Microplastics in North America in 2026: Research Advances, Regulation Struggles to Keep Pace

Microplastics are everywhere: in drinking water, in food, in human blood and breast milk, and in the organs of almost every person on the planet. The science has arrived. The regulation, across the Americas, has not.

What follows is a survey of where Canada, Mexico, and the United States (U.S.) stand in early 2026: Who has moved, who has stalled, and what the gap between scientific understanding and enforceable law means for chemical companies and the industries that depend on regulatory certainty.

“What makes 2026 a turning point for microplastics is the convergence of science and regulation,” said Terry Wells, director, Chemical Compliance, 3E. “Federal and state programs are expanding the monitoring of microplastics in water, soil, and the food chain, while new funding is accelerating research into human health effects. At the same time, we’re seeing the first wave of product bans targeting unnecessary sources of plastic waste such as microbeads, plastic glitter, and preproduction pellets. The science is informing the regulation, and the regulation is catching up to the science. For companies in the compliance space, the window to get ahead of this is now.”

Although the distance between political will and enforceable standards remains wide in North America, momentum is beginning to build around regulating micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) but it is tethered to science-first caution. In Canada and the U.S., lawmakers and regulators have largely prioritized research, monitoring, and framework development over binding limits or exposure standards. Federal authorities are signaling concern, allocating funding, and refining detection methods, while stopping short of enforceable microplastics rules. This measured approach reflects both scientific uncertainty and institutional risk aversion, even as state- and provincial-level initiatives push the issue forward in piecemeal fashion.

For industry, the absence of a unified framework is not the same as the absence of risk. Litigation is intensifying, state-level divergence is accelerating, and the science that regulators have long cited as insufficient is now being funded at an unprecedented scale. The rules are coming. The question is what shape they will take and whether companies will act to get ahead of them.

Study First, Regulate Later: Washington's Microplastics Moment

On the regulatory front in the U.S., 2026 is shaping up as a year of acceleration without resolution - though the pace is quickening. At the federal level, a bipartisan bill (H.R. 4486), introduced July 17, 2025, would direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to study and report to Congress on the human health impacts of microplastics in food and water, with a focus on children's health, cancer, chronic illness, the endocrine system, and reproductive health. That legislative push has now been met by executive action. During an April 2, 2026, press conference, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin and HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. announced a landmark, coordinated initiative that marks the most significant U.S. federal commitment to date on microplastics in drinking water.

For the first time in the program's history, the EPA announced it will include microplastics as a priority contaminant group in its draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6), now open for public comment. CCL 6 also includes pharmaceuticals as a group - another first - along with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), disinfection byproducts, 75 individual chemicals, and nine microbes that may be present in public drinking water systems. During the April 2 EPA/HHS announcement, EPA officials emphasized that the inclusion of microplastics in CCL 6 does not constitute regulation but signals that the contaminants warrant further scientific evaluation and could be considered for future rulemaking. Any enforceable federal drinking water standard for microplastics, if it comes at all, remains years away.

On the same day, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), an agency within the HHS, announced STOMP: Systematic Targeting of MicroPlastics. STOMP is a nationwide, $144 million program to create a toolbox for measuring, researching, and affordably removing MNPs from the human body.

“Today, HHS and EPA are taking decisive action to confront microplastics as a growing threat to human health,” said Kennedy. “Americans deserve clear answers about how microplastics in their bodies affect their health. Through ARPA-H's STOMP program, we will measure microplastic exposure, identify sources of risk, and develop targeted solutions to reduce it.”

The program takes a three-pronged approach - measure, target, and remove - and represents the first large-scale federal investment specifically aimed at understanding microplastic body burden in human populations. If STOMP produces the epidemiological evidence that has so far eluded researchers, it could substantially accelerate the regulatory timeline.

“Microplastics are in every organ we look at-in ourselves, and in our children. But we don't know which ones are harmful or how to remove them,” said Alicia Jackson, ARPA-H director. “Nobody wants unknown particles accumulating in their body. The field is working in the dark. STOMP is turning on the lights.”

The American Chemistry Council noted that any drinking water monitoring program must address existing hurdles, including developing clear definitions, ensuring adequate lab capacity, and standardizing sampling and testing methods to be used consistently across the country. These are not merely bureaucratic obstacles; they reflect genuine methodological challenges that have complicated regulatory action for years and will shape how quickly CCL 6 translates into enforceable standards, if it does at all.

The U.S. still has no federal MNP-specific occupational exposure limits, with OSHA’s nuisance dust standard remaining as the de facto worker protection benchmark - a standard that was never designed with nanoscale polymer particles in mind. California's proposal to add microplastics to its Candidate Chemicals List, Michigan's drinking water monitoring plans, and new single-use plastic bans reflect accelerating state-level action. The most likely trajectory for 2026: expanding state-level regulatory divergence, intensifying litigation against product manufacturers, and continued pressure on industry to get ahead of a patchwork framework before a national one arrives.

U.S. States: A Patchwork of Regulations Without a Pattern

As of April 2026, no U.S. state has enacted regulations that explicitly and specifically address MNPs as a distinct regulated category. However, several states have taken more targeted approaches, including early regulation of intentionally added microplastics and a growing number of proposals that address microplastics indirectly, primarily through broader restrictions on plastics, PFAS , and other persistent pollutants.

In 2014, Illinois became the first state to ban microbeads, an intentionally added microplastic used for exfoliation, texture enhancement, and as a low-cost filler, in rinse-off cosmetics. Several states, including California and New York, enacted similar laws targeting the intentionally added microplastics, which ultimately led to the federal Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015.

Representative Kimberly DuBuclet, author of the Illinois bill, voiced her concerns about microplastics. “As a former vice president of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, I've seen firsthand how microplastics infiltrate our waterways, harm aquatic life, and ultimately make their way into our own bodies,” she said. “These tiny particles might seem harmless, but they carry toxic chemicals, disrupt ecosystems, and pose a serious risk to both human health and the environment. Everyone deserves to feel confident and creative but our beauty routines shouldn't come at the cost of our planet.”

Beyond microbeads, most state activity continues to address MNPs indirectly, through broader policies targeting plastic waste, packaging, and persistent pollutants. These measures are generally framed around solid waste reduction, recycling, or chemical management rather than microplastics specifically, though microplastic pollution is increasingly cited as a policy driver.

California has moved furthest towards a more comprehensive approach. In June 2025, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control proposed adding microplastics to its Candidate Chemicals List, which would allow the agency to identify consumer products including athletic equipment, electronics, and paints that contain or generate microplastics for future evaluation and possible regulation as priority products.

As legislative and regulatory momentum increases nationwide, a more coordinated national framework for microplastics will become more important. Industry groups, manufacturers, and others in the regulated community would likely benefit from federal regulatory schemes that bridge the gap between state-by-state jurisdictional differences.

Canada: Plastic Rules Are Under a Legal Cloud

Despite being an early adopter of efforts to limit microplastic exposure, Canada has hit some snags along the way that still persist. In July 2019, Canada banned the sale and manufacturing of microbeads in toiletries. In May 2021, Canada added plastic-manufactured items to its list of toxic substances under Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). In June 2022, Canada banned six categories of single-use plastic items. The government has also set a broader target of zero plastic waste by 2030, anchored in a circular economy strategy.

Canada’s CEPA-based approach hit a significant obstacle when a federal court's November 2023 decision retroactively declared the order adding “plastic manufactured items” to Schedule 1 of CEPA invalid and unlawful. In January 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal granted a stay motion preventing that ruling from taking effect while the appeal is ongoing. This means the Single-Use Plastics Prohibition Regulations remain in force, but they are under a legal cloud. The appeal adds a layer of regulatory uncertainty that is unresolved as of early 2026.

Nanoplastics are not specifically regulated in Canada. The focus instead is on building the scientific foundation to eventually do so. Canada’s National Research Council is actively developing new detection methods for nanoplastics, with researchers analyzing snow samples from Indigenous-partnered sites in Newfoundland and Labrador and conducting in vitro experiments to explore how these particles affect cellular growth. A key finding is a high degree of variability among samples, even from neighboring sites - a lack of repeatability that makes it difficult to detect plastics in the environment and study their effects.

Mexico: Federal Inaction, Local Leadership

Mexico has made notable strides on plastic pollution broadly, but when it comes to microplastics specifically, the country remains in a significant regulatory deficit. A peer-reviewed analysis published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research in November 2025, authored by researchers including Leticia Narciso-Ortiz and Manuel Alejandro Lizardi-Jiménez, explained that in Mexico, some laws and regulations have minor mentions of plastics, but only the entities that generate certain types of plastic in large quantities are legislated.

“There are no federal or general laws regulating microplastics. The deficit of regulation of plastic waste and microplastics in health and bioaccumulation in México shows the necessity for México and other countries in Latin America to address plastic legalization as soon as possible,” they wrote in their research paper. Proposals to add or reform some laws have been made, but none have been authorized. They added it was incumbent on the Mexican government to promote research on the diagnosis, prevention, and remediation of sites contaminated with microplastics.

Canada and the U.S. have implemented legislation since 2020 and 2019, respectively, that prohibits the production, distribution, and packaging of cosmetics and toiletries that contain plastic particles smaller than or equal to 5 millimeters, noted the researchers. “These measures contrast with the limited regulations in Latin America, where the absence of legislation poses significant challenges to managing this emerging pollutant,” they wrote. “In Mexico, the situation is especially alarming. The country ranks fifth worldwide in the generation of poorly managed plastic waste, only below India, China, Brazil, and Indonesia.”

Article 4 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States establishes that every person has the right to health protection and the right to a healthy environment for their development and well-being, provisions that researchers cite as a potential legal hook for future microplastics regulation, despite a lack of specific rules. While there is no specific legislation on microplastics at the federal level, Mexico’s General Law for the Prevention and Integrated Management of Waste (LGPGIR) establishes the general framework for waste management policy.

As is true in the U.S. with state action on microplastics and plastics outdistancing federal efforts, the most concrete action in Mexico has occurred at the local level. Mexico City has specifically prohibited microplastics intentionally introduced in production processes through its Law on Solid Waste (Ley de Residuos Sólidos de la CDMX), which seeks to promote a sustainable economic model through waste reduction, material reuse, and circular economy practices. Mexico City has also been active on broader single-use plastics. Single-use plastic bags were banned on January 1, 2020, followed by a prohibition on disposable plastic products - including cutlery, plates, straws, and cotton swab sticks - on January 1, 2021.

“The protection of the environment is at the heart of the ban on single-use plastic bags in Mexico City. We all have to understand that the economic development is compatible with the protection of the environment, there is no antagonism there,” said Mexico City's mayor at the time, Claudia Sheinbaum.

The most significant federal development on the horizon is broader than microplastics alone. Mexico’s Ministry of the Environment (SEMARNAT) published the General Law on Circular Economy (Ley General de Economía Circular) in late 2025, which went into effect in January 2026, officially establishing national extended producer responsibility (EPR) requirements for producers and importers to manage product life cycles and that includes a General Circular Economy Law and a national strategy. A core dynamic is a shift of financial and logistical responsibility from municipalities to producers via EPR, targeting the plastics sector by mandating EPR from origin to final destination.

An Oceana-backed initiative to regulate e-commerce plastics in Mexico City - framed partly around the microplastics problem - stalled in the Mexico City legislature in 2024. Several of those involved in the initiative indicated they planned to take up the issue again because it addresses global problems such as microplastics and global warming. Latin American countries like Colombia and Chile have already passed legislation to eliminate e-commerce plastics.

A Potentially High Legal Cost for Uncertainty

A landmark 2025 study published in Nature Medicine confirmed that concentrations of microplastics in human brain tissue increased significantly between 2016 and 2024. For chemical manufacturers, formulators, distributors, and the safety professionals who serve them, that finding is not just a public health headline, it is a compliance and liability signal. With no MNP-specific occupational exposure limits (OELs) in the books and a fragmented state-by-state regulatory landscape taking shape in the absence of federal action, plaintiffs’ attorneys are already sharpening their pencils. Industry faces a rare and uncomfortable convergence: a documented human health concern outpacing both the science needed to quantify it and the regulatory frameworks designed to manage it.

Here are some key takeaways offered by legal experts:

• No MNP-specific OELs exist. OSHA’s nuisance dust standard is the de facto backstop for worker protection. Safety data sheet authors and chemical safety professionals should monitor this space closely. In the absence of OELs specific to MNPs, workplace safety efforts should focus on minimizing potential exposure through appropriate engineering controls such as isolation cabinets, exhaust ventilation, and good industrial hygiene practices.
• Brain tissue accumulation is documented and worsening. As noted in the peer-reviewed 2025 Nature Medicine study, MNP concentration increases between 2016 and 2024 are statistically significant.
• Regulatory fragmentation is a challenge. A patchwork of state-level actions without a unifying federal framework creates compliance complexity. Companies are encouraged to follow the development of state and territory laws regulating MNPs as well as federal action.
• Litigation is a concern. Plaintiffs will continue filing greenwashing and consumer protection litigation, so carefully label products and avoid broad or unverifiable claims that could attract legal scrutiny from the plaintiffs' bar, suggest attorneys at Crowell in a 2025 blog.
• Detection science is advancing rapidly. New fluorescence-based imaging methods could soon provide real-time in-organism tracking, which would dramatically accelerate human health evidence. According to the attorneys at Crowell, “If future research establishes a causal link, plaintiffs will likely bring personal-injury claims, significantly increasing litigation risks for plastics manufacturers and users. Thus, manufacturers should follow the scientific research in this area.”

Read the other articles in this series:

Too Small to See, Too Big to Ignore: The World Wrestles with a Plastic Problem

The Global Microplastics Regulatory Landscape in 2026: Active but Fragmented

From Microbeads to Macro-Regulation: The EU Framework the World Is Watching