The Documentary Plastic Detox, airing on Netflix as of March 16th, 2026, follows six couples struggling with unexplained fertility problems. The documentary links their infertility to their exposure to microplastics and chemical additives, bringing to light a long-simmering debate back into focus: to what extent are microplastics dangerous to our health?
The plastics industry's answer is vague enough to sound reassuring. "The effects of lifelong exposure to microplastics on humans are still unclear," says the sector federation Plastics Europe. "We are working closely with scientists to understand the impact better." In other words, the evidence is inconclusive, causality has not been established, and further research is needed.
Sound familiar? We've heard the same arguments before. The Tobacco industry has, for example, spent decades maintaining that the link between smoking and lung cancer was not conclusively proven despite long-standing evidence showing otherwise. The Asbestos industry also minimised public perception of risk associated with the material despite understanding the implications of exposure as early as the first half of the twentieth century.
The pattern is always the same: we see powerful, self-interested industries exacerbate scientific doubt by emphasizing how "uncertain" the evidence is, by funding contrarian studies, and by framing the problem as a matter of individual behavior rather than as a systemic failure. The goal: spread confusion, sow doubt, and delay regulation to safeguard profits for as long as possible. I encourage critical thinking and skepticism from the public as Industrial and corporate actors continue to behave this way and will continue to until regulations catch up.
Historically, doubt has often been used as a buffer against stricter regulations - if we don’t know, we shouldn’t act. This seems logical: "uncertain" sounds neutral, almost academic. In science, uncertainty is normal: breakthroughs rarely happen suddenly as scientific knowledge grows step by step. In public debate, however, that word can be used as a strategic fog screen. "Uncertain" becomes "unproven." In other words, no action is necessary.
Doubt subtly shifts the burden of proof away from industrial actors. From having to "demonstrate that it is safe," scientists must now "demonstrate unequivocally that it is harmful." This approach to the issue enables inaction and delay as a reasonable response. With more and more evidence showing that microplastics are, in fact, harmful, the focus of the scientific community is shifting towards assessing the degree of harm associated with microplastics rather than discussing whether or not the issue exists in the first place. Used to justify corporate idleness, environmental neglect, and a passive approach to a new health crisis, "Insufficient certainty" sounds less like a neutral observation and more like an excuse.
Individual Responsibility
Skepticism shouldn't be limited to the industry alone. Recent studies have found microplastics in brains, testicles, placentas, and arteries. Figures regarding our brains are particularly eye-opening: those of people with dementia can contain up to eight times more plastic than a normal brain. Yet, these findings are now being questioned by other scientists. Critics argue that many of these observations are due to laboratory contamination and false-positive measurements. They call this a "bombshell" under the field. Yet, one thing stands out: some of these scientists have direct industry links. This doesn't automatically invalidate their conclusions, but it does fuel further doubt.
Of course, causality is complex. Measurements aren't always standardized, and not every study is perfect. But scientific debate doesn't absolve us from taking action. The fact that we don't yet fully understand every biological mechanism behind microplastics in the human brain or placenta does not mean that exposure is harmless. Those who demand absolute certainty are in practice choosing to delay action.
It's no coincidence that these critical scientists are advocating for precautionary measures: use less, don't heat food in plastic, filter your drinking water, and so on. The Netflix documentary talks about a "detox": less plastic packaging, no cosmetics containing microplastics, and glass storage containers. This individualist approach is understandable, but also misleading, as if the problem is primarily a matter of personal discipline. Whilst individuals are told the burden of responsibility is theirs, industries continue to pump plastic products from their factories.
Waiting as a policy choice
Waiting for certainty has its consequences: the link between smoking and lung cancer was already well-established in the 1950s, whilst reactionary regulations like warning labels, advertising bans, and smoking bans in public spaces were only implemented much later. It took until 2005 for the EU to pass a complete ban on asbestos. Hundreds of thousands of deaths still occur annually as a result of Asbestos exposure and millions to Tobacco use.
We continue to see this pattern of policies being enacted long after issues become serious, each time fueled by industry-funded doubt. The fact that these delays cost lives is beyond dispute. Waiting isn’t a natural stance; it is one encouraged by those who want to keep things the way they are.
The good news is that we don't have to wait for a perfect study to act. The European model shows that precaution is possible, even with incomplete knowledge. Since October 2023, EU restrictions on intentionally added microplastics have been in effect. The precautionary principle, enshrined in European policy, states that measures are justified when there is a plausible risk of serious or irreversible harm even when scientific certainty has not yet been established.
We must not repeat the mistakes of the past. Why should ordinary people have to prove they are getting sick while companies don't have to prove their products are safe? In the pharmaceutical industry, the burden of proof lies with the manufacturer: without proven safety, products cannot be marketed. In other sectors, the opposite principle applies: products remain in circulation until harm has been convincingly demonstrated. This is how cigarettes and asbestos have come to cause so many deaths. Time and again, we say “more research was necessary”, and each time society has footed the bill.
Opinion piece by Thomas de Groote, founder and CEO of River Cleanup