As 2026 begins, the legal and claims communities are witnessing a critical shift in the microplastics narrative. For years, the narrative surrounding microplastics and nanoplastics followed a predictable path: Ubiquity leads to exposure, exposure leads to accumulation, and accumulation, presumably, leads to harm. However, in the early days of 2026, a significant shift is underway. High-profile studies that previously claimed to find plastic particles in human blood and tissue are being reevaluated under a new, more exacting forensic lens.
For claims resolution and litigation management professionals, this volatility in the science is both a challenge and a strategic opportunity. To effectively manage microplastics risk, we must move beyond the initial wave of public concern and focus on the technical breakthroughs, the emerging standards of detection, and the substantial evidentiary gaps that define the defense landscape today.
The Shift Toward Forensic Validation
The most significant development as of late January 2026 is the call for a forensic science approach to microplastic detection. On Jan. 26, a global coalition of researchers published a framework designed to address a growing problem in the field: procedural contamination and false positives.
Current peer-reviewed research indicates that standard laboratory techniques often struggle to differentiate synthetic polymers from natural biological matter. Specifically, studies show that certain lipids and proteins can produce molecular fragments nearly identical to polyethylene (the most common plastic), creating a significant risk of false positives in tissue analysis.
For the defense, this is a pivotal development. It suggests that:
• The “ubiquity” narrative is vulnerable. While plastic is undeniably in the environment, its confirmed presence inside the human body, and at concentrations capable of causing physiological harm, is a matter of scientific debate.
• Methodology matters. The community is moving toward a standard where a single testing method is no longer sufficient. A rigorous defense should now insist that any purported finding be confirmed by at least two independent, high-power methods (such as Micro-Raman Spectroscopy paired with PyrolysisGas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry) to ensure a result is not merely laboratory background noise.
The Causation Gap: General v. Specific
Despite the flurry of research, a fundamental legal hurdle remains: the gap between detection and causation. Finding a particle in a tissue sample does not, by itself, prove a physiological injury.
In the world of toxic torts, plaintiffs must establish both general causation (can this substance cause this harm?) and specific causation (did it cause this plaintiff’s harm?). In January 2026, the science for both remains highly contested for several reasons:
1. Isolation of source. Because microplastics are truly everywhere—in the air we breathe, the dust in our homes, and the food we eat—isolating a defendant’s specific product as the proximate cause of an injury is a monumental challenge for a plaintiff’s expert.
2. Dose-response uncertainty. There is currently no scientific consensus on what constitutes a toxic dose of microplastics for a human. Without a defined threshold, any link between exposure and a specific disease (like cardiovascular issues or cognitive decline) remains speculative.
3. The confounding variable of background plastic. Plaintiffs’ experts are themselves operating in an environment filled with plastic. The risk of procedural contamination during the collection or analysis of samples is a powerful defense against specific causation arguments. If a lab cannot prove it was free of plastics during the testing process, the results could be deemed to be compromised.
Paralells to PFAS and Asbestos
Our experience in other mass torts like PFAS and asbestos tells us that the science in the courtroom often tries to outpace the science in the laboratory. A decade ago, PFAS was a niche environmental concern; today, it is a global litigation priority.
In 2026, microplastics are at the same inflection point PFAS was in 2016. However, microplastics present a unique challenge: Unlike a specific chemical formula like PFOA, microplastics refers to a vast category of thousands of different polymers, shapes, and sizes, each with a different potential toxicological profile. This complexity makes it harder for a plaintiff to build the kind of cohesive toxic legacy narrative that drove earlier mass torts.
On the other hand, while there are clear regulatory and scientific parallels between microplastics and PFAS, we must also recognize a distinct advantage for the plaintiffs’ bar: visual narrative. PFAS are stealth chemicals in that they are colorless, odorless, and conceptually abstract for the average juror. They require a heavy lift in scientific education to even visualize the threat. In contrast, every juror has seen plastic waste in their daily life. This may allow plaintiffs to bypass complex chemical education and move straight to an intuitive, and potentially prejudicial, narrative of internalized contamination. However, as defense counsel, we recognize that ease of visualization does not equate to scientific proof. The very ubiquity that makes microplastics easy to imagine also makes the legal hurdle of specific causation nearly insurmountable. Further, the cases themselves will have to survive significant challenges before they get in front of a jury. If a substance is everywhere, the plaintiff’s burden to link an injury to one specific product becomes a substantial evidentiary hurdle that defense counsel should dismantle through forensic scrutiny.
The scientific shifts of early 2026 serve as a vital reminder: In emerging litigation, the first wave of headlines is rarely the final word. While public and regulatory interest in microplastics remains high, the legal threshold for liability remains grounded in proven causation and reproducible results. As the scientific landscape for microplastics continues to shift, success for the defense will depend on maintaining a disciplined focus on forensic accuracy. Mastering the complexities of this evolving science is not just a technical necessity, it is also the primary safeguard against the expansion of speculative litigation in the years to come.
About the Authors:
Kevin Ringel is a partner at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP. kevin.ringel@fmglaw.com
Joshua Ferguson is a partner at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP. jferguson@fmglaw.com