U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–979 2016

EXAMINING MICROBEADS IN COSMETIC PRODUCTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 1, 2015 

Serial No. 114–39 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

Chairman 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

Ranking Member 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 7 

WITNESSES

Dan Wyant, Director, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ............ 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 52 

Linda R. Greenstein, State Senator, New Jersey Legislature ............................. 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ................................................................... 57 

Molly Flanagan, Alliance for the Great Lakes ...................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 59 

John Hurson, Executive Vice President of Government Relations, Personal 

Care Products Council ......................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 66 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 1321 .................................................................................................................. 2 

Statement of 5 Gyres Institute, submitted by Mr. Pallone .................................. 48 

Statement of Surfrider Foundation, submitted by Mr. Pallone ........................... 49 

Statement of the American Chemistry Council, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ..... 50 

1 Ms. Greenstein did not respond to submitted questions by the time of 

printing. 

(1) 

EXAMINING MICROBEADS IN COSMETIC 

PRODUCTS 

FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:15 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Pitts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Pitts, Guthrie, Shimkus, Burgess, 

Blackburn, Lance, Bilirakis, Long, Ellmers, Brooks, Collins, Upton 

(ex officio), Green, Schakowsky, Kennedy, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff Present: Clay Alspach, Chief Counsel, Health; Gary Andres, 

Staff Director; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Noelle Clemente, 

Press Secretary; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Carly 

McWilliams, Professional Staff Member, Health; Tim Pataki, Professional Staff Member; Graham Pittman, Legislative Clerk; Mark 

Ratner, Policy Advisor to the Chairman; Adrianna Simonelli, Legislative Associate, Health; Heidi Stirrup, Health Policy Coordinator; 

Ziky Ababiya, Minority Policy Analyst; Christine Brennan, Minority Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Tiffany 

Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Brendan Hennessey, Minority Policy and Research Advisor; 

Ashley Jones, Minority Director, Outreach and Member Services; 

and Tim Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. The subcommittee will come to order, and the chair 

will recognize himself for an opening statement. 

Today’s Health subcommittee hearing will be examining the sale, 

distribution, and use of cosmetics that contain synthetic plastic 

microbeads and what impact those microbeads may have on our 

waterways. 

Our colleagues Representative Frank Pallone and Fred Upton 

have jointly introduced legislation, H.R. 1321, the Microbead-Free 

Waters Act of 2015, which would prohibit the sale or distribution 

of cosmetics containing synthetic plastic microbeads. 

[The information follows:] 

2 


96979.001
3 


96979.002
4 

Mr. PITTS. And a number of state legislatures have also taken 

independent action in this area. 

Scientists have discovered the presence of these tiny plastic 

beads accumulating at high levels in the Great Lakes and other 

waterways. Microbeads are commonly used as an abrasion or exfoliating scrub and can be found in toothpaste, facial scrubs, some 

soaps, and even shampoos. 

Admittedly, there is other plastic litter that has broken down 

from plastic debris, but the concern is that the synthetic plastic 

microbeads are difficult, if not impossible, to break down. We will 

hear from the cosmetic industry today about their commitment to 

phasing out the use of microbeads in their products. We also have 

two witnesses from the Great Lakes to discuss the impact on their 

waterways as well as New Jersey State Senator Greenstein, who 

co-sponsored the legislation in her home State. 

The concern of course is that different State-based legislation will 

result in a patchwork of regulations and requirements, making it 

difficult, if not impossible, for manufacturers to comply with so 

many different laws. 

Do I have any requests for time on my side? 

If not, I yield back and recognize the ranking member, Mr. 

Green, for 5 minutes for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS

The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The Chairman will recognize himself for an opening statement.Today’s Health 

Subcommittee hearing will be examining the sale, distribution, and use of cosmetics 

that contain synthetic plastic microbeads and what impact those microbeads may 

have on our waterways. 

Our colleagues, Reps. Frank Pallone (NJ) and Fred Upton (MI) have jointly introduced legislation, H.R. 1321—the ‘‘Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015’’ which would 

prohibit the sale or distribution of cosmetics containing synthetic plastic microbeads 

and a number of state legislatures have also taken independent action in this area. 

Scientists discovered the presence of these tiny plastic beads accumulating at high 

levels in the Great Lakes and other waterways. 

Microbeads are commonly used as an abrasion, or exfoliating scrub, and can be 

found in toothpaste, facial scrubs, some soaps and even shampoos. When these 

microbeads wash down the drain, they end up in sewer systems and because they 

are small, and buoyant, they pass through sewage treatment plants and are discharged into rivers, lakes and oceans. 

Admittedly, there are other plastic litter that had broken down from plastic debris, but the concern is that the synthetic plastic microbeads are difficult, if not impossible, to break down. 

We will hear from the cosmetics industry today about their commitment to phasing out the use of microbeads in their products. We also have two witnesses from 

the Great Lakes to discuss the impact on their waterways as well as New Jersey 

State Senator Greenstein, who co-sponsored the legislation in her home state. 

The concern, of course, is that different state-based legislation will result in a 

patchwork of regulations and requirements making it difficult, if not impossible, for 

manufacturers to comply with so many different laws. 

I look forward to the testimony today and yield the balance of my time to 

Rep.——————————————————————— 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. 

5 

I would like to thank Chairman Pitts for holding the hearing 

today and thank our distinguished panelists for joining us this 

morning in discussion of this important issue. I would also like to 

recognize the leadership of our chairman of the full committee and 

ranking member, Chairman Fred Upton and Ranking Member 

Frank Pallone, in coming together in a spirit of bipartisan and introducing the Microbead-Free Waters Act. 

Plastics today is an integral part of daily life, from health care 

and food preservation to communications and home construction. 

Plastic’s tremendous range of uses is based on its desirable products and properties, including durability, corrosion-resistance, and 

low cost. The plastic industry is our Nation’s third largest manufacturing industry, responsible for $350 billion in economic activity 

and hundreds of thousands of jobs in our country with several plastic manufacturers located in my district in Houston, Harris County, 

Texas. In much part due to the very properties that make plastic 

so universal in daily life, plastic can have a negative impact on our 

environment. All the more so when it is not disposed of properly 

and released into the environment without oversight and restriction. 

This is what is happening with micro plastic products of 

microbeads. The microbeads, due to their tiny size, 5 millimeters 

or less, fail to be captured by modern wastewater treatment plants 

and end up in our Nation’s rivers, lakes, and oceans. The accumulation of microbeads in our Nation’s waters, particularly the Great 

Lakes, has been startling in recent years and deserves immediate 

Federal attention. 

Recent studies in the Great Lakes have found debris concentration, much of it attributable to microbeads, that rival some of the 

largest ocean garbage patches. When released in the environment, 

microbeads present a clear risk to our Nation’s waterways and 

wildlife, from the physical impacts of wildlife ingestion of 

microbeads to the harmful chemicals, such as PCBs and DDT, that 

can accumulate on these tiny plastic particles. 

I am pleased to learn that most of the cosmetic industry, including nationwide manufacturers like Procter & Gamble, Johnson & 

Johnson, have voluntarily decided to replace microbeads in their 

personal care products with natural biodegradable alternatives, 

such as ground almonds, ground walnuts, cocoa beads, and sea 

salt. Nevertheless, due to the current technical restraints on our 

Nation’s wastewater system, it is necessary that plastic and nonbiodegradable microbeads in cosmetic products be removed from 

manufacture and sale at the earliest feasible date. 

The legislation before us today will provide an appropriate Federal response to microbeads by amending the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the sale and distribution of cosmetics 

containing microbeads by January 1 of 2018. I am support of that 

effort, and I hope we can use today’s hearing and learn more improvements are necessary in this legislation and bring momentum 

towards passage and enactment. 

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Is there anyone else on my side that would like the remainder 

of my time? 

Hearing nothing, I yield back. 

6 

Mr. PITTS. If not, I thank the gentleman. 

We are voting on the floor now. So we will finish opening statements before going to the floor, and I am pleased at this time to 

recognize the chairman of the full committee and one of the sponsors of the Pallone-Upton bill, Mr. Upton, 5 minutes for opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I won’t take 5 minutes. Microbeads, they are tiny, plastic, but 

big-time pollution, especially for our lakes, rivers, and streams. 

So what is a microbead? Well, you may not know it or want to 

admit that you know a little bit about this, but millions of Americans use them on a daily basis. Microbeads are those tiny, little 

scrubbers in your soap, cleansers, and, yes, even in toothpaste. On 

their own, they are nearly visible, smaller than a pinhead, as you 

can see here, compared with the size of a penny. 

But once they are flushed down the drain is when the problem 

really does begin. Because they are so small, they escape water filtration systems and end up in our bodies of waters, obviously, including the Great Lakes. They are known to absorb pollutants and 

are often mistaken as food by fish and wildlife. And simply put, 

microbeads are causing mega problems. That is why I partnered 

with our full committee ranking member, Frank Pallone, to co-author H.R. 1321, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015. 

There are also currently 26 States that have engaged on legislation to address this very important issue. 

I am excite to partner with Ranking Member Pallone on an issue 

that is so important to not only my district in southwest Michigan 

but the entire Great Lakes region. Both, to me and my family personally, as someone who grew up on Lake Michigan and represents 

a large chunk if the Michigan coastline, I understand firsthand 

how important it is to maintain the beauty and integrity of our 

Great Lakes. The Great Lakes have survived many a foe, severe 

pollution, discharge from refineries, zebra muscles, an attempt to 

steal our water, particularly from Texas, just to name a few. Our 

fight against the Asian carp also continues. I will not stand for any 

activity that puts our beloved Great Lakes in jeopardy. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan 

manner to get this harmful pollution out of our waterways. We 

need this bill to fight the army of microbeads that is growing by 

the day in our waters. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses, particularly my good friend 

and constituent, Dan Wyant, who heads the Michigan Department 

of Environmental Quality, and Molly Flanagan from the Alliance 

for the Great Lakes. As the Holland Sentinel editorialized in 

March, there is no reason keeping our faces feeling clean should require us to trash our lakes. 

Yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Microbeads—they’re tiny plastic, but big time pollution, especially for our lakes, 

rivers, and streams. 

What’s a microbead? You may not know it, or want to admit you exfoliate, but 

millions of Americans use them on a daily basis. Microbeads are those tiny little 

scrubbers in your soap, cleansers, and even toothpaste. On their own, they are nearly invisible, smaller than a pinhead—as you can see here compared with the size 

of a penny. 

But once they’ve been flushed down the drain is when the problems begin. Because they are so small, they escape water filtration systems and end up in our bodies of water, including the Great Lakes. They are known to absorb pollutants, and 

are often mistaken as food by fish and wildlife. Simply put, microbeads are causing 

mega-problems. 

This is why I partnered with our full committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone 

to author H.R. 1321, the Microbeads-Free Waters Act of 2015. There are also currently 26 states that have engaged on legislation to address this important issue. 

I am excited to partner with the Ranking Member on an issue that is so important to my district in Southwest Michigan, the entire Great Lakes Region, and to 

me and my family personally. As someone who grew up on Lake Michigan and represents a large chunk of Michigan coastline, I understand firsthand how important 

it is to maintain the beauty and integrity of our Great Lakes. The Great Lakes have 

survived many a foe—severe pollution, oil spills, discharge from refineries, zebra 

mussels, and attempts to steal our water, just to name a few. Our fight against the 

Asian carp also continues. I will not stand for any activity that puts our beloved 

Great Lakes in jeopardy. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to get this harmful pollutant out of our waterways. We need this bill 

to fight the army of microbeads that is growing by the day in our waters. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here, especially my Michigan and Great 

Lakes friends, Dan Wyant of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

and Molly Flanagan from the Alliance for the Great Lakes. And thank you for your 

efforts protecting our pristine lakes. 

As the Holland Sentinel editorialized in March, ‘‘There’s no reason keeping our 

faces feeling clean should require us to trash our lakes.’’ 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Pallone, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this morning’s hearing examining microbeads in cosmetic products. The 

hearing also gives us an opportunity to discuss legislation that I 

have introduced with Chairman Upton, the Microbead-Free Waters 

Act of 2015. And I want to thank Chairman Upton for his support 

of the legislation. I would like to welcome our witnesses and thank 

them for sharing their knowledge with the committee today, particularly New Jersey State Senator Linda Greenstein, who is one 

of the counties that I represent. And Senator Greenstein is a leader 

in New Jersey who worked hard to pass a State law banning the 

manufacturing and sale of cosmetic products containing plastic 

microbeads. So welcome. 

Cosmetic products like face and body washes contain tiny plastic 

particles or microbeads that are used as exfoliants. While these 

plastic products are not harmful to the user of the product, studies 

have shown that microbeads can easily escape the screens in 

wastewater treatment plants and enter our Nation’s lakes, rivers, 

and oceans. A study by the 5 Gyres Institute, an organization dedicated to research and advocacy on the issue of plastic pollution, 

8 

found high concentrations of plastic microbeads in samples pulled 

from Lake Erie. In some cases, they found that plastic microbeads 

outnumbered more than 450,000 per square kilometer, and this 

plastic does not belong in our Nation’s waters, and certainly not in 

such extreme amounts. 

This high concentration of plastic microbeads in our country’s 

lakes and other bodies of water is cause for concern for a number 

of reasons. Particles this small often float on the surface of the 

water and can attract other pollutants that collect on the water’s 

surface. If consumed by fish and other organisms, these chemicals 

accumulated on the surface and inherent in the plastic itself can 

then travel up the food chain, potentially being transferred to humans who consume fish, bivalves, and crustaceans. 

I have serious concerns about fish and other aquatic life potentially ingesting these plastic particles and the effect this could have 

on humans who consume the fish. While many of us strive to eat 

local seafood caught by fishermen in our communities, we often eat 

seafood from other areas of the country. So, until a national standard is set, we can’t be certain these particles are kept out of our 

Nation’s waters and are not being accidentally consumed by fish 

harvested from other regions of the country. 

Further, there have been anecdotal reports by dentists and dental hygienists of plastic microbeads from toothpaste being lodged in 

a patient’s gumline, which could trap bacteria and lead to gingivitis. While no clinical study has demonstrated negative oral health 

effects, I remain concerned about the potential risk. 

Last month, Chairman Upton and I introduced the MicrobeadFree Waters Act of 2015, legislation that requires FDA to prohibit 

the sale or distribution of cosmetics containing synthetic plastic 

microbeads beginning January 1, 2018. I want to thank Chairman 

Upton for joining me in this effort. I look forward to working with 

him to move this bill forward. Our legislation, bills, and efforts are 

already moving forward in many States including the one by Senator Greenstein in our home State of New Jersey. 

The legislation as it is currently drafted allows FDA to define a 

synthetic plastic microbead. The bill also does not currently address over-the-counter OTC drug products containing microbeads, 

of which toothpaste and acne creams are the most common examples. But I remain open to including these products in the legislation. However, also understand there are concerns about FDA requiring an 18-month stabilization period for reformulated OTC 

products, so it may be difficult to replace microbeads from these 

products on the same timeline. 

So I hope to hear more about this potential challenge from our 

witnesses today. I want to commend companies, such as Proctor & 

Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, who have already begun proactively 

phasing out the use of plastic microbeads in their products, but I 

believe we must set a Federal standard that requires all companies 

selling cosmetics and personal care products to remove plastic 

microbeads from these goods. And that is why we have introduced 

this bill, to provide certainty at the Federal level that these polluting plastics will finally be removed from our face scrubs, soaps, 

and other personal care products. 

9 

So, Mr. Chairman, thanks again for holding this hearing. We 

have been able to come together on an issue to advance a commonsense solution that benefits our constituents and the environment. 

I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, there are beginning to be so many bipartisan bills around this committee lately, I don’t know what we 

are going to have to do. Maybe we should have a course for the rest 

of the Congress on how to act bipartisan. 

Mr. PITTS. We are going to have to call this public health Congress, I think. 

Mr. PALLONE. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. All right, the chair thanks the gentleman. 

That concludes the opening statements. 

For the members, as always, any written opening statements will 

be made part of the record. We still have 397 Members who have 

not voted, so we are going to try to get through the opening statements of the witnesses. Let me introduce our panel, and they will 

speak in this order: Dr. Dan Wyant, director of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; State Senator Linda Greenstein, 

from New Jersey legislature; Ms. Molly Flanagan from the Alliance 

for the Great Lakes; and Mr. John Hurson, executive vice president 

of government relations at the Personal Care Products Council. 

Your written testimony will be made a part of the record. You 

will each be given 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. Thank 

you very much for coming today. 

And, Mr. Wyant, we will begin with you. You are recognized for 

your opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF DAN WYANT, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; LINDA R. GREENSTEIN, STATE SENATOR, NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE; MOLLY 

FLANAGAN, ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES; AND JOHN 

HURSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT 

RELATIONS, PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL 

STATEMENT OF DAN WYANT 

Mr. WYANT. Mr. Chairman, thank you—— 

Mr. PITTS. Make sure you press the button there. If the light is 

on, that is good. 

Mr. WYANT. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished subcommittee 

members, thank you. I am Dan Wyant, and I am Director of the 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and I appreciate 

this opportunity to come before you today to speak on this important issue of microbeads. 

With four out of the five Great Lakes, 6.5 million acres of wetlands, and over 11,000 inland lakes, water is fundamental to the 

way Michigan views its future. Michigan is surrounded by 20 percent of the world’s fresh water, and so water is, quite simply, why 

people come to Michigan to live, work, and play. 

Michigan has a long history, as Chairman Upton certainly knows 

and has talked about, heritage of being a leader in water conservation and protection issues, and so my testimony today is going to 

be very consistent with what I have heard all of you talk about already. 

10 

We have worked very hard in Michigan to protect and restore 

our Great Lakes, from our tough ballast water standards to the 

diligent implementation of the Compact Agreement that protects 

the Great Lakes from water diversions, to our regional leadership 

on the Great Lakes Commission, and the Council of Great Lakes 

Governors. Michigan has been at the table ready to work on environmental challenges of the day. 

Keeping in line with that, stewardship responsibility entrusted to 

my department, our focused now is shifting to the emerging issue 

of plastic microbeads in our water. As has been stated and as you 

are aware, plastic microbeads are a commonly used abrasive agent 

in personal care products, such as facial cleansers and toothpaste. 

Recent studies have noted that microbeads can pass through wastewater treatment plants into our surface waters. 

Microbeads were found in the Great Lakes surface waters during 

a number of studies, particularly in 2012, 2013. Plastic microparticles, of which microbeads are a subset, were detected in Lakes 

Erie, Huron, and Superior at a rate that is quite concerning, 43,000 

per square foot per kilometer, and almost 10 times higher in samples collected in Lake Erie downstream of two major Ohio cities. 

So the presence of microplastics in the Great Lakes is a concern 

because these constituent plastics may be entering the food chain 

after the plastics are consumed by fish and wildlife. In addition, 

toxic pollutants already present in the Great Lakes may bind to 

these pollutants and plastics, making them even more harmful. Recent laboratory studies have shown that microplastics have the potential to adversely affect fish and other aquatic organisms. 

Legislation is being debated in Michigan in our House and our 

State Senate that would phase out over the next couple of years 

the production and sale of personal care products that use 

microbeads. The legislation before this subcommittee and the same 

legislation that is being debated in Michigan I believe is a commonsense first step to the phaseout of the use of microbeads in personal care products. Although microbeads comprise only a portion 

of the plastic pollution detected in the Great Lakes, microbeads are 

an easily controllable component of that pollution. 

The simple phaseout of their use in beauty products would reduce the amount of plastics passing through our wastewater systems and reduce the potential harm to our fish and wildlife. It is 

important that we put into place a thoughtful but diligent phaseout 

of the harmful microbeads while allowing industry a path forward 

for new product development and use if they can demonstrate that 

their products would not have an adverse impact on the water and 

its biological life. 

Just as we don’t tolerate plastics littering our roadside, we 

should not allow plastics to taint our beautiful Great Lakes. We 

urge action on this issue. We welcome a national approach. We 

have many complex issues to solve in the Great Lakes throughout 

our Nation’s waterways, including invasive species and nutrient 

loading, just to name two. Microbeads is a clear issue. It is a clear 

threat. And there is a clear simple answer. And we support the 

phaseout of microbeads and a Federal approach. And we in the 

State of Michigan will continue to work to be part of that solution. 

11 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to come before the 

subcommittee and speak on behalf of the Department of Environmental Quality and, more broadly, the people of the State of Michigan. Michiganders love the Great Lakes. They expect strong leadership, and we want to recognize your leadership and the committee’s 

leadership to address this issue. I appreciate being here, and I will 

be happy to take any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wyant follows:] 

12 


96979.003
13 


96979.004
14 


96979.005
15 


96979.006
16 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

We are out of time on the clock on the floor, but we still have 

297 people who have not voted, so we are going to continue. 

And I will recognize Senator Greenstein, 5 minutes for opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA R. GREENSTEIN 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Thank you very much, Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Green, with greetings to Chairman Upton of the full 

committee and Ranking Member Pallone and members of the committee. Thank you for your invitation to be here today as you consider H.R. 1321, bipartisan Federal legislation that is aimed at 

stopping the entry into our waterways of billions of pieces of small 

bits of plastic known as microbeads, an effort that is similarly addressed under laws recently enacted in five States: New Jersey, Illinois, Colorado, Indiana, and Maine. I think in my testimony I 

said two. We were among the first two. There actually have very 

recently been three others, so five States. 

Before I begin I would like to acknowledge my home State Congressman and a co-sponsor of H.R. 1321, Representative Frank 

Pallone, whose leadership on environmental issues is legendary in 

the Garden State and whose invitation to testify is the reason that 

I am here this morning. 

Thank you, Congressman. 

I mentioned a moment ago that New Jersey is one of five States 

that has adopted legislation outlawing the use of microbeads. They 

are used by the personal care products industry in everything from 

toothpaste to over-the-counter skin treatments and exfoliants like 

facial scrubs. The problem is that these plastics are so small and 

nonbiodegradable, and they escape catchment screens at our sewage plants and wind up by the billions in our water supplies. 

These microplastics were recently found by research scientists, as 

you just heard, in all five of the Great Lakes, as well as in fish that 

make their homes in the Great Lakes and in fish-eating birds. 

These microbeads absorb toxins and so can be very dangerous to 

wildlife and ultimately to human beings. In New Jersey, two-thirds 

of our drinking water supply is drawn from local waterways like 

the Delaware or the Passaic Rivers. And so we, too, have our issues 

with microplastics. That is why, once their presence became 

known, we moved quickly to eliminate them through the bipartisan 

legislation that I co-authored. I would like to note that the bill 

passed unanimously in the New Jersey Senate and by an overwhelming margin in the Assembly. 

And a funny thing happened on the way to this bill being signed 

into law in Trenton just 6 weeks ago. Groups that can often politely 

be called, quote, ‘‘at odds with each other’’ came together as one in 

agreement that these plastics should be eliminated from our waterways. 

The Chemistry Council of New Jersey, in a position shared by 

the American Chemistry Council and member companies, joined 

with the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to support 

our legislative efforts. Also Johnson & Johnson, the Consumer 

Health Care Products Association, and the Personal Care Products 

Council were all together on this issue. And I think if they can do 

17 

it in New Jersey, they can do it everywhere else, and hopefully 

with a Federal law. 

Like your efforts here in Congress, we also agree to give the personal care products industry time to adjust and to find alternatives 

to these plastics. 

So the New Jersey bill uses a gradual approach to stepping down 

the production of these synthetic microbeads until they are completely off the market by January of 2020. It starts with the elimination of the tiny plastics from use in the manufacture of products 

beginning January 1, 2018, and then prohibiting the sale of such 

products after January 1, 2019. And, by January 1, 2020, no person 

shall sell an over-the-counter drug with microbeads. 

The industry is already turning to natural alternatives, using 

crushed walnut shells, sea salt, and pumice stone, to produce the 

desired effect that the plastic microbead does. In our bill the penalty is $500 for each offense. We did lower our penalties from the 

original ones that we had, and our Department of Environmental 

Protection commissioner can institute a civil action for injunctive 

relief. There is no private right of action. We took that out as well. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and will be available for any questions members may have, and I thank you, Chairman and members. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Greenstein follows:] 

18 


96979.007
19 


96979.008
20 


96979.009
21 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. 

We are voting, of course. We still have 185 Members who haven’t 

voted. We are going to keep going. If you can abbreviate a little, 

I think we will make it through. 

The chair recognizes Ms. Flanagan. 

STATEMENT OF MOLLY FLANAGAN 

Ms. FLANAGAN. Good morning. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member 

Green, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear today to address the threat that plastic microbeads pose to the 

Great Lakes. My name is Molly Flanagan. I am vice president of 

policy for the Alliance for the Great Lakes. For more than 40 years, 

the Alliance for the Great Lakes has been working to protect and 

restore the Great Lakes. 

We have frontline experience with the impacts of debris on the 

Great Lakes because each year more than 14,000 of our volunteers 

show up to clean up Great Lakes’ beaches through our Adopt-aBeach program. The Alliance supports Federal efforts to remove 

plastic microbeads from consumer products. The extremely small 

size of plastic microbeads allows them to easily wash down drains, 

pass through sewer systems and then head directly into our Nation’s waterways. 

A study by the New York State Office of the Attorney General 

released in April 2015 detected microbeads in the effluent samples 

of 74 percent of the wastewater treatment plants participating in 

the study. Research by Dr. Sherri Mason of the State University 

of New York at Fredonia and Dr. Marcus Eriksen of the 5 Gyres 

Institute found microplastic fragments in each of the Greet Lakes 

and throughout water column in concentrations that rival or surpass those found in the Nation’s oceans. Plastic microbeads attract 

and accumulate toxic chemicals, such as PCBs and DDT, which are 

present in waters throughout the United States, including the 

Great Lakes. 

An ongoing study of fish in the Great Lakes has shown plastic 

contamination in all 25 species that have been analyzed to date. 

You have the opportunity to stop this needless source of pollution 

by passing a Federal ban on the use of plastic microbeads. Continuing to allow plastic microbeads to enter the Great Lakes runs 

counter to our current protection and restoration efforts. Adding 

new sources of stress to the Lakes undermines the $1.9 billion in 

Federal funding that have been spent in the last 5 years through 

the bipartisan Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Needlessly sending billions of plastic microbeads into waters we are spending so 

much time, energy, and money restoring is simply irresponsible. 

Microbeads can be found in over 100 personal care products, but 

it doesn’t have to be that way because readily available alternatives existed. As noted by other speakers, a number of large companies in the cosmetic and personal care industry have voluntarily 

pledged to remove plastic microbeads from their products. We applaud these efforts. They are positive examples of good corporate 

stewardship. We also note that these voluntarily efforts have a variety of timelines for phaseout, may not include timelines at all, 

and do not consistently indicate what the company will use to replace microbeads. For example, the concept of marine biodegradVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:53 Jun 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-39 CHRIS
22 

able microbeads has been brought up in a number of States as they 

have considered bans. Unfortunately, there are no national or 

international standards for the biodegradability of plastics in ambient water environments. Until peer-reviewed research or testing by 

the American Society for Testing and Materials can provide standards for the biodegradability of plastics in Great Lakes’ water conditions, biodegradable plastics should not be exempt from a ban. 

The Alliance believes that the right Federal regulatory approach 

can solve this problem. We urge Congress to pass a Federal ban on 

all forms of plastic microbeads in cosmetic and personal care products that, number one, charges the Food and Drug Administration 

with clearly defining plastic microbeads based on current scientific 

research and standards testing by authorities like the American 

Society for Testing and Materials. 

Number two, if terms such as ‘‘synthetic’’ and ‘‘biodegradable’’ 

are used in statute or regulations with regard to microbeads, these 

terms must be clearly defined by the FDA to ensure that substances such as bioplastics are not excluded from biodegradability 

requirements. 

And, number three, it should set a realistic and achievable 

timeline to phase out cosmetic and personal care products that contain microbeads, ideally beginning 1 year from the enactment of 

this legislation. 

You have a great opportunity before you. We know that plastic 

microbeads are entering our waterways every day and that readily 

available alternatives exist. The Alliance for the Great Lakes and 

our supporters urge the United States Congress to pass a ban on 

the manufacture and sale of cosmetic and personal care products 

that contain all forms of plastic microbeads. 

The Alliance thanks Congressmen Upton and Pallone for introducing H.R. 1321 and considering our comments. Chairman Pitts, 

Ranking Member Green, thank you for holding this hearing. I look 

forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Flanagan follows:] 

23 


96979.010
24 


96979.011
25 


96979.012
26 


96979.013
27 


96979.014
28 


96979.015
29 


96979.016
30 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. 

We still have 89 Members that haven’t voted. We are going to 

go to the last witness. 

Mr. Hurson, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN HURSON 

Mr. HURSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Green, Chairman Upton, and 

Ranking Member Pallone and members of the committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify in support of discontinuing the 

use of plastic microbeads in personal care cleansing products and 

specifically to address H.R. 1321, the Microbead-Free Waters Act. 

The Personal Care Products Council is the leading trade association, representing 600 large-, medium-, and small-sized companies 

that manufacture and distribute the vast majority of cosmetic and 

personal care products marketed in the U.S. As makers of a diverse 

range of products that consumers trust and rely on every day, from 

sunscreen, shampoo, and toothpaste to moisturizer, lipstick, and 

fragrance, personal care product companies are global leaders committed to safety, quality, and innovation. 

The American cosmetics industry employs more than 2.8 million people nationwide with more than $260 billion in global annual 

sales. Our industry is dynamic and continuously develops innovative products to meet consumer demands and expectations. Our 

member companies invest more than $3.6 billion each year on scientific research and development. As a result of this research, 

2,000 new products are launched each year, and numerous scientific studies are published on enhancing or developing new safety 

methods. 

Equally important is that our industry shares a common interest 

with other stakeholders in protecting the environment, and our 

members take questions regarding the presence of microbeads in 

our waterways very seriously. Our industry has a longstanding 

commitment to the global environmental stewardship of its products. 

Historically, plastic microbeads have been used in some personal 

care cleansing products because of their safe and effective exfoliating properties. These plastic beads have an excellent health and 

safety profile; do not present adverse effects, such as allergic reactions; are gentle on the skin, especially for consumers with sensitive skin conditions. 

Over the last 5 years, numerous reports in the press and some 

scientific literature have indicated the occurrence of plastic 

microbeads in our oceans and lakes. It should be noted that the 

source of these plastic microbeads are varied and difficult to ascertain. These may include clothing fibers, boat paint particles, degrading plastic bags and plastic bottles, and personal care products. However, out of an abundance of caution and despite the absence of any peer-reviewed science on the contribution from personal care products to plastic microbeads in the aquatic environment, our member companies have committed to discontinuing formulating products with plastic microbeads in favor of other viable 

alternatives. 

31 

While we do support the discontinued use of plastic microbeads, 

it is important to recognize that product reformulation is an extremely complex process. Various and necessary steps include raw 

materials research and development; product testing and qualification to meet safety and regulatory requirements; manufacturing 

and postmarket surveillance for continual evaluation. This process 

takes many years. Furthermore, because of our commitment to the 

safety of our products, we must affirm that the alternative ingredient will not cause unintended consequences and will meet our 

consumers’ safety and product needs. 

In 2014, a wide range of environmental, government, and business stakeholders came together in the State of Illinois to negotiate 

legislation to phase out plastic microbeads. All stakeholders supported the bill, which passed both houses unanimously and was 

signed into law in June of last year. New Jersey, Maine, Indiana, 

and Colorado have enacted similar legislation. And the Council of 

State Governments, a bipartisan government organization of State 

government officials, has adopted the Illinois law as suggested 

model legislation. Our industry supports Federal plastic 

microbeads legislation establishing a national, uniform standard 

that provides certainty for both consumers and businesses by setting appropriate and pragmatic phaseout dates, appropriate definitions of synthetic plastic microbeads, and inclusion of over-thecounter drugs containing plastic microbeads. 

It is especially important to carefully define synthetic plastic 

microbeads in the statute to avoid inadvertently prohibiting the 

use of natural alternatives and to make sure the prohibition provides clear direction to companies regarding reformulation. The 

dates for prohibition of manufacture and sell through of both personal care products and OTC products are also critical to assure a 

level playing field for both large and small companies as they reformulate. With the right policy framework, we can remain an innovative industry, providing our consumers with the safest, high-quality 

products they expect and deserve while also doing our role to continue to protect the environment. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. On behalf 

of the members of the Personal Care Products Council, we look forward to working with the committee on this legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hurson follows:] 

32 


96979.017
33 


96979.018
34 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks all the witnesses for their opening 

statements. 

We will recess for about an hour. We have got a series of votes. 

So we will reconvene as soon as the last vote is taken for questioning of the witnesses. Thank you very much for your patience. 

This committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. PITTS. All right. If the panel will take your seats, we will reconvene. The subcommittee will reconvene. And I thank the witnesses and everyone for their patience. 

And I will begin questioning and recognize myself for 5 minutes 

for that purpose. And these are questions for all the panelists. So 

we will just go down the line. 

So the first question is—many of the largest consumer product 

companies already have committed to phasing out the use of synthetic plastic microbeads under very aggressive timeframes. 

The question is: What additional benefit would a Federal phaseout of microbeads provide? Will the market move away from the 

use of microbeads without Federal oversight? 

Mr. Wyant. 

Mr. WYANT. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

My opinion is that a Federal ban will ensure, essentially, elimination of a patchwork. States are moving quite aggressively, as has 

been pointed out. And, with that, there is going to be a number of 

approaches. 

I do compliment the personal care products industry in recognizing that there is a phaseout voluntarily in place. But on both 

sides of that, it is just my opinion that you would get consistency, 

you would get uniformity, and you would close the vulnerability for 

those who were not phasing out. And that is why we would support 

a Federal approach. 

Mr. PITTS. Senator Greenstein. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Thank you, sir. 

I agree that uniformity is going to be the major advantage, but 

even now we see some disagreements. The first few States like 

New Jersey that got in right on the ground floor didn’t seem to 

have these disagreements. But an example that I was talking with 

some of my colleagues about is that there has been brought up the 

idea of biodegradable plastics. 

So what we are going to have is that, as the industry moves forward, they will be saying, ‘‘Well, make an exception for the 

biodegradables,’’ even though they don’t really exist now, as I understand it, ‘‘Make other exceptions.’’ And I think we are going to 

see a real patchwork, as you heard. I do agree with that. 

So I think it is very important, especially on something like this 

where we do have a lot of buy-in from the industry, to see if we 

can get a Federal law. I think that would work best. 

Mr. PITTS. Ms. Flanagan. 

Ms. FLANAGAN. I also agree that a Federal law makes sense. I 

applaud the personal care industry for the great steps that they 

are already taking to phase out these products. 

But it is not happening across the board. It is not happening on 

the same timeline, and they are not defining what will replace 

these microbeads in the same way. 

35 

So a Federal ban would give us consistency and ensure that all 

companies are removing plastic microbeads from their products. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Hurson, the question was—many of the largest 

consumer product companies already have committed to phasing 

out the use of synthetic plastic microbeads under very aggressive 

timeframes. 

What additional benefit would a Federal phaseout of microbeads 

provide? And will the market move away from the use of 

microbeads without Federal oversight? 

Mr. HURSON. I do think that the Federal approach is very, very 

important. First of all, you have a lot of States that have not yet 

taken action, and we need a Federal standard, a national standard, 

to cover all of those States. 

And I think the consistency of having Federal legislation in 

terms of both the timing and the definitions is going to be extremely important and very helpful. 

Mr. PITTS. OK. Let me continue with you. We will go back the 

other way. 

Why is it important to carefully define synthetic plastic 

microbeads in the statute? 

Mr. HURSON. It is important to define it in the statute for two 

reasons. First of all, it gives clarity to businesses as to how to reformulate them, what would be acceptable and not acceptable in the 

reformulation. And the second reason is because we want to get 

this done. 

I mean, the problem with waiting by having a Federal agency 

have to look at this again, it will just take a lot of time, and I think 

we want to get this thing solved and done and have these banned 

by a certain date. So—— 

Mr. PITTS. OK. And we will go to Ms. Flanagan. 

And I want to add one more question to that. Not only the importance of defining the microbeads in the statute, but why would adding a phaseout date be important, if you can respond, Ms. Flanagan? 

Ms. FLANAGAN. Sure. So in terms of adding definitions, I think 

definitions could be included in statute or in regulation, but the importance of having careful definitions is so that industry does understand what is expected of them and so that we ensure that substances like bioplastics that may not be biodegradable aren’t allowed. And what we are saying is that we just need to make sure 

that any standards and any definitions are based on current scientific research. 

And then, in terms of phaseout periods, I think it is important 

to have phaseout periods in order to make sure that all industries 

are meeting the standards on the same timeframe. 

Mr. PITTS. Senator Greenstein. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Well, I will start with the phaseout dates. On 

the phaseout dates issue, in New Jersey, that was one of the places 

where we compromised. That was one of the places where the Governor in his conditional veto talked about the importance—he 

wanted lower fines because he didn’t want people to go out of business, and he also wanted to give the industry a chance to adapt 

36 

to this and to do what they needed to do. We made sure that the 

dates were very reasonable. 

I also think it is very important to define someplace, regulation 

or in the law—preferably in the law—exactly what we are talking 

about. So, in this case, I think definitions are critical. And the example I gave earlier about biodegradable and non-biodegradable 

products would be an example of where this is very important. We 

have to say what we are talking about so that industry is on notice. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Wyant. 

Mr. WYANT. I agree with clarity, consistency. And then the last 

point that you raise, I think it then encompasses and captures the 

entire, in our case, Great Lakes system. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. My time is expired. 

I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Green. 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. GREEN. Ms. Flanagan, thank you for your testimony. 

What currently are the known impacts of microbeads on our waterways and wildlife? 

Ms. FLANAGAN. So we know that fish and wildlife mistake plastic 

microbeads as food. And so fish will eat microbeads instead of eating other food sources. They don’t provide any nutrition and can accumulate both in the gut of the fish and get into the circulatory 

system. 

And then, as larger predators eat those fish, those microbeads, 

which attract toxins like DDT and PCBs, get concentrated throughout the food chain, which could then cause harm to human beings 

who are eating those larger fish. 

Mr. GREEN. Have microbeads been found to negatively impact 

human health? And to carry on what you just said, has it been— 

because I know in our area we have a dioxin problem in our waterway and obviously, the fish feed on it and humans catch those fish. 

Is that the same thing in the Great Lakes, I assume? 

Ms. FLANAGAN. I don’t know the answer to that related to 

microbeads. I do know that fish, when they have PCBs or other 

contaminants concentrated in their tissue, that that does have an 

effect on human health, which is why we have fish consumption 

advisories in most Great Lakes waterways. I would imagine that 

plastic microbeads would work in much the same way, but I don’t 

know for sure. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Hurson, in regards to the Microbeads Free Waters Act, is the January 1, 2018, ban on the sale and distribution 

of microbeads contained in cosmetics a realistic time for the industry to reformulate the products? 

Mr. HURSON. The January 1, 2018, in the model bills at a State 

level was a ban on manufacture, and then there is a year later for 

the ban on sale. That is sort of the compromise that we reached. 

There has to be a period of sell-through. So the banning of the 

manufacture is one thing, but getting all the product off the 

shelves will probably take another year. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. The legislation currently allows the FDA to define the term ‘‘synthetic plastic microbead.’’ However, the States 

have already passed laws banning microbeads have included a specific definition of the term. 

37 

I understand that getting the definition right is important to ensure that all plastic microbeads are removed from products, but 

also to ensure that unintended consequences aren’t caught in the 

definition. 

Chemistry changes literally every day. And if we define it so fine, 

there is going to be someone who will change that and maybe have 

the same product that is just a little bit different. 

How have the States dealt with that? 

Sure, Senator. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. OK. It is true that we will have changes as the 

science develops. No question about that. But I think at this particular time we have to deal with what we do know. 

There have been some recent studies. I know that, in 2012, there 

was a major study of the Great Lakes area and how that is being 

polluted by these microbeads. And there is also a study that I saw 

in the Tulane Environmental Law Journal that talks about the 

case for the ban. 

And we have the definitions that we have right now. We know 

that the non-biodegradable plastic is the thing that we were aiming 

at in our definition. So—— 

Mr. GREEN. And I would hope the EPA would be cognizant of 

what the States have done on things that have worked and come 

up with a similar definition that you have. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Well, we think that our definition was good. 

And I think the five States that have passed it have used similar 

definitions. So we are hoping that the Federal one would do that 

as well. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Hurson, in your testimony, you noted that the 

cosmetic industry supports the inclusion of over-the-counter drugs 

containing microbeads in the Federal ban. 

Would you elaborate on the concern about OTCs in microbeads? 

Mr. HURSON. Yes. Be happy to do that. 

The industry does support the inclusion of over-the-counter drugs 

that contain plastic microbeads. Those would be mostly toothpaste 

and, also, acne cream. Those are both products that are on the 

market that contain these beads, acne cream in particular because 

of the sensitivity of the skin, and that is why they were used. 

But in order to get at all these products, we think those OTC 

products should be included. There is an issue related to regulation 

of OTCs different than the regulation of cosmetics. OTCs are regulated through an FDA monograph, and that requires certain additional types of testing of OTCs. 

So in terms of reformulating, we think the OTCs need an additional year to get the ban in place and to get the product sellthrough. So that is an issue related to FDA regulation. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes gentleman from New York, Mr. Collins. 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you very much. 

As someone who has Lake Erie on the western end of my district 

and Lake Ontario on the northern end, certainly in Lake Erie the 

microbead issue is front and center right now. And our waterways 

are a major piece of our economy. 

38 

So my question is for Senate Greenstein. And you mentioned in 

your testimony that you agreed that it is—and we have all discussed this, I think—it is important to give the personal care products industry time to adjust to find alternatives, and I think we 

know why. 

But on the record, could you go into a little bit more discussion 

on that. And what is the timeframe, knowing that the products are 

a little bit different? 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Well, what we did in our legislation is we 

had—I am just looking for the exact dates here. 

On or after January 1, 2018, no person shall produce or manufacture in the State a personal care product containing synthetic plastic microbeads except at that point for an over-the-counter drug. 

Then on the date of January 1, 2019, no person shall sell, offer 

for sale, or offer for promotion a personal care product with the 

synthetic plastic microbeads except for an OTC drug. And, finally, 

January 1, 2020, no sale, promotion, offer of an OTC drug. 

So we had different dates for each of those, the production, the 

sale, the over-the-counter. It was just in discussions with these 

companies that they felt they needed this additional time. 

Mr. COLLINS. Sure. So the good news for us in a way is seeing 

what New Jersey has done. In your discussions with the industry, 

they were comfortable that those timeframes were something they 

could live with. 

And I have to assume, many of them, they are not going to make 

a product for New Jersey and a different product for everyone else, 

that by leading the way in New Jersey, they are going to be 

transitioning. 

And I think a Federal law here does make a lot of sense, but I 

have to think common sense says they are going to make one kind 

of toothpaste and—— 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Right. I think that is true except that, perhaps 

some of the industry would—although they have been starting on 

their own and trying to do this even before the law went into effect, 

I think they would scramble to some extent to find some different 

definitions, some product that perhaps they could do, that might be 

OK under our State law. 

But if we had a good, uniform, comprehensive Federal law, I 

think it would guide them in how they should—— 

Mr. COLLINS. So what is going on in Europe? A lot of times on 

these types of issues we seem to see Europe would take a stance 

before us. Do they have standards now in Europe? 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Actually, you are right. They usually are ahead 

of us on some of these kinds of things. But on this, from the little 

bit that I have read about international standards, I think they 

don’t have good standards on it, which is interesting. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, that is. So we would actually be setting the 

stage—— 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. I think we are, and I think we are on the forefront on this issue. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes. Well, I think—— 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Usually that isn’t the case on this type of 

thing. 

39 

Mr. COLLINS. No, it isn’t. So, again, I am glad to see what New 

Jersey has done. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. It is a big issue, again, up in Lake Erie especially. 

So—— 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. I know it is. 

Mr. COLLINS. That is all I have got, Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the 

ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone. 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to try to get in a question of Mr. Hurson and then to 

Senator Greenstein. 

So, Mr. Hurson, first, I wanted to focus a bit on the prevalence 

of the natural biodegradable alternatives to plastic microbeads. 

I know that many companies are transitioning away from plastic 

to natural exfoliants, like the walnut shell powder, and I am 

pleased to see that trend, coupled with proactive commitments 

from major companies like P&G and J&J to phase out plastic 

microbeads in their products. 

But I think it is important for us to pass this legislation to ensure that all companies manufacturing and selling personal care 

products in the U.S. Phase out these plastic ingredients. 

So could I ask you if you could tell me what actions your member 

companies are taking to transition to natural biodegradable 

exfoliants. I know you talked about this a little, but—— 

Mr. HURSON. Thank you. 

The industry is actively doing research and trying to find the 

right kinds of raw materials that they could substitute and that 

have the same effectiveness. That is an ongoing practice right now. 

This industry is always reformulating products. It is sort of how 

it does business because they always want new things on the market. So it is an active industry in terms of reformulating and trying 

to get it right. 

But it does take time to both source the materials, make sure 

they are effective, that they are effective for what the consumers 

want. So that is actually happening now, all that resourcing. 

Mr. PALLONE. And in transitioning to natural exfoliants, do you 

think it is going to be particularly burdensome or cause the companies to be unable bring effective products to market? 

Mr. HURSON. It is obviously going to be difficult and it takes 

time, but it is not something these companies can’t do. They are 

experts at reformulating. That is what they do every year. There 

are 2,000 new products a year. So they can do it, but it will take 

some time. 

It is not a simple thing where you just pull out one ingredient 

and put in another. It actually takes a lot of research and testing 

and time to get it done. So it is happening now, and it will happen 

and they will do it. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. 

Let me go back to my friend here, the Senator. I would like you 

to discuss—I know you talked about the New Jersey law. And obviously, you have done a great job in getting this passed. 

40 

But can you tell me briefly about—well, I know you have kind 

of gotten into this already, but just give me a little more information about the bipartisan nature of this in New Jersey and how industry and environmental groups came together to support the bill. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Well, it was really a combination. It was bipartisan on a political level. Everybody joined in, and there was not 

a single partisan aspect to the passage of the bill. Everybody became part of it. 

I think I said it passed the Senate unanimously and almost 

unanimously in the Assembly. I think some people were just absent. So it definitely had bipartisan support, and not everything 

does. 

But in addition to that, we had the support of groups that normally don’t get together on the same bill. So we had the Sierra 

Club and then we had all of the industry, the chemistry industry 

and the personal products and all of the different parts of the industry who would really lose money, in a sense, by moving to this 

new formulation, but, nevertheless, felt this was the right direction 

to go. 

And this is the direction that we are going and they felt that 

push and everybody got together on it. So I think it would be great 

if everything were that way. Unfortunately, everything isn’t. But 

this bill certainly moved in that—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, there has been a lot of it around here lately, 

I have to say. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. I tell you, that is great. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now, of course, you know, you said that we should 

have a national standard, and there was a recent study released 

by the New York Office of the Attorney General that detected 

microbeads in samples from 25 of 34 wastewater treatment plants 

that were surveyed in New York. 

Given that New Jersey and New York share many of the same 

waterways, does that concern you? And again, if you wanted to talk 

again about the need for a national standard, I think most people 

are aware of it, but certainly we are acutely aware of the fact that, 

being a small State and sharing waterways with New York and 

Pennsylvania, you know, that we can’t just do things on our own. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Well, I actually did see that study, and I noticed that several of the waterways would be ones that we would 

share. So, yes, we are all affected by what goes on in the States 

around us and sometimes several States away. 

And that study did concern me, along with several other studies 

that I looked at. And there have been quite a few since the year 

2012 and more and more, starting with the Great Lakes and working up to areas like ours in New York. 

So what was the second part of the question? 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes. You answered it. Thank you. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. That essentially, I think, is extremely important and the need for the national standard, as you heard from, I 

think, all of us here, uniformity, definitely, making it all clear to 

the industry so they know which direction to go. 

There is no point in having 50 different laws, and it seems like 

we are moving that way. Because just in a very short period of 

41 

time, three new laws were signed. And there are a bunch on governors’ desks, and pretty soon we will have 50 different laws. 

I think it would behoove us to have a Federal law that makes 

it very clear to the industry where we are going. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thanks for being here. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Mr. PALLONE. Oh, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Can I just ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record a letter from 5 Gyres, which I mentioned in my opening 

statement, and also from the Surfrider Foundation on this issue? 

Mr. PITTS. All right. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. PITTS. nd I have a unanimous consent request from the 

American Chemistry Council submitted by Mr. Shimkus to be put 

into the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. PITTS. The chair recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank the chairman for yielding. 

I appreciate all of you being here today. And I have a question 

to all of the panelists. I would like to address this going down the 

line, I guess. 

Wasn’t there microbeads that are used in other industries that 

are contributing to this problem? But I would like to hear from 

each of you why you think eliminating the use in personal care 

products will be a profound start to correcting the problem. 

If you will just start, Mr. Wyant. 

Mr. WYANT. There are other plastics, clearly, but this is, I think, 

a practical, commonsense solution. More science could come to bear 

on this, but what we do know is we are accumulating microbeads 

in the Great Lakes, and we have a great concern about that. 

We now know their bio-accumulative effects when wildlife consumes microbeads, and we know that has the potential of human 

health impact over time. 

So we just think it makes common sense and it is the right thing 

to do. Phasing out, I think, is the, again, win-win that we look forward to, consistency, uniformity, and then no loopholes in the system. And that is why we support it. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I am going to continue on down the line because 

I want to get to a couple other questions. 

But specifically why in personal care products? I don’t understand the issue with microbeads, why you think it would be a profound difference to do it in just personal care products when other 

industries do it. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. I am going to assume that personal care products would be the main area where we get the microbeads. Now, 

certainly there are other kinds of plastics that come from many different sources. All of the articles I read focused on microbeads. 

That is personal care. But, frankly, I think we do need to go beyond it. 

42 

One of the things that really either impressed or depressed me, 

depending on how you look at it, was these large—I guess they call 

them garbage patches—in both the North Atlantic and the Great 

Pacific, which are not just microbeads, but they have relatively 

high concentrations of certain kinds of plastics and chemical sludge 

because these mix together. And there are enormous patches just, 

I guess, under the surface of the water in both of our oceans. 

So we definitely are polluting with manmade products. I think, 

frankly, we should look beyond just microbeads, but microbeads go 

with personal care products. So that is what we are focusing on 

right now. But we have to look at the other plastic and other chemical pollution that is going into our oceans. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. I will just go on to Ms. Flanagan. 

But my understanding, though—and I will just go on to Ms. 

Flanagan—is that microbeads that are personal care products 

aren’t just in personal care products. They are in—I understand 

there is other plastics. 

So, Ms. Flanagan. 

Ms. FLANAGAN. Yes. There are other sources of microplastics. 

From my understanding, it can come off of certain types of fleece 

or other microfibers. So you can get microplastics that aren’t necessarily spherical. 

I do think plastic microbeads are a good place to start. In the 

study that I referenced during my testimony by Dr. Sherri Mason 

of the State University of New York at Fredonia and Dr. Marcus 

Eriksen of the 5 Gyres Institute, when they surveyed the Great 

Lakes and looked at microplastics, 58 percent of all the microplastics that were smaller than 1 millimeter collected in the Great 

Lakes were spherical. 

So you are not going to tackle the entire microplastics issue by 

getting at microbeads, but you are going to be addressing a significant chunk of it. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Oh, thank you. 

And Mr. Hurson. 

Mr. HURSON. It is a very good question. 

There is not any reliable scientific information at this point as 

to the sourcing of microbeads, but it is very clear they are used in 

personal care products. So we are committed to getting them out 

of personal care products. 

That is the simple answer to your question, which is we know 

they are in our products. We want to get out of them. Our companies are already reformulating out. 

But since there isn’t any definitive science study at the moment 

as to the sourcing of all the microbeads that are out there in the 

environment—there are other industries that use them. 

So it is a great question. But at least we can start here, and we 

think it is smart to start with a national standard and a very clear 

idea of what we are trying to get at. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So, Mr. Hurson, just continuing, should over-thecounter products be included in this legislation? And what are the 

requirements for the over-the-counter for just regular cosmetic 

products? 

Mr. HURSON. As an industry, we do support the inclusion of overthe-counter products like toothpaste and acne cream that do have 

43 

microbeads. It does mean that we have to look a little bit more 

carefully at the time lines because, because of the way those products are regulated by FDA, there is additional testing that has to 

be done. 

So when you reformulate those products, you literally have to 

spend 18 months—you put the new formulation—put it on the 

shelf. It is called stabilization testing. You have to make sure that 

the new ingredient doesn’t in some way affect the active ingredients in an over-the-counter drug, and that is why you need more 

time to reformulate in that product category. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. In your previous answer, you said that 

microbeads are from other industries, that nobody knows exactly 

where the ones collecting are from, but you recognize they are in 

your products; so, if we want to address the problem, if you are 

contributing to it, addressing it by getting microbeads out your 

products. 

What ingredients are companies using to replace these products? 

I mean, what is the replacement for that? 

Mr. HURSON. We are looking for all kinds of natural ingredients 

that could replace it. You have things like salt, sugar, ground-up 

walnut shells, ground-up apricot pits. 

But when you think about manufacturing these products, first of 

all, you have to source them. You know, you have to find a place 

to buy those and supply those ingredients, and that could be tricky 

as the entire industry moves at the same time. It might be hard 

to source them. 

And then the other thing is you have to recalculate and redo 

your manufacturing processes because you are going to have a different reaction in trying to put that particular ingredient into the 

products. You might have different machinery that you need. 

So it does take time to actually get this done. But it is the natural things that we are trying to find that would give us the same 

scrub type of effect in exfoliating. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, thank you. 

And this is an issue that I am learning more about and didn’t 

really understand it until we started focusing on it through this 

committee. 

And that is what this process is for and why your testimony is 

important. And, hopefully, we will work into a solution because I 

understand there is a real problem we need to address. So thank 

you very much. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognize 

the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky. 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

I would like to continue along those lines talking about the various products that we want to get off the market. 

So, Mr. Hurson, you said in your testimony that the Personal 

Care Products Council supports the discontinued use of plastic 

microbeads, in general. And I am not quoting, but you made kind 

of a general statement. 

So you do support a ban that applies both to personal care products and to over-the-counter drugs like acne? And you were talking 

44 

about how much longer it might take for those. But you do support 

that? 

Mr. HURSON. Yes, we do. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. Thank you very much. 

I wanted to ask Ms. Flanagan a question. And, first of all, let me 

just say I am very proud that Illinois was the first. 

And congratulations, Representative Greenstein—for New Jersey 

following. 

And all this has happened pretty quickly. Five States now have 

laws, and many more are considering it because clearly it is viewed 

as a serious hazard. 

So I am trying to get a sense of just how critical this is in the 

Great Lakes, an estimate for how—not exactly how many 

microbeads. But how present is it in the lakes right now? 

Ms. FLANAGAN. Sure. So microbeads have been found in all of the 

Great Lakes and throughout the water column and in concentrations that rival or surpass the concentrations of microbeads found 

in the oceans. So it is a pretty critical problem in the Great Lakes 

region, and it is a problem throughout all of the lakes and even 

into the St. Lawrence River. 

And then, of course, the issue is that fish throughout the region 

mistake these microbeads for food and can concentrate toxins up 

the food chain. And so, there are a number of critical issues facing 

the Great Lakes: invasive species, nutrient problems. Microbeads 

are just one of them. 

You are spending a lot of money through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to address those issues. Thank you for that. And 

I think that avoiding this needless additional threat to the Great 

Lakes makes a lot of sense. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So clearly it ought to be a priority to get Great 

Lakes States involved in banning them. 

Ms. FLANAGAN. Yes. Absolutely. I think, if the Federal Government can come to agreement on standards and regulation that will 

ensure that plastic microbeads are out of personal care products, 

that that would be a good solution. 

Aside a Federal ban, then, yes. Having the Great Lakes States 

act collectively would be important for—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes. Of course, if there were a Federal ban. 

But then what about internationally? Has Canada made any 

moves? 

Ms. FLANAGAN. I just got an update from a colleague in Canada. 

They do not have bans now. But the Province of Ontario is learning 

more about this problem and considering taking action, and in Ottawa the Federal Government has also, I think, approved some additional study of the issue. So additional work is certainly needed 

on both sides of the border. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think one of you had testified earlier that it 

is not really a danger to human beings. Obviously, I guess, if it is 

external, that is true. 

Is that the case? 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Well, I think I might have said earlier, when 

it comes to dangers to the environment, that is pretty much documented at this point. Dangerous to water. Dangerous to animals. 

And, of course, that goes up the food chain. 

45 

But actual studies of human health and how it is affected, there 

really is not a lot of scientific study of that yet. I think we are moving in that direction. But right at the moment, if you said pick out 

a study that shows the dangers to human health, I don’t think we 

quite have that yet. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Toothpaste. Clearly, if you are brushing your 

teeth, the chances are great that you swallow those. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. The chances are great. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And so it would seem to me, if we are concerned about the fish and up the food chain, that that would be an 

area that we would want to look at. 

Anybody else want to comment on that? 

Ms. FLANAGAN. I would just agree with you that, the fact that 

we know fish are eating these microbeads, that they are concentrating up the food chain, that they even could pose a risk to 

human health, is enough of a reason to get them out of the Great 

Lakes and out of our waterways. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And, finally, again for Mr. Hurson, so tell me 

what the Council is doing in terms of educating its members. 

Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I see I am over time. Can he answer that? 

Mr. HURSON. I would be happy to answer it. 

The Council has been very active in this area at the State level. 

We were the ones who were part of the negotiations in your State 

when Illinois passed the first bill. 

And we also took the Illinois bill to the Council of State Governments to get it as model legislation to be recommended to all the 

States, and that is one of the reasons you have had three additional States, besides Illinois and New Jersey, pass it this year. It 

is under consideration in at least 10 to 15 more States right now. 

So we are very active in advocating the banning of these 

microbeads in personal care products and certain over-the-counter 

products. We also are very active in the science side, trying to get 

more information about how the flow does work in our wastewater 

treatment plants, as well as trying to educate internationally, both 

in Europe and in Canada, trying to get them to understand how 

important it is to get these ingredients out of these products. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you for that. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognize the 

gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance. 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is an honor to meet you, Ms. Flanagan, and, Mr. Wyant. And 

I have worked in the past with Mr. Hurson. 

But on the panel the person I know best is Senator Greenstein. 

The Senator and I served together in the lower house of the New 

Jersey Legislature, the General Assembly, and then in the upper 

house of the New Jersey Legislature, the State Senate, and the 

Senator is familiar with Washington, having graduated from 

Georgetown Law School. And I see Mr. Greenstein in the audience 

as well. 

I guess I would want to know, Linda, who was absent in the Assembly and didn’t vote for your bill. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. We will be checking that out. 

46 

Mr. LANCE. I hope it is not my two members of the General Assembly. 

Let me first ask, Mr. Wyant. I understand before your distinguished tenure at the Department of Environmental Quality in 

Michigan you were also the director of the Department of Agriculture for both a Republican and a Democratic governor. 

Is there an interplay between agricultural matters and environmental protection on this issue? 

Mr. WYANT. I wouldn’t say necessarily on this issue. Michigan’s 

perspective is—clearly we know microbeads are making it into the 

Great Lakes and the Michigan waters. Clearly we know, when we 

test wastewater treatment facilities, we discover microbeads. 

And then we can draw the natural conclusion and issue—the relationship with agriculture and nutrient-loading and water quality 

issues is quite apparent. And so there are other significant 

nexuses. 

And so I guess I would add in close with the fact that the fact 

that we do get, in some cases, toxins, not necessarily agriculturerelated, you know, we know that, again, big industrial States have 

legacy issues. That is our concern. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

And to Senator Greenstein, as I understand the New Jersey legislation, you crafted it in such a way that it was a model based also 

on what has happened in Illinois. 

Could you explain to the committee why the phaseout period was 

designed the way it was and, also, the importance of providing an 

adequate timeframe for compliance. 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Yes. I believe in some earlier versions of the 

bill we may have had a little bit of a tighter timeframe. 

But in the Governor’s conditional veto, the two things he was 

very concerned about was adequate time for the industry—so we 

needed to spread that out a bit—and he was also concerned that 

the fines were too—we were going up to like $10,000. So we 

brought it to $500. And, also, we had included a private right of 

action. He wanted that out as well. 

So we went along with everything he said because we wanted the 

bill to pass and we thought it was still a very good bill, even with 

those changes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

As a matter of information to the committee, in New Jersey, the 

Governor of our State has the power to modify legislation that 

reaches his desk. And that modification is then sent back to both 

houses of the State legislature, and both houses have the opportunity to agree with the Governor’s modifications by simple majority. And that is a way in which the two elected branches in New 

Jersey work together. 

And I certainly commend all of those involved in New Jersey, including, in particular, my friend, Senator Greenstein. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PITTS. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Just one question. 

Clarification. In the material, we read of glass microbeads as 

well. This legislation only applies to plastic microbeads. 

47 

Are you familiar with microbeads which are glass? Are they utilized? Are there any dangers with that, Mr. Hurson? 

Mr. HURSON. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of glass microbeads 

being used in our products. I think one of the alternatives that people are looking at would be like a pumice stone type of microbead. 

But I am not aware that they are researching looking at glass. 

Mr. PITTS. Ms. Flanagan? 

Ms. FLANAGAN. I am not familiar with glass microbeads. I am 

not saying they don’t exist, but I am not familiar with them. 

Mr. PITTS. Senator? 

Ms. GREENSTEIN. Also have not read anything about that. And 

the only thing that I can think of is maybe for decorative purposes. 

But they wouldn’t be used in these kinds of products because glass 

in toothpaste—let’s hope that doesn’t happen. 

Mr. PITTS. Hope not. 

Mr. Wyant. 

Mr. WYANT. I am not aware of any issues as it relates to glass. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. I think the other members who were here 

are at another hearing. I apologize for that. 

We will have follow-up questions. If we submit them to you in 

writing, would you please respond promptly? Thank you. 

And I remind members that they have 10 business days to submit the questions for the record. And members should submit their 

questions by the close of business on Friday, May the 15th. 

Very interesting hearing. We intend to act on it. Thank you very 

much for your patience today and all the good information you provided to the committee. 

At this time, without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

48 


96979.019
49 


96979.020
50 


96979.021
51 


96979.022
52 


96979.023
53 


96979.024
54 


96979.025
55 


96979.026
56 


96979.027
57 


96979.028
58 


96979.029
59 


96979.030
60 


96979.031
61 


96979.032
62 


96979.033
63 


96979.034
64 


96979.035
65 


96979.036
66 


96979.037
67 


96979.038
68 


96979.039
69 

Æ 


96979.040