1 Dec 2008 | Teghan Beaudette

Most people consider themselves environmentally friendly, to the extent that conforming to this new trendy norm doesn't really interfere with their everyday conveniences. You might use cloth bags instead of plastic for grocery shopping and turn out the lights when you leave the room, both considerate things to do in consideration of the planet that suffers from our repeated abuses.

Most people are also blissfully unaware of how their early-morning and before-bed routines are seriously harming marine life - including sea turtles on the brink of extinction, birds and many fish species. But unlike most environmental issues, there is a fairly simple solution to a problem very few people are aware they are contributing to.

Exfoliants are beauty products which are designed to be used every few days to "scrub" away dead skin cells, and brighten your complexion. Exfoliating products (intended for your face, body or teeth) are promoted by the beauty industry as products which can reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles, unclog pores, brighten complexions and prevent breakouts. On your body they slough away dead skin cells. Used on teeth, exfoliating beads can scrape away plaque.

The products are advertised extensively to young men and women using terms to describe the particles within the products as "little microscrubbers," "bursting beads" and "scrubbing granules." These beads are usually under a millimetre in width and come in a variety of colours (blue, orange, red, clear, white, etc.). Each bottle of exfoliants is packed with millions of these little scrubbers. The problem is that most of these exfoliating beads are typically made from different varieties of air-blasted plastics and they are designed to be washed down the drain after every use.

It's no secret that plastics are a significant problem in our world's oceans and waterways, a problem that marine life is constantly and overwhelmingly confronted with. Sarah King, an ocean campaigner for Greenpeace Canada, explained the extent of the problem to me recently, "The Pacific Ocean is seen as one of the most polluted oceans and one area in particular, the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, where currents and slack winds has accumulated a swirling soup of debris, has become known as the ‘trash vortex,' due to its high concentration of plastic and other trash in an area that has been estimated to be double the size of Texas and even double the size of continental USA."

But the trash vortex is only the tip of the plastic nightmare. King said 90 per cent of floating debris in the ocean is plastic, and of that 80 per cent originates on land. The plastic has huge impacts on marine life. King explained that 86 per cent of sea turtles, 44 per cent of sea birds and 43 percent of marine mammals are affected by plastic debris floating in the ocean. The list of frightening statistics on the volume of plastic in the ocean is extensive and frightening. In 2005 it was estimated that 13,000 pieces of plastic litter floated in every square kilometre of our oceans.

The typical understanding of the problem is that many creatures get entangled in the plastic and die, but the problem is much more extensive than that. One of the significant problems with plastic in our oceans is that plastics do not break down at a significant rate, but rather fragment into smaller pieces which become enticing snacks that resemble food to sea creatures. King explains, "Plastic in the ocean does not biodegrade, it simply breaks down until it becomes as small as microscopic sea life that is often mistaken by sea creatures for food." These small particles are not only the result of fragmentation but are now being contributed to our waterways through the washing of polyethylene beads directly down drains,
the type of miniscule polyethylene beads that are present in virtually every single exfoliating product.

Richard Thompson, a professor at the University of Plymouth in the United Kingdom, is one of the few researchers in the world who is conducting research on the impact of these small plastic particles on marine life. He has found "pieces down to less than 20 microns in size, smaller than the diameter of a human hair, and we've shown that they can be eaten by a range of different invertebrates."

Thompson explained that there is very little research being conducted on the effects of plastic pieces this size and that while research isn't being done the problem is growing. "We showed that particles of this size have increased in abundance over the last 40 years, but we really do need more work to establish the environmental consequence of debris at that size fraction."

So what happens after you wash your face, scrub off the undesirable dead skin cells, polyethylene beads float past water filtration systems into water systems and small creatures eat them, mistaking them for food? Researchers have proposed several consequences of the ingested plastic on marine life. Thompson explained that there is clear evidence that the plastic consumed by marine life is not passing through their gut in normal ways, "Some have suggested that it will lead to the artificial sensation that the animal is full and perhaps reduce its desire to eat. Others have simply suggested that it will impair the ability to digest food and gain nourishment in a normal way."

King and Thompson are both quick to explain that the interference of digestion and potential blockages causing malnutrition and death of marine life are only one aspect of the issues associated with marine life ingesting plastic. The other, perhaps even more significant, problem is related to polymer's ability to absorb and retain chemicals. This is where small particles are especially troublesome. Thompson explains the unique ability of small plastic particles to soak up and absorb harmful chemicals, "When you are dealing with very small particles of this size, the potential for chemicals to be transferred and taken up by organisms is much greater than if you're dealing with larger items because the smaller an item is the larger the surface area to volume ratio it has and the greater potential for any chemicals that were incorporated during manufacture. All of those have accumulated on the surface of the plastic while it has been in the environment. There's much more potential for those [chemicals] to be released from small pieces than there is for big pieces."

So, the smaller the particle, the more ability it has to absorb and release chemicals. This is where the exfoliating beads become even more troublesome. King explained what this means for marine life who ingest these small particles, "The small exfoliant beads are a major problem [ . . . ] Due to the nature of plastics, they absorb any toxins in the environment. When a seabird, or fish, or other species ingests the piece of plastic, the amount of toxin is many times the amount that they would be exposed to otherwise, and can often be poisonous."

These beads are not only poisonous to the fish, bird or tiny organism which consumes the bead unknowingly, but also to any creature that later encounters them on an empty stomach. King explained how the poisons travel up the food chain, "The higher the species is up on the food chain the more ‘bioaccumulation' that takes place, and thus a whale eating a fish that once ate another fish that once ate a piece of plastic is ingesting a highly toxic meal."

Thompson continually emphasizes the need for research in this area, and expressed his exasperation with the companies producing these extremely harmful products, "What information have they [manufacturers of exfoliating products] got on how quickly these things will degrade? Because I'm not aware that there is any and that to me seems like irresponsible behaviour to design a product that is going to release small fragments into the environment unless you've got some prior knowledge of their rates of degradation. We know for large items of plastic that they're very resistant to degradation."

Shelly Kohut works for one of the manufacturing companies that Thompson implores to conduct more research on these products before distributing them. Kohut is the director of communications, public affairs and philanthropy for Johnson & Johnson Inc., the parent company for Clean & Clear, Aveeno, Neutrogena and Roc. Numerous products from these lines contain precisely the type of exfoliating bead discussed in this article. Kohut declined to answer specific questions, but said, "I would like to confirm that all Johnson & Johnson Inc. products sold in Canada meet or exceed all Health Canada requirements and regulations and are supported by overwhelming science that confirms the safety of all ingredients when used as intended in personal care products."

"We remain fully committed to ensure that all of our products sold in Canada are safe for Canadian people and for our environment," Kohut stated.

Are those products safe for our environment? They're certainly not safe for marine life, and King suggests that Canada's waters are affected by these products, "As a nation bordering the North Pacific ocean, our waters most definitely face many of the same threats found around the world, and many of our beaches are littered with plastic and other debris."

So what can you do? A simple solution is to choose a product that does not contain polymers or plastic beads. There are several exfoliating products widely available which use crushed seeds and other natural granules to buff your skin, rather than the plastic alternative. They're no more expensive and are widely available. St. Ives' Apricot Scrub uses-all natural exfoliants, safe for marine life and oceans and can be purchased at most drug stores (including Wal-Mart). St. Ives is not the only product line which distributes products using all-natural exfoliants. Simply check the ingredients of the products for polyethylene.

What can be done on a grander scale? Greenpeace is currently looking at addressing the issue and raising awareness, and Richard Thompson continues to conduct important research in the area. He acknowledged that much more work needs to be done, "Now what we need is more work on small pieces but particularly the types of small pieces that are being incorporated in these exfoliants. Because there are many different types of polymers and some are going to be more resistant to degradation [ . . . ] What we need is work to establish which types of polymer are of particular concern and to do that you really need some proper environmental trials." It's fairly simple, but environmental trials cost money and unfortunately, companies that distribute these products don't seem likely to pick up the tab.