Microbeads: An Emerging Water Quality Issue
link to page 1 link to page 1 
August 11, 2016
Microbeads: An Emerging Water Quality Issue
For decades, water quality professionals have faced the
Figure 1. Plastic Microbeads
challenge of controlling a variety of conventional and
nonconventional pollutants (e.g., nutrients and suspended
solids; oil and grease) and toxic chemical compounds that
can harm aquatic life in lakes, streams, and coastal waters,
as well as public health. Microplastics, plastic fragments
that measure less than 5 millimeters (mm) in size (0.2
inches), are contaminants of recent and growing concern.
Microplastic is ubiquitous and persistent in the
environment. It has been reported in marine and coastal
waters and many freshwater lakes and rivers worldwide, as
well as on beaches and in sediments: a 2014 study
estimated that 5.25 trillion plastic particles weighing nearly
270,000 tons are floating on seas globally.
Source: http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/10/10/california-passes-
One source of microplastic pollution has received attention:
nations-strongest-ban-on-plastic-microbeads/.
microbeads, which are a subset of the contamination
problem (probably less than 10% by volume). A number of
companies are voluntarily removing microbeads from their
In most cases, microbeads are intended to be washed down
consumer products, and nine states passed laws to ban
the drain after use and end up in the municipal sewer
manufacture and sale of products with microbeads. In
system. Because microbeads are so small, most wastewater
December 2015, Congress passed legislation, the
treatment technology is not capable of filtering or removing
Microbead-Free Waters Act (P.L. 114-114 ), to ban
them completely from the wastestream. Most microbeads
manufacture and distribution of cosmetic products that
do not biodegrade, as they require high-heat processing to
contain microbeads in the United States.
break down, which municipal sewage treatment systems
typically are unable to do. As a result, particles pass
Background
through the plant and are discharged into nearby waters. A
Most microplastic debris results from the breakdown of
2015 report by the New York State Attorney General’s
items such as plastic bottles and bags, synthetic clothing
Office found microbeads in effluent samples from 25 of 34
fibers, and boat paint particles, in addition to personal care
wastewater treatment plants studied, concluding that
products. In the aquatic environment, marine mammals,
microbeads likely are being discharged at the majority of
birds, and fish and shellfish cannot distinguish
treatment plants operating across New York State. Particles
microplastics from food. Once in the food chain, particles
that subsequently enter water supply systems are not
may threaten aquatic life and public health, but risks—
removed by drinking water treatment technologies.
particularly for humans—are not well understood. The
particles themselves may contain toxins. Additionally,
A growing body of research reports microplastic
microplastic fragments can act like sponges, adsorbing
contamination throughout the marine food web, ranging
persistent organic pollutants, such as polychlorinated
from zooplankton and invertebrates to species such as
biphenyls (PCBs), which are harmful to organisms that
bluefin tuna that are consumed by humans. Recent studies
consume them. Microplastics show minimal biological
have drawn attention to concentrations of plastic particles in
degradation. Particles may remain in the environment for a
freshwaters, such as the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain,
long time and travel a long way from the point of origin,
at greater concentrations than in ocean waters. In 2014, the
continuously releasing toxic substances that may result in
U.S. Geological Survey began a study of microplastics in
long-term harm to biological diversity and ecosystems.
rivers, sampling 29 Great Lakes tributaries across six states.
Other research of Great Lakes waters suggests
Microbeads are synthetic polymers such as polyethylene or
concentrations of more than one million bits of microplastic
polypropylene plastic. They are used as abrasives and
per square mile in some parts of the lakes’ surfaces.
exfoliants in hundreds of consumer and personal care
Microbeads occurred in more than 60% of the samples.
products such as facial scrubs, shampoos and soaps, lip
gloss, deodorants, and toothpaste. The particles are tiny—
Responses
from 5 micrometers (µm) to 1 mm in diameter (the latter is
Consumer and advocacy groups began campaigns in 2013
about the size of the period on a printed page; see Figure
urging that products containing microbeads be redesigned
1). A single product can contain hundreds of thousands of
to incorporate less problematic constituents. Some groups
microbeads.
maintain lists of products that contain microbeads and urge
consumers to seek out alternatives. In response, companies
such as Johnson & Johnson, Unilever, and Procter &
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Microbeads: An Emerging Water Quality Issue
Gamble initiated voluntary efforts to eliminate the use of
(including toothpastes) that contain intentionally-added
microbeads in their products in favor of alternatives.
plastic microbeads. The ban takes effect on:
Consumer groups endorsed the companies’ efforts, while
also noting that they did not apply to all manufacturers and
July 1, 2017, for manufacturing. and July 1, 2018, for
were not legally enforceable.
distributing; and
Initial legislative responses to the microbeads issue
July 1, 2018, for manufacturing a rinse-off cosmetic that
occurred at the state level. Bills were introduced in more
is also a nonprescription drug, and July 1, 2019, for
than two dozen states. Nine states and several New York
distributing a rinse-off cosmetic that is also a
counties passed laws to ban manufacture and sale of
nonprescription drug.
products that contain microbeads. Illinois was the first state
to enact legislation, in 2014; eight others passed bills in
The act defines a plastic microbead as “any solid plastic
2015 (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine,
particle that is less than five millimeters in size and is
Maryland, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin). These state
intended to be used to exfoliate or cleanse the human body
laws differ in various ways, including how terms such as
or any part thereof.” It preempts states or localities from
“plastic microbeads” and “biodegradable” are defined,
establishing restrictions on the manufacture or distribution
whether biodegradable products are excluded from bans,
of rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads that
and what types of products are covered. The state laws
differ from those in the federal law, including those
established schedules for banning manufacture and sale of
previously enacted.
consumer products that contain microbeads and prohibiting
manufacture and sale of over-the-counter drugs that contain
The new federal law does not provide an exemption for
microbeads, but with differing implementation timelines.
biodegradable plastics, which some of the recent state laws
Advocacy groups, such as the Alliance for the Great Lakes,
allowed. Laws passed by Indiana, Colorado, and Maine
argued that state law differences could lead to a confusing
would allow manufacturers to replace plastic microbeads
patchwork of standards across the country, creating
with biodegradable alternatives. Consumer groups oppose
problems for interstate commerce, and urged Congress to
such provisions, arguing that claims of biodegradability
enact a federal ban on microbeads in cosmetics and
have not been scientifically proven and that exemptions put
personal care products. Industry groups, such as the
the “burden of proof” on officials, not manufacturers, to
Personal Care Products Council and the American
prove that a changed product is a non-biodegradable plastic.
Chemistry Council, supported a uniform federal approach
Other states (e.g., Connecticut, Maryland, and California)
that avoids different requirements and deadlines across the
prohibited such alternatives or allowed them only after a
states and gives manufacturers sufficient time to
process to certify biodegradability.
reformulate their products.
Consumer and advocacy groups are generally supportive of
People often use the term “personal care products” to refer
the new U.S. law, although some are concerned that
to a variety of items commonly found in the health and
restricting its applicability to products that are “used to
beauty departments of drug and department stores. The
exfoliate or cleanse in a rinse-off product” may not address
term is not defined in law, however. Under the Federal
plastic microbeads used in products that are not designed to
Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FD&C Act), many
exfoliate or cleanse, such as skin moisturizers or lipsticks,
products intended to cleanse or beautify are regulated as
because rinse-off products are only one of many sources.
cosmetics. Examples include skin moisturizers, lipsticks,
shampoos, toothpastes, and deodorants. These products are
In June 2016, Canada took action to align its control of
primarily subject to labeling requirements. Other personal
plastic microbeads to the new U.S. restrictions. Following a
care products that are intended to treat or prevent disease—
unanimous resolution passed by the House of Commons,
such as antiperspirants and treatments for dandruff or
the Canadian government finalized an order under its
acne—are drugs under the FD&C Act and must receive
Environmental Protection Act designating plastic
premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration
microbeads up to 5 mm in size as a toxic substance. The
(FDA). Some products are both cosmetics and drugs and
designation will enable to the government to propose risk
must meet FD&C Act requirements for both. Examples
management measures, either rules or nonregulatory
include beauty products that bear sun-protection factor
approaches, to manage the environmental risks that
(SPF) claims or antidandruff shampoos.
microbeads pose. Beyond North America, several European
nations have called for an EU-wide ban on microbeads,
Before passage of the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015
including the Netherlands, which enacted a ban in 2014.
(P.L. 114-114), no agency regulated plastic microbeads.
The European Parliament called for single-use plastics that
The Environmental Protection Agency has authority under
cannot be recycled, such as plastic microbeads, to be
the Clean Water Act to regulate microbeads that enter
phased out of the market or banned outright. In 2015, the
wastewater from industrial discharges, but that authority
United Nations Environment Program recommended a
does not extend to directly regulating microbeads in
global ban on microplastics in personal care and cosmetic
wastewater effluent released from households.
products.
The new federal law amends the FD&C Act to prohibit the
Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and
manufacture and distribution of rinse-off cosmetics
Environmental Policy
IF10451
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Microbeads: An Emerging Water Quality Issue
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10451 · VERSION 2 · NEW
August 11, 2016
Microbeads: An Emerging Water Quality Issue
For decades, water quality professionals have faced the
Figure 1. Plastic Microbeads
challenge of controlling a variety of conventional and
nonconventional pollutants (e.g., nutrients and suspended
solids; oil and grease) and toxic chemical compounds that
can harm aquatic life in lakes, streams, and coastal waters,
as well as public health. Microplastics, plastic fragments
that measure less than 5 millimeters (mm) in size (0.2
inches), are contaminants of recent and growing concern.
Microplastic is ubiquitous and persistent in the
environment. It has been reported in marine and coastal
waters and many freshwater lakes and rivers worldwide, as
well as on beaches and in sediments: a 2014 study
estimated that 5.25 trillion plastic particles weighing nearly
270,000 tons are floating on seas globally.
Source: http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/10/10/california-passes-
One source of microplastic pollution has received attention:
nations-strongest-ban-on-plastic-microbeads/.
microbeads, which are a subset of the contamination
problem (probably less than 10% by volume). A number of
companies are voluntarily removing microbeads from their
In most cases, microbeads are intended to be washed down
consumer products, and nine states passed laws to ban
the drain after use and end up in the municipal sewer
manufacture and sale of products with microbeads. In
system. Because microbeads are so small, most wastewater
December 2015, Congress passed legislation, the
treatment technology is not capable of filtering or removing
Microbead-Free Waters Act (P.L. 114-114 ), to ban
them completely from the wastestream. Most microbeads
manufacture and distribution of cosmetic products that
do not biodegrade, as they require high-heat processing to
contain microbeads in the United States.
break down, which municipal sewage treatment systems
typically are unable to do. As a result, particles pass
Background
through the plant and are discharged into nearby waters. A
Most microplastic debris results from the breakdown of
2015 report by the New York State Attorney General’s
items such as plastic bottles and bags, synthetic clothing
Office found microbeads in effluent samples from 25 of 34
fibers, and boat paint particles, in addition to personal care
wastewater treatment plants studied, concluding that
products. In the aquatic environment, marine mammals,
microbeads likely are being discharged at the majority of
birds, and fish and shellfish cannot distinguish
treatment plants operating across New York State. Particles
microplastics from food. Once in the food chain, particles
that subsequently enter water supply systems are not
may threaten aquatic life and public health, but risks—
removed by drinking water treatment technologies.
particularly for humans—are not well understood. The
particles themselves may contain toxins. Additionally,
A growing body of research reports microplastic
microplastic fragments can act like sponges, adsorbing
contamination throughout the marine food web, ranging
persistent organic pollutants, such as polychlorinated
from zooplankton and invertebrates to species such as
biphenyls (PCBs), which are harmful to organisms that
bluefin tuna that are consumed by humans. Recent studies
consume them. Microplastics show minimal biological
have drawn attention to concentrations of plastic particles in
degradation. Particles may remain in the environment for a
freshwaters, such as the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain,
long time and travel a long way from the point of origin,
at greater concentrations than in ocean waters. In 2014, the
continuously releasing toxic substances that may result in
U.S. Geological Survey began a study of microplastics in
long-term harm to biological diversity and ecosystems.
rivers, sampling 29 Great Lakes tributaries across six states.
Other research of Great Lakes waters suggests
Microbeads are synthetic polymers such as polyethylene or
concentrations of more than one million bits of microplastic
polypropylene plastic. They are used as abrasives and
per square mile in some parts of the lakes’ surfaces.
exfoliants in hundreds of consumer and personal care
Microbeads occurred in more than 60% of the samples.
products such as facial scrubs, shampoos and soaps, lip
gloss, deodorants, and toothpaste. The particles are tiny—
Responses
from 5 micrometers (µm) to 1 mm in diameter (the latter is
Consumer and advocacy groups began campaigns in 2013
about the size of the period on a printed page; see Figure
urging that products containing microbeads be redesigned
1). A single product can contain hundreds of thousands of
to incorporate less problematic constituents. Some groups
microbeads.
maintain lists of products that contain microbeads and urge
consumers to seek out alternatives. In response, companies
such as Johnson & Johnson, Unilever, and Procter &
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Microbeads: An Emerging Water Quality Issue
Gamble initiated voluntary efforts to eliminate the use of
(including toothpastes) that contain intentionally-added
microbeads in their products in favor of alternatives.
plastic microbeads. The ban takes effect on:
Consumer groups endorsed the companies’ efforts, while
also noting that they did not apply to all manufacturers and
July 1, 2017, for manufacturing. and July 1, 2018, for
were not legally enforceable.
distributing; and
Initial legislative responses to the microbeads issue
July 1, 2018, for manufacturing a rinse-off cosmetic that
occurred at the state level. Bills were introduced in more
is also a nonprescription drug, and July 1, 2019, for
than two dozen states. Nine states and several New York
distributing a rinse-off cosmetic that is also a
counties passed laws to ban manufacture and sale of
nonprescription drug.
products that contain microbeads. Illinois was the first state
to enact legislation, in 2014; eight others passed bills in
The act defines a plastic microbead as “any solid plastic
2015 (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine,
particle that is less than five millimeters in size and is
Maryland, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin). These state
intended to be used to exfoliate or cleanse the human body
laws differ in various ways, including how terms such as
or any part thereof.” It preempts states or localities from
“plastic microbeads” and “biodegradable” are defined,
establishing restrictions on the manufacture or distribution
whether biodegradable products are excluded from bans,
of rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads that
and what types of products are covered. The state laws
differ from those in the federal law, including those
established schedules for banning manufacture and sale of
previously enacted.
consumer products that contain microbeads and prohibiting
manufacture and sale of over-the-counter drugs that contain
The new federal law does not provide an exemption for
microbeads, but with differing implementation timelines.
biodegradable plastics, which some of the recent state laws
Advocacy groups, such as the Alliance for the Great Lakes,
allowed. Laws passed by Indiana, Colorado, and Maine
argued that state law differences could lead to a confusing
would allow manufacturers to replace plastic microbeads
patchwork of standards across the country, creating
with biodegradable alternatives. Consumer groups oppose
problems for interstate commerce, and urged Congress to
such provisions, arguing that claims of biodegradability
enact a federal ban on microbeads in cosmetics and
have not been scientifically proven and that exemptions put
personal care products. Industry groups, such as the
the “burden of proof” on officials, not manufacturers, to
Personal Care Products Council and the American
prove that a changed product is a non-biodegradable plastic.
Chemistry Council, supported a uniform federal approach
Other states (e.g., Connecticut, Maryland, and California)
that avoids different requirements and deadlines across the
prohibited such alternatives or allowed them only after a
states and gives manufacturers sufficient time to
process to certify biodegradability.
reformulate their products.
Consumer and advocacy groups are generally supportive of
People often use the term “personal care products” to refer
the new U.S. law, although some are concerned that
to a variety of items commonly found in the health and
restricting its applicability to products that are “used to
beauty departments of drug and department stores. The
exfoliate or cleanse in a rinse-off product” may not address
term is not defined in law, however. Under the Federal
plastic microbeads used in products that are not designed to
Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FD&C Act), many
exfoliate or cleanse, such as skin moisturizers or lipsticks,
products intended to cleanse or beautify are regulated as
because rinse-off products are only one of many sources.
cosmetics. Examples include skin moisturizers, lipsticks,
shampoos, toothpastes, and deodorants. These products are
In June 2016, Canada took action to align its control of
primarily subject to labeling requirements. Other personal
plastic microbeads to the new U.S. restrictions. Following a
care products that are intended to treat or prevent disease—
unanimous resolution passed by the House of Commons,
such as antiperspirants and treatments for dandruff or
the Canadian government finalized an order under its
acne—are drugs under the FD&C Act and must receive
Environmental Protection Act designating plastic
premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration
microbeads up to 5 mm in size as a toxic substance. The
(FDA). Some products are both cosmetics and drugs and
designation will enable to the government to propose risk
must meet FD&C Act requirements for both. Examples
management measures, either rules or nonregulatory
include beauty products that bear sun-protection factor
approaches, to manage the environmental risks that
(SPF) claims or antidandruff shampoos.
microbeads pose. Beyond North America, several European
nations have called for an EU-wide ban on microbeads,
Before passage of the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015
including the Netherlands, which enacted a ban in 2014.
(P.L. 114-114), no agency regulated plastic microbeads.
The European Parliament called for single-use plastics that
The Environmental Protection Agency has authority under
cannot be recycled, such as plastic microbeads, to be
the Clean Water Act to regulate microbeads that enter
phased out of the market or banned outright. In 2015, the
wastewater from industrial discharges, but that authority
United Nations Environment Program recommended a
does not extend to directly regulating microbeads in
global ban on microplastics in personal care and cosmetic
wastewater effluent released from households.
products.
The new federal law amends the FD&C Act to prohibit the
Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and
manufacture and distribution of rinse-off cosmetics
Environmental Policy
IF10451
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Microbeads: An Emerging Water Quality Issue
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10451 · VERSION 2 · NEW