SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
microplastics
Microplastics Have No Place in Baby Food
Current scientific evidence on microplastics and plastic chemicals justifies global and national precautionary action to drastically reduce and ultimately eliminate babies’ exposure to plastics-related contaminants.
Jul 01, 2026
As new parents, we cherish the fleeting firsts: the first laugh, the first unsteady steps, and the first foods at family dinners. We research, we plan, and we try to give our babies the healthiest start possible. And in the swirl of advice from every direction, we often lean on what feels familiar and trusted.
For generations, store-bought baby food provided some of the earliest meals for babies across the country. The distinctive, petite glass jars have long symbolized the kind of wholesome, uncomplicated nourishment many parents reach for when they want something healthy and reliable.
Over time, many of these glass jars were replaced with plastic pouches—but plastic food containers have given us something new to consider.
Many of us think of plastic as a simple, single material. It is not. It is made from more than 16,000 chemicals, including 4,200 known to harm human health. And plastic doesn’t truly break down; it breaks into microplastics—tiny plastic particles less than 5 millimeters in size—that can leach into packaged food, inadvertently adding a large number of health concerns.
Parents should not have to be scientists to feed their children safely.
None of that belongs anywhere near a baby's meal.
Babies are uniquely vulnerable: Their organs and nervous systems are developing rapidly, and even small exposures to certain chemicals—such as the hormone-disrupting chemicals found in plastics—during these formative months can have lifelong effects on growth, metabolism, and reproductive systems.
Previous research found significant microplastic contamination of baby formula from many different brands. And now, a recent report produced by our colleagues highlights lab testing that found microplastics in the pouches of two of the world’s leading baby food companies: Gerber and Happy Baby Organics. A single pouch of Gerber baby food contains an estimated 5,000 microplastic particles, with the plastic lining likely the source. One gram from the Happy Baby Organics pouch (the weight of a small raisin) contained up to 99 microplastic particles, on average—the equivalent of up to 495 microplastics per teaspoon.
And it’s not just these two food products. Much of today’s baby food aisle is wrapped in plastic—from the now-ubiquitous squeezable pouches to purées in plastic tubs and packaged snacks. Single-use squeezable plastic pouches exceed all other forms of baby food packaging, with production growing year on year by over 8%. Millions of single-use baby food pouches are used daily, meaning that every day, millions of babies may be ingesting invisible contaminants along with their plastic-packaged food.
In addition, it’s forecast that the market for all types of multilayered flexible plastic packaging—the most notoriously problematic and polluting form of plastic packaging—will grow by 5.3% year-on-year through 2035.
No parent should have to confront the risks of all that microplastic and chemical exposure. Amid navigating near-constant decisions about our babies’ health, parents should not have to be scientists to feed their children safely.
The current US administration campaigned on protecting Americans’ health, especially children's, under its Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda. It even declared a war on microplastics. Yet parents across the political spectrum are still waiting, with many in the MAHA base voicing frustration about the slow pace of change on chemicals and plastics.
Instead of meaningful protection, we’ve seen failed promises, gutted agencies, and announcements about more research at a time when many families are calling for concrete action. Our babies don’t have time for more research. More importantly, they should not be subjects in a science experiment to which they did not consent.
Current scientific evidence on microplastics and plastic chemicals justifies global and national precautionary action to drastically reduce and ultimately eliminate babies’ exposure to plastics-related contaminants. Research on microplastics is still emerging, but decision-makers have enough information to act. Yet, regulation has not kept pace, and does not protect people’s health from microplastics and hazardous chemicals in food packaging, failing to account for the unique vulnerability of babies in particular.
We have a real opportunity right now: Congress can close a decades-old loophole in our food safety system. Under current rules, plastic producers and food companies determine for themselves whether the chemicals in packaging are “safe.” Congress could finally close that gap and help prevent exposure to microplastics, particularly for children—but the real question is whether they will honor their promises to protect the most vulnerable among us.
We’ve risen to moments like this before—pushing to eliminate lead from toys and teething products, demanding safer cribs and bedding materials, and adopting modern car safety standards that have saved countless children’s lives. This crisis calls for the same resolve. Ours should be the last generation of babies forced to grow up in a food system that puts plastic and profits over their long-term health.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Setback for Alaska and Our Oceans': GOP Governor Vetoes Ban on Single-Use Polystyrene Food Packaging in Alaska
"Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years," said one critic.
Jun 26, 2026
Critics are slamming Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy for his Thursday veto of a bill that would have banned state agencies and restaurants from using single-use polystyrene foam food containers.
The legislation, which passed last month with bipartisan support and would have taken effect starting in January, was intended to stop the use of non-biodegradable polystyrene containers, whose usage has resulted in microplastics polluting Alaska's waterways.
In justifying the veto, Dunleavy said that the bill would "create a short and unrealistic implementation timeline" and would “be especially difficult for businesses in rural Alaska, where shipping limitations, supply availability, and higher costs already make operations more expensive."
In an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska House Speaker Bryce Edgmon (I-37) expressed frustration that Dunleavy has vetoed a number of measures this year that have had broad support, simply because they did not conform with his "far-right beliefs."
"Every bill that he has vetoed thus far, in my view, served in a valid public purpose," Edgmon explained. “It’s difficult to put so much work and so much public process and so much time and energy, and then, because they don’t meet the standards—whatever the standards are—they get canned."
Environmental advocates criticized Dunleavy for the veto, with Christy Leavitt, senior campaign director at Oceana, calling it "a setback for Alaska and our oceans."
"This veto undermines bipartisan action to reduce single-use plastic pollution at the source, and will only put Alaska’s communities, wildlife, and waters in further jeopardy," said Leavitt. "We applaud the efforts of the state legislature and look forward to working with lawmakers to pass this important bill in the future to phase out plastic foam foodware."
Dyani Lezama, state director at Alaska Environment, said she was "incredibly disappointed that the governor vetoed this opportunity to make Alaska’s environment safer and cleaner."
"Polystyrene foam is bad for our health, produces a huge amount of litter, and is incredibly hard to clean up," Lezama emphasized. "Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years."
Had Dunleavy not vetoed the legislation, Alaska would have become the thirteenth state to ban polystyrene foam containers, following Maryland, Maine, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, Delaware, Oregon, Rhode Island, and California.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Plastic Waste Crisis Isn’t an Accident—Big Oil Created It
To protect their markets, the petrochemical companies began a decades-long, coordinated effort to sell the public on plastic recycling—despite their knowledge that it was neither technically nor economically viable.
May 23, 2026
We’re all living in a world—and in bodies—more polluted with plastic than the one our parents grew up in. And with global plastic production increasing by 3-3.5% annually and expected to double by 2040 or 2050, our children, and their children, will inherit even more plastic particles in everything from their food systems to their internal organs.
Two new pieces of media shine a light on the enormous harm that these invasive plastics are causing to our health across generations—and how Big Oil and the plastics industry have not only caused this crisis but also are bent on continuing it with no end in sight.
The Netflix documentary Plastics Detox details how the endocrine-disrupting chemicals from plastics contaminate three generations: the mother, the fetus, and the fetus' developing reproductive cells—“a toxic trespass," according to an expert interviewed by the film’s producers. Following environmental and reproductive epidemiologist Dr. Shanna Swan as she strives to help couples struggling with infertility, the film shows how chemicals found in plastic are identified as major endocrine disruptors, significantly contributing to hormone dysfunction, lower sperm quality, and falling fertility rates.
Just as viewers begin to wonder, how did we even get here? How is there so much plastic in… well, everything? California Attorney General Rob Bonta appears on screen, succinctly explaining that “the entire plastics industry is built on a lie”—that we can simply recycle our way out of the problem. “The only reason that plastics today are ubiquitous is because the people were told that this product can be recycled,” Bonta explains. Investigations from the Center for Climate Integrity and others have revealed that the major fossil fuel and petrochemical companies that produce and sell plastics have long known recycling was not a technically or economically viable solution to plastic waste.
Attorney General Bonta has the right idea—we need to bring an end to the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lies.
On behalf of California, Bonta has filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against ExxonMobil that seeks to hold the oil giant, and the world’s biggest producer of the polymers used in single-use plastics, accountable for helping to create and push that myth.
A new book by journalist Beth Gardiner, Plastics Inc.: The Secret History and Shocking Future of Big Oil’s Biggest Bet, details the more than 100-year evolution of the plastics industry, including the industry’s deliberate efforts to reshape our society from one that, coming out of the Great Depression and World War II, reduced and reused its materials to one that simply disposed of them. Disposability equals profitability to the industry. Gardiner details how plastics’ inability to be reused or recycled was not a bug, but a feature. As one industry leader put it at the 1956 Society of Plastics Industry conference, “The future of plastics is in the trash can.” To actualize plastics’ true selling potential, the industry would have to “teach people how to waste.”
From there, the world’s leading petrochemical companies, with their ethos of single-use disposability, went on to create the plastic waste crisis. The American public, though, quickly became wary of plastic pollution and began to push back. In response, the industry first promoted landfilling and incineration to hide the plastic from view. But it quickly became clear that these disposal options would not placate a public frustrated by a flood of disposable plastics. People did not want more landfills, did not want incineration, and did not want plastic in the environment. This public outcry led to calls for bans on single-use plastics. To protect their markets, the petrochemical companies began a decades-long, coordinated effort to sell the public on plastic recycling—despite their knowledge that it was neither technically nor economically viable.
No amount of effort, investment, public education, or consumer diligence can overcome a material that resists recycling at a molecular level. Plastic’s intrinsic structure creates technical and economic barriers that make successful, safe, and scalable plastic recycling impossible—barriers that plastics producers identified in their own internal assessments as early as the 1970s. Rather than acknowledging these limitations, the industry has embarked on a nearly half-century long campaign to ensure the public never learned about them.
Now the world’s largest plastics producers make public commitments to expand the use and capacity of chemical (or “advanced”) recycling, even in the face of overwhelming evidence demonstrating that major economic and technical limitations remain unresolved. Chemical recycling operations continue to flounder as a result of predictable issues, including many of the same factors that industry insiders identified decades ago, while companies quietly retreat from their heavily publicized commitments once their public relations value has expired.
We are now awash in plastic. It is literally everywhere, quietly changing our human existence. Attorney General Bonta has the right idea—we need to bring an end to the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lies. Consumers are legally entitled to make informed decisions. Corporations cannot be given unfettered license to continue to sell us baseless false solution after baseless false solution. They must be held accountable.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular