Solving the world’s microplastics problem: 4 solutions cities and states are trying after global treaty talks collapsed

Sarah J. Morath, Wake Forest University Microplastics seem to be everywhere – in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat. They have turned up in human organs, blood, testicles, placentas and even brains. While the full health consequences of that exposure are not yet known, researchers are exploring potential links between microplastics and negative health effects such as male infertility, inflammation, liver disease and other metabolic problems, and heart attack or stroke. Countries have tried for the past few years to write a global plastics treaty that might reduce human exposure to plastic particles and their harm to wildlife and ecosystems, but the latest negotiations collapsed in August 2025. Most plastics are made with chemicals from fossil fuels, and oil-producing countries, including the U.S., have opposed efforts that might limit plastics production. While U.S. and global solutions seem far off, policies to limit harm from microplastics are gaining traction at the state and local levels.

As an environmental lawyer and author of the book “Our Plastic Problem and How to Solve It,” I see four promising policy strategies.

Banning added microplastics: Glitter, confetti and turf

Some microplastics are deliberately manufactured to be small and added to products. Think glitter in cosmetics, confetti released at celebrations and plastic pellet infill, used between the blades in turf fields to provide cushion and stability. These tiny plastics inevitably end up in the environment, making their way into the air, water and soil, where they can be inhaled or ingested by humans and other organisms. California has proposed banning plastic glitter in personal care products. No other state has pursued glitter, however some cities, such as Boca Raton, Florida, have restricted plastic confetti. In 2023, the European Union passed a ban on all nonbiodegradable plastic glitter as well as microplastics intentionally added to products.

Artificial turf has also come under scrutiny. Although turf is popular for its low maintenance, these artificial fields shed microplastics. European regulators targeted turf infill through the same law for glitter, and municipalities in Connecticut and Massachusetts are considering local bans.

Rhode Island’s proposed law, which would ban all intentionally added microplastics by 2029, is broad enough to include glitter, turf and confetti.

Reducing secondary microplastics: Textiles and tires

Most microplastics don’t start small; rather, they break off from larger items. Two of the biggest culprits of secondary microplastics are synthetic clothing and vehicle tires. A study in 2019 estimated that textiles accounted for 35% of all microplastics entering the ocean – shed from polyester, nylon or acrylic clothing when washed. Microplastics can carry chemicals and other pollutants, which can bioaccumulate up the food chain. In an effort to capture the fibers before they are released, France will require filters in all new washing machines by 2029.

Several U.S. states, including Oregon, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, are considering similar legislation. California came close in 2023, passing legislation to require microfiber filters for washing machines, but it was ultimately vetoed due to concerns about the cost of adding the filters. Even so, data submitted in support of the bill showed that such filters could cut microplastic releases from laundry by nearly 80%. Some states, such as California and New York, are considering warnings on clothing made with synthetic fibers that would alert consumers to the shedding of microplastics. Tires are another large source of microplastics. As they wear down, tires release millions of tons of particles annually, many of which end up in rivers and oceans. These particles include 6PPD-quinone, a chemical linked to mass die-offs of salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

One approach would be to redesign the product to include safer alternatives. California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control recently added 6PPD-quinone to its priority product list, requiring manufacturers to explain how they will either redesign their product or remove it from the market.

Regulating disposal

Microplastics can also be dealt with at the disposal stage. Disposable wipes, for example, contain plastic fibers but are still flushed down toilets, clogging pipes and releasing microplastics. States such as New York, California and Michigan have passed “no-flush” labeling laws requiring clear warnings on packaging, alerting consumers to dispose of these wipes another way. Construction sites also contribute to local microplastic pollution. Towns along the New Jersey shore have enacted ordinances that require builders to prevent microplastics from entering storm drains that can carry them to waterways and the ocean. Such methods include using saws and drills with vacuums to reduce the release of microplastics and cleaning worksites each day. Oregon and Colorado have new producer responsibility laws that require manufacturers that sell products in plastic packaging to fund recycling programs. California requires manufacturers of expanded polystyrene plastic products to ensure increasing levels of recycling of their products.

Statewide strategies and disclosure laws

Some states are experimenting with broader, statewide strategies based on research. California’s statewide microplastic strategy, adopted in 2022, is the first of its kind. It requires standardized testing for microplastics in drinking water and sets out a multiyear road map for reducing pollution from textiles, tires and other sources. California has also begun treating microplastics themselves as a “chemical of concern.” That shifts disclosure and risk assessment obligations to manufacturers, rather than leaving the burden on consumers or local governments. Other states are pursuing statewide strategies. Virginia, New Jersey and Illinois have considered bills to monitor microplastics in drinking water. A Minnesota bill would study microplastics in meat and poultry, and the findings and recommendations could influence future consumer safety regulations in the state. State and local initiatives in the U.S. and abroad – be they bans, labels, disclosures or studies – can help keep microplastics out of our environment and lay the foundation for future large-scale regulation.

Federal ripple effects

These state-level initiatives are starting to influence policymakers in Washington. In June 2025, the U.S. House passed the bipartisan WIPPES Act, modeled on state “no-flush” laws, and sent it to the Senate for consideration. Another bipartisan bill was introduced in July 2025, the Microplastic Safety Act, which would direct the FDA to research microplastics’ human health impacts, particularly on children and reproductive systems. Proposals to require microfiber filters in washing machines, first tested at the state level, are also being considered at the federal level. This pattern is not new. A decade ago, state bans on wash-off cosmetic microbeads paved the way for the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, the only federal law to date that directly bans a type of microplastic. That history suggests today’s state and local actions could again catalyze broader national reform.

Small steps with big impact

Microplastics are a daunting challenge: They come from many sources, are hard to clean up once released, and pose risks to our health and the environment. While global treaties and sweeping federal legislation remain out of reach, local and state governments are showing a path forward. These microsolutions may not eliminate microplastics, but they can reduce pollution in immediate and measurable ways, creating momentum for larger reforms. Sarah J. Morath, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for International Affairs, Wake Forest University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

To spur the construction of affordable, resilient homes, the future is concrete

Pablo Moyano Fernández, Washington University in St. Louis Wood is, by far, the most common material used in the U.S. for single-family home construction. But wood construction isn’t engineered for long-term durability, and it often underperforms, particularly in the face of increasingly common extreme weather events. In response to these challenges, I believe mass-produced concrete homes can offer affordable, resilient housing in the U.S. By leveraging the latest innovations of the precast concrete industry, this type of homebuilding can meet the needs of a changing world.

Wood’s rise to power

Over 90% of the new homes built in the U.S. rely on wood framing. Wood has deep historical roots as a building material in the U.S., dating back to the earliest European settlers who constructed shelters using the abundant native timber. One of the most recognizable typologies was the log cabin, built from large tree trunks notched at the corners for structural stability.

In the 1830s, wood construction underwent a significant shift with the introduction of balloon framing. This system used standardized, sawed lumber and mass-produced nails, allowing much smaller wood components to replace the earlier heavy timber frames. It could be assembled by unskilled labor using simple tools, making it both accessible and economical. In the early 20th century, balloon framing evolved into platform framing, which became the dominant method. By using shorter lumber lengths, platform framing allowed each floor to be built as a separate working platform, simplifying construction and improving its efficiency. The proliferation and evolution of wood construction helped shape the architectural and cultural identity of the nation. For centuries, wood-framed houses have defined the American idea of home – so much so that, even today, when Americans imagine a house, they typically envision one built of wood.

Today, light-frame wood construction dominates the U.S. residential market. Wood is relatively affordable and readily available, offering a cost-effective solution for homebuilding. Contractors are familiar with wood construction techniques. In addition, building codes and regulations have long been tailored to wood-frame systems, further reinforcing their prevalence in the housing industry. Despite its advantages, wood light-frame construction presents several important limitations. Wood is vulnerable to fire. And in hurricane- and tornado-prone regions, wood-framed homes can be damaged or destroyed. Wood is also highly susceptible to water-related issues, such as swelling, warping and structural deterioration caused by leaks or flooding. Vulnerability to termites, mold, rot and mildew further compromise the longevity and safety of wood-framed structures, especially in humid or poorly ventilated environments.

The case for concrete

Meanwhile, concrete has revolutionized architecture and engineering over the past century. In my academic work, I’ve studied, written and taught about the material’s many advantages. The material offers unmatched strength and durability, while also allowing design flexibility and versatility. It’s low-cost and low-maintenance, and it has high thermal mass properties, which refers to the material’s ability to absorb and store heat during the day, and slowly release it during the cooler nights. This can lower heating and cooling costs. Properly designed concrete enclosures offer exceptional performance against a wide range of hazards. Concrete can withstand fire, flooding, mold, insect infestation, earthquakes, hail, hurricanes and tornadoes. It’s commonly used for home construction in many parts of the world, such as Europe, Japan, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, as well as India and other parts of Southeast Asia. However, despite their multiple benefits, concrete single-family homes are rare in the U.S. That’s because most concrete structures are built using a process called cast-in-place. In this technique, the concrete is formed and poured directly at the construction site. The method relies on built-in-place molds. After the concrete is cast and cured over several days, the formwork is removed. This process is labor-intensive and time-consuming, and it often produces considerable waste. This is particularly an issue in the U.S., where labor is more expensive than in other parts of the world. The material and labor cost can be as high as 35% to 60% of the total construction cost. Portland cement, the binding agent in concrete, requires significant energy to produce, resulting in considerable carbon dioxide emissions. However, this environmental cost is often offset by concrete’s durability and long service life. Concrete’s design flexibility and structural integrity make it particularly effective for large-scale structures. So in the U.S., you’ll see it used for large commercial buildings, skyscrapers and most highways, bridges, dams and other critical infrastructure projects. But when it comes to single-family homes, cast-in-place concrete poses challenges to contractors. There are the higher initial construction costs, along with a lack of subcontractor expertise. For these reasons, most builders and contractors stick with what they know: the wood frame.

A new model for home construction

Precast concrete, however, offers a promising alternative. Unlike cast-in-place concrete, precast systems allow for off-site manufacturing under controlled conditions. This improves the quality of the structure, while also reducing waste and labor. The CRETE House, a prototype I worked on in 2017 alongside a team at Washington University in St. Louis, showed the advantages of a precast home construction. To build the precast concrete home, we used ultra-high-performance concrete, one of the latest advances in the concrete industry. Compared with conventional concrete, it’s about six times stronger, virtually impermeable and more resistant to freeze-thaw cycles. Ultra-high-performance concrete can last several hundred years. The strength of the CRETE House was tested by shooting a piece of wood at 120 mph (193 kph) to simulate flying debris from an F5 tornado. It was unable to breach the wall, which was only 2 inches (5.1 centimeters) thick.

Building on the success of the CRETE House, I designed the Compact House as a solution for affordable, resilient housing. The house consists of a modular, precast concrete system of “rings” that can be connected to form the entire structure – floors, walls and roofs – creating airtight, energy-efficient homes. A series of different rings can be chosen from a catalog to deliver different models that can range in size from 270 to 990 square feet (25 to 84 square meters). The precast rings can be transported on flatbed trailers and assembled into a unit in a single day, drastically reducing on-site labor, time and cost. Since they’re built using durable concrete forms, the house can be easily mass-produced. When precast concrete homes are mass-produced, the cost can be competitive with traditional wood-framed homes. Furthermore, the homes are designed to last far beyond 100 years – much longer than typical wood structures – while significantly lowering utility bills, maintenance expenses and insurance premiums. The project is also envisioned as an open-source design. This means that the molds – which are expensive – are available for any precast producer to use and modify.

Leveraging a network that’s already in place

Two key limitations of precast concrete construction are the size and weight of the components and the distance to the project site. Precast elements must comply with standard transportation regulations, which impose restrictions on both size and weight in order to pass under bridges and prevent road damage. As a result, components are typically limited to dimensions that can be safely and legally transported by truck. Each of the Compact House’s pieces are small enough to be transported in standard trailers. Additionally, transportation costs become a major factor beyond a certain range. In general, the practical delivery radius from a precast plant to a construction site is 500 miles (805 kilometers). Anything beyond that becomes economically unfeasible. However, the infrastructure to build precast concrete homes is already largely in place. Since precast concrete is often used for office buildings, schools, parking complexes and large apartments buildings, there’s already an extensive national network of manufacturing plants capable of producing and delivering components within that 500-mile radius. There are other approaches to build homes with concrete: Homes can use concrete masonry units, which are similar to cinder blocks. This is a common technique around the world. Insulated concrete forms involve rigid foam blocks that are stacked like Lego bricks and are then filled with poured concrete, creating a structure with built-in insulation. And there’s even 3D-printed concrete, a rapidly evolving technology that is in its early stages of development. However, none of these use precast concrete modules – the rings in my prototypes – and therefore require substantially longer on-site time and labor. To me, precast concrete homes offer a compelling vision for the future of affordable housing. They signal a generational shift away from short-term construction and toward long-term value – redefining what it means to build for resilience, efficiency and equity in housing.

This article is part of a series centered on envisioning ways to deal with the housing crisis. Pablo Moyano Fernández, Assistant Professor of Architecture, Washington University in St. Louis This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Hanna D. Paton, University of Iowa The flu sickens millions of people in the U.S. every year, and the past year has been particularly tough. Although infections are trending downward, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called the winter of 2024-2025 a “high severity” season with the highest hospitalization rate in 15 years. Since early 2024, a different kind of flu called bird flu, formally known as avian influenza, has been spreading in birds as well as in cattle. The current bird flu outbreak has infected 70 Americans and caused two deaths as of April 8, 2025. Public health and infectious disease experts say the risk to people is currently low, but they have expressed concern that this strain of the bird flu virus may mutate to spread between people. As a doctoral candidate in immunology, I study how pathogens that make us sick interact with our immune system. The viruses that cause seasonal flu and bird flu are distinct but still closely related. Understanding their similarities and differences can help people protect themselves and their loved ones.

What is influenza?

The flu has long been a threat to public health. The first recorded influenza pandemic occurred in 1518, but references to illnesses possibly caused by influenza stretch back as as early as 412 B.C., to a treatise called Of the Epidemics by the Greek physician Hippocrates. Today, the World Health Organization estimates that the flu infects 1 billion people every year. Of these, 3 million to 5 million infections cause severe illness, and hundreds of thousands are fatal. Influenza is part of a large family of viruses called orthomyxoviruses. This family contains several subtypes of influenza, referred to as A, B, C and D, which differ in their genetic makeup and in the types of infections they cause. Influenza A and B pose the largest threat to humans and can cause severe disease. Influenza C causes mild disease, and influenza D is not known to infect people. Since the turn of the 20th century, influenza A has caused four pandemics. Influenza B has never caused a pandemic.

An influenza A strain called H1N1 caused the famous 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which killed about 50 million people worldwide. A related H1N1 virus was responsible for the most recent influenza A pandemic in 2009, commonly referred to as the swine flu pandemic. In that case, scientists believe multiple different types of influenza A virus mixed their genetic information to produce a new and especially virulent strain of the virus that infected more than 60 million people in the U.S. from April 12, 2009, to April 10, 2010, and caused huge losses to the agriculture and travel industries. Both swine and avian influenza are strains of influenza A. Just as swine flu strains tend to infect pigs, avian flu strains tend to infect birds. But the potential for influenza A viruses that typically infect animals to cause pandemics in humans like the swine flu pandemic is why experts are concerned about the current avian influenza outbreak.

Seasonal flu versus bird flu

Different strains of influenza A and influenza B emerge each year from about October to May as seasonal flu. The CDC collects and analyzes data from public health and clinical labs to determine which strains are circulating through the population and in what proportions. For example, recent data shows that H1N1 and H3N2, both influenza A viruses, were responsible for the vast majority of cases this season. Standard tests for influenza generally determine whether illness is caused by an A or B strain, but not which strain specifically. Officials at the Food and Drug Administration use this information to make strain recommendations for the following season’s influenza vaccine. Although the meeting at which FDA advisers were to decide the makeup of the 2026 flu vaccine was unexpectedly canceled in late February, the FDA still released its strain recommendations to manufacturers. The recommendations do not include H5N1, the influenza A strain that causes avian flu. The number of strains that can be added into seasonal influenza vaccines is limited. Because cases of people infected with H5N1 are minimal, population-level vaccination is not currently necessary. As such, seasonal flu vaccines are not designed to protect against avian influenza. No commercially available human vaccines currently exist for avian influenza viruses.

How do people get bird flu?

Although H5N1 mainly infects birds, it occasionally infects people, too. Human cases, first reported in 1997 in Hong Kong, have primarily occurred in poultry farm workers or others who have interacted closely with infected birds. Initially identified in China in 1996, the first major outbreak of H5 family avian flu occurred in North America in 2014-2015. This 2014 outbreak was caused by the H5N8 strain, a close relative of H5N1. The first H5N1 outbreak in North America began in 2021 when infected birds carried the virus across the ocean. It then ripped through poultry farms across the continent.

In March 2024, epidemiologists identified H5N1 infections in cows on dairy farms. This is the first time that bird flu was reported to infect cows. Then, on April 1, 2024, health officials in Texas reported the first case of a person catching bird flu from infected cattle. This was the first time transmission of bird flu between mammals was documented. As of March 21, 2025, there have been 988 human cases of H5N1 worldwide since 1997, about half of which resulted in death. The current outbreak in the U.S. accounts for 70 of those infections and one death. Importantly, there have been no reports of H5N1 spreading directly from one person to another. Since avian flu is an influenza A strain, it would show up as positive on a standard rapid flu test. However, there is no evidence so far that avian flu is significantly contributing to current influenza cases. Specific testing is required to confirm that a person has avian flu. This testing is not done unless there is reason to believe the person was exposed to sick birds or other sources of infection.

How might avian flu become more dangerous?

As viruses replicate within the cells of their host, their genetic information can get copied incorrectly. Some of these genetic mutations cause no immediate differences, while others alter some key viral characteristics. Influenza viruses mutate in a special way called reassortment, which occurs when multiple strains infect the same cell and trade pieces of their genome with one another, potentially creating new, unique strains. This process prolongs the time the virus can inhabit a host before an infection is cleared. Even a slight change in a strain of influenza can result in the immune system’s inability to recognize the virus. As a result, this process forces our immune systems to build new defenses instead of using immunity from previous infections. Reassortment can also change how harmful strains are to their host and can even enable a strain to infect a different species of host. For example, strains that typically infect pigs or birds may acquire the ability to infect people. Influenza A can infect many different types of animals, including cattle, birds, pigs and horses. This means there are many strains that can intermingle to create novel strains that people’s immune systems have not encountered before – and are therefore not primed to fight. It is possible for this type of transformation to also occur in H5N1. The CDC monitors which strains of flu are circulating in order prepare for that possibility. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has a surveillance system for monitoring potential threats for spillover from birds and other animals, although this capacity may be at risk due to staff cuts in the department. These systems are critical to ensure that public health officials have the most up-to-date information on the threat that H5N1 poses to public health and can take action as early as possible when a threat is evident. Hanna D. Paton, PhD Candidate in Immunology, University of Iowa This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.