🐟 Microplastics – why fish are often unfairly in the spotlight

A question of perspective?

Sometimes it's like a mirror that only shows a small part of the picture: the image appears clear, but it remains incomplete. And that's often due to the complexity of the issues at hand. If they are too complex, we focus on what we can understand quickly and easily – or on what is explained to us quickly and easily with a semblance of logic.

This is exactly what has happened when it comes to microplastics in food. For years, fish has been the main focus of the discussion – as a symbol of marine pollution and as the supposedly greatest risk on our plates.

But new scientific findings are changing the picture: fish is not the problem. It was just previously kept in a laboratory .

Why the fish made headlines

More than 70 percent of scientific and media coverage of microplastics focuses on seafood . The reason is simple: fish and shellfish were the first foods ever tested for microplastics. Firstly, because they come from the sea, and secondly, because they are technically easier to analyze. Shellfish, after all, don't run away.

The result: The public assumed that those who eat fish ingest particularly large amounts of microplastics. But a new study from Heriot-Watt University (Scotland) shows that this assumption is unfounded – as recently reported in the fish magazine.

Surprising facts

According to the study, the daily intake of microplastics from fish and seafood is between 1 and 10 particles – about the same as from salt, honey, or poultry. For comparison:

• A single bottle of water contains 10 to 100 particles .

• We inhale 100 to 1,000 particles daily through indoor air.

In other words, the main source of microplastics is not our dinner from the sea, but what we drink and breathe every day.

Why differentiation is important

Of course, we know that microplastics in food are basically a disaster. But we shouldn't focus on just one food product. Toxicologist Prof. Dr. Theodore Henry sums it up perfectly:

"It is important to consider seafood in context – not only because the levels of contamination are similar to those of other foods, but because seafood offers significant health benefits."

Those who avoid fish out of concern also miss out on important omega-3 fatty acids, proteins and trace elements – and thus on nutrients that hardly any other food provides in this combination.

Our position at KANZOW

At KANZOW , we believe that education is the best protection against misconceptions – not just when it comes to fish. For over 130 years, we've stood for responsible seafood sourcing, and we know that quality arises where transparency and trust meet. That's why we focus on controlled origin, certified supply chains, and honest communication. Because ultimately, fish should be what it has always been: a piece of nature that can be enjoyed with a clear conscience. Nothing more – but certainly nothing less.

Source: FischMagazin Ausgabe 10/2025 | Studie: Examining Misconceptions about Plastic‑Particle Exposure from Ingestion of Seafood and Risk to Human Health — veröffentlicht in Environmental Science & Technology Letters (2025) Heriot-Watt University