Plastics Inside the Prostate:
Microplastics found in 90% of prostate cancer tumors, study reveals | ScienceDaily
What the Latest Research Tells Us About Microplastics and Prostate Cancer
A growing body of evidence links tiny plastic particles found inside human tumors to potential cancer risk — but scientists urge caution about overstating a still-early finding.
Two independent research teams — one at NYU Langone Health (February 2026) and one at Peking University (September 2024) — have detected microplastics inside prostate tumors at concentrations roughly 1.5 to 2.5 times higher than in adjacent noncancerous prostate tissue. Laboratory research from the Peking University group also shows that polystyrene microplastics can directly stimulate human prostate cancer cells to multiply. These are striking findings, but both research teams urge the same caution: the studies are small, no one has yet proven that microplastics cause prostate cancer, and much larger studies are underway. For patients today, the most prudent response is modest behavioral changes to reduce unnecessary plastic exposure while science continues its work.
Introduction: A Plastic Planet — and a Plastic-Filled Body
Since the mid-20th century, global plastic production has grown from near zero to more than 400 million metric tons per year — and it is expected to double again by 2040. Much of that plastic eventually breaks down into microscopic fragments, called microplastics (particles smaller than 5 millimeters) and nanoplastics (particles smaller than 1 micrometer). These fragments are now found literally everywhere: in Antarctic snow, in clouds above Mount Fuji, in the deepest ocean trenches, in tap water and bottled water, in the air inside our homes, and in our food.
Scientists have confirmed that microplastics enter the human body through what we eat, what we drink, and the air we breathe, and they have been detected in blood, breast milk, the placenta, the lungs, the liver, the kidneys, the brain, and arterial plaque. Until recently, however, almost no one had looked specifically inside prostate tumors. Two new studies — one just presented at a major cancer conference — have now done exactly that, and the results are generating significant scientific and public health interest.
Study 1 — NYU Langone Health (February 2026): The First Western Assessment
Presented on February 26, 2026 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO) Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, a pilot study led by Dr. Stacy Loeb of NYU Langone Health's Perlmutter Cancer Center examined prostate tissue from 10 men who had undergone radical prostatectomy. Using two highly sensitive analytical techniques — pyrolysis–gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS) and Raman microscopy — the research team analyzed both tumor tissue and benign tissue from the opposite side of the same prostate in each patient.
Their findings were striking:
- 90% of tumor samples contained detectable microplastics.
- 70% of benign tissue samples also contained microplastics — suggesting widespread systemic exposure.
- Cancerous tissue contained, on average, 2.5 times more plastic than noncancerous tissue (approximately 40 micrograms per gram of tumor tissue vs. 16 micrograms per gram of healthy tissue).
- The most commonly detected plastic types were nylon-6 and polystyrene (above Py-GC/MS detection limits) and polyethylene and polyethylene copolymers (above Raman microscopy detection limits).
To guard against laboratory contamination — a significant methodological challenge in microplastics research, since plastic is used in most lab equipment — the team replaced standard plastic instruments with alternatives made of aluminum, cotton, and other nonplastic materials, and conducted all testing in controlled clean rooms. Because tumor and benign tissue from the same patient underwent identical handling, the higher plastic burden found in tumor tissue cannot easily be explained away as a lab artifact.
The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, and follow-on DoD-funded research is already underway with 30 patients — triple the original sample — adding measurements of tissue inflammation to see whether plastic burden and inflammation track together, a key mechanistic question.
Study 2 — Peking University / National Urological Cancer Center (September 2024): Independent Corroboration
Several months before the NYU study was presented, researchers at Peking University First Hospital's National Urological Cancer Center published a peer-reviewed study in the journal eBioMedicine (a Lancet journal) that arrived at remarkably similar conclusions using different methods and a different patient population.
The Peking University team analyzed paired tumor and para-tumor (adjacent noncancerous) tissue from 20 Chinese prostate cancer patients using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), laser direct infrared (LDIR) imaging spectroscopy, and pyrolysis–GC/MS. They detected at least four plastic polymer types: polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polystyrene (PS). Mean microplastic concentration was 181 micrograms/gram in para-tumor tissue and 290 micrograms/gram in tumor tissue — again, higher in the cancer. Notably, polystyrene, polyethylene, and PVC levels were all significantly elevated in tumor tissue; polypropylene was not. The study also found a positive correlation between polystyrene concentrations in tumor tissue and the patient's frequency of eating take-out food — a suggestive but preliminary dietary link.
Study 3 — Peking University Laboratory Research (October 2025): A Possible Mechanism
The same Peking University group published a complementary laboratory study in October 2025 in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety that took the next scientific step: asking not just whether microplastics are present in prostate tumors, but whether they can actively drive prostate cancer growth.
The researchers exposed the well-studied LNCaP human prostate cancer cell line — and primary prostate cancer cells taken directly from patients — to varying doses of 1-micrometer polystyrene microplastic beads. They found that even very low doses (0.1 micrograms/mL, similar to concentrations that might be encountered biologically) promoted cancer cell proliferation after 48 hours of exposure. The mechanism appeared to involve suppression of a natural cancer-cell-killing process called ferroptosis, mediated through a protein called GPX4, alongside increases in inflammatory markers and oxidative stress. This is the first study to propose a specific molecular pathway through which polystyrene microplastics might fuel prostate cancer progression.
Ferroptosis is a form of programmed cell death driven by iron-dependent oxidative damage to the cell membrane. It is considered a natural brake on tumor growth: when cancer cells accumulate too much oxidative damage, ferroptosis can trigger their death. If polystyrene microplastics interfere with this process — by upregulating the protective GPX4 protein — they would effectively allow cancer cells to survive longer and multiply more rapidly. This laboratory finding does not prove that microplastics cause prostate cancer in humans, but it provides a biologically plausible mechanism that warrants further investigation.
Broader Context: Microplastics and Human Health Beyond the Prostate
The prostate findings do not stand alone. Researchers across multiple medical disciplines have been accumulating evidence that microplastic and nanoplastic exposure may affect human health in several ways.
Cardiovascular Disease — A Landmark NEJM Study
In March 2024, a prospective multicenter study published in the New England Journal of Medicine provided the clearest human evidence to date that microplastic exposure is associated with serious health outcomes. Italian researchers analyzed carotid artery plaque surgically removed from 257 patients and found that 58% contained polyethylene and 12% contained polyvinyl chloride embedded within the plaque. Over a 34-month follow-up, patients whose plaque contained microplastics or nanoplastics were 4.5 times more likely to suffer a heart attack, stroke, or death from any cause compared to those whose plaque contained no detectable plastic. Elevated inflammatory markers (including interleukin-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, and CD68) were also higher in plastic-positive plaques, suggesting an inflammatory mechanism similar to what has been proposed for the prostate. The authors carefully noted that the findings show association, not causation, and that confounding by other risk factors could not be fully excluded.
Multiple Cancer Types
A 2024 review study by Chinese researchers used Py-GC/MS to analyze tumor samples from 61 patients with six different cancers — lung, gastric, colorectal, cervical, pancreatic, and esophageal — and found distinct patterns of microplastic accumulation across all cancer types. A 2025 systematic review published in PMC found emerging evidence of microplastic accumulation in breast, penile, and colitis-associated cancers as well. Proposed mechanisms across cancer types include chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, genotoxicity, disruption of lipid metabolism, and alteration of the tumor immune microenvironment.
Brain Accumulation
A 2025 study in Nature Medicine examined autopsy samples from 2016 and 2024 and found measurable microplastic concentrations in brain, liver, and kidney tissue — with some evidence suggesting brain levels may have risen over the eight-year interval, reflecting increasing global plastic pollution.
How Do Microplastics Enter the Body — and What Do They Do?
Microplastics reach us through multiple routes. We ingest them in food — particularly seafood, salt, honey, beer, and anything stored or heated in plastic containers. We drink them in both tap and bottled water; bottled water has been estimated to contain 10 to 1,000 times more microplastics than previously measured. We inhale them from indoor air, where synthetic textiles, carpets, and household dust shed plastic fibers constantly. And we absorb them through the skin from cosmetic products, though this pathway appears less significant than ingestion and inhalation.
Once inside the body, the smallest particles — nanoplastics — can cross biological barriers, including the blood-brain barrier and, as one study showed, the blood-testis barrier. Proposed mechanisms of harm include direct cell damage, induction of chronic inflammation, disruption of hormone signaling (many plastic chemicals, including bisphenol A and phthalates, are known endocrine disruptors), interference with immune function, and, as the Peking University lab study suggests, disruption of normal cell-death mechanisms that keep cancer in check.
Methodological Cautions: What the Studies Cannot Yet Tell Us
Honest reporting on this topic requires acknowledging the significant limitations of the existing evidence.
First, every human study to date is small. The NYU study involved 10 patients; the Peking University tissue study involved 20. Small studies can detect associations but cannot establish that those associations are real, generalizable, or causal. Selection bias — who ends up in the study — may skew results.
Second, none of the human studies can establish causation. Higher microplastic concentrations in tumor tissue might mean microplastics promoted tumor growth. But it could equally mean that tumors, with their disrupted blood vessels and inflammation, accumulate plastics that circulate in the blood through a passive trapping mechanism. Or both could be true simultaneously.
Third, contamination is a genuine and documented concern in microplastics research. Some researchers who reviewed the NEJM cardiovascular study raised questions about whether surgical environments could have introduced plastic particles into samples. The NYU team went to exceptional lengths to control for contamination by using nonplastic equipment and clean-room protocols — a methodological strength of their work.
Fourth, the laboratory cell-line studies, while biologically informative, use artificial conditions that may not reflect what happens inside a living prostate gland with its complex immune environment, hormonal milieu, and other cancer-influencing factors.
Dr. Andrea Viale, Associate Professor of Genomic Medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center (not involved in either study), told NBC News in February 2026 that while the results do not establish a causal relationship between microplastics and prostate cancer, they show that "this needs to be taken seriously as a possible theory for the rising rates of advanced disease."
Regulatory and Policy Landscape: A Patchwork in Progress
The mounting body of research has begun to catalyze regulatory action, though the policy response remains fragmented and incomplete.
At the U.S. federal level, a bipartisan bill (H.R. 4486) directs the FDA to conduct a comprehensive study on the human health impacts of microplastic exposure in food and water, with explicit focus on cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive health, and children's health. A companion bill (H.R. 4903), introduced in August 2025, would authorize expanded grants and research programs on plastic exposure health effects. The EPA has designated microplastics as a priority research area and is developing standardized protocols for measuring microplastic concentrations in food and water — currently a significant gap that impedes reliable risk assessment. The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the CDC have formed a joint working group to evaluate human health risk from microplastics; their literature review is expected within the next few years.
At the state level, California's Department of Toxic Substances Control proposed in June 2025 to add microplastics to its Candidate Chemicals List, which could eventually trigger product restrictions under the state's Safer Consumer Products Program. Several other states, including Oregon, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Vermont, have enacted or proposed research-funding or monitoring legislation.
Internationally, the European Union has moved most aggressively, enacting sweeping bans and reporting mandates, while negotiations on a global UN Plastics Treaty continued through 2025 without yet reaching a binding agreement. The global production of plastics continues to rise; treaty negotiators have thus far not agreed to production limits.
Litigation: The Courts Begin to Engage
The emerging regulatory and scientific landscape has begun to generate litigation. In January 2024, plaintiffs filed Slowinski et al. v. BlueTriton Brands Inc. (N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:24-cv-00513), alleging false or misleading statements regarding microplastics in bottled water. Courts have allowed some microplastics-related consumer claims to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage, while others have been dismissed. Attorneys general in multiple states are also investigating product manufacturers. The legal landscape is evolving rapidly and is expected to intensify as regulatory agencies publish health impact assessments.
What Can Patients Do Now? Practical Exposure Reduction
Although the science is preliminary, the biological plausibility of microplastic harm is sufficient that many experts believe modest, low-cost behavioral changes are prudent — particularly since the downside risk of reducing plastic exposure is essentially zero. Here are evidence-informed steps worth considering:
- Drink filtered or boiled tap water. A 2024 study published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters found that boiling hard (mineral-rich) tap water for five minutes and then filtering out the precipitate removed up to 90% of polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene nano/microplastics. Even soft water showed a ~25% reduction. Use a glass kettle or stainless steel pot — not plastic — and pour through a fine stainless steel or paper filter. Tap water, while not perfectly clean, contains far fewer microplastics than most bottled water.
- Choose tap water over bottled water. Bottled water has been found to contain 10 to 1,000 times more microplastics than tap water, partly due to microplastics shed by the plastic bottles themselves, especially when heated or squeezed.
- Reduce take-out food in plastic containers. The Peking University study found a positive correlation between polystyrene tumor burden and frequency of take-out food consumption — a suggestive but unconfirmed link. Whenever possible, transfer food to glass, ceramic, or stainless steel before eating.
- Never microwave food in plastic. Heat accelerates the release of microplastics and chemical additives from plastic containers and wrap. Use glass, ceramic, or microwave-safe non-plastic alternatives.
- Replace plastic cutting boards with wood or glass. Studies show plastic cutting boards shed significant microplastics into food during cutting.
- Reduce processed and packaged foods. Foods sold in plastic packaging accumulate microplastics over their shelf life, especially fats and acidic foods.
- Improve indoor air quality. Vacuum frequently using a HEPA-filter vacuum. Microplastic fiber levels are often higher indoors than outdoors. Opening windows when weather permits helps exchange indoor air.
- Wash synthetic fabrics in a microfiber-capture laundry bag. Polyester, nylon, and acrylic clothing shed millions of fibers per wash cycle, which can enter wastewater and ultimately the food chain.
What Comes Next in the Research
The field is moving quickly. Dr. Loeb's team at NYU has already secured DoD funding for a 30-patient follow-up study that will measure both microplastic burden and tissue inflammation markers side by side — the critical next step in establishing whether the two track together and suggesting a causal mechanism. Dr. Loeb has also called for studies comparing plastic concentrations in high-grade versus low-grade prostate tumors, and for similar work from independent research groups in diverse patient populations to replicate or refute these early findings.
On the basic science side, the Peking University group's ferroptosis study opens a new avenue of laboratory investigation: if polystyrene microplastics indeed suppress GPX4-mediated cancer cell death, this might eventually suggest therapeutic strategies targeting that pathway. Whether any of this translates to clinical practice in the near term remains speculative.
For men with prostate cancer, the most important message from all of this is that the scientific community is now taking the microplastics question seriously, funding is increasing, regulatory pressure is building, and the next two to three years should bring substantially more data.
Summary
We are early in what may prove to be an important chapter in prostate cancer research. Two independent studies from the United States and China have now documented that microplastics accumulate preferentially inside prostate tumors compared to adjacent normal tissue, and one laboratory study suggests a mechanism by which polystyrene microplastics might actively fuel cancer cell growth. A landmark cardiovascular study has demonstrated that microplastic accumulation in arterial plaque is associated with dramatically elevated rates of heart attack, stroke, and death, providing proof of concept that microplastics can cause real biological harm in human tissues.
None of this constitutes proof that microplastics cause prostate cancer. That question may take a decade or more of carefully designed epidemiological studies to answer definitively. In the meantime, reducing exposure where you reasonably can — while staying engaged with the science — is a sensible approach. The IPCSG will continue to monitor and report on this rapidly evolving area of research.
Sidebar: Microplastics in Drinking Water: Water Filtration for Microplastics and the Bottled Water Problem
These are two of the most practical questions in the microplastics space, and the research gives fairly clear, actionable answers to both.
Filtration Technologies That Remove Microplastics
Several point-of-use filtration methods work, with effectiveness varying significantly by technology type.
Reverse Osmosis (RO) — The Gold Standard
Reverse osmosis (RO) is one of the top choices for microplastic removal due to its ability to filter out a wide range of impurities. The reason RO works so well is straightforward physics: the pore size on reverse osmosis membranes is as small as 0.0001 microns — small enough to filter out particles 700,000 times smaller than the diameter of an average human hair. That covers not only the vast majority of microplastics, but also a decent portion of nanoplastics. A 2019 study published in Water Research found that RO membranes could remove up to 99.9% of microplastics from water samples.
A nuance worth knowing: recent research has raised concerns that under certain conditions, reverse osmosis may actually introduce — not remove — microplastics into the water as it passes through the system, because RO membranes are usually made from a thin layer of polyamide plastic. As RO systems age, their filtration performance may decline. A 2023 review noted that degraded or aging polymer-based membranes can become a minor source of microplastic particles themselves. This is a reason to maintain the system properly and replace membranes on schedule (typically every 3–5 years for the membrane, 1–2 years for pre-filters), and to combine RO with carbon pre-filtration.
Paired with a carbon pre-filter cartridge, certified RO systems have been documented to reduce more than 99% of microplastics, along with more than 90 other common contaminants including PFAS and heavy metals.
Under-sink RO systems (such as APEC, iSpring, Waterdrop, AquaTru, and others) are the practical format for home use. A meaningful added benefit: a reverse osmosis system delivers fresh, filtered water directly from your kitchen sink without the need for single-use plastic bottles, reducing both plastic waste and the microplastics that bottled water itself introduces. One important note — RO removes nearly all minerals from water, including beneficial calcium and magnesium. Systems with a remineralization stage (or an alkalizing filter) restore these; this is worth specifying when purchasing.
Other Filtration Options
Point-of-use devices using combinations of granular activated carbon, ion exchange, and microfiltration can achieve high reduction efficiencies for microplastics larger than 1 micron, and filters certified under NSF-53 and NSF-42 standards are anticipated to be effective for particles greater than 1 micron in size. However, membrane-based filters (including RO) outperform activated carbon alone for the smallest particles.
For the home, the practical filtration hierarchy from most to least effective for microplastics is roughly:
- Reverse osmosis (with carbon pre-filter) — ~99%+ removal
- Ultrafiltration systems (pore size ~0.01–0.1 microns) — high removal for larger microplastics
- NSF-53/42 certified solid carbon block filters — effective for particles >1 micron
- Standard pitcher filters (e.g., Brita) — low-moderate effectiveness; not reliably tested for microplastics
- Refrigerator filters — generally low performance for microplastics
Boiling + filtering (discussed in the previous newsletter article) remains a low-cost complement for hard tap water, removing up to 90% of polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene particles via calcium carbonate co-precipitation — but it does not address nanoplastics the way RO does.
Bottled Water in Plastic Bottles: Yes, a Significant Source
This is one of the most important practical points in the entire microplastics discussion, and the research is unambiguous: bottled water in plastic bottles is not a solution to microplastic exposure — it is a major source of it.
The Particle Count
A landmark study reported in January 2024 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using a new high-throughput laser imaging platform developed at Columbia University, found that on average a liter of bottled water contained about 240,000 tiny pieces of plastic. About 90% of these fragments were nanoplastics. This total was 10 to 100 times more plastic particles than seen in earlier studies, which mostly focused on larger microplastics.
The water contained particles of all seven types of plastic tested. The most common was polyamide, a type of nylon often used to help filter and purify water — meaning the filtration equipment used in the bottling process may itself be shedding particles into the finished product. An abundance of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) was also detected, which is the plastic used to make the bottles themselves.
Where Do the Plastics Come From?
Data from earlier research on 11 globally sourced brands purchased across 9 countries found 93% of bottles showed microplastic contamination, and evidence suggests contamination comes at least partially from the packaging and/or the bottling process itself. Specifically, polypropylene was the most common polymer type found, matching the plastic commonly used for bottle caps — suggesting that each time a cap is twisted on or off, it sheds particles into the water.
The primary polymers detected in bottled water across multiple studies include PET, polypropylene, and polyethylene, primarily resulting from the degradation of bottles, the bottling process, and contaminated source water.
Bottled Water vs. Tap Water
Research from Ohio State University found that bottled water contained three times as many nanoplastic particles as treated tap water from Lake Erie-area treatment plants. The cumulative exposure difference is substantial: individuals who drink primarily bottled water ingest an estimated 90,000 more microplastic particles per year than tap water consumers.
Heat and Storage Make It Worse
PET bottles are more likely to leach plastic particles and toxic chemicals if they are recycled, kept in warm environments, exposed to sunlight, or reused. Single-use plastic bottles also contain PFAS, a class of particularly dangerous chemicals. This means a bottle left in a hot car, a delivery truck in summer, or a warehouse for months is shedding more plastic into the water than a freshly filled, refrigerated bottle.
Does Large-Format Delivered Water (5-Gallon Jugs) Fare Better?
The same contamination concerns apply to polycarbonate and PET large-format bottles used in home/office delivery services, which also shed particles with age, UV exposure, repeated use, and heat. Polycarbonate jugs are additionally a known source of bisphenol A (BPA) leaching. Glass or stainless steel containers remain the cleanest options for water storage.
Practical Bottom Line for IPCSG Members
The evidence converges clearly on a hierarchy of choices for drinking water:
- Best: RO-filtered tap water, dispensed from a glass or stainless steel container — the combination eliminates ~99%+ of microplastics and avoids recontamination from plastic storage
- Good: Tap water boiled and filtered (hard water), or filtered through a solid carbon block NSF-53 certified filter — significant reduction, no plastic packaging source
- Avoid: Bottled water in plastic bottles, especially water that has been stored warm or for long periods — a net increase in microplastic exposure vs. filtered tap water
- Store and serve in glass, ceramic, or stainless steel — never leave water sitting in plastic containers, especially in heat
For prostate cancer patients already concerned about microplastic accumulation in the prostate, the switch from bottled water to home-filtered tap water is one of the most impactful, practical, and low-cost steps currently available.
Verified Sources & Formal Citations
-
[1] NYU Langone Health / ASCO GU Symposium 2026 — Pilot Study (Loeb et al.)
Loeb S, Albergamo V, et al. "Microplastics Discovered in Prostate Tumors." Presented at ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, February 26, 2026. NYU Langone Health official release.
https://nyulangone.org/news/microplastics-discovered-prostate-tumors -
[2] ScienceDaily Coverage of NYU Study
"Microplastics found in 90% of prostate cancer tumors, study reveals." ScienceDaily, February 25, 2026.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/260225001250.htm -
[3] NBC News Coverage of NYU Study
"Microplastics found in prostate tumors in small study." NBC News, February 24, 2026.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mens-health/microplastics-found-prostate-tumors-small-study-rcna260296 -
[4] ASCO Post Coverage
"Microplastics Found in 90 Percent of Prostate Cancer Samples." The ASCO Post, February 2026.
https://ascopost.com/news/february-2026/microplastics-found-in-90-percent-of-prostate-cancer-samples/ -
[5] Peking University Tissue Study — eBioMedicine (Lancet), September 2024
Deng C, Zhu J, Fang Z, et al. "Identification and analysis of microplastics in para-tumor and tumor of human prostate." eBioMedicine. 2024 Oct;108:105360. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105360. Epub 2024 Sep 27.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39341155/
Full text: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(24)00396-7/fulltext -
[6] Peking University Ferroptosis Mechanism Study — Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, October 2025
Li J, Deng C, Zou W, et al. "Low-dose polystyrene microplastics exposure promotes human prostate cancer cell proliferation via GPX4‑mediated ferroptosis." Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2025 Nov 1;306:119285. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.119285. Epub 2025 Oct 27.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41151287/ -
[7] Microplastics in Carotid Plaque and Cardiovascular Events — NEJM, March 2024
Marfella R, Prattichizzo F, Sardu C, et al. "Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events." N Engl J Med. 2024 Mar 7;390(10):900–910. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2309822.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2309822 -
[8] Microplastics as Emerging Carcinogens — PMC Review, 2025
"Microplastics as emerging carcinogens: from environmental pollutants to oncogenic drivers." PMC / National Library of Medicine, 2025.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12505851/ -
[9] Boiling Water Removes Microplastics — Environmental Science & Technology Letters, February 2024
Yu Z, Li Z, Zeng E, et al. "Drinking Boiled Tap Water Reduces Human Intake of Nanoplastics and Microplastics." Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2024. doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00081.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00081
Lay summary: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240228115326.htm -
[10] Microplastics in 2025 — Regulatory Trends (Bergeson & Campbell, National Law Review)
"Microplastics in 2025: Regulatory Trends and Updates." National Law Review / Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., September 30, 2025.
https://natlawreview.com/article/microplastics-2025-regulatory-trends-and-updates -
[11] California Microplastics Candidate Chemical Proposal — Holland & Knight, July 2025
"California's Microplastics Proposal: Impacts on the Consumer Products Supply Chain." Holland & Knight Insights, July 2025.
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/californias-microplastics-proposal-impacts-on-the-consumer-products -
[12] Microplastics Litigation Update — Crowell & Moring, 2025
"Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025." Crowell & Moring LLP Client Alert, 2025.
https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/microplastics-update-regulatory-and-litigation-developments-in-2025 -
[13] Litigation: Slowinski et al. v. BlueTriton Brands Inc.
Slowinski et al. v. BlueTriton Brands Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00513 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2024). Referenced in Winston & Strawn analysis: https://www.winston.com/en/blogs-and-podcasts/product-liability-and-mass-torts-digest/microplastics-policy-is-federal-preemption-a-viable-defense -
[14] AHA Vascular Discovery Presentation on Microplastics in Carotid Plaque, April 2025
Clark R et al. Presented at American Heart Association Vascular Discovery Scientific Sessions, Baltimore, April 22, 2025. Summarized in pharmacally.com analysis: https://pharmacally.com/microplastics-in-human-tissues-insights-from-nature-medicine-and-nejm-studies/ -
[15] H.R. 4486 — Microplastics Safety Act (Bipartisan, 2025)
U.S. Congress, H.R. 4486, directing the FDA to study human health impacts of microplastics in food and water. Congressional Record reference: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48293
Comments
Post a Comment