317

Feature

Marine Plastic Pollution: Sources,

Impacts, and Policy Issues
Bethanie Carney Almroth* and Håkan Eggert†
Almost all of standard economic theory is in reality concerned with services.
Material objects are merely the vehicles which carry some of these services, and
they are exchanged because of consumer preferences for the services associated
with their use or manufacturing process. Yet we persist in referring to the “final
consumption” of goods as though material objects such as fuels, materials, and
finished goods somehow disappeared into the void.
Robert U. Ayres and Allen V. Kneese (1969, p. 284)

Plastics are essential and ubiquitous materials in our daily lives and address numerous soci-
etal challenges. They save fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by providing light
materials for cars and airplanes. Plastics contribute to high-performance insulation materials
that reduce energy consumption, and plastic packaging enhances food safety. Emerging
three-dimensional printing technology that uses plastic materials may save human lives by
enabling medical innovation.
Plastic waste is a relatively new problem. However, cumulative production of plastic now
exceeds 8,000 million metric tons, of which approximately 9 percent has been recycled, 12
percent incinerated, and 79 percent accumulated in landfills or the natural environment.
With the exception of concrete and steel, plastics are now the most common manmade
material. In 2015, plastic production was 380 million tons, and if unchecked, production
rates are expected to double during the coming decades (Maphoto/Pravettoni 2018).
More than 10 million tons of plastic enter the oceans annually (Jambeck et al. 2015) and
more than 80 percent of marine litter is plastics (European Parliament 2019). Environmental

*Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Box 463, 40530 Göteborg, Sweden,
Telephone: +46-31 786 3673, e-mail: bethanie.carney@bioenv.gu.se.
†
Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Box 640, 40530 Göteborg, Sweden, Telephone: +46-
31 786 4175, e-mail: hakan.eggert@gu.se.
This paper is based on presentations and discussions at a symposium on Marine Plastic Pollution in a
Circular Perspective, held at the 6th World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, June 26,
2018, in Gothenburg, Sweden, with support from Region V€astra Götaland; Centre for Sea and Society,
University of Gothenburg; and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). Håkan
Eggert acknowledges financial support from Sida through the Environment for Development Initiative.
Bethanie Carney Almroth acknowledges financial support from the Swedish Research Council Formas (grant
number 2016-00895).

Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, volume 13, issue 2, Summer 2019, pp. 317–326
doi: 10.1093/reep/rez012
Advance Access Published on June 25, 2019
C The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Environmental and Resource
V
Economists. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction
inanymedium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited.Forcommercialre-use,pleasecontactjournals.permissions@oup.com
318 B. Carney Almroth and H. Eggert

economics studies of marine plastic pollution (MPP) have been scarce thus far and often
focus on a single issue, such as lost nonmarket values from plastic debris on beaches
(e.g., Leggett et al. 2018). However, the sheer scale of MPP, coupled with the emerging
toxicological science (GESAMP 2015), suggests the potential for significant additional
harm to human health. This article, which is part of a minisymposium on MPP,1 provides
an introduction to plastics and MPP and its potential effects on marine ecosystems and
human health, discusses some of the policy and technical issues, and suggests priorities for
further research.

Introduction to Plastics and MPP

There are thousands of different types of plastic polymers, but the market, and the litter found in
the marine environment, is dominated by six substances: polypropylene (PP), polyethylene
(PE), polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyurethane (PUR), polyterephthalate (PET), and polystyrene
(PS), which together comprise approximately 80 percent of total plastics production
(PlasticsEurope 2017). Not all plastics are equally problematic. Beach, ocean, and river litter
surveys show that certain plastic products and materials are more likely to enter the environment
than others, with about 50 percent of items found in beach surveys being single-use plastic items
(Addamo, Laroche, and Hanke 2017). These are commonly used products that are difficult to
recycle, easily littered, and often made of low-density plastic polymers, which means they float.
Land-based coastal pollution (within 50 km of coastlines) is the major source of MPP,
contributing about 9 million tons per year (Jambeck et al. 2015). Land-based inland pollution
contributes 0.5 million tons, at-sea sources contribute 1.75 million tons, and microplastics
(<5 mm) contribute 0.95 million tons (Eunomia 2016). It is estimated that 94 percent of
these plastics accumulate on the sea floor (Eunomia 2016), 5 percent ends up on beaches, and
1 percent remains on the ocean surface (Eunomia 2016). More than 80% of MPP is land
based, thus any effective policy to reduce MPP must target land-based plastic pollution. The
Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP), located between California and Hawaii, is the largest
aggregation of floating plastics, with fishing gear accounting for almost half of the mass.2
Microplastics account for 8 percent of the total mass of the GPGP but 94 percent of the total
1.8 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the GPGP (Lebreton et al. 2018).
There are large uncertainties about the major sources of marine plastics. Schmidt, Krauth,
and Wagner (2017) use two models to estimate how much plastic is exported by rivers
globally. One suggests that a substantial share of land-based marine plastic debris enters
through pathways such as storm water runoff, wind dispersal, and littering, rather than
through rivers. The other suggests that rivers are the major source of land-based plastics
entering the sea, with eight large rivers in Asia and two in Africa accounting about 90 percent
of the total riverine input. Jambeck et al. (2015) provide support for the argument that rivers
are the major source and estimate that more than 50 percent of marine plastic waste emanates

1
Abbott and Sumaila (2019) focus on how economics can be used to inform effective policies for addressing
MPP.
2
The average concentration of plastics on the ocean surface is 0.7 kg/km2, but it is 80 kg/km2 in the GPGP.
The average concentration of plastics on the sea floor is 70 kg/km2, while on beaches it is 2,000 kg/km2
(Lebreton et al. 2018).
Marine Plastic Pollution: Sources, Impacts, and Policy Issues 319

from mismanaged plastic waste in five East Asian countries. However, there are insufficient
data to estimate the portion of marine plastic debris that results from manufacturing and
preconsumer stages versus postconsumer stages.
Plastics are long lasting and typically undergo limited degradation; instead they undergo
secondary breakdown from weathering and fragmentation (Andrady 2011), which is how
microplastics are formed. The distribution of microplastics found in marine samples is
consistent with the overall distribution of plastic types and their uses (Hidalgo-Ruz et al.
2012). However, it is generally not possible to identify where these microplastics originate.

Potential Effects on Marine Ecosystems and Human Health

With this background on MPP, we next discuss the potential effects of MPP on marine
ecosystems and human health. We briefly address macroplastic debris effects, which are
well established (Gregory 2009), but focus on microplastics and their associated chemicals.
We also consider the human health effects of exposure to the chemicals in plastic products.

Potential Effects of (Micro)plastics on Marine Ecosystems

The impacts of plastics on marine ecosystems range from direct health effects in marine
organisms, due to ingestion or entanglement in litter and fishing gear, to hitchhiking (i.e.,
attaching to and floating with plastics) of organisms, including invasive species and patho-
gens, to impacts on fisheries (including damaged gear, decreased catches), to loss of ecosys-
tem services (GESAMP 2015).
Research on microplastics indicates that ingestion of microplastics by marine organisms
can cause a range of effects, including blockage of intestinal tracts, inflammation, oxidative
stress, hormone disruption, reproductive impact, and metabolic and behavioral changes
(Wright, Thompson, and Galloway 2013). However, recent research finds that exposure to
smaller, nanoplastic3 particles is more likely to cause adverse outcomes (Rochman et al.
2016). The impacts of micro- and nanoplastics on marine environments at the ecosystem
level are largely unexplored, but may include changes in nutrient cycles and food chains as
well as changes in microbial communities growing on plastics (Zettler, Mincer, and Amaral-
Zettler 2013). Although some research has indicated that microplastics may cause severe
effects, current research is dominated by two opposing views: microplastics have clear
impacts on marine ecosystems (Rochman et al. 2016), and the current risks associated
with microplastics have thus far not been proven to exist (Burns and Boxall 2018).
However, many frequently used chemical additives in plastic products have been found in
marine ecosystems (Hermabessiere et al. 2017), and these chemicals cause endocrine disrup-
tion, developmental disorders, and reproductive abnormalities in a wide range of vertebrate
species (including fish and marine mammals) (Frye et al. 2012). The sources of these chem-
icals in marine environments may be linked to leachates from plastic debris (i.e., chemicals
such as flame retardants, phthalates, and phenols may leak out of plastic objects into marine

Nanoplastics are particles that range in size from 1 to 1000 nm, or 109 to 106 m. For comparison, a strand
3

of human DNA is 2.5 nm in diameter and a human hair is approximately 80,000–100,000 nm wide.
320 B. Carney Almroth and H. Eggert

waters) or diffuse sources (e.g., wastewater, sewage, atmospheric deposition), which result
from the pervasive use of both plastics and chemicals worldwide.

Potential Effects of Plastics on Human Health

The direct impacts of marine plastics on human health have not been well established, and
no studies explicitly examine this issue, although plastic debris has been identified as a
potential human health issue (Vethaak and Leslie 2016). For example, plastic products may
cause direct harm when plastic bags block drainage pathways and lead to rising floodwaters
or when plastic debris provides breeding grounds for mosquitos (Gubler and Clark 1996).
In addition, it has been shown that microplastics are colonized by microbes (Zettler,
Mincer, and Amaral-Zettler 2013), including potential pathogens (Kirstein et al. 2016).
Microplastics may also affect human health due to particle toxicity (Rist et al. 2018), and
microplastics are increasingly being found in water sources and human food, including
seafood (Rochman et al. 2015).
Exposure to the chemicals in plastic products does have human health effects
(Thompson et al. 2009). Chemicals in plastics have been associated with disease and
pathologies, including endocrine disruption, cancers, developmental disorders, and repro-
ductive abnormalities (Trasande et al. 2015). In fact, chemical exposure is the most rig-
orously studied human health impact of plastics. For example, humans are exposed
through the additives and contaminants in plastic materials that come in contact with
food (e.g., packaging, storage containers, utensils) (Groh et al. 2018), children’s toys
(Guney and Zagury 2014), and electronics (Zeng et al. 2016). There is some evidence
that microplastics may act as vectors, transferring chemicals from the marine environment
into organisms that are normally consumed by humans (Rochman et al. 2014). However,
microplastics likely play a minor role in the accumulation of chemicals in the food chain
(Hartmann et al. 2017); the greatest source of exposure for humans is via chemicals in
food contact materials (European Food Safety Authority Panel on Contaminants in the
Food Chain 2016). There is also a concern that human exposure to mixtures of these
chemicals may cause nonlinear effects, and that long-term, low-level exposures may result
in a range of pandemic diseases that are not easily detected or attributed to any one cause
(Grandjean and Landrigan 2006).

Policy Issues
How should the problem of MPP be addressed? Many policies have implications for plastics
recycling, which is often proposed as a solution to MPP and as part of a future circular econ-
omy4 (e.g., ten Brink et al. 2018). Thus we will first discuss some of the technical challenges of
plastic recycling in general as well as the specific challenges plastic recycling poses for addressing
MPP. Then we will focus more closely on another policy—extended producer responsibility
(EPR)—and its potential to contribute to the management of plastic pollution.

4
A circular economy refers to the idea that the value of products, materials, and resources is maintained in
the economy for as long as possible, thus minimizing the extraction of virgin material and the generation of
waste (Boulding 1966).
Marine Plastic Pollution: Sources, Impacts, and Policy Issues 321

Challenges of Plastics Recycling

The complexity of plastic materials makes recycling difficult. More specifically, a plastic
product consists not only of the polymer itself, but also potentially thousands of chemical
compounds, of which hundreds are known to be toxic (Groh et al. 2018). These chemical
additives can be problematic in recycling programs because they reduce the quality and safety
of materials.

The challenge of maintaining material quality

To maintain material quality, recycling efforts need to be specific for each type of plastic,
including chemical additives (e.g., phthalates, flame retardants). This is a challenge, given the
many types of plastics and the lack of transparency concerning the chemical composition of
materials. For example, Leslie et al. (2016) found that a number of banned toxic substances
found in older products are actually recirculated into the consumer market. Marine plastics
that are collected for recycling will contain unknown chemical mixtures; products may have
leached additives into the surrounding oceans, but also will have absorbed environmental
toxicants (man-made toxic compounds) (Hirai et al. 2011).
Recycling is particularly problematic when applied to mixed plastics (i.e., consisting of
several different polymers), as this leads to unpredictable material qualities. Thus the market
for recycled mixed plastics is small. Because of these challenges, beach cleanup recycling
programs should focus on a limited number of polymers (e.g., PP, PE) (Pietrelli et al. 2017).

“Biodegradable” plastics
To address the problems and challenges caused by marine plastics, there have been some
efforts to promote the use of “biodegradable” plastics (although the term itself lacks a clear
definition; see Haider et al. 2019). However, these materials will generally not degrade in
marine environments (Napper and Thompson 2019). Moreover, it is unclear whether these
materials are “safer” from an ecotoxicological perspective, which can be misleading for
consumers and may actually have negative environmental impacts (Haider et al. 2019).
Biodegradable plastics are also a problem for recycling systems, because including more
than 5 percent biodegradable plastics can lead to decreased material integrity and perfor-
mance (Samper et al. 2018). Thus it is unlikely that these materials will be able to provide a
long-term solution to the plastic pollution problem.

EPR
EPR is an environmental policy that extends a producer’s responsibility for a product to the
product’s postconsumer stage. In this way, EPR shifts the responsibility upstream, from
municipalities (and taxpayers) to the producers, and it provides incentives for producers
to consider the environmental impacts of the design of their products (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development 2001). More specifically, EPR requires producers
to finance the collection, recycling, and/or the safe disposal of products.
Walls (2006) lists several environmental objectives for EPR: reduction in the use of virgin
material, provision of increased incentives for ecodesign, reduced pollution at the production
322 B. Carney Almroth and H. Eggert

Extended Producer Responsibility

Virgin Product Production Consumption Waste

material design

Recycled Recycling
material

Figure 1 EPR as a policy toward creating a circular economy.

Source: Adapted from Walls (2006).

stage, reduction of hazardous components, reduction in waste volumes, and reduction in

waste disposed. Historically, product flows have been linear, from extraction of virgin ma-
terial to generation of waste, as illustrated in the upper part of figure 1 (which shows a linear
economy, from left to right). In theory, EPR changes this linear flow, stimulating a clockwise
circular flow (see figure 1). By shifting the responsibility and the costs of managing the
postconsumer stage of a product from the municipality to producers (who pass as much
as possible of the handling costs to consumers), EPR motivates producers to reduce the costs
for handling the waste. Ideally this can achieve all six EPR objectives.
However, to reduce their costs, firms in an industry often share the costs of EPR
requirements by forming producer responsibility organizations. Such cooperation may
result in welfare losses if firms also cooperate (i.e., collude) on other issues, such as
consumer prices (Walls 2006). Sharing costs among firms also reduces the incentives
for ecodesign, which suggests a need for more individual producer responsibility (Lifset,
Atasu, and Tojo 2013).
EPR is used extensively in the European Union (EU) and is applied to various products,
including electrical and electronic equipment, batteries, accumulators and vehicles, packaging
waste, tires, waste oil, paper and card, and construction and demolition waste.5 In fact, EPR is
now an essential element of the EU’s objective of creating a circular economy. EU regulations
now include mandatory EPR schemes for all packaging and explicit targets for recycling rates
for various types of waste. The general recycling target for all packaging is 65 percent by 2025,
and for plastics the target is 50 percent by 2025. Single-use plastic cutlery, plates, straws, cotton
bud sticks made of plastic, and expanded polystyrene cups are banned beginning in 2021
(European Parliament 2019). If these targets are achieved, they will hopefully encourage the
rest of the world to undertake similar efforts so that MPP becomes a more manageable problem.

5
Several EU countries also have voluntary producer responsibility systems for farm plastics, medicines and
medical waste, plastic bags, photochemicals and chemicals, newspapers, refrigerants, pesticides and herbi-
cides, lamps and lightbulbs and fittings.
Marine Plastic Pollution: Sources, Impacts, and Policy Issues 323

Research Priorities
As with so many environmental issues, addressing the problem of MPP will require multidisci-
plinary research and cross-boundary cooperation. Our review of the current state of knowledge
concerning the environmental and economic aspects of MPP has helped us identify several
priorities for research on plastics pollution in general and MPP in particular, including

. Development of polymers that are safer and more easily disposed of or recycled. This
concerns both polymers and chemical additives. Research should focus on polymer
chemistry and recycling techniques, as well as policies that restrict the use of compounds
known to be toxic (i.e., which cause negative effects on marine ecosystems or human
health). Policy should also focus on increasing transparency concerning the use of
polymers and chemical additives to ensure safety. This information will facilitate the
use of recycled plastics in additional products.
. Further evaluation of environmental and health impacts of marine plastics, micro-
plastics, and nanoplastics. This includes the potential implications of new materials and
new applications (because new uses introduce new risks). Further research is also needed
on the impact of plastics (including microplastics) and associated chemicals on food
production, aquaculture, agriculture, and food safety.
. Examination of nudges, norms, and longevity of behavioral changes. Behavioral eco-
nomics has identified several important ways to influence behavior (Sunstein and Thaler
2009). Thus an important task for multidisciplinary research is to examine how to apply
these findings to the issue of plastic pollution (Alpizar et al. n.d.), including the technical
challenges of plastics recycling and the design of specific policies to reduce MPP.
. Further analysis of EPR. Legal change combined with mandatory EPR for various
plastics has been a successful strategy for the EU, but much more can be done to improve
the results from using EPR. In particular, the analysis of various economic approaches to
improve incentives for ecodesign, to stimulate both recycling and reuse, and to ensure
that EPR targets are met at the lowest possible cost are all important areas for future
research.

References
Abbott, J. K., and U. R. Sumaila. 2019. Reducing framework for designing behavioral & economic
marine plastic pollution: policy insights from policy tools to reduce marine plastic debris.
economics. Review of Environmental Economics Unpublished manuscript.
and Policy 13:327–36. Andrady, A. L. 2011. Microplastics in the marine
Addamo, A. M., P. Laroche, and G. Hanke. 2017. environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin
Top marine beach litter items in Europe. EUR 29249 62:1596–1605.
EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the Ayres, R. U., and A. V. Kneese. 1969. Production,
European Union. consumption, and externalities. American
Alpizar, F., F. Carlsson, R. Daniels, T. Ho, M. J. Economic Review 59:282–97.
Torres, Z. Nie, G. M. L. Castillo, C. Salazar, B. Boulding, K. E. 1966. The economics of the coming
Tibesigwa, M. Visser, and S. Wahdera. n.d. A spaceship Earth. In Environmental quality in a
324 B. Carney Almroth and H. Eggert

growing economy, ed. H. Jarrett, 3–14. Baltimore: Gubler, D. J., and G. G. Clark. 1996. Community
Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins involvement in the control of Aedes aegypti. Acta
University Press. Tropica 61:169–79.
Burns, E. E., and A. B. A. Boxall. 2018. Guney, M., and G. J. Zagury. 2014. Children’s ex-
Microplastics in the aquatic environment: evi- posure to harmful elements in toys and low-cost
dence for or against adverse impacts and major jewelry: characterizing risks and developing a
knowledge gaps. Environmental Toxicology and comprehensive approach. Journal of Hazardous
Chemistry 37:2776–96. Materials 271(Suppl C):321–30.
Eunomia. 2016. Plastics in the Marine Haider, T. P., C. Völker, J. Kramm, K. Landfester,
Environment. Bristol: Eunomia Research & and F. R. Wurm. 2019. Plastics of the future? The
Consulting Ltd. impact of biodegradable polymers on the envi-
European Food Safety Authority Panel on ronment and on society. Angewandte Chemie
Contaminants in the Food Chain. 2016. Presence International Edition 58:50–62.
of microplastics and nanoplastics in food, with Hartmann, N. B., S. Rist, J. Bodin, L. H. S.
particular focus on seafood. EFSA Journal Jensen, S. N. Schmidt, P. Mayer, A. Meibom, and
14(6):e04501. A. Baun. 2017. Microplastics as vectors for en-
European Parliament. 2019. Available from http:// vironmental contaminants: exploring sorption,
www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/ desorption, and transfer to biota. Integrated
20190321IPR32111/parliament-seals-ban-on- Environmental Assessment and Management
throwaway-plastics-by-2021 (Accessed May 12, 13:488–93.
2019). Hermabessiere, L., A. Dehaut, I. Paul-Pont, C.
Frye, C., E. Bo, G. Calamandrei, L. Calza, F. Dessı- Lacroix, R. Jezequel, P. Soudant, and G. Duflos.
Fulgheri, M. Fernandez, L. Fusani, O. Kah, M. 2017. Occurrence and effects of plastic additives on
Kajta, Y. Le Page, H. B. Patisaul, A. Venerosi, A. K. marine environments and organisms: a review.
Wojtowicz, and G. C. Panzica. 2012. Endocrine Chemosphere 182:781–93.
disrupters: a review of some sources, effects, and Hidalgo-Ruz, V., L. Gutow, R. C. Thompson, and
mechanisms of actions on behaviour and neuro- M. Thiel. 2012. Microplastics in the marine envi-
endocrine systems. Journal of Neuroendocrinology ronment: a review of the methods used for iden-
24:144–59. tification and quantification. Environmental
GESAMP. 2015. Sources, fate and effects of micro- Science & Technology 46:3060–75.
plastics in the marine environment: a global assess- Hirai, H., H. Takada, Y. Ogata, R. Yamashita, K.
ment. London: International Maritime Mizukawa, M. Saha, C. Kwan, C. Moore, H. Gray,
Organization. D. Laursen, E. R. Zettler, J. W. Farrington, C. M.
Grandjean, P., and P. J. Landrigan. 2006. Reddy, E. E. Peacock, M. W. Ward. 2011. Organic
Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemi- micropollutants in marine plastics debris from the
cals. Lancet 368:2167–78. open ocean and remote and urban beaches. Marine
Gregory, M. R. 2009. Environmental implications Pollution Bulletin 62:1683–92.
of plastic debris in marine settings—entanglement, Jambeck, Jenna R., Roland Geyer, Chris Wilcox,
ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking Theodore R. Siegler, Miriam Perryman, Anthony
and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of Andrady, Ramani Narayan, and Kara Lavender
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364:2013–25. Law. 2015. "Plastic waste inputs from land into the
Groh, K. J., T. Backhaus, B. Carney-Almroth, B. ocean." Science no. 347 (6223):768–771.
Geueke, P. A. Inostroza, A. Lennquist, M. Maffini, Kirstein, I. V., S. Kirmizi, A. Wichels, A. Garin-
H. A. Leslie, D. Slunge, L. Trasande, M. Warhurst, Fernandez, R. Erler, M. Löder, and G. Gerdts. 2016.
and J. Muncke. 2018. Chemicals associated with Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for potentially
plastic packaging: inventory and hazards. PeerJ pathogenic Vibrio spp. on microplastic particles.
Preprints 6:e27036v1. Marine Environmental Research 120:1–8.
Marine Plastic Pollution: Sources, Impacts, and Policy Issues 325

Lebreton, L., B. Slat, F. Ferrari, B. Sainte-Rose, J. Rochman, C. M., M. A. Browne, A. J. Underwood,

Aitken, R. Marthouse, S. Hajbane, S. Cunsolo, A. J. A. van Franeker, R. C. Thompson, and L. A.
Schwarz, A. Levivier, K. Noble, P. Debeljak, H. Amaral-Zettler. 2016. The ecological impacts of
Maral, R. Schoeneich-Argent, R. Brambini, and J. marine debris: unraveling the demonstrated evi-
Reisser. 2018. Evidence that the Great Pacific dence from what is perceived. Ecology 97:302–12.
Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Rochman, C. M., T. Kurobe, I. Flores, and S. Teh.
Scientific Reports 8:4666. 2014. Early warning signs of endocrine disruption
Leggett, C. G., N. Scherer, T. C. Haab, R. Bailey, J. in adult fish from the ingestion of polyethylene
P. Landrum, and A. Domanski. 2018. Assessing the with and without sorbed chemical pollutants from
economic benefits of reductions in marine debris the marine environment. Science of the Total
at Southern California beaches: a random utility Environment 493:656–61.
travel cost model. Marine Resource Economics Rochman, C. M., A. Tahir, S. L. Williams, D. V.
33:133–53. Baxa, R. Lam, J. T. Miller, F.-C. Teh, S.
Leslie, H. A., P. E. G. Leonards, S. H. Brandsma, J. Werorilangi, and S. J. Teh. 2015. Anthropogenic
de Boer, and N. Jonkers. 2016. Propelling plastics debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from
into the circular economy — weeding out the textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human con-
toxics first. Environment International 94:230–34. sumption. Scientific Reports no. 5:14340.
Lifset, R., A. Atasu, and N. Tojo. 2013. Extended Samper, D. M., D. Bertomeu, P. M. Arrieta, M. J.
producer responsibility. Journal of Industrial Ferri, and J. L
opez-Martınez. 2018. Interference of
Ecology 17:162–66. biodegradable plastics in the polypropylene recy-
Maphoto/Pravettoni, R. 2018. Global plastic pro- cling process. Materials 11(10):1886.
duction and future trends. Grid-Arendal. http:// Schmidt, C., T. Krauth, and S. Wagner. 2017.
www.grida.no/resources/6923. Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea.
Napper, I. E., and R. C. Thompson. 2019. Environmental Science & Technology 51:12246–53.
Environmental deterioration of biodegradable, Sunstein, C., and R. H. Thaler. 2009. Nudge: im-
oxo-biodegradable, compostable, and conven- proving decisions about health, wealth, and happi-
tional plastic carrier bags in the sea, soil, and open- ness. New York: Penguin Books.
air over a 3-year period. Environmental Science & ten Brink, P., J.-P. Schweitzer, E. Watkins, C.
Technology 53:4775–83. Janssens, M. De Smet, H. Leslie, and F. Galgani.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 2018. Circular economy measures to keep plastics
Development. 2001. Extended producer responsi- and their value in the economy, avoid waste and
bility: a guidance manual for governments. Paris: reduce marine litter. Economics Discussion
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Papers 2018-3, Kiel Institute for the World
Development. Economy.
Pietrelli, L., G. Poeta, C. Battisti, and M. Sighicelli. Thompson, R. C., C. J. Moore, F. S. vom Saal, and
2017. Characterization of plastic beach debris fi- S. H. Swan. 2009. Plastics, the environment and
nalized to its removal: a proposal for a recycling human health: current consensus and future
scheme. Environmental Science and Pollution trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Research 24:16536–42. Society B: Biological Sciences 364:2153–66.
PlasticsEurope. 2017. Plastics – the facts 2017: an Trasande, L., R. T. Zoeller, U. Hass, A.
analysis of European plastics production, demand Kortenkamp, P. Grandjean, J. P. Myers, J.
and waste data. Brussels: PlasticsEurope. DiGangi, M. Bellanger, R. Hauser, J. Legler, N. E.
Rist, S., B. C. Almroth, N. B. Hartmann, and T. M. Skakkebaek, and J. J. Heindel. 2015. Estimating
Karlsson. 2018. A critical perspective on early burden and disease costs of exposure to endocrine-
communications concerning human health disrupting chemicals in the European Union.
aspects of microplastics. Science of the Total Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Environment 626:720–26. 100:1245–55.
326 B. Carney Almroth and H. Eggert

Vethaak, A. D., and H. A. Leslie. 2016. Plastic de- marine organisms: a review. Environmental
bris is a human health issue. Environmental Science Pollution 178:483–92.
& Technology 50:6825–26. Zeng, X., X. Xu, H. M. Boezen, and X. Huo. 2016.
Walls, M. A. 2006. Extended producer responsi- Children with health impairments by heavy metals
bility and product design: economic theory and in an e-waste recycling area. Chemosphere
selected case studies. RFF Discussion Paper 06-08. 148:408–15.
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ Zettler, E. R., T. J. Mincer, and L. A. Amaral-
abstract¼901661 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ Zettler. 2013. Life in the “plastisphere”: micro-
ssrn.901661. bial communities on plastic marine debris.
Wright, S. L., R. C. Thompson, and T. S. Galloway. Environmental Science & Technology
2013. The physical impacts of microplastics on 47:7137–46.