Microplastics in Personal Care Products: Out!

Plastics are everywhere. More than 460 million metric tons of the stuff are produced annually, and almost all of it eventually degrades through external processes, such as friction and ultraviolet light exposure, into microplastics (< 5 mm) and nanoplastics (< 1 µm). These tiny particles, along with plastic-derived chemicals, are nearly ubiquitous. 

Crucially, microplastics are commonly incorporated into personal care products to enhance their texture and functionality. Microbeads, a subset of microplastics typically spherical in shape, are added to face scrubs, body washes, and toothpaste to provide gentle exfoliation and deep cleaning. Microplastics also serve as thickening agents to improve a product’s consistency and spreadability. Some synthetic polymers are used to create a protective film on skin, offering water resistance in sunscreens, lotions, and hair sprays. Additionally, microplastics can enhance the skin’s appearance by creating a pearlescent or opaque finish.

Currently, more than 500 microplastic ingredients are used in cosmetics and personal care products, with polyethylene and acrylates copolymer the most common. Synthetic polymers, such as dimethicone and carbomers, while not strictly classified as microplastics, are persistent organic pollutants. They share key characteristics with plastics, are derived from fossil fuels, and exhibit poor biodegradability. These products are essentially indestructible, and traditional filtration and waste management systems struggle to capture these tiny particles, making mitigation against environmental contamination challenging and costly.

But microplastics don’t “just” harm the environment. They can also enter our bodies through the skin, lungs, gut, and placenta. Their presence in breast milk and the placenta means that babies are exposed even before birth. Animal models have shown that microplastic particles can disrupt inflammatory processes in the skin and induce lupus-like symptoms. Additionally, chemical additives in plastics, such as phthalates and bisphenols, may exacerbate atopic dermatitis, trigger allergic contact dermatitis, and aggravate acne in adolescents.

If microplastics and plastic-derived chemicals pose such a significant concern, why is plastic production projected to triple by 2060? 

Inadequate Regulation

The failure to prevent this can be attributed to three key factors: lack of awareness, resulting in weak public health policies; insufficient regulations that fail to comprehensively address plastic pollution; and gaps in scientific research, limiting our understanding of long-term health impacts.

Compounding this issue is media coverage, with headlines such as “Levels of Microplastics in Human Brains May Be Rapidly Rising, Study Suggests” or “We Consume up to a Credit Card’s Worth of Plastic Every Week” generating clicks but failing to drive meaningful action. Not only is the one-credit-card worth of plastic consumption inaccurate by orders of magnitude, but without a shift toward action-oriented discussions, no changes will ensue.

Current policies are fragmented, are reactive rather than proactive, and fail to address the full spectrum of plastic pollution. For example, only 19 countries, including the Netherlands, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, have banned microbeads. 

The definition of microplastics itself is constantly evolving, with no universally accepted standard, leading to inconsistencies in regulation and compliance. Many pharmaceutical companies that manufacture products containing synthetic polymers do not classify them as microplastics, despite their similar physicochemical properties.

Additionally, many regulations overlook the risks posed by plastic-derived chemicals, such as endocrine disruptors like phthalates and bisphenols, which can leach into the environment and pose serious health risks. Of the more than 16,000 known plastic chemicals, one third are classified as hazardous to human and environmental health, while more than one quarter lack basic information on their chemical identity, let alone their potential effects. 

Some progress has been made. Under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of chemicals (REACH) framework, the European Union has banned 74 synthetic polymers and chemicals as of October 17, 2023. 

Doctors Must Unite

Because microplastics and plastic chemicals are ubiquitous in personal care products and unavoidable for all humans, action can and should be taken to reduce exposure. 

At the grassroots level, we must demand their removal from all personal care products. This can be accomplished through direct engagement with pharmaceutical companies or by writing to one’s local parliamentary representative. 

Safer alternatives already exist, requiring no new inventions or technologies. For example, the Plastic Soup Foundation has certified brands that are free of microplastics. Consumers can drive meaningful change through their purchasing choices by opting for microplastic-free products. 

The distribution of product samples must be minimized, and sachets and fingertip-sized samples should be eliminated because they use a greater amount of plastic packaging per volume than standard-sized containers and are difficult to recycle, often ending up in landfills or the ocean. 

Superfluous packaging of medical consumables should also be eliminated. Single-use plastic instruments should be replaced with sterilizable, reusable surgical instruments. 

More importantly, we must act together as doctors. In Australia, the Australasian College of Dermatologists’ Environmental Sustainability Group only has eight members. Why would pharmaceutical companies heed the concerns of just eight individuals in a nation of over 27 million? 

This is why acting in unison and on a broader scale is important. The regulation of microplastics and plastic-derived chemicals needs to be strengthened globally. Although existing measures, such as the EU’s recent restrictions, represent progress, they remain incomplete. Current policies fail to address all synthetic polymers used in personal care products. Regulations must be expanded to include all such polymers, not just microplastics.

A more comprehensive review of plastic-derived chemicals is urgently needed under such frameworks as REACH in the EU and by organizations such as the US Food and Drug Administration. This is a daunting task given that more than 16,000 plastic chemicals have been identified, with this number continuing to grow.

The biggest obstacle is lack of awareness. Despite mounting evidence, microplastics and plastic-derived chemicals are not widely recognized as public health threats, particularly in dermatology. We need more research, more publications, public awareness campaigns and integration of this issue into medical education to equip the next generation of doctors with the knowledge to act upon these risks and properly inform patients.

Plastic pollution may seem like an overwhelming challenge, but with a combined effort of legislative action, scientific advocacy, and grassroots movements, it is solvable. To drive meaningful change, we need more voices and more engagement, and we need to act now.

For further information, read “Plastics in Dermatology: A Review and Solutions,” published by the authors in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology on January 21, 2025. 

Eugene Tan, MBChB, is a dermatologist at St. Vincent’s Clinical Campus in Darlinghurst, Australia. He is a Mohs micrographic surgeon and fellow of the Royal Australian College of Physicians and the Australasian College of Dermatologists. He is also a member of the Australasian College of Dermatologists’ Environmental Sustainability Group. 

Susanne Saha, MD, is co-chair of the Sustainability in Dermatology Working Group and a specialist in dermatology, venereology, and occupational dermatology in Freiburg, Germany. 

Dennis Niebel, MD, is a senior consultant at University Hospital Regensburg’s department of dermatology and is co-chair of German Dermatological Society’s Sustainability in Dermatology Working Group.