Reports of dirty tricks to clean up ‘natural’ water expose far-reaching problems, while a drinks giant scales back its packaging commitments. By David Burrows.
“Microplastics are present in all beverages, but those packaged in glass bottles contain more microplastic particles than those in plastic bottles, cartons or cans”. Yes, you read that correctly: scientists working for Anses (the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety) found more microplastics in drinks packaged in glass than other materials. “We were expecting the opposite result when we compared the level of microplastics in different drinks sold in France” explains Iseline Chaïb, a PhD student in the Aquatic Food Safety Unit (SANAQUA, Boulogne-sur-Mer site), which conducted the assessment at the Anses Laboratory for Food Safety.
So, where were the microplastics coming from? “Caps were suspected to be the main source of contamination, as the majority of particles isolated in beverages were identical to the colour of caps and shared the composition of the outer paint,” the scientists wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. This means reducing them is pretty straightforward: clean the caps.
Chaïb explained further tests showing an average of 287 particles per litre were found in water of the bottles sealed with uncleaned caps. This compared to just 106 particles per litre when air was blown on the caps before they were placed on the bottles; and 87 particles per litre when blowing was followed by rinsing.
Let’s not go all Daily Mail here and suggest we all stop drinking wine for fear of ingesting microplastics: the study looked at microplastic contamination, but didn’t establish whether a risk would arise from the consumption of such beverages or not.
Everything Toulouse
Still, we can expect such studies to keep gaining widespread attention as scientists drive home the message that ‘microplastics are absolutely everywhere’ and this is a health concern not just for turtles, fish and seabirds etc, but for us. “It could not be clearer at this point that this is not abstract pollution we’re talking about,” noted A Plastic Planet co-founder Sian Sutherland recently, adding: “Industry’s plastic addiction is a direct health threat.”
Sutherland’s comments followed research published in Plos One, showing the amount of microplastic particles we inhale at home and in our cars: about 3,200 per day of ‘small’ ones and 68,000 even smaller ones per day (which is many, many times more than prior estimates). “Deep inside our lungs, microplastics release toxic additives that reach our blood and cause multiple diseases,” the researchers led by Nadiia Yakovenko from the Université de Toulouse, France, wrote.
It all sounds rather worrying, as The Economist noted in a recent briefing: “A barrage of papers tentatively suggests these foreign bodies [microplastics] may play a role in a wide range of diseases.” The studies are getting bigger and bolder as scientists look to reach definitive conclusions about what microplastics do to human bodies, the newspaper continued. Answers are needed.
Deep Science Ventures has also tried to join up the dots on toxicity with its new report ‘The invisible Tsunami’. “While it is difficult to objectively compare two all encompassing and complex phenomena, toxicity appears to be a threat to the thriving of humans and nature of a similar order as climate change,” the authors wrote. “However, with toxicity we are still in the 1990s in terms of public awareness and action, but we’re in 2025 in terms of consequences.”
The researchers reported that over 3,600 synthetic chemicals from food contact materials are found within human bodies globally, while PFAS have “contaminated the entire world, with levels in rainwater often exceeding safe drinking water limits”.
Keeping a lid on it
Speaking of which brings us to Nestlé, which has just been forced to refute allegations that microplastics might be indirectly present in its Contrex and Hépar water brands. The research, also conducted in France but this time by the French Office for Biodiversity (OFB) and the Central Office for the Fight against Environmental and Public Health Offences (Oclaesp), claimed that some boreholes used for the water brands had microplastics levels of 5 to 3,000 times higher than those in groundwater and water sources designated for human consumption.
Mediapart, a local investigative outlet, has seen confidential reports written by OFB and Oclaesp submitted to courts as part of an investigation (started in 2021) into Nestlé’s management of waste. Mediapart reports the papers “reveal that the waters of Contrex and Hépar contain ‘exorbitant’ levels of microplastics due to landfills left abandoned by Nestlé which have polluted water sources”.
There are also claims of the company using unauthorised filtration methods on a beverage sold as ‘natural mineral water’. This is a “clear case of food fraud and a potential health hazard for consumers”, said Foodwatch, an NGO which last year filed lawsuits against both Nestlé and fellow manufacturer Sources Alma. In July, French authorities searched the headquarters of Nestlé Waters in Issy-les-Moulineaux reportedly seizing “large volumes of data that will now be analysed as part of the criminal proceedings”.
Nestlé Waters has said it continues to cooperate with the authorities on the filtration case. On those waste sites, a spokesperson told Just Drinks that “the majority of sites have been cleaned up […] and that no pollution has been proven accoprding to the environmental analyses shared with the authorities”. The company also “calls on everyone to demonstrate responsibility and rigour in dealing with issues as sensitive as food safety”.
Diage-oh no
Another beverage behemoth currently under the cosh is Diageo. The owner of Guinness, Smirnoff and Johnnie Walker has just become the latest food and drink corporate to water down its ESG targets – including ones relating to packaging. One revised target is “increasing the percentage of recycled content in our packaging to 50% by 2030”, down from 60% previously. Diageo has already made it to 46%, and sees further gains if the quantity and quality of cullet (recycled glass) can be improved. On plastic specifically, the recycled content target was 35% for PET bottles – which has been met. There does not appear to be a new target in place for 2030.
The vast majority (82.6%) of Diageo’s packaging is glass – some 1,162,653t – according to a breakdown in its just-published ESG report (pages 25 and 26). This is compared to cartons (61,941t), PET (24,803t) and cans (23,021t). Some 99% of its 1.4Mt of packaging is ‘recyclable’, according to Diageo, which is “refocusing its efforts” to hit 100%.
Doubtless more impactful will be its work to make ever-thinner glass bottles, and by turn reduce carbon emissions. Some 33% of the company’s scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions come from packaging. But while the owner of Pimms will “continue pursuing lightweighting projects which are good for both the business and emissions reductions”, there will be no 10% reduction target to hit. “Given that reducing the absolute weight of our packaging competes with volume growth, we will no longer be reporting against a specific packaging weight reduction target,” the annual report 2025 (page 55) reads.
So it looks like Diageo’s sticking with single-use. Should we be surprised?
Speaking of not so great expectations brings us finally to the failed global plastics treaty talks. “The world was shocked this week by the collapse of an international summit devoted to curbing plastic pollution, after multiple countries that make lots of plastic decided not to stop making it all,” reported Polly Ethylene, environment correspondent for Private Eye. They “decided that it would be much better if the countries they sold the plastic to dealt with the problem themselves”.
Anyone else feel like we have spent a decade going around in circles?
PLASTICS PACKAGE: Water pollution and watered down targets
