
Facial scrubs polluting Great Lakes with plastic - fraqed
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/07/31/tby-face-wash-beads-plastic-fish-consumption-great-lakes-thunder-bay.html
======
DanBC
> It's possible fish are eating the pellets, believing them to be eggs, he
> added. That's worrisome, because plastics tend to absorb pollutants such as
> PCBs, pesticides and motor oil. The pellets could therefore be poisoning the
> small fish that larger fish then prey on, and the larger fish are consumed
> by humans, posing a human health risk.

Sometimes the plastic doesn't move through, causing animals to become stuffed
with plastic. ([http://pacificvoyagers.org/midway-atoll-the-plastic-
plight-o...](http://pacificvoyagers.org/midway-atoll-the-plastic-plight-of-
the-albatross))

Good that manfs were quick to say that they'll remove micro-plastics from
their products.

~~~
joonix
"remove by 2017."

Wow, how kind of them. How about we stop politely asking our Manufacturer
Overlords to stop their destructive activity in 4 years and instead get
legislators do their job and ban their use _immediately_?

A local or state politician in the Great Lakes area should have no interest in
protecting a manufacturer of these products who is likely in another state or
country. Their interest is entirely in favor of protecting the Lakes.

And who are these people scrubbing their faces with microscopic plastic beads?
What's wrong with good old fashioned coarse salt or sugar? Why do we need
_more_ plastic? Can this plastic be inhaled accidentally? Can it leach into
the raw scrubbed skin? Who asks these questions?

~~~
negativity
They're probably sitting on a stockpile of material, and would have to write
it off as a loss. Either that, or they're committed to contracts with
suppliers.

Note the following from the article:

    
    
      we took science ... to the companies and, without 
      having to spend time and money involved in a policy 
      solution, the companies themselves chose to solve it on 
      their own.
    

This means that, since the behavior is voluntary, they get to do it on their
own timeline. In order to force anything to go faster would require some
cattle-prod of a law or regulation, with punitive measures that hurt the
bottom line through fines and injunctions.

Which points to another possibility: They know how long it would actually take
to get those kinds of laws enacted and enforced, and they'll only go as fast
as that.

And don't forget, two years is enough time to forget about this. So in two
years, maybe they'll simply do nothing at all.

~~~
astrodust
It's just a particular kind of plastic that could be melted down and used for
any purpose. There's no stockpile.

~~~
jlgreco
I can't imagine they are making their product on an order-by-order basis. Nor
would they be buying supplies for their product that way, and selling back
supplies is not a frictionless process. Of course there is a stockpile.

~~~
astrodust
It's plastic. They sell it in the form of "hurdles"
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_particle_water_pollutio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_particle_water_pollution)),
small plastic particles, which are mostly standard sizes. These are then
processed into their final form as required by simple machinery. Typically
these are fed into an injection molding machine to make plastic parts, but
could be used to produce plastic bags or sheet plastic for thermoforming.

Unless they're adding something to the plastic, or coating it in something,
they could absolutely just ship it back as smaller than usual nurdles, or make
use of it for something else in their manufacturing process, like making
bottles or caps.

In any case, do you really think they have a two year supply of this stuff?
That'd be crazy.

~~~
jlgreco
> _or coating it in something_

Toothpaste and facewash?

I find it very plausible that they have a two-year supply of particular
products, that can easily happen if demand does not meet expectations, or if
they planned limited campaigns of particular products.

~~~
astrodust
These micro particles of plastic are used by the _train load_ which is why
it's horrifying they're still being used. Where would you keep a two year
supply if you needed that much of this sort of material? A plant the size of
Wyoming? Secondly, they do not have warehouses of toothpaste sitting around.
It's perishable.

This isn't the 1920s. Most major companies run on much leaner inventory, and
it's not uncommon to turn over your entire warehouse several times a month.

------
bluedino
I don't think enough is being done to protect the Great Lakes. They are the
largest source of fresh water in the entire world.

They've been over-fished, the industries of the surrounding area polluted the
living hell out of them up until the 1970's, they've been invade by Zebra
mussels and the water levels are at record lows. Places I swam as a kid don't
even exist any more - the water has moved out a hundred yards from the old
shore.

~~~
TylerE
Lake Baikal is actually a bit bigger... 5700mi^3 versus 5400mi^3 for all the
great lakes. It's a good bit smaller in surface area, but it's extraordinarily
deep...over a mile in places.

~~~
astrodust
Baikal has a volume of 23,615.39 km³, the Great Lakes is 22,671 km³ for those
that use standard units.

------
sehrope
> L'Oreal, the Body Shop and Johnson & Johnson all committed to phasing out
> plastic microbeads by 2015, and Proctor & Gamble said it would do so by
> 2017.

Unfortunately there's no mention if "phasing out" means production stops or if
consumer sales stop. If the production line at PG is running till 2017 they
could have tons of this stuff stockpiled for later sale that could take months
or years.

~~~
derekp7
With the associated cost of inventory. Unless the replacement formula is
significantly more expensive, it doesn't make sense to have years of product
sitting there collecting dust.

~~~
sehrope
They themselves might not have years worth but it could take a while to flow
through the supply chain, get off store shelves, and be out of consumer's
hands.

------
mattholtom
For those of you inclined to a good skin grinding, an alternative is St. Ives
Apricot Scrub. Made from biodegradable ground apricot cores. Also, it feels
amazing. There are several off-brand mimics available.

~~~
aestra
Actually it's a small point but the exfoliate in Apricot Scrub is ground
walnuts and corn meal. There is only apricot fruit extract in there.

Source: [http://www.stives.com/Facial-Products/Fresh-
Skin/Invigoratin...](http://www.stives.com/Facial-Products/Fresh-
Skin/Invigorating-Apricot-Scrub/)

Full Ingredients: [http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/st.-ives-fresh-skin-
invigor...](http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/st.-ives-fresh-skin-invigorating-
apricot-scrub/ID=prod5564510-product) Water , Juglans Regia (Walnut) Shell
Powder , Glyceryl Stearate , Glycerin , Sodium Laureth Sulfate , Zea Mays
(Corn) Kernel Meal , Cocamidopropyl Betaine , Cetearyl Alcohol , Cetyl Alcohol
, PEG 100 Stearate , Prunus Armeniaca (Apricot) Fruit Extract , Cetyl Acetate
, Polysorbate 60 , Ceteareth 20 , Acetylated Lanolin Alcohol , Carbomer , PPG
2 Methyl Ether , Phenethyl Alcohol , Triethanolamine , Methylisothiazolinone ,
Fragrance , Titanium Dioxide

~~~
mattholtom
Ah, nicely found! Interesting, I guess the apricot is only there for the
scent.

~~~
aestra
According to St. Ives "Apricot Oil is known to hydrate and nourish the skin."
Using fruit and other essential oils on the skin is a very very old practice.
It might or might not have any actual merit to it. There is some science of
the benefits of the topical application of at least one essential oil, tea
tree oil
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_tree_oil](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_tree_oil)

~~~
lostlogin
Tea tree, Manuka, is so great. Grows fast, looks good, smells great, makes
excellent fire wood and the honey is showing more and more interesting
properties. I need to buy a few more!

------
yread
If plastics absorb PCBs and pesticides, couldn't we use big (so they can't be
swallowed), porous (to increase the surface) pieces of plastic to clean the
water?

~~~
astrodust
Don't use one toxin to clean up another.

~~~
Houshalter
Why not? The things can be removed from the water, and even if they weren't,
there could still be a net benefit in having one toxin over another.

~~~
astrodust
History is filled with examples of well-intentioned solutions like this going
horribly awry.

Talk to an Australian about cane toads, for example.
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia)).

~~~
Houshalter
Maybe so, however that is a fully general counterargument that applies to any
attempt to solve any problem ever.

~~~
astrodust
Let's say you run a barber shop. You could always set the hair on the floor on
fire, right? That'll clean it up! What could possibly go wrong?

...or maybe you could just sweep it up.

------
scoot
I had no idea! I've just checked my Gillette pre-shave scrub, and while
nowhere on the packaging does it mention microbeads, on the contents it lists
Polypropylene and Polyethylene. In the bin that goes then, and I won't be
buying it again. Shame, I quite liked it.

~~~
ig1
It's more environmentally friendly if you use your current supply and not buy
any more than if you just throw it away where it'll end up in the water supply
in any case.

~~~
bcoates
If the contents of his trash can are showing up in the water supply we have
bigger problems than microbeads.

------
wil421
I never realized that the small beads in hygiene products was actually
plastic. How many times have I ingested these over the years and if they are
killing fish, what are they doing to my body?

I wonder how much pollution these are causing in smaller lakes and rivers?

------
negativity
Grey goo scenarios will start like this.

This is like the preview version of a grey goo crisis except with training
wheels, where the particles are rendered inert and dead by the time they
become pollutants, and don't actually self-replicate in the wild.

But the real thing will probably start with some stupid little innocuous
product like this, and then explode and catch everyone by surprise in a very
short amount of time, instead of this slow-burning sleeper pollution that
takes decades to accumulate. (two full decades? was this stuff around in
1993?)

------
Groxx
This is one thing I hate about most cleaning products. Whatever you're using,
it eventually goes to a lake / something. Treatment is great and all, but if
it's not _designed_ to be broken down quickly by nature / the treatment, _it
stays in the lake_. That drain cleaner? Meds? Micro-bead face cleanser? It all
goes to the same place, often still intact (chemically speaking). And even if
you don't add much, millions do, and it does add up.

It's enough to drive me to buy as many biodegradable / compostable products as
possible. Now if only they weren't so crazy expensive...

------
BrandonMarc
So if it's so difficult to change all of these products - from soap to
toothpaste - why not attempt changing how water-treatment plants work so that
they _do_ screen out floating matter?

------
davyjones
I really applaud the companies' commitment to phasing out the plastic beads
within a few years time.

------
beachstartup
dumb question... why don't they just put sand in this stuff?

------
madaxe
What I don't understand is why anyone would want to rub their face down with
BPA. My girlfriend makes and sells 100% natural face and body scrubs - sea
salt, natural oils and bases, no additives. My skin has never been so good.
Oh, and the ingredients are much cheaper than their synthetic equivalents.

I suppose it all comes down to shelf life. Decentralise or die.

------
avoutthere
Why is this on HN?

~~~
eksith
The article is listed under the _Technology & Science_ heading and deals with
exactly those fields and the environment. In addition, the following key
trigger words are present : pollution, plastic, research, science, scientists,
PCBs, pesticides & money.

Therefore, it matches a Bayesian pattern of interest within the HN community.

Happy?

