A War on Glitter Won’t Save the Environment
But you might want to take it easy with the sparkly Christmas ornaments anyway.
It’s widely known that it’s not officially Christmas until your entire home is coated with a thick layer of glitter.
From the ornaments and wreaths to the wrapping paper and gift bags and everything in between, glitter permeates anything even remotely related to Christmas. Glitter screams festivity, making it essential for the holiday season to feel complete.
However, for the last several years, many have begun declaring war on glitter. The reason: reducing the amount of plastic pollution entering the ocean. This isn’t a bad idea overall, as microplastics have been proven to be a threat to the environment. While banning glitter would be a step in the right direction for companies and individuals looking to reduce their plastic pollution footprint, it isn’t a panacea for a much larger pollution problem spanning countless industries.
The problem with microplastics.
Plastic pollution is a widely understood cause of environmental degradation caused by the careless usage of single-use plastics that aren’t responsibly recycled or disposed of. The pollution comes in the form of plastic water bottles, six-pack rings, straws, and plastic shopping bags that often end up in the continental or oceanic environment. The movement against plastic pollution has us all using reusable straws and cutlery, not entering a grocery store without our trusty reusable bags, and carrying reusable water bottles. Society has worked hard to become aware of the plastics that we can easily control.
However, what about plastics that we don’t see or are so small that they don’t even cross our periphery? While we’re all so concerned about plastics that we can see, we sometimes forget about those that we can’t.
Microplastics are any plastic debris less than five millimeters in length (about the size of a sesame seed). Microplastics are generated through the breakdown of larger plastic products or from the abrasion of larger products (for example, when you put clothes in a washing machine). A study has even found that microplastics can be produced by “scissoring with scissors, tearing with hands, cutting with knives or twisting manually, to open plastic containers/bags/tapes/caps.” The amount of microplastics generated from any action depends on different conditions including stiffness, thickness, the density of the plastic materials, and the size of the microplastics that comprise the material.
Once created, microplastics can find their way into waterways, the atmosphere, and even the human body. The issue with microplastics entering the environment is their persistent nature (plastics tend to not breakdown easily or at all), their ability to release plastic monomers or additives/chemicals, and their capacity to absorb other environmental pollutants. When it comes to how microplastics interact with the human body once ingested, little is known. However, it has been reported that microplastics could potentially cause a localized immune response.
While the research on microplastics is still evolving, microplastic sources tend to fall into one of two categories. Primary sources of microplastics are produced directly by industry, whereas secondary sources are generated by fragmentation of larger plastic products.
According to a report by the European Parliament, primary sources of microplastics represent between 15–31% of microplastics in the oceans. The laundering of synthetic clothes accounts for 35% of primary microplastics, followed by the abrasion of tires through driving (28%), and intentionally added microplastics in health and beauty products (2%). Secondary sources of microplastics account for between 69–81% of microplastics found in oceans.
Back in 2017, a report by the UN suggested that there are 51 trillion microplastics in the ocean, which is 500 times greater than the number of stars in our galaxy. The report continues by stating that by 2050 it is estimated that the oceans will have more plastic than fish if plastic pollution trends are not reversed.
Unfortunately, plastic pollution isn’t stopping any time soon. A 2017 study by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources reported that humans release 1.5 million tons of primary source microplastics into the ocean per year. This figure doesn’t take into account the estimated number of macroplastics that enter the ocean each year (4.8–12.7 million megatons worth). Currently, 300 million tons of plastic are produced each year to support the manufacturing of plastic products, and that number doesn’t look to be diminishing any time soon.
What effect does glitter have on the environment?
Glitter, like any other microplastic, is generally less than five millimeters in length and is made from a single multi-layered sheet of plastic that is cut into tiny pieces. Glitter makes its way into and onto many products, including cosmetics, clothing, and, you guessed it, anything Christmas-related. Furthermore, like any microplastic, glitter will end up in waterways after being washed down the drain where it may be consumed by plankton, shellfish, seabirds, and other marine life.
Unfortunately, the amount of glitter that escapes into the environment and how it gets there is relatively unknown. According to an interview by National Geographic, Richard Thompson, a marine biologist at the University of Plymouth and leading expert on microplastics, said there is a lack of evidence about the accumulation of glitter in the environment. A study he conducted found that microplastics were found in one-third of the five hundred fish he examined from the English Channel. However, no glitter was found in any of them.
Extrapolating this data, it’s safe to assume that while glitter will be found in the marine environment, it’s unlikely that it will be found in the digestive systems of most fish.
In the same interview by National Geographic, Alice Horton, a research associate at Britain’s Center for Ecology and Hydrology, said that there is “no concrete data on glitter.” She goes on to explain that studies on microplastics and their effects on the environment are variable because they depend on the type of microplastic particle in question. Because of this, it’s difficult for scientists to determine the exact type of environmental degradation and ecosystem harm glitter causes.
When it comes to the actual percent of microplastics in the environment that glitter constitutes, you may be surprised to find that glitter doesn’t even rank.
Primary Microplastics in the Oceans
- 35%: synthetic textiles
- 28%: tires
- 24%: city dust
- 7%: road markings
- 3.7%: marine coatings
- 2%: personal care products
- 0.3%: plastic pellets
Both scientists interviewed by National Geographic agree that a ban on glitter would be premature due to a lack of scientific understanding of the effect glitter has on the environment. Instead, they suggest that the promotion of environmentally-responsible manufacturing and consumption should be at the forefront of the discussion.
Regardless, some countries and companies have elected to ban glitter and microbeads (another common microplastic) anyway. For example, Lush is replacing glitter in their products with synthetic mica and mineral glitter. Countries like the United States and Canada have banned the use of microbeads, and are soon to be joined by the United Kingdom.
Do you need to relegate yourself to a sparkle-less holiday season to save the environment?
The short answer is no.
Glitter is a minuscule component of the much bigger microplastic problem. While getting rid of glitter altogether will help diminish your footprint, it doesn’t solve the much bigger problem produced by synthetic textiles and tires.
Because of this, once a year, you should feel okay with lavishing your home with glittery ornaments for the holidays. The holiday season is no time to destroy your mental health over trying to “save the environment”, especially after the year we’ve just had. If it makes you happy and brings in the holiday spirit, let there be glitter.
The war on glitter has simply been an easy way for companies to look and feel like they’re doing something for the environment without having to meaningfully change how they operate as a business.
However, the war on glitter has been instrumental in turning consumer attention towards other ways they may be impacting the environment without even knowing it.
The best part is that some companies are listening, as consumers become more concerned about how the microplastics they generate are entering the environment. Companies like Patagonia and Adidas have acknowledged that some of the garments they make containing synthetic materials (such as nylon, acrylic, and polyester), are leading causes of the microplastic problem. Because of this, companies are beginning to take on comprehensive research into microplastics, manufacturing processes, and how best to educate consumers to better care for their garments.
A war on glitter certainly won’t save the environment. However, educating people about how the microplastics they generate or consume are hurting the planet is a step in the right direction. Whatever way the message gets across, at least it’s now being heard.
