Evaluating alternatives to plastic microbeads in cosmetics

Banning the sale of rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads to protect the environment requires understanding the lifetime environmental impacts of potential substitutes. By comparing the environmental performance of alternatives, this study finds viable substitutes and those with adverse effects. In our haste to ban or regulate unsustainable and environmentally damaging materials and chemicals, we may overlook dangers posed by their substitutes. In light of the scientific evidence regarding the fate, persistence and toxicity of microplastics in the marine environment, many countries have banned the sale of rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads to prevent their release to the environment. However, the wider lifetime environmental impacts of the potential substitutes have not been considered, and care must be taken so that the environmental costs of using them do not potentially outweigh the benefits resulting from the bans. In this study, we use life cycle assessment to compare the environmental performance of a wide range of potential alternatives. The study investigates the quantities of these materials required and the human health and environmental impacts of their manufacture, transport and inclusion in cosmetics. We highlight that the long-term environmental and human health effects of their disposal are unknown and are thus excluded from the life cycle assessment. In support of the responsible replacement of plastic microbeads in cosmetics, we identify several alternatives that will perform better, as well as substitutes that could pose additional risks and have undesirable effects.

Automated summary

The study examines the environmental impacts of banning rinse-off cosmetics with plastic microbeads, and highlights the importance of carefully considering potential substitutes. It emphasizes the need to examine the long-term environmental impacts of alternatives and identify those that may have unfavorable effects.