Seite - 232 - in Freshwater Microplastics - Emerging Environmental Contaminants?

on Energy and Commerce, and on the same day it was passed by the House of Representatives.Only 11days later, itwas passedby theSenate unanimously and was signed by the president 10 days later on December 28, 2015 [65]. The “Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015” (H.R. 1321) prohibits “the manufacture and introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of rinse-off cosmetics containing intentionally-added plasticmicrobeads.”The law specifies a phase out, starting with a ban on manufacturing the beads from July 2017 on, followedbyproduct-specificmanufacturing and sales bans in 2018and2019.The lawbansonly rinse-offandnot leave-onproducts (eyeshadow, facepowder).Still, the ban can be regarded as a first step toward reducing the emission of microplastics. In Europe, industries have also pledged to phase out the use of microplastics,andCosmeticsEurope, thepersonalcare industry’s tradeassociation, though highlighting that the “vast majority” of microplastics come from other sources than personal care products, issued a recommendation to discontinue their use in rinse-off cosmetics, and announced its intention to collaborate closely with regulators.Bydoing so, theywere “addressingpublic concerns” [66]. At thescience-policy interface, interestgroups likeenvironmentalorganizations did play an important role as brokers, but nevertheless further points were also decisive for thestructuringof thepolicyproblem.First, clearly structuredevidence of cause and effectwas presented andwas not confused byother conflicting facts (other sources of primary microplastics and secondary microplastics as major sources were almost totally excluded in the US debate). Second, a ban on microbeads in cosmetic products did not constitute a financial risk or any other threat to the personal care sector, since alternatives existed and a change in production was implementable in the set timeframe. In addition, it gave the cosmetic industry thepossibility toshape its sustainabilityprofileand toemphasize valuesharingwith theconsumer.Thismaybeareasonwhythepresentedevidence wasnot contested. Recently published studies (e.g., [67]) have shifted the focus to land-based sources and thedegradationofplasticwaste in theoceans andother environments, enhancing thecircleof responsibilities fromsingle industries tocomplexprocesses of supplying, consuming, andwastemanagement. In this context, it has turnedout that cosmetic products as a source ofmicroplastics play amuch smaller role than previously thought [68, 69]. In this context, the ban onmicrobeads is only a tiny drop in theocean.Thecomplexityofplastics in theenvironment isbecomingmore andmoreobviousandposesagreat challenge to riskassessment andmanagement. Against thisbackground, it seems that theMicrobead-FreeWatersActwasadopted in a window of opportunity in which the problem was perceived as well struc- tured—thescientificevidencewasclear toall interestgroups, therewasconsenton the trade-off between thebenefitsofmicrobeads incosmetics and thehazards they pose to ecosystems, and multiple alternatives for microbeads in cosmetics were available(physicallyandeconomically).Thus, thecaseof theUSAcanberegarded asanexampleofusingawell-structuredproblemforpolicy-making,whilemostof the problems related to plastics are in fact unstructured, e.g., due to competing viewsofmultiple interest groups. 232 J.KrammandC.V€olker