionally, SB 1335 prohibits non-recyclable and non-compostable takeout food packaging on state land, and SB 1422 established that all drinking water must be checked for microplastic contamination. The California State Water Resources Control Board is on track to become the first agency in the world to define “microplastics in drinking water.” Before July of 2021, the state board must adopt a standard methodology for testing drinking water, adopt testing requirements, issue a notification level to guide consumers, and accredit laboratories in California to analyze for microplastics. These requirements will make California water suppliers the first in the nation to test of microplastics in drinking water. After several states implemented laws of this nature individually and to varying degrees, congress decided that the best action to take was to federally ban these microplastics to save our food and water supplies from further contamination.

The California State Water Resources Control Board became the first agency in the world to define “microplastics in drinking water” in 2020. This set in motion the journey towards developing a standard methodology for testing drinking water and adopting standard testing requirements.

Several new acts have been introduced in 2025 to combat the rise of microplastics. Congress introduced the Microplastics Safety Act in July 2025 to require the FDA to study the health impacts of microplastics for the first time. Specifically, the act focuses on the impact on children’s health, cancer, and reproductive health and there is requirement for the studies to suggest actionable routes for how to address the risks from microplastic exposure. Additionally, the Plastic Health Research Act was initiated as an amendment to the Public Health Service Act, and focused on providing grants to conduct more plastic health research and microplastic exposure research. The bill also looked to create more research centers focused around this research, with hopes that this will help policymakers make more informed and sound decisions.

Globally, however, microplastic pollution remains an overlooked problem and one that is not taken as seriously as other environmental issues.

Liability and Insurance

Businesses that manufacture plastic products, or products that may contain microplastics are at risk for liabilities. Individuals can claim bodily injuries or diseases were caused by plastic exposure or microplastic ingestion. This can be commonly covered by Company General Liability, but more specific options exist based on the industry of the manufacturer. Most large insurance companies offer environmental insurance options, though there are few options specifically for those who are adversely affected by microplastics, as there still is not enough research on how they impact human safety. Most environmental insurance is focused on natural disasters and their increasing frequency and severity. However, many environmental issues are encompassed within these policies—environmental insurance provides coverage for risks connected to contamination. Because environmental liability can be so broad, more specific coverage plans for incidents relating to microplastics should be developed and implemented.

Litigation

Several recent lawsuits have emerged over companies marketing bottled water as “100% natural” despite microplastics being present. In a recent case, Bruno v. BlueTriton Brands, Inc, the court ruled that Arrowhead was not in violation of the law when it labeled its water as “100% Natural Spring Water” because the FDA does not prohibit the presence of microplastics in water. Additionally, insurance companies have been warned about the rising class action lawsuits regarding baby bottles companies failing to mislabel or mislead individuals on microplastics being present in their packaging. Greenwashing litigation, especially regarding microplastics, has also been on the rise as consumer and regulatory pressure on companies to address climate change grows.

Center for Biological Diversity, Surfrider Foundation, Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii V. US Environmental Protection Agency

A group of environmental organizations, spearheaded by the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency for breaking the Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs are focused on Hawaii, claiming that the agency incorrectly approved the state of Hawaii’s list of impaired waters. The groups claim that Hawaii left a number of waters off of the impaired waters list, though microplastics pollute many of Hawaii’s coastal water bodies. The exclusion of the waters from the list allows Hawaii to avoid developing a plan to control the pollution. In response to the suit, the Trump administration ordered Hawaii to examine the impact of plastic pollution on its waters, beaches, and wildlife.

Nestle

In April 2018, Nestle was accused of intentionally and recklessly concealing facts about the quality and purity of its Pure Life bottled water. The plaintiff argued that Nestle’s deceptive marketing intentionally misled customers and misrepresented the geographic origins and quality of its water. However, the case was thrown out by the courts because the District Court ruled that the FDA had primary jurisdiction. The plaintiff is planning to file an amended complaint to the FDA.

Though this specific case did not find Nestle liable, lawsuits about microplastic’s presence in our food and water will almost certainly surface again. There is clearly the potential for companies and possibly even individuals to be liable for this type of situation—insurance companies should be aware of this risk.

Future Outlook

The effects of microplastics and related chemicals are still being studied and may not be entirely understood for a while. Insurance coverage relating to microplastics specifically has yet to be fully developed, but the potential is there-- existing environmental coverage has set up a helpful framework to eventually protect companies that may find microplastics in their products. However, concern about these pollutants continues to grow and implicate insurers.