Download Microplastics in Canadian Marine and Freshwater

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.