In a perfect world, a pollutant does no harm, and federal agencies preemptively save the day. Unfortunately, for the American government, our world is far from perfect. Nowhere is this imperfection more evident than in the E.P.A.’s inefficiency in addressing the hidden poison in our everyday packaging: microplastics.
Washington’s new attention to microplastics is a long-overdue attempt to rectify several decades of harm, as studies confirm a correlation between intestinal microplastic concentrations and heart attacks and strokes. On April 2, the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) added microplastics for the first time to its draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List for drinking water. At the same time, the Department of Health & Human Services (D.H.H.S.) jointly launched a $144 million program to conduct long-term research on microplastics, with the ultimate goal of eradicating them once and for all.
In theory, the announcement is reassuring. The E.P.A. described the draft Candidate List as a critical new step to the Safe Drinking Water Act, driving funding while implementing action against microplastics in future litigation. The agency even gave a priority classification to the issue. Yet the solution reveals the problem: despite mounting evidence and public concern, the government’s way of saving the world yet again involves another phase of study and future regulation, doing nothing to actively restrict microplastic contamination.
This delay is even more horrifying considering that warnings about the dangers of microplastics have been sounded for years. Back in 2019, the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) called for further assessment of microplastics and their impacts on human health, and also demanded a reduction in plastic pollution as the solution. The W.H.O. emphasized that microplastics were already widespread, including in drinking water, and urged the development of improved methods and further research on freshwater sources. Even then, the message was obvious enough to justify faster political action. Nowadays, even caution comes across as neglect.
The scale of the problem makes neglect impossible to excuse. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (O.E.C.D.) reports that 22 million tonnes of plastic leaked into the environment in 2019 alone, with microplastics accounting for 12 percent of that leakage, originating from sources such as tire abrasion or textile washing. The same O.E.C.D. report says 109 million tonnes of plastic have already accumulated in rivers and another 30 million tonnes in the ocean, and that the build-up of plastics in rivers means leakage into the ocean will continue for decades, even if governments begin to tangibly address the issue.
The most damning part of this week’s announcement is that the government is no longer talking about microplastics as a distant environmental nuisance. Plastic that we consume daily, from food, air, and water, is accumulating in the human body. Research has detected microplastics in our lungs, arterial plaques, and brains. Although the $144 million research grant is a step in the right direction, the fact that the act requires spending money to eradicate microplastics shows that the government has waited far too long. Now, the issue is worldwide and of insurmountable proportions and will require far more than $144 million.
There is one alternative worth mentioning to counter pessimism: bioplastics. Research suggests that biomass-based plastics can have lower carbon footprints than fossil-based plastics, fit into existing recycling streams, and, in some cases, biodegrade under controlled or predictable end-of-life conditions. However, the same review stresses that these benefits come with trade-offs, including unclear end-of-life management and higher costs. Even considering these tradeoffs, when we live in a society that uses 1.3 billion single-use plastic bottles a day, alternatives need to be considered.
That is why this federal “awakening” is so unsettling. The United States is only now elevating microplastics after the contamination has seeped into ecosystems, drinking water, and the human body itself. The E.P.A.’s move is better than silence, but it is still the language of reaction rather than prevention. A government that acts only once the pollutant is already in us is not proving its vigilance; it is belatedly revealing how long it had been asleep.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
