0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Environmental Sources Human Health Effects Policy & Risk Sign in to save

Agential cuts of regulatory science practices – the case of microplastics

Environment and Planning E Nature and Space 2023 1 citation ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 40 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Johanna Kramm

Summary

This sociological analysis examines how the choice of risk assessment framework — threshold-based versus persistence-based — shapes whether regulators act on microplastic pollution. Threshold approaches effectively permit continued industrial emissions because harmful concentrations in the environment are rarely reached, while persistence-based frameworks better justify precautionary action, making the choice of scientific method a deeply consequential regulatory and ethical decision.

Over the past decades, a new field of research related to microplastics has emerged which still faces a high degree of uncertainty and conflicting views regarding the risks posed by microplastics. To date, social research has not addressed the regulatory science practices necessary for assessing the risks created by microplastics and related ethical questions. Therefore, the objective of this article is to analyse the role of central regulatory science practices, that is, risk assessments as they relate to microplastics. I draw on the work of Karen Barad to conceptualise these regulatory science practices as boundary-drawing practices which produce agential cuts. I will show that scientific and regulatory boundary-drawing practices draw agential cuts determining the properties of microplastics and regulatory actions that have ‘real’ consequences for human and environmental health. My empirical case demonstrates that different versions of risk assessment exist – one based on thresholds and the other on persistence – each of which have different regulatory consequences. Threshold risk assessment does not legitimise action to regulate microplastics, because the threshold at which microplastics have toxic effects requires such high concentrations that industry could continue to emit microplastics for decades. Therefore, only risk assessments that relate to the materiality of microplastics in terms of persistence and accumulation legitimise regulatory action.

Sign in to start a discussion.

More Papers Like This

Article Tier 2

Framing pollution

This social science analysis explores how "pollution" — and microplastics specifically — is defined not just by science but by political, economic, and cultural forces. The paper examines different ways of framing microplastic pollution: as a waste management failure, a consumer behavior problem, or an inevitable product of industrial capitalism, each with different implications for who bears responsibility. It argues that understanding the social and political dimensions of microplastic pollution is essential for developing just and effective responses.

Article Tier 2

Science-society-policy interface for microplastic and nanoplastic: Environmental and biomedical aspects

This review proposed a new conceptual framework for addressing microplastic and nanoplastic pollution at the science-society-policy interface, covering detection methods, environmental and health impacts, and regulatory approaches.

Article Tier 2

Understanding the Risks of Microplastics: A Social-Ecological Risk Perspective

This chapter examines microplastics as a textbook example of a modern global risk — produced by everyday industrial society, distributed worldwide by ocean currents, and difficult to regulate because the harm is diffuse and slow. The authors analyze scientific, social, and political dimensions of microplastic risk, arguing that policy responses like the US Microbead-Free Waters Act address symptoms rather than the underlying systemic problem.

Article Tier 2

Regulating “forever chemicals”: social data are necessary for the successful implementation of the essential use concept

This paper proposes a framework for regulating PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals," using the Essential Use Concept, which assumes a chemical should be phased out unless proven necessary and without alternatives. While focused on PFAS rather than microplastics, the regulatory approach is relevant because both are persistent synthetic pollutants that accumulate in the environment and human body. The authors argue that effective regulation requires input from affected communities, not just scientists.

Article Tier 2

Next steps for research on society and microplastics

This perspective paper outlined priority directions for social and behavioral science research on microplastics, building on the established contributions of social sciences to understanding policy, stakeholder views, and public behavior around plastic pollution. The authors called for greater integration of social science methods to address governance gaps and support effective microplastic management.

Share this paper