Microplastics in Sugar: What the Studies Found, and One That Was Retracted

Does sugar have microplastics?

Every sugar study we reviewed reported plastic-like particles in every sample it tested. That much is consistent. What is not consistent is the number, and the gap is too large to be explained by brands or countries alone.

The Greek team counted particles big enough to see under a stereomicroscope. The Italian team found only 10 to 35 particles of 50 µm or more per sample; nearly everything it counted was smaller. Both can be right about what they measured.

Why do sugar microplastic counts differ so much?

Three choices drive almost all of the difference.

• The size floor. Small particles vastly outnumber large ones. Fadda and colleagues found about 60% of their particles were between 5 and 10 µm, 30% between 10 and 20 µm and only about 10% between 20 and 50 µm. A study that stops at 100 µm, like the Greek one, cannot see any of them.
• How plastic is identified. The Greek team used shape, colour and a hot-needle test, in which plastic softens or curls when touched with a heated point. The authors call their particles “suspected” because the polymer was not chemically confirmed. Spectroscopy (FTIR or Raman) matches each particle’s spectrum to a library, so a cotton fibre is not mistaken for polyester.
• How much of the sample is counted. The Italian Raman counts came from 34% of each filter and were scaled up, which the authors describe as semi-quantitative. Their uncertainty for total counts ranged from about 8% to 25% depending on the sugar.

Contamination control matters too. Fibres float in laboratory air and shed from clothing. The Greek team ran two blanks with deionised water and found no particles, but noted it did not run separate airborne or filter blanks, or recovery tests. The Italian team ran ten procedural blanks on different days and only counted a polymer as coming from sugar when it rose above that polymer’s background level.

What happened to the Bangladesh sugar study?

In 2022, researchers in Dhaka reported an average of 343.7 microplastic particles per kilogram in seven local sugars and estimated that Bangladesh’s population ate about 10.2 tonnes of microplastics a year from sugar. The figure travelled widely and still appears on many consumer sites. Science of the Total Environment retracted the paper in December 2024. The bibliographic record we reviewed lists the retraction but does not state its reason, so we will not guess at one. What matters for a reader is simple: a retracted paper is no longer part of the evidence, and its numbers should not be used to describe sugar anywhere.

The 2013 honey-and-sugar study and the contamination problem

The first paper to report particles in sugar was a 2013 study by Gerd and Elisabeth Liebezeit, best known for its honey results. In five commercial sugars, refined samples averaged 217 fibres and 32 fragments per kilogram. One unrefined cane sugar had 560 fibres and 540 fragments per kilogram.

Those counts were made by eye, without identifying the polymer. Later work showed how much that matters. When a Swiss team led by Mühlschlegel re-examined honey with Raman and FTIR, most fibres turned out to be cellulose or PET of likely textile origin, many dark particles were soot, and the authors found no indication of significant microplastic contamination in their samples. That paper studied honey, not sugar, but the lesson carries over: a visual count of coloured fibres is not a microplastic count. Our honey guide covers that debate in more detail.

Is brown or raw sugar lower in microplastics than white sugar?

No study we reviewed answers this well. The only direct comparison is the 2013 visual count, where one unrefined cane sugar had more particles than the refined ones. That is a single sample measured with a method later called into question. The Italian study tested only white sugar. The Greek paper does not say which kinds of sugar its two products were.

It is tempting to reason that less refining means fewer machines and fewer particles. The Greek authors argue the opposite risk: since particles turned up in rock salt and sugar, whose raw materials should carry little plastic, contamination probably enters during harvesting, processing, handling and packaging. Raw and turbinado sugars still pass through mills, dryers and bagging lines. Brown sugar is often refined white sugar with molasses added back. Without a like-for-like test, switching sugar type for microplastic reasons is a guess.

Does sugar packaging matter?

Somewhat, and the Italian study gives the clearest data. Its sugars came in three kinds of packaging: a paper bag made mainly of cellulose, a polyethylene bag, and paper café sachets that turned out to have an inner polyethylene layer. The sugar from the plastic bag had significantly more polyethylene particles than the sugar in the paper bag or in one of the sachet brands. The authors could not tell whether the polyethylene in the sachet sugar came from the sachet lining or from earlier processing.

Packaging is not the whole story. The paper-bagged Italian sugar still had PVC, PS and PET particles, and the Greek sugars, sold in paper bags without a polyethylene coating, still contained suspected particles. A paper bag is a reasonable small preference. It does not make sugar particle-free.

How much does sugar add to your microplastic intake?

Nobody knows precisely. The Italian authors multiplied their roughly 300 particles per gram by 50 grams of free sugar a day and arrived at about 15,000 particles a day for an adult. Treat that as an illustration of their method, not a measured intake: it rests on six Italian sugars, on counts scaled from part of each filter, and on an assumed consumption level. The Greek count, applied to the same 50 grams, would be fewer than four particles a day. The truth for any given bag sits somewhere that neither study pins down.

Counts also say nothing about harm. The FDA says current scientific evidence does not show that the levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health. Particles in the 5 to 10 µm range are the ones researchers worry could cross the gut wall more easily, which is why the Italian finding drew attention, but no study has linked sugar-borne particles to a health outcome in people. To see how sugar compares with other foods, read foods with the most microplastics and our estimate of how much plastic we eat per week.

How sugar compares with salt

The Greek paper was mainly a salt study. Its 19 salts averaged 118 ± 68 suspected particles per kilogram, and the authors found no statistically significant difference in total counts between sea salt, rock salt and sugar. Their untreated “gourmet” sea salt, collected from coastal rocks, had the highest count at 308 ± 76 per kilogram. Across every product, fibres made up about 73% of particles, which the authors link to textiles in workwear and processing. You eat far more sugar than salt by weight, so per-kilogram counts are not a ranking of exposure. For the salt side, see microplastics in salt.

What you can do about microplastics in sugar

1. Cut added sugar first. The WHO recommends keeping free sugars below 10% of daily energy intake for its own health reasons. Fewer grams also means fewer particles from this source, whatever the true count.
2. Prefer paper bags over plastic bags when the price and product are otherwise the same. The Italian polyethylene result supports this, modestly.
3. Decant into glass or stainless steel at home and use a metal scoop rather than a plastic one that scrapes the container each day.
4. Keep the sugar bowl covered. Fibres settle from indoor air onto open food; our guide to microplastics in the air at home explains why dust matters.
5. Don’t pay extra for raw or organic on microplastic grounds. Nothing we reviewed shows a difference.
6. Watch sweets in plastic wrap if you want to reduce plastic contact around sugar more broadly; see plastic-wrapped candies.

Use the App

Check the packaging before the sugar goes in your cart

Scan a bag of sugar, a sweetener or the canister you store it in. The app shows the declared packaging and container materials, flags plastic-lined paper where product information gives it, and suggests a glass or steel storage swap.

What the evidence does not establish

• A typical microplastic count for sugar. Published values span from tens per kilogram to hundreds per gram depending on method.
• A count for any named brand you can buy. Neither 2026 study named its brands.
• That brown, raw, cane or beet sugar is cleaner or dirtier than white. No like-for-like study exists in the sources we reviewed.
• Where the particles enter. Both 2026 papers say processing, airborne deposition and packaging are plausible, and neither was designed to separate them.
• A health effect from sugar-borne particles. No human outcome study exists, and the FDA does not consider detected food levels a demonstrated risk.