Microplastics in cosmetics are intentionally added to exfoliate, improve texture, and stabilize the product. This widespread use raises concerns about direct dermal exposure, accidental inhalation, and environmental contamination.
It’s not just about complying with a new European regulation. It’s about earning the trust and loyalty of a consumer who already sees microplastics in cosmetics as the enemy.
The prohibition of Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 is the clearest market signal. The demand for natural exfoliants (olive pits, walnut shells) and biopolymers is not a trend, it’s the new standard.Said Vanesa Micolucci
Humans can be exposed to microplastics through multiple sources, including plastic packaging, textiles, degraded plastic materials, fishing gear, and personal hygiene products. The main routes of exposure are ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. Widespread marine pollution has made shellfish and the food chain in general significant conduits for microplastic ingestion.
Dermatological Effects of Microplastics
Microplastics and nanoplastics have been increasingly scrutinized for their potential effects on skin health. While much of the current evidence comes from in vitro and animal studies, emerging data suggest that these particles can alter skin barrier function, lead to inflammatory responses, disrupt the skin microbiome, accelerate aging processes, and possibly contribute to carcinogenesis.
Microplastics in Cosmetics
Microplastics in cosmetics are generally classified into primary microplastics, which are intentionally added as ingredients, and secondary microplastics, which originate from the degradation or abrasion of cosmetic packaging materials.
Primary microplastics are incorporated into cosmetic formulations to fulfill various functions, such as exfoliating, cleansing, modulating opacity, providing a smooth or silky texture, and achieving a brightening effect on the skin. They can be used in lipsticks, loose or pressed powders, liquid or thick emulsions with a powdery texture, and also as a vehicle for other ingredients.
Microbeads, a common type of primary microplastic, are tiny plastic particles found in various PCCPs. These particles vary in size and composition, often exhibiting irregular shapes and the ability to aggregate into larger masses. Microbeads used in facial or body exfoliants typically have rough, irregular surfaces, giving them a high surface-to-volume ratio, which enhances their ability to adsorb and transport harmful substances.
Beyond direct cosmetic ingredients, recent studies have revealed that microplastics can also originate from cosmetic packaging. For example, microplastic fragments are generated during routine actions such as opening, cutting, or tearing plastic packaging.
What do experts and regulators say?
The European Commission adopted Regulation (EU) 2023/2055, which prohibits intentionally added microplastics in cosmetic products. This includes exfoliating microbeads, loose glitter, and encapsulated fragrances.
AEIC (Spanish Association of the Cosmetic Industry) points out that the industry has been voluntarily eliminating these ingredients since 2015, replacing them with natural exfoliants such as olive pits, walnut or apricot shells.
Biorius, a regulatory consultant, highlights that non-biodegradable microplastics with low water solubility can no longer be marketed if they exceed 0.01% by weight in cosmetic products.
What does the industry think?
Manufacturers and formulators are in the process of reformulation. Some products will have until 2035 to completely eliminate microplastics, such as lipsticks or nail polishes.
Ingredient companies are developing biodegradable alternatives, such as encapsulated fragrances with natural matrices or soluble polymers.
Regulations and efforts to address microplastics in cosmetics and personal care products
As awareness of the environmental and health risks associated with microplastics in personal care and cosmetic products (PCCPs) has grown, coordinated efforts by governments, industries, and environmental organizations have accelerated. Non-governmental organizations have played a pivotal role in raising public awareness and driving regulatory action.
Several countries have implemented regulatory measures. In 2015, the United States enacted the Microbead-Free Waters Act, which prohibits the use of plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetic products. Canada banned exfoliating and cleansing products in 2016, while South Korea introduced a similar ban in 2017.
Other countries, such as Italy, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, have also implemented national bans on the use of microplastics in certain cosmetic formulations. More recently, the European Union adopted Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055, which restricts the intentional addition of microplastics in a wide range of products.
However, regulatory coverage remains incomplete and is inconsistently applied across different product categories. A 2022 analysis by the Plastic Soup Foundation reported that 87% of products from major European cosmetic brands contained microplastic ingredients, highlighting the limited scope of current regulations.
Alternatives to conventional synthetic polymers
There is a growing emphasis on the development of biopolymers as sustainable alternatives to conventional synthetic polymers, such as polyethylene, in cosmetic packaging. Biopolymers are derived from natural sources, such as plant biomass, cellulose, and microbial metabolites, and are gaining ground due to their biodegradability, biocompatibility, and lower ecological impact.
Among these, poly(lactic acid), a biodegradable aliphatic polyester synthesized through the fermentation of sugars, is widely recognized for its non-toxicity, high mechanical strength, and biocompatibility.
Starch-based polymers represent another promising group of bioplastics. Composed mainly of amylose and amylopectin, starch is obtained from potato, corn, rice, and wheat. These polymers are low-toxicity, biocompatible, and highly biodegradable. Their functional properties can be improved by incorporating plasticizers such as citric acid, sorbitol, or glycerol, which increases their flexibility and applicability in cosmetic packaging.
Polybutylene succinate (PBS), primarily used in packaging applications, is synthesized by the polycondensation of succinic acid and butanediol. It exhibits excellent thermal stability and mechanical performance.
In parallel, innovative approaches are being explored to develop biomaterials from renewable and waste-derived sources. Additionally, biocomposite materials incorporating coconut fibers, jute fibers, and other lignocellulosic materials are under active investigation for cosmetic and packaging applications due to their increased sustainability and mechanical performance.
Within cosmetic formulations, carbohydrate-based biopolymers, as well as natural exfoliating agents, offer effective and biodegradable alternatives to synthetic microbeads, supporting a shift towards ecologically conscious product development.
In the face of increasing public concern and scientific evidence, the cosmetic industry must take proactive measures to gradually phase out microplastic ingredients, invest in eco-friendly innovations, and move towards sustainable product development. These initiatives will not only contribute to mitigating environmental damage but also protect consumer health and align with global sustainability goals.
From Crisis to Market Opportunity.
Comparative Table: Microplastics vs. Natural/Biodegradable Alternatives
| Comparison Criterion | Microplastics (Conventional in Cosmetics) | Natural / Biodegradable Alternatives |
| Definition and Composition | Micrometric plastic particles or fragments, usually measuring less than 5 mm. In cosmetics, they are small spheres with a diameter of 1 mm or less. They are synthetic polymers. | Natural polymers (biopolymers) or biodegradable synthetic polymers. |
| Specific Examples | Polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyurethane, nylon (PA). Polyethylene and polypropylene microbeads. | Colored mica, mineral particles, sugar, ground coffee. PhytPeel line (plant and mineral origin). Specific examples: Almond shell, peach seed, Jasmine flower, Cellulose, Starch, Chitin, Chitosan, Collagen. |
| Material Origin | Synthetic. They are produced from fossil fuels (99% of plastics). They are petroleum derivatives. | Mostly obtained from renewable agricultural resources (biopolymers). Plant and mineral origin. |
| Cost and Functionality | They are cheap due to their synthetic origin and have good functionality. They have been used as the sole option for the exfoliating effect. | They show high stability and provide the same smooth feeling after exfoliation. They offer an even greater exfoliating effect, with more texture and are gentler on the skin. |
| Mechanism in Cosmetics | They provide a slight abrasive effect and remove impurities and particles that clog pores. They are used as exfoliating or scrubbing agents in cleansers, shower gels, and toothpastes. | They replace microplastics as active ingredients in exfoliation. |
| Persistence and Degradation | They are not biodegradable. They persist in the environment for decades or more. They accumulate in the environment due to their slow or nonexistent degradation. | They allow aerobic or anaerobic decomposition by enzymatic action of microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, algae). Natural biopolymers are considered compostable. |
| Environmental Impact | High levels of pollution in water bodies. They travel through the sewage system and end up in rivers, lakes, and seas. Eight billion microbeads reach the drainage system every day. | Environmentally friendly. Their use helps reduce the environmental impact of plastics and the volume of waste. |
| Health Risks (Toxins) | They are capable of absorbing toxins and releasing toxic substances upon decomposition, causing neurological or hormonal problems. They contain added toxic chemicals (BPA, phthalates, flame retardants). They can cause oxidative stress, cytotoxicity, genotoxic damage, and chronic inflammation. | Considered safer and more sustainable materials. |
| Human Exposure Route | Ingestion (they are ingested by aquatic organisms and finally by us). Ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact (in cosmetics, toothpastes, soaps). | No direct toxicity routes are mentioned in the sources; they are promoted as a friendly alternative. |
| Regulatory Framework (EU) | Their intentional use is subject to restrictions or prohibitions in several regions. The EU has defined transition periods for the sales ban, the latest being 2035 (for makeup). | In the EU, biodegradable microplastics may be allowed under certain conditions. An exception may be granted if they are manufactured with natural polymers that degrade rapidly in an aqueous medium. |
| Awareness Campaign | The use of microplastics has decreased following the global Beat the Microbead campaign. | The use of natural exfoliants is promoted as part of the Beat the Microbead movement. |
The European Union legislation on microplastics has specific implementation deadlines for the cosmetic industry, reflecting the need to reformulate products containing microbeads:
| Cosmetic Product | Prohibition Application Deadline (EU) |
| Rinse-off products (except microbeads for exfoliation, polishing, or cleansing) | As of October 17, 2027 |
| Leave-on products (intended to remain in prolonged contact with skin, hair, or mucous membranes) | As of October 17, 2029 |
| Lip, nail, and makeup products (unless they contain microbeads) | As of October 17, 2035 |
United States
Regarding the regulation of microplastics in cosmetic products, the source mentions the existence of federal legislation:
In the United States, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 prohibits the manufacture, packaging, and distribution of rinse-off cosmetic products that contain intentionally added plastic microbeads.
This law also applies to products that are both cosmetics and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, such as toothpastes.
According to this regulation, a plastic microbead is defined as “any solid plastic particle 5 millimeters or less in size, intended to exfoliate or cleanse the body or any part of the body.”
More generally, polyethylene and polypropylene microbeads are banned in some parts of the United States and European countries.
As for global plastic production in 2018, North America accounted for 18% of the total.
Latin America (LATAM)
The Latin American region is mentioned both in the context of global plastic production and in the problem of toxic waste management and pollution:
Production and Pollution:
- In 2018, Latin America accounted for 4% of global plastic production.
- Mexico is positioned as the eleventh largest producer and consumer of plastic worldwide, producing nearly 7 million tons per year.
- Mexico is in the top 10 of the main plastic waste producing countries, ranking tenth with a production of 5.9 million tons of plastic waste.
- Only 15% of plastic waste in Mexico is recycled.
- Mexico City is the most affected federal entity, producing 13,000 tons of waste per day, of which an estimated 40% are plastics that will end up in incineration or unregulated landfills.
Regulation and Alternatives (Mexico Case):
- In 2019, the local Congress of Mexico City approved a reform to the Solid Waste Law that prohibits the commercialization, distribution, and delivery of plastic bags starting in January 2020, and single-use products (such as straws, stirrers, and balloons) starting in 2021, unless they are compostable. However, this reform has been partially implemented, and not all federal entities have replicated it.
- A chemical distributor in Mexico (First Quality Chemicals) promotes a wide range of natural exfoliants (more than 40 options) as an ecological alternative to eliminate microplastics from cosmetic products, joining the global Beat the Microbead campaign.
Environmental Injustice and Toxic Waste:
- Low and middle-income countries, which include Latin America, face a more acute problem of chemical pollution because they often have weak regulations and end up being dumping grounds for plastic waste sent by Western countries.
- People in these countries are disproportionately exposed to toxic chemicals and face greater health risks due to this environmental injustice.
- Pollution from plastic waste and associated toxic chemicals is a problem that threatens communities and food chains in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
To address this global crisis, IPEN (a network of NGOs working in over 125 countries, mainly developing and transitional countries) advocates for a Plastics Treaty that addresses toxic chemical pollution and waste export.
No te conformes con leer estos informes.
Accede a la inteligencia Mercado Exclusiva
Únete al Círculo Privado para que seas parte de la Inteligencia de Mercado B2B