Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Microplastics topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bill would ban intentionally added microplastics and require testing plan; local researchers’ findings cited

2718461 · March 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Microplastics Reduction Act would ban products with intentionally added microplastics for sale in the state beginning in 2029 and direct DEM to develop a testing and strategy plan to monitor microplastic pollution.

The committee reviewed House bill 5492, the Microplastics Reduction Act, which would ban the sale and distribution of products containing intentionally added synthetic polymer microparticles and would require the Department of Environmental Management to develop a microplastics testing plan and a statewide strategy by specified deadlines.

Sponsor Representative Boylan referenced a 2023 University of Rhode Island study that she said estimated roughly 1,000 tons of microplastics in the top two inches of Narragansett Bay sediment and described emerging research linking microplastics to ecological and human‑health effects. The bill would prohibit the sale or distribution of products with intentionally added microplastics beginning Jan. 1, 2029, and would require DEM to prepare a testing plan by July 2028 and a strategy plan to characterize ambient concentrations, sources, exposure pathways and policy recommendations.

Witnesses for the bill included Clean Water Action, Save the Bay and the League of Women Voters, which urged state leadership and adoption of a testing plan. Proponents argued the measure would align Rhode Island with other jurisdictions (the EU and some U.S. states) and would focus initial testing on coastal ecosystems where microplastics tend to accumulate.

Opposing testimony from business representatives and some industry groups questioned the feasibility and the economic impacts of a ban and emphasized the lack of a standardized, EPA‑approved testing methodology at the federal level. Scientists and advocates who testified said that although federal standard methods are still emerging, local research methods — such as those used by URI — can be used to begin monitoring and to inform policy.

Concerns and clarifying questions from the committee included the difference between intentionally added microplastics (the bill's target) and microplastics produced by wear, weathering or other breakdown processes (tire wear, synthetic textiles), whether bagged consumer fertilizers or other retail products would be covered (witnesses said the bill targets larger permitted applications and intentionally added microplastics in manufactured products), and the administrative capacity of DEM to carry out the testing plan. The committee heard extensive public testimony and did not take a final vote on H‑5492.