Reforming Global Plastics Regulation

In a discussion with The Regulatory Review, Margaret Spring discusses national and global efforts to reform plastics regulation.

Spring identifies the risks that plastics pose for marine ecosystems and human health and their disproportionate effects on countries in the global south. Drawing upon her research and advocacy experience, she shares her perspective on some of the most impactful global and domestic reform strategies that governments and international bodies can use to reduce or eliminate plastics pollution and its harmful downstream effects.

Margaret Spring is the chief conservation and science officer at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Alongside this role, she serves as a board member of the California Ocean Science Trust, a founding board member of the Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust, and the chair of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on United States Contributions to Global Ocean Plastic Waste. Spring has represented both the Aquarium and the International Science Council in ongoing negotiations for a global UN treaty on plastics pollution.

Previously, Spring was chief of staff and principal deputy undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. During her time in Washington, D.C., she also served as general counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and worked as an environmental attorney at Sidley & Austin.

The Regulatory Review: What risks do plastics pose to marine ecosystems and human health?

Margaret Spring: In 2020, I chaired a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee that documented the toll of plastic pollution on ocean wildlife—from entanglement deaths to reduced fertility and growth­­—and found that the United States generates more plastic waste than any other country, at 287 pounds per person each year. The 2022 report also found that single-use items were a major source of this plastic waste.

New research also shows that plastic harms human health across the full life cycle of plastics, from extraction to disposal. These harms fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations, including workers and children, and exposure to the chemicals in plastics in the womb can have devastating lifelong effects.

Harms can also occur during our daily use of plastics, many of which are due to toxic chemicals in plastics. One study estimated that just three plastic chemicals carry annual health costs of $1.5 trillion. Yet, there are over 16,000 chemicals used in plastics, including 4,200 that are known to be highly hazardous.

TRR: How do experts measure plastic pollution? What key metrics do experts track?

Spring: The United States lacks a system to monitor plastic pollution. Estimates rely on industry data, government waste calculations, and cleanup data to piece together plastic pollution estimates—from the roughly 430 million metric tons of plastic produced annually to the 12 million tons of plastic waste entering our ocean. Meanwhile, plastic pollution is accumulating and causing harm in more places. Our sampling with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute found microplastics peaking at 1,000 meters deep, infiltrating the entire food web.

To bridge knowledge gaps, I am helping establish an independent global reporting system through the Lancet Countdown on Health and Plastics. This initiative tracks the lifecycle impacts of plastic on human health and evaluates data on interventions. By shifting from simple waste tallies to robust, health-based indicators, decision-makers can obtain the data necessary to guide impactful policy and address the plastic crisis at its source.

TRR: What role does the Monterey Bay Aquarium play in advancing solutions to plastic pollution, and how do its scientific and policy efforts inform broader regulatory reforms?

Spring: We contribute to scientific reports that identify top threats and priority actions, elevating these findings to decision-makers and the public. By bridging information gaps, we bring the best available science to all levels of government, informing decisions that protect both people and the ocean. For example, our 2024 report with the Environmental Law Institute demonstrates that although gaps exist, substantial federal authorities are available to monitor and control plastic pollution.

Recognizing that education drives regulatory change, we prioritize:

• Source reduction: advocating policies that stem the flow of plastic from land to sea.
• Public mobilization: empowering people to engage with their elected officials.
• Modeling solutions: showcasing single-use alternatives in our café and gift store to inspire sustainable daily habits.

Through this multi-pronged approach, we translate complex science into actionable policy and individual choice to address the plastic crisis at its root.

TRR: What are the most effective strategies that the U.S. federal government can use to reduce or eliminate the release of plastics into the environment?

Spring: The federal government has robust authority to address plastic pollution from extraction to end-of-life. Prioritizing reduced production and consumption is the most effective solution to limit overall harm. Federal policy can drive progress through:

• Monitoring and limits: establishing release standards for plastic pollution and hazardous chemicals.
• Design innovation: proposing regulations to replace virgin plastic, streamline plastic substitutes, and support a circular economy.
• Scaling systems: supporting reuse and refill systems at scale.
• Sustained investment: expanding comprehensive waste infrastructure, including recycling, deposit returns, and composting.
• Transparency: promoting transparency for chemical information in plastic products to prevent the most problematic substances from polluting our air, land, and water.

True progress requires addressing root causes by leveraging federal authority to regulate the full lifecycle, incentivize innovation, and transition to a sustainable, circular model.

TRR: In August 2025, you participated in the latest round of negotiations to create a global plastics treaty. What is the status of the treaty? What specific treaty outcomes would most effectively reduce global plastic pollution?

Spring: The global plastics treaty negotiations are continuing in a revitalized process under a new chair who was elected in February. The next formal meeting is expected in late 2026 or early 2027, and until then, informal discussions are continuing.

The scientific and health communities have been broadly aligned around a number of core recommendations. First, as impacts associated with plastic pollution occur at every stage of the plastic life cycle, systemic interventions across the lifecycle are needed. Second, addressing unsustainable levels of plastic production will be critical. Third, science-based criteria for eliminating problematic plastics and chemical components will be key to addressing the health and environmental impacts, and it will also be important to improve the design of plastic products, considering both safety and sustainability. Finally, to support evidence-based decision making, experts also agree that better transparency is essential. Coupled with reporting and effective monitoring systems, this will enable evaluation of progress.

TRR: How do disparities between high-income and low-income countries shape global reform efforts?

Spring: Many island states and countries in the global south are at ground zero for the impacts of plastic pollution, often receiving plastic products or waste from global north countries. This overwhelming flow outpaces local management to manage plastic waste and pollution, harming health, livelihoods, and ecosystems.

The global treaty offers a path forward through international cooperation to address this global-scale problem, while respecting national circumstances and capabilities. The challenge is to strike the right balance between harmonization and flexibility for different situations and capacities, but—very critically—also to enable the international support needed for effective implementation. A key discussion continues around how the measures of the future plastics treaty will support implementation—including through financing, capacity building, and technology transfer—especially to ensure countries have reliable, efficient, and effective support needed to turn international policy into local reality.

TRR: What challenges arise in coordinating plastic pollution policies across federal, state, and international levels?

Spring: Coordinating government action on plastic pollution is a monumental task. The ubiquity of plastics, combined with diverging agency missions, legal precedents, and funding, creates a fragmented landscape. Compounding this, the United States lacks a dedicated mechanism to bridge technical knowledge with national policy, while industry interests and positions complicate proposals to regulate or manage production and disposal.

Governments that have taken the lead in reducing plastic pollution, such as the State of California, have acted more nimbly to pilot model approaches, establishing their own scientific and regulatory processes and strategies with unique goals, timelines, and investment structures.

Ultimately, a legally binding international treaty offers the best chance to transform this patchwork into a cohesive strategy. By establishing common global measures, we can address health and environmental impacts across the entire plastic life cycle, moving from isolated regional successes to a unified, global response.

TRR: What roles do innovation and industry practices play in reducing plastic pollution, and how can policymakers support industry in its reform efforts?

Spring: Innovation must play a significant role in redirecting society’s current hyper-dependence on plastic materials and products by developing comparable and interchangeable materials that do not carry the same negative impacts on human health and the environment. Industry practices can be similarly evolved to maintain efficiency and cost requirements while improving their carbon footprint and keeping more of their materials in a closed system and out of the environment. Policy can guide this reform by diverting funding to critical baseline research to inform clear and comprehensive definitions and standards that will guide industry practices. The government can promote sustained progress for manufacturers by setting mandatory targets and control measures and holding all parties accountable. Using regulatory tools to divert responsibility from the public to the plastic producers, sustainability can become the rule instead of the exception.