Ethan Wu
Tiny plastics have massive consequences. It's common to see bottles and wrappers littering our coastlines. But what about their smaller, invisible counterparts? Each year, trillions of microplastic fragments less than 5 millimeters in size infiltrate coastal ecosystems. These tiny invaders end up in fish, amphibians, and even human tissue. They carry toxic metals, disrupt our hormone systems, and jeopardize biodiversity. Ingested microplastics have been linked with serious health issues, including lung, liver, and prostate cancer. [4] Despite this escalating threat, the United States continues to lag in its response.
In 2023 alone, the United States generated a staggering 42 million metric tons of plastic waste, a trend continued since 2016. [2] In theory, federal policy should have mitigated damage. In reality, the two most notable policies, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 and the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act of 2020, had limited impact on slowing microplastic influx. [1, 2]
The Microbead-Free Waters Act may sound like a legislative win. It banned microbeads in cosmetics, such as toothpaste and face scrubs. However, microbeads represent less than 4.2% of all microplastic pollution in coastal waters. [3] Additionally, this act only bans them in cosmetics, further shrinking that fraction. Major sources, like synthetic fibers from clothing, tire wear runoff, and industrial plastic pellets, still remain unregulated.
On the other hand, the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act of 2020 focuses heavily on cleanup acts and innovation incentives. Nevertheless, it still lacks meaningful restrictions on production and industrial emissions. For example, the act promotes plastic removal technologies that are untested and estimated to be inefficient. [1] But most importantly, big corporations can invest in these ineffective technologies and still receive tax exemptions.
As a lifelong Bay Area resident, it’s disheartening to see microplastic pollution getting worse along the very coasts I’ve grown up around. So, what’s the solution?
First, we need to modernize wastewater infrastructure nationwide. Currently, many treatment plants are not equipped to capture microfiber plastics or tire residue. [4] Considering that many sewer systems discharge directly into coastal waters, upgrading filtration systems would significantly reduce microplastic infiltration. To mandate these upgrades, a federal framework, not a patchwork of state-level efforts, is necessary.
Second, we must restore funding to key environmental agencies. In recent years, organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have faced budget cuts. Consequently, crucial microplastic monitoring and reactive measures, such as the NOAA’s microplastic monitoring system and the EPA’s enforcement initiatives, have been threatened. Proper funding is essential for proactive tracking, regulation, and enforcement.
At its core, the microplastic crisis is not due to a lack of knowledge. The science is clear. We know where these pollutants come from and how they spread. What is missing is a coordinated, enforceable response at a national level. Without meaningful reform, microplastics will continue to accumulate in our oceans, in coastal species, and in our bodies.
Ethan Wu is a senior at Granada High School interested in Bioengineering and Environmental Science. Ethan advocates for environmental justice and reform in the Bay Area.
SOURCES:
[1] Coleman, Ellie. “Shortcomings of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act.” Duke Nicholas School of the Environment, 19 Apr. 2024, blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/env212/shortcomings-of-the-save-our-seas-2-0-act/.
[2] Law, Kara Lavender, et al. “The United States’ Contribution of Plastic Waste to Land and Ocean.” Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 44, 30 Oct. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd0288.
[3] McDevitt, Jason P., et al. “Addressing the Issue of Microplastics in the Wake of the Microbead-Free Waters Act—a New Standard Can Facilitate Improved Policy.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 51, no. 12, 15 May 2017, pp. 6611–17. ACS Publications, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05812.
[4] “Regulatory Context – Microplastics.”Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2021, mp-1.itrcweb.org/regulatory-context/.