The conversation that made people look twice
In late 2024, a conversation between toxicologist Dr Yvonne Burkart and Steven Bartlett on The Diary of a CEO reached millions of listeners. The episode covered microplastics, endocrine disruptors, fragrance and the hidden contents of everyday personal care products. It made a lot of people look differently at their bathroom shelf.
That is a reasonable response. Ingredients in cosmetics deserve scrutiny, and the episode raised questions that are worth asking.
But podcast conversations, even well-intentioned ones from credentialed guests, can compress, dramatise and simplify things that the underlying science describes with far more nuance. The goal of this article is not to dismiss the concerns raised. It is to help you understand what is actually known, what is still uncertain, what Australian and international regulation currently covers, and what practical steps are worth taking.
Panic is not useful here. Label literacy is.
What are microplastics in skincare?
Microplastics are solid synthetic polymer particles smaller than 5mm. They end up in cosmetics in two main ways.
The first is intentional addition. Manufacturers add synthetic polymer particles to products for specific functional reasons: to exfoliate skin, thicken a formula, create texture, help a product spread, form a film on skin, or extend shelf life. These are sometimes called intentionally added microplastics or synthetic polymer microparticles.
The second is unintentional contamination. Packaging can shed tiny plastic particles into the product itself. A 2024 study from the University of Birmingham, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, found that plastic packaging can introduce microplastic debris into cosmetics even before the consumer opens the bottle. This applies to leave-on products in particular, and is an area of ongoing research.
Microbeads vs hidden synthetic polymers
Microbeads are the most commonly discussed example because they are easy to understand: a physical scrubbing particle, visible in the product. In NSW, microbeads have been prohibited in rinse-off personal care products under the Plastic Reduction and Circular Economy Act 2021 since November 2022. Similar bans exist in the ACT, Queensland and Western Australia. At the time of writing this article, Victoria does not have equivalent state legislation in force.
In 2024 and 2025, the NSW EPA enforced its ban by issuing compliance notices to six companies, including Coles Group, Natio and Dr LeWinn's, after testing found nine products still containing banned plastic microbeads. Notably, some products used bioplastics such as polylactic acid (PLA) and cellulose acetate. Both still meet the legal definition of plastic under NSW law.
Microbeads are a small part of the picture, though. Synthetic polymers appear across a much wider range of cosmetics, often as invisible functional ingredients. Here are the most common ones to look for:
| Ingredient name (INCI) | Where it tends to appear | Function |
|---|---|---|
| Polyethylene (PE) / Polypropylene (PP)Look for: Polyethylene, Polypropylene | Scrubs, exfoliants, some lip products | Exfoliation, texture, thickening |
| Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)Look for: Methyl Methacrylate Crosspolymer | Foundations, primers, powders | "Soft focus" blurring particles |
| Nylon-12 / Nylon-6Look for: Nylon-12, Polyamide-12 | Foundations, face powders, mascara | Texture, film-forming |
| Acrylates copolymer / Acrylates crosspolymerLook for: Acrylates Copolymer, Acrylates/C10-30 | Sunscreens, serums, waterproof formulas | Film-former, water resistance |
| PolyurethaneLook for: Polyurethane-XX | Hair care, styling products | Film-forming, hold |
These ingredients are not all equivalent in terms of environmental or health profile. Some are liquid at room temperature; some biodegrade at a useful rate; others do not. The EU's microplastics regulation defines a specific technical category of concern, and not every polymer in a cosmetic meets that definition. But the label is still worth reading.
Why this matters for the environment
The environmental concern around microplastics is better established than the human health story.
Microplastics are persistent. Once they enter waterways (washed off skin and down the drain) most conventional water treatment systems do not fully remove them. They accumulate in marine environments, enter the food chain, and have been detected in sea life, river sediment, deep ocean floors and remote wilderness areas.
The EU's Regulation (EU) 2023/2055, which came into force in October 2023, was introduced primarily for environmental reasons: to reduce the estimated 42,000 tonnes of intentionally added synthetic polymers entering the environment annually through everyday products, including cosmetics. It is a phased restriction, not a complete immediate ban. Exfoliating microbeads were restricted from October 2023; other cosmetic synthetic polymer categories have staggered phase-out timelines running to 2027 and beyond.
Australia's approach remains more fragmented. Federal voluntary phase-outs have not been consistently enforced, and the patchwork of state-level bans (which apply only to rinse-off products, and not uniformly across all states) means consumers cannot assume a product on a shelf is free of microplastics simply because they are shopping in Australia.
What we know, and what we do not yet know, about human health
Microplastics have been detected in human blood, lung tissue, placental tissue and breast milk. That is established. What is far less clear is what levels of exposure cause harm, through what mechanisms, and over what timeframe.
A 2025 review in Deutsches Ärzteblatt International noted that while microplastics are detectable in the human body, the current state of knowledge does not yet allow for a definitive risk assessment. The same review found that cosmetics are considered a minor contributor to overall microplastic exposure compared to larger sources such as tyre and road abrasion.
For dermal absorption (the route most relevant to skincare) current research using reconstructed skin models suggests that particles larger than 1 micrometre do not readily penetrate intact skin. Smaller nanoplastic particles show greater absorption potential. Animal studies suggest that damaged or inflamed skin may allow deeper penetration, which is relevant for people with skin conditions. The human clinical evidence here remains limited.
The precautionary logic is reasonable: understand what is in your products, prefer shorter ingredient lists, avoid unnecessary synthetic polymers. But it should not be driven by fear of a health catastrophe the current science does not confirm. The concerns raised in the DOAC episode are worth taking seriously. Acting on them well means seeking better information, not just differently labelled products.
Why "natural" is not enough
One of the practical problems with the broader clean beauty conversation is that "natural" has become a marketing category rather than a technical one. In Australia, there is no legal definition of natural skincare. A product can use the word "natural" on the front of the pack while listing synthetic polymer ingredients on the back.
The ACCC's guidance on environmental and sustainability claims is clear: claims must be truthful, accurate and substantiated. A vague "natural" claim that creates a misleading impression of a product's composition can fall foul of the Australian Consumer Law. Guidance relies on enforcement, though. It does not stop the claim being made in the first place.
This is why the ingredient list is more useful than the front of the pack. INCI names are the ground truth. They are often unfamiliar-sounding, but they tell you what is actually in the formula. Learning to recognise a few key terms is a more durable habit than trusting any single marketing claim.
How to check your skincare for microplastics
A few practical approaches, none of which require a chemistry degree.
Read the ingredient list, not the front of the pack
Ingredients are listed in descending order of concentration. Anything near the top makes up a significant portion of the formula. The table above shows the most common synthetic polymer names to look for. Any ingredient beginning with "poly-" is worth a second look, though not all are automatically problematic.
Use the Beat the Microbead tool
The Plastic Soup Foundation, a Netherlands-based marine conservation NGO, runs the Beat the Microbead app and website. It uses a traffic light system: red for confirmed microplastics, orange for ingredients where evidence is incomplete. It covers more than 500 known or suspected synthetic polymer cosmetic ingredients. It is a campaigning tool rather than a regulatory authority, but it is a useful starting point.
Ask the brand directly
A brand that knows its formulas should be able to tell you whether a product contains intentionally added synthetic polymers. One that cannot or will not answer is worth noting.
Know your state's rules for rinse-off products
For rinse-off products in NSW, ACT, QLD and WA, microbeads are already banned by law. The protection does not extend to leave-on products (moisturisers, face oils, foundations, serums) or to all states. At the time of writing, Victoria does not have an equivalent legislated ban. For leave-on products across Australia, consumer vigilance is currently the main protection available.
Why Skin Botanist keeps formulas simple
Skin Botanist was not built as a response to the microplastics conversation. The short ingredient lists came from a different starting point: making water-free, oil-based skincare for sensitive and reactive skin, with botanical oils, butters and waxes rather than long filler-heavy formulas.
Water-free formulas do not need synthetic preservatives. Oil-based formulas do not need film-forming polymers to create texture. There is no functional need for intentionally added synthetic polymer microparticles in the Skin Botanist range. That is not a marketing claim. It is a consequence of building formulas around a small number of plant-derived ingredients that do the job without them.
This makes the labels easier to read. A short ingredient list is easier to understand. Understanding what you are putting on your skin is a reasonable thing to want.
Practical checklist
7 things worth doing
- Turn the product over and read the ingredient list. Not just the front of the pack.
- Look for polyethylene, polypropylene, PMMA, nylon-12, polyurethane and acrylates copolymer.
- Any ingredient starting with "poly-" is worth a second look.
- Use the Beat the Microbead app (beatthemicrobead.org) as a starting point for products you use regularly.
- Remember: microbeads are only banned in rinse-off products in some states. Leave-on products are less regulated across Australia.
- Do not rely on "natural" or "clean" label claims as a substitute for reading the full ingredient list.
- If in doubt, ask the brand directly what synthetic polymers their formulas contain.
Frequently asked questions
Are there microplastics in skincare?
Yes. Some skincare and cosmetic products contain intentionally added synthetic polymers, which fall within broader definitions of microplastics. The most commonly discussed are microbeads in exfoliants, but synthetic polymers are also used as film-formers, thickeners and texture agents in moisturisers, foundations and other leave-on products. Reading the ingredient list is the most reliable way to check.
What ingredients are microplastics in cosmetics?
Common examples include polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), nylon-12, polyurethane, acrylates copolymer and acrylates crosspolymer. Ingredients beginning with "poly-" are often, though not always, synthetic polymers. The Beat the Microbead app at beatthemicrobead.org maintains a list of over 500 synthetic polymer ingredients found in cosmetics.
Are microbeads banned in Australia?
At the time of writing, microbeads are banned in rinse-off personal care products in NSW (since November 2022), the ACT, Queensland and Western Australia. Australia's federal government delivered a voluntary industry phase-out in 2022, but enforcement has been inconsistent across states. There is currently no national legislated ban covering all product types, and leave-on products are not covered by the existing state-level bans.
Are microplastics in skincare bad for you?
The science is still developing. Microplastics have been detected in human blood and tissue, but current research has not established definitive evidence of specific health harms from cosmetic exposure at typical use levels. Research using skin models suggests intact skin provides a reasonable barrier to larger particles, though damaged or inflamed skin may be more permeable. A precautionary approach (reading labels and preferring simpler formulas) is reasonable.
How can I avoid microplastics in skincare?
Read the ingredient list. Look for polyethylene, polypropylene, PMMA, nylon and acrylates copolymer. Prefer shorter ingredient lists. Use the Beat the Microbead app at beatthemicrobead.org to check specific products. For rinse-off products in NSW, ACT, QLD and WA, microbeads are already banned by law. For leave-on products, consumer vigilance is currently the main protection available.
Is natural skincare always microplastic-free?
No. "Natural" is a marketing term, not a legal or regulatory category in Australia. A product can use the word "natural" while still containing synthetic polymer ingredients. Reading the full ingredient list is more reliable than trusting any front-of-pack claim.
What should I look for on a skincare label?
Ingredients are listed in INCI format in descending order of concentration. For synthetic polymer concerns, look for polyethylene, polypropylene, PMMA, nylon-12, polyurethane, acrylates copolymer, or any ingredient starting with "poly-". Short ingredient lists with recognisable botanical names (oils, butters, waxes) are generally easier to evaluate than long lists with multiple synthetic compounds.
Sources
- The Diary of a CEO with Steven Bartlett, episode featuring Dr Yvonne Burkart PhD (published 18 November 2024). Available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube.
- European Commission, Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 of 25 September 2023. Restriction on synthetic polymer microparticles under REACH Annex XVII, Entry 78. Came into force 17 October 2023.
- NSW EPA media release, 3 November 2025: EPA cleans up banned skincare products containing microbeads. Available: epa.nsw.gov.au/news
- NSW EPA, Plastic Reduction and Circular Economy Act 2021. Microbead ban guidance. Available: epa.nsw.gov.au
- ACCC, Environmental and sustainability claims guidance. Available: accc.gov.au
- Plastic Soup Foundation, Beat the Microbead. Ingredient database and consumer app. Available: beatthemicrobead.org
- Schiborr, C. et al. (2025). Microplastics: State of the Evidence on Health Effects and Public Perception. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 122.
- Aristizabal, L. et al. (2024). Microplastics in dermatology: Potential effects on skin homeostasis. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 23, 766–772.
- University of Birmingham research on leave-on cosmetic packaging contamination. Journal of Hazardous Materials, September 2024.
- Frontiers in Environmental Science (2025). A review of microplastic pollution and human health risk assessment. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2025.1606332
