Microbeads are invisible to the naked eye. But their environmental footprint can be huge. Once washed down the drain, these particles can end up in rivers, estuaries and oceans. Here, they can live for hundreds of years, absorbing chemicals and leaching chemicals out into the environment.
Due to their tiny size, it’s inevitable that microbeads will be consumed by fish and other marine creatures while they’re eating their prey. This is how they eventually make their way back into the lives of humans via our food chain.
A build-up of microbeads and their chemicals in people’s bodies can be damaging. Microplastics have been shown to trigger immune responses in human lung cells, and increase inflammation and free radicals (molecules that can damage cells if they occur in large numbers) in the brain, small intestine and lungs and other parts of the body.
In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly began a process of setting up a worldwide, legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution, including microbeads. But in mid-August, the global negotiations for the treaty ended with no deals reached, and no clear pathway for the future.
Meanwhile, South Africa’s Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has just announced new regulations to environmental laws. These will ban the production, distribution, sale, import and export of microbeads (and microbead products).
Microbeads are just one type of microplastic, however. A microplastic is any plastic particle smaller than 5mm in size which may come from larger pieces of plastic that have broken down in the environment or are produced as plastic raw materials (such as microbeads or nurdles). And so far, the dominant type of microplastics in the South African coastal environments is not microbeads but microplastic fibres that wash into the environment.
So while South Africa’s ban on microbeads is well timed, it will only potentially eliminate one type of microplastic in the environment. Here we set out why microbeads are so dangerous, and what the South African government needs to do to make the ban more effective.
Why microbeads are so dangerous
Synthetic microbeads have been found in South Africa’s streams, rivers, ponds, sediment or soil and animals such as fish, crabs and snails. They are particularly present in environments surrounded by urban and industrial areas.
The tiny balls are composed of synthetic polymers (building blocks of plastics). These polymers include polyethylene, commonly used in clingfilm and other plastic packaging. They are also made up of polyester fibres and polytetrafluoroethylene, the chemical used on non-stick frying pans.
It is the chemical composition of these polymers that makes microbeads so dangerous, not only the quantity of microbeads in the environment. This is because some polymers are ten thousand times more hazardous than others. The hazard level of a polymer is measured by a number of factors. These include the risk of it causing cancers, mutations to egg and sperm cells, and skin, lung or other organ sensitivity.
Also, scientists have not yet established just how dangerous polytetrafluoroethylene is. Its founding molecules haven’t yet been classified. Scientists and medical professionals aren’t yet sure what effects the long-term use of a cleanser with microbeads made up of polytetrafluoroethylene will be.
But there are also likely to be far more microbeads floating around than we are aware of. The current methods used to detect microplastics may lead to an underestimate of their numbers. This is because their tiny size often makes them look like natural particles of sand, for example.
What the new regulations aim to do
Over a dozen countries have already banned microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics.
The bans have stemmed the flow of these particles into the natural environment. But until now, South Africa has allowed microbeads in personal care products despite mounting international pressure and compelling scientific evidence of harm.
On paper, South Africa’s new regulations against microbeads are a step in the right direction. The regulations state that no person may use, produce, distribute, sell, import or export microbeads and products containing microbeads – including cosmetics, personal care items, pesticides, toiletries and “other” products.
The regulations will only be as effective as their implementation and monitoring, however. It’s not clear who will do this or how.
What needs to happen next
National government, universities and research institutes have already set up the South African Macro, Meso and Micro-Plastic Network (SAMP). First, this network must be asked to come up with a standard way to measure whether the new regulations are having a positive impact on the environment.
Second, there is a phase-out plan that allows people to keep using products with microbeads for 24 months. The government must tell the public how they will enforce the ban after this time. People also need to be told how they should get rid of any microbead products they have. The government must also make it clear who will monitor the companies that make or use these beads in their products.
South Africa can learn from other countries, such as Kenya and the UK. They acted on addressing plastic pollution and instituted bans with only six months’ warning – not two years.
Third, illegal dumping of microbead stocks after the ban comes into effect must be prevented. Companies that do dump their microbeads must be held accountable.
Fourth, more research into alternatives to plastic microbeads is needed. For example, plant or seaweed products can also be used in exfoliation and they don’t pollute waterways.
The draft legislation is a vital starting point. But the true success of addressing plastic pollution in South Africa will depend on independent science that validates the effects of microbeads (and microplastics) on the environment, economy, health and society.
If South Africa gets the microbead ban right, it won’t just be removing one unnecessary pollutant from circulation – it will send a clear signal that the country is serious about tackling the broader microplastic crisis.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
