It’s claimed that we now ingest six times more microplastics than we did back in 1990. We are reportedly inhaling as much as 68,000 microplastic particles daily. They’ve been found in our blood, our organs, our breast milk and even our bones. It’s clear there is a problem. What’s been less clear is we solve it. But now, a new £10,000 treatment has emerged that promises to remove between 90 and 99 per cent of microplastics from your blood. Medical start-up Clarify Clinics has seen public figures like Orlando Bloom visit on Harley Street in the hopes of leaving with clean, filtered blood – but how far can we trust celebrity-endorsed (and slightly dystopian-feeling) treatments?

Clarify Clinics ’s world-first ‘Clari Procedure’ is a two-hour treatment that aims to remove between 90 and 99 per cent of microplastics from the blood, and is recommended by the company as a yearly investment. During Clarify Clinics’ world-first, two-hour ‘Clari Procedure’, blood is taken from the client’s arm and put through a Terumo machine to split into red blood cells and plasma using a process called apheresis. The latter is then passed through the clinic’s ‘Clari column,’ (which is CE Mark-approved) where it’s stripped of microplastics, ‘forever chemicals’ and ‘inflammatory proteins’, and returned to the client.

I reached out to Clarify Clinics to speak with CEO Yael Cohen, but did not hear back for comment. However, she has previously said that the procedure can help with lifestyle factors like sleep and energy levels. But here’s the catch: not only does it cost £10,000 each time, experts are also sceptical about its efficacy or scientific value. The first concern centres around the lack of significant evidence that ‘blood cleaning’ treatments are effective at removing microplastics. While there’s been a small amount of preliminary research that suggests therapeutic apheresis (which has been proven to work as a treatment for issues like autoimmune illnesses) could prospectively help to filter some forms of microplastics from blood, there are no larger studies that provide reliable or substantial answers yet.

“From a scientific standpoint, there is currently no robust evidence to confirm that clinical treatments can effectively remove microplastics from blood,” say Professor Luiza C. Campos, professor of environmental engineering at UCL, and Dr Rosa Busquets, associate professor in analytical and forensic chemistry at Kingston University. “The plastic particles that may be found in blood are not yet fully known, but they are expected to vary widely in their properties. Currently, the scientific community is finding it challenging to separate microplastics efficiently from liquids. From an engineering perspective, it is unlikely that a single adsorption filter could remove all types of microplastics. Their variability in size, shape, polymer chemistry and surface properties means no universal adsorbent exists.”

Heather A Leslie, PhD, an independent scientist and consultant specialising in plastic pollution, also raises concerns over the unknown wider effects on the body. “The treatment is highly invasive – your body’s defences will definitely be alarmed,” she says, adding that “it doesn’t prevent exposure or impacts, since the strategy is to wait until after microplastics are already inside and circulating throughout the body before addressing them.” For this reason, even if the treatment is successful, it’s one that would have to be repeated regularly.

Ghosh also questions whether or not there is currently a need for such a procedure. While we know microplastic levels in the human body have increased dramatically in recent decades, we are only just beginning to gain knowledge of how they impact the body negatively, especially in the long term. “Early toxicology points to possible inflammation or oxidative stress pathways, but we do not yet have robust causal links in humans,” says Ghosh, before adding that presence in the body doesn’t equal proven harm. She looks to the 2022 report by the World Health Organisation, which she says discovered “exposure is real, but health effects are still uncertain,” and which concluded more research needs to be done. [Following this interview, a study was published which suggested microplastics could be weakening our bones].

Microplastic removal treatments may be ‘more marketing than medicine’

For this reason, Ghosh notes, microplastic removal treatments may be “more marketing than medicine.” This is where the moral and ethical implications are important to consider, too. At £10,000 a treatment, this is only available to a certain tax bracket – and it’s not the majority. Wellness and longevity is a privilege of the mega-rich, who can afford to buy their way out of the environmental damage they have had more of a hand in contributing towards than most. “It shows how the wellness sector monetises anxiety,” says Ghosh. “Plastic pollution is a real environmental issue, but instead of systemic change, we are offered high priced ‘fixes’ that sound scientific but are not backed by outcomes. When celebrities like Orlando Bloom do it, it glamourises the idea that you can buy your way out of a global pollution problem.”

Until we understand more about these specialised treatments (and they become accessible), it’s more important to consider what we can do to minimise microplastic build-up as a community, and in ways that can benefit everyone. We can all do our part, and the experts agree the best way to maintain your own body’s microplastic exposure is through prevention. “Eat less processed food. Avoid canned food. Stop storing food in plastic containers and stop microwaving it. Consider a water filter,” says Leslie. “When renovating, choose more natural materials, paints and flooring, more nonsynthetic household textiles like bedding and curtains. Wear more cotton and linen, especially when playing sports and sweating. Read labels on personal care products.”

However, there’s only so much we can do until those in positions of power must make larger changes from the top down. “We believe that before pursuing treatment technologies, we must prioritise addressing the sources of microplastic pollution,” say Campos and Busquets. “Engineering solutions should focus on reducing plastic use, redesigning materials to be safer and more sustainable, and replacing plastic components in medical, household and industrial devices wherever possible and feasible. Without upstream interventions, microplastics will continue to fragment and circulate through water, air, soil, and food systems, ultimately entering the human body. Prevention at source is both more effective and more sustainable than relying on downstream removal treatments.”