Seite - 231 - in Freshwater Microplastics - Emerging Environmental Contaminants?

towhichaproblemorariskcanbestructureddependsonconsensus,values,views, and secured evidence, which includes knowledge of causes and effects. The con- tinuum ranges from structured problems with common values and consensus on strategiesandontheevidence,whichcomprisessecuredknowledge includingclear causes and effects, to unstructured problems with competing values and no con- sensus on strategies and on the scientific evidence due to ambiguity and uncertainty [58]. In the case of the adoption of theMicrobead-FreeWatersAct, different actors were involved in “structuring the problem” [58]. Scientific evidence on the path- ways into and the abundance in the environmentwas provided in strong collabo- ration with activists. For example, the NGO 5Gyres Institute published the first microplastic pollution survey of theGreat Lakes region in collaborationwith the StateUniversityofNewYork in2013.Theconcentrationofmicroplastics found in the Great Lakes was higher than that of most samples collected in the oceans [59].Thestudieswerecoveredbythemedia,andtheargumentationchainpresented was quite clear: the microbeads threaten our lakes and rivers, stem from our cosmetic products, and slip through the sewage plants [60–62]. A clear scientific narrativewas established and presented by scientists and activists to big personal care companies. The short “viewpoint” paper byRochman et al. titled “Scientific EvidenceSupports aBanonMicrobeads” [63], comprisinga simple calculationof thenumberofmicrobeads and their route into the environment,was clearly aimed at strengthening this scientificnarrative. At the same time, environmental andocean-protectionNGOscampaigned for a banonmicroplastics in cosmetics. Their campaigningmethods included shopping guides that listed all producers usingmicroplastics in their products and the app “Beat theMicrobead” which could be used to check whether a product contains plastics.Thisappwas launchedby twoDutchNGOsin2012andfurtherdeveloped for internationalusebyUNEPandanotherenvironmentalNGOin2013[64].With theguideandtheapp, toolswereprovidedwhichenabledconsumers toreducetheir use of cosmetic products containingmicroplastics and to becomemore aware of the issue. In the cosmetics industry, the evidence presented by the coalition between scientists and activistswas not seriously contested.Global players like Johnson& Johnson,Unilever,andothermultinationalsannouncedthat theirproductswouldbe plastic-freewithin the next few years and that theywould use natural substitutes instead.Sincethen,manymorecompanieshavepledgedtophaseoutmicroplastics, motivatedby reputational or environmental concerns. With the detection of high amounts ofmicroplastics in theGreat Lakes, on the doorstepof theUSA, the campaign againstmicroplasticswas boosted and entered thegovernmentalarena,withseveralUSstatespassing lawsbanningmicrobeads in cosmetics in 2014and2015 (e.g.,NewYork, Illinois,California). InMarch 2015, legislation to banmicroplastics in cosmeticswas introduced in theUSCongress.Howwell the problemwas structured by then is reflected in the speedwithwhich thebillwas passed: InMarch, itwas introduced in theHouseof Representatives; inDecember, itwas reported on and amended by theCommittee Understanding theRisks ofMicroplastics:ASocial-EcologicalRiskPerspective 231