(cc: Wikipedia/Inkwina)
Tops Day Nurseries said on a blog post on the company’s website that the company was making the decision due to the environmental health impact of the product, which can be deemed a toxic microplastic that harms oceans, fish and humans since it is less than 5mm in size.
The move was welcomed by the Marine Conservation Society as a proactive move.
Microplastics can absorb toxic chemicals and are known to have a negative impact on the body. Specifically for glitter, which is often made out of aluminium and polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
The plastic can break down and release chemicals that disrupt hormones in the bodes of animals, according to Dr Trisia Farrelly, an environmental anthropologist, who spoke to the Independent.
The statement from Tops Day Nurseries blog is in full below:
Although much loved as an art and craft favourite, glitter is a microplastic, just like microbeads. Microbeads have already been banned in parts of the world and are set to become expelled in the UK. Environment Minister Nick Smith announced in July that cosmetics and products, such as toothpaste, that contain tiny plastic pieces called microbeads will be banned next year.
So why have Tops Day Nurseries put a stop to ordering any more glitter?
Glitter microplastics are an increasing problem. These tiny, shimmering specs of microplastic are virtually impossible to remove from the environment once there. When we’ve finished using plastic glitter for play, in decorating a card, sprinkling it into playdough or glue or painting with it, it goes into a bin or into the sink. It can’t be recycled because it isn’t practical to do so, it’s too small to separate out.
Over time large pieces of plastic break down slowly so there is at least the opportunity to pick it up or sieve it. Glitter enters the environment by landfill, through the air being blown around, it sticks to people’s hands and goes down the sink into the water system, it sticks to peoples clothes or mops, which go through the washing machine, and out into the water system.
We already know that 100% of mussels found off France and Belgium have ingested microplastics and many fish have too; so if you eat shell fish you more than likely have eaten microplastics already, along with the toxic additives that manufacturers use (for colour, flexibility etc.) which are known to copy oestrogen, and affect human fertility.
Ingredients like PET or PE or PP are particular red flags. Lush cosmetics have already swapped to using mineral glitter and starch-based lusters, after pressure from A Plastic Ocean and we all need to follow suit. At Tops we have already contacted our primary suppliers, the Consortium, and they are researching as we speak to find us sustainable alternative.
To minimise damage being inflicted on the environment we have already stopped using plastic aprons and are using cloth ones instead and we have removed single use items such as straws and balloons as well as one use plastic cups, cutlery or plates. The children are also encouraged to recycle and to care for the environment.
To name a few of our sustainability efforts, as a company we have a Zero to Landfill goal, we have started installing solar panels at our nurseries, trialling new electric vehicles, we encourage the use of electric bikes over driving, we have installed time and light sensors, timers on water coolers and heaters, fuel saving magnets on gas and water mains, introduced bamboo toothbrushes and recycled paint.
As responsible people looking after the next generation, the very last thing we want to be doing is damaging the environment or risking their health, so we need to act now and stop this pollution.
Even biodegradable glitter goes the same way. Unfortunately biodegradable glitter does NOT biodegrade away from the sun and oxygen, so in the sea or water it will more than likely be there forever unless a sea creature eats it, so don’t be fooled into buying biodegradable glitter either.
“We hope that our future generation will be more conscientious about their impact on the environment. We welcome support from parents and families, we believe this is a cultural change which will benefit not only us, but our children even more” Cheryl Hadland, Managing Director of Tops Day Nurseries
In this episode of the Safety & Health Podcast, ‘Burnout, stress and being human’, Heather Beach is joined by Stacy Thomson to discuss burnout, perfectionism and how to deal with burnout as an individual, as management and as an organisation.
We provide an insight on how to tackle burnout and why mental health is such a taboo subject, particularly in the workplace.
Is this a headline form the Daily Mail or SHP? I’ve read through the article and it is clearly due to environmental concerns and does not directly refer to H&S as the reason for banning glitter. I would expect the professional body website to not communicate misleading stories and focus upon genuine OH&S articles. Shame on you!
Didn’t see “Health & Safety” cited anywhere in the nurseries blog – so why does your title sensationalise in such a miss-leading manner. H&S has a bad enough rap in the press without a professionals publication descending to the levels of the tabloids
Why is this headlined as a ‘Health & Safety’ story?
This was on Breakfast TV late last week as an Environment/Welfare story; a worthy story from the position of micro plastics in the environment and thus the food chain, but to bill it as Health & Safety is perhaps worthy of certain Tabloid Press.
seems they are given a fair minded and articulate reason why they have banned it. Better than just, ‘because of ‘ealth and safety’. hopefully they will come up with a biodegradable version of glitter, can’t see why experts can’t if profit margins are in doubt.
This is not a Health and Safety Issue – even in a radio article the nursery owner stated that it was due to Environmental issues. we have a hard time as it is fighting the “elf and safety” brigade without out own trade magazine getting in on the act.
Why is the title of this article about something getting banned for Health and Safety reasons when the article is very clear it is no such thing. It is being banned for environmental reasons. It is hard enough fighting the battle against everything being labelled as ‘elf and safety’ and getting blamed for everything without a professionals magazine doing the same.
It’s clearly for environmental protection reasons rather than health and safety. it’s all related of course, but the headline is misleading and could be misinterpreted by the “health & safety gone mad” brigade.
It’s regrettable that SHP used the headline “Glitter ban at nursery due to health & safety concerns” because that is simply misleading. Anybody reading the full article will soon realise that the nursery’s concerns are based on environmental concerns (which is laudable) and NOT on any health & safety concerns for the children using the glitter. This may seem a trivial point, but some sections of the national press love any story which can be whipped up into a frenzy. For them facts tend to play a subordinate role to hysteria, and this apparent example of “elf’n’safety” gone mad is… Read more »
Well done. Hopefully many of us will review our use of unnecessary plastics.
Please correct headline! This why H&S get a bad press!
Nursery is banning it due to environmental issues.
The group made this decision based on the effects of microbeads in the environment and not as a result of Health and Safety. Frankly the title of this article does nothing to dispel the myth that ‘elf and safety’ is to blame for all the ills in the world. A disappointing read.
So NOT actually ‘health and safety’ concerns at all.
The headline doesn’t match the reason – they haven’t banned it for any health or safety ground on behalf of children or nursery workers. This is on environmental grounds and I feel it highlights a very current problem really well.
I would expect a more measured headline from our ‘trade’ magazine. This is about protecting the environment not health and safety
I have changed the headlines to reflect concerns that this appeared a ‘tabloid’ and incorrect headline. That was not my – or SHP’s – intention. The aim of the story was to draw attention to the dangers of the toxicity and safety concerns of microplastics, and the environmental issues around such products.
This story should be removed from our professionals online magazine – Changed the title
it still has “and safety concerns”
As everyone else says this is due to the ecological impact of the plastic from the glitter
The word safety needs to come out altogether. There are no safety concerns just environmental ones.
Good article combines H&S topic and clear link to broader environmental issues, good stuff! Helps us all see the bigger picture.
Sorry James, but your quote “A chain of nurseries in the south of England has banned glitter due to environmental and safety concerns, it has announced” still seems to imply that the nursery announced the ban partly due to safety concerns (as does the title). No matter how I read the Nursery’s quote, there is no mentions of concern for safety, only the environment. Surely the amount the story is devalued by mentioning ‘safety’ is far greater than the benefits of sensationalising it? I feel sorry for the school for having to put up with this kind of inaccurate and… Read more »