Generally speaking when it comes to health stuff, we know disappointingly little, and the stuff we do know is often from past mistakes (e.g. smoking). We don't have enough knowledge to say what the effects of something will be usually, so unless there are obvious correlations and an obvious control group (again think smoking) we might never really know.
What the FDA will do, with pesticides for example, is test an 1000x dose on a rat, and look for immediate effects. If they don't see immediate effects, then perhaps it doesn't do longterm damage to humans. It's not very convincing, but it historically things used to be much worse.
I'll use two comparisons, one positive and one negative for fairness sake. Before we knew that there wasn't much COVID spread in schools, did it make sense to close them just based on the uncertainty involved? Here's an example from the other end: Before we knew for sure leaded gasoline was a bad idea, should it have been banned? The impact of all the lead, particularly on children, was incredibly damaging and had lifelong effects that continued after the science was in.
Obviously, you want to take action based on data. But before we've got enough information to know, what do you do? I'd imagine the risk analysis has something to do with the rate at which micro plastics are being introduced and how far we are from an answer.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. For example, it could be that items that cause the most issues are taxed a bit more to slow the growth of this potential issue. (Not suggesting that specifically; I don't know enough to say if action should be weaker or more severe.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A
I don't know how much is retained, but the plastics have been found in the meat of cows & fish, so it's likely spread all throughout our bodies as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/22/micropla...
But we consume a lot of stuff unintentionally. Fine sand is blown around and deposited on food that we consume. But sand is "natural" so it's ok. But it's really just silicon dioxide mixed with other random minerals. Is that a problem? We know inhaling silicon dioxide is bad for you, but eating it? It is an approved food additive.
Edit: regarding non-organics, it took a long time to realize that inhaling fine dust causes long-term health problems, and quite longer until dust filters became required and commonplace. We are still not done regarding fine dust emitted by traffic.
I guess my point is - sure, maybe we'll find out one day that plastics are causing cancer, but we have a lot of data to suggest they don't at this point.