The complaint contends that despite the risk of microplastic exposure and food contamination, there is no warning, disclaimer or disclosure on product packaging.
Posted by Leslie Eastman
If you look in my pantry, you will find it stocked with plastic Ziploc bags of all sizes.
In part, it’s because I find them helpful for food storage as well as some of my work activities. I am sure many Legal Insurrection readers use sealable plastic bags daily without trepidation.
Now, in the land of the setting Sun and lunatics, a California woman is suing the maker of these bags because they supposedly emit microplastics.
The lawsuit — filed by Linda Cheslow of Santa Rosa, California, in the U.S. District Court for Northern California April 25 — claims that Ziploc’s assertion that its products are freezer- and microwave-safe is incorrect and misleading, causing customers to unknowingly expose themselves to dangerous microplastics “during routine kitchen practices.”
“In reality, these Products are made from polyethylene and polypropylene — materials that scientific and medical evidence shows release microplastics when microwaved and frozen — making them fundamentally unfit for microwave and freezer use,” the lawsuit states.
The complaint names several specific products, including but not limited to: pint-, quart- and gallon-sized freezer bags; quart- and gallon-sized slider freezer bags; quart- and gallon-sized slider storage bags; and storage containers.
Ziploc is being sued over claims its bags release harmful microplastics into food increasing risks of cancer and dementia. pic.twitter.com/EMlNpdMSyY
— Dr. Dennis Walker (@drdenwalker) January 11, 2026
The lawsuit will focus on the lack of warnings and looks like it will encompass all impacted American residents.
The complaint contends that despite the risk of microplastic exposure and food contamination, there is no warning, disclaimer or disclosure on product packaging to inform consumers of the potential health hazards posed by using the items as directed. This is particularly dangerous given that the Ziploc products are meant to be used on a daily basis during routine kitchen activities, the filing argues.
…Reasonable consumers would not have paid as much for the Ziploc containers and bags, or bought them at all, had they known the products could leach harmful microplastics into their food, the case asserts.
The Ziploc bag lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased any of the Ziploc products listed on this page for purposes other than resale.
I have covered the topic of microplastics before, as it looked like it might be revving up to be the next big environmental cause to target big business and corporate dollars.
I suspect the arguments supporting this case will be countered with that from agencies that have asserted that microplastics are not known to cause harm to human health. For example, this is the current information on the subject from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):
The presence of environmentally derived microplastics and nanoplastics in food alone does not indicate a risk and does not violate FDA regulations unless it creates a health concern. While many studies have reported the presence of microplastics in several foods, including salt, seafood, sugar, beer, bottled water, honey, milk, and tea, current scientific evidence does not demonstrate that the levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health.
Additionally, because there are no standardized methods for how to detect, quantify, or characterize microplastics and nanoplastics, many of the scientific studies have used methods of variable, questionable, and/or limited accuracy and specificity.
The case is interesting because of how ubiquitous plastic bags for food storage and preparation are. I suspect the debate over microplastics and consumer safety will continue, despite existing evidence indicating that these particles pose no proven health risk.
Still, it’s difficult for the public to trust the science when so much research and regulatory guidance have proven inconsistent or untrustworthy over time.
Image by perplexity.ai.
…Reasonable consumers would not have paid as much for the Ziploc containers and bags, or bought them at all, had they known the products could leach harmful microplastics into their food, the case asserts.
“Crazed liberals would not have bought them at all…”
Reasonable consumers are reasonable and know it is only crazed liberals that would worry about something that isn’t worth worrying about.
Most ingested microplastics from food pass through the digestive system.
Has anyone done a study on the effects of stomach acid on microplastics? Seem there could be some dissolving as plastic and acid are not friends.
It’s gonna be hard to show injury because all plastic is non toxic when you eat it. It doesn’t digest and passes through.
Saw your post after I posted.
They want a warning on the plastic bags that says “may contain plastic!”
“Imagined by low-IQ people in California to cause health problems”
Here we go … the New Terror – plastic!
Q: Oh, what will save us?
A: The usual.
Bigger government, bans, restrictions, and new taxes.
Maybe this is a Story Tip, but at least one of the studies that found microplastics are spread throughout our bodies has been withdrawn. ‘A bombshell’: doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body | Plastics | The Guardian. Admittedly anything in the Guardian is suspect, but normally the Guardian would be backing such a finding because they are against anything derived from fossil fuels or makes modern life better. I think I originally read about this on Retraction Watch, but I’m not sure.
It also isn’t clear that microplastics are all that dangerous in our bodies. While there are worries about fish eating plankton that thrive on microplastics, I’ve only read alarmist “studies” that say that is such a bad thing.
Actually the Guardian states they are opposed to anything Trump.
This gives them a bit of wiggle room on plastics.
What effect on humans do these microplastics actually have?
If I have food in plastic, I try to eat only the food, not the plastic, regardless of how hungry I am. 🙂
You have demonstrated great wisdom, Grasshopper. 😉
Typical leftard trying to “make her bones” within the grifter community
I’m 71, and all the damage plastic can do to me has undoubtedly already been done. I’m not (very) demented, and don’t yet have any cancer that I know of – I definitely not wasting away. So I’m not going to stop using Ziplocks, which are one of the many blessings bestowed upon humanity by the patriarchy. You’re welcome.
So, who is paying the bills for this chick? She clearly doesn’t have the millions of dollars this is costing, who is paying?
This is similar to suits (and government studies) brought against the alleged harmful effects of increased CO2. These only measure the supposed negative impacts and ignore the positives (e.g. very measurable greening of the planet).
In a similar vein, let’s say we agreed with her allegations and outlawed plastic bags.
What would that do to food spoilage; to health impacts of consuming unprotected food etc?
This sounds like a lawsuit brought and funded by a group of trial lawyers seeking a billion-dollar settlement, cashing in on public hysteria over microplastics.