Beiersdorf and Natracare respond to EC’s micro-polluter-pay measure for protecting clean water

16 Nov 2022 --- The cosmetics industry has been under the spotlight as the European Commission (EC) plans to set up a polluter-pay scheme to ramp up the rules for ambient air, surface and groundwater pollutants and wastewater treatment to protect human and environmental health.

PersonalCareInsights sought an industry response to EC’s plan – Beiersdorf and Natracare stress the importance of regulatory pressures for industry changes and promoting biodegradable and organic solutions.

“We have globally eliminated the use of polyethylene particles – so-called microbeads – for peeling purposes since 2015,” a spokesperson at Beiersdorf tells us.

“In 2019, we reached another important milestone – all Beiersdorf rinse-off products have been free of microplastics. We are making very good progress with the few remaining products. With Nivea, we were able to achieve our next major goal at the end of 2021. Since then, Nivea products no longer contain any microplastics. Eucerin will have achieved this goal by the end of 2023.”

On the other hand, Susie Hewson, founder at Natracare, tells PersonalCareInsights that as an organic and nature-positive company, it fully supports the European Green Deal’s zero pollution ambition by 2050.Hewson promotes choosing organic solutions over plastic ones regarding feminine hygiene products.

“Without ambitious rules for clean air and water, the industry will not change direction in any nature-beneficial or health-positive way. We have seen this approach impact the Single Use Plastics Directive and labeling. All our health and survival depends on a functioning habitat, but we can see air and water pollution running amok without regulation and limits.”

Will charging companies work?
Regarding whether a polluter pay scheme will prevent or reduce companies from polluting more, Hewson thinks it is a matter of regulation versus voluntary action.

“If the reliance is on voluntary or self-regulated policies and standards, then nothing will change to reduce the levels of air and water pollution we are measuring in global environments today, attributed to the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries,” she believes.

“European Legislation will provide ‘inspiration’ for change amongst cosmetic and personal care producers ahead of stricter and additional codes within the Cosmetic Regulation. I find competition is a huge driver of change, so unless manufacturers and producers conform to the new regulation, then the implications for additional clean-up costs and damage to brands, plus any compensation awards to those whose health is compromised by such pollution, will be considerable,” Hewson underscores.

Third-party verification
Furthermore, Hewson explains that as debates around regulations are ongoing, companies and brands can look for third-party certifiers to meet a high level of environmental sustainability.

“It will be difficult to hide controlled chemicals, as full disclosure of ingredients is necessary on the Cosmetics Product Notification Portal (CPNP) as well as labeling Regulation for full INCI disclosure of ingredients,” she adds.

All products sold in the EU need to meet requirements in the Cosmetic Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 (Article 13) – to be registered into CPNP before being placed on this market.

“While this is being debated and legitimized, and consumers want to make a difference now, I would suggest looking for third-party organic governing bodies, such as not-for-profit COSMOS. It verifies cosmetic products and ingredients to ensure COSMO-certified products are genuine organic or natural and produced to the highest feasible sustainable practices,” suggests Hewson.Beiersdorf says that microplastics are “very controversial and extremely complex” because there is no universal definition of microplastics.

Biodegradable and organic alternatives
The Beiersdorf spokesperson highlights that microplastic is “very controversial and extremely complex” because there is no universal definition of microplastics.

“Beiersdorf understands microplastics to be solid, water-insoluble plastic particles five millimeters or smaller and not biodegradable. In doing so, we rely on the substantiated definition of the United Nations Environment Program, thereby adhering to broadly shared scientific opinion.”

“At Beiersdorf, we have a clear ambition: to eliminate microplastics from all product formulas and to expand the use of biodegradable polymers systematically,” adds the spokesperson.

They explain that the company is refining products, and as part of its sustainability agenda, it aims to only use biodegradable polymers in all brands’ European product formulas by 2025.

“We believe biodegradability is crucial to exclude possible negative impacts on ecosystems. Throughout the company, we are therefore highly committed to the development of substitute materials, as well as the corresponding formula changes and product launches.”

Furthermore, Hewson promotes choosing organic solutions over plastic ones regarding feminine hygiene products.

“Consider that 25 additional substances are being added to the current EU lists, to include extremely toxic, forever chemicals (PFAS) found in personal care as well as clothing and furnishings; pesticides, such as glyphosate and their degradation products, used, amongst other pesticides, in agriculture, has been detected in non-organic cotton products and of course is deadly to bees,” she says.

“Choosing organic is a positive in this case; Bisphenol A, a plasticizer used in plastic packaging, and pharmaceuticals like anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics come under the chemicals of concern.”

She continues, explaining that there can be obscured transparency for mixed material blends in supply chains for cosmetic formulations. “It can be that suppliers cannot have raw material suppliers disclose the full contents of a base formula or there is potential for introducing contamination.”

“I am happy to see the EU will also consider the cumulative or combined effects of mixtures, of great concern for us environmentalists,” comments Hewson.

What is morally right and economically correct?Hewson suggests looking for third-party certifiers to meet a high level of environmental sustainability.Whether the industry will support EC’s plan or not, Hewson thinks that regulatory pressure is the way to go.

“Progress to legislation in the European Parliament and the Council are fraught with lobbyist attack, but we should be hopeful that legislation will prevail where historically, self-regulatory initiatives and voluntary practices of the conventional cosmetics industry has failed to prevent the damage to health and environment being measured in 2022,” she says.

“EU Regulation will enforce compliance, so what happens along the journey to final legislation will be critical.”

Moreover, Hewson highlights that a Cosmetics Europe study (2017) found that between 80% and 95% of the environmental impacts of shampoo are attributed to its use and disposal.

“Today, cosmetic and personal care businesses are marketing their environmental impacts in published reports to reinforce consumer confidence that said the company is taking positive action. So far, those reports focus on lifecycle analysis at best, with little reference to the impact of chemicals in wastewater created in use and disposal.”

Additionally, Hewson flags that change only happens quickly if there is regulation and consequences for violation.

“They who pollute must pay principle, and since 92% of toxic micro-pollutants found in EU wastewaters come from pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, it is morally right and economically correct that industries that put the toxins into our air, water and soil ought to take responsibility in paying the costs to remove them – estimated to increase costs by only 3.8% considerably less than the cost of ill health,” she concludes.

By Venya Patel

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com