In a world grappling with the urgent climate crisis, the beauty industry has emerged as a significant contributor to the problem. In a bold move, the European Union (EU) announced its decision in October 2023 to ban all non-biodegradable plastic glitter. The EU will initiate the prohibition on rinse-off cosmetics containing loose plastic glitter in 2027, with leave-on products following suit in 2029. This raises a pivotal question for the flourishing US beauty market, where countless makeup brands operate in both the EU and North America, offering a dazzling array of shimmery cosmetics. How will these stringent new regulations impact the future of beauty in the United States?
Rest assured, you need not bid farewell to your beloved sparkles. Charlotte Knight, the visionary founder and CEO behind Ciaté London and Lottie London, known worldwide for their cosmetics, dispels any fears of a glitter shortage. She emphasizes that while change is on the horizon, sparkles are here to stay, although in a more environmentally conscious form.
To delve deeper into this transformative development, Haute Style interviewed Charlotte Knight and other experts.
The Ecological Implications of Cosmetic Plastic Glitter
Homer Swei, Ph.D., Senior Vice President of Health Living Science at the Environmental Working Group, underscores the critical concerns surrounding cosmetic plastic glitter. These extend beyond its environmental impact to encompass indirect effects on public health. Plastic, a product of the 1950s, has left a profound mark on our planet’s health. Microplastics, a byproduct of plastic, have infiltrated every corner of the globe, accumulating in animals, and fish, and even entering the human food chain. Microplastics are now detectable in humans and even in newborns.
While this issue affects the entire world, the United States, a nation with substantial plastic consumption, faces a heightened risk of microplastic contamination.
The Current Status of Loose Glitter in the US
Dr. Swei notes that the United States lacks a unified regulatory definition of microplastics. The primary focus in the country has been on banning cosmetic rinse-off microbeads, a milestone achieved at both state and federal levels in 2015. In the ensuing years, some states, including California, have explored the possibility of enacting similar regulations governing makeup products. In 2022, California’s AB-2787 bill proposed the comprehensive ban of cosmetic microplastics, encompassing leave-on products. If enacted, this legislation would effectively prohibit plastic glitter in cosmetics.
The Impact of the EU’s Glitter Ban on the US Beauty Market
The EU’s resolute stance on glitter has a definite impact on the US beauty market. Numerous brands operate in both regions and have traditionally offered identical products. However, many of these brands have already embarked on the path of minimizing or eliminating traditional plastic glitter in formulations for both the European and American markets.
Makeup artist Danessa Myricks, renowned for her ultra-shimmery palettes, emphasizes the EU’s mandate as a positive push towards a more sustainable and environmentally conscious industry. This regulation compels brands to innovate, particularly in terms of cosmetics ingredients. Myricks’ brand, which operates in both the US and EU, has proactively adopted more sustainable formulations for its glitzy makeup products, free from traditional plastic glitter. These formulations incorporate alternative materials like plant-based plastics and synthetic mica.
Charlotte Knight concurs with this approach, emphasizing that the EU’s mandate encourages various industries, including cosmetics, to embrace environmentally favorable alternatives. As a business committed to sustainability, they welcome regulations that positively impact the environment and have explored alternatives to harmful loose glitter for years.
Navigating the Transition While Satisfying Consumers
Adapting formulations to meet the regulatory requirements of different markets is not a new challenge, especially in the case of Europe and the US. The EU has long maintained a list of prohibited substances in cosmetics sold in the region, a standard not consistently followed in the US. Nevertheless, Dr. Swei highlights the complexity and cost involved in supporting multiple formulations for different countries. This harmonization can be a lengthy process, taking years or even decades, as supply chains require realignment and regional reformulations contend with other business priorities.
However, it is evident that more cosmetic lines, exemplified by brands like Myricks and Knight’s, are ahead of the curve. Substituting traditional glitter with pigments and flakes, which deliver a similar aesthetic performance without contributing to microplastic pollution, is a prevailing trend.
Moreover, plant-based cellulose and starch-based glitter provide viable alternatives. These biodegradable materials offer the same dazzling finish and initiate the degradation process upon interaction with the environment.
For those hesitant to embrace change, Danessa Myricks assures that these new regulations, irrespective of your location, do not compromise the quality of cosmetics. Her namesake collection stands as a testament to the harmonious marriage of creativity, health, and safety.
For conscientious consumers, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) offers a handy tool to scrutinize a brand’s ingredient list before making a purchase. Dr. Swei recommends using their Skin Deep database, which identifies cosmetics without PET microplastic glitters. A quick search can reveal green-scoring products and the absence of PET in the ingredient list, ensuring you can continue your beauty routine with a clear conscience.