[Special Feature: Toward a Circular Economy and Society] Yutaka Kameda: Challenges for a Circular Society Revealed by Global Microplastic Pollution

2022/12/05

The problem of plastic emissions into the environment, much like the issue of climate change caused by global warming, is considered an urgent problem to be solved by many countries, and intergovernmental negotiations aimed at concluding an international treaty have begun. However, it is ironic that plastic was originally celebrated socially as a magic material that brought about "Throwaway Living," as featured in the 1955 American magazine LIFE, and the current situation is the result of that lifestyle having steadily spread throughout the world.

However, it is by no means rare in history for materials or chemical substances that were once considered magical (such as dioxins, Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB), Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), etc.) to have their high risks to humans and wildlife clarified decades later, leading to restrictions on their use. Yet, it is becoming clear that conventional chemical substance regulations and measures are insufficient for the current plastic problem because it involves pollutant characteristics and social backgrounds different from those of past chemical substances. Below, from the perspective of a scientist who serves on committees for relevant ministries while also conducting surveys, analysis, and shaking test tubes at the front lines, I would like to consider the new challenges for a circular society regarding microplastics.

Currently, the plastic problem in Japan centers on plastic waste such as shopping bags and PET bottles. However, plastics on Earth are distinguished by size—though definitions vary slightly among experts—into macroplastics (25 mm or more), mesoplastics (5 mm to less than 25 mm), microplastics (1 μm to less than 5 mm), and nanoplastics (less than 1 μm), and are considered distinct entities based on their toxicity and environmental behavior. The focus of discussions on circular societies in Japan today is on "macro, meso, and microplastics of 0.3 mm or larger." However, in the EU, where research on plastic toxicity in aquatic environments such as oceans is about 15 years ahead of Japan, microplastics ranging from tens of micrometers down to 1 μm are considered the most concerning in terms of toxicity and risk. In other words, there is a significant gap between the thinking of the EU, which is at the forefront of global microplastic regulation, and that of our country.

I feel that the cause of this gap lies in a way of thinking unique to Japanese administration. Specifically, because Japan has the results of over 10 years of surveys on microplastics of 0.3 mm or larger in Japanese coastal waters, there is a "conservative mindset" that suggests there is no need to investigate finer microplastics now. Furthermore, another cause may be the "Japanese mindset of turning a blind eye to inconvenient truths (things inconvenient for administration or the economy) despite the latest scientific findings," failing to incorporate information from the EU, where the dangers of fine microplastics have been a concern since that time. As a result, Japan developed a vision for a circular society focused on large-scale plastics.

Consequently, the EU invested budgets into the unknown and accumulated research results, leading to the truth that microplastics finer than 0.3 mm pose a higher ecological risk, and they are aiming for a vision of a circular society based on this. Recently, they have taken a world-leading position by considering EU directives regarding the manufacture and use of microplastics, a level of action that will significantly transform current supply chains. For Japan to propose a circular society to the world in the future, it will likely require an outward-looking proactiveness and steady effort to understand a world with different concepts without hesitation, evaluate them scientifically, and then hybridize them.

The current scientific capabilities of environmental science in Japan and its system of cooperation with the administration may be unable to respond to global environmental problems that exhibit chronic toxicity or non-linear behavior, such as the plastic problem and global warming. A typical example of this was seen in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which seems to correspond to the microplastic problem to an almost amusing degree.

For example, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid scientific analysis of the virus (such as genomic analysis) was conducted overseas, and the development of PCR technology and determination technology using immune antibody reactions to track the number of infected people was actively pursued. Japan showed similar movements but did not lead the world; instead, discussions focused mostly on the drawbacks, such as false positives in immune antibody reactions and PCR, and it took a long time to start comprehensive surveys of the number of infected people. Furthermore, while PCR testing was reported as a "high-level technology" in Japan, from my perspective as someone with analytical experience, it is merely a technique that an undergraduate student could master in a month. Seeing such errors pass unchallenged made me feel the low scientific literacy of the citizens and the terrifying nature of a Japan that does not question the mass media.

In fact, the survey and analysis technology for microplastics in Japan is in exactly the same situation. That is, Japan is still unable to conduct sufficient microplastic surveys, and furthermore, there are only a few scientists in Japan, including myself, who can easily analyze sizes of tens of micrometers. Under such circumstances, is it possible to formulate correct policies? Incidentally, around 2018, when microplastic research first gained serious attention in Japan, the general analytical method involved separating suspended solids in seawater by density using a separatory funnel or similar tool, and then an analyst would pick out things thought to be plastic one by one with tweezers to identify the material (Figure 1). This method can clearly only measure items of a size that can be picked up with tweezers, around 1 mm. Moreover, since it is a task of picking up things smaller than a grain of rice, analytical precision is low, and it wastes labor and time. Sadly, this method is still the mainstream in Japan today, and we are not investigating or grasping all microplastics. And only in the last few years has there been a struggle to quickly build a system capable of analyzing the fine microplastics that the EU considers important.

Fortunately, because I had been fixated on fine microplastics since that time, I was considering the acquisition of expensive equipment that could be expected to analyze them. However, I received many cold opinions such as, "We acknowledge the importance of fine microplastics, but it is technically difficult," and "Is the value of the development effort worth the expensive equipment (15 million yen)? We see no value in research on fine microplastics with low analytical feasibility," making it extremely difficult to get adopted for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Kakenhi). This lack of social challenging spirit and the emphasis on short-sighted efficiency are highly likely to have caused the current delay in Japan's microplastic policy.

Fortunately, I did not give up and presented my research plan to the upper management of an American manufacturer, negotiated directly for an equipment rental, and eventually obtained the equipment after petitioning the university president for the purchase. Ultimately, this persistence paid off; I succeeded in developing an automated analysis method for fine microplastics in 2020 and publishing a paper on it in 2021, and I am now one of the few researchers in the world capable of routine measurement of fine microplastics.

Generally, environmental problems are caused by substances whose physical properties and ecological impacts are unknown. The first step toward a solution is grasping the current situation through analytical technology and surveys/analysis. Without this, no environmental problem can be solved. Therefore, as my case illustrates, it is important to build an active basic research system. Japan should possess the foresight, strategy, and expertise to understand and provide large-scale financial support for basic research, as the EU and the US do. Furthermore, even regarding financial support, if several tens of millions of yen were provided to each of about 10 researchers in the country for one or two years, Japanese scientists would surely succeed in developing analytical methods. Compared to the construction costs of sports facilities for large-scale events, how inexpensive this would be.

There is also the opinion that applying overseas technology is more efficient than independent development in Japan (that we don't need to be number one). However, as I realized during the development of this microplastic survey and analysis method, we must not forget that the knowledge and experience gained through repeated failures until completion form the foundation for developing the next new technologies, such as microplastics of a few micrometers or nanoplastics.

In this way, similar to the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the important elements regarding the construction of an unknown, new circular society begin with the development of steady technology for grasping the current situation, the system for it, and the acquisition of accurate data. Only with these can strong philosophies and ideals be born, long-term visions and milestones become clear, and quantitative consideration of achievement goals, including uncertainty, become possible, bringing the construction of a circular society steadily closer. Currently, Japan has a poor understanding of the importance of basic data, and policies are decided by a "voice from on high" in a state where the vision is unclear and policy effects cannot be quantified. Furthermore, when unfavorable results emerge, a negative spiral occurs where the situation is settled with the catchphrase "unforeseen," like a magic wand, without any quantitative explanation of the expected range.

In EU policy, scenario analysis of measures considering various uncertainties is mandatory, and quantitative prediction of policy outcomes is taken for granted. Therefore, even if results deviate significantly from predictions, quantitative investigation of the cause and new measures to correct it become objectively and scientifically possible. I am currently cooperating with the EU on international measurement technology for microplastics, and what I can say from that experience is that for Japan to build a new circular society and propose it to the EU and the world, it needs a philosophy and ideal vision that convinces them, as well as the objectivity and quantifiability to make them understand it.

In Japanese environmental policy, there is a history of emphasizing "participation" and "awareness" at the citizen level, but it is difficult to convince the world with this alone. We must not forget that what is ultimately important is the substantial effect of the policy—namely, the reduction of the environmental load and risk of plastics. For that reason, a quantitative grasp of the current situation is vital. There are still many local governments that "prohibit" microplastic surveys on the grounds that they stir up public anxiety; Japan, which is truly turning a blind eye to the problem, should re-examine itself and grow.

In the previous section, I described Japan's challenges, but since that alone would end as a scientist's "howling in the wind," my group has been building a system with Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK Line) since 2020 to conduct marine surveys of microplastics led by the private sector, and we have begun the world's first grasp of the current distribution of fine microplastics in the ocean at a global level.

In fact, there are many unknown points regarding the distribution of microplastic pollution in the ocean. There are two main reasons for this. One is that analytical methods differ for each research institution, making it impossible to compare concentrations and plastic compositions between locations at a global level. The other is the small number of survey points due to the high cost of marine surveys (tens of millions of yen per day). To solve these, we built a private sector network to collect microplastics along shipping routes using ocean-going trade vessels of the NYK Group, which is active in marine conservation. The collected samples are automatically and rapidly measured for fine microplastics in this laboratory, and the data is released to the world. Traditionally, the government has been the main actor in environmental conservation, but a global-level survey led by private companies as volunteers can be called a world-first historical event. An example of the results is shown in Figure 2.

This world-first survey revealed results different from our expectations. For example, the concentration distribution of microplastics in the ocean was remarkably non-uniform, ranging from 21.6 to 4660 particles/m³. In particular, sea areas affected by the Kuroshio Current, the North Atlantic Current, and the California Current showed high concentrations, and the composition of microplastics varied greatly by gyre. These results suggest that movement between gyres is small and that sources and their characteristics differ by region. In other words, for marine microplastic policies, coordinated measures among multiple countries involved in each gyre are essential. This means that no matter how much the EU leads the world, the distant Kuroshio Current region needs policies implemented primarily by Asian and Oceanian countries, and that is precisely where Japan's leadership can be expected.

Furthermore, the creation of a new international body that transcends the unit of the nation and the effectiveness of marine conservation through policies centered on that body are also interesting. This is because, under current maritime law, surveys in Exclusive Economic Zones by research institutions of other countries and the disclosure of that data to other countries require permission, even if it is environmental information (though plastic is marine waste). Therefore, to protect the "Seven Seas," a foundation of harmonious high-precision survey and analysis methods, funds for implementing survey measures, and sharing of survey results are essential, and a new international organization different from conventional ones is required. Thus, we are currently contacting researchers around the world to attempt the creation of a new international organization. For global-level environmental problems such as global warming and the plastic problem, it may be acceptable to have a new organization with strong ideals and powerful execution based on scientific knowledge, rather than relying on nations or existing international organizations. This might be the key to solving global-level environmental problems.

Above, I have stated my personal views from the standpoint of a research scientist. The problem of plastic environmental pollution has permeated our lives to a level where its removal is essential, and because the sources of emissions into the environment are diverse and unknown, all industries must respond effectively and harmoniously with the final goal of reducing the total environmental load. Furthermore, a strong and reliable leader to coordinate these efforts will be necessary. Moreover, a leader will be needed not just at the domestic level, but at the Asian and even global levels. And perhaps the new leaders for future environmental problems need not be governments or international organizations trembling unstably on political power balances, but rather private sector vitality or scientists who possess the power of execution and sufficient funds.