The cosmetics industry should clearly label products containing microbeads or face new rules from government, a cross-party group of MPs said.
Publishing the results of its inquiry into the environmental impact of microplastics, the commons Environmental Audit Committee concluded that they must be banned from cosmetics.
Microbeads are small solid plastic particles found in personal care products that pose an environmental hazard for aquatic animals and potentially human health. The MPs noted that most large cosmetics companies have made voluntary commitments to phase them out by 2020, but said that this was not universal nor the approach adopted consistent. Instead it wants a national ban by the end of 2017. This would give consumers more confidence and prevent responsible companies being undercut, the MPs argued.
Committee chair Mary Creagh said: ‘The microbeads in scrubs, shower gels and toothpastes are an avoidable part of this plastic pollution problem. Cosmetic companies’ voluntary approach to phasing out plastic microbeads simply won’t wash. We need a full legal ban, preferably at an international level as pollution does not respect borders.'
If this is not possible after the vote to leave the EU, the government should introduce a national ban, she added.
However, the committee said that in the interim firms should provide consumers with information on whether products contain microbeads. This is not clear from current labels, it said. The MPs noted that companies giving evidence to their inquiry were generally reluctant to change their labelling.
Dr Patrick Masscheleyn, director of research and development at P&G, told the committee that the firm’s products containing microbeads are labelled with polyethylene, which is in line with international regulations. Since the company was committed phasing out plastic microbeads it did not see a need to introduce different labelling, he added.
Ian Malcomber, science director of Unilever, claimed labels stating ‘containing microplastics’ did not apply to the firm. ‘I think we are very public on our website of our commitment to get out of microplastic beads and we have succeeded in that.’
Dr Chris Flower, director general of the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Perfumery Association, said such labelling would in effect be akin to posting an advert saying, ‘Do not buy my product’.
The committee acknowledged that there are costs associated with changing labels, but said that, since companies and regulations were failing consumers, the government should introduce a clear labelling scheme so that consumers can choose for themselves whether to buy a product containing microbeads.
The MPs also noted that plastic microbeads from cosmetics comprise only a small proportion of total microplastic pollution, estimated at 0.01–4.1% of the total entering the marine environment. Nonetheless, they argued it was worth tackling it as it was ‘low hanging fruit’ in the context of tackling wider plastic pollution.
The committee said companies treating wastewater should work with the government and Environment Agency to test the feasibility of monitoring and reducing microplastic pollution. It also said other sources of microplastics, including synthetic fibres in clothing, tyres and industrial processes, including sandblasting, should also be tackled.
The government should work towards a systematic strategy for researching and mitigating sources of microplastic pollution, it recommended.
In his evidence to the inquiry, environment minister George Eustice told the MPs the government was supportive of a ban and had raised it at EU-level. Working alone, the UK could implement a ban on manufacturing of products containing microbeads, but not the sale of products imported with microbeads, since trade is controlled at EU level, he explained to MPs.
