BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 888
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
888 (Bloom)
As Amended April 22, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Natural |7-0 |Williams, Cristina | |
|Resources | |Garcia, Hadley, | |
| | |McCarty, Rendon, | |
| | |Mark Stone, Wood | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Environmental |6-0 |Alejo, Dahle, | |
|Safety | |Gonzalez, Gray, | |
| | |McCarty, Ting | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Appropriations |12-4 |Gomez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Gallagher, |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, |Jones, Wagner |
| | |Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 888
Page 2
SUMMARY: Prohibits the sale of personal care products that
contain plastic microbeads on and after January 1, 2020.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines terms used in this bill, including:
a) "Personal care product" as an article to be applied to the
human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting
attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and an article
intended for use as a component of such an article, but
excludes prescription drugs.
b) "Plastic microbead" as an intentionally added plastic
particle that that is five millimeters or less in all
dimensions.
c) "Person" as an individual, business, or other entity.
2)Beginning January 1, 2020, prohibits a person from selling or
offering for promotional purposes a personal care product
containing plastic microbeads that is used to exfoliate or
cleanse in a rinse-off product. Specifies that this provision
does not apply to products that contain plastic microbeads in an
amount less than one part per million or products containing
natural exfoliants.
3)Establishes enforcement provisions, including civil penalties
not to exceed $2,500 per day for each violation, as specified.
Authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, a city
attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce the requirements of
this bill.
4)Specifies that penalties collected be retained by the office
that brought the action.
5)States legislative findings and declarations relating to the
AB 888
Page 3
impacts of microplastics.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill has negligible state costs and provides for
enforcement through civil penalties collected and retained by the
enforcing agency.
COMMENTS: According to the author:
Microplastic beads are sold in consumer products as
abrasives and exfoliants (such as in soaps, facial
scrubs, etc.) In some products there are over 350,000
microbeads in one tube alone. They are directly washed
down the drain and too small to be captured by water
treatment facilities. Recent studies have shown
microbeads to be a pervasive marine pollutant, and have
been found in alarming quantities everywhere from the
garbage gyres in the Pacific Ocean to the Great Lakes to
the LA [Los Angeles] River. Research has also shown
that these beads absorb toxins and are being ingested by
marine life, posing a threat to our marine ecosystems.
Currently there is no law banning their use in consumer
products. While some larger companies such as Unilever,
Proctor & Gamble, and Johnson & Johnson have pledged to
phase microbeads out of their products and replace them
with natural alternatives, the proposed phase out dates
[are inconsistent] and in some cases are only 50% by a
certain date. [AB 888] would provide a hard phase out
date to ensure that plastic microbeads from personal
care products are no longer entering our waters.
Plastic microbeads are small plastic pellets that are added to
AB 888
Page 4
personal care products as exfoliants and abrasives. Unlike other
forms of plastic pollution, microbeads in personal care products
are designed to be washed down the drain. Wastewater treatment
systems are not capable of capturing these small particles, and
they pass directly into the state's waterways and eventually to
the ocean. Biodegradable alternatives that do not contribute to
marine debris exist and are widely used by some product
manufacturers, including ground apricot shells and cocoa beans.
According to The 5 Gyres Institute, microplastic particles and
microbeads, which are typically made of polyethylene,
polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polymethyl methacrylate
or nylon, can be found in facial and body scrubs, shampoos, soaps,
toothpaste, eyeliners, lip gloss, deodorant, and sunblock sticks.
Some of these products contain more than 350,000 beads per bottle.
Plastic is the predominate form of marine debris. Plastics are
estimated to comprise 60% to 80% of all marine debris and 90% of
all floating debris. According to the California Coastal
Commission, the primary source of marine debris is urban runoff.
Due to the interplay of ocean currents, marine debris
preferentially accumulates in certain areas throughout the ocean.
According to Eriksen et al. (2014), 24 expeditions from 2007 to
2013 estimated that there is approximately 96,400 metric tons of
floating plastic in the Northern Pacific Ocean. The North Pacific
Central Gyre is the ultimate destination for much of the marine
debris originating from the California coast. A study by the
Algalita Marine Research Foundation found an average of more than
300,000 plastic pieces per square mile of the Gyre and that the
mass of plastic was six times greater than zooplankton floating on
the water's surface.
Most plastic marine debris exists as small plastic particles.
Even large pieces of plastic break down into small particles due
to excessive ultraviolet radiation exposure and subsequent
photo-degradation. These plastic pieces are confused with small
fish, plankton, or krill and ingested by aquatic organisms. Over
AB 888
Page 5
600 marine animal species have been negatively affected by
ingesting plastic worldwide. Last month, scientists at the
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef
Studies at James Cook University found that corals are also
ingesting small plastic particles, which remain in their small
stomach cavities and impede their ability to consume and digest
normal food.
In addition to the physical impacts of plastic pollution,
microplastics have toxicological effects. Research suggests that
microplastics attract and absorb persistent organic pollutants,
such as Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, and Polybrominated diphenyl
ethers. Studies conducted by University of California Santa
Barbara's National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
(NCEAS) show that about 78% of the chemicals recognized by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency are associated with
microplastic pollution. Additional studies at NCEAS show that
toxic concentrations of pollutants and additives enter the tissue
of animals that have eaten microplastic. These pollutants
bioaccumulate and bioamplify, having the potential to impact
ecosystems and human health.
Analysis Prepared by:
Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092
FN:
0000434
AB 888
Page 6