[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]