28/10/2026
MICROPLASTICS: SHOULD AUSTRALIA REGULATE POLLUTION AT THE SOURCE?
Plastic pollution begins long before an item reaches the rubbish bin. Decisions about product ingredients, materials and design can determine whether tiny plastic particles are released during everyday use.
Chewing gum is bringing that question into sharper focus.
New Jersey’s proposed Protecting Against Microplastics Act would introduce disclosure requirements and, after a transition period, prohibit certain products containing intentionally added microplastics or capable of generating specified plastic particles. Chewing gum is explicitly included.
As of 29 October 2026, the legislation remains a proposal—not an enacted ban. Its relevance to Australia is the discussion it opens about manufacturers’ responsibility for preventing pollution. (pub.njleg.state.nj.us, njleg.state.nj.us, njleg.state.nj.us)
WHAT DID THE CHEWING-GUM STUDY FIND?
In a 2025 pilot study presented at an American Chemical Society meeting, UCLA researchers tested ten chewing-gum brands: five synthetic and five described as natural.
Both groups released microplastic particles into saliva during chewing, with similar levels across the two categories. Researchers reported an average of approximately 100 particles per gram of gum.
This was a small exploratory study involving one person chewing the samples. It did not establish exposure levels for Australian products, determine how many particles enter body tissues, or demonstrate that chewing gum causes disease. It also challenges the assumption that “natural” automatically means free from microplastic contamination. (newsroom.ucla.edu, acs.org)
WHERE DOES AUSTRALIA STAND?
Australia already has experience with prevention at the source.
A national voluntary phase-out targeted plastic microbeads in rinse-off personal-care, cosmetic and cleaning products. NSW subsequently banned the supply of rinse-off personal-care products containing plastic microbeads from November 2022. (dcceew.gov.au, epa.nsw.gov.au)
That establishes a useful principle: product materials can be addressed before they enter waterways.
But intentionally added particles and particles shed from larger plastic materials are different problems. Effective regulation needs to distinguish between them, establish reliable testing methods and identify where intervention will achieve meaningful reductions.
WHAT ABOUT OUR HEALTH?
A 2026 review commissioned by the Australian Centre for Disease Control describes significant gaps in understanding microplastics and human health.
Experimental research identifies reasons for concern, but human evidence remains limited. Differences in particle size, composition, exposure and testing methods complicate risk assessment.
Detecting particles does not, by itself, establish that they caused illness. Equally, uncertainty provides a strong reason to improve research and monitoring. (cdc.gov.au)
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?
Australia should consider:
• Independent testing of products sold here.
• Clearer disclosure of plastic materials and particle shedding.
• Consistent standards for “plastic-free” claims.
• Targeted restrictions where evidence supports them.
• Alternatives assessed for safety, performance and environmental impact.
For organic consumers, the opportunity is to extend informed purchasing beyond how food is grown to how everyday products are made.
Consumers can ask questions and reduce unnecessary plastic use. Manufacturers and governments must also take responsibility for product design and transparent information.
Preventing avoidable pollution deserves a place alongside recycling and clean-ups.
Should Australians have clearer information about the plastics in products we chew, drink from and use every day?
