Microplastics are a novel threat in the 21stcentury. Microplastics are minuscule particles of plastic waste that are less than 5 mm in diameter. The focus of this article is upon a subset of microplastics that are heavily employed in the personal care industry. Microbeads are used as an ingredient in personal care products due to their abrasive or exfoliant quality. From sunscreens to shower gels and face washes, the traces of microbeads can be found in almost every personal care product, as documented in the subsequent studies cited. Microbeads have the potential to become a huge source of microplastic contamination to marine ecosystems.
Moreover, microbeads are also a point of concern for humans as microbeads can enter human body and can cause various health implications.
There have been successful and full-throated campaigns like #BanTheBead, highlighting the need and public demand for some action. Various countries around the globe have adopted legislation dealing specifically with microbeads, whereas India still lags behind at this tread especially with regard to such a pertinent health issue.
The present blog will begin with delineating the problems caused by microbeads by uncovering both health and environmental implications. Further, it will elaborate on certain studies substantiating the contamination and presence of microbeads in human bodies. Moreover, it will shed light on the sluggish progress as can be traced in India with regard to the menace of microbeads and thereafter will try to trace possible solutions by dissecting pathways taken by developed and developing nations to curb this menace. Finally, it will chalk out possible solutions to address the menace, providing a structure for future legislation.
A Hidden Threat: The Problem with Microbeads
Initially, products taken from nature, such as apricot shells and sea salt, were used as exfoliants in these products, but given that microbeads account for lower costs comparatively, their use became more prevalent. Microbeads, being a subset of plastics, are non-biodegradable, leading to their widespread accruement in the environment. Now, microbeads have entered the human food chain. Toxics Link, a Delhi-based NGO, conducted a study in which 14 samples of personal care products out of 35 were detected with the presence of microbeads. Moreover, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) recognised the menace of microbeads and highlighted the initiatives taken in and outside India regarding the same in a report that was sought by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). In India, companies are using tactics such as 'greenwashing' which essentially is an attempt at masquerading themselves as 'organic' and 'natural', as revealed in a recent study of the previous year. The Study had two significant findings that can neither be ignored by the policymakers nor the policy beneficiaries. One, there was a wealth of traces of microbeads in Indian products. Second, the shape of microbeads was irregular, making them potentially more harmful to the environment as they absorb more pollutants and cause higher physical harm. The study, in its policy suggestion, also highlighted the export of products with traces of microplastics manufactured in developed nations to developing nations. This transnational movement of microplastics can be related to the concept of waste colonialism. Soft laws of India were alleged to be the culprit for 'plastic colonialism' in the study. As industries sought to maximize their profits, they replaced natural ingredients with microbeads in personal care products, which were then exported to India, resulting in accumulation of microbeads in India. The aforementioned studies highlight the critical problem of microbead pollution in India and the need for strict and comprehensive laws for the same.
India and the World: Tackling Microbeads
Microbeads came under the microscope of public and their hazard became visible to the world in the mid-2010s. Campaigns by NGOs such as Greenpeace Foundation and 5 Gyres, along with mounting scientific evidence, culminated in legislation banning microbeads in developed countries, primarily in the Netherlands, US, Canada, and UK. The wave against microbeads also came to the shores of India, though it dissipated and lost its energy.
The case, Ashwini Kumar v Union of India & Ors. (2016), was one such effect due to the global wave against the use of microbeads. The Petition put forward multiple articles, research papers, legislations, and scientific data highlighting a plethora of issues surrounding the use of microbeads. Additionally, it alleged that cosmetic industry employing microbeads in their products is in direct contravention of Section 24(1)(a) of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. An added obligation was also cast on the government pertaining to the laxity in their approach towards dealing with a problem which possess the capacity to cause destruction to the environment and human life on a huge scale. The Government made no efforts to ban or regulate the use of such substances when it had the power to do so under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Petitioner prayed for a complete ban and imposition of penalties on companies acting in contravention of the ban. The NGT afterwards ordered Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) to test products and submit a report. A significant result of the Petition was Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) classifying microbeads as unsafe but does not restrict their usage. However, the earlier mentioned studies prove that this classification is useless, as even in 2024, products with microbeads are still present in India. The Petition, while being significant, failed to have a pragmatic touch. While bringing the issue of microplastics at the forefront, it failed to go beyond the point of spreading awareness and making a bunch of headlines in paper. Post this, a second attempt could be seen in the form of a 2018 bill introduced in Lok Sabha titled 'The Ban on the Use of Microbeads in Cosmetic Products Bill, 2018' which presently still stands pending. These instances are an indication that India has been proceeding at a snail's pace.
It is argued that developing nations are in a transitional phase toward becoming developed nations and should therefore make concessions, prioritising trade and commerce over public health interests. As a result, having anti-microbead laws could be detrimental to the industries. However, there are developing nations to the likes of India, such as Argentina and Thailand, which have not only enacted laws but also implemented them in an effective way and achieved success. Argentina came up with the ban on the use of microbeads in cosmetics in 2020 and gave a 2-year time period to adapt and fully implement the same. Now, from 2022 onwards, the ban is in full swing with the import of such products also being banned. On the other hand, Thailand banned the microbeads in 2020 as well and took 6 months' time to implement it in totality. Now, the production as well as import of personal care products containing microbeads is banned.
Now, moving on to the landmark legislation on microbeads, USA's Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, which bans production and circulation of cosmetic products containing plastic microbeads. This legislation has been effective as it reduced the quantity of microbeads found in the environment, especially in the water, by a great amount.
Towards a Microbead-Free Future
To purify the personal care industry from the clutches of microbeads, dual action is required to be taken from the side of policy beneficiaries and policymakers. The beneficiaries need to become more aware of the issues. The policymakers, on the other hand, need to realise the critical issue stemming from microbeads and become more proactive to regulate the personal care industry.
There is a need for binding and enforceable legislation that would gradually phase out microbeads and would halt production, importing, and selling of cosmetics containing microbeads. It would also allow a window for personal care industry to not suffer loss and slowly remove the stain of microbeads from industry. However, a simple ban would not suffice to erase this stain; it would require surveillance to ensure compliance from the industry, as we have seen that BIS order of 2017 declaring microbeads in cosmetics as unsafe had no impact on its production and use.
Further, to strengthen accountability, the Polluter Pays Principle should be incorporated so that manufacturers and importers using or providing microbeads containing cosmetic products are held accountable while also providing the period of one year for industries to adapt to the new policy.
Moreover, people boycotting products that include microbeads would also generate significant pressure on the industry from the side of the people, which would force a change in the industry, as several brands in the UK promised to voluntarily remove microbeads from their products due to public demand. The beneficiaries need to realise the immense onus is placed upon them to magnify the microscopic issue of microbeads to the policymakers. The same can be achieved, especially by Generation Z's creative ways to voice their concern, such as the Ice Bucket Campaign among many others.
Views are personal.