an article by Josefina Dolores Alvarez Cambrini
The European Commission introduced a regulation on the use of microplastics and glitter on October 17th. Since then, we have heard constant warnings about their disappearance from cosmetics. Concern among lovers of glitter products arose due to the decision to eliminate these shiny particles and microplastics from personal care products. Even though microplastics did not raise as much concern among users. Meanwhile, the European Commission and environmentalists celebrated the ban as a real improvement for our planet. But what do we know about microplastics and glitter from a scientific point of view? Is that ban going to make a great difference in the reduction of the environmental impact? How will they enforce the ban on microplastics and glitter? And how can the cosmetic industries tackle the substitution of microplastics and glitter?

Microplastics and Glitter: Who Is Who?
Microplastics
First, we need to understand what are microplastics and glitter from a scientific point of view. Scientists sometimes consider glitter a subgroup of microplastics, but this idea is not always agreed upon. Microplastics are tiny plastic particles, more precisely of less than 5 millimetres but larger than 1 micrometre. To clarify, something between the size of a rice grain and a cell. This is a wide definition, therefore, they divided microplastics into two subgroups. Primary microplastics, deliberately manufactured, differ from secondary microplastics, which result from the degradation of plastic or plastic-containing items like clothing. The European Commission recently restricted the use of primary microplastics, which are found in personal care products and are the focus of this article.
Glitter
Glitter, noted for its dangerous characteristics and small size, qualifies as a type of primary microplastic. However, it remains a heterogeneous group that researchers have not thoroughly studied. Unlike microplastics, glitter features a coating of potentially toxic molecules such as aluminum, which impart its shimmer. Despite its attractive sparkle, there is a risk of releasing these substances into the environment as glitter degrades.
Microplastics: Harmful or Not?
These days we are all aware of the importance of reducing the consumption of plastics, recycling and reusing. For instance, it is a trend in the cosmetic industry to be more sustainable. As consumers, we can responsibly use cosmetics and manage their plastic content. Despite that, such a trend has not turned on as much consciousness as in microplastics and glitter consumption. Maybe because we are not aware, or we don’t fully know the harmful effects they might have.
In summary, microplastics and glitter present humans with a complex array of risks. To be specific, they can cause chemical toxicity, physical health effects from inhalation and ingestion, and potential biological implications. Specifically, they might interact with microorganisms and antibiotic-resistant bacteria that antibiotics cannot kill. These effects also apply to the flora and fauna in various ecosystems. Therefore, microplastics are potentially harmful to the environment too1. Nonetheless, further research is needed to fully understand the extent of these risks and their impact on human health and the environment, especially for glitter.

EU Action For The Environment: Regulation on Microplastics and Glitter
Considering these evidences, the government bodies of the European Union in charge are taking some actions in this regard. The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) regulates chemical products, such as microplastics and glitter. They oversee every chemical substance that can be produced, imported, or used in a wide range of industries, including the cosmetic industry. This agency follows a regulation known as REACH, which stands for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals. In other words, ECHA oversees the acceptance or ban of some chemical compounds produced, imported or used in Europe. And from now on, they will change the liberty for microplastics and glitter use.
Recently, the REACH regulation was amended to ban synthetic polymer microparticles, commonly known as microplastics. Specifically, the use of microplastics and glitter of less than 5 millimetres, whether used alone or in mixtures. The definition given is wide, detailing specifications on composition, use, and whether microplastics are loose, attached, or embedded. Depending on all these characteristics, they will apply the restriction in different timelines. For example, microplastics used independently or in products with an expiration date can remain on sale until that date. Moreover, retailers can continue to sell loose plastic glitter used in cosmetic products and cosmetics containing glitter or other microplastics until October 16, 2027, provided they are present in rinse-off cosmetics. It should be noted that products on shelves or in suppliers’ stocks can be sold until they are all gone. The nature of the microplastics and the characteristics of the cosmetic product determine many other considerations.
The purpose of this ban is to reduce emissions of intentionally produced microplastics from as many products as possible. To be more precise, they put the target into reducing microplastic pollution by 30% by 2030. Replacing these microplastics and glitter poses challenges, but researchers are already investigating some alternatives. Biodegradable and natural alternatives to glitter and microplastics are being studied2,3. However, some of these alternatives have shown the same harmful effects as the conventional type of glitter4. This makes it clear that the substitution of microplastics and glitter will be a challenging task in the cosmetic field.
In closing, the European Commission has taken a huge step by banning two widely used and hardly replaceable compounds, such as microplastics and glitter. Evidence is still too poor to have a conclusive idea of why microplastics harm the environment and human health. But it is enough for the European Commission to ban them and to move to an environment with decreasing amounts of microplastics. As a result, companies must find alternatives to substitute these compounds in their products. And up to date, experts have described only some convincing alternatives for glitter.
References
- Ghosh, S.; Sinha, J.K.; Ghosh, S.; Vashisth, K.; Han, S.; Bhaskar, R. Microplastics as an Emerging Threat to the Global Environment and Human Health. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10821.
- Balwan, Wahied & Kour, Sachdeep. (2021). ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD -THE DARK SIDE OF GLITTER. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences.
- Ju, Sungbin & Shin, Giyoung & Lee, Minkyung & Koo, Jun-Mo & Jeon, Hyeonyeol & Ok, Yong Sik & Hwang, Dong & Hwang, Sung & Oh, Dongyeop & Park, Jeyoung. (2021). Biodegradable chito-beads replacing non-biodegradable microplastics for cosmetics. Green Chemistry.
- Green, D. S., Jefferson, M., Boots, B., & Stone, L. (2021). All that glitters is litter? Ecological impacts of conventional versus biodegradable glitter in a freshwater habitat. Journal of hazardous materials, 402, 124070.