NationStates

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:03 pm**

Madam Secretary-General, I rise to call attention to a proposal that has attained quorum yet has not seen prior floor discussion. I ask that Proposal 1612283213, "Ban on Microplastics in Cosmetics", proposed by Saint Jonas, be reported:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
ID: saint_jonas_1612283213

Ban on Microplastics in Cosmetics
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: Manufacturing | Proposed by: Saint Jonas

Description:
Realizing that
microplastics are used in cosmetic products as abrasives, binders and fillers in creams, peelings or shower gels,

consumers are often not aware that many of their cosmetic and personal care products contain microplastics because there is no understandable reference on the packaging. The average consumer does not know that behind "polymethyl methacrylate" or "polyethylene terephthalate" plastics are hidden. Thus, they are subconsciously endangering the environment when they make a purchase decision:

Concerned that
studies show that microplastics pose a significant threat to the marine ecosystem and that marine organisms absorb the microparticles. Due to ocean currents, this happens all over the world,

in addition, the microplastic particles ingested are often highly polluted, because plastic binds pollutants, attracts them like a magnet. If there are pollutants in the surrounding water that bind to the microplastic, the concentration is particularly high. The effects of microplastics on marine life include physiological disorders and increased death rates. When we eat contaminated fish and seafood, the microplastics end up on our plates.

Stating that
cosmetics don't need plastic. This is because synthetic polymers in cosmetics can be replaced by natural substances such as salts or cellulose.
Hereby bans microplastics in all cosmetics and personal care products.

Co-authored by Malagga

Approved by 59 nations.

Madam Secretary-General, for purposes of debate on this proposal I waive any rights as the initiator of discussion on the same to its sponsor should they claim such rights. I yield the floor.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:15 pm**

OOC: Given all AoE proposals need minimum significant strength, is just banning microplastics (undefined term, too) in cosmetics (and whatever else "personal care products" are supposed to be except rebranded cosmetics) strong enough? It sounds like a very narrow slice of all manufacturing industry and a very narrow ban of a poorly defined thing.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:22 pm**

The correct title of this proposal is "Ban on microplastics in cosmetics" (with all letters except the first being in lower-case).

support ;p

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:23 pm**

"Strongly opposed, and not just because I have a similar resolution drafted. Most notably, the term "microplastics" is undefined. If a member state defined a microplastic as a plastic particle smaller than 1 nanometer -- which is very micro indeed -- they could easily ignore the intent of this resolution, which is presumably to prevent the inclusion of plastic microbeads in cosmetic products. I agree that "microplastics pose a significant threat to the marine ecosystem," but cosmetics are a relatively small source of microplastic pollution. Runoff from synthetic fiber clothing, degradation of plastic waste, and others are just as (if not more) severe than microplastics in cosmetics. Furthermore, the resolution points out that consumers do not realize the presence of microplastics in cosmetics. Similarly, many other consumer decisions cause microplastic pollution. This means we ought to implement educational campaigns to inform people of microplastic pollution as well, which this resolution does not do. Ultimately, the scope of this resolution is far too narrow to effect any significant change."

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:26 pm**

Who needs definitions?

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:53 pm**

Goobergunchia wrote:When we eat contaminated fish and seafood, the microplastics end up on our plates.

I don't understand this line. How can the Assembly eat seafood?

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:10 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Goobergunchia wrote:When we eat contaminated fish and seafood, the microplastics end up on our plates.

I don't understand this line. How can the Assembly eat seafood?

Where there's a will, there's a way!

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:16 pm**

Scalizagasti wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I don't understand this line. How can the Assembly eat seafood?

Where there's a will, there's a way!

I too remember the time the Assembly flew over my house, aiming for the North Blackacre Sea, to get some fresh shrimp I would presume.

Posted: **Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:45 pm**

It seems only natural that the Festering Snakepit may also contain hydrophiinae.

Posted: **Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:58 am**

Goobergunchia wrote:It seems only natural that the Festering Snakepit may also contain hydrophiinae.

OOC: Made my day. :lol:

Posted: **Sat Feb 06, 2021 1:20 pm**

"The delegation of Golexald would like to congratulate the sponsor of this proposal for reaching quorum and wishes it the best of luck on the voting floor. As a very environmentally sensitive nation, we will be voting for this proposal. Microplastics in cosmetic products have been known to pollute and damage water systems across our beautiful lands as well as gravely injure and even kill aquatic wildlife in these bodies of water. We cannot stand by idly while these ecosystems are destroyed by the cosmetics industry. We hope that others will follow in our path. Thank you."

Posted: **Sat Feb 06, 2021 1:41 pm**

Golexald wrote:"Microplastics in cosmetic products have been known to pollute and damage water systems across our beautiful lands as well as gravely injure aquatic wildlife in these bodies of water."

Linda appeared surprised. "Really? How?"

Posted: **Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:49 pm**

Golexald wrote:"The delegation of Golexald would like to congratulate the sponsor of this proposal for reaching quorum and wishes it the best of luck on the voting floor. As a very environmentally sensitive nation, we will be voting for this proposal. Microplastics in cosmetic products have been known to pollute and damage water systems across our beautiful lands as well as gravely injure and even kill aquatic wildlife in these bodies of water. We cannot stand by idly while these ecosystems are destroyed by the cosmetics industry. We hope that others will follow in our path. Thank you."

"Considering that most microplastics in the environment come from sources other than cosmetics, this resolution does not go far enough to protect the environment. It is a feel-good resolution that does nothing and will need to be repealed for better legislation. It does not even define what a microplastic is."

Posted: **Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:23 am**

Araraukar wrote:and whatever else "personal care products" are supposed to be except rebranded cosmetics

Cosmetics are usually used to accentuate or change a person's appearance. Personal care products clean and maintain parts of the body.

Posted: **Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:25 am**

Scalizagasti wrote:I agree that "microplastics pose a significant threat to the marine ecosystem," but cosmetics are a relatively small source of microplastic pollution.

There are alternatives for microplastics in cosmetics (see section III.) - unlike for car tires for example, despite their abrasion also leads to microplastics.

Posted: **Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:29 am**

Scalizagasti wrote:the term "microplastics" is undefined

Synthetic polymers (see section III.) are forbidden - regardless of any size, but no manufacturer does use like 5mm (maximum size of microplastics in RL, the same size you proposed) large plastic bowls in its shower gels ;-)
On top of that, in section I. the purposes of microplastics are listed.
That's why a specific size definition is redundant.

Posted: **Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:36 pm**

Saint Jonas wrote:There are alternatives for microplastics in cosmetics (see section III.) - unlike for car tires for example, despite their abrasion also leads to microplastics.

"That does not address what I said. I agree that many eco-friendly alternatives to microbeads exist and ought to be used. However, compared to other sources of microplastic pollution, cosmetics are relatively small, meaning this resolution will not do enough to adequately combat microplastic pollution."

Saint Jonas wrote:Synthetic polymers (see section III.) are forbidden - regardless of any size, but no manufacturer does use like 5mm (maximum size of microplastics in RL, the same size you proposed) large plastic bowls in its shower gels ;-)
On top of that, in section I. the purposes of microplastics are listed.
That's why a specific size definition is redundant.

"No, synthetic polymers are not forbidden. The preamble states that synthetic polymers 'can be replaced' and 'cosmetics don't need plastic,' but that isn't a ban. The only thing banned are microplastics, which remain undefined."

Posted: **Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:46 pm**

I would like to question why Saint Jonas' region has opened embassies with the region "Aryan Resistance". Considering that they are the WA Delegate for their region, I'm concerned that the existence of this embassy may be a tacit endorsement of fascism.

Posted: **Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:16 pm**

Greater Cesnica wrote:I would like to question why Saint Jonas' region has opened embassies with the region "Aryan Resistance". Considering that they are the WA Delegate for their region, I'm concerned that the existence of this embassy may be a tacit endorsement of fascism.

Wrong forum? And withdrawal is in progress...

Posted: **Sun Feb 07, 2021 2:40 pm**

Saint Jonas wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:I would like to question why Saint Jonas' region has opened embassies with the region "Aryan Resistance". Considering that they are the WA Delegate for their region, I'm concerned that the existence of this embassy may be a tacit endorsement of fascism.

Wrong forum? And withdrawal is in progress...

It's not the wrong forum. Votes are inherently political in nature.

Posted: **Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:49 am**

Thanks a lot to all those nations having written helpful advices! I have taken these into account and want to present a new draft: Ban on Plastics in Cosmetics

What has changed?
Now definitely all plastics/synthetic polymers regardless of any size are forbidden.
The layout has changed + less bolding.
Minor errors are fixed.

Should I open a new topic about it?

Posted: **Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:48 am**

Saint Jonas wrote:Thanks a lot to all those nations having written helpful advices! I have taken these into account and want to present a new draft: Ban on Plastics in Cosmetics

The World Assembly,

Realizing that
synthetic polymers are used in cosmetic products as abrasives, binders and fillers in creams, peelings or shower gels. Consumers are often not aware that many of their cosmetic and personal care products contain plastics because there is no understandable reference on the packaging. The average consumer does not know that behind "polymethyl methacrylate" or "polyethylene terephthalate" plastic is hidden. Thus, they are subconsciously endangering the environment when they make a purchase decision.

Concerned that
studies show that synthetic polymers pose a significant threat to the marine ecosystem and that marine organisms absorb these plastics. Due to ocean currents, this happens all over the world. In addition, the plastic particles ingested are often highly polluted because plastics bind pollutants like a magnet. The effects of synthetic polymers on marine life include physiological disorders and increased death rates. When contaminated fish and seafood is eaten, plastics end up in human bodies.

Stating that
cosmetics don't need plastics. This is because synthetic polymers in cosmetics can be replaced by natural substances such as salts or cellulose.

Hereby bans synthetic polymers in all cosmetics and personal care products.

What has changed?
Now definitely all plastics/synthetic polymers regardless of any size are forbidden.
The layout has changed + less bolding.
Minor errors are fixed.

Should I open a new topic about it?

"I think this still needs to be more specific. Personal care products includes products like razors and toothbrushes, which means this draft would prohibit basically all commercially-viable toothbrushes. Handles are usually made of PP or PE and bristles are made of nylon. While the intended target is the plastic beads in rinse-off cosmetics this draft would currently do more than that."

Posted: **Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:54 am**

Saint Jonas wrote:Thanks a lot to all those nations having written helpful advices! I have taken these into account and want to present a new draft: Ban on Plastics in Cosmetics

The World Assembly,

Realizing that
synthetic polymers are used in cosmetic products as abrasives, binders and fillers in creams, peelings or shower gels. Consumers are often not aware that many of their cosmetic and personal care products contain plastics because there is no understandable reference on the packaging. The average consumer does not know that behind "polymethyl methacrylate" or "polyethylene terephthalate" plastic is hidden. Thus, they are subconsciously endangering the environment when they make a purchase decision.

Concerned that
studies show that synthetic polymers pose a significant threat to the marine ecosystem and that marine organisms absorb these plastics. Due to ocean currents, this happens all over the world. In addition, the plastic particles ingested are often highly polluted because plastics bind pollutants like a magnet. The effects of synthetic polymers on marine life include physiological disorders and increased death rates. When contaminated fish and seafood is eaten, plastics end up in human bodies.

Stating that
cosmetics don't need plastics. This is because synthetic polymers in cosmetics can be replaced by natural substances such as salts or cellulose.

Hereby bans synthetic polymers in all cosmetics and personal care products.

What has changed?
Now definitely all plastics/synthetic polymers regardless of any size are forbidden.
The layout has changed + less bolding.
Minor errors are fixed.

Should I open a new topic about it?

You haven't still withdrawn the original draft that has already reached quorum, meaning that problems with it are not going to be rectified if you are going to draft a new one.

Posted: **Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:10 am**

Scalizagasti wrote:"I think this still needs to be more specific. Personal care products includes products like razors and toothbrushes, which means this draft would prohibit basically all commercially-viable toothbrushes. Handles are usually made of PP or PE and bristles are made of nylon. While the intended target is the plastic beads in rinse-off cosmetics this draft would currently do more than that."

You're right... Well, what about "consumable cosmetics and personal care products containing plastics if the plastics can be spat out or rinsed off"?

Posted: **Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:47 pm**

Saint Jonas wrote:Should I open a new topic about it?

Would be easier, since then you can update the OP.

NationStates

[WITHDRAWN] Ban on Microplastics in Cosmetics

[WITHDRAWN] Ban on Microplastics in Cosmetics