Morrisons is taking a brave step this Christmas period. They will remove glitter and plastic from all their own brand products. The additional steps mean the supermarket chain will eliminate more than 50 tonnes of plastic from its shelves this holiday season. This launch responds to the growing environmental concerns associated with glitter and other plastic products.
The products impacted by this very bad decision include greeting cards, party crackers, wrapping paper, gift bags, flowers, plants and wreaths as well as non-seasonal items. Our findings Morrisons has already instinctively or pre-emptively taken action to remove these items. They’re following suit after other retailers, including Waitrose and John Lewis, removed glitter from their Christmas crackers, cards, wrapping paper, and gift bags.
New laboratory experiments suggest that biodegradable glitter does just as much ecological damage to our rivers and lakes as conventional plastic glitter. This has led to a movement away from traditional glitter. This study is first-of-its-kind to assess the impacts of glitter in freshwater ecosystems. It uncovers the fact that both conventional and so-called greener alternatives can still have detrimental effects on aquatic ecosystems.
The eco glitter we’re using here, one of several versions, has a core made from modified regenerated cellulose (MRC). This material is mainly derived from eucalyptus trees. It is covered with aluminum to make it reflect and then even topped with a thin layer of plastic. While well-intentioned, this composition with its ambitious timeline potentially causes environmental harm long-term.
Dr Dannielle Green, a senior lecturer in biology at Anglia Ruskin University, said this type of glitter pollution was “highly prevalent”.
“Glitter is a ready-made microplastic that is commonly found in our homes and, particularly through cosmetics, is washed off in our sinks and into the water system.” – Dr. Dannielle Green
Recent study results show that cellulose-based glitter, while intended to be harmless, are more damaging than plastic glitter. Specifically, it could encourage the spread of harmful invasive species such as the New Zealand mud snail. Glitter, on the other hand, has piqued researchers’ interest in the biological effects that it subjects organisms to. They’re specifically worried about the effects of both traditional and biodegradable plastics on the environment.
Environmental artists have criticized glitter for creating microplastics, yet this doesn’t seem to dent glitter’s continued popularity. Notably, around sixty festivals in the UK announced plans to switch to biodegradable glitter instead of traditional PET glitter by 2021. Yet the ecological impacts are largely unproven until now.