Microplastics are a pervasive and growing problem, with potentially devastating impacts on the environment and human or animal biology. But how do we get to a place where we all agree on what to do, particularly with the current fractious global policy environment?

Several members of the MINAGRIS team recently attended the Papillons-MINAGRIS stakeholder forum at Agrifoodplast 2025. The forum highlighted the urgency of cross-sector collaboration to address microplastic contamination.

Figure 1 Several members of the MINAGRIS team at Agrifoodplast 2025

How many microplastics are in our soil?

Microplastics have been found in every habitat on earth, including deep ocean trenches, Everest and, of course, our soils.

Twenty years of research has shown that they are pervasive, persistent, and can be retained in animal tissues. There is an upwards trend in their use and accumulation in the environment. According to Professor Luca Nizzetto, coordinator of our sister project, PAPILLONS, concentrations of microplastics exceeding 0.05% by mass affect soil structure and function. Their project found levels as high as 0.8% in sampled fields across Europe.

Professor Christian Laforsch, also of PAPILLONS, explained that they have detected up to 415,000 microplastic particles per kilogramme of soil, approximately four times higher than previously estimated. A further study by Papillons estimated that 63,000-430,000 tonnes of microplastics may be added to farmland in Europe every year.

Sources of microplastics in agricultural soil include agricultural mulch films, polystyrene beads, polyester fibres, biosolids, and compost applications. It also appears that biodegradable materials like PBAT also contribute significantly, though this may be because it takes time to break down, so if they are being used every year, there will likely always be a certain amount of residue remaining.

Steiner et al.’s research into municipal biowaste highlights transportation pathways of microplastics from treated fields into surrounding areas, indicating their broad dispersal.

Why are microplastics in our soil a problem?

Microplastics significantly impact soil functions, including nitrogen cycling and water infiltration. We are storing up huge problems for agricultural productivity.

Tiny (micro) plastic particles found in soil can enter plants and subsequently the human food chain. Papillons studied the impacts of microplastics on lettuce. They found reductions in chlorophyll content (vital for plant photosynthesis) of 15-60% in lettuce exposed to polyethylene, one of the most common types of plastic. As a result, plastics can alter the nutritional profile of lettuce.

Papillons and MINAGRIS were also involved in a study that provides further evidence that microplastics in soil lead to the proliferation of various fungal pathogens, which cause disease to plants. These findings should sound the alarm about future food security and ecological health.

Microplastics, through various entry points, including the consumption of contaminated crops, can end up in our bodies. Results in a recent Nature paper show the significant accumulation of microplastics in human brains. This accumulation is 7–30 times higher than the concentrations seen in livers or kidneys. We don’t yet know what the long-term consequences of this discovery will be, but it points to a need for urgent further research.  

Six principles for seeking solutions to address microplastic contamination in soils

Knowledge about the extent and impact of microplastics can make us feel helpless. But projects like MINAGRIS and Papillons are all about finding solutions.

During the stakeholder forum, participants agreed on six principles  aimed at supporting sustainable solutions for addressing microplastic contamination in soils. Watch the video below to find out more:

One: Cross-sector collaboration

Prof Richard Thompson emphasised the need for whole systems thinking, recognising that microplastics are part of broader environmental challenges. Put simply, microplastics need solutions from production to waste management.

Embracing this thinking needs needs collaboration between policymakers, industry, and agriculture, including farmers themselves. 

Prof. Thompson called for bespoke strategies for various sectors (e.g., agriculture, food, fisheries etc) as a starting point and adopting a hazard-based approach rather than solely risk-based assessments. 

Two: Farmer involvement

We need to co-design solutions with farming communities, as their businesses and broader food security are affected by resulting solutions.

Jackie Flannery from the Irish Rural Association highlighted Irish farmers’ frustrations over the costly and inefficient management of agricultural plastic waste resulting from a government-funded scheme. This example shows the urgent need for involving farmers in decision-making processes to ensure practical and acceptable solutions.

Three: Incremental vs radical change

The EU soil monitoring law was discussed by Alessandra Moretti (EU Parliament), Annalisa Corrado (MEP), and Micro Barbero (DG Env).

Corrado strongly advocated for comprehensive EU soil frameworks with sufficient financial backing. However, Barbero suggested a need for incremental policy development alongside short-term voluntary actions. This debate speaks to both the extent of the challenge of microplastics as well as industry and farmer dependence on them. Should we have immediate radical change or gradual policy integration, and what will be the impact of each on stakeholders and our society?

Whichever approach is used, urgent action is required to address plastic contamination.

Four: Move away from relying on ‘unnecessary’ plastics

A crucial yet unresolved question raised by multiple stakeholders is how to identify ‘unnecessary’ plastics effectively.

Prof Thompson examined the reduce-reuse-recycle model, which was established in the 1970s. He stressed the need for systematic redesign to ensure genuine sustainability at each stage.

Five: Ensure that solutions don’t lead to unintended consequences

Elsa Vinuesa (CPA) noted caution around biodegradable plastics, which can contain toxic chemical additives.

With over 16,000 of such additives used in plastics, more comprehensive research into their combined ecological impacts is essential to avoid unforeseen consequences when replacing plastics with alternative products.

Six: Strike the right balance

All speakers reminded us of the environmental benefits of using agricultural plastics. For example, in some cases, they can be used instead of chemicals such as pesticides. The speakers stressed the need to find a balance between these and the benefits of reducing plastic use. As an example, Rose Souza Richards (International Seed Federation) explained the value of polymer seed coatings but also explained that ongoing research is exploring ways to mitigate the resulting microplastic pollution.

Next steps

The problem of microplastics is serious, and research increasingly shows they are damaging to the environment and human/animal health.

But we need to do more than simply understand and document harms. We need effective solutions that stakeholders can buy into.

This event reinforced the necessity for robust, evidence-based solutions, highlighting a need for detailed research into chemical additives, cross-sectoral engagement, and farmer involvement to develop comprehensive strategies for reducing microplastic contamination.

We hope that the newly agreed EU soil monitoring law, alongside future global initiatives like the plastics treaty, will act as a platform for concerted, collective and consistent action for addressing plastic pollution in our soils.

This blog article, video, and infographics were designed and written by Dr Charlotte Chivers.