Plastic microbeads are spherical particles of plastic made of synthetic polymers.
Since the 1990�s, they are more and more present in the composition of cosmetic products. Their size (generally from 10 to 150 _m) enables lots of uses: microbeads can be found in make-up, toothpaste, nail polish as colorants, scrubs, texturing agents�
Even though the plastics used in microbeads are rarely toxic for man, they are a source of pollution due to their corrosion and biodegradation resistance properties. Their adoption in the industry was very fast, and just like nanomaterials, their consequences on the human body and environment are still poorly known. On the other hand, it is already established that they can enter the marine food chain and the food web. Plus, microbeads are often released in the sea, because they are too small to be filtered by the water treatment system, where they can vehicle many contaminants.
Microbeads in the United Kingdom
1. NGO actions
Since January 2016, Greenpeace UK launched a petitioncalling the United Kingdom to follow the example of the United States and ban the use of microbeads in cosmetics. It has already received more than 325,000 signatures.
A recent survey, also from Greenpeace UK, declares that almost two thirds of the 1,000 people surveyed in the United Kingdom are in favor of a ban of microbeads.
A collective of 83 NGOs from 35 countries organized themselves to free the environment from microbead pollution. These organisms even developed an application that is able to read a cosmetic product�s barcode and determine if there are microbeads inside using a color code.
2. The Chamber of Commons audit of April 2016
The 15th of April 2016 marks the time limit set by the Chamber of Commons regarding the sending of written proof about plastic microparticles� impact on the environment, within the context of a plastic microbeads ban on the British ground project.
The opinion of great leaders from the cosmetic products sector such as Unilever, Procter & Gamble and L�Or�al was heard, as well as smaller companies and other civil society actors.
The opinion of the industry actors
1. The Industry
a) Unilever
The scientific director of Unilever, Ian Malcomber, hopes in the name of his company, that the ban of microbeads in cosmetic products in the United Kingdom �is not required�, and that Unilever prefers �industry-led action� through trade associations.
�We hope that industry takes responsibility and I would encourage members of Cosmetics Europe, and other national associations, to take action to phase out [the microbeads from cosmetic products] as soon as possible and not wait for the 2020 deadline,� he said to the Chamber of Commons.
Unilever started removing microbeads from its cosmetic products in 2012 and finalized it in 2014.
b) Procter & Gamble
Patrick Masscheleyn, an R&D director at Procter & Gamble declared that his company doesn�t oppose a ban of microbeads in the United Kingdom since the cosmetic products of his company won�t contain any from October 2016.
Though, he specifies that �if a ban is needed, we would prefer a global ban.�
c) L�Or�al
The research director of L�Or�al, Laurent Gilbert, declared that his company won�t manufacture any cosmetic products which contain formulations with microbeads �by mid-2017 at the latest�.
2. The industrial associations
The national British association CTPA (Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association) thinks the company will certainly be impaired by their competitors who won�t be constrained by the ban of microbeads in manufacturing cosmetic products, as well as the imports from outside the EU which won�t have to respect the national ban or adhere to a voluntary ban.
The difficulties posed by this ban
1. The differences of resources between SMEs and larger companies
It is clear that cosmetic industries, especially SMEs, don�t have the same means in terms of R&D as the sector leaders, and that they would have difficulties to respect a deadline if they had to voluntary remove microbeads from cosmetic products.
Mr Masscheleys assures that his company has the necessary data, and would be in favour of sharing information if necessary.
Mr Malcomber adds that a European sized survey could help in assessing the evolution of the cosmetic industry regarding this removal. The results of the survey, currently running, should be available within this year.
2. Challenging alternatives
�Instead of using microbeads, some companies use hydrated silica, minerals like salt, powders, nut and fruit kernels.
Dr. Masscheleyn explains that hydrated silica has �the same chemical identity as sand, which is inert. It means adding more sand into the sewage treatment system.�
Committee chair, Mary Creagh, raised concerns about replacing the 680 tons of plastic by a substance which properties are close to sand�s. She questions the capacity of water companies to treat more �sand� in a largely Victorian sewer network like the one in the United Kingdom.
For Dr. Masscheleyn, there is a global acceptance of silica for this use, even if his company has yet to contact any water company.
L�Or�al is discussing this issue with French companies to determine the consequences of an excess of silica and other �natural� ingredients in the sewage system.
Brexit�s impact
Earlier this year, Denmark called for a ban of microbeads in cosmetic products at the European level. If such measure was adopted, it may not affect the United Kingdom as they have chosen to leave the European Union (Brexit).
If you want more information, you can check our article on the consequences of Brexit on the chemical industry.
EcoMundo�s services for cosmetics
Don�t hesitate to contact us by emailing us at contact@ecomundo.eu if you have any questions on the cosmetics regulation or if you are looking for specific services:
- Regulation 1223/2009 services
- EU cosmetic compliance
- Responsible Person for Europe
- Formula review
- Claim review
- Cosmetic labeling services
- PIF creation
- Safety Assesment
- Cosmetic certification for europe
You can also contact us via phone: for North America please use + 1 (778) 231-1607 or for Europe +33 (0)1 83 64 20 54. EcoMundo�s experts will be happy to advise you!
Plastic microbeads are spherical particles of plastic made of synthetic polymers.
Since the 1990�s, they are more and more present in the composition of cosmetic products. Their size (generally from 10 to 150 _m) enables lots of uses: microbeads can be found in make-up, toothpaste, nail polish as colorants, scrubs, texturing agents�
Even though the plastics used in microbeads are rarely toxic for man, they are a source of pollution due to their corrosion and biodegradation resistance properties. Their adoption in the industry was very fast, and just like nanomaterials, their consequences on the human body and environment are still poorly known. On the other hand, it is already established that they can enter the marine food chain and the food web. Plus, microbeads are often released in the sea, because they are too small to be filtered by the water treatment system, where they can vehicle many contaminants.
Microbeads in the United Kingdom
1. NGO actions
Since January 2016, Greenpeace UK launched a petitioncalling the United Kingdom to follow the example of the United States and ban the use of microbeads in cosmetics. It has already received more than 325,000 signatures.
A recent survey, also from Greenpeace UK, declares that almost two thirds of the 1,000 people surveyed in the United Kingdom are in favor of a ban of microbeads.
A collective of 83 NGOs from 35 countries organized themselves to free the environment from microbead pollution. These organisms even developed an application that is able to read a cosmetic product�s barcode and determine if there are microbeads inside using a color code.
2. The Chamber of Commons audit of April 2016
The 15th of April 2016 marks the time limit set by the Chamber of Commons regarding the sending of written proof about plastic microparticles� impact on the environment, within the context of a plastic microbeads ban on the British ground project.
The opinion of great leaders from the cosmetic products sector such as Unilever, Procter & Gamble and L�Or�al was heard, as well as smaller companies and other civil society actors.
The opinion of the industry actors
1. The Industry
a) Unilever
The scientific director of Unilever, Ian Malcomber, hopes in the name of his company, that the ban of microbeads in cosmetic products in the United Kingdom �is not required�, and that Unilever prefers �industry-led action� through trade associations.
�We hope that industry takes responsibility and I would encourage members of Cosmetics Europe, and other national associations, to take action to phase out [the microbeads from cosmetic products] as soon as possible and not wait for the 2020 deadline,� he said to the Chamber of Commons.
Unilever started removing microbeads from its cosmetic products in 2012 and finalized it in 2014.
b) Procter & Gamble
Patrick Masscheleyn, an R&D director at Procter & Gamble declared that his company doesn�t oppose a ban of microbeads in the United Kingdom since the cosmetic products of his company won�t contain any from October 2016.
Though, he specifies that �if a ban is needed, we would prefer a global ban.�
c) L�Or�al
The research director of L�Or�al, Laurent Gilbert, declared that his company won�t manufacture any cosmetic products which contain formulations with microbeads �by mid-2017 at the latest�.
2. The industrial associations
The national British association CTPA (Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association) thinks the company will certainly be impaired by their competitors who won�t be constrained by the ban of microbeads in manufacturing cosmetic products, as well as the imports from outside the EU which won�t have to respect the national ban or adhere to a voluntary ban.
The difficulties posed by this ban
1. The differences of resources between SMEs and larger companies
It is clear that cosmetic industries, especially SMEs, don�t have the same means in terms of R&D as the sector leaders, and that they would have difficulties to respect a deadline if they had to voluntary remove microbeads from cosmetic products.
Mr Masscheleys assures that his company has the necessary data, and would be in favour of sharing information if necessary.
Mr Malcomber adds that a European sized survey could help in assessing the evolution of the cosmetic industry regarding this removal. The results of the survey, currently running, should be available within this year.
2. Challenging alternatives
�Instead of using microbeads, some companies use hydrated silica, minerals like salt, powders, nut and fruit kernels.
Dr. Masscheleyn explains that hydrated silica has �the same chemical identity as sand, which is inert. It means adding more sand into the sewage treatment system.�
Committee chair, Mary Creagh, raised concerns about replacing the 680 tons of plastic by a substance which properties are close to sand�s. She questions the capacity of water companies to treat more �sand� in a largely Victorian sewer network like the one in the United Kingdom.
For Dr. Masscheleyn, there is a global acceptance of silica for this use, even if his company has yet to contact any water company.
L�Or�al is discussing this issue with French companies to determine the consequences of an excess of silica and other �natural� ingredients in the sewage system.
Brexit�s impact
Earlier this year, Denmark called for a ban of microbeads in cosmetic products at the European level. If such measure was adopted, it may not affect the United Kingdom as they have chosen to leave the European Union (Brexit).
If you want more information, you can check our article on the consequences of Brexit on the chemical industry.
EcoMundo�s services for cosmetics
Don�t hesitate to contact us by emailing us at contact@ecomundo.eu if you have any questions on the cosmetics regulation or if you are looking for specific services:
- Regulation 1223/2009 services
- EU cosmetic compliance
- Responsible Person for Europe
- Formula review
- Claim review
- Cosmetic labeling services
- PIF creation
- Safety Assesment
- Cosmetic certification for europe
You can also contact us via phone: for North America please use + 1 (778) 231-1607 or for Europe +33 (0)1 83 64 20 54. EcoMundo�s experts will be happy to advise you!
