California Assembly Passes Historic Law to Remove Plastic Microbeads from Personal Care Products
In a historic vote yesterday, the California Assembly passed the Microplastic Nuisance Prevention Law to ban the sale and manufacturing of personal care products containing tiny, synthetic plastic microbeads. Thanks to 5 Gyres Institute, the group that authored the bill sponsored by Assembly Member Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica), California sets a national precedent for holding companies liable for products that harm aquatic species and pollutes our water.
“The passage of our bill by the California Assembly is a big win not only for California waters, but sets a national precedent for industry to take recoverability and recyclability seriously when formulating products," said Stiv Wilson, associate director of 5 Gyres who was responsible for coordinating the legislative effort. "We are past the tipping point with regard to plastic pollution in our waters and we’ll target any product for regulation, redesign or ban that has no sustainable end of life scenario. We’re on the offensive to protect our precious waters from mindless plastic pollution.”
“Passing the Assembly Floor is a big milestone for this bill," said Assemblyman Richard Bloom. "I am proud that my colleagues support our efforts to ensure that our waters are clean, getting plastic microbeads out of these products will eliminate a significant source of pollution.”
Throughout the last several years, 5 Gyres and researchers from SUNY Fredonia discovered large quantities of plastic microbeads escaping wastewater treatment in several New York watersheds, the Great Lakes, Chicago River and Los Angeles River. In 2013, 5 Gyres and SUNY published a peer-reviewed paper in the Marine Pollution Bulletin, believed to be the first micro-plastic pollution survey of the Great Lakes Region, documenting high concentrations of plastic microbeads in the Great Lakes.
“We found concentrations of plastic microbeads in Lake Erie that rival some of the highest concentrations in the world’s oceans," said Dr. Marcus Eriksen, co-founder and research director for 5 Gyres who authored the Great Lakes paper. "Looking to our home waters in the Los Angeles River, we found microbeads there too. Unfortunately, the more we look, the more we find plastic in our environment.”
The high concentrations of microplastics in Lake Erie accounted for about 90 percent of the total plastics found. Polyethylene and polypropylene beads were found in the samples, as well as particles of aluminum silicate, or coal ash, a byproduct of coal-fired power plants.
In addition to 5 Gyres there were dozens of California based organizations dedicated to the passage of this bill, including Clean Water Action and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
“By passing AB 1699 (Bloom), the California Assembly made a bold move today to reduce the contamination of fish and other marine life with pollutant-covered plastic debris," said Miriam Gordon, director of Clean Water Action. "This is a sensible easy bill to vote for as there is no down side- no job loss or significant impact to California businesses and we hope to see the Senate exercise similar good judgment.”
The Microplastic Nuisance Prevention Law will go a long way to protect our watersheds from poorly designed products, including products containing microplastics that are designed to go down the drain and into the environment.
“Who wants to wash their face with plastics? Microbeads are completely unnecessary, as safer, natural alternatives that don’t pollute the water already exist," said Janet Nudelman, director for Campaign For Safe Cosmetics (Breast Cancer Fund). "Consumer pressure has led multinational cosmetics companies to stop using microbeads, including Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive, but we need laws on the books to make sure their commitments stick. Eliminating microbeads brings us one step closer to cleaning up the beauty aisle.”
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
Eleven peaceful activists from the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise have taken to the water in inflatable boats with handheld banners to oppose the Statoil Songa Enabler oil rig, 275 km North off the Norwegian coast, in the Arctic Barents sea.
The banners say: "People Vs. Arctic Oil" and are directed at Statoil and the Norwegian government, which has opened a new, aggressive search for oil in the waters of the Barents Sea.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) paved the way Friday for the 600-mile, 42-inch fracked gas Atlantic Coast Pipeline to proceed when it issued the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). A joint project of utility giants Duke Energy and Dominion Energy, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would move fracked gas from West Virginia into Virginia and North Carolina.
In April, the Sierra Club submitted more than 500 pages of legal and technical comments on FERC's draft EIS, which were joined by more than 18,000 individual comments detailing opposition to the project. The pipeline has been met with widespread opposition, with more than 1,000 people participating in public hearings across the three affected states. The Sierra Club recently requested that FERC issue a new environmental review document analyzing information that came in after or late in, the public comment process.
By Jessica Corbett
"It's time Rex Tillerson step down or be removed," said Gigi Kellett of Corporate Accountability International, following an announcement on Thursday that ExxonMobil will pay $2 million for violating U.S. sanctions against Russian officials while the now-secretary of state was the company's CEO.
"ExxonMobil demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanction requirements," according to enforcement filing released by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which issued the penalty. Though the fine is reportedly the maximum penalty allowed, it's pittance to one of the world's most profitable and powerful corporations, which last year reported a profit of $7.8 billion.
New analysis from Amory B. Lovins debunks the notion that highly unprofitable, economically distressed nuclear plants should be further subsidized to meet financial, security, reliability and climate goals. The analysis, which will appear shortly in The Electricity Journal, shows that closing costly-to-run nuclear plants and reinvesting their saved operating costs in energy efficiency provides cheaper electricity, increases grid reliability and security, reduces more carbon, and preserves (not distorts) market integrity—all without subsidies.
By Christian Detisch and Seth Gladstone
In the wake of Senate Republicans' ever-deepening debacle over their flailing attempts to strip health insurance from 22 million people, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is desperate to do something—anything—to show that he can get legislation passed. To this end, he's bypassing the standard committee review process to push a complex 850+ page energy bill straight to the full Senate floor. Perhaps not surprisingly, this legislation, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, would be a disaster for public health and our climate.
A new law passed this week in South Miami will require all new homes built in the city to install solar panels. The measure, which was inspired by a proposal from a teenage climate activist, will go into effect in September.
The text of the ordinance details the climate impacts facing South Miami.
By Ben Jervey
Just last week, we fact-checked and debunked every line of The Dirty Secrets of Electric Cars, a video produced by Fueling U.S. Forward, a Koch-funded campaign to push fossil fuels. That video represents the group's first public pivot from fossil fuel boosterism to electric vehicle (EV) attacks. More electric vehicle experts are also picking the video apart.
One effort is this video highlighting many of the same falsehoods we wrote about, and which adds key context about some of the video footage. Like, for instance, the fact that the photo that Fueling U.S. Forward claims is a lithium, cobalt or cerium mining operation is actually a copper mine.
By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
A recent series of articles by a Washington Post reporter could have some consumers questioning the value of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) organic seal. But are a few bad eggs representative of an entire industry?
Consumers are all for cracking down on the fraudulent few who, with the help of Big Food, big retail chains and questionable certifiers give organics a bad name. But they also want stronger standards, and better enforcement—not a plan to weaken standards to accommodate "Factory Farm Organic."