Why Glitter Must Be Banned
All that shines is not gold, or so the old saying goes. And when it comes to the gloss used in everyday cosmetics, specialty make-up, hair products and party requisites, the negative effects on human health and the environment are really far from gold.
“They really engage in everything, despite their small size, they can have a catastrophic impact on people and nonhuman animals,” Trisia Farrell, a social anthropologist at the University of Messi in New Zealand, and an expert in plastic waste, wrote in an email to AlterNet.
Glitter is one member of a large family of microplastics – small small plastic parts of less than five millimeters in size. Think about microbiods, microfiber and fragments of the size of nails with much larger scrap of plastic masses that decompose over time. When they are washed or washed, microplasty penetrates into our oceans and excellent lakes, which gradually accumulate over time, creating all kinds of hazards to health and the environment, whose wide breadth is still understood.
For one, here is the question as microplasty as a cosmetic luster-made of bonding aluminum with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) -impact sensitive ecosystems. This is because PET disappears from chemicals that cause endocrine disorders, which, when eaten from marine life, can cause negative developmental, reproductive, neurological and immune effects, said Farrell. In this recent study, microplasty has been shown to significantly affect the reproductive rate of oysters.
Then, there is the domino effect of microplasty through the food chain, because the pure amount of microplasty consumed by people who love the seas is astonishing. This study from the University of Ghent found that Europeans who eat shells can consume as much as 11,000 microplasty annually. But what are some of the long-term implications of the gloss that goes through the food chain?
PET attracts and absorbs persistent organic pollutants and pathogens, adding an additional layer of contamination. When those at the queue of molluscs such as stairs, sea snails, marine worms and pathogenic dishes with plankton or glow particles containing contaminants, these smooth poison tablets can concentrate on toxicity as they move upwards in the food chain of our evening plates , said Farrell.
“When we eat Kai monk, we take these poisons,” she writes. “When entering the intestines, toxins and pathogens are very easily taken.”
Most of the studies glow on the results of these toxins and pathogens on humans. Studies link chemicals with endocrine disruptions with the declining population of marine and freshwater fish, as well as the reduction of sexual relations in human populations living close to plastic factories.
All of them encourage many experts from the sea and environmentalists to advocate for the same ban on glow as microbes – small small balls of plastic used in things such as exfoliating beauty products.
“As we go, there may be a pound of plastic for every three pounds of oysters in the ocean in the next ten years,” wrote Nick Malos, director of Offside Conservation for garbage free programs and email. “And if action is not taken, the problem will only be bigger.”
At the end of 2015, following a sustained state-level campaign, the Obama administration signed the Free Microbial Law, banning plastic microbiods in cosmetics and personal care products. Other countries followed the example. U.K. and New Zealand have announced their microbial bans earlier this year.
Importantly, these prohibitions are not necessarily a reflection of the singular effect of microwaves. Instead, they are greeted with a much wider understanding of the prevalence in the microplate environment in general, because the amount of microplasty that enters only in the ocean is staggering. According to estimates made in 2014, there are between 15 and 51 trillion microplastic particles, weighing between 93 and 236 thousand metric tons, sitting in the seas in the world.
Moreover, their impacts are a huge number
. A number of studies have shown that fine plastic particles have been detected in sea salt, sold commercially. In an interview with The Guardian, Professor at New York State University in Fredonia, Sherry Mason, who led one of these studies, described the plastics as “omnipresent in the air, the water, the seafood we eat, the beer we drink, Salt what we use-plastic is just everywhere. “Microfiber was found even in honey.
Microplastics also breaks out in 83 percent of water samples from more than a dozen countries around the world, including India, Lebanon, France, and Germany, according to Orbi Media’s investigation. The United States occupied the bottom of the pile, with plastic fibers appearing in 94 percent of the samples.
But microplasticity accounts for only a small part of the problem of global plastic contamination. The world’s oceans are left out, for example, with massive clusters of marine debris and plastics – the Great Pacific waste debris found in the northern Pacific Ocean, which proved to be the largest such guar. According to U.N., more than 8 million tons of plastic enters the ocean every year – equal to the garbage truck from plastic, thrown every minute.
Data show that fast-moving economies, where population growth and consumption exceed the waste collection and recycling capacity, are responsible for the largest amount of plastic waste entering the oceans, said Nick Malos. And he warned that, without intervention, emerging economies are likely to exacerbate these “unwanted consequences of development”. However, he remains optimistic.
“By raising awareness of the planet’s ocean issue,” Malos writes, “we can prevent the flow through reduced consumption, improved waste management and innovative solutions for products and materials.”