As is the sparkle from Beyoncé’s well- documentedCoachella performance makeup, Priyanka Chopra’s iconic look at the MET Gala, and countless red-carpet looks seen on Margot Robbie, Lady Gaga, and Dua Lipa. But often, particularly after posting a celeb shot, Dugan’s Instagram DMs are flooded with something uglier: allegations, derogatory comments, and threats. Her brand isn’t the obvious choice for digital harassment: It’s cruelty-free, made in the U.S., gender-neutral, works on all complexions, and it doesn’t appear that she ripped anyone off when launching it back in 2015 — it’s glitter’s environmental impact that’s courting controversy. Fear over glitter, the feel-good sparkle we’ve been conditioned to love since kindergarten, seems to have come out of nowhere, but it speaks to a list of concerns that have gained traction as climate change and ocean pollution have become larger international issues. See, glitter is often made from plastic, and environmentalists say it can easily find its way into the oceanwhere it’s ingested by marine life, an idea that got little reaction just a few years ago. Like plastic bags and straws, glitter has emerged as a top target by environmentalists, and in its wake, many musicfestivals have banned glitter, popular stores are cutting it from Christmas displays and packaging, and there’s a growing movement to make it illegal in the same way microbeads werebannedall over the world. Earlier this year, stories came out explaining that clothing made with synthetic fabrics — so basically anything that’s not cotton, silk, or other natural materials — are shedding microplastics in the wash that end up in the ocean, just one more ingredient inthe growing plastic soup that is our sea. Unlike craft glitter — cosmetic glitter’s rougher, sharper cousin — the version in makeup is traditionally made from thin, sandwiched layers of pigment, aluminum, and a kind of plastic called polyethylene terephthalate (a.k.a. It’s something that recent studies claim mightbeappealing because it tricks us into thinking we’re gazing at shimmering water, something we’re hardwired to seek. Most fish are attracted to shimmery objects that catch the light.” - Jonathan Whitney, Ph.D., postdoctoral research fellow at Pearl Harbor’s NOAA labs “Both are too small to be filtered by water treatment plants, so both end up in our waterways and are likely to be eaten by marine animals,” he says. “Glitter, on the other hand, has sharp edges that pose more of a hazard at tearing and perforating guts.” Plus, those tiny fish work their way up the food chain to us, just one reason why it’s believed that we’re all eating plastic every year. Gallery: 13 Eco-Friendly Beauty Products You'll Want To Buy ASAP (ELLE UK) Remember Glossier’s internet backlash after launching its Glitter Gelée? Finding something shiny that is natural is the key to solving this issue.” - Sarah-Jeanne Royer, PhD., postdoctoral research fellow at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego Biodegradable glitter is still new — only one major manufacturer has released anything close. Cotton admits it’s not a fair fight just yet, but says that iridescent glitter shouldroll out later this year and he hopes to have a holographic offering in 2020. ____________________________________________________ More on our empowering the planet campaign: ____________________________________________________ But Dr. Whitney points out that, although he fully supports any company developing alternatives to products with plastic, the long-term impacts aren’t readily known — especially with biodegradable glitter that still includes metals, like Bioglitter’s Sparkle line. “Sharp, metallicised pieces of cellulose could be just as destructive to a baby fish gut as sharp metallicised pieces of plastic,” Dr. Whitney says. “However, the cellulose should break down much faster, and therefore would not be a hazard for as long.” This isn’t to dull Bioglitter’s impact: The few weeks that it survives is just a fraction of the hundreds of years that plasticglitter is believed to need to degrade in the natural environment. Of course, Bioglitter isn’t the first, or last, to claim its products are better for the environment, so Sarah-Jeanne Royer, PhD., a postdoctoral research fellow at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, says that being skeptical is best. For example, she points to both studies and anecdotes shared within the scientific community where biodegradable productssurvive in natural environments for years without breaking down. “If the environment is not suited for degradation, it won’t break down,” she says, noting that truly dissolving into water orearthrequires a suitable blend of pressure, UV rays, and bacteria. “Finding something shiny that is natural is the keytosolving thisissue.” Biodegradability, microplastics, and the long-term ramifications of it all are tough to comprehend, especially since the scientific community is just starting this kind of long-term research. Back in L.A., Dugan tells me that, although she doesn’t feel like she’s doing anything wrong, she has a shelf of 30 Bioglitters on deck for special orders and new product formulations. She’s thinking about selling them loose with a separate adhesive to avoid any colours bleeding into her gel formulation, she just hasn’t cracked the code yet. She assures me that she’s not planning to sell them because she thinks she’s doing something wrong, but she believes that people deserve an option — as long as they are willing to sacrifice the full-on sparkle of her PET-laced formula.
Komentar
Posting Komentar