Glitter and other microspheres are used in cosmetics, body products, clothing and, more commonly, in craft items. However, the brightness is made up of small plastic particles.
Most of the gloss is made of aluminum and a plastic called PET. The environmental anthropologist, Dr. Farrelly, has investigated how PET can be broken down to release chemicals that disrupt hormones in the bodies of animals and humans.
These chemicals have been linked to the appearance of cancers and are also known to cause neurological diseases. Dr. Farrelly said she believes that all brightness should be prohibited.
"I think all the brightness should be banned because it's microplastic."
Scientists have argued that these particles have made their way to the ocean where animals then consume that. Many have placed the number of microplastics in the world's ocean in up to 51 trillion fragments in total.
Plastic particles were discovered in about one third of the fish caught in the United Kingdom, according to the findings of a study conducted by Professor Richard Thompson.
"I was pretty worried when someone bought my girls a bath gel with glitter particles … That's going to escape through the hole in their mouths and potentially enter the room."
Arts and crafts enthusiasts have been aware for years that brightness tends to adhere to objects and never seems to come off. It has been reported that sticky decorations are also an ecological risk that should be banned all over the world, according to CBS News .
The environmental scientist said that the risk of brightness in ocean pollution is too great.
Seven states in the United States also enacted legislation that restricts the use of microbeads in certain health and beauty products such as facial scrubs and body washes, according to CBS News.
California became the first state to ban products in 2015, according to Independent .
While many microplastics are the result of plastic debris that breaks down into small pieces, small particles called microbeads are manufactured for cosmetics and health products.
While attention has been focused on the microbeads, other forms of plastic, including brightness, have become a point of focus.
Many British nurseries have already banned the products of their facilities, as the country is expected to officially ban articles containing microspheres by 2018.
Microplastics are defined as plastics less than five millimeters in length. According to reports, the small size of the craft makes them attractive to many animals that eat dangerous objects.
Scientists at Mbadey University in New Zealand have also agreed that brightness is a microplastic and should therefore be prohibited.
Cheryl Hadland, director of Tops Day Nurseries, told BBC that kilos of shine used throughout the country would cause "terrible damage".
"There are 22,000 nurseries in the country, so if we do it" We are all pbading kilos and kilos of glitter, we are doing terrible damage ".
The microbead ban will come into force in the United Kingdom one year after scientists and activists have made their impact clear.
Michael Gove, an environment secretary, said the plastic debris was "putting the marine fauna under serious threat."
The brightness could be a component that is overlooked in the broader problem of marine pollution and used in a wide range of products 19659009] Dr. Farrelly said that when most people think of brightness, they think of the festive sparkle and However, brightness is used in a wide variety of everyday products.
"But brightness also includes cosmetic glitter, the most everyday kind that people do not think so much about."
Noemi Lamanna, co-founder of Ec Glitter Fun, an ecological distributor of glitter, said that more and more people should know that the shine is made of plastic.
"Nobody knows that the shine is made of plastic … We found out that he had a broken heart"
Similar to the state of California and the United Kingdom, New Zealand has also taken measures to limit the use of microbeads . However, he said that it is currently unclear whether this will include or not shine.
According to a spokesman for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if shine is incorporated into cosmetics and personal care products "rinse" will be covered by the ban of 2018. Other brightness, however, will not.
Professor Thompson said that a total ban might not be necessary, emphasizing a pragmatic approach that considers the likelihood that brightness will end up in the environment.
On the other hand, ecological brightness that decomposes rapidly could be a viable replacement that does not end up in the food chain.
The cosmetic chain, Lush, has replaced the shine in its products with synthetic and biodegradable alternatives. Dr. Sue Kinsey, who is a senior pollution policy officer at the Marine Conservation Society, praised the measure.
"It's a positive movement of the company, which listened to advice and clearly understood the threat."
Dr. Kinsey said that this will also send a clear message to customers that they will be able to make the right decisions in several shopping areas.
Dr. Ferrelly said that avoiding cosmetic shine and microspheres is a "truism."
"I am sick and tired of consumers being responsible for helping to avoid these things, I mean it is literally impossible … Producers must be responsible, they need to use safer, non-toxic and long-lasting alternatives"