More than just a pretty face? Yes, a sustainable face!

Mother Nature always knows best. But for those of us who what to enhance what she has given us, there’s makeup. And thank God for that!  Yet, I wonder, what cost is the environment paying for our beautifully made up faces? The answer, it appears is a high one.

Most common makeup brands produce their products using a concoction of various different artificial chemicals such as parabens and petrochemicals. In particular, parabens have been shown to have very worrying effects to A) humans and B) fish that they come into contact with. It is a little known fact that up to 60% of the makeup that you put on your face is absorbed in to your body. So much for beauty being only skin deep!

It is therefore unsettling that chemicals, such as parabens have been shown to affect hormones and mimic estrogen in the human body, especially since excess estrogen has the potential to cause breast cancer [1]. Once off your face, these chemicals can then enter the main sources of lakes and rivers etc. This can be detrimental to the marine life of these waters and cause permanent damage to ecosystem. In fact, parabens have been shown to cause male fish to be transformed into ‘intersex fish’ – male fish with female characteristics. Mother Nature would not be impressed.

The next concern I have with makeup is its packaging. The packaging is often made of non-biodegradable plastics. So where does it all end up? The answer is a landfill site. Landfill sites are the horrible spots on the face of this planet. And concealer is not the answer! In fact, beauty products make up approximately a third of landfill waste [2]! Finally, the way makeup is manufactured can have a huge carbon footprint, not to mention the carbon cost of sending these products to the consumers world wide.

So what is the solution? The obvious answer is to go au natural and just forget about makeup all together. Realistically, however, this is never going to happen. And thankfully it is possible to look good and allow the environment to look good too. There are brands out there that sell natural cosmetics, such as Futurenatural. Its founder, Emma Pezzack, promises that the makeup she sells is made with 100% natural ingrediants and is sold in recycled packaging [3]. Once finished with your products you can then recycle them. Origins retail store accept empty cosmetics containers for recycling, regardless of the brand. The best part is that you get rewarded with a free sample of one of their high-performance skincare products in return.

To further reduce the carbon footprint of your pretty face, you should choose a brand the manufactures its products in an efficient way. Apparently, Eastman GEM technology is the way forward. GEM technology is better than conventional manufacturing processes in that it uses enzymes and closely controlled manufacturing conditions to produce its cosmetics. This in turn reduces unwanted by-products, consumes less energy and can lead to a 52% reduction in CO₂ emissions. ‘The beauty is in the process’ [4].  So behind the pretty picture, there is an ugly truth. Makeup can cover up your flaws but it can create flaws in the environment. So, if you want to continue looking fresh-faced and beautiful well into the future, there is a need to evaluate what’s in your makeup bag. And remember, sustainable is always beautiful!

Megan Pendred

---

References:

[1] http://toxicbeautyblog.com/dangers-of-parabens/the-problem-with-parabens/

[2] http://blog.myskin.com/insights/beauty-and-the-environment-–-the-cosmetic-impact/

[3] http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/fashion-beauty/green-cosmetics-460407

[4]  http://www.eastman.com/Company/GreenProcess/Pages/Overview.aspx

Is Healthcare Exempt From Environmental Care?

Those who preach that ‘the power of one’ will save our planet and allow us to coexist in a sustainable manner are right: If every individual made a significant effort to turn off lights, to conserve fuel and to reduce waste, each minute action would have a cumulative effect and we could prosper sustainably. However, I feel there is an over-emphasis being placed on small actions and that large siphons of the country’s resources, such as the health sector, are, to a certain extent, being disregarded, sidelined or taken for granted.

           

Last summer, I was diagnosed with a systemic autoimmune disease and, during my stay in the hospital; I underwent two X-rays, one MRI, one CT scan, an ECG and numerous blood tests. Finally, the conclusion was reached that I had sarcoidosis. My mother also has sarcoid. Before any test took place, identification of identical symptoms could have indicated I have the same, genetically linked, disease. In hindsight, I cannot help wonder if all the tests were truly necessary? Helium, supplies of which are critically low, is essential for MRI machines. Did I really need the MRI scan to confirm something we already suspected? It’s a frightening reality that, in the near future, an MRI may not be an option for those that genuinely need such an invaluable diagnostic tool. X-ray, MRI and CT scans also require a substantial amount of energy to power. These key diagnostic tools are clearly invaluable to hospitals, however, strides could be taken to supply alternative, more energy efficient options.

           

During my stay on the ward, I realized lights remained on throughout the night and the heating was constantly on. I realize it’s important to maintain a comfortable ambient temperature, however it was July and much of the time the windows were opened, as the heating was stifling. Up to 70% of the expenses of a hospital comprise heating and lighting. Perhaps, by making smart decisions and incorporating a more environmentally friendly ethos, hospitals could cut down on both their expenses and carbon footprint.

           

Furthermore, when I received my prescription, I could not understand why so much packaging was ‘necessary’. Of course it is imperative to ensure medication is sterile, desiccated and airtight. However, I received several large, colourful, cardboard boxes, half-filled with blister packs: plastic packaging with foil laminates that are practically impossible to recycle. Was it necessary to house the sterile packs in a large, aesthetically pleasing box? Would it not be less wasteful to minimize packaging?

           

I also feel the quantity of medication produced needs to be more accurately monitored to avoid excessive and unnecessary waste. In Wales alone, over 250 tonnes of out of date or surplus medication amounts each year. It seems heedless to manufacture such an excess of medication, which must undergo costly and elaborate methods of disposal. That’s not including the large proportion of medication that is improperly disposed of, which impacts the environment by entering and contaminating water. Recent reports from India indicate that levels of antibiotic in the surface water surrounding a certain drug factory were actually higher than the levels of drug found in patients undergoing treatment!

           

I truly believe we cannot let any sector be exempt from responsibility for the environment, even one as invaluable to society as healthcare. If we are to have any hope of achieving our environmental goals, the greatest contributors to energy expenditure must be addressed and made aware of the importance of adopting a new attitude. In 2009, the carbon footprint of the US healthcare sector was estimated to be 546 million metric tonnes CO₂e per year. We need to work together, with the health industry, to mitigate our global environmental crisis.

Áine O’Toole 

Some interesting Research Sources:

• Buchwalter & Hessler. (2009) ‘Unprecedented levels of antibiotics pollute India’s water.’ Environmental Health News. Retrieved from: http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/unprecedented-levels-of-antibiotics-in-indias-surface-and-well-water.
• Chung J & Meltser D. (2009) ‘Estimate of the Carbon Footprint of the US Health Care Sector.’ JAMA. 302(18): 1970-1972
• EPA, Green Healthcare Programme. (2013) ‘Best Practice.’ Retrieved from: http://greenhealthcareprogramme.ie/guides/.
• Fick J, Soderstrom H et al. (2009) ‘Contamination of surface, ground and drinking water from pharmaceutical production.’ Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 28(12): 2522-2527.
• Lifton J (2010) ‘The Battle Over Rare Earth Metals.’ Journal of Energy Security. Retrieved from: http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=228:the-battle-over-rare-earth-metals&catid=102:issuecontent&Itemid=355.
• Naumov A. (2008) ‘Review of the World Market of Rare-Earth Metals.’ Russian Journal of Non-Ferrous Metals. 49(1): 14-22.
• Schwartz A. (2012) ‘Visualizing the importance of rare earth metals to our digital lifestyle.’ Co. Exist. Retrieved from: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680658/visualizing-the-importance-of-rare-earth-elements-to-our-digital-lifestyle.