Published in EcoWatch.com on March 30, 2015 by Staley Prom, Surfrider Foundation
There are currently numerous state bills introduced around the country focused on curbing marine plastic pollution. One notably popular subject this session is that of microbeads,
which are teeny tiny bits of plastic put in consumer products such as
toothpastes and facial scrubs, which (likely unbeknownst to consumers!)
wash down the drain, are frequently not captured by wastewater treatment
facilities (because they’re too small, do not biodegrade, and float),
simply pass through wastewater treatment facilities, and eventually
enter our waterways and pollute our oceans. These microplastics are found in all ocean gyres, bays, gulfs and seas around the world.
This is problematic for a multitude of reasons. First, plastic does
not biodegrade into elements or compounds commonly found in nature like
other organic materials, but instead, photodegrades into smaller pieces
of plastic causing pollution that is virtually impossible to remediate.
Second, microplastic debris absorbs toxic, environmentally persistent
chemicals such as DDT, PCBs, PAHs, and flame retardants found in our
waterways. In 2011, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association found
that plastic debris accumulates pollutants such as PCBs up to 100,000 to
1,000,000 times the levels found in seawater.
Thus, aside from the negative effects of plastic consumption by marine life
such as intestinal clogging and starvation, fish can become
contaminated by the plastic’s absorbed toxins, which bioaccumulate up
the food chain. These toxins pose dangerous threats to humans and
wildlife who consume them. Microplastics? Megaproblem.
Currently, there are at least 15 microbead bills pending at various stages across the country. Below is a sampling of some of these bills. While, as explained below, Surfrider Foundation
has concerns associated with some of the bills, Surfrider is hopeful
that states will carefully draft bills that will address the very
serious threats that microplastic pollution poses to our coastal
resources and water quality.
Connecticut
Connecticut currently has four microbeads bills in the works: House Bill (H.B.) 6081, H.B. 5206,H.B. 5403, and H.B. 5727.
On March 10, 2015, Surfrider Foundation submitted testimony to the
Joint Committee on the Environment supporting the bills, with
amendments. Surfrider’s concerns with the bills primarily focus on any
exceptions or exemptions for “over the counter” drugs or “biodegradable”
particles. First, there must not be any exemptions for over the counter
products, as this creates a huge industry loophole, rendering any
microbeads ban futile, since the number of over the counter drugs is
incredibly broad, and contains numerous types of products such as
fluoride and whitening toothpastes, acne scrubs, moisturizing cleansers,
and wrinkle creams, which are the exact kinds of products which
typically utilize microbeads. Secondly, any exemptions for biodegradable
particles are concerning, because “biodegradable” can be a misleading
term. Any microbead legislation should only include a biodegradable
exception if the term is carefully defined in a way to ensure that only
products which are truly able to break down into natural elements in the
marine environment or in wastewater treatment are considered
biodegradable.
Hawaii
Recently, on March 18, Surfrider Foundation submitted testimony in strong support of Hawaii’s microbead bill, H.B. 621,
with amendments, to the Energy and Environment Committee, and Commerce
and Consumer Protection Committee. The bill gradually (i.e. between
December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2019) phases in the prohibition on
the manufacture and sale of personal care products that contain
“synthetic plastic microbeads.” “Synthetic plastic microbead” means any
intentionally added non-biodegradable solid plastic particle measuring
less than five millimeters in size and used to exfoliate or cleanse in a
rinse-off product. Violations are punishable by civil penalties up to
$1,000 for a first violation, and up to $2,500 for subsequent
violations.
As noted above, this microbead definition, which excludes
“non-biodegradable” particles is potentially problematic. Thus, the
Surfrider Foundation proposed in its testimony that the legislators must
either remove the vague, misleading term “non-biodegradable” in the
definition of “synthetic plastic microbead” and replace it with
“non-compostable,” or define “biodegradable” as “capable of decomposing
back into natural elements.”
Oregon
Similarly, in Oregon, H.B. 3478 was
first read March 2, 2015, and was referred to the Energy and
Environment Committee March 9, 2015. The bill phases in the prohibition
on the manufacture and sale of personal care products and over the
counter drugs that contain synthetic plastic microbeads. Currently, the
definition of “synthetic plastic microbead” means “a solid plastic
particle that a manufacturer intentionally incorporates into a personal
care product and that: (A) Measures less than five millimeters in
diameter; (B) Is not biodegradable; (C) The manufacturer intends as a
method for exfoliating skin or otherwise cleaning the human body; and
(D) The manufacturer intends for the consumer to rinse off from the body
after use. Thus, the definition excludes particles which are
“biodegradable.” As noted above, this is potentially vague and
problematic, and any microbead legislation should ensure that the ban
applies to all microplastic particles, and that only products which are
truly able to break down into natural elements are excepted. The
Surfrider Foundation, on behalf of the Oregon Surfrider Foundation
Chapter Network, and the individual Oregon chapters have expressed these
concerns in personal letters to their state legislators, and Surfrider
Foundation staff will be participating in a work group on this bill in
the future.
Washington
Meanwhile, Washington’s microbead bill, Senate Bill (S.B.) 5609 passed
the Senate unanimously on March 11, 2015. In the House, the bill had
its first reading and was referred to the House Committee on the
Environment on March 13. The Committee recently held a public hearing on
the bill on March 23, 2015.
Unfortunately, S.B. 5609 passed the Senate with a potential
“biodegradable” loophole, similar to Hawaii and Oregon’s microbeads
bills. The definition of the banned “synthetic plastic microbead”
excludes biodegradable particles (i.e., synthetic plastic microbead
means “an intentionally added nonbiodegradable solid plastic particle
measuring less than five millimeters in size and used to exfoliate or
cleanse in a rinse-off product”), which, again, could be problematic
without further clarifying what is biodegradable and what is
nonbiodegradable.
The Surfrider Foundation will continue to monitor these, and other
proposed microbeads bills, and bring awareness to these issues such that
legislators will be encouraged to craft effective bills that serve
their intended purposes. Go here for more information on the dangers of marine plastic pollution, and on Surfrider Foundation’s Rise Above Plastics campaign.
Visit 5 Gyres I Want Plastic Off My Face information page to learn how you can get involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.