 |
|
|
|||||
Microplastics seem to be everywherein the air we breathe, the water we drink, and 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. Marine animals ingest microplastics from the water and as theyre eating. These were found in marine animals at the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research near Athens, Greece, in 2025. [Photo: Milos Bicanski/Getty Images] 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. Personal care products, particularly makeup, have added glitter in recent years. However, when that makeup is washed off, it often goes down drains and into wastewater, adding to plastics in the environment. [Photo: Bernadett Grega/Unsplash] 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. Infill flies up from artificial turf as a high school soccer player kicks the ball in 2022. [Photo: Isaac Wasserman for The Washington Post via Getty Images] Rhode Islands 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 dont 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 oceanshed 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. Synthetic rubber in vehicle tires shed particles into the environment as the tires wear down. [Photo: Wenson Wei/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY] One approach would be to redesign the product to include safer alternatives. Californias 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. Californias 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 abroadbe they bans, labels, disclosures, or studiescan 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 Wastewater Infrastructure Pollution Prevention and Environmental Safety (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 todays 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 is a professor of law and an associate dean for international affairs at Wake Forest University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
We all know AI is eating the internet, with bots scraping sites for content and not giving anything in return. This, of course, is the impetus behind the many lawsuits that are playing out between media companies and the big AI labs, but in the here and now, the question remains what to do about those bots. Blocking them is an option, but how effective is it? And what types of content are most at risk of being scraped and substituted by AI answers? And can you actually get AI bots to pay up? A good place to start finding answers is the most recent State of the Bots report from AI startup TollBit. For publishers that are feeling the heat of AI, it attaches real numbers to the presence of AI in the media ecosystem and how quickly it’s growing. And while the rise of AI bots is a worrisome trend to those in the content business, it may also be an opportunity. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","headline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}} Bots in disguise In the interest of maximizing that opportunity, TollBit is doing more with this report than simply offering up charts and graphs. It’s also taking a stand, arguing that AI bots that crawl the internet should at the very least identify themselves to the sites they visit and scrape. The company is openly calling for regulation to force the issue, something CEO Toshit Panagrahi told me back in June after its previous State of the Bots report showed that certain bots from the likes of Perplexity, Meta, and Google were openly ignoring the Robots Exclusion Protocol, which websites use to manage bot traffic. There is some nuance to that. I wont rehash the entire thing here, but briefly: certain AI bots perform tasks on behalf of users (as opposed to training or search bots), and those are designated user agents. That affords them a certain status, at least according to AI companies: Because they are essentially human proxies, they believe sites should treat them as humans, not bots. So they don’t identify themselves as bots. What this does, at the very least, is make it very hard to tell what’s real human trafficthat is, a person navigating to a website and looking at a screenversus a robot doing the same thing. That’s going to make it very difficult to get accurate data about bot traffic, and TollBit predicts that the amount of “human” traffic will probably rebound once user agents become more common, but that’s only because trackers won’t be able to tell the difference between them and actual people. You can see the impetus to get bots to self-identify, but let’s assume that doesn’t happen, and a significant amount of traffic falls into this gray area: seemingly human but not behaving as such. Those ersatz humans won’t ever interact with advertising, and once that becomes evident, it will cheapen the value of advertising on the web overall. We may never technically reach Google Zero, but margins will be stripped so low that Google 30 might look more like Google 10. The content AI craves Something else the TollBit report reveals, though, is what kind of content appears to be of greatest interest to the AI crawlers, or rather, the people using AI engines for discovery. While the data isn’t definitive, it’s fair to conclude that if a particular category of content is being scraped more often, there are more people sending AI crawlers and user agents to get it. That, in turn, might help guide content strategy. By far the No. 1 category being scraped is B2B content, followed by parenting, sports, and consumer tech. Parenting, in fact, saw a big increase this past quarter, meaning more people are turning to AI portals for answers about parenting issues. If you produce content for parents (and this applies to any category that’s highly crawled by AI), you should consider a few things: Your content is at high risk of substitution by AI answers. That means it’s valuable to AI companies. You can point to the data as leverage in licensing negotiations (or a lawsuit). It sounds simple, but getting a major AI provider to license your content isn’t something that any site can do. OpenAI, by far the most prolific deal-maker, has signed only a few dozen agreements. And lawsuits are costly. If you’re a parenting site, you’re not just going to stop doing parenting content, so you have a choice: block the bots, or let them crawl to ensure your presence in AI answers. While the referral traffic remains negligible (we’re effectively already at “ChatGPT Zero”), there are intangibles, mostly brand presence, that being in an AI answer provide. You can’t build a business on intangibles, though, and that leaves the other option: blockingor rather, redirecting bots to a paywall. TollBit’s data does show that more bots than before are being successfully redirected to “forbidden” pages or hitting the company’s own paywalls. The illusion of control The key question, though, which the report doesn’t answer, is how many of those bots are actually paying up? The lack of answer suggests the number is quite low, and that’s because it’s simply too easy to access the content in another way. As the report describes, there are sophisticated ways for AI companies to use relays, third-party systems, and different species of bots to scrape content. And the “gray” status of consumer browser agents makes things even murkier. The number of ways to access blocked content are myriad. That’s ultimately why TollBit has taken its stance that bots should be required to self-identify, backed by legal teeth. It’s hard to imagine AI companies self-regulating in the interest of another industryin this case, the mediawithout some kind of regulatory pressure. Otherwise, we can look forward to something else: a lot more paywalls on parenting sites. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","hadline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
On Monday, Apple released macOS 26, also known as macOS Tahoe, to the world. The new operating system is available to anyone with an Apple Silicon Mac and also runs on some older Intel Macs, too. Apples most heavily marketed feature of the new Mac operating system is its Liquid Glass redesign. Just like iOS 26 on the iPhone, macOS 26 brings translucent UI elements to the Mac that mimic the way light refracts through glass. Its fun eye candy, to be sure.However, the company is also introducing another significant change to the Macs operating systemand this one is causing quite a bit of consternation among longtime Mac users. With macOS 26, Apple has eliminated Launchpad, the primary point-and-click visual interface users previously used to launch apps, and replaced it with an overhauled Spotlight search tool that is built for power usersthose who like to type instead of click to get things done. After using macOS 26 for more than a month now in beta, I feel like this is a big mistake on Apples part.Launchpad made the Mac as easy to use as the iPhoneLaunchpad was first introduced in OS X Lion, the Mac operating system Apple debuted in 2011. It sought to make launching apps on the Mac as easy as launching them on the iPhoneand it succeeded. Before Launchpad, Mac users were forced to keep apps in the Macs Dock, which could quickly become crowded depending on how many apps they had installed, or by navigating to the Applications folder in the Macs Finder and scrolling through their list of apps there, which was cumbersome and took too many clicks.Launchpad brought an iPhone home screen-style design to your Mac that made it easy for even the most novice user to find and launch apps. [Photo: Apple]With Launchpad, Apple essentially brought the iPhones home screen to the Mac. With a click of an icon in the Dock or a simple finger gesture on a MacBooks trackpad, a user could bring up Launchpad, which would display an iPhone-inspired home screen on their Mac, showcasing all their apps neatly arranged in a grid of large, beautiful icons. A single click on any icon would launch the app, and users could organize the icons into any order they wanted and even sort them into folders to group apps together.Launchpad also let users easily uninstall apps with a few clicks, and see when an app was being updated, or has been updated, thanks to indicators that showed below the apps icon. Icons also displayed notification badges, so, just like on the iPhone, you could see when you had new content available in the appsuch as an email in the Outlook app or a message in WhatsApp.Launchpad was an intuitive and straightforward way to quickly access your apps. But in macOS 26, Launchpad is gone. Instead, Apple offers a redesigned Spotlight search tool, which is now intended to be the primary way users launch apps on their Macs.The new Spotlight is built for power users, not everyday usersAs an application launcher, the new Spotlight in macOS 26 is frustratingespecially if you were used to Launchpad for the last 14 years. When unsuspecting macOS 26 users first activate Launchpad on their Macs, theyll now be greeted by the new Spotlight application launcher instead. It is noticeably different. Gone is the easily navigable home screen of apps spread across your Macs brilliant display; instead, youll be greeted with smaller icons inside a window that takes up less than a fifth of the available screen real estate. In Spotlight, app icons are displayed in an alphabetical order grid, with five ever-changing icons on top of this grid. These are apps that Spotlight thinks you want access to right awaybut its ability to predict this has been hit-or-miss in my experience. Because the new Spotlight app launcher doesnt take up your Macs entire screen like Launchpad did, nor allow you to arrange apps to your liking, if you have lots of apps, users who prefer to point and click on an icon to open an app will have to scroll through icons alphabetically for some time to find the actual one they’re looking for. While the new Spotlight does offer predefined categories that act as filters by only displaying the apps that fit that category, the categories themselves and the apps inside them are dictated by Apple. The user cannot sort their apps into their own categories (as a user could do with Launchpad by placing apps into folders of their choosing on the Launchpad interface). And, bafflingly, Spotlights app categories combine what should be multiple individual categories into one (Productivity & Finance, for example). At the same time, they often exclude essential apps from a category. For example, you would think the business communications app Microsoft Teams would be sorted into either the Productivity & Finance category or the Social category. Instead, Spotlight buries it in the Other category.As an app launcher, the new Spotlight is a step backwards in ease of use and customizability compared to Launchpad. [Photo: Apple]Icons in Spotlight also lack the helpful information that they provided in Launchpad. App icons in Spotlights launcher no longer show red notification badges on their corners when you have an alert from the app. This is a pain. The other day, I had four unread messages waiting for me in the Messages app. In Launchpad, the Messages icon would have displayed a red notification badge with the number 4 in the icons corner so I could see I had four messages waiting. But in Spotlight, notification badges no longer appear. Spotlight also ceases to show you the progress bar beneath an icon when the app is being updated, and it has removed the indicator dot below the icon signifying an app has been updated since you last launched it. Additionally, the ability to delete an app from your Mac by simply clicking and holding it to bring up an uninstaller button is now gone.Apple says that one of Spotlights big draws as an application launcher is that users can open apps without taking their fingers off the keyboard. Once Spotlight is onscreen, the user can simply type the name of the app they want to open, and then press the Enter key to launch it. But this isnt an improvement over Launchpad, because Launchpad also had this functionality built inin addition to having all the other above-mentioned features Spotlight lacks.It is an example, however, of how Apple built the new Spotlight to cater to tech-savvy “pro” users, who prefer to interact with their computers via keyboard shortcus, to the exclusion of ordinary, everyday point-and-click users. The overhauled macOS search tool also allows users to carry out other tasks, such as sending an email or a message, just by typing commands in Spotlight. I have no doubt that power users will appreciate these new features, but they may be of limited appeal to nontechnical users.If you love Launchpad, should you upgrade to macOS 26?I am far from alone in pointing out all the drawbacks of the new Spotlight as an app launcher compared to Launchpad. The change has been widely discussed on social media and online forums for months by users who have been running the macOS 26 beta on their machines.Some enterprising Mac developers have even created solutions that attempt to mimic or restore the functionality of Apples now-discontinued app launcher. When people try to start building their own replacements to add a feature back to an operating system, it usually signifies that the company made the wrong call in removing it.For what it’s worth, when I spoke recently with Stephen Tonna, an executive on Apples product marketing team, about all the new features of macOS 26 (and there are many good ones), I asked about Apple’s decision to eliminate Launchpad. Tonna reiterated that Apple sees lots of benefits in the new Spotlight, including enhanced file browsing capabilities and the ability for Spotlight to display and launch apps from your iPhone on your Macs desktop. But he did state that Apple was always listening to feedback from our users and always looking for ways that we can improve the Macs new app launcher.Whether Apple will actually make any changes to the new Spotlight, including bringing back many of the former Launchpad features, likely depends on how millions of Mac users react now that macOS 26 is available.What I can say with certainty, however, is that as an app launcher, the new Spotlight in macOS 26 is vastly inferior to the way macOS allowed users to launch, organize, and manage their apps for the last 14 years.And thats a shame because macOS 26 features some otherwise stellar changes, including a highly customizable Finder, a new Phone app, and that gorgeous new Liquid Design interface.There are many things to love in the new macOS. But the removal of Launchpad isnt one of them
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||