With about 250 members, including people in research, at government agencies, at nonprofits and other organizations, a strong network now helps share information as more becomes clear about plastic pollution.
With so many people at different types of organizations, it may be easier to connect the dots as people start to talk about policy changes and potential solutions.
“[In] the microplastics field, I think we’re at the point where we know that things like textiles and tire particles are a bigger problem than we thought,” Brander says. “Even as recently as a few years ago, the focus was on straws and cups, and single-use products, which we know are still really problematic and things we find all over our beaches.”
But the plastics being found in sediments and organisms are often microfibers, she says.
“That gives us an idea,” she says, “of what sources we need to go after.”
Already, some states are targeting upstream sources such as packaging by requiring producers to pay for the end-life recycling of their products. Through what’s called extended producer responsibility, companies that choose to sell their product in, say, plastic bottles, would have to pay for the collection and recycling of those bottles in some places that have already passed such a policy. On June 30 of this year, California took a giant step in that direction, passing what’s considered the strongest law in the nation to phase out single-use plastics and packaging waste.
Similarly, the data from the citizen science of the “Escaped Trash Assessment Protocol” may guide decision-making.
The protocol was developed after Margaret McCauley, the Trash-Free Waters coordinator for the EPA’s Pacific Northwest region, and a colleague realized the information so many groups voluntarily submitted to them wasn’t comparable.
“We both were looking at the data that people were collecting and attempting to share with us under the Clean Water Act and [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act],” McCauley says. “It was lots of smart people doing lots of things that didn’t connect with each other.”
Some groups might count individual cigarette butts, while others might simply report the number of trash bags. But how big were the trash bags? And how does a wet pair of jeans compare to a single cigarette butt, McCauley asks.
The protocol (which got its wordier name due to disagreements over the term “litter”) enables standardized measurements that can then be used by those in power to enforce things like stormwater permits, McCauley says.
Permits and other legally binding mechanisms can apply pressure to reduce pollution. The pricier the cleanup, the better the likelihood people will look to upstream solutions.
Granek, the Portland State researcher, says to truly address the issue, the focus cannot remain on consumer habits and a bottom-up approach. Instead, she says a top-down focus is likely needed, with policies directed at those creating plastics in the first place.
“I think one of the things we’re realizing is that we can all do a better job of our household practices, but really the need for upstream changes is really important,” Granek says.
People may choose to buy fewer fast-fashion clothing items made largely from plastic, for instance, but the real impact will come from the top, she says.
Less than 10 percent of plastic that goes into recycling bins worldwide is recycled.
“Some industries will take voluntary action and that’s important,” Brander says. “Some individuals will take voluntary action and that’s important. But I think there also has to be regulation.”
Whether it’s requiring special dryer filters or redesigning tires, it’s possible to address some of the sources directly.
And addressing plastic is important, because even though the science may still be out on whether all that plastic negatively impacts human health, we already know it impacts animals, causing cell damage and affecting reproduction and growth, she says.
“It is in our bodies,” Granek says. “There are enough studies that do find effects on animals that it would be a little surprising if animals were affected, but humans weren’t.”