Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0664.105 2014-2016 Margaret Wille tv os p' Phone No. Hilo: (808)961-8027 g ''• ,'• Council Member • Phone No. Waimea: (808) 887-2043 �•��• �,j,�;�: District 9-North and South Kohala • Fax No.: (808)887-2072 E-Mail: mwille@co.hawaii.hi.us • 4fE•Of• �,it HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawai`i Hawaii County Building Holomua Center West Hawaii Civic Center Bldg.A 25 Aupuni Street 64-1067 Mamalahoa Highway,Suite C-5 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy. Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Waimea, Hawaii 96743 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii,96740 TO: Dru Mamo Kanuha, Council Chair , and Members of the Hawai`i County Council FROM: Margaret Wille, Council Member DATE: May 31, 2016 SUBJECT: UH—Hilo Student Study Information for Bill No. 140, Draft 2 Discussion Please find attached the study from University of Hawai`i —Hilo student Ashley Horvath for reference during the Bill No. 140, Draft 2 discussion on June 3, 2016. Thank you. MW/dh att Comm. No. (0(04• OS Ref. To: t /(,tTL , Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island Ref. Date JUN 0 3 2ei6 Hawai`i County Is An Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer Ashley Horvath Senior Seminar Dr. Karla McDermid May 5, 2016 Proposed Polystyrene Ban in Hawaii County: A Victory for Seabirds? Abstract: To assist Councilwoman Margret Wille pass a polystyrene ban in Hawaii County, my team and I reviewed the threats that plastic pollution pose to seabirds. Proponents of this bill use the harm to seabirds to influence policy makers to pass this bill. Plastic pollution can entangle seabirds and mistaken ingestion can reduce their food intake. Toxic chemicals can be introduced to their cells, which may disrupt their endocrine systems. Research studies assessing plastic pollution threats to seabirds, generalize the collected plastics into two categories: user or industrial products. No studies have been conducted that discuss polystyrene risks to seabirds exclusively. Because direct effects of polystyrene have not been documented in seabirds, bill proponents should include alternative impetuses. Risks and consequences to other marine fauna, could strengthen the argument that affect policy makers' decisions. I would suggest that Ms. Wille and her team include the negative effects on pelagic fish that consume high quantities of polystyrene (Choy & Drazen, 2013). Including potential harm polystyrene ingestion can pose to humans, could also be a key argument to address. Polystyrene chemicals in food products can seep into the meals that people eat, thus creating concerns to human health (Cook, 2016). Banning polystyrene food service products could follow the footsteps of the plastic bag ban passed in 2014 (Cook, 2016). By switching to eco-friendly alternatives, plastic pollution can be reduced, making our land and oceans healthier. Introduction: As the world population of 7.3 billion people continues to grow, the demand for plastic production increases exponentially (United States Census Bureau, 2016). More plastic means increased marine debris. Plastic particles are either buoyant and remain at the surface, or they sink and can spend decades on the bottom substratum. Whatever the particles' location, their destiny remains the same: ocean disturbance and harm to marine life. Plastic particles in the ocean pose threats to crustaceans, fish, marine mammals, and especially seabirds (Laist, 1987). Plastic pollution, depending on the type, can harm seabirds in Hawaii. Polystyrene is a user plastic that is strong, cost effective, and used in numerous products including packing materials and food service products. This durable, overused material is not environmentally friendly. Its slow decomposition period and easy dispersal contribute to increased levels of plastic pollution in terrestrial and marine environments (Daneman, 2016). Kohala Councilwoman Margaret Wille is sponsoring a bill to ban the sale of polystyrene food service products in stores and restaurants in Hawaii County. If the bill is passed, effective January 1, 2018, the sale of polystyrene in Hawaii County will be illegal. Polystyrene bans have successfully passed in mainland cites across the United States, including Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; Amherst, Massachusetts; and Albany County,New York(Daneman, 2013). Numerous impetuses are available when trying to get a bill passed. Throughout this review, plastic pollution effects on marine birds will be outlined. This study should assist policy makers in determining if the polystyrene ban could reduce some of the negative effects seabirds face from plastic pollution. Plastic Pollution History: Marine plastic pollution was a low priority environmental concern, until the 1970s when oceanic plastics' worldwide pollution, harm to marine species was finally recognized (Azzarello & Van Vleet, 1987). Before this enlightenment, people assumed that the oceans were able to absorb huge amounts of plastic waste. An average 8 million metric tons of plastic are deposited annually into the oceans of the world (Jambeck et al., 2015). Plastic makes up a large percentage of oceanic debris, and on any given surface square kilometer of the ocean, thirteen-thousand pieces may lie (United Nations Environmental Program, 1997). Surface plastic debris poses a great threat to surface feeding fauna. Plastics can be composed of different materials and found in varying parts of the water column. The plastic materials that are most often found in marine habitats include polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene, and polyvinyl chloride (Azzarello & Van Vleet, 1987). Plastic distribution and composition vary: near shore and surface trash fluctuates primarily between industrial pellets and user plastics (Dixon& Dixon, 1981). Marine pollution is prevalent in numerous forms; plastic pollution is just one avenue contributing to ocean destruction. Types of Plastic Pollution that Affect Seabirds: The type and amount of plastic debris influence the harm caused to an ocean ecosystem and the fauna that live there. Plastics can vary in color, shape, or size, and can be composed of different materials. There are two categories of plastic pollution found in the oceans: industrial pellets and user plastics (Pruter, 1987 in Blight & Burger, 1997). Industrial pellets are small disks or rectangular fragments fewer then 4cm in length. Pellets are remelted and transformed to create new user products. They often pollute the ocean on their travels across the sea to be transformed (Van Franeker, 1985 in Azzarello & Van Vleet, 1987). While less visually pronounced in the ocean, industrial pellets can be a threat to marine life. The second category is user plastics and are defined as plastics humans use directly, including fishing gear, sandwich bags, plastic cups, and bottles (Dixon& Dixon, 1981 in Azzarello & Van Vleet, 1987). Human-use plastic products are the most visible plastic pollution in marine environments. Ninety percent of the plastic pollution is user plastics (Moore, 2016). The bill in Hawaii County is focusing on polystyrene, a user plastic. This user plastic is a synthetic aromatic polymer made from the monomer styrene. Water is denser than polystyrene, so it can float or slowly sink and stay suspended for long periods of time (Moore, 2016). Polystyrene is commonly known by its Dow Chemical Company brand name, Styrofoam. Some examples of this material include take-out boxes, coffee cups, and some packing products. Human carelessness, plastic transport, and improper waste disposal leave the oceans polluted, while seabirds and other marine organisms face the consequences. Chemical Introduction: Toxic chemicals from plastics can enter the bodies of seabirds. Plastic can either enter the ocean contaminated or become contaminated during its life at sea by absorbing hydrophobic chemicals (Teuten et al., 2009). Plastic production companies, during product development, often apply additives. Once plastics are discarded, these chemicals have the potential to leach out into the oceans. Chemicals with photosensitive additives allow plastics to degrade at rapids speeds, while antioxidants and ultraviolet stabilizers increase the service life of plastics (Dixon& Dixon, 1981 in Azzarello & Van Vleet, 1987). Some additives strive to reduce the affects of marine debris by allowing the products to break down more quickly; however, these chemicals are creating a new set of issues for marine ecosystems. In the case of polystyrene, additives are not applied during manufacturing; however, they are known to contain Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Polystyrene absorbs chemicals from the surrounding contaminated water (Carpenter et al., 1972 in Azzarello & Van Vleet, 1987). Plastics engulf molecular-sized chemicals that are small enough to penetrate marine organism cells. Once these chemicals are introduced, they can interact with biological molecules that disturb the endocrine system (Teuten et al, 2009). Research conducted on Great Shearwater females and their eggs, found a positive correlation between PCBs and the quantity of ingested plastic (Ryan, 1988). This correlation provides evidence, that PCBs are able to be passed from anthropogenic waste products to seabirds, by direct ingestion. Polystyrene has a low melting point, and under high temperatures the monomer is broken down(Moore, 2016). Polystyrene take-out boxes that contain hot meals steam when closed, allowing the product to heat up while chemicals are released (Cook, 2016). Seabirds can be secondarily exposed to chemicals without direct plastic consumption. Seabirds are higher trophic level organisms, and the prey they eat may already be contaminated with toxins. As the rule of biomagnification goes, higher trophic level consumers will obtain a chemical at a higher concentration than they would if they directly consumed the plastic. A study conducted on Streaked Shearwater chicks supported this theory: chicks were fed plastic pellets and PCB contaminated fish; by the end of the experiment, PCB exposure from the fish dominated the exposure from the pellets (Teuten et al, 2009). This study suggests that in some cases seabirds may not directly consume plastic debris, but they get the secondary consequences from their prey. Seabirds are one of the many marine animals, faced with accidental toxic contamination. Information regarding the issues associated with introduced bodily toxins to seabirds is still limited. This important research priority needs more attention to understand fully the potential threats to seabirds. Entanglement: Seabirds can get trapped in the drifting marine plastics. Entanglement sightings are rare and undocumented because of the ocean size. Entangled seabirds are often consumed by natural predators, or decompose before cases are viewed. However, there are between 214,500 and 760,000 documented seabird entanglement deaths each year (Laist, 1987). This number is very conservative; if every entanglement incident were recorded, the mortality rate would be significantly higher. After a seabird is entangled, it may drown, endure gashes and infections, have a difficult time foraging or fleeing from predators, and face altered behavior, thus reducing its potential of survival (Laist, 1987). While entanglement is a plastic pollution concern, I have found no documented cases of polystyrene products contributing to seabird entanglement. Health Concerns: Marine plastics increase health damage to seabirds when particles are mistaken as prey and ingested. However, few studies have been conducted outlining all potential health issues, especially in Hawaii. One possible concern is impended digestion after plastic consumption. In a study preformed by Blight and Burger, ingested plastic quantities were high enough to impend digestion in storm-petrels and in Sooty Shearwaters, thus, affecting the quantity of food intake and allowable food storage in the birds' gizzards (Blight & Burger, 1997). Seabirds that ingest higher quantities of plastic will consume less food, resulting in lower energy levels, making the birds more vulnerable to predation. A paper by Vliestra and Parga referenced a Day et al. 1985 paper, that suggests that digestion impediment may promote starvation or lower reproductive success (Vliestra & Parga, 2002). Both starvation and lower reproductive success are factors that influence population size. If lower reproduction rates and starvation affect endangered species, extinction is a future concern. Plastic ingestion in adult seabirds can be minor, if the bird is able to release the plastic waste through their vomit. However, some birds cannot do this. Certain seabird species, including the Wandering, Laysan, and Black-footed albatrosses all found in Hawaii, feed plastic fragments directly to their chicks (Laist,1987). These chicks may have higher mortality rates and reduced fitness. To better understand health issues caused by plastic pollution in seabirds, more studies that emphasize health issues need to be conducted. Discussion: Numerous research studies provide evidence that plastic pollution has a negative effect on seabirds (Van Franeker, 1985; Blight& Burger, 1997; Ryan, 2008). However, there are no studies that focus only on polystyrene effects; in most plastic pollution studies the plastics are classified by category: user products and industrial pellets, and each can pose different threats to marine organisms. Although research does not directly blame polystyrene, plastic pollution does pose threats to marine birds. These threats are by accidental ingestion, chemical transfer, and entanglement, all of which result in health issues. Accidental ingestion can introduce toxic chemicals, impend digestion, and can be regurgitated to feed offspring. Numerous chemicals are known to be absorbed into polystyrene once the product is discarded into the ocean (Teuten et al., 2009). Harmful chemicals introduced to seabirds can cause declines in their health and alter their daily behavior. High ingested quantities of any plastic, including polystyrene can impend digestion and reduce the amount of food a seabird can eat and store (Blight & Burger, 1997). During a personal interview with Charles Moore, we discussed plastic pollution and limitations of polystyrene research. Moore stated that"polystyrene pollution is worldwide" (Moore, 2016); then he suggested reasons why polystyrene is often not documented directly in seabird stomach samples. He suggested that the location of the research site the particular species predetermine what plastics will be found. Polystyrene's greatest prevalence occurs along coastal inland locations, and studies preformed on seabird and plastic pollution usually focus on surface water offshore species (Morris, 1980 in Azzarello & Van Vleet 1987). Shore foraging species' stomach samples will contain higher concentrations of polystyrene (Moore, 2016). Polystyrene is a denser plastic debris, and when it sinks to the colder-middle layers of the ocean, it can remain suspended, and its total concentration is underestimated (Morris, 1980 in Azzarello & Van Vleet 1987). To better understand the degree of threats that polystyrene alone poses to seabirds, future studies need to focus on species that forage below the surface closer to shore, or on shore. The bill banning polystyrene in Hawaii County may be difficult to pass if proponents use harm to seabirds as the only criterion; I would recommend that proponents reference negative effects on pelagic fish, which have been documented to have ingested high quantities of polystyrene (Choy & Drazen, 2013). Conclusion: The polystyrene ban will benefit Hawaii County. Plastic pollution has been repetitively documented to harm marine fauna worldwide. As the human population continues to grow, plastic production will be in higher demand unless eco-friendly alternatives become more common. Plastic pollution is consumed by seabirds when they mistake particles for prey. Upon ingestion, toxic chemicals can be introduced, and further health issues can arise. To be more certain of direct problems associated with polystyrene plastic pollution, research should focus on shore feeding seabirds, or species that dive to collect food. To increase the probability of passing the polystyrene ban in Hawaii County, proponents should gather information on negative effects caused by polystyrene to different species of marine fauna. For example, pelagic fish would be a useful case to study, as they are known to have high amounts of polystyrene found in stomach contents (Choy & Drazen, 2013). It would also be beneficial to include research addressing human health concerns that polystyrene causes. Literature Cited: Azzarello MY, Van Vleet ES (1987) Marine birds and plastic pollution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 37:295-303 Blight LK, Burger AE (1997) Occurrence of plastic particles in seabirds from the eastern north pacific. Mar Pollut Bull 34:323-325 Colabuono FI, Taniguchi S, Montone RC (2010) Polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in plastics ingested by seabirds. Mar Pollut Bull 60:630-634 Cook N (2016) Kohala Councilwoman Margaret Wille: Foam to-go containers must go. West Hawaii Today: westhawaiitoday.com (Accessed 5 Apr 2016) Daneman M (2013) More cities are banning the material used in everything from packing to takeout containers. USA Today: www.usatoday.com (Accessed 5 Apr 2016) Dixon TR, Dixon TJ (1981) Marine litter surveillance. Mar Pollut Bull 12: 289-295 Fry DM, Fefer SI, Sileo L (1987) Ingestion of plastic debris by Laysan albatrosses and wedge- tailed shearwaters in the Hawaiian Islands. Mar Poll Bull 18: 339-343 Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, Narayan R, Law KL (2015) Marine pollution. plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347:768-771 Laist DW (1987) Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 18:319-326 Moore C (2016) Personal communication: Skype interview. (29 Mar 2016) Ryan PG, Connell AD, Gardner BD (1988) Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds: Is there a relationship? Mar Pollut Bull 19:174-176 Ryan PG (2008) Seabirds indicate changes in the composition of plastic litter in the atlantic and south-western indian oceans. Mar Pollut Bull 56:1406-1409 Spear LB, Ainley DG, Ribic CA (1995) Incidence of plastic in seabirds from the tropical Pacific, 1984-1991: Relation with distribution of species, sex, age, season, year and body weight. Mar Environ Res 40: 123-146 Teuten EL, Saquing JM, Knappe DR, Barlaz MA, Jonsson S, Bjorn A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC, Galloway TS, Yamashita R, Ochi D, Watanuki Y, Moore C, Viet PH, Tana TS, Prudente M, Boonyatumanond R, Zakaria MP, Akkhavong K, Ogata Y, Hirai H, Iwasa S, Mizukawa K, Hagino Y, Imamura A, Saha M, Takada H (2009) Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364:2027-2045 Thompson DR, Hamer KC (2000) Stress in seabirds: Causes, consequences and diagnostic value. J Aquat Ecosyst Stress Recovery 7:91-109 United States Census Bureau, US and world population clock. www.census.gov (accessed 1 Apr 2016) Vlietstra LS, Parga JA (2002) Long-term changes in the type, but not amount, of ingested plastic particles in short-tailed shearwaters in the southeastern bering sea. Mar Pollut Bull 44:945-955 Seabirds and Styrofoam Annotated Bibliography Azzarello MY and Van Vleet ES (1987) Marine birds and plastic pollution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 37:295-303 With the increase in plastic manufacturing of both industrial and public use plastics, more pollution is disposed of in the oceans. The most common types of marine pollution include, polypropylene, polystyrene,polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride and Styrofoam. Seabirds are negatively effected by plastic pollution. Once ingested, hormone levels can be altered, female reproductive failure is increases, and more common cases include entanglement, gastrointestinal obstruction, and diminished feeding. The way a seabird feeds in a large factor in determining the amount and type of plastic the bird is at risk of consuming. Seabirds that are Planktivores have a greater ingestion risk than Piscivores because plastic is commonly mistaken for their food sources such as euphausiids, copepods, and cephalopods. This paper goes into detail of the ways plastic enters the ocean and ways of ingestion. It was extremely helpful and I used many references cited in this paper. Blight LK and Burger AE (1997) Occurrence of plastic particles in seabirds from the eastern north pacific. Mar Pollut Bull 34:323-325 The study conducted in this journal, aims to determine the type and amount of plastic content ingested by eleven different seabird species located in the Eastern North Pacific. Plastic stomach contents were divided into two main categories; user plastics such as plastic bags, and industrial pellets. Once the plastic particles were deciphered between user and industrial plastics they were classified by color and weighed. The results of this paper concluded that of the eleven species eight contained plastic at least fifty percent of the time. The species containing the highest quantities of plastic stomach content were the Storm Petrels and the Stesnegers. This study opposed previous studies stating that seabirds ingest more user plastic than industrial pellets. This article was interesting but I do not find it valid compared to past the past papers I've read. I think a contributing factor that could have changed the results would be that all the sampled birds were bycatch. I would recommend that others samples were observed possibly live birds so their could a variety not just what was available as by-catch. Choy CA, and Drazen JC (2013). Plastic for dinner? Observations of frequent debris ingestion by pelagic predatory fishes from the central North Pacific. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 485:155-163 Anthropogenic marine debris was examined in seven species of high trophic level pelagic fish in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. This study was interested as a comparative species study to see how marine debris affects another marine species. Out of 595 individual fish surveyed, 110 fish contained anthropogenic debris, mostly plastic or fishing materials. The highest levels of marine debris were found in individuals found in the mesopelagic region. I was interested in this fact because most of the articles I have come across focus on surface debris. This sparked my brain to think that there could be little polystyrene in seabird stomach contents because it may sink to the bottom. I think further research needs to be done on mesopelagic species to determine the stomach content levels of polystyrene. Colabuono FI, Taniguchi S, Montone RC (2010) Polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in plastics ingested by seabirds. Mar Pollut Bull 60:630-634 Procellariiformes have been described as the most vulnerable seabirds to plastic pollution. They have been pinned most vulnerable due to their small gizzards and the fact that, they do not have the ability to regurgitate debris once it is ingested. This study, focused on examining Procellariiformers of eight different species in Brazil to determine the occurrence of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The results of this study, show that organic pollutants enter the marine environment from plastics. Seabirds that ingest plastics have an increased risk of contaminated organic pollutants. However, marine species that do not ingest marine plastic pollution are still at risk, because the pollutants are transferred along the food web. Cook N (2016) Kohala Councilwoman Margaret Wille: Foam to-go containers must go. West Hawaii Today: westhawaiitoday.com (Accessed 5 Apr 2016) This article gave information on the bill proposal to ban polystyrene in Hawaii County. I also gave reasons why polystyrene is harmful to marine life and humans. I used it to give background information and harmful affects to humans and seabirds. Daneman M (2013) More cities are banning the material used in everything from packing to takeout containers. USA Today: www.usatoday.com (Accessed 5 Apr 2016) This article gave information on successful polystyrene bans across the USA. It also gave information on how the bills were passed. Dixon TR, Dixon TJ (1981) Marine litter surveillance. Mar Pollut Bull 12: 289-295 Important paper that provided background on seabirds and marine litter. Plastic pollution is a large contributor and can cause great harm to marine fauna. Fry DM, Fefer SI, Sileo L (1987) Ingestion of plastic debris by Laysan albatrosses and wedge- tailed shearwaters in the Hawaiian Islands. Mar Poll Bull 18: 339-343 I liked this paper because it discussed seabirds in Hawaii. There was not as many papers that referenced Hawaii as I would have thought. It discussed issues that plastic ingestion can cause albatrosses and shearwaters. Gregory MR(2009) Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Phil Trans Soc B 364:1-13 Marine debris from land or marine based sources affects ocean environments locally and globally. There are numerous consequences associated with this pollution. A large issue contributing to marine debris is the way goods are handled and transported. Unattractive plastic waste, aesthetic value, and marine animal entanglement receive the most media and public attention. This review paper does an excellent job of explaining the different ways marine debris affects ocean functions and activities. I found the ingestion and entanglement sections most useful to help in my research. Over one-hundred seabirds are know to consume plastic debris that can lead to wounds, starvation, digestive tract blockage, reduced reproductive capacity, feeding impairment, and increased bodily toxins. Laist DW (1987) Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 18:319-326 This paper contributed to my knowledge of seabirds and entanglement. I learned how seabirds become entangled in marine plastics and the harm they cause. Many seabirds are unable to escape and they drown. Extremely useful well written paper! Moore CJ, Moore SL, Leecaster MK, Weisberg SB (2001) A comparison of plastic and plankton in the north pacific central gyre. Mar Pollut Bull 42:1297-1300 When examining the effects of marine debris on marine animals, seabirds are one of the most popular animals to study. Seabirds are selected because researchers are able to collect stomach samples without euthanizing the birds in the field. The researchers are able to assist the seabirds in intentional vomiting to collect stomach contents. There is little research conducted on how marine debris effects fish or filter feeders. The results of this study showed that the plastic weight collected has been the greatest in the North Pacific Ocean compared to previous studies. Of the 27,698 plastic pieces, 3,295 were styrofoam pieces. This study is useful because understanding how plastic effects other marine organisms can help contribute to how seabirds consume plastics. Plastics found in birds may be secondarily consumed through the foods they intake. Robards MD, Piatt JF, Wohl KD (1995) Increasing frequency of plastic particles ingested by seabirds in the subarctic north pacific. Mar Pollut Bull 30:151-157 In the subarctic waters of Alaska, twenty-four species of seabirds were examined to see the quota and type of plastic that those species were ingesting. Of the surveyed species fifteen were found to ingest plastic. They were mostly seabirds that fed on plankton at the surface and of the plastic ingested seventy-six percent was industrial pellets. This led me to consider companies changing their manufacturing and disposal styles. The more seabirds and pollution papers I read, the blame is either on user plastics or industrial pellets. In this case industrial pellets dominated the stomach contents of the surveyed birds. I've come to the conclusion, that industries are a large aspect of marine pollution. Small company regulation is a great start, but bills in the future should focus on larger corporations. Ryan PG, Connell AD, Gardner BD (1988) Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds: Is there a relationship? Mar Pollut Bull 19:174-176 This paper displayed how PCBs influence seabirds. It gave background information to how this chemicals are introduced to seabirds and some possible health concerns associated with them. Ryan PG(2008) Seabirds indicate changes in the composition of plastic litter in the atlantic and south-western indian oceans. Mar Pollut Bull 56:1406-1409 During this study researchers compared plastic consumption of five species: broad-billed prion Pachyptila vittata, white-bellied storm petrel Fregetta grallaria, white-chinned petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis, white-faced storm petrel Pelagodroma marina and great shearwater Puffinus gravis. Samples were collected on these species during the 1980's and later between 1999 and 2006 and the findings concluded that the virgin pellets ingest decreased over time but not the number or plastic particles. The uniform plastic reduction in the stomach contents of seabirds may conclude that over the past two decades there has been a global change in plastic debris consumption. This paper is unique because the previous papers I have read usually show and increase in the plastic debris in the ocean and stomach contents of seabirds. Sileo L, Sievert PR, Samuel MD, Fefer SI (1989) Prevalence and characteristics of plastic ingested by Hawaiian seabirds. Proc 2nd Int Conf on Mar Deb The samples chosen were from a variety of species, and the methods section was concise an outside party could easily repeat the study. The research conducted determined the plastic type and amount ingested by eight-teen species of seabirds in Hawaii and the Johnston Atoll. Researchers took plastic samples from live seabird species by induced emesis, and necropsied deceased species. The results of this study appear to accurately represent the population due to the number or birds sampled and the methods used. The results showed that year, age, and location affect plastic prevalence. Chicks usually had a higher correlation of plastic stomach content, there was a higher plastic content in seabird species during 1986 than in 1987. Spear LB, Ainley DG, Ribic CA (1995) Incidence of plastic in seabirds from the tropical Pacific, 1984-1991: Relation with distribution of species, sex, age, season, year and body weight. Mar Environ Res 40: 123-146 Great paper comparing different factors that may predict amount of plastic ingested. Background information was provided to better understand these factors, however, it was not what I was looking for, but I did gain background information that helped widen my search. Thompson DR, Hamer KC (2000) Stress in seabirds: Causes, consequences and diagnostic value. J Aquat Ecosyst Stress Recovery 7:91-109 This paper was useful it discussed stress issues in seabirds. It talked about pollution affects on seabirds as a potential stressor. I used it to gain background information on seabird stressors and compared how plastic pollution adds stress. United States Census Bureau, US and world population clock. www.census.gov (accessed 1 Apr 2016) Used this website to determine the world population. Vlietstra LS and Parga JA(2002) Long-term changes in the type, but not amount, of ingested plastic particles in short-tailed shearwaters in the southeastern bering sea. Mar Pollut Bull 44:945-955 This is a comparative study on plastic ingestion of short-tailed shearwater seabirds in southeastern Bering Sea. The first study was preformed during 1970-1978 and the second study was conducted from 1997-1999 and in 2001. The location of the plastic found in the birds bodies was most common in the gizzard and occurred less in the proventriculus. Digestion impairment was the main cause associated with seabird health impairment and there was no difference in the plastic consumption of males versus females. The large change that this study noted was the plastic type ingested changed over that period of time. In the first study, industrial pellets were collected in stomach contents. The more recent study showed that user plastics began to increase and less industrial pellets were found. I am curious to seek further research done in Hawaii, to determine if user or industrial pellets effect seabirds of Hawaii more. Young LC, Vanderlip C, Duffy DC, Afanasyev V, Shaffer SA (2009) Bringing home the trash: do colony-based differences in foraging distribution lead to increased plastic ingestion in laysan albatrosses? PLoS ONE 4: e7623 The Laysan Albatross is found in North Pacific and is a well know bird species that consumes plastic. This study examines plastic ingested by Laysan Albatrosses at two location in Hawaii to determine if the plastic content is similar. The findings of this research suggest that marine top predators alter their foraging methods according to the marine debris in the waters where they live.