Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/09/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR8 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB14 | |
| HB92 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 14-BAN PLASTIC MICROBEADS IN COSMETICS
2:41:10 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the third order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 14, "An Act banning the manufacture, sale, or
offering for sale of a cosmetic that contains plastic
microbeads; and providing for an effective date."
2:41:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), labeled 29-LS0098\W, Nauman, 3/6/15, as the
working document.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for purposes of explanation of
the changes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, sponsor, explained that the change is
just one word. The proposed CS deletes the word "biodegradable"
from Section 3, page 3, line 3, of the original bill. The
reason for this deletion goes to the essence of the bill itself.
He said he believes that there is very little that is actually
biodegradable and that by leaving that term in the bill, the
industry finds alternatives for microbeads that result in
continual problem for the fisheries, for birds, and for other
marine life.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version W was before the committee.
2:43:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he had never heard of microbeads
until the August 2014 meeting of the Council of State
Governments where it was discussed by the Suggested State
Legislation Committee. The term came before that committee in
regard to efforts to rid the cosmetics industry of what some see
as a scourge. He explained that, if passed, HB 14 would
prohibit the use or sale of microbeads in Alaska. It would
modify Title 17.20, Alaska's Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, with
just a handful of words.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON defined microbeads as being plastic,
synthetic microspheres that are widely used in the cosmetics,
skin care, and the personal care industries, measuring less than
five millimeters. They are principally made of polyethylene and
polypropylene, as well as two other less common compounds. They
are used by the cosmetics industry in toothpaste, facial creams
and cleansers, as well as shaving creams, shower gels and
exfoliating products. Prior to about 10 years ago, they were
not as commonly used and yet, he quipped, his recollection is
that people back then had clean skin and healthy teeth. He said
that in his view microbeads are not a requirement in the hygiene
and cosmetics trades. They were adopted by the industry because
they are cheap to produce and give a gritty and abrasive quality
to cleansers, washes, and pastes. To provide a sense of the
scope of the problem, he noted that the Neutrogena product
called "Deep Clean" contains 350,000 microbeads in a single
tube. The small sizes of microbeads enable them to get past the
filtering systems of waste water treatment facilities and they
end up in rivers, lakes, and oceans.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON discussed some science to provide a
better sense of what microbeads are. He said he has read hour
upon hour of literature on the subject of microbeads. For all
practical purposes he has never found an industry claim that
microbeads are not getting into rivers, lakes, and oceans, or a
claim that microbeads are not being consumed by marine life and
birds. From marine life, there is every reason to believe that,
in turn, humans are consuming microbeads or toxins connected to
microbeads. This happens when fish and other marine life
consume microbeads that have absorbed persistent organic
pollutants (POPS), including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). These are also
called persistent bioaccumlative toxins (PBTs). Primarily this
occurs because people are consuming fish and other marine life.
Pesticides and toxins are hydrophobic, so they glom onto
microbeads and find a home with them in waterways and oceans.
It is believed that they move along the food chain as a
consequence. Mistaking them for eggs or other food, they are
readily consumed by fish. Fish also feel full when they are not
really full and some are unable to excrete plastic, causing
internal damage. Study after study supports this fact.
2:46:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON related that the industry, almost to
the company, concedes it has a problem and that it wishes to fix
that problem. The important thing to ask is what the fix is and
who pays for the fix. First, there is no evidence, and the
industry doesn't really suggest in the literature that there is,
that microbeads can biodegrade. Industry says that word should
be excised from the production line, industry says get rid of
microbeads. The industry basically admits that microbeads, at
least as currently designed, cannot biodegrade. Similarly, the
industry, while it is striving to find a substitute for
microbeads, seems to believe that it can still produce a plastic
of some sort that will biodegrade. The more likely reality may
be that no such substance exists. The industry might suggest
that polylactic acids (PLAs) and also polyhydroxyalkanoates
(PHAs) will break down in the environment and can be substituted
for microbeads. However, these plastics only breakdown in
industrial composting facilities at temperatures of 120 degrees
Fahrenheit. Even if something could biodegrade, many of what is
being recommended would remain in the environment for at least
six months, and perhaps three years. It would persist in the
aquatic environment and remain bioavailable to wildlife who
mistake it for food during that period of time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that there are cosmetics
and toiletries companies that use plastics substitutes right
now, just as the large industrial cosmetics makers used to do.
Those substitutes include things like rice, apricot seeds,
walnut shells, powdered pecan shells, and even bamboo. Other
identified alternatives include sea salt, oatmeal, pumice, and
ground almonds. Companies that use safe materials include Lush
Cosmetics, Acure Organics, Burt's Bees, St. Ives, Alba Botanica,
and Bulldog. It is possible that these substitutes will result
in greater cost, although he allowed he hasn't read that and he
cannot say what exactly that cost would be. However, he said,
that extra cost should be weighed against the cost to fisheries
and human health.
2:49:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON discussed the bill, stating he thinks
Version W is generous toward the industry in one major way: it
has an effective date of January 2018, which is as late as any
that will be found in the state legislatures. Some have a
graduated scale, but it begins before 2018. Literally dozens of
state legislatures are introducing bills right now to stop the
release of microbeads into waters, streams, and oceans. It has
become a worldwide movement of sorts. Just last month the
Indiana House, where there are 29 Democrats and 71 Republicans,
voted 97-0 to ban microbeads, although that bill allows some
substitutes and Version W is a little tougher in that respect.
Version W is less generous to the industry in that it requires a
real ban, not what he would call a ban that doesn't move the
needle. He said he thinks that any time a discussion is invited
about biodegradability, it invites discussion of substitutes for
microbeads that may be equally harmful. He said he has letters
in his file from Johnson & Johnson, L'Oreal, Crest, Avon,
Colgate, Palmolive, The Body Shop, and others, conceding that
something must be done about the microbeads.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON allowed that the fiscal note may give
pause to committee members. He said Ms. Busse [of the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)] might suggest
that the permits for 2,200 distributors would be $100-$200
apiece. Theoretically that could create some parody and help
alleviate the cost associated with enforcement, which presumably
wouldn't begin until 2018. He added that the committee may be
hearing from witnesses who will testify about gyres, and how
microbeads move into the North Pacific and into the Arctic
through circulation around the ocean.
2:51:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER inquired why, if this is such a pervasive
national issue, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not stepped
in and taken action. He said those agencies could make this
problem go away with the stroke of a pen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his belief that the FDA
wouldn't have jurisdiction and said he doesn't know whether the
EPA would. According to what he has read, the FDA has actually
approved microbeads. He related that he has seen photographs,
which he does not believe were doctored, of microbeads lodged in
human gums even though the [American Dental Association] says
that that can't be. He said the products are safe when humans
first apply the plastics to their faces or brush their teeth
with them, but the concern is the food chain and marine health.
2:53:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to the letters from the
American Chemistry Council and the Personal Care Products
Council, noting they appear to be supportive of this legislation
but want amendments that would align it with the existing law in
Illinois. He asked whether HB 14 is aligned with Illinois.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied that the bill is only aligned
in the sense that both bills are striving for better human and
environmental health. He said the Illinois bill is an industry
bill and the industry is comfortable with that language.
Essentially the Illinois bill uses an allowance for an exemption
for a replacement kind of microbead and this goes to the
question about the change made in the CS. The change that
Illinois adopted is not, in his opinion, nearly as protective as
what he is suggesting. He is suggesting going back to the
laboratory and using sea salt or oatmeal or apricot shells like
what was done when he was growing up. The Illinois bill is a
compromise bill that uses different kinds of synthetic plastics.
The Great Lakes is one of the worst places for this phenomenon
and Illinois is on Lake Michigan. Will the Illinois bill see
some improvement? It might. He deferred to witnesses on line
to answer the question further.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood microbeads are "synthetic
plastic microbeads" not "microbeads". Thus, he concluded, the
almond shells, pecan shells, and such are ground and fit within
the use category that would be allowed and none of those things
would be prohibited under the term "microbeads".
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded correct.
2:56:50 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony.
2:57:10 PM
BOB KING stated his support for Version W of HB 14 to ban
microbeads from cosmetics. For the sake of brevity, he said he
associates himself with the comments made by Representative
Josephson. He said he has worked on a variety of ocean issues
and a variety of different areas for the past 10 years,
including that of marine debris, specifically plastics, in the
marine environment. The potential impact to marine mammals, to
fisheries, and the like is a very big problem. Just trying to
remove these plastics from the oceans is extremely difficult.
Therefore, the best solution is a simple effective one such as
this bill, which would ban them from getting into the ecosystem
to begin with. He said he agrees with Representative Hawker in
regard to potential national legislation because it is an issue
that begs a national fix. In one of his previous jobs he worked
along those lines on draft legislation, but the states are
taking the lead here and a number of states have already passed
legislation similar to HB 14 that would move this forward.
Industry has recognized that this is a problem and is responding
as well. It is appropriate for Alaska to join in this, given
Alaska's leadership on ocean issues. He urged the committee to
move the bill.
2:59:48 PM
SEAN MOORE, Associate Director, State Government Affairs,
Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA), noted his trade
association represents manufacturers and marketers of over-the-
counter medicines and dietary supplements. He said CHPA
supports the concept raised in HB 14, but opposes the bill as
drafted and would like to see it amended to match similar law
that was adopted last year in Illinois. The CHPA in-state
[lobbyist], Mr. Eldon Mulder, has provided proposed amendments
on the association's behalf. He disagreed with the sponsor's
characterization of the Illinois bill as being an industry bill,
saying it was a compromise bill negotiated with environmental
groups in Illinois. He related that at the August 2014 Council
of State Governments meeting, the Suggested State Legislation
Committee adopted the Illinois law as the suggested state
legislation. He added that CHPA's member companies do
understand that plastic pollution in the environment is a
serious concern. Many manufacturers began practicably phasing
out the use of synthetic plastic microbeads prior to the
introduction of any legislation. There has been plenty of
legislation aimed at microbeads. Already in 2015, two dozen
states have considered legislation on this issue and more is
still to come. It can be difficult for companies marketing
products on a national level to deal with a patchwork of
differing state laws. For this reason, CHPA supports state
bills modeled after the Illinois law to provide one uniform
solution to this issue. By mirroring the existing Illinois law,
Alaska can mandate microbeads be phased out of personal care
products and over-the-counter medicines while ensuring
reasonable effective dates and uniform definitions for key
terms. This would closely align with proposals that have been
approved by the Indiana House of Representatives, the Colorado
House of Representatives, and both houses of the New Jersey
legislature, all of which passed bills that mirror the Illinois
law. To this end, CHPA proposes to amend HB 14 with definitions
to the terms plastic and synthetic plastic microbeads that are
identical to the Illinois law, as well as propose to incorporate
the implementation of timeframes from Illinois beginning with
the ban on manufacturing personal care products with microbeads
after January 1, 2018, and over-the-counter drugs on January 1,
2019. Sales bans for each product category would take effect
one year later in 2019 and 2020, respectively. This timeframe
is important because it provides manufacturers the time
necessary to identify viable alternatives to plastic microbeads.
Mr. Moore urged the committee to amend the bill so that it
mirrors the existing Illinois law and to subsequently support
this common sense approach.
3:03:05 PM
PAMELA MILLER, Biologist and Executive Director, Alaska
Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), supported HB 14 and
specifically Version W, saying it is an important measure to
protect Alaska fisheries that depend on clean and healthy marine
and freshwater environments. She pointed out that her statewide
organization is comprised of scientists, public health
professionals, and community advocates who conduct research and
provide educational programs, technical assistance, and
training. She continued as follows:
As noted in Representative Josephson's sponsor
statement, hundreds of personal care products on the
market here in the U.S., including toothpastes and
scrubs, contain these tiny plastic microbeads that
pass from household waste streams through wastewater
systems and into rivers, lakes, and ultimately the
marine environment. These tiny plastic particles are
now ubiquitous and increasing rapidly in the ocean.
They are extremely persistent in the cold marine
environment. Marine organisms, including zooplankton,
shellfish, and fish cannot distinguish these plastic
microbeads from the food they need. Therefore, the
plastic particles are taken into the bodies of these
animals where they accumulate, may prevent them from
getting the nutrients required for their survival, and
can lead to physical internal damage from abrasion and
blockage, as well as toxicological harm. Recent
scientific investigations have demonstrated the
disturbing prevalence of plastic microbeads in the
marine environment, including the North Pacific,
Beaufort, and Chukchi seas. A recent study showed
that concentrations of microplastics in the Arctic at
least two orders of magnitude greater than those
reported from contaminated waters of the Atlantic
Ocean north of Scotland and North Pacific subtropical
gyre. The researchers conclude that Arctic sea ice
represents a major global sink for microplastic
particles, and that these particles are released into
the marine environment as sea ice melts. We are
especially concerned that plastic microbeads absorb
and concentrate highly toxic and persistent chemicals,
including legacy chemicals that have been banned for
many years such as PCBs and DDT, but as well currently
used chemicals such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs) which are toxic flame retardants, nonylphenols
which are used in detergents, and bisphenol-A which is
used in plastics. These accumulate at much higher
levels than in surrounding waters. Due to their large
surface area to volume ratio, these microplastics can
become heavily contaminated and can concentrate up to
six orders of magnitude greater than ambient seawater
with persistent bioaccumulative chemicals. The
microplastics that are ingested by marine organisms
therefore pose a hazard to human health because they
could be a significant route of exposure to endocrine-
disrupting and carcinogenic, or cancer causing,
chemicals. This is an especially important concern
here in Alaska obviously where we depend on the health
and safety of our commercial and subsistence
fisheries. I urge you to please enact HB 14 to
protect our fisheries from the insidious harm
associated with plastic microbeads.
MS. MILLER, responding to Representative Seaton, agreed to
provide the committee with a written copy of her testimony.
3:07:18 PM
STIV WILSON, Director of Campaigns, The Story of Stuff Project,
noted he began this campaign several years ago and it was
originally a market facing campaign petitioning some of the big
producers like Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, The Body
Shop, and L'Oreal. Through a variety of tactics his project was
able to get these companies to agree publically to phase plastic
microbeads out. However, they did not say when they would do it
or with what. After further investigation and seeing about 200
different products in the United States, his project decided
that a legislative approach was going to be the best course of
action. Legislation was introduced last session in New York and
California and independently legislation was introduced in
Illinois. As the bills in New York and California were worked
through and some of industry's definitions of biodegradability
were considered, his project acknowledged that large loopholes
were being left for so-called biodegradable plastics that would
not biodegrade in the environment, as well as for other non-
thermal formed plastics such as the type of polyester plastic
used in a cigarette filters. So, amendments were made to ensure
that this loophole would be closed. This was not something that
the environmental groups that worked on the bill in Illinois
understood as a loophole and when his project pointed that out
the bill had already passed. So, if those environmental groups
were to be asked now, they would support stronger legislation
like the legislation that Alaska is considering right now. On a
geological timescale, he explained, everything is biodegradable
technically. His project wants to ensure that this is done in a
timely manner. Even if innovators do come forward with a type
of plastic that will degrade in the marine environment, there is
no third party certification that is applicable to this. There
was an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
standard in effect for marine degradability, but that has since
been withdrawn. His project is therefore looking for some
qualification of what biodegradable is going to mean and that it
be included and, if included, then some sort of third party
oversight to ensure that these substitutes are safe. He
affirmed the comments made in the previous testimonies regarding
the issues with regard to persistent organic pollutant uptake
and bioavailability to marine organisms.
3:10:56 PM
MICHAEL THOMPSON, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs,
Personal Care Products Council, stated he and Karen Ross were
the industry representatives that really worked on Illinois, New
York, California, and others. He said the committee has heard
both facts and fiction today. He related that the council's
members decided to get ahead of this issue and have taken a
lead, but there seems to be a backfilling of folks creating
disagreement. The concept that this is an industry bill is
about the furthest thing from the truth if anything is known
about the state of Illinois or other states. That bill was well
negotiated over a period of three months with about 15-20
stakeholders, including the Illinois attorney general, Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, and others. Defining exactly
what was being banned and ensuring that that was done was what
was wanted, and to stay away from much bigger global issues such
as biodegradability, composting plastics, and so forth. A
specific bill was wanted that banned specific ingredients in the
products. This bill passed unanimously in Illinois and in other
states, but it did not pass in California or New York as was
earlier alleged and the council looks forward to continuing to
work on it. His organization was in Anchorage last summer when
the Council of State Governments took this up and suggested a
model legislation. The reason why his organization was able to
do this is because there is science, there is no evidence on
either side that supports the allegations, but industry is doing
the right thing. The concept brought up by the sponsor that
industry is going to use an ingredient biodegradable at 120
degrees is not appropriate because it needs to be biodegradable
in the product. This legislation just simply levels the playing
field for both domestic and international companies and what the
council is looking for is national consistency.
3:13:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON requested Mr. Thompson to provide a
follow-up letter outlining the fiction that was heard today.
MR. THOMPSON agreed to do so.
3:14:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether offering for sale is the
equivalent of advertising.
MR. THOMPSON replied the concept of offering for sale was
language put in by the regulators in Illinois who did not want
the added burden of having to conduct shelf surveys. The
regulators told the council that they probably could figure out
exactly who would violate the statute, the type of store, the
type of product, and where it was coming from, and that they
would rather find a pallet load than finding one bottle. So, it
was the regulators' recommendation to have it offered for sale
and it is offered for sale to a retailer.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that, in his opinion, advertising
toothpaste is offering to sell it.
MR. THOMPSON responded yes, it would also ban that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON posed a scenario in which a national
commercial for Crest, which has microbeads in it, is aired on a
local television station. He asked who is responsible given the
television station has the license and is offering to sell the
toothpaste even though it is coming from a national advertiser.
MR. THOMPSON answered he cannot speak for that company, but said
he understands that company has announced it is phasing it out.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested Mr. Thompson to ignore that
specific company and answer for any company.
MR. THOMPSON said he will consult with the council's attorneys
about advertising and get back to the committee with an answer.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked he doesn't want to put a local
television or radio station or newspaper in violation of this
even though someone else has placed the ad and the station or
newspaper are not responsible for the product in any fashion.
Therefore, he said, he would like to receive a legal opinion.
3:16:27 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO closed public testimony after ascertaining no
one else wished to testify.
3:16:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that page 1, lines 1-2, state
contains "plastic microbeads", but the definition is for
"synthetic plastic microbeads". He said he is drawing attention
to this to ensure that all the same thing is being talked about.
3:17:09 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO held over HB 14.