Da Beers!

Da Beers!

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Personal Grooming Products May Be Harming Great Lakes Marine Life

Scientific American reports that three of the Great Lakes—Huron, Superior and Erie—are awash in plastic. But it's not the work of a Christo-like landscape artist covering the waterfront. Rather, small plastic beads, known as micro plastic, are the offenders, according to survey results to be published this summer in Marine Pollution Bulletin. 

Where does all this plastic come from?  Turns out some cosmetics manufacturers use these micro beads, or micro exfoliates, as abrasives in facial and body scrubs. 

These particles are too small for water treatment plants to filter, so they wash down the drain and into the Great Lakes. 

The biggest worry: fish such as yellow perch or turtles and gulls think of them as dinner. If fish or birds eat the inert beads, the material can deprive them of nutrients from real food or get lodged in their stomachs or intestines, blocking digestive systems.  

These wee bits of plastic, essentially "solid oil," also absorb chemicals "like a sponge."  The pollutants can remain in the environment for more than 50 years and can accumulate in fish and other organisms, proceeding up the food chain on ingestion by other species (e.g., humans) where they can cause DNA damage, which, in turn, can lead to cancer or physiological impairment.

This doesn't mean people should stop washing.  Some folks are pleading the case with cosmetics manufacturers to simply replace the plastic micro beads with natural exfoliating materials, such as pumice, oatmeal, apricot or walnut husks, that cosmetics companies like Burt's Bees or St. Ives already employ in their products.


The Body Shop and L'Oreal have already announced discontinuation of plastic micro beads in their facial and body cleansers, and Johnson & Johnson has just announced it will cease using micro beads in all of its products. Unilever has also announced that it will stop using micro beads by 2015. 


That leaves Proctor & Gamble.  But with more than $80 billion in annual sales, P&G is a very glaring exception to an otherwise hopeful trend.

And with a ~50-year environmental lifespan, it would always be better if we didn't do these things in the first place, yes?

No comments:

Post a Comment