    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   EXAMINING MICROBEADS IN COSMETIC PRODUCTS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                  MAY 1, 2015
                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-39

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov
                                         ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    96-979                       WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            LOIS CAPPS, California
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                      JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PAUL TONKO, New York
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                     Massachusetts
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     TONY CARDENAS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    BILL FLORES, Texas
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
                             Subcommittee on Health

                         JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
                                     Chairman
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              GENE GREEN, Texas
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               LOIS CAPPS, California
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina         Massachusetts
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               TONY CARDENAS, California
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana             FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York                  officio)
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, opening statement.......................................     4
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7

                                   Witnesses

    Dan Wyant, Director, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    52
    Linda R. Greenstein, State Senator, New Jersey Legislature.......    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    18
        Answers to submitted questions \1\...........................    57
    Molly Flanagan, Alliance for the Great Lakes.....................    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    23
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    59
    John Hurson, Executive Vice President of Government Relations,
      Personal Care Products Council.................................    30
        Prepared statement...........................................    32
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    66

                               Submitted Material

    H.R. 1321........................................................     2
    Statement of 5 Gyres Institute, submitted by Mr. Pallone.........    48
    Statement of Surfrider Foundation, submitted by Mr. Pallone......    49
    Statement of the American Chemistry Council, submitted by Mr.
      Shimkus........................................................    50

    ----------
    \1\ Ms. Greenstein did not respond to submitted questions by the
      time of printing.

                   EXAMINING MICROBEADS IN COSMETIC PRODUCTS

                                  ----------

                              FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Health,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:15 a.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Pitts
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Pitts, Guthrie, Shimkus, Burgess,
    Blackburn, Lance, Bilirakis, Long, Ellmers, Brooks, Collins,
    Upton (ex officio), Green, Schakowsky, Kennedy, and Pallone (ex
    officio).
        Staff Present: Clay Alspach, Chief Counsel, Health; Gary
    Andres, Staff Director; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Noelle
    Clemente, Press Secretary; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press
    Secretary; Carly McWilliams, Professional Staff Member, Health;
    Tim Pataki, Professional Staff Member; Graham Pittman,
    Legislative Clerk; Mark Ratner, Policy Advisor to the Chairman;
    Adrianna Simonelli, Legislative Associate, Health; Heidi
    Stirrup, Health Policy Coordinator; Ziky Ababiya, Minority
    Policy Analyst; Christine Brennan, Minority Press Secretary;
    Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Tiffany Guarascio,
    Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor;
    Brendan Hennessey, Minority Policy and Research Advisor; Ashley
    Jones, Minority Director, Outreach and Member Services; and Tim
    Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
             CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Pitts. The subcommittee will come to order, and the
    chair will recognize himself for an opening statement.
        Today's Health subcommittee hearing will be examining the
    sale, distribution, and use of cosmetics that contain synthetic
    plastic microbeads and what impact those microbeads may have on
    our waterways.
        Our colleagues Representative Frank Pallone and Fred Upton
    have jointly introduced legislation, H.R. 1321, the Microbead-
    Free Waters Act of 2015, which would prohibit the sale or
    distribution of cosmetics containing synthetic plastic
    microbeads.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pitts. And a number of state legislatures have also
    taken independent action in this area.
        Scientists have discovered the presence of these tiny
    plastic beads accumulating at high levels in the Great Lakes
    and other waterways. Microbeads are commonly used as an
    abrasion or exfoliating scrub and can be found in toothpaste,
    facial scrubs, some soaps, and even shampoos.
        Admittedly, there is other plastic litter that has broken
    down from plastic debris, but the concern is that the synthetic
    plastic microbeads are difficult, if not impossible, to break
    down. We will hear from the cosmetic industry today about their
    commitment to phasing out the use of microbeads in their
    products. We also have two witnesses from the Great Lakes to
    discuss the impact on their waterways as well as New Jersey
    State Senator Greenstein, who co-sponsored the legislation in
    her home State.
        The concern of course is that different State-based
    legislation will result in a patchwork of regulations and
    requirements, making it difficult, if not impossible, for
    manufacturers to comply with so many different laws.
        Do I have any requests for time on my side?
        If not, I yield back and recognize the ranking member, Mr.
    Green, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:]

                   Prepared statement of Hon. Joseph R. Pitts

        The Subcommittee will come to order.
        The Chairman will recognize himself for an opening
    statement.Today's Health Subcommittee hearing will be examining
    the sale, distribution, and use of cosmetics that contain
    synthetic plastic microbeads and what impact those microbeads
    may have on our waterways.
        Our colleagues, Reps. Frank Pallone (NJ) and Fred Upton
    (MI) have jointly introduced legislation, H.R. 1321--the
    ``Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015'' which would prohibit the
    sale or distribution of cosmetics containing synthetic plastic
    microbeads and a number of state legislatures have also taken
    independent action in this area.
        Scientists discovered the presence of these tiny plastic
    beads accumulating at high levels in the Great Lakes and other
    waterways.
        Microbeads are commonly used as an abrasion, or exfoliating
    scrub, and can be found in toothpaste, facial scrubs, some
    soaps and even shampoos. When these microbeads wash down the
    drain, they end up in sewer systems and because they are small,
    and buoyant, they pass through sewage treatment plants and are
    discharged into rivers, lakes and oceans.
        Admittedly, there are other plastic litter that had broken
    down from plastic debris, but the concern is that the synthetic
    plastic microbeads are difficult, if not impossible, to break
    down.
        We will hear from the cosmetics industry today about their
    commitment to phasing out the use of microbeads in their
    products. We also have two witnesses from the Great Lakes to
    discuss the impact on their waterways as well as New Jersey
    State Senator Greenstein, who co-sponsored the legislation in
    her home state.
        The concern, of course, is that different state-based
    legislation will result in a patchwork of regulations and
    requirements making it difficult, if not impossible, for
    manufacturers to comply with so many different laws.
        I look forward to the testimony today and yield the balance
    of my time to Rep.--------------------------------------------
    --

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
        I would like to thank Chairman Pitts for holding the
    hearing today and thank our distinguished panelists for joining
    us this morning in discussion of this important issue. I would
    also like to recognize the leadership of our chairman of the
    full committee and ranking member, Chairman Fred Upton and
    Ranking Member Frank Pallone, in coming together in a spirit of
    bipartisan and introducing the Microbead-Free Waters Act.
        Plastics today is an integral part of daily life, from
    health care and food preservation to communications and home
    construction. Plastic's tremendous range of uses is based on
    its desirable products and properties, including durability,
    corrosion-resistance, and low cost. The plastic industry is our
    Nation's third largest manufacturing industry, responsible for
    $350 billion in economic activity and hundreds of thousands of
    jobs in our country with several plastic manufacturers located
    in my district in Houston, Harris County, Texas. In much part
    due to the very properties that make plastic so universal in
    daily life, plastic can have a negative impact on our
    environment. All the more so when it is not disposed of
    properly and released into the environment without oversight
    and restriction.
        This is what is happening with micro plastic products of
    microbeads. The microbeads, due to their tiny size, 5
    millimeters or less, fail to be captured by modern wastewater
    treatment plants and end up in our Nation's rivers, lakes, and
    oceans. The accumulation of microbeads in our Nation's waters,
    particularly the Great Lakes, has been startling in recent
    years and deserves immediate Federal attention.
        Recent studies in the Great Lakes have found debris
    concentration, much of it attributable to microbeads, that
    rival some of the largest ocean garbage patches. When released
    in the environment, microbeads present a clear risk to our
    Nation's waterways and wildlife, from the physical impacts of
    wildlife ingestion of microbeads to the harmful chemicals, such
    as PCBs and DDT, that can accumulate on these tiny plastic
    particles.
        I am pleased to learn that most of the cosmetic industry,
    including nationwide manufacturers like Procter & Gamble,
    Johnson & Johnson, have voluntarily decided to replace
    microbeads in their personal care products with natural
    biodegradable alternatives, such as ground almonds, ground
    walnuts, cocoa beads, and sea salt. Nevertheless, due to the
    current technical restraints on our Nation's wastewater system,
    it is necessary that plastic and nonbiodegradable microbeads in
    cosmetic products be removed from manufacture and sale at the
    earliest feasible date.
        The legislation before us today will provide an appropriate
    Federal response to microbeads by amending the Federal Food,
    Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the sale and distribution of
    cosmetics containing microbeads by January 1 of 2018. I am
    support of that effort, and I hope we can use today's hearing
    and learn more improvements are necessary in this legislation
    and bring momentum towards passage and enactment.
        Again, I thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Is there anyone else on my side that would like the
    remainder of my time?
        Hearing nothing, I yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. If not, I thank the gentleman.
        We are voting on the floor now. So we will finish opening
    statements before going to the floor, and I am pleased at this
    time to recognize the chairman of the full committee and one of
    the sponsors of the Pallone-Upton bill, Mr. Upton, 5 minutes
    for opening statement.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I won't take 5 minutes. Microbeads, they are tiny, plastic,
    but big-time pollution, especially for our lakes, rivers, and
    streams.
        So what is a microbead? Well, you may not know it or want
    to admit that you know a little bit about this, but millions of
    Americans use them on a daily basis. Microbeads are those tiny,
    little scrubbers in your soap, cleansers, and, yes, even in
    toothpaste. On their own, they are nearly visible, smaller than
    a pinhead, as you can see here, compared with the size of a
    penny.
        But once they are flushed down the drain is when the
    problem really does begin. Because they are so small, they
    escape water filtration systems and end up in our bodies of
    waters, obviously, including the Great Lakes. They are known to
    absorb pollutants and are often mistaken as food by fish and
    wildlife. And simply put, microbeads are causing mega problems.
    That is why I partnered with our full committee ranking member,
    Frank Pallone, to co-author H.R. 1321, the Microbead-Free
    Waters Act of 2015.
        There are also currently 26 States that have engaged on
    legislation to address this very important issue.
        I am excite to partner with Ranking Member Pallone on an
    issue that is so important to not only my district in southwest
    Michigan but the entire Great Lakes region. Both, to me and my
    family personally, as someone who grew up on Lake Michigan and
    represents a large chunk if the Michigan coastline, I
    understand firsthand how important it is to maintain the beauty
    and integrity of our Great Lakes. The Great Lakes have survived
    many a foe, severe pollution, discharge from refineries, zebra
    muscles, an attempt to steal our water, particularly from
    Texas, just to name a few. Our fight against the Asian carp
    also continues. I will not stand for any activity that puts our
    beloved Great Lakes in jeopardy.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues in a
    bipartisan manner to get this harmful pollution out of our
    waterways. We need this bill to fight the army of microbeads
    that is growing by the day in our waters.
        I want to thank all of our witnesses, particularly my good
    friend and constituent, Dan Wyant, who heads the Michigan
    Department of Environmental Quality, and Molly Flanagan from
    the Alliance for the Great Lakes. As the Holland Sentinel
    editorialized in March, there is no reason keeping our faces
    feeling clean should require us to trash our lakes.
        Yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        Microbeads--they're tiny plastic, but big time pollution,
    especially for our lakes, rivers, and streams.
        What's a microbead? You may not know it, or want to admit
    you exfoliate, but millions of Americans use them on a daily
    basis. Microbeads are those tiny little scrubbers in your soap,
    cleansers, and even toothpaste. On their own, they are nearly
    invisible, smaller than a pinhead--as you can see here compared
    with the size of a penny.
        But once they've been flushed down the drain is when the
    problems begin. Because they are so small, they escape water
    filtration systems and end up in our bodies of water, including
    the Great Lakes. They are known to absorb pollutants, and are
    often mistaken as food by fish and wildlife. Simply put,
    microbeads are causing mega-problems.
        This is why I partnered with our full committee Ranking
    Member Frank Pallone to author H.R. 1321, the Microbeads-Free
    Waters Act of 2015. There are also currently 26 states that
    have engaged on legislation to address this important issue.
        I am excited to partner with the Ranking Member on an issue
    that is so important to my district in Southwest Michigan, the
    entire Great Lakes Region, and to me and my family personally.
    As someone who grew up on Lake Michigan and represents a large
    chunk of Michigan coastline, I understand firsthand how
    important it is to maintain the beauty and integrity of our
    Great Lakes. The Great Lakes have survived many a foe--severe
    pollution, oil spills, discharge from refineries, zebra
    mussels, and attempts to steal our water, just to name a few.
    Our fight against the Asian carp also continues. I will not
    stand for any activity that puts our beloved Great Lakes in
    jeopardy. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a
    bipartisan manner to get this harmful pollutant out of our
    waterways. We need this bill to fight the army of microbeads
    that is growing by the day in our waters.
        I want to thank the witnesses for being here, especially my
    Michigan and Great Lakes friends, Dan Wyant of the Michigan
    Department of Environmental Quality and Molly Flanagan from the
    Alliance for the Great Lakes. And thank you for your efforts
    protecting our pristine lakes.
        As the Holland Sentinel editorialized in March, ``There's
    no reason keeping our faces feeling clean should require us to
    trash our lakes.''

        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee,
    Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    morning's hearing examining microbeads in cosmetic products.
    The hearing also gives us an opportunity to discuss legislation
    that I have introduced with Chairman Upton, the Microbead-Free
    Waters Act of 2015. And I want to thank Chairman Upton for his
    support of the legislation. I would like to welcome our
    witnesses and thank them for sharing their knowledge with the
    committee today, particularly New Jersey State Senator Linda
    Greenstein, who is one of the counties that I represent. And
    Senator Greenstein is a leader in New Jersey who worked hard to
    pass a State law banning the manufacturing and sale of cosmetic
    products containing plastic microbeads. So welcome.
        Cosmetic products like face and body washes contain tiny
    plastic particles or microbeads that are used as exfoliants.
    While these plastic products are not harmful to the user of the
    product, studies have shown that microbeads can easily escape
    the screens in wastewater treatment plants and enter our
    Nation's lakes, rivers, and oceans. A study by the 5 Gyres
    Institute, an organization dedicated to research and advocacy
    on the issue of plastic pollution, found high concentrations of
    plastic microbeads in samples pulled from Lake Erie. In some
    cases, they found that plastic microbeads outnumbered more than
    450,000 per square kilometer, and this plastic does not belong
    in our Nation's waters, and certainly not in such extreme
    amounts.
        This high concentration of plastic microbeads in our
    country's lakes and other bodies of water is cause for concern
    for a number of reasons. Particles this small often float on
    the surface of the water and can attract other pollutants that
    collect on the water's surface. If consumed by fish and other
    organisms, these chemicals accumulated on the surface and
    inherent in the plastic itself can then travel up the food
    chain, potentially being transferred to humans who consume
    fish, bivalves, and crustaceans.
        I have serious concerns about fish and other aquatic life
    potentially ingesting these plastic particles and the effect
    this could have on humans who consume the fish. While many of
    us strive to eat local seafood caught by fishermen in our
    communities, we often eat seafood from other areas of the
    country. So, until a national standard is set, we can't be
    certain these particles are kept out of our Nation's waters and
    are not being accidentally consumed by fish harvested from
    other regions of the country.
        Further, there have been anecdotal reports by dentists and
    dental hygienists of plastic microbeads from toothpaste being
    lodged in a patient's gumline, which could trap bacteria and
    lead to gingivitis. While no clinical study has demonstrated
    negative oral health effects, I remain concerned about the
    potential risk.
        Last month, Chairman Upton and I introduced the Microbead-
    Free Waters Act of 2015, legislation that requires FDA to
    prohibit the sale or distribution of cosmetics containing
    synthetic plastic microbeads beginning January 1, 2018. I want
    to thank Chairman Upton for joining me in this effort. I look
    forward to working with him to move this bill forward. Our
    legislation, bills, and efforts are already moving forward in
    many States including the one by Senator Greenstein in our home
    State of New Jersey.
        The legislation as it is currently drafted allows FDA to
    define a synthetic plastic microbead. The bill also does not
    currently address over-the-counter OTC drug products containing
    microbeads, of which toothpaste and acne creams are the most
    common examples. But I remain open to including these products
    in the legislation. However, also understand there are concerns
    about FDA requiring an 18-month stabilization period for
    reformulated OTC products, so it may be difficult to replace
    microbeads from these products on the same timeline.
        So I hope to hear more about this potential challenge from
    our witnesses today. I want to commend companies, such as
    Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, who have already begun
    proactively phasing out the use of plastic microbeads in their
    products, but I believe we must set a Federal standard that
    requires all companies selling cosmetics and personal care
    products to remove plastic microbeads from these goods. And
    that is why we have introduced this bill, to provide certainty
    at the Federal level that these polluting plastics will finally
    be removed from our face scrubs, soaps, and other personal care
    products.
        So, Mr. Chairman, thanks again for holding this hearing. We
    have been able to come together on an issue to advance a
    commonsense solution that benefits our constituents and the
    environment. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, there are beginning to
    be so many bipartisan bills around this committee lately, I
    don't know what we are going to have to do. Maybe we should
    have a course for the rest of the Congress on how to act
    bipartisan.
        Mr. Pitts. We are going to have to call this public health
    Congress, I think.
        Mr. Pallone. I yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. All right, the chair thanks the gentleman.
        That concludes the opening statements.
        For the members, as always, any written opening statements
    will be made part of the record. We still have 397 Members who
    have not voted, so we are going to try to get through the
    opening statements of the witnesses. Let me introduce our
    panel, and they will speak in this order: Dr. Dan Wyant,
    director of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; State
    Senator Linda Greenstein, from New Jersey legislature; Ms.
    Molly Flanagan from the Alliance for the Great Lakes; and Mr.
    John Hurson, executive vice president of government relations
    at the Personal Care Products Council.
        Your written testimony will be made a part of the record.
    You will each be given 5 minutes to summarize your testimony.
    Thank you very much for coming today.
        And, Mr. Wyant, we will begin with you. You are recognized
    for your opening statement.

       STATEMENTS OF DAN WYANT, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
    ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; LINDA R. GREENSTEIN, STATE SENATOR, NEW
      JERSEY LEGISLATURE; MOLLY FLANAGAN, ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT
    LAKES; AND JOHN HURSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT
               RELATIONS, PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL

                         STATEMENT OF DAN WYANT

        Mr. Wyant. Mr. Chairman, thank you----
        Mr. Pitts. Make sure you press the button there. If the
    light is on, that is good.
        Mr. Wyant. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished subcommittee
    members, thank you. I am Dan Wyant, and I am Director of the
    Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and I appreciate
    this opportunity to come before you today to speak on this
    important issue of microbeads.
        With four out of the five Great Lakes, 6.5 million acres of
    wetlands, and over 11,000 inland lakes, water is fundamental to
    the way Michigan views its future. Michigan is surrounded by 20
    percent of the world's fresh water, and so water is, quite
    simply, why people come to Michigan to live, work, and play.
        Michigan has a long history, as Chairman Upton certainly
    knows and has talked about, heritage of being a leader in water
    conservation and protection issues, and so my testimony today
    is going to be very consistent with what I have heard all of
    you talk about already.
        We have worked very hard in Michigan to protect and restore
    our Great Lakes, from our tough ballast water standards to the
    diligent implementation of the Compact Agreement that protects
    the Great Lakes from water diversions, to our regional
    leadership on the Great Lakes Commission, and the Council of
    Great Lakes Governors. Michigan has been at the table ready to
    work on environmental challenges of the day.
        Keeping in line with that, stewardship responsibility
    entrusted to my department, our focused now is shifting to the
    emerging issue of plastic microbeads in our water. As has been
    stated and as you are aware, plastic microbeads are a commonly
    used abrasive agent in personal care products, such as facial
    cleansers and toothpaste. Recent studies have noted that
    microbeads can pass through wastewater treatment plants into
    our surface waters.
        Microbeads were found in the Great Lakes surface waters
    during a number of studies, particularly in 2012, 2013. Plastic
    microparticles, of which microbeads are a subset, were detected
    in Lakes Erie, Huron, and Superior at a rate that is quite
    concerning, 43,000 per square foot per kilometer, and almost 10
    times higher in samples collected in Lake Erie downstream of
    two major Ohio cities.
        So the presence of microplastics in the Great Lakes is a
    concern because these constituent plastics may be entering the
    food chain after the plastics are consumed by fish and
    wildlife. In addition, toxic pollutants already present in the
    Great Lakes may bind to these pollutants and plastics, making
    them even more harmful. Recent laboratory studies have shown
    that microplastics have the potential to adversely affect fish
    and other aquatic organisms.
        Legislation is being debated in Michigan in our House and
    our State Senate that would phase out over the next couple of
    years the production and sale of personal care products that
    use microbeads. The legislation before this subcommittee and
    the same legislation that is being debated in Michigan I
    believe is a commonsense first step to the phaseout of the use
    of microbeads in personal care products. Although microbeads
    comprise only a portion of the plastic pollution detected in
    the Great Lakes, microbeads are an easily controllable
    component of that pollution.
        The simple phaseout of their use in beauty products would
    reduce the amount of plastics passing through our wastewater
    systems and reduce the potential harm to our fish and wildlife.
    It is important that we put into place a thoughtful but
    diligent phaseout of the harmful microbeads while allowing
    industry a path forward for new product development and use if
    they can demonstrate that their products would not have an
    adverse impact on the water and its biological life.
        Just as we don't tolerate plastics littering our roadside,
    we should not allow plastics to taint our beautiful Great
    Lakes. We urge action on this issue. We welcome a national
    approach. We have many complex issues to solve in the Great
    Lakes throughout our Nation's waterways, including invasive
    species and nutrient loading, just to name two. Microbeads is a
    clear issue. It is a clear threat. And there is a clear simple
    answer. And we support the phaseout of microbeads and a Federal
    approach. And we in the State of Michigan will continue to work
    to be part of that solution.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to come before
    the subcommittee and speak on behalf of the Department of
    Environmental Quality and, more broadly, the people of the
    State of Michigan. Michiganders love the Great Lakes. They
    expect strong leadership, and we want to recognize your
    leadership and the committee's leadership to address this
    issue. I appreciate being here, and I will be happy to take any
    questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wyant follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        We are out of time on the clock on the floor, but we still
    have 297 people who have not voted, so we are going to
    continue.
        And I will recognize Senator Greenstein, 5 minutes for
    opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF LINDA R. GREENSTEIN

        Ms. Greenstein. Thank you very much, Chairman Pitts,
    Ranking Member Green, with greetings to Chairman Upton of the
    full committee and Ranking Member Pallone and members of the
    committee. Thank you for your invitation to be here today as
    you consider H.R. 1321, bipartisan Federal legislation that is
    aimed at stopping the entry into our waterways of billions of
    pieces of small bits of plastic known as microbeads, an effort
    that is similarly addressed under laws recently enacted in five
    States: New Jersey, Illinois, Colorado, Indiana, and Maine. I
    think in my testimony I said two. We were among the first two.
    There actually have very recently been three others, so five
    States.
        Before I begin I would like to acknowledge my home State
    Congressman and a co-sponsor of H.R. 1321, Representative Frank
    Pallone, whose leadership on environmental issues is legendary
    in the Garden State and whose invitation to testify is the
    reason that I am here this morning.
        Thank you, Congressman.
        I mentioned a moment ago that New Jersey is one of five
    States that has adopted legislation outlawing the use of
    microbeads. They are used by the personal care products
    industry in everything from toothpaste to over-the-counter skin
    treatments and exfoliants like facial scrubs. The problem is
    that these plastics are so small and nonbiodegradable, and they
    escape catchment screens at our sewage plants and wind up by
    the billions in our water supplies.
        These microplastics were recently found by research
    scientists, as you just heard, in all five of the Great Lakes,
    as well as in fish that make their homes in the Great Lakes and
    in fish-eating birds. These microbeads absorb toxins and so can
    be very dangerous to wildlife and ultimately to human beings.
    In New Jersey, two-thirds of our drinking water supply is drawn
    from local waterways like the Delaware or the Passaic Rivers.
    And so we, too, have our issues with microplastics. That is
    why, once their presence became known, we moved quickly to
    eliminate them through the bipartisan legislation that I co-
    authored. I would like to note that the bill passed unanimously
    in the New Jersey Senate and by an overwhelming margin in the
    Assembly.
        And a funny thing happened on the way to this bill being
    signed into law in Trenton just 6 weeks ago. Groups that can
    often politely be called, quote, ``at odds with each other''
    came together as one in agreement that these plastics should be
    eliminated from our waterways.
        The Chemistry Council of New Jersey, in a position shared
    by the American Chemistry Council and member companies, joined
    with the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to support
    our legislative efforts. Also Johnson & Johnson, the Consumer
    Health Care Products Association, and the Personal Care
    Products Council were all together on this issue. And I think
    if they can do it in New Jersey, they can do it everywhere
    else, and hopefully with a Federal law.
        Like your efforts here in Congress, we also agree to give
    the personal care products industry time to adjust and to find
    alternatives to these plastics.
        So the New Jersey bill uses a gradual approach to stepping
    down the production of these synthetic microbeads until they
    are completely off the market by January of 2020. It starts
    with the elimination of the tiny plastics from use in the
    manufacture of products beginning January 1, 2018, and then
    prohibiting the sale of such products after January 1, 2019.
    And, by January 1, 2020, no person shall sell an over-the-
    counter drug with microbeads.
        The industry is already turning to natural alternatives,
    using crushed walnut shells, sea salt, and pumice stone, to
    produce the desired effect that the plastic microbead does. In
    our bill the penalty is $500 for each offense. We did lower our
    penalties from the original ones that we had, and our
    Department of Environmental Protection commissioner can
    institute a civil action for injunctive relief. There is no
    private right of action. We took that out as well.
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and will be
    available for any questions members may have, and I thank you,
    Chairman and members.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Greenstein follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentlelady.
        We are voting, of course. We still have 185 Members who
    haven't voted. We are going to keep going. If you can
    abbreviate a little, I think we will make it through.
        The chair recognizes Ms. Flanagan.

                      STATEMENT OF MOLLY FLANAGAN

        Ms. Flanagan. Good morning. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member
    Green, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to
    appear today to address the threat that plastic microbeads pose
    to the Great Lakes. My name is Molly Flanagan. I am vice
    president of policy for the Alliance for the Great Lakes. For
    more than 40 years, the Alliance for the Great Lakes has been
    working to protect and restore the Great Lakes.
        We have frontline experience with the impacts of debris on
    the Great Lakes because each year more than 14,000 of our
    volunteers show up to clean up Great Lakes' beaches through our
    Adopt-a-Beach program. The Alliance supports Federal efforts to
    remove plastic microbeads from consumer products. The extremely
    small size of plastic microbeads allows them to easily wash
    down drains, pass through sewer systems and then head directly
    into our Nation's waterways.
        A study by the New York State Office of the Attorney
    General released in April 2015 detected microbeads in the
    effluent samples of 74 percent of the wastewater treatment
    plants participating in the study. Research by Dr. Sherri Mason
    of the State University of New York at Fredonia and Dr. Marcus
    Eriksen of the 5 Gyres Institute found microplastic fragments
    in each of the Greet Lakes and throughout water column in
    concentrations that rival or surpass those found in the
    Nation's oceans. Plastic microbeads attract and accumulate
    toxic chemicals, such as PCBs and DDT, which are present in
    waters throughout the United States, including the Great Lakes.
        An ongoing study of fish in the Great Lakes has shown
    plastic contamination in all 25 species that have been analyzed
    to date. You have the opportunity to stop this needless source
    of pollution by passing a Federal ban on the use of plastic
    microbeads. Continuing to allow plastic microbeads to enter the
    Great Lakes runs counter to our current protection and
    restoration efforts. Adding new sources of stress to the Lakes
    undermines the $1.9 billion in Federal funding that have been
    spent in the last 5 years through the bipartisan Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative. Needlessly sending billions of plastic
    microbeads into waters we are spending so much time, energy,
    and money restoring is simply irresponsible.
        Microbeads can be found in over 100 personal care products,
    but it doesn't have to be that way because readily available
    alternatives existed. As noted by other speakers, a number of
    large companies in the cosmetic and personal care industry have
    voluntarily pledged to remove plastic microbeads from their
    products. We applaud these efforts. They are positive examples
    of good corporate stewardship. We also note that these
    voluntarily efforts have a variety of timelines for phaseout,
    may not include timelines at all, and do not consistently
    indicate what the company will use to replace microbeads. For
    example, the concept of marine biodegradable microbeads has
    been brought up in a number of States as they have considered
    bans. Unfortunately, there are no national or international
    standards for the biodegradability of plastics in ambient water
    environments. Until peer-reviewed research or testing by the
    American Society for Testing and Materials can provide
    standards for the biodegradability of plastics in Great Lakes'
    water conditions, biodegradable plastics should not be exempt
    from a ban.
        The Alliance believes that the right Federal regulatory
    approach can solve this problem. We urge Congress to pass a
    Federal ban on all forms of plastic microbeads in cosmetic and
    personal care products that, number one, charges the Food and
    Drug Administration with clearly defining plastic microbeads
    based on current scientific research and standards testing by
    authorities like the American Society for Testing and
    Materials.
        Number two, if terms such as ``synthetic'' and
    ``biodegradable'' are used in statute or regulations with
    regard to microbeads, these terms must be clearly defined by
    the FDA to ensure that substances such as bioplastics are not
    excluded from biodegradability requirements.
        And, number three, it should set a realistic and achievable
    timeline to phase out cosmetic and personal care products that
    contain microbeads, ideally beginning 1 year from the enactment
    of this legislation.
        You have a great opportunity before you. We know that
    plastic microbeads are entering our waterways every day and
    that readily available alternatives exist. The Alliance for the
    Great Lakes and our supporters urge the United States Congress
    to pass a ban on the manufacture and sale of cosmetic and
    personal care products that contain all forms of plastic
    microbeads.
        The Alliance thanks Congressmen Upton and Pallone for
    introducing H.R. 1321 and considering our comments. Chairman
    Pitts, Ranking Member Green, thank you for holding this
    hearing. I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Flanagan follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentlelady.
        We still have 89 Members that haven't voted. We are going
    to go to the last witness.
        Mr. Hurson, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
    statement.

                        STATEMENT OF JOHN HURSON

        Mr. Hurson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Green, Chairman Upton, and
    Ranking Member Pallone and members of the committee. Thank you
    for the opportunity to testify in support of discontinuing the
    use of plastic microbeads in personal care cleansing products
    and specifically to address H.R. 1321, the Microbead-Free
    Waters Act. The Personal Care Products Council is the leading
    trade association, representing 600 large-, medium-, and small-
    sized companies that manufacture and distribute the vast
    majority of cosmetic and personal care products marketed in the
    U.S. As makers of a diverse range of products that consumers
    trust and rely on every day, from sunscreen, shampoo, and
    toothpaste to moisturizer, lipstick, and fragrance, personal
    care product companies are global leaders committed to safety,
    quality, and innovation.
        The American cosmetics industry employs more than 2.8
    million people nationwide with more than $260 billion in global
    annual sales. Our industry is dynamic and continuously develops
    innovative products to meet consumer demands and expectations.
    Our member companies invest more than $3.6 billion each year on
    scientific research and development. As a result of this
    research, 2,000 new products are launched each year, and
    numerous scientific studies are published on enhancing or
    developing new safety methods.
        Equally important is that our industry shares a common
    interest with other stakeholders in protecting the environment,
    and our members take questions regarding the presence of
    microbeads in our waterways very seriously. Our industry has a
    longstanding commitment to the global environmental stewardship
    of its products.
        Historically, plastic microbeads have been used in some
    personal care cleansing products because of their safe and
    effective exfoliating properties. These plastic beads have an
    excellent health and safety profile; do not present adverse
    effects, such as allergic reactions; are gentle on the skin,
    especially for consumers with sensitive skin conditions.
        Over the last 5 years, numerous reports in the press and
    some scientific literature have indicated the occurrence of
    plastic microbeads in our oceans and lakes. It should be noted
    that the source of these plastic microbeads are varied and
    difficult to ascertain. These may include clothing fibers, boat
    paint particles, degrading plastic bags and plastic bottles,
    and personal care products. However, out of an abundance of
    caution and despite the absence of any peer-reviewed science on
    the contribution from personal care products to plastic
    microbeads in the aquatic environment, our member companies
    have committed to discontinuing formulating products with
    plastic microbeads in favor of other viable alternatives.
        While we do support the discontinued use of plastic
    microbeads, it is important to recognize that product
    reformulation is an extremely complex process. Various and
    necessary steps include raw materials research and development;
    product testing and qualification to meet safety and regulatory
    requirements; manufacturing and postmarket surveillance for
    continual evaluation. This process takes many years.
    Furthermore, because of our commitment to the safety of our
    products, we must affirm that the alternative ingredient will
    not cause unintended consequences and will meet our consumers'
    safety and product needs.
        In 2014, a wide range of environmental, government, and
    business stakeholders came together in the State of Illinois to
    negotiate legislation to phase out plastic microbeads. All
    stakeholders supported the bill, which passed both houses
    unanimously and was signed into law in June of last year. New
    Jersey, Maine, Indiana, and Colorado have enacted similar
    legislation. And the Council of State Governments, a bipartisan
    government organization of State government officials, has
    adopted the Illinois law as suggested model legislation. Our
    industry supports Federal plastic microbeads legislation
    establishing a national, uniform standard that provides
    certainty for both consumers and businesses by setting
    appropriate and pragmatic phaseout dates, appropriate
    definitions of synthetic plastic microbeads, and inclusion of
    over-the-counter drugs containing plastic microbeads.
        It is especially important to carefully define synthetic
    plastic microbeads in the statute to avoid inadvertently
    prohibiting the use of natural alternatives and to make sure
    the prohibition provides clear direction to companies regarding
    reformulation. The dates for prohibition of manufacture and
    sell through of both personal care products and OTC products
    are also critical to assure a level playing field for both
    large and small companies as they reformulate. With the right
    policy framework, we can remain an innovative industry,
    providing our consumers with the safest, high-quality products
    they expect and deserve while also doing our role to continue
    to protect the environment.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. On
    behalf of the members of the Personal Care Products Council, we
    look forward to working with the committee on this legislation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hurson follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks all the witnesses for their
    opening statements.
        We will recess for about an hour. We have got a series of
    votes. So we will reconvene as soon as the last vote is taken
    for questioning of the witnesses. Thank you very much for your
    patience. This committee stands in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Pitts. All right. If the panel will take your seats, we
    will reconvene. The subcommittee will reconvene. And I thank
    the witnesses and everyone for their patience.
        And I will begin questioning and recognize myself for 5
    minutes for that purpose. And these are questions for all the
    panelists. So we will just go down the line.
        So the first question is--many of the largest consumer
    product companies already have committed to phasing out the use
    of synthetic plastic microbeads under very aggressive
    timeframes.
        The question is: What additional benefit would a Federal
    phaseout of microbeads provide? Will the market move away from
    the use of microbeads without Federal oversight?
        Mr. Wyant.
        Mr. Wyant. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        My opinion is that a Federal ban will ensure, essentially,
    elimination of a patchwork. States are moving quite
    aggressively, as has been pointed out. And, with that, there is
    going to be a number of approaches.
        I do compliment the personal care products industry in
    recognizing that there is a phaseout voluntarily in place. But
    on both sides of that, it is just my opinion that you would get
    consistency, you would get uniformity, and you would close the
    vulnerability for those who were not phasing out. And that is
    why we would support a Federal approach.
        Mr. Pitts. Senator Greenstein.
        Ms. Greenstein. Thank you, sir.
        I agree that uniformity is going to be the major advantage,
    but even now we see some disagreements. The first few States
    like New Jersey that got in right on the ground floor didn't
    seem to have these disagreements. But an example that I was
    talking with some of my colleagues about is that there has been
    brought up the idea of biodegradable plastics.
        So what we are going to have is that, as the industry moves
    forward, they will be saying, ``Well, make an exception for the
    biodegradables,'' even though they don't really exist now, as I
    understand it, ``Make other exceptions.'' And I think we are
    going to see a real patchwork, as you heard. I do agree with
    that.
        So I think it is very important, especially on something
    like this where we do have a lot of buy-in from the industry,
    to see if we can get a Federal law. I think that would work
    best.
        Mr. Pitts. Ms. Flanagan.
        Ms. Flanagan. I also agree that a Federal law makes sense.
    I applaud the personal care industry for the great steps that
    they are already taking to phase out these products.
        But it is not happening across the board. It is not
    happening on the same timeline, and they are not defining what
    will replace these microbeads in the same way.
        So a Federal ban would give us consistency and ensure that
    all companies are removing plastic microbeads from their
    products. Thank you.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Hurson, the question was--many of the
    largest consumer product companies already have committed to
    phasing out the use of synthetic plastic microbeads under very
    aggressive timeframes.
        What additional benefit would a Federal phaseout of
    microbeads provide? And will the market move away from the use
    of microbeads without Federal oversight?
        Mr. Hurson. I do think that the Federal approach is very,
    very important. First of all, you have a lot of States that
    have not yet taken action, and we need a Federal standard, a
    national standard, to cover all of those States.
        And I think the consistency of having Federal legislation
    in terms of both the timing and the definitions is going to be
    extremely important and very helpful.
        Mr. Pitts. OK. Let me continue with you. We will go back
    the other way.
        Why is it important to carefully define synthetic plastic
    microbeads in the statute?
        Mr. Hurson. It is important to define it in the statute for
    two reasons. First of all, it gives clarity to businesses as to
    how to reformulate them, what would be acceptable and not
    acceptable in the reformulation. And the second reason is
    because we want to get this done.
        I mean, the problem with waiting by having a Federal agency
    have to look at this again, it will just take a lot of time,
    and I think we want to get this thing solved and done and have
    these banned by a certain date. So----
        Mr. Pitts. OK. And we will go to Ms. Flanagan.
        And I want to add one more question to that. Not only the
    importance of defining the microbeads in the statute, but why
    would adding a phaseout date be important, if you can respond,
    Ms. Flanagan?
        Ms. Flanagan. Sure. So in terms of adding definitions, I
    think definitions could be included in statute or in
    regulation, but the importance of having careful definitions is
    so that industry does understand what is expected of them and
    so that we ensure that substances like bioplastics that may not
    be biodegradable aren't allowed. And what we are saying is that
    we just need to make sure that any standards and any
    definitions are based on current scientific research.
        And then, in terms of phaseout periods, I think it is
    important to have phaseout periods in order to make sure that
    all industries are meeting the standards on the same timeframe.
        Mr. Pitts. Senator Greenstein.
        Ms. Greenstein. Well, I will start with the phaseout dates.
    On the phaseout dates issue, in New Jersey, that was one of the
    places where we compromised. That was one of the places where
    the Governor in his conditional veto talked about the
    importance--he wanted lower fines because he didn't want people
    to go out of business, and he also wanted to give the industry
    a chance to adapt to this and to do what they needed to do. We
    made sure that the dates were very reasonable.
        I also think it is very important to define someplace,
    regulation or in the law--preferably in the law--exactly what
    we are talking about. So, in this case, I think definitions are
    critical. And the example I gave earlier about biodegradable
    and non-biodegradable products would be an example of where
    this is very important. We have to say what we are talking
    about so that industry is on notice.
        Mr. Pitts. Mr. Wyant.
        Mr. Wyant. I agree with clarity, consistency. And then the
    last point that you raise, I think it then encompasses and
    captures the entire, in our case, Great Lakes system.
        Mr. Pitts. Thank you. My time is expired.
        I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Green. 5 minutes
    for questions.
        Mr. Green. Ms. Flanagan, thank you for your testimony.
        What currently are the known impacts of microbeads on our
    waterways and wildlife?
        Ms. Flanagan. So we know that fish and wildlife mistake
    plastic microbeads as food. And so fish will eat microbeads
    instead of eating other food sources. They don't provide any
    nutrition and can accumulate both in the gut of the fish and
    get into the circulatory system.
        And then, as larger predators eat those fish, those
    microbeads, which attract toxins like DDT and PCBs, get
    concentrated throughout the food chain, which could then cause
    harm to human beings who are eating those larger fish.
        Mr. Green. Have microbeads been found to negatively impact
    human health? And to carry on what you just said, has it been--
    because I know in our area we have a dioxin problem in our
    waterway and obviously, the fish feed on it and humans catch
    those fish.
        Is that the same thing in the Great Lakes, I assume?
        Ms. Flanagan. I don't know the answer to that related to
    microbeads. I do know that fish, when they have PCBs or other
    contaminants concentrated in their tissue, that that does have
    an effect on human health, which is why we have fish
    consumption advisories in most Great Lakes waterways. I would
    imagine that plastic microbeads would work in much the same
    way, but I don't know for sure.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Hurson, in regards to the Microbeads Free
    Waters Act, is the January 1, 2018, ban on the sale and
    distribution of microbeads contained in cosmetics a realistic
    time for the industry to reformulate the products?
        Mr. Hurson. The January 1, 2018, in the model bills at a
    State level was a ban on manufacture, and then there is a year
    later for the ban on sale. That is sort of the compromise that
    we reached.
        There has to be a period of sell-through. So the banning of
    the manufacture is one thing, but getting all the product off
    the shelves will probably take another year.
        Mr. Green. OK. The legislation currently allows the FDA to
    define the term ``synthetic plastic microbead.'' However, the
    States have already passed laws banning microbeads have
    included a specific definition of the term.
        I understand that getting the definition right is important
    to ensure that all plastic microbeads are removed from
    products, but also to ensure that unintended consequences
    aren't caught in the definition.
        Chemistry changes literally every day. And if we define it
    so fine, there is going to be someone who will change that and
    maybe have the same product that is just a little bit
    different.
        How have the States dealt with that?
        Sure, Senator.
        Ms. Greenstein. OK. It is true that we will have changes as
    the science develops. No question about that. But I think at
    this particular time we have to deal with what we do know.
        There have been some recent studies. I know that, in 2012,
    there was a major study of the Great Lakes area and how that is
    being polluted by these microbeads. And there is also a study
    that I saw in the Tulane Environmental Law Journal that talks
    about the case for the ban.
        And we have the definitions that we have right now. We know
    that the non-biodegradable plastic is the thing that we were
    aiming at in our definition. So----
        Mr. Green. And I would hope the EPA would be cognizant of
    what the States have done on things that have worked and come
    up with a similar definition that you have.
        Ms. Greenstein. Well, we think that our definition was
    good. And I think the five States that have passed it have used
    similar definitions. So we are hoping that the Federal one
    would do that as well.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Hurson, in your testimony, you noted that
    the cosmetic industry supports the inclusion of over-the-
    counter drugs containing microbeads in the Federal ban.
        Would you elaborate on the concern about OTCs in
    microbeads?
        Mr. Hurson. Yes. Be happy to do that.
        The industry does support the inclusion of over-the-counter
    drugs that contain plastic microbeads. Those would be mostly
    toothpaste and, also, acne cream. Those are both products that
    are on the market that contain these beads, acne cream in
    particular because of the sensitivity of the skin, and that is
    why they were used.
        But in order to get at all these products, we think those
    OTC products should be included. There is an issue related to
    regulation of OTCs different than the regulation of cosmetics.
    OTCs are regulated through an FDA monograph, and that requires
    certain additional types of testing of OTCs.
        So in terms of reformulating, we think the OTCs need an
    additional year to get the ban in place and to get the product
    sell-through. So that is an issue related to FDA regulation.
        Mr. Green. OK. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. Thank you.
        Mr. Pitts. Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes
    gentleman from New York, Mr. Collins. 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you very much.
        As someone who has Lake Erie on the western end of my
    district and Lake Ontario on the northern end, certainly in
    Lake Erie the microbead issue is front and center right now.
    And our waterways are a major piece of our economy.
        So my question is for Senate Greenstein. And you mentioned
    in your testimony that you agreed that it is--and we have all
    discussed this, I think--it is important to give the personal
    care products industry time to adjust to find alternatives, and
    I think we know why.
        But on the record, could you go into a little bit more
    discussion on that. And what is the timeframe, knowing that the
    products are a little bit different?
        Ms. Greenstein. Well, what we did in our legislation is we
    had--I am just looking for the exact dates here.
        On or after January 1, 2018, no person shall produce or
    manufacture in the State a personal care product containing
    synthetic plastic microbeads except at that point for an over-
    the-counter drug.
        Then on the date of January 1, 2019, no person shall sell,
    offer for sale, or offer for promotion a personal care product
    with the synthetic plastic microbeads except for an OTC drug.
    And, finally, January 1, 2020, no sale, promotion, offer of an
    OTC drug.
        So we had different dates for each of those, the
    production, the sale, the over-the-counter. It was just in
    discussions with these companies that they felt they needed
    this additional time.
        Mr. Collins. Sure. So the good news for us in a way is
    seeing what New Jersey has done. In your discussions with the
    industry, they were comfortable that those timeframes were
    something they could live with.
        And I have to assume, many of them, they are not going to
    make a product for New Jersey and a different product for
    everyone else, that by leading the way in New Jersey, they are
    going to be transitioning.
        And I think a Federal law here does make a lot of sense,
    but I have to think common sense says they are going to make
    one kind of toothpaste and----
        Ms. Greenstein. Right. I think that is true except that,
    perhaps some of the industry would--although they have been
    starting on their own and trying to do this even before the law
    went into effect, I think they would scramble to some extent to
    find some different definitions, some product that perhaps they
    could do, that might be OK under our State law.
        But if we had a good, uniform, comprehensive Federal law, I
    think it would guide them in how they should----
        Mr. Collins. So what is going on in Europe? A lot of times
    on these types of issues we seem to see Europe would take a
    stance before us. Do they have standards now in Europe?
        Ms. Greenstein. Actually, you are right. They usually are
    ahead of us on some of these kinds of things. But on this, from
    the little bit that I have read about international standards,
    I think they don't have good standards on it, which is
    interesting.
        Mr. Collins. Well, that is. So we would actually be setting
    the stage----
        Ms. Greenstein. I think we are, and I think we are on the
    forefront on this issue.
        Mr. Collins. Yes. Well, I think----
        Ms. Greenstein. Usually that isn't the case on this type of
    thing.
        Mr. Collins. No, it isn't. So, again, I am glad to see what
    New Jersey has done.
        Ms. Greenstein. Thank you.
        Mr. Collins. It is a big issue, again, up in Lake Erie
    especially. So----
        Ms. Greenstein. I know it is.
        Mr. Collins. That is all I have got, Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Pitts. Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes
    the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone. 5
    minutes for questions.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to try to get in a question of Mr. Hurson and then
    to Senator Greenstein.
        So, Mr. Hurson, first, I wanted to focus a bit on the
    prevalence of the natural biodegradable alternatives to plastic
    microbeads.
        I know that many companies are transitioning away from
    plastic to natural exfoliants, like the walnut shell powder,
    and I am pleased to see that trend, coupled with proactive
    commitments from major companies like P&G and J&J to phase out
    plastic microbeads in their products.
        But I think it is important for us to pass this legislation
    to ensure that all companies manufacturing and selling personal
    care products in the U.S. Phase out these plastic ingredients.
        So could I ask you if you could tell me what actions your
    member companies are taking to transition to natural
    biodegradable exfoliants. I know you talked about this a
    little, but----
        Mr. Hurson. Thank you.
        The industry is actively doing research and trying to find
    the right kinds of raw materials that they could substitute and
    that have the same effectiveness. That is an ongoing practice
    right now.
        This industry is always reformulating products. It is sort
    of how it does business because they always want new things on
    the market. So it is an active industry in terms of
    reformulating and trying to get it right.
        But it does take time to both source the materials, make
    sure they are effective, that they are effective for what the
    consumers want. So that is actually happening now, all that
    resourcing.
        Mr. Pallone. And in transitioning to natural exfoliants, do
    you think it is going to be particularly burdensome or cause
    the companies to be unable bring effective products to market?
        Mr. Hurson. It is obviously going to be difficult and it
    takes time, but it is not something these companies can't do.
    They are experts at reformulating. That is what they do every
    year. There are 2,000 new products a year. So they can do it,
    but it will take some time.
        It is not a simple thing where you just pull out one
    ingredient and put in another. It actually takes a lot of
    research and testing and time to get it done. So it is
    happening now, and it will happen and they will do it.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
        Let me go back to my friend here, the Senator. I would like
    you to discuss--I know you talked about the New Jersey law. And
    obviously, you have done a great job in getting this passed.
        But can you tell me briefly about--well, I know you have
    kind of gotten into this already, but just give me a little
    more information about the bipartisan nature of this in New
    Jersey and how industry and environmental groups came together
    to support the bill.
        Ms. Greenstein. Well, it was really a combination. It was
    bipartisan on a political level. Everybody joined in, and there
    was not a single partisan aspect to the passage of the bill.
    Everybody became part of it.
        I think I said it passed the Senate unanimously and almost
    unanimously in the Assembly. I think some people were just
    absent. So it definitely had bipartisan support, and not
    everything does.
        But in addition to that, we had the support of groups that
    normally don't get together on the same bill. So we had the
    Sierra Club and then we had all of the industry, the chemistry
    industry and the personal products and all of the different
    parts of the industry who would really lose money, in a sense,
    by moving to this new formulation, but, nevertheless, felt this
    was the right direction to go.
        And this is the direction that we are going and they felt
    that push and everybody got together on it. So I think it would
    be great if everything were that way. Unfortunately, everything
    isn't. But this bill certainly moved in that----
        Mr. Pallone. Well, there has been a lot of it around here
    lately, I have to say.
        Ms. Greenstein. I tell you, that is great.
        Mr. Pallone. Now, of course, you know, you said that we
    should have a national standard, and there was a recent study
    released by the New York Office of the Attorney General that
    detected microbeads in samples from 25 of 34 wastewater
    treatment plants that were surveyed in New York.
        Given that New Jersey and New York share many of the same
    waterways, does that concern you? And again, if you wanted to
    talk again about the need for a national standard, I think most
    people are aware of it, but certainly we are acutely aware of
    the fact that, being a small State and sharing waterways with
    New York and Pennsylvania, you know, that we can't just do
    things on our own.
        Ms. Greenstein. Well, I actually did see that study, and I
    noticed that several of the waterways would be ones that we
    would share. So, yes, we are all affected by what goes on in
    the States around us and sometimes several States away.
        And that study did concern me, along with several other
    studies that I looked at. And there have been quite a few since
    the year 2012 and more and more, starting with the Great Lakes
    and working up to areas like ours in New York.
        So what was the second part of the question?
        Mr. Pallone. Yes. You answered it. Thank you.
        Ms. Greenstein. That essentially, I think, is extremely
    important and the need for the national standard, as you heard
    from, I think, all of us here, uniformity, definitely, making
    it all clear to the industry so they know which direction to
    go.
        There is no point in having 50 different laws, and it seems
    like we are moving that way. Because just in a very short
    period of time, three new laws were signed. And there are a
    bunch on governors' desks, and pretty soon we will have 50
    different laws.
        I think it would behoove us to have a Federal law that
    makes it very clear to the industry where we are going.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        Ms. Greenstein. Thank you.
        Mr. Pallone. Thanks for being here.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        Mr. Pallone. Oh, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Pitts. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. Can I just ask unanimous consent to enter into
    the record a letter from 5 Gyres, which I mentioned in my
    opening statement, and also from the Surfrider Foundation on
    this issue?
        Mr. Pitts. All right. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Pitts. nd I have a unanimous consent request from the
    American Chemistry Council submitted by Mr. Shimkus to be put
    into the record. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Pitts. The chair recognizes the vice chair of the
    subcommittee, Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank the chairman for yielding.
        I appreciate all of you being here today. And I have a
    question to all of the panelists. I would like to address this
    going down the line, I guess.
        Wasn't there microbeads that are used in other industries
    that are contributing to this problem? But I would like to hear
    from each of you why you think eliminating the use in personal
    care products will be a profound start to correcting the
    problem.
        If you will just start, Mr. Wyant.
        Mr. Wyant. There are other plastics, clearly, but this is,
    I think, a practical, commonsense solution. More science could
    come to bear on this, but what we do know is we are
    accumulating microbeads in the Great Lakes, and we have a great
    concern about that.
        We now know their bio-accumulative effects when wildlife
    consumes microbeads, and we know that has the potential of
    human health impact over time.
        So we just think it makes common sense and it is the right
    thing to do. Phasing out, I think, is the, again, win-win that
    we look forward to, consistency, uniformity, and then no
    loopholes in the system. And that is why we support it.
        Mr. Guthrie. I am going to continue on down the line
    because I want to get to a couple other questions.
        But specifically why in personal care products? I don't
    understand the issue with microbeads, why you think it would be
    a profound difference to do it in just personal care products
    when other industries do it.
        Ms. Greenstein. I am going to assume that personal care
    products would be the main area where we get the microbeads.
    Now, certainly there are other kinds of plastics that come from
    many different sources. All of the articles I read focused on
    microbeads. That is personal care. But, frankly, I think we do
    need to go beyond it.
        One of the things that really either impressed or depressed
    me, depending on how you look at it, was these large--I guess
    they call them garbage patches--in both the North Atlantic and
    the Great Pacific, which are not just microbeads, but they have
    relatively high concentrations of certain kinds of plastics and
    chemical sludge because these mix together. And there are
    enormous patches just, I guess, under the surface of the water
    in both of our oceans.
        So we definitely are polluting with manmade products. I
    think, frankly, we should look beyond just microbeads, but
    microbeads go with personal care products. So that is what we
    are focusing on right now. But we have to look at the other
    plastic and other chemical pollution that is going into our
    oceans.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. I will just go on to Ms. Flanagan.
        But my understanding, though--and I will just go on to Ms.
    Flanagan--is that microbeads that are personal care products
    aren't just in personal care products. They are in--I
    understand there is other plastics.
        So, Ms. Flanagan.
        Ms. Flanagan. Yes. There are other sources of
    microplastics. From my understanding, it can come off of
    certain types of fleece or other microfibers. So you can get
    microplastics that aren't necessarily spherical.
        I do think plastic microbeads are a good place to start. In
    the study that I referenced during my testimony by Dr. Sherri
    Mason of the State University of New York at Fredonia and Dr.
    Marcus Eriksen of the 5 Gyres Institute, when they surveyed the
    Great Lakes and looked at microplastics, 58 percent of all the
    microplastics that were smaller than 1 millimeter collected in
    the Great Lakes were spherical.
        So you are not going to tackle the entire microplastics
    issue by getting at microbeads, but you are going to be
    addressing a significant chunk of it.
        Mr. Guthrie. Oh, thank you.
        And Mr. Hurson.
        Mr. Hurson. It is a very good question.
        There is not any reliable scientific information at this
    point as to the sourcing of microbeads, but it is very clear
    they are used in personal care products. So we are committed to
    getting them out of personal care products.
        That is the simple answer to your question, which is we
    know they are in our products. We want to get out of them. Our
    companies are already reformulating out.
        But since there isn't any definitive science study at the
    moment as to the sourcing of all the microbeads that are out
    there in the environment--there are other industries that use
    them.
        So it is a great question. But at least we can start here,
    and we think it is smart to start with a national standard and
    a very clear idea of what we are trying to get at.
        Mr. Guthrie. So, Mr. Hurson, just continuing, should over-
    the-counter products be included in this legislation? And what
    are the requirements for the over-the-counter for just regular
    cosmetic products?
        Mr. Hurson. As an industry, we do support the inclusion of
    over-the-counter products like toothpaste and acne cream that
    do have microbeads. It does mean that we have to look a little
    bit more carefully at the time lines because, because of the
    way those products are regulated by FDA, there is additional
    testing that has to be done.
        So when you reformulate those products, you literally have
    to spend 18 months--you put the new formulation--put it on the
    shelf. It is called stabilization testing. You have to make
    sure that the new ingredient doesn't in some way affect the
    active ingredients in an over-the-counter drug, and that is why
    you need more time to reformulate in that product category.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. In your previous answer, you said that
    microbeads are from other industries, that nobody knows exactly
    where the ones collecting are from, but you recognize they are
    in your products; so, if we want to address the problem, if you
    are contributing to it, addressing it by getting microbeads out
    your products.
        What ingredients are companies using to replace these
    products? I mean, what is the replacement for that?
        Mr. Hurson. We are looking for all kinds of natural
    ingredients that could replace it. You have things like salt,
    sugar, ground-up walnut shells, ground-up apricot pits.
        But when you think about manufacturing these products,
    first of all, you have to source them. You know, you have to
    find a place to buy those and supply those ingredients, and
    that could be tricky as the entire industry moves at the same
    time. It might be hard to source them.
        And then the other thing is you have to recalculate and
    redo your manufacturing processes because you are going to have
    a different reaction in trying to put that particular
    ingredient into the products. You might have different
    machinery that you need.
        So it does take time to actually get this done. But it is
    the natural things that we are trying to find that would give
    us the same scrub type of effect in exfoliating.
        Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you.
        And this is an issue that I am learning more about and
    didn't really understand it until we started focusing on it
    through this committee.
        And that is what this process is for and why your testimony
    is important. And, hopefully, we will work into a solution
    because I understand there is a real problem we need to
    address. So thank you very much.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognize
    the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky. 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        I would like to continue along those lines talking about
    the various products that we want to get off the market.
        So, Mr. Hurson, you said in your testimony that the
    Personal Care Products Council supports the discontinued use of
    plastic microbeads, in general. And I am not quoting, but you
    made kind of a general statement.
        So you do support a ban that applies both to personal care
    products and to over-the-counter drugs like acne? And you were
    talking about how much longer it might take for those. But you
    do support that?
        Mr. Hurson. Yes, we do.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Thank you very much.
        I wanted to ask Ms. Flanagan a question. And, first of all,
    let me just say I am very proud that Illinois was the first.
        And congratulations, Representative Greenstein--for New
    Jersey following.
        And all this has happened pretty quickly. Five States now
    have laws, and many more are considering it because clearly it
    is viewed as a serious hazard.
        So I am trying to get a sense of just how critical this is
    in the Great Lakes, an estimate for how--not exactly how many
    microbeads. But how present is it in the lakes right now?
        Ms. Flanagan. Sure. So microbeads have been found in all of
    the Great Lakes and throughout the water column and in
    concentrations that rival or surpass the concentrations of
    microbeads found in the oceans. So it is a pretty critical
    problem in the Great Lakes region, and it is a problem
    throughout all of the lakes and even into the St. Lawrence
    River.
        And then, of course, the issue is that fish throughout the
    region mistake these microbeads for food and can concentrate
    toxins up the food chain. And so, there are a number of
    critical issues facing the Great Lakes: invasive species,
    nutrient problems. Microbeads are just one of them.
        You are spending a lot of money through the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative to address those issues. Thank you for
    that. And I think that avoiding this needless additional threat
    to the Great Lakes makes a lot of sense.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So clearly it ought to be a priority to get
    Great Lakes States involved in banning them.
        Ms. Flanagan. Yes. Absolutely. I think, if the Federal
    Government can come to agreement on standards and regulation
    that will ensure that plastic microbeads are out of personal
    care products, that that would be a good solution.
        Aside a Federal ban, then, yes. Having the Great Lakes
    States act collectively would be important for----
        Ms. Schakowsky. Yes. Of course, if there were a Federal
    ban.
        But then what about internationally? Has Canada made any
    moves?
        Ms. Flanagan. I just got an update from a colleague in
    Canada. They do not have bans now. But the Province of Ontario
    is learning more about this problem and considering taking
    action, and in Ottawa the Federal Government has also, I think,
    approved some additional study of the issue. So additional work
    is certainly needed on both sides of the border.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I think one of you had testified earlier
    that it is not really a danger to human beings. Obviously, I
    guess, if it is external, that is true.
        Is that the case?
        Ms. Greenstein. Well, I think I might have said earlier,
    when it comes to dangers to the environment, that is pretty
    much documented at this point. Dangerous to water. Dangerous to
    animals. And, of course, that goes up the food chain.
        But actual studies of human health and how it is affected,
    there really is not a lot of scientific study of that yet. I
    think we are moving in that direction. But right at the moment,
    if you said pick out a study that shows the dangers to human
    health, I don't think we quite have that yet.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Toothpaste. Clearly, if you are brushing
    your teeth, the chances are great that you swallow those.
        Ms. Greenstein. The chances are great.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And so it would seem to me, if we are
    concerned about the fish and up the food chain, that that would
    be an area that we would want to look at.
        Anybody else want to comment on that?
        Ms. Flanagan. I would just agree with you that, the fact
    that we know fish are eating these microbeads, that they are
    concentrating up the food chain, that they even could pose a
    risk to human health, is enough of a reason to get them out of
    the Great Lakes and out of our waterways.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And, finally, again for Mr. Hurson, so tell
    me what the Council is doing in terms of educating its members.
        Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I see I am over time. Can he
    answer that?
        Mr. Hurson. I would be happy to answer it.
        The Council has been very active in this area at the State
    level. We were the ones who were part of the negotiations in
    your State when Illinois passed the first bill.
        And we also took the Illinois bill to the Council of State
    Governments to get it as model legislation to be recommended to
    all the States, and that is one of the reasons you have had
    three additional States, besides Illinois and New Jersey, pass
    it this year. It is under consideration in at least 10 to 15
    more States right now.
        So we are very active in advocating the banning of these
    microbeads in personal care products and certain over-the-
    counter products. We also are very active in the science side,
    trying to get more information about how the flow does work in
    our wastewater treatment plants, as well as trying to educate
    internationally, both in Europe and in Canada, trying to get
    them to understand how important it is to get these ingredients
    out of these products.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you for that.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Pitts. Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognize
    the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance. 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is an honor to meet you, Ms. Flanagan, and, Mr. Wyant.
    And I have worked in the past with Mr. Hurson.
        But on the panel the person I know best is Senator
    Greenstein. The Senator and I served together in the lower
    house of the New Jersey Legislature, the General Assembly, and
    then in the upper house of the New Jersey Legislature, the
    State Senate, and the Senator is familiar with Washington,
    having graduated from Georgetown Law School. And I see Mr.
    Greenstein in the audience as well.
        I guess I would want to know, Linda, who was absent in the
    Assembly and didn't vote for your bill.
        Ms. Greenstein. We will be checking that out.
        Mr. Lance. I hope it is not my two members of the General
    Assembly.
        Let me first ask, Mr. Wyant. I understand before your
    distinguished tenure at the Department of Environmental Quality
    in Michigan you were also the director of the Department of
    Agriculture for both a Republican and a Democratic governor.
        Is there an interplay between agricultural matters and
    environmental protection on this issue?
        Mr. Wyant. I wouldn't say necessarily on this issue.
    Michigan's perspective is--clearly we know microbeads are
    making it into the Great Lakes and the Michigan waters. Clearly
    we know, when we test wastewater treatment facilities, we
    discover microbeads.
        And then we can draw the natural conclusion and issue--the
    relationship with agriculture and nutrient-loading and water
    quality issues is quite apparent. And so there are other
    significant nexuses.
        And so I guess I would add in close with the fact that the
    fact that we do get, in some cases, toxins, not necessarily
    agriculture-related, you know, we know that, again, big
    industrial States have legacy issues. That is our concern.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        And to Senator Greenstein, as I understand the New Jersey
    legislation, you crafted it in such a way that it was a model
    based also on what has happened in Illinois.
        Could you explain to the committee why the phaseout period
    was designed the way it was and, also, the importance of
    providing an adequate timeframe for compliance.
        Ms. Greenstein. Yes. I believe in some earlier versions of
    the bill we may have had a little bit of a tighter timeframe.
        But in the Governor's conditional veto, the two things he
    was very concerned about was adequate time for the industry--so
    we needed to spread that out a bit--and he was also concerned
    that the fines were too--we were going up to like $10,000. So
    we brought it to $500. And, also, we had included a private
    right of action. He wanted that out as well.
        So we went along with everything he said because we wanted
    the bill to pass and we thought it was still a very good bill,
    even with those changes.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        As a matter of information to the committee, in New Jersey,
    the Governor of our State has the power to modify legislation
    that reaches his desk. And that modification is then sent back
    to both houses of the State legislature, and both houses have
    the opportunity to agree with the Governor's modifications by
    simple majority. And that is a way in which the two elected
    branches in New Jersey work together.
        And I certainly commend all of those involved in New
    Jersey, including, in particular, my friend, Senator
    Greenstein.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Pitts. Chair thanks the gentleman.
        Just one question.
        Clarification. In the material, we read of glass microbeads
    as well. This legislation only applies to plastic microbeads.
        Are you familiar with microbeads which are glass? Are they
    utilized? Are there any dangers with that, Mr. Hurson?
        Mr. Hurson. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of glass
    microbeads being used in our products. I think one of the
    alternatives that people are looking at would be like a pumice
    stone type of microbead. But I am not aware that they are
    researching looking at glass.
        Mr. Pitts. Ms. Flanagan?
        Ms. Flanagan. I am not familiar with glass microbeads. I am
    not saying they don't exist, but I am not familiar with them.
        Mr. Pitts. Senator?
        Ms. Greenstein. Also have not read anything about that. And
    the only thing that I can think of is maybe for decorative
    purposes. But they wouldn't be used in these kinds of products
    because glass in toothpaste--let's hope that doesn't happen.
        Mr. Pitts. Hope not.
        Mr. Wyant.
        Mr. Wyant. I am not aware of any issues as it relates to
    glass.
        Mr. Pitts. All right. I think the other members who were
    here are at another hearing. I apologize for that.
        We will have follow-up questions. If we submit them to you
    in writing, would you please respond promptly? Thank you.
        And I remind members that they have 10 business days to
    submit the questions for the record. And members should submit
    their questions by the close of business on Friday, May the
    15th.
        Very interesting hearing. We intend to act on it. Thank you
    very much for your patience today and all the good information
    you provided to the committee.
        At this time, without objection, the subcommittee is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]