1

Microbeads: Product or Environmental ? By Claire Starling

My piece on is related to the theme of diversity because it refers the diversity of knowledge in terms of our environment and the impact we can have on it. Just a couple years ago, microbeads were common in a variety of different products, and I remember using them myself. We learned quickly just how harmful they were to our environment and instead we adapted to find natural alternatives. This research reflects diversity in terms of the way we are continuing to adapt and learn new things about our environment and work to adjust our own patterns and behaviors in order to keep our environment healthy and stable.

While the may be an unknown substance to majority of the public, these tiny beads of have made their way into hundreds of different products with devastating consequences. Microbeads are essentially microscopic plastic particles that are commonly found in facial cleansers, body washes, lotions, and hygienic products such as toothpastes and shampoos. These plastic ingredients can include (PE),

Polypropylene (PP), Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) or

Nylon (Beat the Microbead). Some products that use microbeads in their formula include popular brands such as Neutrogena, Aveeno, Clean and Clear, and Olay. These are meant to provide abrasive exfoliation by removing dead skin cells and leaving the skin soft to the touch and refreshed. Although microbeads do perform their intended purpose, their presence in these cleansing products comes at a great environmental cost that endangers not only a variety of marine life, but the lives of humans as well. 2

As their name suggests, microbeads are very small, rounded pieces of plastic that are less than 1.24 millimeters, or about the size of fine-grained salt (Gross). Due to their size, microbeads are not filtered out by plants or sewage plants. Once they are rinsed off, they flow through pipes and drains and then are dumped into rivers, lakes, and even the ocean.

Unfortunately, the beads do not dissolve or break down after they are washed away and billions of pieces of plastic contaminate the water, acting as a potential hazard to marine life. A New

York Times article states, “The effect is similar to grinding up plastic water bottles, other products of concern to environmentalists, and pumping them into oceans and lakes (Abrams).

Not only is there an issue with the abundance of in the water, there is concern over how long these pieces of plastic will remain over time. Since the plastics do not break down, they continue to accumulate and remain in the water for longer periods of time. One place in particular where the amount of microbeads present causes a concern is in The , an area where 20 percent of the world's surface fresh water is located. According to Bob Gross,

“studies have found up to 17,000 plastic particles per square kilometer in Lake Michigan. Lakes

Huron and Superior had similar amounts of plastics” (Gross). While the presence of plastic in water ecosystems in not a particularly new phenomenon, microbeads present an entirely new and different issue that causes marine and human ecosystems a great concern.

These small pieces of plastic, or microplastics, resemble a plentiful food source for fish and different aquatic creatures that are indistinguishable as plastic particles. These creatures often mistake microbeads for sediment, zooplankton, or other small organisms (Lajka). This consumption of plastic can cause a variety of dangerous complications. According to Sarah

Zhang, the beads can physically clog up the fishes’ stomachs and prevent them from getting adequate nutrition as a result (Zhang). The beads cannot be expelled through normal processes 3

and instead become stuck in the animal’s stomach or intestines. With the buildup of plastic, the

animals are unable to eat and eventually die from starvation or other health complications caused

by the plastic buildup. Sadly, the list of consequences from the prevalence of microbeads goes

beyond marine death. When marine creatures ingest these beads, they are ingesting more than

just plastic, an already harmful substance on its own. Microbeads can act as like sponge like

material that soaks up different chemicals and toxins. According to Peter Wells, a senior research

fellow with the International Ocean Institute at Dalhousie University, “microplastics absorb or

carry organic contaminants, such as PCBs, , flame retardants and hormone-disrupting

compounds of many kinds” (Weikle).When these toxins are ingested, they become transferred into the organism’s tissues and can cause harm to a variety of marine organisms.

One example of an organism that has experienced the negative effects of toxic

microbeads is the lugworm. Lugworms are marine worms that feed on decomposed organic

substances and ingest sand along with other food particles (marinebio.org). Since the lugworm

utilizes sand to find food to nourish itself, it is prone to coming into contact with microbeads and

ingesting it along with the sand it was buried in. A recent study found that the large uptake of

, additives, and microplastic damaged ecophysiological functions of the lugworm, such

as a reduction in survival, feeding, resistance to diseases, and antioxidant capacity (Browne). Not only are these results damaging to the lugworms themselves, but it also causes a disruption within the marine ecosystems. Lugworms play a crucial role in these ecosystems primarily due to their importance within the food chain. According to Jessica Aldred, lugworms play a role in the

marine environment by “turning over large volumes of sand, replenishing organic material, and

oxygenating the upper layers to keep the sediment healthy for other animals and microorganisms

to thrive in” (Aldred). If lugworms continue to ingest microbeads and face debilitating effects 4

from the consumption, then the organisms within the ecosystem and the structure of the

ecosystem itself will suffer as a result.

Microbeads are not only dangerous to the animals that are ingesting the toxins, but it can be dangerous to humans as well. When marine organisms digest microbeads, the toxins make their way through the food chain when the smaller, contaminated animals are eaten by bigger

animals and eventually, the bigger animals are consumed by humans. According to Philippe Van

Cappellen, an ecohydrology professor at the University of Waterloo, “If a fish eats the plastic

and someone eats the fish, the of being affected by these cancer-causing contaminants is

real” (Rumley). However, how often are microbeads and microplastics actually showing up in

human food? The answer is simple, more often than one would think. A recent study found that

tiny plastic particles are indeed making their way up through the food chain and coming back to

humans in the form of their own food. According to Sean Poulter, the study found there was

widespread contamination of a variety of different fish including cod, haddock, mackerel and

shellfish (Poulter). What does this mean for the people who are ingesting these products and in

turn ingesting the variety of chemicals and toxins that have been absorbed into their tissues? It

certainly poses a serious threat to the overall health of those who are consuming these

contaminated products. Unfortunately, the contamination does not stop at just fish either. Plastic

fragments and residues were also detected in 83 per cent of UK-caught scampi, as well as in

tuna, mullet, mussels, and oysters (Poulter). While it may seem like this phenomenon could only

be happening a handful of times, the rate that it is occurring is on a much larger scale. If

microbeads can become a potential harm to humans themselves, will people then perhaps start to

realize that they pose an actual threat? Fortunately, scientists and researchers have begun the 5 steps to make it known to the world that microbeads are indeed a toxic form of that need to be phased out entirely.

Since scientists and researchers have learned the negative effects of microbeads and microplastics, they have pushed to ban the microbead and phase it out of all personal care products. The state of and the website storyofstuff.org, a nonprofit group that illustrated the microbead and how they are damaging oceans and lakes, began the petition to ban the microbead, and eventually the effort spread. In 2015, the enacted federal legislation to ban microbeads (storyofstuff.org).With the Microbead-Free Waters Act passed; it became illegal to sell a personal care product containing plastic microbeads by 2017. This law required manufacturers to change their product formulas so they will no longer include the infamous plastic particles. According to Ashley Lutz, producers such as Johnson & Johnson,

Unilever, and Procter & Gamble have all made pledges to phase out the most common kind of microbead from their products (Lutz). Luckily, for those who are worried about their skin care routine with the ban of microbeads, there are varieties of different abrasive alternatives that will provide the same sense of exfoliation without causing mass pollution. A few examples in particular include St. Ives Fresh Skin Apricot Scrub, Facial Radiance Polish, and Dermalogica’s

Microfoliant, which uses natural exfoliants such as rice, apricot seeds, walnut shells, powdered pecan shells, and bamboo in place of plastic (Adams). Ironically, these natural alternatives are actually a more successful exfoliant due to the rough texture of their composition, whereas microbeads are smooth and rounded. The Microbead-Free Waters Act was a major step in the right direction by ensuring the elimination of any future production as well as pollution of microbeads. With the negative publicity surrounding microbeads made apparent, many areas 6 began to realize what exactly they were using in their personal care products and how it was negatively affecting their environment.

Seven states in total have passed laws restricting microbeads, including California,

Colorado, , , , and . On a global scale, 193 countries signed a UN resolution to eliminate in the sea, which calls for nations to take action to reduce the use of microbeads (Pfeifer). The UK in particular has recently enforced a strict ban on microbeads that took place in the beginning of 2018, making good on their earlier promise in 2016 to remove them from all their products. Thérèse Coffey, the British environment minister stated, “the world’s seas and oceans are some of our most valuable natural assets, and I am determined we act now to tackle the plastic that devastates our precious marine life” (Shoe).

While many places are making progress in teaching others about the negative effects of microbeads and eliminating their use in products, has it taken too long to come to this realization? A 2015 analysis of waters around the United States has found that the country was dumping a stunning 8 trillion bits of plastic into oceans and lakes every day (Stallard). With those numbers, it seems unfathomable to imagine how many total microbeads are in the world’s oceans, lakes, and rivers in 2018.

The sale and use of plastic microbeads over the years has caused a substantial amount of environmental harm to the world’s water sources and the marine organisms living within them.

Trillions of these tiny plastic particles are polluting rivers, lakes, and oceans without much concern or understanding from the people who are polluting them. The presence of microbeads have proven detrimental to both marine and human lives, such as consumption of these chemically toxic plastics, resulting in a variety of complications, disruption of natural ecosystems, and even death in some cases. This toxic absorption in the tissues of marine 7 organisms is cycled through the food chain, eventually making their way back to humans in their own food sources, becoming a potential health threat to those who consume the corrupted meat.

The circulation of microbeads back to humans seems only appropriate seeing as these issues were directly caused by humans washing the microplastics down the drain, unaware of their toxic potency. Efforts to ban these toxic plastics have proven successful. This is demonstrated through the actions of multiple countries that have committed to stopping their production.

Nevertheless, what about the trillions of pieces that are still floating in the ocean and in The

Great Lakes? Perhaps the next necessary step in the fight against the microbead is to find a way to collect the existing plastic and eradicate it from not only the grocery shelves, but from the world’s precious water sources themselves.

8

Works cited

Adams, Rebecca. “How Your Face Wash Could Be Poisoning Our Water.” The Huffington Post,

TheHuffingtonPost.com, 20 Feb. 2014.

Aldred, Jessica. “Mounting Microplastic Pollution Harms 'Earthworms of the Sea' – Report.”The

Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 2 Dec. 2013.

Beat the Microbead, Plastic Soap Foundation , 2018.

Browne, Mark Anthony, et al. “Microplastic Moves Pollutants and Additives to Worms,

Reducing Functions Linked to Health and Biodiversity.” Current Biology, vol. 23, no.

23, 2013, pp. 2388–2392., doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.012.

Gross, Bob. “Plastic Microbead Pollution a Concern in Great Lakes.” The Times Herald, Times

Herald, 16 Mar. 2015.

Hrala, Josh. “Microbeads Could Be Turning The Fish We Eat Toxic, Study Finds.”ScienceAlert,

17 Aug. 2016.

Lajka, Arijeta. “Microbeads Kill Animals and Destroy the Environment - So California May Ban

Them.” VICE News, 22 May 2015.

"Lugworms, Arenicola marina ~ MarineBio.org." MarineBio Conservation Society. Web.

Accessed Sunday, May 06, 2018.

Lutz, Ashley. “Your Face Wash Could Contain an Ingredient That's Killing Fish and

Turtles.”Business Insider, Business Insider, 26 May 2015.

Pfeifer, Hazel. “The UK Now Has One of World's Toughest Microbead Bans.” CNN, Cable

News Network, 9 Jan. 2018. 9

Poulter , Sean. “Revealed: Plastic Is Found in a THIRD of Fish Caught in Britain Because of

Toxic Microbeads Used in Shower Gels, Toothpastes and Beauty Products .” Daily Mail

Online, Associated Newspapers, 2 Sept. 2016.

“Product Lists.” Beat the Microbead, 2018.

Rochman, Chelsea M., et al. “Scientific Evidence Supports a Ban on Microbeads.” ACS

Publications, American Chemical Society, 3 Sept. 2015.

Rumley, Jonathan. “Microbeads a Huge Concern for Environmentalists | CBC News.”CBCnews,

CBC/Radio , 12 June 2015.

Schlanger, Zoë. “The U.S. Just Banned Microbeads, Those Tiny, Plastic Environmental

Disasters in Your ‘Exfoliating’ Face Wash.” Newsweek, 11 May 2016

Shoe, Des. “The U.K. Has Banned Microbeads. Why?” The New York Times, The New York

Times, 9 Jan. 2018.

Stallard, Brian. “Ocean Pollution: 8 Trillion Microbeads a Day from US.” Nature World News,

25 Sept. 2015.

Weikle, Brandie. “Microplastics Found in Supermarket Fish, Shellfish | CBC News.” CBCnews,

CBC/Radio Canada, 28 Jan. 2017.

Wilson, Stiv. “Plastic Microbeads: Ban The Bead!” The Story of Stuff Project, 31 July 2017.

Zhang, Sarah. “Why Those Little Plastic Microbeads in Your Soap Are So Bad.” Gizmodo, 15

June 2014.