Microbeads
The subject of this (general) agreement surrounds the issue of the use of microbeads and their fate in the environment. And, if you are a “student” of this development, you know that they were originally called, “Ugelstad spheres,” named after a Norwegian scientist, Professor John Ugelstad, who invented them in 1976. The original use was for cancer research, HIV treatments, and flat-panel televisions. Microbeads, as we know them, are now commonly found in consumer products such as facial washing solutions and toothpastes. As their name indicates, they are small 0.1-μm to 5-mm beads, similar to the size of a grain of sand.
Microbeads are becoming ubiquitous in the environment (Photo source: Alliance for the Great Lakes)
Microbeads and the Environment
So what’s the problem with microbeads? According to Environment Canada, there are several concerns, including the general accumulation of the beads in various ecosystems. And, as it relates to their effect on organisms, Environment Canada states.
“From the scientific literature, the effects seen are either primarily driven by physical effects (i.e., effects resulting from blockages, external/internal attachment, etc.) and/or due to the presence of residual chemicals (those chemicals which are present when the microbeads are synthesized) and/or adsorbed pollutants (e.g., persistent organic pollutants (POPs), pesticides, etc. which are adsorbed in later life-cycle stages).”
Because the beads are so small, they are not completely removed by the local waste-water treatment plants. Therefore, if we wash them down our drains at home, a small percent (some studies say 5-10%) of these beads are likely to bypass any treatment and, ultimately, flow into lakes, rivers, and streams where the waste treatment plant discharges their effluent.
Phasing out Microbeads
In response to social pressures, and in light of new research and data, manufacturers such as Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive have stopped using microbeads. Others, including Proctor and Gamble and Johnson and Johnson, are ready to follow suit. Loblaw, Canada’s largest retailer stated, “By the end of 2018, Loblaw will no longer formulate Life Brand and President’s Choice household, beauty, or cosmetic products using … micro beads.”
Microbeads: A Schedule 1 Toxic Substance Under CEPA
For Canadian companies, there is a regulatory impact as microbeads are likely headed to the list of Schedule 1 Toxic Substances. Largely, this regulatory impact will affect the Cosmetic industry. However, microbeads are also used as abrasive agents in removing paints from boats/ships and in drilling fluids in the oil and gas industry. You can read more about the official August 1, 2015, order in the Canada Gazette (Order Adding a Toxic Substance to Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999).
Darren Praznik, President of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CCTFA) said, “I’ve never seen a regulation move so quickly through the federal system as with microbeads, and I think it is in part because industry is supporting it.”
Assuming the microbead legislation goes forward (and there is no reason to suggest otherwise), this may impact your National Pollutant Inventory Reporting Obligation (June 1st each year). Further, if you are in Ontario, you may want to examine your reporting obligations under the Toxics Reduction Act.
This legislation seems to face little, if any, opposition; therefore, if you currently use microbeads at your company, you should make appropriate plans.
If you have questions about reporting under the NPRI, TRA, or any other environmental reporting obligations, please feel free to contact me (cpare@dragun.com) at 519-979-7300, ext 114.