Microbeads, tiny sphere-shaped plastic polymers, have been around for over 30 years.  In that time, this invention has gone from genius to dangerous.  Commonly found in makeup and self care products, microbeads are a major avoidable cause of plastic pollution and it’s time we do something about it.

History of microbeads

Microbeads are the brainchild of Dr. John Uglestad, a Norwegian scientist who first invented the tiny polymers in his labs in the 1980s.  At the time, Dr. Uglestad was heralded as a genius.  And, in fact, the invention was quite brilliant.  Microbeads are a crucial part of life-saving processes in medicine.  They help to separate bodily substances which substantially simplifies medical testing.  A paramagnetic version of microbeads is even effective in cancer treatment.  The beads are piled onto cancerous bones and work to scrub out any diseased cells.  However, when it comes to microbeads in cosmetics, the results are less impressive.

The danger of microbeads

It is estimated that 808 tonnes of microbeads are washed down US drains every day.  An average face wash contains 100,000 microbeads and these plastics are also found in toothpaste, shampoo, makeup and exfoliants.  One shower can result in 100,000 plastic particles entering the ocean waters.  Between 80,000 and 219,000 tonnes of microbeads enter into Europe’s marine environment every year.  These flushed microbeads end up in our lakes, rivers and oceans.  While most is removed to the sludge pile, a significant amount of this toxic plastic remains in the water.  There it becomes food for plankton and eventually ends up in the stomachs of fish and fish-eating birds. 
  
Studies have shown that microbeads can transfer toxic chemicals and have the ability to kill fish before they reach reproductive age.  Microbeads also end up in the food chain, making their way from marine life to the stomachs of humans.  It is estimated that if you eat six oysters you will have consumed 50 particles of microplastics.

Microbeads are just one part of the microplastic problem but they are an avoidable part.  Fragments from larger pieces of plastic waste and fibres from synthetic clothing also contribute to this plastic pollution.  But microbeads are most dangerous as they are small enough to be ingested and carry toxic chemicals.  

What are companies doing to eliminate microbeads?

Thankfully, most of the large cosmetic companies have already committed to reducing and/or eliminating the use of microbeads in their products.  In 2012, Unilever said they would stop using the harmful substance.  Both Proctor & Gamble and L’Oreal have also set timelines for phasing out microbeads.

Some companies are choosing to remove the ingredient altogether while others are opting to replace it.  Many natural and non-polluting options are available as suitable replacements such as peach pits, oatmeal, nutshells, pumice, sugar and salt. 

However, this voluntary phase out by cosmetic companies isn’t as promising as it appears.  A recent Greenpeace report studied the claims and commitments by these companies and discovered some very discouraging loopholes. For example, Colgate-Palmolive, who pledged to stop the use of microbeads in 2014 was found to only have eliminated the beads from their exfoliants and cleansers.  Microbeads can still be found in moisturizers and other types of makeup.  Estee Lauder claimed to be in the process of removing microbeads from their exfoliating products but Greenpeace points out they have only designated one type of product and have not committed to a firm deadline. Other loopholes discovered by Greenpeace include promising to eliminate only one kind of microbead, eliminating the beads from only certain products and only phasing out microbeads in certain countries. 

Mary Creagh, a British MP and committee chair of the UK’s environmental audit, believes that the voluntary phase out of microbeads by cosmetic companies is both inconsistent and confusing for consumers.  She states that the only way forward is an official ban on the use of microbeads.

Banning the use of microbeads

Creagh is calling for a full, legal, international ban against the use of microbeads.  With the support of the environmental audit committee, Creagh states that this ban should happen within the next 18 months and should be international, as pollution does not recognize borders.  The best way to reduce plastic pollution is to not allow plastic products to go down our drains and into the sea.  A ban within the next 18 months would provide the consistency, universality and confidence the consumers require that is not achievable through voluntary phase out.  Creagh and her colleagues are supported by a petition signed by 300,000 UK residents calling for the ban of microbeads.  This petition was delivered to the Prime Minister in June of this year. 

Microbeads have already been banned in many countries across the world.  The US and Canada both banned microbeads in 2015.  The Netherlands, always ahead of the curve, banned the product in 2014.  

Besides a ban, concerned environmentalists are also looking at other ways to attack the microplastic pollution problem.  They are calling for more resources to support better filtration systems and improved waste and water treatment processes.  There is also a call for more research on the impact of microbeads on human health and marine life.  From the studies we’ve seen so far, microbeads are obviously destructive to our environment and animal life.  Who knows what damaging effect of microbeads will be discovered next?