Environmental extremists thrive by creating public frenzies about how private corporations are destroying our lives.
The latest frenzy concerns microbeads in products like facial cleansers and toothpaste. A few studies have documented how waste-water treatment plants are having a hard time filtering out these tiny pieces of plastic, which could conceivably end up in lakes and rivers and be consumed by fish.
[lz_ndn video=29752748]
The microbead controversy has all the makings of exactly the kind of morality play that those who seek government product bans seek. Activists don’t care about the costs or balance in their understanding. The point is to get government to use force against demonized private industry, regardless.
Therefore, California, Illinois, and New Jersey have already banned such products. There is an active movement for bans in almost every state.
It is only a matter of time before Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency get involved. In fact, a bill has already been introduced, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015.
The science is unclear on the crucial question of the extent of the harm — if any.
The website beatthemicrobead.org seems the central organizing portal for the global anti-bead movement. Yet even this site admits that no one knows for sure how bad — if at all — microbeads truly are: “The full extent and consequences is hard to quantify.”
Indeed, the science is unclear on the crucial question of the extent of the harm, if any. The scientists who wrote a 2015 report admit that “there are gaps in our understanding of the precise impact of microbeads on aquatic ecosystem.”
Related: Something in the Water
Still, they say, “this should not delay action.”
Typically, the scientific uncertainty doesn’t matter to the activists. One blogger put a fine point on it: “This is just why there is still need for big government, unfortunately. People will do the craziest most destructive things to their fellow humans until they’re forced by draconian laws to stop.”
But is that really true? Do we really need government laws?
Already, the bad publicity about microbeads has led companies themselves to remove microbeads from products. Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and Procter & Gamble have already decided to phase out their use. The Body Shop, Target, and IKEA have decided to stop carrying them. You can download a mobile application that tells you whether the product contains them.
Related: GMO Irresponsibility Show
You might wonder why, if microbeads are so terrible, they exist in the first place. Well, in a FAQ on the topic, toothpaste maker Crest explained: “We included these beads in some of Crest’s toothpastes based on the positive feedback from people who use our products. Dental professionals will attest that enjoyable toothpastes generally promote longer brushing time and thus healthier outcomes.”
There is also the matter of price. The scrubbing products are far cheaper than the fussier brands that use organic salts and oatmeal. Looking online for alternate scrubs, what you find is a universally higher price.
At the same time, Crest says, “we understand there is a growing preference for us to remove this ingredient. So we will. Crest will continue to provide consumers with effective and enjoyable products which are designed to their preferences.”
The much-maligned microbeads are cheap, and effective. No wonder consumers loved them.
It’s the same with face scrubs. Consumers like microbeads and so companies began to put them in products. Exfoliating can be fun, especially with affordable products.
But faced with a growing sense that they might not be the best for environmental reasons, companies have started to phase them out. It’s not complicated really. It’s a matter of demand and supply.
Related: Coming Clean on Our Dirty Laundry
If private companies are removing them, and consumers themselves are turning away from them, why the rush to use laws? Some people just don’t know any other way. There is no sense of moderation, no thought to other solutions (like tweaking the way treatment plants deal with the beads), or recognizing that this does not have to be an all-or-nothing policy.
Product bans can be too broad and could rule out innovation in bead technology that is more biodegradable. A spokesman for Johnson & Johnson said of California’s law: it is “overly restrictive, inhibits innovation …”
A final cost of this kind of policy making is that it is overly reliant on government in general. The more we ask government to do for us, the more government does to us.
Plastic is far and above the most menacing substance in America’s waterways, as everyone knows this. How much plastic are we going to ban in order to bring about a clean up? How much of industrial civilization and innovation are we willing to give up in order to have plastic-free lakes?
In the meantime, if you like cheap scrubs, it might be time to start stockpiling.
Join the Discussion
Comments are currently closed.