Microplastic plastic pollution has not been the most publicized form of pollution in recent years. Pictures of sea turtles choking on plastic grocery bags and dolphins with six-pack rings around their beaks have become staple images in the fight against littering. Only eight percent of the plastic pollution in the world's oceans is large pieces such as grocery bags or water bottles. The other ninety-two percent of plastic pollution in aquatic ecosystems are microplastics (Lush Cosmetics). Microplastics have recently been a hot topic in the news due to a recent national law signed into affect known as the "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015." Organizations such as 5Gyres, whose main mission is to fight against the global issue of plastic pollution, have been lobbying to ban the bead for years because of its adverse affects on the environment. However, even with this new prohibition on microbeads in affect, it only scratches the surface of the microplastic pollution problem. Microbeads are a human designed and manufactured microplastic and they account for just a portion of overall microplastic pollution. Due to the fact that plastic never completely dissolves, disintegrate or biodegrades it just gets broken down into smaller and smaller pieces. So, even if a plastic bag happens to escape the throat of an unsuspecting sea turtle, it will get ripped and tattered by the sun and the waves of the oceans until it becomes thousands and thousands of pieces of microplastic. These newly formed microplastic particles have the same affect on the environment as microbeads, however they have been excluded for the new law which exclusively bans just microbeads found in rinse-off cosmetic products. Thus, while the recent passage of the "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" is a step toward a greener planet, more efforts need to be taken in order to make greater leaps and bounds against microplastic pollution. 

Though microbeads are small they are mighty. Microbeads are defined as being, "any solid plastic particle that is less than 5 millimeters and is used for the purpose of exfoliating or cleansing" (Pallone). Over the last few years microbeads have become a popular addition to facial scrubs, soaps, and tooth pastes because they are good exfoliants and can be easily washed down the drain (Imam). While there are natural alternatives such as fruit seeds, ground up fruit pits, and even oatmeal to name a few, companies have chosen to use microbeads because it is cheaper and more convenient. Microbeads are most commonly made up of polypropylene or polyethylene (Lush Cosmetics). According to a survey conducted amongst college students at the University of California, Berkley, seventy-five percent of the sampled students use face washes containing microbeads. The majority of that seventy-five percent was unaware that there was plastic in their face wash (Chang). While some products may advertise that their exfoliating agent is microbeads, others will be more discrete and then the only way to tell is by reading the label. In the list of ingredients it will say either polypropylene or polyethylene, meaning that there are plastic particles in the soap, toothpaste, face wash, whatever it might be. While these tiny plastic beads maybe invigorating and help consumers achieve a clear complexion or whiter teeth, they are a hazard to planet Earth.

Microbeads are an environmental danger because they are so small that they can easily slip through wastewater treatment plants to inevitably make their way to the world's aquatic ecosystems. In an article published by The Atlantic entitled "How Face Wash Pollutes Water" by Julie Beck it was noted that two of the major problems with microbeads are their size and their chemical make up. Michelle Chang, a scientist from the University of California, Berkley, measured microbeads as well as the size of the filtration systems at two waste water treatment plants in the San Francisco area. She found that the microbeads found in popular face washes are small enough to easily trickle through wastewater treatment plants to the ocean. Based on her observations and calculates Chang states that, "if consumers switched over to natural alternative cleansers, 5000 g of microplastic  --  the equivalent of 2500 Ziploc sandwich bags (16.5 cm  times  14.9 cm)  --  could be diverted from the wastewater stream every year." Unfortunately as well, due to the polyethylene and polypropylene used to make microbeads they never disintegrate. After being used just once, microbeads are sent down the drain where they will eventually end up in a lake, ocean or stream and will spend the rest of time being broken down into smaller and smaller little plastic particles. Another downside to their chemical structure is that according to the information on the 5Gyres organization's webpage, "a single plastic microbead can be 1 million times more toxic than the water around it." This is because the polymers that make up microbeads will act as a sponge for pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, making them practically tiny plastic balls of concentrated toxins. Unfortunately, even with the new ban put in place, these hazardous microbeads are already out there floating around. With two years left to keep purchasing products with microbeads, more and more are entering the waterways on a daily basis. 

As small, perfectly round, matte, often-colorful little spheres microbeads have an uncanny resemblance to the food of choice for many marine organisms. Obviously, these toxic microbeads are far from what these fish a meaning to consume. As of right now scientists know that microbeads are negatively affecting entire ecosystems. Accidently eating microbeads has been causing marine organisms to get sick. The Great Barrier Reef in Australia has even fallen subject to ailing caused by the introduction of microbeads into the aquatic environment (Lewis). The The Atlantic article written by Beck quoted Dr. Lorena Rios Mendoza, an assistant professor of chemistry at the University of Wisconsin, saying that, "some of these pollutants are endocrine disruptors." This means that some of the toxins being soaked up by microbeads are affecting animals reproductive systems after they consumer microbeads. More research must be conducted in order for scientists to come to a conclusion on the affects of microbeads entering the food chain. For instance scientists are trying to discover is these chemicals that are affecting their consumers could affect animals, such as say humans, who may eat a fish who ate a contaminated fish (Beck). Companies such as L'Oreal, Johnson & Johnson, and The Body Shop have already phased out microbeads from their products. In 2014 Johnson & Johnson made it their goal to be microbead free by 2017 (Beck). Along with these private companies, United States government has decided to take action and recently passed a bill to ban the bead before the situation gets worse.

Democratic Congressman Representative Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey introduced the "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" in March of 2015. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law in December 2015. As described in the bill's text, its purpose is to "prohibit the manufacture and introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of rinse-off cosmetics containing intentionally-added plastic microbeads" (Pallone). Examples of rinse-off cosmetic products are toothpastes, soaps, lotions, face washes and shampoos. The "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" does not put an immediate ban on products containing microbeads. The new law's plan of action is to halt manufacturing of rinse-off cosmetic products in 2017, followed by a discontinuation of their sale nationwide in 2019 (Pallone). This law is the first national initiative against microbeads, however several states have already passed their own laws against microbeads. State legislation had already been passed in California, New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut and Wisconsin prior to the "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" (Lewis). Illinois was one of the first states to propose legislation against microbeads after it was discovered that there are approximately "17,000 bits of tiny plastic items per square kilometer in Lake Michigan" (Corley). According to the CNN article, "Microbead Ban Signed By President Obama" written by Jareen Imam, 8 trillion microbeads enter United States' waterways daily. This new national law will cut down on this alarming number; however, it is not a full solution. The "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" is merely a step in the right direction in trying to get rid of microplastic pollution.

While the "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" is a step in the right direction for the United States government in the fight against plastic pollution, it is a very specific law that targets only a portion of the problem. For instance, the law only prohibits microbeads when they are found in rinse-off cosmetic products. So, while these tiny plastic particles will no longer be found in toothpastes, soaps, etcetera, similar small plastic beads are still used as a raw material in the plastic industry (Mato). These pellets are anywhere from 0.1 to 0.5 centimeters in diameter. They find their way into aquatic ecosystems when they are being transported between manufacturers and while they are being used to manufacture other products. Similar to microbeads, these plastic pellets are made out of polypropylene, making them a sponge for toxic chemicals such as DDT and PCBs (Mato). Another similarity to the plastic microbeads found in cosmetics and these industrial raw materials is that they are both mistaken by marine life as being food, thus entering the food chain and bringing the toxins they have absorbed with them. The only real difference between these two plastic particles is that one is being banned and the other is not. The "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" is a beneficial law that will help improve the quality of our waterways. However, its exclusivity is not allowing for it to live up to its highest potential. 

Microplastic pollution is not restricted to manufactured polyethylene and polypropylene spheres. A scholarly article entitled "Microplastic--an Emerging Contaminant of Potential Concern?" written three researchers at a university in the United Kingdom reported that "microscopic fragments of materials used for clothing  (polyester, acrylic), packaging  (polyethylene, polypropylene), and rope  (polyamide) have also been identified from beaches around the United  Kingdom." Microplastics are not just reproduced microbeads, the most common contributor to microplastic pollution is large pieces of plastic being broken down and reduced to microplastic particles. A November 2015 article of The New York Times written by scientific researcher, Mark Anthony Browne of the University of New South Wales in Australia, discussed how not many people are aware that by doing their laundry they are polluting the environment (Browne). When clothes are put in washing machines strands small than a millimeter are shed and wind up going down the drain. They enter waterways where they can enter into the food chain. The biggest damage caused by the microplastic fibers is their potential to enter human lungs, guts, or bloodstream (Browne). These fibers can be either synthetic or natural; they are still harmful to the environment because of their ability to cause injury. Browne believes that because laundry is so common, and the strands that are shed are so small, this particular plastic problem is less publicized (Browne). Similarly, just as pieces of clothes are broken off into smaller pieces, bigger pieces of what is commonly thought of as plastic pollution (for example single use grocery bags, plastic water bottles, etcetera) are cracked, smashed and turned into little pieces of microplastic. In a video about plastic pollution in the aquatic setting, scientist Marcus Erkisen of the 5Gyres Organization refers to the five subtropical gyres in the ocean as, "ocean blenders or shredders. They tare plastic apart into smaller and smaller pieces" (Eriksen). Erkisen goes on to say that he, along with his colleagues, are finding that these microplastic pieces are leaving the gyres and finding their way to coastlines. It seems as though that unfortunately microplastic pollution has found a home in aquatic ecosystems; in the video Eriksen says, "where there is sea water, there is plastic." Thus, even with the United State's national ban on microbeads, there is still much work that needs to be done to try and slow down the damage that has already been caused by microplastics.

The negative affects of microplastic pollution will not disappear anytime soon. It has been reported that traces of microplastics are found in all five subtropical gyres, the Great Barrier Reef as well as in the Arctic Ocean (Lewis). Simply following the law and not using products containing microbeads come 2019 is not enough to bring relief to the environment. For starters, consumers can get ahead start on the "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" and begin transitioning to products not containing microbeads. To check if a product contains microbeads it will have either polyethylene or polypropylene in the ingredients. When consumers go to buy their new face washes, toothpastes, soaps, shampoos, whatever it might be, they can cut down on plastic usage by doing two other things. First, they can shop in bulk, there is less packaging and thus less plastic. Second, shoppers can bring a reusable shopping bag as opposed to using a flimsy, single use plastic bag. The state of Maryland charges customers for each plastic bag they use, while the state of Hawaii has flat out banned plastic bags from their stores. Another way in which consumers can cut down on their plastic is just by not purchasing bottled water. Buying bottled water is just an overall waste. Why buy what you can get for free? A reusable water bottle is a one time purchase, it is much more convenient and it will not wind up in an unsuspecting sea turtle's stomach or sitting in a landfill for thousands upon thousands of years. According to 5Gyres, "we currently recover only five to ten percent of the plastics we produce. Fifty percent are buried in landfills and some are remade into durable goods, but much of it washes out to sea." As a general rule of thumb when it comes to trying to be green and decrease personal plastic usage, follow the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. If there is less plastic in demand, less will be produced and thus there will be healthier oceans and a better global wellbeing over.

In conclusion, microbeads are not the only form of microplastic pollution and the recent ban against them is not enough to protect the environment. At the world's current rate it is going to take much more than Americans changing their face washes to really turn around the world from the direction it is going; however, the "Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015" is most definitely the gateway to a greener path. The reason that banning the bead alone will not cause great change to the current state of plastic pollution is because microbeads are not the only type of microplastic floating around. Water bottles, old toothbrushes, straws, and all plastics for that matter just get broken down into microscopic plastic pieces. From there they begin to become toxic and will either stay drifting the ocean, up on the beach mixed in with the sand, or in the food chain. Due to all these facts, it is important for consumers to think and act with a more environmentally conscious mindset. 

