Armstrong, JB

Bogan, MT

Darling, ES

Green, SJ

Kross, SM

Rochman, CM

Smyth, AR

Verissimo, D

English

College of William & Mary: W&M Publish

W&M ScholarWorks VIMS Articles 2015 Scientific Evidence Supports a Ban on Microbeads CM Rochman SM Kross JB Armstrong MT Bogan ES Darling See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles  Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Rochman, CM; Kross, SM; Armstrong, JB; Bogan, MT; Darling, ES; Green, SJ; Smyth, AR; and Verissimo, D, "Scientific Evidence Supports a Ban on Microbeads" (2015). VIMS Articles. 831. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles/831 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in VIMS Articles by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@wm.edu. Authors CM Rochman, SM Kross, JB Armstrong, MT Bogan, ES Darling, SJ Green, AR Smyth, and D Verissimo This article is available at W&M ScholarWorks: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles/831    Scientific Evidence Supports a Ban on Microbeads  Growing scientific evidence indicates that synthetic plastic microbeads (hereafter, microbeads) are a threat to the environment and should be banned from all personal care products. Microbeads pollute the environment, adding to the increasing abundance of microplastic debris. Too small to be efficiently filtered by wastewater treatment processes, microbeads are found in aquatic habitats and fish. Microplastic debris, and its inherent cocktail of chemical pollutants, has been found in the stomachs of hundreds of species of wildlife. The ingestion of microplastic may cause bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals and adverse health effects in wildlife and people.    Policy Recommendations: 1. State and federal legislation should ban synthetic plastic microbeads from all personal care products, including “over the counter drugs” and cosmetics. 2. Legislation should define “synthetic plastic microbeads” as any intentionally added synthetic plastic particle that escapes wastewater treatment processes and is not marine biodegradable, and thus is bioavailable to wildlife.    Background on the bead Microbeads are a form of microplastic1. Thus, scientific evidence related to the sources, fate and effects of microplastic inform our understanding of microbeads. In particular, microbeads are fragments or beads of plastic, ranging from roughly 5µm to 1mm in size and do not biodegrade in nature. Microbeads are used in hundreds of products including cosmetics, sunscreen, body wash, toothpaste, skincare, and industrial and household cleaning products1-3. They are used for several reasons, including as cleansing materials or exfoliants (often replacing naturally biodegradable alternatives) to hide wrinkle lines in cosmetics and to improve the feel of formulated products such as lotions.  What’s the problem? Microbeads are found in aquatic habitats4,5 and in wildlife6 adding to the growing quantities of microplastic debris. Microbeads, like all microplastic, have the potential to contaminate food chains3, including seafood products consumed by people. Microbeads in personal care products are designed to be discarded down the drain during normal use1,3,7. Due to their small size, it is not feasible for wastewater treatment plants to screen microbeads, which are then littered via final effluent or sewage sludge into the environment8.   We support legislation banning microbeads from personal care products, a position supported by the weight of scientific evidence regarding the fate, persistence and toxicity of microplastic debris.  © 5Gyres   2 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Spring 2012  Microbead contamination and harm  Although their small size makes them difficult to detect, microbeads have been found in inland and coastal aquatic habitats4,5 and in fish6. Experiments have demonstrated harm in fish9,10 from plastics that are the same type, size and shape as common microbeads. Microbeads pass through water treatment facilities, are released into natural waterways and become microplastic debris. Microplastic is ubiquitous in aquatic habitats, including bays11,12, estuaries and shorelines13,14, coral reefs15, the deep-sea15, freshwater lakes16, rivers5 and Arctic Sea ice17. Microplastics persist in aquatic and terrestrial habitats for decades where they accumulate hazardous chemicals. Microplastic has been reported in hundreds of species globally, including marine mammals, turtles, seabirds, fish and invertebrates18. Microplastics cause physical and chemical harm to animals9,19. Physically, microplastic can cause cellular necrosis, inflammation and lacerations in the digestive tract20. Chemically, microplastic is associated with a complex mixture of chemicals, many of which are priority pollutants under the US EPA Clean Water Act for being persistent, bioacummulative and/or toxic21. Chemicals associated with this ‘cocktail’ can accumulate in animals that eat them9,10,19,22-27 and cause liver toxicity and disrupt the endocrine system9,10.   Calculations are based upon average estimates of microbeads reported in final effluent8,6,29, estimates that 99% of microbeads that enter waste water treatment plants are retained in sewage sludge8 and the total flow of 35 waste water treatment outfalls that release effluent into the San Francisco Bay/Estuary30. It is noteworthy that this capture does not mean it is not released into the environment. Oftentimes sludge is land-applied in agricultural fields and terrestrial environments.  Current Progress Illinois Microbead-free Waters Act This legislation contains loopholes allowing continued production and use of microbeads that escape wastewater treatment processes and are not biodegradable in the aquatic environment.   Text From the Bill:  Loophole: Defining plastic as those molded at high heat, linking monomers, and retaining their defined shapes after disposal, allows for plastics that degrade slightly in an unspecified time period.  Text From the Bill:  Loophole: “Biodegradable” is not defined in terms of % degradation under a specified time frame in the environment, allowing microbeads to be made from plastics like PLA—a material that is not marine biodegradable28. © 5Gyres 62 NGOs from 31 countries support the ban. Multinational companies, including Unilever, L’Oreal, Procter and Gamble and Johnson & Johnson, have pledged to stop the use or sale of microbeads. Bans have been proposed federally and in many states, including AK, CA, CT, CO, HI, IA, IN, MD, ME, MI, MN, NJ, NY, OH, VA, VT, WA, WI, & WY.  IL passed a ban on microbeads.     Authors *Chelsea Rochman, Ph.D.  Sara Kross, Ph.D. Michael Bogan, Ph.D. Emily Darling, Ph.D. Stephanie Green, Ph.D. Diogo Veríssimo, Ph.D. Ashley Smyth, Ph.D. Jonathan Armstrong, Ph.D. Supported by: Sherry A. Mason, Ph.D.   *For further information, contact cmrochman@ucdavis.edu  References: 1. Browne, M. A., et al. (2007). IEAM, 3(4), 559-561. 2. Gregory, M. R. (1996). Mar Pollut Bull, 32(12), 867-871. 3. Fendall, L. S., & Sewell, M. A. (2009). Mar Pollut Bull, 58(8), 1225-1228. 4. Eriksen, M., et al. (2013) Mar Pollut Bull, 77(1), 177-182. 5. Castañeda, R. A., et al. (2014). Can J Fisheries and Aquatic Sci, 71(12), 1767-1771. 7. Zitko, V., Hanlon, M.  Mar Pollut Bull 22, 41-42 (1991). 8. Magnusson, K., Noren, F. (2014). IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. 6. Mason, S., unpublished work. 9. Rochman, C. M., et al. (2013). Sci Rep, 3. 10. Rochman, C. M., et al. (2014b). Sci Tot Environ, 476, 622-633. 11. Endo, S., et al. (2005). Mar Pollut Bull, 50(10), 1103-1114. 12. Ashton, K., et al. (2010). Mar Pollut Bull, 60(11), 2050-2055. 13. Browne, M. A., et al. (2011) Environ Sci & Technol, 45, 9175-9179. 14. Browne, M. A., et al. (2010). Environ Sci Technol, 44(9), 3404-3409. 15. Woodall, L. C., et al. (2015). Front Mar Sci, 2(3). 16. Zbyszewski, M., & Corcoran, P. L. (2011). Water Air Soil Pollut, 220(1-4), 365-372. 17. Obbard, R. W., et al. (2014). Earth's Fut, 2(6), 315-320. 18. Gall, S., Thompson, R. C. (2015) Mar Pollut Bull. In press. 19. Browne, M. A., et al. (2013). Curr Biol, 23(23), 2388-2392. 20. Rochman, C.M., et al. Ecology. In review. 21. Rochman C. M., et al. (2013) Nature, 494, 169-171. 22. Teuten, E. L., et al. (2009) Phil Trans Roy Soc B 364, 2027-2045. 23. Tanaka, K., et al. (2013) Mar Pollut Bull 69, 219-222 (2013). 24. Gaylor, M. O., et al. (2012). Chemosphere, 86(5), 500-505. 25. Lavers, J. L., et al. (2014). Environ Pollut, 187, 124-129. 26. Besseling, E., et al. (2013) Environ Sci & Technol, 47, 593-600. 27. Chua, EM et al. (2014) Environ Sci Technol 38, 8127-8134. 28. CalRecycle (2012) Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Publication #DRRR-2012-1435. 29. CA Regional Water Quality Control Board (2011) SF Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). 30. Martin, C., Eizhvertina, O. (2014). Niagara College Environmental Technician-Field and Lab (co-op): Final Term Research Project.   Resolution—   Whereas, microbeads in personal care products are indistinguishable from litter and cause the same problems as microplastic debris; and  Whereas, the weight of the scientific evidence regarding the fate and hazards of microplastics leans heavily in support of the ban on microbeads; and Whereas, microbeads qualify as pollution and therefore should be regulated under existing U.S. legislation, such as the Clean Water Act; and Whereas, a clean environment free of pollutants supports healthy populations of wildlife and safe seafood and clean waterways for people; now, therefore,  We support legislation banning microbeads from personal care products, a position supported by the weight of scientific evidence regarding the fate, persistence and toxicity of microplastic debris.  © 5Gyres    This brief is supported by past and present David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellows (a program administered by the Society for Conservation Biology).  Sean C. Anderson, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Researcher, Simon Fraser University Clare Aslan, Ph.D. Assistant Research Professor, Northern Arizona University Juliann Aukema, Ph.D. David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellow Vickie Bakker, Ph.D. Assistant Research Professor, Montana State University Julia K. Baum, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, University of Victoria Jedediah F. Brodie, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, University of British Columbia Myra Finkelstein, Ph.D. Associated Adjunct Professor, University of California Helen Fox, Ph.D. David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellow Karen Goodell, Ph.D. Associate Professor, The Ohio State University Kimberly Hall, Ph.D. Adjunct Assistant Professor, Michigan State University Benjamin S. Halpern, Ph.D. Professor, University of California Christine V. Hawkes, Ph.D. Associate Professor, University of Texas David T. S. Hayman, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer, Massey University Brent Hughes, Ph.D. David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellow, University of California Sarah K. Jacobi, Ph.D. Adjunct Conservation Scientist, Chicago Botanic Garden Olaf P. Jensen, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Rutgers University Liana Joseph, Ph.D. Principal Conservation Officer, Dept. of Env. & Heritage Protection Josh J. Lawler, Ph.D. Professor, University of Washington David A. Lytle, Ph.D. Professor, Oregon State University Sarah E. Mabey, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Hiram College Mariah Meek, Ph.D. David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellow, Cornell University Cara R. Nelson, Ph.D. Associate Professor, University of Montana Cully Nordby, Ph.D. Academic Director, University of California Julian D. Olden, Ph.D. Professor, University of Washington Oliver R. W. Pergams, Ph.D. Professor, City Colleges of Chicago Garry Peterson, Ph.D. Professor, Stockholm University Malin Pinsky, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Rutgers University Raina Plowright, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Montana State University Sarah E. Reed, Ph.D. Associate Conservation Scientist, Wildlife Conservation Society Kristina Rozan, Ph.D. University of Maine School of Law Maureen Ryan, Ph.D., Simon Fraser University Anne Salomon, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University Benjamin A. Sikes, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Kansas Jeff Su, Ph.D. David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellow Kimberly Terrell, Ph.D. Research Associate, Smithsonian Institution Dave Theobald, Ph.D. Conservation Science Partners Morgan Tingley, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, University of Connecticut Rebecca Tonietto, Ph.D. Candidate, Northwestern University M. Jake Vander Zanden, Ph.D. Professor, University of Wisconsin Erika Zavaleta, Ph.D. Professor, University of California     

Scientific Evidence Supports a Ban on Microbeads

https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1831&amp;context=vimsarticles

Scientific Evidence Supports a Ban on Microbeads

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

College of William & Mary: W&M Publish