Scientific focus on plastic pollution has increased markedly over the last decades, especially since the turn on the millennium. The first notion of seabirds ingesting plastic debris was published in the 1960s [
12]. At this point, research into environmental contamination with plastic debris was a small field, and few papers were published through the 1960s and 1970s (see [
13‐
15]). However, Carpenter and Smith [
16] were the first to notice that plastic accumulated in specific oceanic zone, in their Science publication of plastic debris in the Sargasso Sea. It was also in the 1970s that the first reports of beach litter were published [
17]. More frequent reports on occurrence were consistently being published from the 1980s (e.g., [
18,
19]), and it was in this decade that a systematically growing trend of marine pollution with plastic was first reported [
20]. These findings initiated political discussions about the problem and were followed with political initiatives such as the MARPOL Annex V aiming at reducing plastic wastes at sea [
21]. However, the Annex was considered optional, and ratification was required by UN member states before it enter into force in 1988 [
21] (for a broader discussion on the regulation of microplastics, see [
22]). Also in 1988 a report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) described the concentration of plastic debris in the North Pacific Gyre. This was later followed by the work of Moore et al. [
23], who compared abundance of plastic pellets and planktonic organism in the North Pacific Gyre. They concluded that while planktons were five times as abundant as plastic pellets when measured by number, the mass of the plastic pellets exceeded planktonic mass six times [
23]. This “litter artifact” in the middle of the ocean was popularly called the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” which had a significant impact on the public perception of the problem. The linguistic framing of the plastic pollution repelled the public by playing on the yuck factor, similar to the case of GMOs described above. The pollution was also unknown to many, making the novelty of the problem significant (driver 7). On the other hand, this description did give some backlash since it created an illusion of islands of plastics floating around in the ocean. Since such islands do not exist in reality, some commentators have argued that the environmental problem was exaggerated and that this could erode citizens’ trust in institutions [
24]. Plastic pollution was not perceived as such a big risk in the decades after the first reports were published. This can be explained using several of the risk perception drivers (Table
1). Since plastic pollution was first reported as a phenomenon on the open ocean and not related directly to severe impacts on marine species and ecosystems, it was not perceived as a risk with “potential for disaster” (driver 4) nor a contamination that impacted a large group of people (driver 5). Debris in the middle of the ocean has no direct link to any human populations per se, which might also have affected the lack of public response (driver 5). Furthermore, oceanic pollution is abstract and not so tangible since it is not easily visible to most people. Therefore, the “Giddens paradox” (driver 8) might also have influenced the lack of perceived risk in these early years. Finally, there was very little information communicated to the public about the problem, for instance, from 2004 to 2010, microplastics were only mentioned a few times in UK newspapers, whereas the number of articles grew markedly in the following years [
25]. Since people obviously cannot perceive a risk that they are not aware of, this lack of communication is a final but very important reason for the lack of early alertness to the problem.