Push to ban plastic microbeads from facial scrubs gains momentum(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
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
6 comments
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.
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.
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.
Marine life has dealt with particles in the water for a billion years.
Precisely, and that actually potentially works against the organisms' defenses. It's like the Trojan Horse, it looks okay on the outside. The particles being dealt with for a billion years I imagine have varied little in their molecular construction and bio-reactivity.
Your idea is that we can introduce tons of new plastic particles into the environment having all the disruptive properties plastics have been shown to have, but it's okay because there are already 'particles' in the environment.
Elsewhere you question what studies have been conducted to quantify damage done by these particles.
As you may know, the earth is an immensely complex system. Sometimes it is relatively easy to draw a causal line from A to B. Other times the effects of something are no doubt there, but the interworkings of so many factors make it hard to precisely quantify the effects of any one factor.(see Honeybees and Colony Collapse Disorder[1])
So your idea that we should go ahead and saturate the environment with this substance that has been shown in other realms and at other scales to be detrimental, and then if someone happens to take an interest in precisely quantifying damage that it is doing, then we can do something about it, seems wrongheaded.
Maybe you're just playing the reflexive contrarian like worklogin, "shouldn't we avoid laws?" This is precisely what laws are for, to protect the common good! And it isn't a stretch to infer damage being done based on what we know about plastic.
[1]http://cdn.billmoyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/6729628...
Precisely, and that actually potentially works against the organisms' defenses. It's like the Trojan Horse, it looks okay on the outside. The particles being dealt with for a billion years I imagine have varied little in their molecular construction and bio-reactivity.
Your idea is that we can introduce tons of new plastic particles into the environment having all the disruptive properties plastics have been shown to have, but it's okay because there are already 'particles' in the environment.
Elsewhere you question what studies have been conducted to quantify damage done by these particles.
As you may know, the earth is an immensely complex system. Sometimes it is relatively easy to draw a causal line from A to B. Other times the effects of something are no doubt there, but the interworkings of so many factors make it hard to precisely quantify the effects of any one factor.(see Honeybees and Colony Collapse Disorder[1])
So your idea that we should go ahead and saturate the environment with this substance that has been shown in other realms and at other scales to be detrimental, and then if someone happens to take an interest in precisely quantifying damage that it is doing, then we can do something about it, seems wrongheaded.
Maybe you're just playing the reflexive contrarian like worklogin, "shouldn't we avoid laws?" This is precisely what laws are for, to protect the common good! And it isn't a stretch to infer damage being done based on what we know about plastic.
[1]http://cdn.billmoyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/6729628...
Particles, yes, but plastic particles? These didn't even exist a hundred years ago.
The damage is being documented, and it's far more obvious with larger contaminants, the most prevalent being plastic nurdles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurdle) that sometimes escape into the environment.
The damage is being documented, and it's far more obvious with larger contaminants, the most prevalent being plastic nurdles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurdle) that sometimes escape into the environment.
The presence is being documented, but presence isn't damage.
I'm not an industry apologist. But we can't spend billions on everything, and there are real issues that need addressing.
I'm not an industry apologist. But we can't spend billions on everything, and there are real issues that need addressing.
This isn't about spending billions. It's about not putting beads in facial scrubs.
Surely the industry will survive if they use something like walnuts or pumice instead.
Surely the industry will survive if they use something like walnuts or pumice instead.
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.
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.
I'm confused. Nobody talks about any measurable harm these beads are doing. The ocean is full of sand already. What's the impetus?
"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.
Edit: unlike sand.
That sounds like speculation. Again, I wonder if any actual measurements were done by anybody, ever.
Er, lots of people talk about the measurable harm. Start here and google a bit for even more :
http://beatthemicrobead.org/en/science
http://beatthemicrobead.org/en/science
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.
I just mean to suggest that the alarm is premature.
Maybe we are reading a different page, there are some papers showing what IS, not what COULD be :
> it was shown that over 663 different species were negatively impacted by marine debris with approximately 11% of reported cases specifically related to the ingestion of microplastics
> Increased oceanic microplastic debris enhances oviposition in an endemic pelagic insect
And so on. The rest aren't "vague alarmist statements", but sensible evidence based predictions. They may or may not turn out to be premature, but given that :
- the absense of microbeads isn't a serious issue for humanity or even quality of life
- there are known alternatives (listed in the article)
- if the predictions turn out to be true, it will be too late to do anything about it then as they can't be cleaned up
it seems sensible to take precautionary measures now.
> it was shown that over 663 different species were negatively impacted by marine debris with approximately 11% of reported cases specifically related to the ingestion of microplastics
> Increased oceanic microplastic debris enhances oviposition in an endemic pelagic insect
And so on. The rest aren't "vague alarmist statements", but sensible evidence based predictions. They may or may not turn out to be premature, but given that :
- the absense of microbeads isn't a serious issue for humanity or even quality of life
- there are known alternatives (listed in the article)
- if the predictions turn out to be true, it will be too late to do anything about it then as they can't be cleaned up
it seems sensible to take precautionary measures now.
You are confused: you've confused sand and plastic. Two totally different things.
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.
Sand isn't plastic...
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".
It seems logical that we could skim these out as they are as the article attests "boyant".
How would you pay for the upgrade of all water treatment plants? A special tax on microbeads?
Extending that, could you somehow mine the sea (and great lakes) for the existing beads, and recycle them?
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.
Good point. Either way removing (possibly for recycling) during water treatment does seem like an obvious thing to do, since this seems unlikely to be the only source of such materials in future.
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?
Or, is it because you have experience with bans?
[deleted](1)
[deleted](2)
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?
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).
Ah, missed that. Pretty cool.
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?
The classic stuff that is extremely common is apricot scrub. They grind up apricot pits for the scrub.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh but the two aren't mutually exclusive you say? I beg to differ.
It turns out lunar dust is an excellent exfoliant!
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...
[0]http://www.amazon.com/Alba-Botanica-Revitalizing-Hawaiian-Sc...
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.
[deleted]
I've seen walnut shells used in similar products
Plain old clay.
>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.
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.
> 1 bead per million sq mm
Perhaps better expressed as "1 bead per square meter". :)
Perhaps better expressed as "1 bead per square meter". :)
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.
- 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.
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?