BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 888
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis Alejo, Chair
AB 888
(Bloom) - As Amended April 22, 2015
SUBJECT: Waste management: plastic microbeads
SUMMARY: Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2020, the sale of
personal care products containing plastic microbeads.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes legislative findings about microplastics and microbeads
and their effects on the environment.
2)Defines "personal care product" as an article intended to be
rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced to, or
otherwise applied to, the human body or any part thereof for
cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering
the appearance, and an article intended for use as a component
of that type of article. Prescription drugs are not included
in the definition of personal care products.
3)Defines "plastic microbead" as an intentionally added solid
plastic particle measuring five millimeters or less in every
dimension.
AB 888
Page 2
4)Prohibits, on and after January 1, 2020, a person from selling
or offering for promotional purposes any personal care
products containing plastic microbeads that are used to
exfoliate or cleanse in a rinse-off product including but not
limited to, toothpaste.
5)Exempts from the prohibition the following:
a) A person that sells or offers for promotional purposes a
personal care product containing plastic microbeads in less
than 1 part per million by weight; and,
b) A product containing natural exfoliants that does not
contain plastic microbeads.
6)Provides that a person who violates or threatens to violate
the prohibitions may be enjoined in any court of competent
jurisdiction and is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed
$2,500 per day for each violation, as specified.
7)Authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, a city
attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce the prohibition and
provides that the civil penalties collected shall be paid to
whichever office brought the action.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 888
Page 3
1)Prohibits, under the federal Marine Plastic Pollution Research
and Control Act of 1987, the at-sea disposal of plastic and
other solid materials for all navigable waters within the
United States. (33 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)
2)Regulates, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
discharges of pollutants in storm water and urban runoff by
regulating, through the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), industrial discharges and
discharges through the municipal storm drain systems. (Water
Code § 13000 et seq.)
3)Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
the regional water boards to implement a program to control
discharges of preproduction plastic (nurdles) from point and
nonpoint sources. Requires the SWRCB to determine the
appropriate regulatory methods to address the discharges from
these point and nonpoint sources. (Water Code § 13367)
4)Declares that littered plastic products have caused and
continue to cause significant environmental harm and have
burdened local governments with significant environmental
cleanup costs. (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 42355)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill: According to the author, "Microplastic beads
are sold in consumer products as abrasives and exfoliants (such
as in soaps, facial scrubs, etc.). In some products there are
over 350,000 microbeads in one tube alone. They are directly
washed down the drain and too small to be captured by water
treatment facilities. Recent studies have shown microbeads to
be a pervasive marine pollutant, and have been found in alarming
AB 888
Page 4
quantities everywhere from the garbage gyres in the Pacific
Ocean to the Great Lakes to the LA River. Research has also
shown that these beads absorb toxins and are being ingested by
marine life, posing a threat to our marine ecosystems.
Currently there is no law banning their use in consumer
products. While some larger companies such as Unilever, Proctor
& Gamble and Johnson & Johnson have pledged to phase microbeads
out of their products and replace them with natural
alternatives, the proposed phase out dates range all over the
place and in some cases are only 50% by a certain date, etc.
Our bill would provide a hard phase out date to ensure that
plastic microbeads from personal care products are no longer
entering our waters."
Microplastics in the marine environment: According to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), marine
debris is a serious problem that impacts the environment,
economy, and human health and safety. Plastic pollution is the
predominant type of anthropogenic debris found in the marine
environment.
Microplastics enter the marine environment as larger plastic
objects that eventually degrade into smaller components, as shed
synthetic fibers from textiles during clothes washing, or as
microbeads that originate in personal care products. According
to The 5 Gyres Institute, microplastic particles and microbeads,
which are typically made of polyethylene, polypropylene,
polyethylene terephthalate, polymethyl methacrylate or nylon,
can be found in facial and body scrubs, shampoos, soaps,
toothpaste, eyeliners, lip gloss, deodorant, and sunblock
sticks. Some of these products, most of which are designed to
be flushed down the sink or bath drain, contain more than
350,000 beads per bottle.
A number of studies have shown that microplastics pass through
wastewater treatment facilities and into waterways, eventually
flowing to the ocean. Additional microplastics reach rivers and
oceans as a result of wastewater overflow during heavy rainfall
events.
AB 888
Page 5
Impacts of discarded microplastic: The US EPA states that
marine animals accidentally eat marine debris while feeding on
natural food. Ingestion can lead to starvation or malnutrition
when the debris collects in the animal's stomach and causes the
animal to stop feeding. Internal injuries and infections may
also result from ingestion.
In addition to causing these types of injuries to wildlife,
microplastics can have toxicological effects. Research suggests
that microplastics attract and absorb persistent organic
pollutants, such as PCBs, DDT, and PBDEs. Studies conducted by
UC Santa Barbara's National Center for Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis (NCEAS) show that about 78 percent of the chemicals
recognized by the US EPA are associated with microplastic
pollution. Additional studies at NCEAS show that toxic
concentrations of pollutants and additives enter the tissue of
animals that have eaten microplastic. These pollutants
bioaccumulate and bioamplify, having the potential to impact
ecosystems and human health.
Are microplastic beads necessary in personal care products?
Alternatives to plastic microbeads, such as ground fruit pits,
seeds, cocoa beans, rice, sugar, and salt, are commonly used in
personal care products. While some opponents argue that these
components don't offer the same scrubbing feeling or
hypoallergenic properties as microbeads, many major
manufacturers are already voluntarily phasing out microplastics
and using these or other alternatives. For example, Unilever's
website states, "We decided to phase-out plastic scrub beads
from personal care products because we believed we could provide
consumers with products that deliver a similar exfoliating
performance without the need to use plastics. We completed the
phase-out globally by 1 January 2015 using suitable alternatives
that best match the sensory experience that the plastic scrub
beads provided." Colgate-Palmolive's website states, "We
recognize that consumers have questions and are reformulating
AB 888
Page 6
with alternate ingredients the small number of our products
containing microplastics. Much of this work has already been
accomplished, and the process will be completed by 2014."
Johnson & Johnson, L'Oreal, and Proctor & Gamble have also
eliminated, or have committed to eliminating, the use of
microplastics in their products.
Arguments in support: The California Association of Sanitation
Agencies (CASA) writes that "Pollution prevention and source
control are significant concerns for our member agencies.
Plastic pollution is a prolific problem in California, and
plastic microbeads in particular are very difficult to filter
out during the typical wastewater treatment processes. Thus,
microbeads that are flushed down drains as part of their
intended use can be discharged into California waterways and
released into the environment? The best way to ensure that these
pollutants are not discharged to California waterways is to
prohibit their introduction to the wastewater stream on the
front end."
A coalition of about 40 public health and environmental
organizations writes, "Studies indicate that plastic microbeads
attract and absorb toxins from the surrounding waters and can
leach toxic additives (that give microbeads their defined shape
and performance attributes) into the aquatic environment. They
are also mistaken for food by wildlife, including fish that
humans eat. Once ingested, the toxins accumulate in the tissues
of organisms and move their way up the food chain, creating a
threat both to natural ecosystems and human health? AB 888 is
regarded among stakeholders as the model policy that will not
only result in a cleaner environment, but also reduce hazards to
both humans as well as marine and aquatic wildlife."
Arguments in opposition: A coalition of eight industry trade
associations writes, "Last year, similar legislation was moved
out of the Assembly as a "work in progress" as all parties were
very close to agreement. Unfortunately, changes made in the
Senate ultimately made the bill unworkable for the industry and
we had no choice but to oppose on the Senate Floor. AB 888 is
AB 888
Page 7
equally problematic, as its scope goes beyond a ban of plastic
microbeads in personal care products and would create a legal
quagmire, leaving the interpretations of the definitions and
what is covered up to the courts?
"As you may know, the State of Illinois reached a reasonable
framework for legislation to address this issue in June 2014.
The Illinois legislation was ultimately included in the Council
of State Governments (CSG) "Suggested State Legislation" to help
shape future policy on this issue. Since that time, similar
legislation has been enacted in Colorado, Maine and New Jersey.
Specifically, the CSG legislation bans the manufacture of
personal care products and over-the-counter medications that
contain non-biodegradable solid plastic microbeads that are used
to exfoliate or cleanse in a rinse-off product."
Related legislation:
1)SB 625 (Galgiani). SB 625 prohibits, on and after January 1,
2020, a person from selling or offering for promotional
purposes a personal care product containing synthetic plastic
microbeads; however, it includes different definitions,
different enforcement provisions, and a state preemption
provision. SB 625 is set to be heard in the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee on April 29, 2015.
2)AB 1699 (Bloom, 2014) was substantially similar to AB 888. AB
1699 passed the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials
Committee on a 5 - 2 vote, and was subsequently held on the
Senate Inactive file.
Double referral: This bill was double referred to the Assembly
Committee on Natural Resources, where it passed on April 13,
2015, on a 7 - 0 vote.
AB 888
Page 8
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Californians Against Waste (sponsor)
California Association of Sanitation Agencies (sponsor)
Clean Water Action (sponsor)
The Story of Stuff Project (sponsor)
5 Gyres Institute (sponsor)
Azul
Breast Cancer Fund
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California League of Conservation Voters
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
Carpinteria Sanitary District
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Environmental Health
Center for Oceanic Awareness Research and Education
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Central Marin Sanitation Agency
City of Palo Alto
City and County of San Francisco
Clean Oceans Competition
Cleanups For Change
Coachella Valley Water District
Community Environmental Council
Councilmember Paul Koretz, City of Los Angeles
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Defenders of Wildlife
AB 888
Page 9
Delta Diablo
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Environment California
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Environmental Working Group
Goleta Sanitary District
Green Sangha
Green Science Policy Institute
Heal the Bay
Health Care Without Harm
Hidden Resources
Klean Kanteen
Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District
Las Virgenes - Triunfo Joint Powers Authority
Leucadia Wastewater District
LA City Councilmember Paul Koretz
LA Waterkeeper
Lunch Skins
LUSH Cosmetics
Manduka
Napa Recycling and Waste Services
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ocean Conservancy
Physicians for Social Responsibility, SF Bay Chapter
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Plastic Soup Foundation
Ross Valley Sanitary District
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco Water Power Sewer
Save Our Shores
Save The Bay
Seventh Generation Advisors
Sierra Club California
Surfrider Foundation
Team Marine, Santa Monica High School
Turtle Island Restoration Network
Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority
AB 888
Page 10
World Centric
Opposition
American Chemistry Council
Biocom
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
Consumer Healthcare Products Association
International Fragrance Association, North America
Personal Care Products Council
Analysis Prepared by:Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
AB 888
Page 11