In the current political environment, where good theater often trumps good policy, California has the opportunity to lead with some plain common sense.
Governor Newsom can sign AB 823, authored by Assembly member Tasha Boerner (D-Encinitas), and prevent unnecessary plastic pollution from entering our drinking water — and our bodies.
The bill, which unanimously passed the state Senate on Sept. 3 and now precariously sits on the governor’s desk, builds off a law passed 10 years ago that successfully stopped the use of plastic microbeads in rinse off personal care products, by expanding the prohibition to cleaning products and “stay on” cosmetics. It is based on the simple premise that if plastic isn’t necessary in a product, it shouldn’t be there.
The cost of treating drinking water for a growing number of pollutants is a major challenge facing many Californian households today. While the state already sets legal limits on over 100 contaminants, leading the nation in protecting public health, we continue to learn about new “emerging contaminants” that can be anticipated to pollute our water supplies and add further health threats and expense if they are left to flow into our environment unabated.
One of these emerging issues is the presence of microplastics in drinking water supplies.
Potential exposure to microplastics in drinking water is sobering considering the ever growing evidence of serious health effects. These include cancers, gastric inflammation, reproductive harm and dementia as microplastics are being found at increasing levels in humans. Babies are even being born with these toxic materials in their developing bodies.
The presence of microplastics in California’s precious – and limited – drinking water is of such growing concern that the state Legislature has required the State Water Resources Control Board to develop plans to measure the particles in water supplies and study the implications to public health.
That work is ongoing, but is complicated by the variety of plastics entering our water, including their differing colors, shapes, and chemical additives.
Adding to the technical complexity is the sheer expense of testing. According to the Water Board, one sample can take up to 54 hours to analyze depending on the method and cost upwards of $2,000. Consequently, the continued flow of plastics into our water supplies creates both a technological and economic challenge for both wastewater and drinking water agencies that serve the public. These costs will ultimately be borne by ratepayers.
While addressing plastics in water is not simple, it is common sense to stop purposely putting tiny plastic microbeads in products like household cleaners and cosmetics.
We’ve all seen them: those speckles in detergents or glitter in make-up.
Ostensibly they are there to act as exfoliants in cleaners or because glitter is pretty. But given that plastic carries with it so many problems, it is unreasonable to use it to serve such purposes, especially when more natural alternatives such as shells, sand, and mica exist and are also commonly used.
That’s where AB 823 comes in. This important bill doesn’t end the use of dirt scraping materials or sparkle. It simply says “let’s make them safer” by banning their plastic versions.
That will keep tons of plastics out of our water supplies. That is simple common sense.
Andria Ventura is director of legislation and policy at Clean Water Action.