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 Marine & Wildlife Policy & Risk Remediation Sign in to save

Legislation to reduce microplastic pollution : understanding the factors that facilitated passage of the federal Microbead-free Waters Act of 2015

2019 2 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 30 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Alyson Northrup

Summary

This study analyzes the political and advocacy factors that led to the passage of the US Microbead-free Waters Act of 2015, which banned plastic microbeads in personal care products. It identifies how scientific evidence, industry opposition, and public concern shaped the legislative outcome.

Study Type Environmental

The full environmental impacts of microplastic pollution in aquatic environments remain uncertain, but several detrimental effects have been documented, including adverse health effects in multiple species and the susceptibility of microplastics to adsorb toxins and leach plastic additives. Plastic microbeads from rinse-off personal care products are a source of microplastic pollution that is introduced directly into the environment through runoff, including wastewater treatment plant effluent. In December 2015, the federal Microbead-free Waters Act of 2015 banned the manufacture and sale of all rinse-off personal care products containing plastic microbeads in the United States.

Sign in to start a discussion.

More Papers Like This

Article Tier 2

The power of environmental norms: marine plastic pollution and the politics of microbeads

This paper analyzes how the anti-microbead norm — the idea that plastic microbeads in personal care products should be eliminated — gained political traction and led to bans in multiple countries. The case demonstrates how combining strong scientific evidence with public activism can rapidly shift corporate and government behavior on plastic pollution.

Article Tier 2

Tiny pollutants, big changes: Progress in microplastics research and U.S. policy

This commentary reviewed the current state of U.S. federal policy on microplastic pollution, noting that legislation is largely limited to banning microbeads in personal care products and monitoring plastics in food and water. The authors argued that developing evidence-based national policies will require substantially more research on human health impacts.

Article Tier 2

Beating the Microbead: How private environmental governance has influenced the regulatory process of banning microbeads in the UK

This paper examines how private environmental governance — specifically industry campaigns against microbeads in personal care products — influenced government regulation in multiple countries. It shows that industry-led voluntary action can accelerate formal bans, offering a model for addressing other emerging plastic pollution issues.

Article Tier 2

National Marine Microbead Policy in Developed Nations: How Microbead Bans Have Influenced Microplastic Pollution in Waterways and Begun the Trend Towards International Collaboration

This review examines how national microbead bans in developed countries have begun to reduce a significant source of microplastic pollution from cosmetic products. It argues that while domestic bans are important, international coordination is needed to address the transboundary nature of microplastic contamination in waterways.

Article Tier 2

Perceived Approaches to Abating Microplastic Pollution in Chicago-Area Waterways

This study explored how conflicts of interest and differing belief systems among stakeholders in the Chicago area create barriers to developing effective microplastic pollution legislation. Using an advocacy coalition framework, it highlights the political and social dynamics that can slow environmental policy action.

Share this paper