American drinking water has some of the highest concentrations of microscopic plastic waste of anywhere in the world, a group of environmental experts told the Senate.
By Benjamin S. Weiss, Courthouse News Service
Congress needs to step in to address the growing prevalence of microscopic plastic filaments and other plastic waste in U.S. water sources, a panel of environment and conservation experts told lawmakers Tuesday.
Scientists have for years been sounding the alarm about microplastics, small-scale plastic debris that can include fibers from synthetic clothing, plastic pellets used in manufacturing or broken-down fragments of larger plastic goods.
The minuscule plastic waste has found its way into ecosystems, drinking water and even the human body — recent studies have found plastic particles circulating in human bloodstreams and embedded in the placentae of pregnant women.
During a hearing Tuesday in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, a panel of witnesses warned lawmakers that while experts are still learning about the potential adverse health effects such plastic waste could have on humans, the possibilities are concerning.
“We have accumulating evidence that as these microplastics degrade into smaller sizes, they can elicit inflammation, cellular toxicity and myocardial damage,” said Susanne Brander, an associate professor at Oregon State University’s College of Agricultural Sciences.
Studies conducted on rodents, which researchers use to model human health outcomes, show that exposure to microplastics in drinking water can affect reproductive health and the condition of the gut microbiome, Brander said.
Chemicals used in the production of plastic, when absorbed via contaminated water, can also be harmful to humans, said Sherri Mason, director of sustainability at Penn State’s Behrend College. They’ve been linked to fertility issues such as decreased sperm counts in men, as well as a host of other conditions including obesity, autism and developmental issues.
“Many of these are known to be carcinogens or endocrine disrupting chemicals,” Mason said, “which means that they mimic hormones, the chemical messengers of the body.”
Mason told lawmakers that experts know less about the harmful effects of the plastics themselves, what is known should be concerning — especially regarding how microplastics find their way into the human body.
“Water, the necessary elixir of life, is a primary means for the movement of micro- and nanoplastics into people,” she said.
Clothing and dishwashers are two significant sources of waterborne microplastics The average load of laundry can generate nearly nine million plastic microfibers, and dryers produce even more, Brander said. Dishwashers, especially ones that use detergent pods in plastic casings, generate thousands of microplastics.
“A medium-sized town could emit over 300 million microplastics on a daily basis,” Brander said.
Because these tiny plastic filaments are drained away from homes, wastewater treatment and drinking water facilities have become the front lines for filtering out such waste.
While treatment facilities are often effective at pulling plastics out of wastewater, the plastic gets lumped in with biological waste in a sludge that is repurposed in fertilizers. That plastic is then reintroduced into the environment and washed back into waterways as agricultural runoff.
Drinking water is similarly afflicted by plastic waste, Brander said, pointing out that the U.S. has some of the highest concentration of microplastics in its potable water.
It’s not just filtered water that’s the problem, however, said Mason. “Should one think that bottled water is a solution to plastic within tap water — it’s not,” she said.
A study conducted at the Behrend College found that bottled water contains an average of more than 300 particles of plastic per liter, or 58 times as much waste found in tap water.
“We can’t filter ourselves out of the problem,” Mason said.
The experts urged lawmakers to step in. Brander pointed out that the 1972 Clean Water Act contains language regulating water pollutants but said that it has not yet been used to limit how microplastics are released into the environment.
Since many microplastics could be considered as originating from “point sources” of pollution, such as manufacturing or water treatment, water regulations provide the most direct route for regulating microplastics, she said.
The government could also take a smaller-scale approach, Brander suggested, requiring microfiber filters on washing machines or supporting efforts to install catchments and other devices designed to reduce plastic pollution from stormwater runoff.
Mason meanwhile expressed support for Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley’s Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act. Introduced last year, the Democrat’s measure would, among other things, implement a policy requiring that corporations take responsibility for the management of plastic waste and other potential pollution generated by their products.
The U.S. should also consider creating a national waste and recycling plan, Mason said.
In the long term, Berner told lawmakers, the U.S should look towards reducing the use of harmful plastics at the source. Such a task, though, comes with challenges.
“These are deeply embedded, as far as use goes, in our daily lives,” she said.
