Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
The Need for Leadership to Address Microplastics in Canadian Marine and Freshwater Environments January 2015 Meagan Franciscus, Erik Fraser, and Gareth Savage Abstract Microplastic particles are an emerging water contaminant found in increasing volumes in Canadian freshwater and marine environments. Microplastics are plastics less than 5mm in diameter. They can enter water systems in two ways. First, as larger plastics are broken down into smaller pieces by wind, waves, or UV radiation. The second way is through the intentional production of small microplastics for use as exfoliates in consumer products including toothpaste and body wash. Although current research is limited, preliminary studies show that microplastic pollution disrupts aquatic environments by entering the food chains of wildlife. Pollutants including DDT and PCBs bind to microplastics, and are eventually transferred to the organisms that ingest them. The long-term effects of microplastic pollution are not completely understood, but existing studies highlight potential harm to human health. This paper assesses the potential threat of microplastics and proposes policy opportunities. The methodology used includes a thorough literature review, a comparative analysis that assessed government regulation of BPA production, and interviews with relevant experts at Environment Canada and the Centre for Water Resources Studies. This paper forms recommendations based under Environment Canada’s Precautionary Principle that states a lack of scientific certainty cannot be used as a means of delaying government response. It argues that federal leadership is necessary to support a research program that can monitor microplastic concentrations and determine their long-term effects. It also recommends that the federal government work alongside the private sector to implement a voluntary phase-out of microbeads in consumer products. Dalhousie University 1 Introduction Microplastic particles are an emerging water contaminant found in increasing volumes in Canadian freshwater and marine environments. Although current research is limited, preliminary studies show that microplastic pollution disrupts aquatic environments by entering the food chains of wildlife. Current research findings demonstrate that the toxins bound to ingested microplastics are transferred into the animals that ingest them. The long-term effects of microplastic pollution are not yet understood, but existing studies highlight potential harm to human health. Currently, there is no regulation of microplastics in Canada. This study assesses the threat microplastics pose to Canada’s marine and freshwater environments. The methodology has focused on an extensive literature review of current microplastic data. In addition, the researchers consulted a wastewater researcher and executed a comparative analysis assessing government response to BPA research in the early 2000s. The study also includes a summary of international efforts to curb microplastic pollution. The authors conclude by recommending continued research funding to monitor microplastic concentrations and to determine the long-term effects of microplastics. The paper additionally recommends the introduction of a voluntary phase-out of microplastics aligned with Environment Canada’s precautionary principle. Microplastics Defined Microplastics are plastics less than 5mm in diameter (Mathalon and Hill, 2014). They are distributed throughout Canadian waterways with the highest concentrations along populated coastlines. Microplastics enter water systems in three ways. First, as 2 larger plastic pieces enter the marine environment through improper waste disposal, they subsequently degrade into smaller pieces by wind, waves and/or UV radiation (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2011). Second, plastics less than 5mm in diameter are intentionally added to common consumer products, such as exfoliating body wash and toothpaste, and are flushed down the drain. However, wastewater treatment plants often fail to filter out all the microbeads (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2011). The third way microplastics enter marine environments is in the form of microfibers. Microfibers are microscopic strands that fall off in large quantities during the washing of clothes (Browne, Crump, Niven, Teuten, Tonkin, Galloway, and Thompson, 2011). Currently, there are no existing Canadian federal or provincial government policies related specifically to microplastics in aquatic environments. Microplastics have a larger surface area to volume ratio than macroplastics and are more susceptible to contamination by pollutants. Plastics are made of highly hydrophobic materials and thus chemical pollutants are concentrated in and/or onto their surfaces. This allows microplastics to act as reservoirs of toxic chemicals in the environment. Microplastics transport pollutants over large oceanic areas and contaminate marine species when ingested. Microplastics are common in many cosmetic products, such as toothpastes, deodorants, body washes, hand cleansers and facial exfoliates. The microbeads in these products contain polyethylene and/or polypropylene. Microplastics are also known to concentrate toxic pollutants which have previously been washed into our oceans, including DDT and PCBs, up to one million times background levels (Mathalon and Hill, 2014). Current research findings demonstrate that toxins bound to ingested 3 microplastics are actually transferred into the animals that ingest them through biomagnfication (see figure 1) – including mussels, worms, fish and plankton (Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2014). As these toxins work their way up the food chain, we may begin to see concentration of toxins in humans. Organisms inhabiting industrialized areas are exposed to higher amounts of toxins and consequently may be considered more contaminated. There have been clear reactions to these toxins in lugworms, and in some cases the lugworms have died as a result (Ivar dol Sul and Costa, 2014). Similar results were seen in small fish, where ingestion of microplastics laden with toxins resulted in liver damage (Ivar dol Sul and Costa, 2014). Microplastics can be carcinogenic and can interfere with hormone regulations and cellular functions (Mathalon and Hill, 2014). However, the long term effects are ultimately unknown. Microplastics are a global contaminant in the world’s oceans, however, they have recently been discovered in fresh water. New studies have shown microplastic contaminants in the St. Lawrence River, Great Lakes, and the Arctic Sea (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2013). Concern is growing over the threat that widespread plastic waste poses to marine life (figure 4), with conservative estimates of the overall financial damage of plastics to marine ecosystems standing at US $13 billion each year, according to two reports released by the first United Nationals Environment Assembly (UNEP News, 2014). Microplastics have also been identified as a threat to larger organisms, such as the endangered northern right whale, which is potentially exposed to ingestion through filter-feeding (UNEP News, 2014). 4 While the implications of microplastic concentrations are not fully understood, research is showing that these contaminants are being found in increasing quantities. Considerations Actors and Stakeholders Microplastic water pollution is important to numerous stakeholders, including the federal and provincial governments, municipalities, and private sector corporations. The following table summarizes the key considerations of the relevant actors and stakeholders. Table 1: Summary of relevant actors and stakeholders Stakeholder Environment Canada Health Canada Provincial Governments Relevance to Mandate/Interests - Responsible for preserving Canadian natural environment, including water quality - Responsibility for protecting environment, including its biodiversity, from effects of pollutants (CEPA, 1999) - Responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health - Conserve and protect freshwater and marine environments within their provincial jurisdictions (e.g. Great Lakes, rivers) Current Actions - No current policy position or actions taken directly related to microplastic water pollution - The use of microbeads in toothpaste has been approved by Health Canada - Other pollutants, including DDT and PCBs, are currently included in Health Canada’s Toxic Substances List - Governments of Quebec and Ontario have begun research into microplastics in the Great Lakes and St. Future Actions to be Considered - Conduct further research on the impacts of microplastics on marine ecosystems in Canada’s rivers, lakes, and oceans - Research to determine if Canadians are ingesting microplastics - How pollutants bind to microplastics when absorbed by organisms - Use Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment as a forum to collaborate with the Government of Canada 5 Lawrence River Municipal Governments - Provide wastewater treatment Interest in local rivers, lakes, and oceans Private Sector - Adhere to federal and provincial manufacturing regulations Respond to customer demands and preferences - The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative has committed to addressing microplastic water pollution by pressuring federal governments and the private sector to do the same - Colgate-Palmolive, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, and Unilever, have agreed to phase out the use of microbeads as early as 2014 to consider regulatory options - Waste water filtration systems that specialize in the removal of microbeads - Private sector has no incentive to meet commitments because of lack of legislation Environmental effects research on microplastics is limited, but preliminary findings are cause for concern and further study. Given its departmental mandate to be responsible for the preservation of ecosystems, Environment Canada is well-positioned to play a key role in conducting further research on the impacts of microplastics on Canada’s aquatic ecosystems. Frequent ingestion of microplastics by fish and shellfish pose a potential harm to human beings, but the extent to which is unknown. Health Canada has jurisdiction where risks to human health are present. If further research reveals a danger to human health, Health Canada may be required to take a more active role in regulation. Addressing microplastic pollution will also require support from provincial governments. In 2009, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, a federalprovincial initiative, approved the Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility, an environmental policy approach that holds producers responsible for their products beyond the consumer life cycle. If widely adopted, this approach may pressure companies whose products contain microplastics to seek alternatives. The 6 April 2014 draft of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health (COA) does not identify microplastics in its commitments to reducing harmful pollutants, but the Report on Comments for the COA includes a recommendation to include microplastics. Individually, the governments of Ontario and Quebec are in early stages of research on microplastic pollution in the Great Lakes. Microbeads found in consumer products present a significant challenge for municipal wastewater treatment systems. Some microplastics are removed during standard wastewater treatment processes, but there are no mechanisms specifically designed to remove microplastics during filtration. Municipal governments, therefore, are the first line of defence against increasing microplastic water pollution. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative (GLSL), a coalition of 115 municipalities in Canada and the United States, has committed to addressing microplastic water pollution, and has already taken steps to pressure federal governments and consumer product companies to tackle the issue. Minimal research has been done to determine the feasibility of removing the microplastics during wastewater treatment, but the expected costs of research and implementation are high given the necessary investment required to update wastewater treatment facilities. To reduce further microplastic water pollution, companies that sell products containing microbeads are essential stakeholders. Thus far, these companies have been responsive to public concern. However, without the pressure of anti-microbead legislation, there is no legislation to hold these companies accountable. 7 Unknown Risks and Consequences of Microplastic Pollution If proven to be of significant concern, microplastic pollution endangers not only the Canadian freshwater and marine environment, but also the health of Canadians. One area of uncertainty in microplastic research is the potential harm to human health, the issue of microplastics merits further study. Investigations into the effects of microplastic pollution on human health are connected to the effects on marine ecosystems. Fish and seafood comprise an entire food industry in Canada, therefore it is important to understand the impact of microplastic pollution on marine wildlife before the effects on human health can be fully understood. The potential effect on human health may have negative economic consequences for Canadian fisheries. In 2009, Fisheries and Oceans Canada website reported the national gross value of all fisheries output at CAN$6.358 billion. The United Nations Environmental Program estimates annual damage to global marine environments due to plastic pollution at US$13 billion. While the effects of microplastics are not fully understood, their presence in Canadian fisheries is confirmed (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2013). Ultimately, the issue of microplastics is fundamentally an environmental concern. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1991 (CEPA) states that it is the responsibility of the Government of Canada to “protect the environment, including its biological diversity, and human health, from the risk of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances, pollutants and wastes.” Environment Canada, as the department responsible for controlling pollution, may consider a leadership role in addressing microplastic pollution. However, as is the case with many environmental 8 issues, tackling the concerns of microplastics will require collaboration at all levels of government as well as the private sector. International Policy and Action on Microplastics Microplastics in the oceans is an international issue, with nearly 20 million tonnes of plastic ending up in international waters annually (Vannela). Microplastics suspended within the ocean pose a risk to marine animals, and with all nations guilty of contributing to plastics in the ocean, the solution relies on collective action. The following section details international action taken to address the growing amount of microplastics polluting the ocean. These examples demonstrate the need for international cooperation on microplastics and offer solutions for policy-makers in Canada. The United States of America Most American policies related to plastics have focused on recycling plastic, although there have been increased efforts to reduce plastic consumption in general. The amount of plastic bags in landfills is starting to be addressed in the United States, with more than 20 million Americans currently living in communities where plastic bags have regulated fees or are banned (Larsen and Venkova). This effort comes mostly from the municipal level of government, with Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and Seattle as just a few of the cities with current fees or bans on plastic bags. Steps are starting to be taken towards banning microbeads at the state level in the United States. Illinois and New York have become the first states to pass a ban on microbeads and the phase-out of the microplastic contributor has begun (Smith). Michigan, New Jersey, and Minnesota state governments are currently discussing the 9 proposed anti-microbead legislation, while debate on the subject is increasing in Wisconsin. California nearly became the third state to outlaw microbeads, but the bill failed in the state’s senate by one vote. New Jersey Democrat, Frank Pallone Jr. introduced a bill in June 2014 proposing a nationwide ban that would take effect in 2018. The European Union Outside of North America, further progress to ban microbeads is being made. The Netherlands are spearheading efforts to legislate a European ban, with most of Europe in agreement with the feasibility and necessity of eliminating microbead production (Beat the Microbead). Beat the Microbead, a Dutch non-profit organization, has developed a smartphone app that allows consumers to scan products before purchasing them to determine if the product contains microbeads. The Netherlands are continually pressing EU Environment ministers to act on microplastics because of their observed presence in Dutch mussels, a significant export of the Dutch aquaculture sector (Euractiv). The EU has made progress on other plastics as well. They have set a goal to reduce the number of plastic bags that are consumed 80% by 2017 (DW). There have also been steps to reduce the use of plastics in food production. Microplastics have been defined as litter in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and as a result, European Countries have implemented measures to curb levels of microplastics in European waterways by 2020 (Beat the Microbead). This was followed in April 2013 by the International Conference on Prevention and Management of Marine Litter in 10 European Seas which prioritized the issue of microplastics and potential means of addressing them (Beat the Microbead). Other International Efforts The United Nation’s Environmental Program has formally recognized microplastics as a threat to marine ecosystems (UNEP). Their Global Partnership on Marine Litter has sought to increase awareness of marine plastics. They have made recommendations for private sector self-monitoring, encouraged companies to decrease their plastic productions, and led recycling campaigns to reduce the probability of marine organisms reaching the ocean. Additionally, the Joint Group on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection, an advisory body to the United Nations, is formulating a global assessment of microplastics and will continue to monitor global concentrations while researching potential strategies to address microplastics. In Australia, the government is coordinating a national voluntary phase-out on microbead production in attempt to avoid legislated restriction on the production of the beads (Beat the Microbead). Response from the Private Sector Challenges to microbeads in the public sector are facing mostly encouraging responses in the private sector. The private sector has shown support for replacing plastic microbeads with biodegradable alternatives. Companies including Aveda and Lush have phased out microbeads entirely from their product (Smith). Others, including Beiersdorf, The Body Shop, Colgate-Palmolive, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, Proctor & Gamble and Unilever have promised to gradually phase out the use of microbeads in their products (Smith). However, not all of the private sector appears to be supporting 11 the ban. Many political commentators and environmentalists suggested the failure of California’s microplastic ban in the senate resulted from lobbying efforts made by representatives in the cosmetic industry (Planet Editor). Due to ocean currents, increasing concentrations of microplastics are an international issue because wastewater from one country can harm the marine ecosystems of another. The United Nations Environment Program has recognized microplastics as a global issue and has begun campaigning for international cooperation. Comparative Analysis between Microplastics and BPA Policy The lack of research surrounding microplastics means that there is even less understanding of how to best address the issue as its effects are becoming increasingly known. A lack of public concern regarding microplastics has contributed to minimal interest and research in the subject, but with the presence of microplastics in shellfish and other marine animals, public concern is likely to rise in coming years. To better understand the potential federal policy tools to address microplastics, it is helpful to compare to a recent example where public concern was met with prompt government action. This section examines Canadian reaction to Bisphenol A (BPA) and how potential health concerns led to government action and decreased private production of this synthetic chemical. As early as the mid-1930s, BPA was identified as having strong estrogenic properties, but by the 1950s was a popular ingredient in plastic production (Vogel). In the early 1990s, a group of researchers began the public debate around the potential impacts of plastics on the human body (Vogel). It was not until 2008 that public concern 12 over the potential health concerns associated with BPA consumption began demanding public and private action. Studies increasingly showed how the chemical mimicked the oestrogen hormone and could be found in human blood, urine, tissue, and breast milk (Vogel). By this time, about 6 billion pounds of BPA was produced annually for use in a number of commercial products including pipes, baby bottles, hospital equipment, and food containers (Vogel). The effect of exposure to low doses of BPA on the human body is still debated. The main concern is that BPA mimics oestrogen, which can have significant effect on babies in the womb and children. Side effects include abnormal penis development, early sexual maturation in females, increased rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and an increase in prostate or breast cancer (Musson). Debate continued over the severity of BPA exposure, however public consensus remained that exposure to BPA should be minimized. Before human effects were publicized, research was already concluding significant effects of BPA on marine environments. BPA was found to have negative effects on the growth, reproduction, and survival of marine wildlife in areas with high concentrations of BPA (Flint et al.). BPA was shown to induce sex changes within embryos in reptiles and fish, reduce sperm counts and reproductive rates, and cause yolk sac haemorrhage in Atlantic salmon (Flint et al.). Similar to microplastics, BPA has been particularly damaging to marine ecosystems. In 2008, BPA was officially declared a hazardous substance considered toxic to human health and the environment (Flint et al.). In the same year, the Canadian government passed an amendment to the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act that 13 made it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, or advertise any baby bottles that were produced with BPA (Government of Canada). Since this amendment, the federal government has continued to monitor BPA research and funded over $1.7million in research surrounding BPA (Sissell). Before the amendment was made, the private sector had already began responding to public concern by producing BPA free baby bottles, however the amendment forced those that had not yet made the change to do so (Sissell). In 2010, BPA was added to Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, allowing for risk management measures to be developed (Flint et al.). Regulations were also proposed that required facilities to develop plans that limited the release of BPA into the environment, including emissions limits (Flint et al.). These new regulations were created with the specific intention of reducing the effects on ecosystems. By having explicit policy on BPA, the federal government made clear that BPA was a cause for public concern, and this stance was likely a factor in the increased demand for products free of BPA. When comparing BPA to microplastics, it is important to note that public concern and subsequent government action did not occur until the effect on humans became widely known. Once the connection was made between BPA and human health, it fell under the jurisdiction of Health Canada, and received greater public attention. Presently, there are no studies that have been able to connect microplastics to human health. This may change, however, as the amount of plastics found in shellfish and fish destined for human consumption continues to rise. A specific ban of microplastics, much like the federal ban on BPA in baby bottles, could trigger a change in public 14 consumption habits, and simultaneously force the private sector to decrease production. The BPA example additionally shows how government action and public opinion can collectively influence production in the private sector, and decrease the level of input of a toxic plastic substance into the environment. Options Based on the considerations discussed above, the following three options are deemed most viable at the present time. The options for review are: Regulation of microbeads Wastewater treatment of microplastics Further research options Regulation of Microbeads The government may consider proposing legislation that bans the use of microbeads in consumer products, including domestic production and the sale of imported goods. In conjunction with Industry Canada, the government would need to determine a phase-out date for products containing microbeads that would allow for producers sufficient time to implement. This would remove microbeads as a future contributor to microplastic pollution in Canadian water systems. Environment Canada may attempt to reduce the number of products containing microbeads by influencing consumer choices. Environment Canada can partner with Health Canada to develop a framework for full disclosure of all products that contain microbeads. If future research indicates harm to human health or environmental well-being, this could include mandating that a label be placed on all relevant cosmetics to inform the consumer that 15 the product contains microbeads. However, without additional research to provide evidence of this harm, this is not a viable option at the present time. It is not advisable to regulate microbeads when there is not scientific consensus on the long-term effects for the marine environment and human health. Without understanding the risks associated with microbeads, a premature ban would likely result in opposition from the private sector. The private sector’s concerns may stem from the costs associated with altering their manufacturing processes. Moreover, a ban on microbeads will not solve the entirety of the microplastic problem, as it will only prevent one form of plastics from entering Canadian waters. Wastewater Treatment of Microplastics Municipal wastewater is one of the greatest contributors to water pollution in Canada (Environment Canada). It is also the way that microplastics are transported from households to oceans. There are three types of wastewater treatment outlined by the World Bank Group water division (2014) that are summarized below: Primary Treatment: removes suspended solids from raw sewage, often referred to as mechanical treatment. This is the least expensive method and many municipalities begin with this method, and then add on technology for increased treatment. Secondary Treatment: removes additional organic matter from primary treatment. Employs microorganisms to further break down solids, removing about 85% of solids. Tertiary Treatment: The most effective method for wastewater treatment, it removes 99% of all impurities from sewage to produce near-drinking level quality. 16 This method is very expensive, requiring a high level of human and mechanical capital. The majority of microplastics are removed during this stage, but not all are filtered during the tertiary treatment. Some municipalities often add additional processes between these three levels to address other chemical and pharmaceutical pollutants in wastewater. Municipalities are continuing to upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities, and as of 2009, approximately 18% of Canadians had primary treatment or less (Government of Canada). A study conducted by the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (2014) explored the effects of wastewater treatment on the level of microplastics in wastewater. They found that a significant portion of wastewater was filtered out during the standard wastewater treatment process. They also determined that a small percentage of plastics were not filtered, and that small amount is magnified by the large amount of wastewater processed every day. The authors concluded that the amount of plastics moving through wastewater treatment facilities is significant, and that repetition of their study is necessary in order to better investigate ways of reducing the amount of textile fibres and synthetic particles entering marine ecosystems. Due to the high costs associated with the physical removal of microplastics from wastewater, and the lack of research conducted to remove microplastics, it does not appear likely that this is a feasible solution for dealing with microplastics. In addition, if microplastics were removed, they would still need to be disposed of in a way that ensured they would not find their way into aquatic environments. Significant funding needs to be applied in order to better understand the potential role of wastewater 17 treatment in preventing microplastics from entering marine environments. Until that time, it appears that a better alternative is to increase efforts to curb the production of plastics and microplastics in order to limit the input of microplastics into waterways. Research and Voluntary Phase-Out The best viable option to be considered at this present time is continued monitoring of microplastic contamination in conjunction with a government-facilitated and voluntary industry phase-out of microbeads. Research on the effects of microplastics on aquatic ecosystems may be overseen by Environment Canada. Research on the effects on human health may be done in conjunction with Health Canada. Research pertaining to the effects on fisheries may be done collaboratively with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Environment Canada is well-positioned to play a key role in conducting further research on the impacts of microplastics on aquatic ecosystems. Within Environment Canada, it is recommended that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy collaborates with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology to undertake in-house research. Mechanisms for conducting further research include the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and Environment Canada research facilities. Environment Canada may also consider submitting a research question on microplastics to the Canadian Council of Academies. An introduction of a government-facilitated voluntary phase-out of microbeads in the private sector, similar to the idea introduced in Australia, would allow for actionoriented policy. This step is aligned with Environment Canada’s precautionary principle. This principle states that any uncertainty surrounding scientific research should not be a 18 reason for delaying action to prevent environmental degradation if there is reason to believe there is a threat of significant damage (Federal Sustainable Development Act). A voluntary phase-out would draw public attention to the manufacturing of microplastics that would motivate the private sector to act. A voluntary phase-out instead of a mandatory one allows firms the options to ensure there financial standing isn’t compromised by the change in inputs, and provides sufficient time to source alternatives. Recommendation and Conclusion It is recommended that Environment Canada pursue Option 3: Further Research and Facilitating a Voluntary Phase-Out. Monitoring pollution levels and determining the long-term effects of microplastics are necessary to develop a future comprehensive policy framework on microplastics. Facilitating a phase-out draws attention to the issue and eliminates microbeads as a future source of microplastic pollution. Canada’s lack of policy on microplastics in aquatic environments provides opportunity for leadership in research, monitoring, and action. While the long-term implications associated with microplastics remain unknown, their presence in marine organisms provides grounds for a policy response under Environment Canada’s precautionary principle. Continued research and monitoring, as well as a voluntary phase-out of microbeads within the consumer product industry are first steps towards addressing the growing issue of microplastic pollution. 19 Bibliography 5 Gyres Institute, Plastic Soup Foundation, Surfrider Foundation, Plastic Free Seas, Clean Seas Coalition. “Microplastics in consumer products and in the marine environment.” 5 Gyres Institute. N.p., 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. This article provides an overview of the current research findings on microplastics in consumer products and the effects on marine ecosystems. Atlantic Coastal Zone Information Steering Committee Secretariat. State of the Scotian Shelf Report: Emerging Issues. N.p., 2013. Web. Outlines the different types of microplastics and discusses some of their effects on marine environments Bakir, Adil, Steven J. Rowland, and Richard C. Thompson. “Transport of Persistent Organic Pollutants by Microplastics in Estuarine Conditions.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 140 (2014): 14–21. ScienceDirect. Web. 19 Oct. 2014. Discusses microplastics and their ability to transport persistent organic pollutants in estuaries. “California Bill to Ban Microbeads Fails.” CosmeticsDesign.com USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. A news article reporting the failure of a bill to ban microbeads in the California Senate attributed to lobbying groups. “Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health: The Government of Canada’s Report on Comments.” Environment Canada. N.p., 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. 20 This page on the Environment Canada website lists the comments provided to the Government regarding a draft of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health, along with responses from the Government of Canada to some comments. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canada-Wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility. N.p., 2009. Web. A 2009 report by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment in Canada that extended producer responsibility for plastics past the point of consumption. “Canadian Environmental Protection Act.” Government of Canada. N.p., 1999. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. This page is an online version of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which details the responsibilities of the Government of Canada in preserving the environment. “Department of the Environment Act.” Government of Canada. N.p., 1985. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. This page is an online version of the government legislation which created Environment Canada and determined its mandate. Doughty, Rachel, and Marcus Eriksen. “The Case for a Ban on Microplastics in Personal Care products.(Plastic Pollution).” Tulane Environmental Law Journal 27.2 (2014): 277–298. Print. An argument in favour of banning microbeads including the feasibility for the private sector and motivation for state governments. 21 DW. “EU Wants Plastic out of Marine Stomachs | Europe | DW.DE | 05.11.2013.” DW.DE. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2014. This online article discussed recent commitments by the European Union to decrease the amout of plastics that are entering marine ecosystems. Euractiv. “Dutch Want Their Mussels Free from Micro-Plastic Litter, Call on EU to Act.” Text. EurActiv | EU News & policy debates, across languages. N.p., 18 June 2013. Web. 16 Nov. 2014. This online article specifically highlighted the Netherlands' role in promoting European Union policy on microplastics in an effort to protect their fishing industry. Federal Sustainable Development Act. N.p., 2008. Web. Flint, Shelby et al. “Bisphenol A Exposure, Effects, and Policy: A Wildlife Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Management 104 (2012): 19–34. ScienceDirect. Web. 15 Nov. 2014 This article summarized the results of multiple studies on the effects of BPA on a variety of animal species and the need for action to limit BPA production. Government of Canada. “Bisphenol A (BPA).” N.p., 16 Apr. 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2014. This page on the federal government's website highlighted the Government's policy related to BPA including their commitment to continuously monitor research related to effects on human health and the environment. Government of Canada, Environment Canada. “Municipal Wastewater Treatment Environmental Indicators - Environment Canada.” N.p., 22 Feb. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2014. 22 This page on Environment Canada's website outlined the amount of wastewater treatment, and the type of wastewater treatment, that occurs in municipalities across Canada. Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Statistical Services. “Publications | Commercial | Statistical Service | Fisheries and Oceans Canada.” N.p., 2011. Web. 16 Nov. 2014. This page on Fisheries and Oceans Canada highlighted the size and financial value of fisheries and aquaculture in Canada. Ivar do Sul, Juliana A., and Monica F. Costa. “The Present and Future of Microplastic Pollution in the Marine Environment.” Environmental Pollution 185 (2014): 352– 364. ScienceDirect. Web. 19 Oct. 2014. This article referenced biomagnification of microplastics in marine ecosystems and the need to focus on reducing the amount of new microplastics entering marine ecosystems instead of trying to removes those already there. JCDA Oasis. “What are the microbeads used in toothpaste and are they safe?” Oasis Discussions. N.p., 13 Aug. 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. This page features an interview with Dr. Leslie Winston, DDS, PhD, from Proctor & Gamble, discussing the use of microbeads in oral care products. Larsen, Janet, and Savina Venkova. “Plastic Bag Bans Spreading in the United States.” Plan B Updates. N.p., 22 Apr. 2014. Web. This blog post outlined the growing trend in American cities to ban or impose government-mandated fees on plastic bags for consumers. 23 Law, K.L, and R.C Thompson. “MICROPLASTICS IN THE SEAS Contamination of the Marine Environment by Microplastics Causes Concern.” SCIENCE -NEW YORK THEN WASHINGTON- 345.6193 (2014): 144–145. Print. A general overview of the threats posed by microplastics and emphasized the need to reducer contributors instead of cleaning them up. Mathalon, Alysse, and Paul Hill. “Microplastic Fibers in the Intertidal Ecosystem Surrounding Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 81.1 (2014): 69–79. ScienceDirect. Web. 19 Oct. 2014. Discusses microfibres and their sources, with specific evidence found in areas surrounding Halifax. “Microplastics in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.” Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. This page discusses the efforts of a coalition of 115 municipal governments to address the growing concern of microplastics, including lobbying companies that sell products containing microbeads. “Microplastics: scientific evidence.” Beat the Bead: International Campaign against Microbeads in Cosmetics. N.p., 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. This page provides a summary of scientific evidence discovered by numerous studies across the world on the effects of microplastics on marine environments and potential avenues for addressing microplastic pollution. Musson, Stephen. “Bisphenol A.” National Geographic Online 18 Sept. 2008. Web. 24 This National Geographic Article highlighted what was known about BPAs effects on human health in 2008, a time where federal policy surrounding BPA in Canada was being established. Planet Experts. “California Microbead Ban Fails to Pass in State Senate.” Planet Experts. N.p., 27 Aug. 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. This blog article articulated why the proposed ban on microplastics in California failed when it reached the senate. Schwartz, J. “Ban Sought on Microbeads in Beauty Items.” New York Times 10 Feb. 2014. Web. Discussed news surround New York State legislature banning the production of microbeads in pharmaceuticals. Setälä, Outi, Vivi Fleming-Lehtinen, and Maiju Lehtiniemi. “Ingestion and Transfer of Microplastics in the Planktonic Food Web.” Environmental Pollution 185 (2014): 77–83. ScienceDirect. Web. 19 Oct. 2014. This article assessed the presence of microplastics in zooplankton and its potential effect on other parts of the marine ecosystem. Sissell, Kara. “Canada Proposes Policy for Risk Management of BPA.” Chemical Week 170.33 (2008): 10. Print. This article discussed the Government of Canada's decision to ban the use of microplastics in baby bottles. Smith, Marie-Danielle. “Environmentalists Drawing a Bead on Microplastics.” Ottawa Citizen. N.p., 17 Aug. 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2014. 25 A critique of government response to microplastics, including success stories of organizations and governments that have taken affirmative action on microplastics. Talvitie, Julia, and Mari Heinonen. Preliminary Study on Synthetic Microfibers and Particles at a Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plant. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, 2014. Online. This report was the first of its kind to explore how microplastics move through a municipal wastewater treatment facility. It determined that a majority of plastics were being filtered out but that some were still being released and that other municipalities should be conducting similar tests. The Associated Press. “In Odd Twist, Industry Agrees to Ban ‘Microbeads.’” 19 June 2014. Web. This article discusses state recent state legislature surrounding the banning of microbeads in cosmetics, and the positive response from the private sector. The World Bank. “Introduction to Wastewater Treatment Processes.” Water. N.p., 2014. Web. This article discusses the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment. “Toxic Substances List.” Environment Canada. N.p., 6 Nov. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. This page describes the Toxic Substances List, including an outline of the designation process, and what it means for a substance to be on the list. UNEP. “Valuing Plastics: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry.” N.p., 2014. Web. 26 Discussed microplastics in a global context as well as some international efforts to curb the amount of microplastics and microbeads in marine environments. UNEP News. “Plastic Waste Causes Financial Damage of US$13 Billion to Marine Ecosystems Each Year as Concern Grows over Microplastics - UNEP.” United Nations Environmental Program. Web. 15 Nov. 2014. This article summarized the report by the United Nations Environment Program that stated the expected financial damage of plastics on marine ecosystems. United Nations Environment Assembly. “List of Decisions and Resolutions Adopted at UNEA: Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics.” 2014. Print. This report was a list of UNEA decisions surrounding marine waste and microplastics. Van Cauwenberghe, Lisbeth, and Colin R. Janssen. “Microplastics in Bivalves Cultured for Human Consumption.” Environmental Pollution 193 (2014): 65–70. ScienceDirect. Web. 16 Nov. 2014. A study that found increased presence of microplastics in bivalves grown specifically for human consumption and wild populations. A higher percentage was found in farmed organisms, attributed to the nets that enclose them. Vannela, Raveender. “Are We ‘Digging Our Own Grave’ Under the Oceans?.” Environmental Science & Technology 46.15 (2012): 7932–7933. ACS Publications. Web. 15 Nov. 2014. This article discussed the amount of plastic entering the world's oceans annually and the need for action in mitigating this amount. 27 Vogel, Sarah A. “The Politics of Plastics: The Economic, Political and Scientific History of Bisphenol A.” Dissertation Abstracts International. A 69/10 (2009): Web This article summarized known effects of BPA on the natural environment and human health in relation to growing concerns in 2008 on the plastic's mimicking of oestrogen in the human body.