User:Aidannoval/sandbox

sandbox for playing

Microbeads article
As consumers, we are presented with new products in the marketplace constantly, with promises of “new and improved” results for our health and beauty regimes. What we become unaware of is the resulting negative impact on our environment, but now, as consumers, we are able to learn the harsh reality of what microbeads are having on our Canadian environment; what actions our government is willing to take and what alternatives can be safely used by cosmetic industries.

This article examines plastic microbeads, usually made from polyethylene or polypropylene, and the impact on fresh bodies of water in Canada, using studies from the St. Lawrence River, Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Superior. Microbeads have a negative impact on the environment by pollution and also through affecting organisms and their food chain. Although fairly new to researchers, microbeads have already been banned in some states and countries, however, are still tolerable in Canada. Some companies such as Johnson and Johnson are completely phasing out from using microbeads in their cosmetics. While other companies, such as Burt’s Bees, use natural exfoliates instead of small non-biodegradable plastic microbeads.

Environmental Impact and management of microbeads Lorena Rios, a chemist at the University of Wisconsin, found 1500-1.7 million spherical plastic particles per square mile in tested lakes, with the most concentrated being in Lake Erie. Lake Superior had the lowest concentration, and Lake Huron showed far less plastic particles than Lake Erie. Due to the minimal research thus far on microbeads, especially in Canada, it is difficult to determine why Lake Erie has a much higher concentration of microbeads than the others. Unfortunately, it is difficult to differentiate microbead pollution on soil and sediments in comparison to microplastics as there have been minimal long term studies conducted.

Microbeads, along with other man-made microplastics were even found as far as the Arctic, with all four samples being collected hundreds of kilometers apart in remote areas. The researchers were not able to match up the blue, green, red and black microbeads up with their products, therefore they could not tell the exact origin; but they feel it is possible some may have travelled from Canada.

Pollution Researchers from McGill University took ten samples from a 320 km area that was in between Lake St. Francis to Quebec City and found microbeads in almost every sample. The researchers concluded that when microbeads travel through bodies of water to get into the ocean, they become contaminated and pollute rivers along the way. In some locations the researchers measured over 1000 microbeads per litre of sediment, which is how the scientists determined that the rivers “can act as a sink” for the pollution. Marcus Eriksen, research director at 5 Gyres Institute counted how many microbeads were in a Clean and Clear facial scrub by Johnson and Johnson, which showed approximately 330,000 microbeads per tube. Scientists have not yet been able to find a way to remove microbeads from the bodies of water, as there is such an abundance of plastic microbeads per individual product, making it near impossible. Due to the extremely small size, the microbeads are able to pass through filter systems as they are washed down the drain, creating the pollution of billions of microbeads within Canadian bodies of water.

Organisms Some fish are unable to differentiate microbeads from real eggs, and results in poisoning of the fish and potential bioaccumulation up the food chain, creating more negative impacts. Microbeads have low densities, which means they will float and endanger avian species due to them being exposed at the top of the water. If the microbeads have organic pollutants they will become more dense, and sink. This creates the problem of benthic species being exposed to these pollutants and can potentially accumulate up the food chain.

There have been multiple laboratory studies indicating that microbeads showed no significant effects on organisms, when they instead travelled through the gastro-intestinal tract and into the feces. However, studies have shown that microbeads can travel through the food chain, if the organism doesn’t excrete the microbeads. If for example, zooplankton who ate microbeads can get consumed by mysid shrimp and continue to bioaccumulate and will negatively effect more organisms in higher concentrations as they continue up the food chain.

Microbeads are able to adsorb chemicals they come into contact with, such as petroleum-based chemicals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides and motor oil. These pollutants can stay in the environment for “more than 50 years” and accumulate into higher concentrations as their time in the environment increases. When the microbeads are ingested by an organism, those pollutants that were adsorbed into the microbead can further be absorbed by the organism, causing multiple problems. If PAHs bioaccumulate up the food chain the larger animals can develop DNA damage resulting in cancer or physiological impairment. “PCBs can cause cardiac problems, skeletal deficiencies and neurological impairment”.

The control of microbeads There has been momentum building across the world to reduce and ban microbead sales and pollution. The United States of America (USA) has implemented many laws and regulations in multiple states on the ban of microbeads, as well as other countries, but Canada has yet to put any ban into motion.

On May 18, 2015 Canada took its first steps toward banning microbeads when a Member of Parliament from Toronto, John McKay, introduced Bill C-680, which would ban the sale of microbeads. According to Environment and Climate Change Canada the government of Canada will be suggesting that microbeads be added to the list of toxic substances in the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA), 1999.

The first Canadian province to take action against microbeads is Ontario, where Maire-France Lalonde, a Member of the Provincial Parliament introduced Microbead Elimination and Monitoring Act. This bill would enforce the ban of manufacturing microbeads in cosmetics, facial scrubs or washes, and similar products. The bill also proposes that there will be yearly samples taken from the Canadian Great Lakes, which will be analyzed for traces of microbeads.

Pointe-Claire mayor, Morris Trudeau and members of the City Council requested its residents to sign a petition asking governments of Canada and Quebec to ban “the use of plastic microbeads in cosmetic and cleansing products.” Trudeau suggested that if Quebec bans microbeads, manufactures will be encouraged to stop producing them in their products.

Megan Leslie, Halifax Member of Parliament presented a motion against microbeads in the House of Commons, which got “unanimous support” and is hoping for them to be listed under the Environmental Protection Act as a toxin.

Alternatives There are many natural and biodegradable alternatives to microbeads that have no environmental impact when washed down the drain, as they will either decompose or get filtered out before being released into the natural environment. Some examples to use as natural exfoliates include ground up almonds, oatmeal, seasalt and coconut husks. Burt’s Bees and St. Ives use apricot pits and coca husks in their products instead of microbeads to reduce their negative environmental impact.

Due to the increase in bans of microbeads in the USA, many cosmetic companies are also phasing out microbeads from their production lines. Some of those companies are:

•	L’Oreal, who is planning to phase out polyethylene microbeads in the exfoliates, cleansers and shower gels by 2017. •	 Johnson and Johnson, who have already started to phase out microbeads at the end of 2015 and in 2017 they will not be producing any polyethylene microbeads in their products. •	Crest, who is completely phasing out microbeads from their toothpastes by February 2016.