Ask the European Commission to
to legislate against microplastics

Now that the European Commission is asking whether microplastics should be classified as toxic substances, and has launched a consultation for public opinion, we cannot miss this opportunity to tighten the rules against the invisible poison that is microplastics. There are a few days left before the consultation closes.

Would you like to give your opinion? We make it easy for you: check out the answers to the consultation below and, if everything looks good to you, send them to us by indicating your name, surname and email address below†:

^{We need}your full name and email address to register you in our database and to prove to the European Commission that the responses they will receive through our partnership are indeed from different people, but your details will not be made public. You can unsubscribe at any time.

How concerned are you about the presence of these substances in European surface water bodies? Please indicate your level of concern on a scale from 1 (I am not concerned at all) to 5 (I am very concerned).

• Microplastics: 5. Microplastics are waste that can hardly be seen, but end up in our bodies either because we breathe them in or unknowingly ingest them. After ingestion, the particles can accumulate in the digestive tract and move into the body tissue, reaching the lymphatic and circulatory systems. These microplastics can concentrate metals, hydrocarbons or pesticides and even pharmaceuticals. In this way, microplastics can cause physical, chemical and microbiological toxicity and can act cumulatively. Since microplastics are also ingested by wildlife, especially marine wildlife, microplastics also damage the environment.
• Pharmaceuticals: 5. There is evidence of their effects on wildlife and they show a worrying increasing trend, e.g. in waste water.
• Substances released from household products (e.g. compounds released from plastic products, flame retardants, detergents, disinfectants, paints, etc.): 4. They are also potentially hazardous, but require a case-by-case assessment.
• Industrial chemicals (e.g. rubber chemicals, processed industrial resins): 4. They are also potentially hazardous, but require a case-by-case assessment.
• (Heavy) metals (e.g. mercury, zinc and silver): 5. Their harmful effects on health are serious and well established. Their presence in the environment is far from being reduced, due to both mining processes and the disregard of industrial products that use these heavy metals in the production process.

With regard to regulatory measures and their implementation, in your opinion, to what extent do the following issues contribute to the pollution of surface water and groundwater? Please rate each of the following options on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)

• Application

Lack of implementation and enforcement of existing legislation: 5

Lack of political interest or leadership at EU level: 3

Lack of political interest or leadership at regional/national level: 5

Non-substitution of harmful chemicals with safer alternatives: 2

Lack of mitigation or recovery measures to restore severely affected water bodies: 3

Failure to apply the precautionary and "polluter pays" principles when assessing the risks of new "emerging" substances: 5

• Funding

Lack of investment in water management and (waste) water treatment: 3

Lack of investment/incentives for emission reductions 4

Lack of incentives to take control measures (such as technological improvements) at the source of pollution: 4

To what extent do you think that EU water directives and regulations are still relevant to the needs of the following sectors and uses, at local, national and EU level? Please rate each of the following options on a scale from 1 (not at all relevant) to 5 (very relevant). Answers are valid for local, national and EU level.

• Agricultural sector: 5
• Wastewater treatment sector: 5
• Protection of biodiversity: 5
• Environmental protection: 5
• Circular economy: 5
• Health protection: 5

To what extent do you think the following strategies are effective in tackling surface and groundwater pollution? Please rate each of the following options on a scale of 1 (not at all effective) to 5 (very effective)

• EU-wide regulation to ensure that the presence and excess of pollutants is minimised through high standards: 5
• Regulation at Member State level to ensure that the presence and excess of pollutants is minimised through high standards: 4
• Control of point source pollution through (legally binding) legislation, such as the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Seveso-III Directive for the prevention of (pollution arising from) major accidents involving dangerous substances, or voluntary/negotiated agreements: 5
• Regulation of emissions from (urban) waste water treatment plants: 4
• Regulation of the application and use of pesticides and biocides: 5
• Regulation of waste management (e.g. landfills): 4
• Regulation of mining waste: 5
• Soil protection regulations: 4
• Member State enforcement to ensure that emissions of pollutants exceeding quality standards are sanctioned by dissuasive measures (e.g. penalties imposed at a level that leads to changes): 5
• Financial instruments for point sources of pollutants to minimise emissions and to implement the polluter pays principle (including extended producer responsibility schemes): 5

General justification for the scoresIn general, Member States tend to be more permissive and less strict. It is therefore more effective to have binding European regulations, the more specific and stricter the better, which is why we give the highest score to European regulations and not to those of the Member States. We also give the highest score to pesticide regulations, because diffuse agricultural pollution is hardly subject to binding standards and is increasing at an accelerated rate. Mining pollution is also of utmost importance, given that we are experiencing a new mining cycle in Europe and especially in Spain, in search of technological materials for, for example, renewable energy technologies (lithium, etc.). Equally of utmost importance is the effective and dissuasive application of the "polluter pays" principle, which has so far been increasingly applied in the urban (waste water) and industrial sectors (to a lesser extent), but is practically not applied in the agricultural sector (pollution by nitrates, pesticides, etc.).

If you would like to access the full European Commission questionnaire, you can download the this PDF.

Would you like to give your opinion?
If you agree, please send your answers indicating your name,
surname and email address below†:

^{We need}your full name and email address to register you in our database and to prove to the European Commission that the responses they will receive through our partnership are indeed from different people, but your details will not be made public. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Thank you for participating!

The answers we propose have been developed together with experts from the New Water Culture Foundation because working in collaboration always gives better results!