In an enquiry launched in March 2016, the UK Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee is examining the impact of microplastics on the environment with an eye to determining the scale, sources and consequences of these minuscule particles, used mainly as exfoliants in cosmetic products, along with developing strategies for dealing with the problem.

Committee chair Mary Creagh said the MPs will look at the health consequences of eating fish containing microplastics and the extent of the damage to eco-systems, in particular the oceans, and hope to discuss potential solutions with industry, environmental and consumer groups. The inquiry is running parallel to the pursuit of regulatory legislation initiated by British members of the European Parliament – see Plasteurope.com of 01.04.2016.

Up to 15 April, the UK audit committee invited the public to contribute “written evidence” that would help monitor the impact of microplastics, for example on marine plants and animals, and answer questions as to what economic consequences could result from increased microplastic pollution. The replies, Creagh said, will also help to set public policy priorities for research into health effects or food standards.

Europe’s action follows a ban on so-called microbeads in cosmetics passed by the US House of Representatives last year. Legislative moves are also afoot in Canada and Australia. The UK government has been working with other countries in the Oslo and Paris Convention for Protection of the North East Atlantic (www.ospar.org) to secure the voluntary phase-out of microplastics in personal care and cosmetic products, while the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra; www.defra.gov.uk) said it is “backing action at a European level.”

The British Plastics Federation (BPF, London / UK; www.bpf.co.uk) is also in favour of a phase-out of microbeads in cosmetic applications “on account of difficulties in controlling their widespread dispersal after use.” Its director general, Philip Law, noted that a “long string of top cosmetics brands” has committed to stop using the beads. Along with consumer products giant Unilever, which said in 2012 it would opt out, retailers Asda, Avon, The Bodyshop, L'Oréal and Boots have pledged to no longer use the beads in their own products, although they will still sell other brands that could contain them.

Environmental advocacy groups such as Greenpeace UK (London; www.greenpeace.org.uk) have been pushing for a unilateral ban on microbeads. In the words of oceans campaigner Louise Edge this should be easy to accomplish, as alternatives are already available. A petition calling for a UK ban, which reportedly has attracted more than 250,000 signatures, is being sent to prime minister David Cameron.

In a poll carried out for Greenpeace by Censuswide (London / UK; www.censuswide.com) nine out of ten respondents – including 61% of women and 53% of men – said they thought microbeads should be banned, although seven of ten did not know until asked their opinion what microbeads were. The results are also said to have shown that 84% of British consumers would be discouraged from buying a company’s product if it was found to be extensively polluting the oceans.

While “a ban would not alone eradicate the problems caused by microplastics, it would set an important precedent in the UK that pumping plastics into our oceans is not acceptable,” Greenpeace said, adding that “up to 100,000 microbeads can be washed down the sink with the single application of some products.”