The Ugly Truth About Cosmetics

Image courtesy of Pxhere

By Siona Ahuja ’24

Staff Writer

The cosmetics industry has been scrutinized for turning a blind eye toward unethical practices that are harmful to the environment. The industry produces more than 120 billion units of packaging material annually. Although there has been a surge over the past decade or so of products marketed as “pure,” “organic” or “cruelty-free,” a majority of these are still taking a toll on the environment. Eighty-nine percent of the ingredients used in cosmetics are not regulated by the FDA, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review or any other publicly accountable institution, giving brands a chance to add hazardous chemicals and carcinogens that damage both the human body and the Earth. 

One significant environmental impact of the cosmetics industry is microbeads. Microbeads are little plastic balls less than 5 millimeters in diameter most commonly present in skincare products to give them an exfoliating effect. While these particles are scrubbed off of the skin in one to two minutes, they have rinsed down the drain, where they escape wastewater treatment centers and remain in the environment for tens of thousands of years. These beads have the capacity to upset the entire food chains. They are routinely digested by marine life which, in turn, is consumed by humans, who end up ingesting the microbeads’ harmful toxins. 

While countries like Canada, the United States, South Korea and some European nations are realizing the toxic effects of microbeads, these plastic particles have yet to be universally eradicated. Since some versions of plastic microbeads are too small to see with the naked eye, Beat the Microbead, an app and database, helps buyers check for the presence of this pollutant and make informed decisions about specific products. Skincare specialists and cosmetologists recommend using natural exfoliants instead, such as coffee grounds and jojoba beads. These experts also place a greater emphasis on chemical exfoliants, thus eliminating the need for physically abrasive and environmentally harmful skincare. 

While under the pretense of being eco-friendly, popular brands are still including bizarre animal products in cosmetics. Animal wax is a recurrent product in lip balms, and lipsticks owe their reddish tint to crushed red beetles. Most lipsticks have an ingredient called “pearl essence” — another name for fish scales — that gives them a unique luster. There are many, many more ingredients that have been renamed with elegant terms in order to obscure their origins. 

Fortunately, many brands are acknowledging this crisis, and in response, newer and cleaner companies are being launched. ILIA Beauty and Au Naturale are relatively transparent brands that are powering their way through the makeup market with natural tints and vegan products. The CosmEthics app and PETA’s website give exhaustive directories of animal ingredients and their ethical alternatives. 

A much less acknowledged side of the makeup world is the illegitimate procuring of ingredients for most products. Vanilla, a familiar ingredient used as an aromatic in the cosmetics industry, is the second most expensive spice in the world. Almost 80 percent of this spice sold globally comes from Madagascar where child labor, extensive working hours and underpaid cultivators are commonplace. While the price of vanilla fluctuates between $200 to $400 a kilogram, the field workers are paid only around $8 per kilogram. Similarly, cocoa farmers in tropical West Africa, especially in Ghana and on the Ivory Coast, supply almost 70 percent of the world’s cocoa. Many organizations have exposed the extensive use of child labor, human trafficking and even slavery in these extremely competitive cocoa farms where wages stoop as low as $2 per day. 

Mica, a mineral that adds glitter to everyday makeup, is largely found in India where it is illegally scavenged on protected forestland. This has caused major deforestation and loss of wildlife in large parts of the country. Children as young as 6 years old are involved in mica scavenging, a hazardous activity that increases one’s risk of tuberculosis and early death. Workers’ lives are at risk of being suffocated in mica mines; in fact, a 2016 report by the Thomson Reuters Foundation revealed that seven children had been smothered to death in mica mines in a span of just two months. 

The daily use of cosmetic plastic products generates millions of tons of non-biodegradable waste. Makeup wipes, toothbrushes and disposable razors are the most commonly disposed of items. Diana Felton MD, the state toxicologist with the Hawaii Department of Health, said, “20 million pounds of single-use wipes (including baby wipes and disinfecting wipes) are disposed of every day in the U.S. Many wipes are disposed of in landfills, and despite claims to the contrary, most are not biodegradable and do not rapidly break down, creating too much trash to fit in our landfills.” The plastic fibers from these wipes leech into the oceans and create a hazard to marine life. To make matters worse, these single-use wipes come in equally harmful plastic packaging, which doubles the waste quantities they contribute. Makeup experts suggest eliminating makeup wipes from people’s routines entirely and instead of using organic makeup removers or reusable washcloths. 

Similarly, disposable razors and toothbrushes have bodies made entirely out of plastic that, when thrown away, pile up in landfills for years to come. In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that Americans tossed out more than 2 billion razors. Since then, the American population has grown by almost 75 million. According to research by FOREO, a Swedish multinational beauty brand, 1 billion plastic toothbrushes (50 million pounds’ worth of plastic) are thrown away annually. These toothbrushes and razors face the same fate as the makeup wipes. As more awareness is raised about these polluting products, recyclable metal razors and bamboo toothbrushes are making headway in the beauty and health care industries. 

As the world opens its eyes to the hazards of daily beauty practices and items, a few companies are trying to create change. Makeup artists and influencers like PaintedByEsther and Salwa Rahman are inspiring their followers by upcycling containers, encouraging people to buy secondhand products and refusing to promote companies that do not have a waste reduction policy. “The concept of refillable makeup should become the norm, as it … drastically reduces the eco-footprint of an item,” says Lyndsey Bates, U.K. director of the world’s first refillable makeup brand, ZAO Beauty. “Furthermore, packaging can then be made sustainable.”

Controversial Wolf Restoration Proposition Passed by Colorado Voters

Image courtesy of Flickr.

By Catelyn Fitzgerald ’23

Staff Writer

On Nov. 3, Colorado voters passed Proposition 114, an effort to restore the state’s gray wolf population. Hunted nearly to extinction in the 1900s, Proposition 114 aims to reintroduce gray wolves into Western Colorado to restore the population to self-sustaining levels as other states have successfully done in the past.

Reintroducing gray wolves in Colorado will play an important role in connecting existing wolf populations in the Rocky Mountain regions above and below the state. The text of the proposition states that bringing wolves back to Colorado “will help restore a critical balance in nature” by helping to complete ecosystem cycles interrupted when the wolf population dropped. 

Wolf restoration projects have garnered a positive reputation among environmentalists due to their success in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. After wolves were reintroduced into the park, the subsequent reduction in elk and deer populations allowed willow and aspen trees along riverbanks to recover from overgrazing. As a result, the park’s rivers became more stable, and other animal populations grew in abundance as the natural environment was restored. 

The powerful effect of wolves on the environment comes from their importance as an apex predator or a species at the top of its food chain. This means that any changes to the population of wolves in an area will ripple through the ecosystem. 

Despite the reintroduction of wolves making immediate changes to the park’s environment, other factors such as drought and hunting also decreased the elk population. This means that wolves were not the sole saviors of Yellowstone National Park and that the positive effects of wolf restoration on the environment may not occur in other projects.

According to Proposition 114, the reintroduction of wolves will be restricted to “designated lands,” referring to the area west of the continental divide that runs down the ridge of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. This region constitutes the rural area of Colorado, with most of the state’s urban population living east of the Rockies, making support for the proposition lie strongly with the state’s urban voters. Ranchers and big game hunters make up the bulk of opposition to the measure due to their concerns over wolves presenting a danger to livestock and creating competition for hunters.

According to Proposition 114, a plan for wolf reintroduction will be formulated based on the “best scientific data available” and regular state hearings, as well as opportunities for public input. The measure also includes an allocation of funds to “assist owners of livestock in preventing and resolving conflicts between gray wolves and livestock” and “pay fair compensation to owners of livestock for any losses of livestock caused by gray wolves.” Colorado has had a higher number of wolf restoration projects than other states, warranting extra consideration from voters about the potential for unwanted contact with wolves.

The potential of wolf-livestock conflict is a major concern for Colorado ranchers. While wolves have been reported to kill livestock at low rates — Colorado State University estimates that under 1 percent of cattle in the Rocky Mountain states are killed by wolves — these killings are often unevenly distributed, meaning that the livestock of a small group of ranchers could become the target of multiple attacks. 

An additional source of controversy surrounding Proposition 114 is its position as an unprecedented method of determining state wildlife policy. The proposition represents the first time that wildlife restoration issues in Colorado have been put in the hands of voters rather than determined by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. The commission is appointed by the governor and its members come from a variety of backgrounds, from a hunting outfitter owner to an environmental attorney. 

Some opposition to Proposition 114 comes from the belief that wildlife management decisions should be made by those with experience rather than the general public. In 2016, the CPWC rejected a wolf reintroduction proposal based on Colorado not being part of the historic range of gray wolves, the success of other states’ restoration efforts and potential damage to the agriculture and big game hunting industries. 

Donations to campaigns for and against the proposition show the stark differences between the two sides. The Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund led the campaign in support of the measure and raised over $1.7 million to help pass the proposition. Many donations to the fund came from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. On the other hand, Stop the Wolf PAC raised over $70,000 in an effort to prevent the proposition from being passed, most of which came from individuals donating small amounts.

Given the divisiveness of the issue, its passage with 51 percent of the vote comes as no surprise. The measure passed by a narrow margin of about 57,000 votes, according to Ballotpedia. Proposition 114 will go into effect in Colorado by the end of 2023, but its results will be seen over the next several decades.

Environmental Costs of Worldwide Food Production Systems

Image courtesy of Wikimedia.

By Helen Gloege ’23 

Staff Writer

The Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global temperature rise below 2 C above pre-industrial levels and limit temperature increase to 1.5 C, will be hard if not impossible to reach without changes to the worldwide food production system, according to new research from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford in England. As the food industry continues to grow, food-related emissions are expected to double by 2050, potentially heating the planet more than 1.5 C by the 2060s, and close to 2 C by the end of the century.

A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that 37 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions come from food production systems, including emissions from transportation and packaging. The emissions come from direct sources such as carbon dioxide, methane and other planet-warming gases. There are also indirect sources such as land clearing and deforestation, both of which allow for agricultural advancements and grazing. In addition, fertilizers, the cultivation of rice and flooded paddies have contributed to these numbers. 

Emissions for carbon-intensive sectors have been decreasing as clean technology is more widely adopted worldwide. Farming has received less attention from policymakers than other greenhouse gas producers, even though it is estimated that half of all habitable land is currently used for agriculture purposes. Agriculture also accounts for 70 percent of freshwater withdrawal. It is estimated that a majority of the global ocean and freshwater pollution is caused by agriculture. 

Another development in food production that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions is monocropping, the agricultural practice of growing a single crop year after year on the same plot of land. This process uses up all the nutrients from the earth, leaving the soil weak and unable to support healthy plant growth. This often forces farmers to use chemical fertilizers to encourage plant growth. Monocropping also fails to provide diversity to diets or ecosystems.

In animal agriculture, concentrated animal feeding operations or factory farms are used to maximize production while minimizing costs. The process involves intensive methods in which poultry, pigs, fish or cattle are confined indoors under strictly controlled conditions in a small, enclosed area. These farms result in excess animal waste and have been linked to high contents of nitrogen and other nutrients in manure runoff that cause dead zones in downstream waterways. These methods of food production use finite resources without replenishing them. 

Leakages of toxic waste also come from concentrated animal feeding operations. Overapplying manure in fields emits nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, into the air. This application of manure is carried out to avoid manure leakage into lagoons. A manure lagoon or anaerobic lagoon is a human-made basin filled with animal waste. These lagoons have been shown to harbor and emit substances that can have adverse environmental and health effects. The most prevalent gases emitted by the lagoons are ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane and carbon dioxide. Overflow of these lagoons releases harmful substances into the surrounding land or water and may include antibiotics, estrogens, bacteria, pesticides, heavy metals and protozoa. In North Carolina, after Hurricane Florence in 2018, 38 manure lagoons had been structurally damaged, breached or overtopped with nine more lagoons inundated with surface water. When lagoons overflow, untreated waste flows into local waters. 

New advances in sustainable agriculture are rooted in regenerative practices. This means that farmers invest in the land and adopt a holistic ecosystem approach. A report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes following better land practices, switching to less meat-intensive diets and eliminating food waste as global priorities. They also recommend stopping deforestation, limiting greenhouse gas-emitting fertilizers and raising crops that add more carbon to soil. Other goals involve increasing crop yields per hectare and switching to healthy calorie supplies based on plant crops. Dietary changes would mainly need to occur in richer countries where the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs is well above average health recommendations. This allows for a reduction in the consumption of unhealthy, high-carbon foods in large quantities. If this is achieved, it would allow poorer nations to feed their populations better and would increase their consumption of animal products without exhausting the global carbon budget. 

Techniques including organic, free-range, low-input, holistic and biodynamic practices would allow for agricultural sustainability and mimic natural ecological processes. In reality, this would mean farmers minimizing water, encouraging healthy soil by planting fields with different crops, integrating croplands with livestock grazing and avoiding pesticide use by nurturing organisms that control crop-destroying pests. The process of sustainability will also allow for just treatment of farmworkers and food pricing that allows farmers to have a livable income.

Earlier this month, health professionals from the U.K. called for a tax on meat to entice people to change their consumption habits, but taxes are not the only solution. Health professionals explained that meat, tobacco, alcohol, sugar and fuel should be taxed because of the negative impact they have on human health and the environment. Currently, meat is cheaper than most fruits and vegetables, so a tax could be used to increase the availability and affordability of healthy, plant-based foods. This would also allow for sustainable foods to be the easy and affordable choice for those with lower incomes who must often choose meat, the less expensive option, over pricey fruits and vegetables.

Plant Breeding Adapts Seeds to Current and Future Climate Conditions

Image courtesy of WikiMedia.

By Dnyaneshwari Haware ’23 

Staff Writer 

The impact of climate change can be seen in everything around us, from the loss of habitats to the migration of animals and plant species — even the crops planted and growing on farms. Climate change has already destroyed many agricultural lands through frequent floods, increased forest fires and intensified droughts. This is made more worrisome by research concluding that crop species are becoming sensitive to the increase in average surface temperatures due to global warming. Wheat, which is considered the foundation of life in much of the world, is predicted to suffer the most from rising temperatures, and countries where it is predominantly grown will be the most impacted and least equipped to cope. Rising temperatures are likely to impact more species upon which life depends. A possible solution that has emerged is modifying plant species to adapt to the climate, a practice known as climate-adapted plant breeding. 

Climate-adapted plant breeding uses existing or old varieties of plants to breed new varieties so they will be adapted to current and future climate conditions. Recently, a research team from the Technical University of Munich was able to show that material from gene banks can be used to improve traits in the maize plant using a combination of new molecular and statistical methods. A prerequisite for this is the preservation of old and present species through proper storage and seed handling. Seed banks, or seed vaults, have emerged as a solution that preserves genetic diversity by providing the necessary conditions for the longevity of seeds. Seeds are stored in low temperatures that keep them dormant until they are needed for replanting.

One of the largest seed vaults is the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, located on the Spitsbergen island of Norway above the Arctic Circle. It is frequently called the Arctic Doomsday Seed Vault because it contains over a million seed types from all over the world and, should a global catastrophe occur, the vault’s collection would allow for a theoretical restart to world agriculture. In case the regional diversity of wheat, rice or any other food plant is destroyed by war, climate change or natural disaster, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault holds a backup. The facility was made to withstand a nuclear blast, and other structural improvements have been made over the years. 

More and more species are continuously added to the vault’s collection. Modifying varieties of organisms to climate change has already been successful, giving some researchers hope that this could be possible in the seed world. For example, modifying coral reefs to withstand higher temperatures and genetically modifying plant species have both been successful projects. In these cases, the change in temperature a species adapts to is limited, but in the case of climate change, rises in temperature are likely to be long-term and continual.

The Future of Climate Policy: Can Biden Do It?

Pictured above: President-elect Joseph Biden Jr. Image courtesy of Flickr.

By Abby Wester ’22

Staff Writer

After many grueling days spent counting absentee ballots, Joe Biden was announced president-elect of the United States on Saturday, Nov. 7. Biden’s win is generally seen by climate policy experts as a step in the right direction, but the efficacy and strength of his environmental policies have still yet to be determined. 

In the Democratic primary, Biden was seen as one of the least progressive candidates when it came to climate. But when Biden became the candidate for the Democratic Party, he ran on a platform that prioritized combating climate change in the hopes of rallying his base. He has since proposed the most ambitious climate plan to ever be released by a major U.S. presidential candidate. 

The political alignment of the Senate might challenge Biden’s ability to implement his plan. The Senate has been majority Republican since 2015. As of today, the political divide of the Senate is still in question, with Republicans holding 50 seats, Democrats holding 46 and independents holding two. Two more Senate seats are still up in the air in Georgia, where a runoff election will occur in January. The results of that election will either create a Republican majority or a tie between the parties. 

A majority Republican Senate is traditionally seen as an enemy to climate policy and could block the legislation promised by Biden during his campaign. If any votes the Senate takes are divided 50 against 50, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will vote to break the tie.

If Biden is able to follow through on  his climate promises, there may still be pressure and resistance from the political left. Biden’s moderate approach to climate in the primaries, along with his allegiance to fracking, have not left the minds of climate activists. Groups such as the Sunrise Movement have already spoken about their high expectations of Biden and are ready to be critical of his climate policies.

No matter the political makeup of the Senate or the hastiness of climate activists, Biden will have his work cut out for him when it comes to climate policy. President Donald Trump has spent the last four years disregarding climate science, reversing environmental regulations and, most recently, removing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. Biden’s response to climate change will likely displease many Americans given the divided politics of the nation. Climate change, however, will not wait for political disagreements as it continues to ravage our world.

Boston-Based Chemical Company Novomer Develops ECo-friendly Polymer

Pictured above: Eco-friendly Polymers. Photograph courtesy of Pixabay.

By Siona Ahuja ’24  

Staff Writer 

This November, the Boston-based chemical company Novomer launched its newest innovation: Rinnovo, a new class of compostable polymers. Conventionally, plastics are polymers made from carbon and a host of hazardous petrochemicals, and its production is extremely energy intensive, meaning it emits large amounts of CO2. Novomer’s technology produces biodegradable and compostable polymers that use almost half the materials that regular polymers require. The other processing ingredient is waste CO2 –– gas waste that is extracted from industrial processes –– which goes through a process that refines carbon molecules for use in manufacturing. This process, using the company’s trademark technology, Novo 22 Catalyst, enables the creation of “high performing, carbon efficient, cost efficient” material. Because of waste CO2’s affordability, the finished polymer is inexpensive, unlike other bioplastics, some of which can be 20 to 50 percent costlier than normal plastics. 

In an interview with Waste360, Novomer CEO Jeff Uhrig talked about Rinnovo’s compatibility with nature. He explained that their polymers are made from a polyhydroxyalkanoate backbone, which is produced by various organisms like algae. Since these are already found in nature, the ecosystem is prepared to disintegrate the final product following its usage. Its biodegradable nature allows it to reduce aquatic toxicity and waste sent to landfills or incinerators, as is routine with non-biodegradable polymers.  

As with Novomer’s polymers, all biodegradable plastics are less harmful substitutes to plastics made from fossil fuels. They can be used in a wide variety of ways, from packaging to waste collection products. Despite rules and bans against certain non-biodegradable plastic, especially single-use plastic, the production and distribution of biodegradable “bioplastics” is very low. According to a 2018 study, only 4,409,245 tons of plastic, just above 1 percent of global annual plastic manufacturing, is biodegradable. More so, a “bioplastic” label does not guarantee eco-friendliness because there are several issues within this family of polymers. 

The term “bioplastic” can mean plastics made out of natural ingredients like sugarcane or naturally made plastics that are biodegradable. However, not all bioplastics are biodegradable, and they leach toxins into the environment for years. Plastics that do biodegrade can also be made from synthesizing fossil fuel products. A rarer subset of bioplastics are compostable, which can be further segregated into home compostable plastics or industrially compostable plastics, the majority of which fall into the latter category.

Out of the 6.3 billion tons of plastic humankind has mass produced and thrown away since the 1950s, only a meager amount — 600 million tons — has been recycled while the rest lies in landfills, on the soil or in the oceans. 

While biodegradable plastics curb the plastic problem on land to an extent, their biodegradable properties are inefficient in seas. Thick plastics that line coffee cups and cup lids, clear plastic tumblers, drinking straws and other food packaging are expected to act like traditional plastic in seawater and won’t break down at all, severely damaging the marine ecosystem. By the midcentury, researchers expect the amount of plastic in the ocean to overtake the fish.

In addition, littered plastics also cause the decay of plastics into microplastics. In an experiment, Imogen Napper of the University of Plymouth concluded that natural factors like UV rays, sunlight, rain and soil can cause bioplastics to break down into smaller pieces that can cause more harm. Animals can unconsciously ingest these pieces and choke or the pieces can block their digestive tracts, resulting in death. 

In 2015, the United Nations Environment Programme published a report on the misconceptions and concerns regarding biodegradable plastics. It concluded that “the adoption of plastic products labelled as ‘biodegradable’ will not bring about a significant decrease either in the quantity of plastic entering the ocean or the risk of physical and chemical impacts on the marine environment, on the balance of current scientific evidence.” 

Weekly Climate News

November 12, 2020 

• A community conservation initiative to revitalize mangrove forests, a resource for fish and medicines as well as a natural mosquito repellant, is financing women’s businesses in Kenya. 

• A new research study indicates that hurricanes may be retaining surge strength once they move inland from coastal areas as a direct result of climate change. 

• Hurricane Eta made landfall in Florida, drenching the state in torrential rain and strong winds.  

• Data from acoustic and oceanographic instruments recovered by the Norwegian Coast Guard from iced-over waters north of Alaska will provide essential information for scientists researching Arctic Ocean climate changes.

• A biotech startup in Singapore is making milk without animals or humans. 

• Renewable electricity installation is on track to hit global records in 2020, according to the International Energy Agency. 

• Austin, Texas plans to invest $7 billion on a new transit system which will include a 31-station rail system, rapid bus routes and bike lanes. $460 million will be allocated specifically to infrastructure for enhancing walking and biking throughout the city. 

• Rising sea levels may threaten two-thirds of NASA’s infrastructure, so they are taking steps to prepare. Read about it here.

• Air pollution may cause threats to honey bee populations.

Women’s Scientific Coalition Proposes Marine Protection Areas in Rapidly Warming Antarctic Peninsula

Pictured above: Antarctica. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

By Dnyaneshwari Haware ’23

Staff Writer

Members of the largest all-women’s expedition to Antarctica, organized by women in STEM initiative Homeward Bound, have formed an all-women’s scientific coalition which is offering ways to overcome the negative impacts of climate change on the fragile Antarctic environment. The lack of women in Antarctica’s research and exploratory history makes this coalition an important step toward empowering women in scientific fields. It consists of 289 scientists and includes the European Union, Russia and the U.S. 

Antarctica, which houses unique species, has a highly sensitive ecosystem. Climate change, along with human activity like tourism and fishing, endangers Antarctic organisms from microscopic algae to humpback whales. 

Antarctica’s ecosystem mainly depends on a species of crustacean called krill, which form the basis of the continent’s food chain. Climate change and the negative externalities of human activities have resulted in shrinking sea ice and higher sea levels, leaving krill larvae unsheltered. This could destabilize the entire food chain, affecting species populations faster due to the vulnerability of the ecosystem. 

The western peninsula of Antarctica is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth with a temperature of 20.75 degrees Celsius.  In a two-week-long meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources in October 2020, the coalition proposed the western peninsula of Antarctica as a new marine protected area. This was led by Chile and Argentina. Currently, two areas in Antarctica have marine protection: the South Orkney Islands and the Ross Sea. Marga Gual Soler, a Spanish science policy advisor, told Reuters that the protection of this peninsula “would show the international community that collective action to tackle a global problem is possible.”