Call For End To 'War On Face Wash' Comes Late For US

Study findings show that plastic microbeads' presence in water is minimal where fish actually feed, and fish aren't attracted to them regardless, a University of Michigan professor and research director suggests in a recent op-ed published by The Detroit News. The ingredients' use in cosmetics is already banned in the US, but European member states are exploring similar regulations and pushing for EU-wide action.

A University of Michigan environmental professor and researcher cites study findings corroborating industry's position that microbeads in personal-care products contribute negligibly to plastic litter in US waterways and that banning their use in the sector will have little ecological, or human health, benefit.

His call for a ceasefire in the "environmentalist war on face wash" comes too late in the US, however.

The federal Microbead-Free Waters Act signed into law in late 2015 requires manufacturers to stop producing rinse-off cosmetics that contain intentionally added plastic microbeads for exfoliating or cleansing purposes, including toothpaste, by July 1, 2017, and discontinue sales one year later.

Those deadlines each are extended by one year for products regulated as OTC drugs, such as acne face washes.

The Personal Care Products Council supported the bill and applauded its swift passage by Congress in the closing weeks of last year. The legislation's appeal for industry is largely due to its preemption component that prohibits conflicting state and local laws addressing plastic microbead use in cosmetics (Also see "Microbead Bill Passes Congress Without Biodegradable Plastic Exemption" - HBW Insight, 18 Dec, 2015.).

The trade group noted in a December 2015 statement that a growing patchwork of laws and regulations across the US in recent years was creating "unnecessary disruption and confusion for both consumers and companies" before the federal law went on the books.

While stressing the personal-care industry's commitment to environmental stewardship, PCPC has maintained that plastic microbeads are "miniscule contributors to marine plastic debris," and the cosmetic sector's particular contribution "a tiny fraction of that."

The organization has repeatedly cited research to back its position, actively responding to media coverage that it says has misreported the issues in question and inaccurately characterized the personal-care industry's role in marine plastic pollution.

UM researchers dissected 145 fish from Lakes Huron and Erie, and "under the microscope we examined the gut of each. Not one contained a microbead of plastic. Not one," Burton says.

In an April 24 op-ed published in The Detroit News, Allen Burton, a natural resources and environment professor and director of the Cooperative Institute of Limnology and Ecosystems Research at the University of Michigan, expresses a similar view, taking particular aim at the idea that plastic microbeads are ending up on consumers' dinner plates.

"If environmentalists and lawmakers are trying to clean our water, protect marine life and make fish safer for human consumption, their campaigns and legislative efforts have been a huge waste of time and taxpayer money," he asserts.

According to Burton, whose research has focused on ecological risk assessment and aquatic ecosystem stressors, UM scientists dissected 145 fish from Lakes Huron and Erie, "where some of the highest levels of microplastics in the world have been reported," zeroing in on the six species most likely to consume microplastics.

"Under the microscope," he explains, "we examined the gut of each. Not one contained a microbead of plastic. Not one."

Previous Studies Flawed, Burton Suggests

Burton, who also serves as editor in chief for international journal Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry and was previously president of the nonprofit Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, offers perspective on the UM team's markedly different findings compared with other microbead research that activists have promoted as signaling a threat to the food chain.

First, he suggests that more alarming figures about plastic microbeads' prevalence in waterways are from studies where investigators have trawled water surfaces, where most fish do not feed.

In reality, the "very worst" sites have just one to three microplastic particles for every 300 to 700 liters of water, and a small fraction of the particles are actually microbeads, according to Burton.

He also points out that fish typically dine on organisms that move, such as zooplankton, rather than microbeads and other bits of refuse that are relatively motionless in water.

Studies indicating otherwise can be misleading due to artificial constraints in their design, he suggests, describing experiments in which fish have been confined to spaces with nothing to eat except for the microbeads also present at extremely high concentrations.

In their natural environments, fish have a smorgasbord of other, more appetizing and more readily available options, he says.

Greenpeace UK reported April 14 that more than 90% of surveyed Britons support banning plastic microbeads' use in cosmetics, which according to the organization represents "an opportunity for David Cameron to take a position at the leadership table on marine plastic pollution."

Burton acknowledges that water pollution is a problem, but from his perspective, environmentalists are "picking the wrong fight."

More significant pollutants include pathogens that could be dealt with better by strengthening water treatment facilities, as well as nutrients from fertilizer and animal waste, which could be reduced in the environment by promoting farming that employs sound conservation practices to reduce runoff, he says.

Burton lists other "more pervasive and important pollutants" impacting waterways that should be prioritized over microplastic, as well as potential reform measures to achieve improvements.

"These are some practical effective ways we can promote a cleaner, healthier aquatic environment. Banning microbeads in cosmetics will fail to achieve this laudable goal," he concludes.

While it may be too late to change environmental NGOs' direction or attitudes on plastic microbead management in the US, other countries are exploring similar bans on the ingredients' use in cosmetics.

Greenpeace UK reported April 14 that more than 90% of surveyed Britons support banning the beads, which according to the organization represents "an opportunity for David Cameron to take a position at the leadership table on marine plastic pollution."

More than 282,000 individuals have signed the group's online petition urging the Prime Minister to take action against plastic microbeads in cosmetic products.

Meanwhile, Sweden and Denmark reportedly are considering greater controls as well, with the former pushing for EU-wide regulatory action.