Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/push-to-ban-plastic-microbeads-from-facial-scrubs-gains-momentum-1.2670960

by sunilkumarc • 12 years ago

58 41 12 years ago

worklogin• 12 years ago

A number of personal care product manufacturers have promised to cut microbeads from their products in the coming years, but dates vary. Unilever is aiming for 2015, Colgate-Palmolive in 2014, Procter & Gamble vowed to be free by 2017, while Johnson & Johnson and L'Oréal haven't given a date.

Do we need a law for this? So far, all action has been spurred by consumer and environmental groups. Sure, it may not happen at the same pace as if CA bans it and puts another law on their books, but if it happens soon, shouldn't we avoid lawmaking?

astrodust3• 12 years ago

Something this ridiculously damaging needs to be banned outright. If I were a corporation making products of this sort I'd rather tell my shareholders "Sorry, environmental regulations prevent us from making that product" rather than "We decided to abandon a profitable product line because scientists told us to."

This is the same principle behind architecture review boards for cities. If the architect has peers to support their efforts, they're more likely to succeed than to be forced to cave into purely economic concerns.

There are some things corporations are very good at, but protecting the long-term interests of people is not one of them.

JoeAltmaier6• 12 years ago

The damage is speculative so far. It remains to be seen whether any significant environmental damage has been done. The mere presence of plastic particles is not enough. Marine life has dealt with particles in the water for a billion years.

mikeash• 12 years ago

Group actions like this can fall apart pretty easily. One company feels some pressure and changes their mind, and then everybody else follows.

I think a good case can be made that a major purpose of law should be to codify the unwritten rules that people already follow, to ensure that everyone understands them and to make it easier to resolve disputes.

Looking at it from another direction, making a law like this can make it easier for everybody involved even if they're already voluntarily following it. I like to make the analogy to safety regulations in car racing. There's an inherent conflict between safety and speed (if nothing else, safety equipment adds weight) which puts drivers at risk and sets up hard choices for people who have to weigh their desire to win against their desire to die in bed. Regulating a certain level safety equipment settles the question and provides a fair playing field for competition without having to feel like a chump for trying to do the right thing.

JoeAltmaier6• 12 years ago

I'm confused. Nobody talks about any measurable harm these beads are doing. The ocean is full of sand already. What's the impetus?

wrongc0ntinent• 12 years ago

"Often buoyant, the beads can soak up toxins like a sponge. And since they resemble the size of fish eggs, environmentalists fear the micro-plastics are making their way into the food chain via fish, birds and mammals."

Edit: unlike sand.

JoeAltmaier6• 12 years ago

That sounds like speculation. Again, I wonder if any actual measurements were done by anybody, ever.

RobAley2• 12 years ago

Er, lots of people talk about the measurable harm. Start here and google a bit for even more :

http://beatthemicrobead.org/en/science

JoeAltmaier6• 12 years ago

Sure, I see there vague alarmist statements of what COULD be. With honest appraisals of the risks like "the full extent and consequences is hard to quantify" and "In theory, ingested POPs could remain on the surface of ingested microplastics and could be egested" but no numbers or attempt at measurement.

I just mean to suggest that the alarm is premature.

knowaveragejoe• 12 years ago

Sand isn't plastic...

thathonkey• 12 years ago

You are confused: you've confused sand and plastic. Two totally different things.

JoeAltmaier6• 12 years ago

I meant to suggest that plastic particles in the environment fill a similar niche to sand particles, as far as being indigestible and already being dealt with by marine life.

donatj2• 12 years ago

It seems to me like it would be better in the long run to invest money in developing better water treatment plants rather than getting on the ban-wagon.

It seems logical that we could skim these out as they are as the article attests "boyant".

fidotron2• 12 years ago

Extending that, could you somehow mine the sea (and great lakes) for the existing beads, and recycle them?

donatj2• 12 years ago

My fear there would just be they are similar in size and buoyancy to fish eggs and we might cause more harm than good trying to remove them.

epistasis• 12 years ago

Why does it "seem" that way to you? Do you have experience with filtering systems, and the costs associated with them?

Or, is it because you have experience with bans?

guelo• 12 years ago

How would you pay for the upgrade of all water treatment plants? A special tax on microbeads?

mturmon• 12 years ago

We'd also need a Federal-level "Microbead Czar".

yellowapple3• 12 years ago

Are there non-plastic alternatives on the books? I'm all for protecting nature, but these microbeads are useful as an abrasive element (meaning more thorough cleaning). Maybe sterilized sand?

lepht• 12 years ago

I've seen walnut shells used in similar products

makomk• 12 years ago

You mean, aside from the ones mentioned in the linked article: "natural alternatives like ground almonds, sea salt or oatmeal" (which is, I believe, what was used before microbeads were available).

yellowapple3• 12 years ago

Ah, missed that. Pretty cool.

pandemicsyn• 12 years ago

I use a brand called Bulldog that uses ground up coconut shell's. It feels like it works better...maybe because its not made up of perfect little spheres of plastic?

Zancarius• 12 years ago

You can make your own with equal parts coconut oil and sugar. Searching for "sugar scrub recipe" yields dozens of homemade recipes for facial and body scrubs that are natural and relatively inexpensive. Depending on where the ingredients are sourced, they're fairly environmentally sound.

hcarvalhoalves• 12 years ago

Plain old clay.

JPKab• 12 years ago

The classic stuff that is extremely common is apricot scrub. They grind up apricot pits for the scrub.

rickdale• 12 years ago

Salt. I poor kosher or sea salt in my hand, then dish soap on top and rub that around. And I discovered that when I started buying sea salt body scrub from the store[0]. I can get pretty damn stinky and this is the best I have come across for a deep revitalizing clean.

[0]http://www.amazon.com/Alba-Botanica-Revitalizing-Hawaiian-Sc...

cb33• 12 years ago

I hope this is satire. "It might royally fuck up the environment, but I've been so manipulated by marketing, that if I don't rub microscopic plastic on my body, I just feel so... unclean... guys, guys? Where are you going?"

The 'sterilized' sand bit at the end was a nice touch too, alluding to the dominant scorched earth policy we have in regards to shaping the environment in ways we (mistakenly, deludedly) think will be most conducive to our well-being.

cb33• 12 years ago

People wonder what happened to great nations of the past. When you have men(you'll understand my assumption,) whining about cosmetic products instead of plotting courses to the moon, there's your answer.

Oh but the two aren't mutually exclusive you say? I beg to differ.

yellowapple3• 12 years ago

It was a serious question, and it received many excellent answers. Yours was not among them.

Abrasive elements are commonplace in soaps for auto shops and other places where most conventional soaps have a hard time with the gunk accumulated from automotive grease and such. The particulates help to actually scrape off that gunk (in a manner that doesn't cause skin injuries), rather than rely on the hope that soap's chemical properties alone will suffice.

buckbova2• 12 years ago

The highest concentration was found in Lake Ontario, with counts of up to 1.1 million plastic particles per square kilometre.

1.1 million 1mm diameter beads in 1 sq km doesn't seem like much, like 1 bead per million sq mm. But there shouldn't really be any of these. Kind of a ridiculous idea to begin with.

ptx• 12 years ago

1 bead per million sq mm

Perhaps better expressed as "1 bead per square meter". :)

buckbova2• 12 years ago

Shows you the power of numbers. I get a different feel for each equivalent phrasing:

- 1.1 million plastic particles per square kilometre

- 1 bead per million sq mm

- 1 bead per square meter

And I agree, the article should have used the latter.

Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum

Related Stories