microplastics
Microplastics in Cosmetics: The 2027 EU Ban Explained
The EU's microplastic phase-out covers leave-on cosmetics from October 2027. Here's exactly what's being removed, what's exempt, and what to look for on the INCI list right now.
In September 2023, the EU adopted Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 — an amendment to REACH (the European chemicals regulation) — that prohibits the use of intentionally added microplastics across a vast range of consumer products, including most cosmetics. The phase-out runs in staged deadlines through to 2035. Cosmetics are in the early waves.
This is the most consequential cosmetic regulation since the 2014 paraben restrictions, and it touches a far wider list of products. Most consumers haven’t heard about it. Here’s the practical version.
What the regulation actually bans
The new rule prohibits intentionally added synthetic polymer microparticles — particles smaller than 5 mm composed of synthetic polymer — in mixtures placed on the EU market.
In practical terms, that means:
- Microbeads in exfoliating scrubs (already banned in 2023; phase-out applied immediately)
- Loose glitter containing PET or other plastic films (banned in October 2023 in cosmetic glitters)
- Encapsulated fragrances that use plastic-based microcapsules (phased out from October 2029)
- Plastic film-forming agents in makeup, sunscreen and skincare (phased out from October 2027 in leave-on cosmetics)
The phase-out schedule for cosmetics specifically:
- 17 October 2023: rinse-off exfoliating products containing microbeads (immediate)
- 17 October 2027: leave-on cosmetics including makeup, skincare, sunscreens
- 17 October 2029: rinse-off cosmetics not in the immediate category, and lip/nail products
- 17 October 2035: full enforcement across all permitted exemptions
What counts as a microplastic on a cosmetic label
The technical definition: solid, water-insoluble, synthetic polymer particles smaller than 5 mm. The cosmetic-relevant INCI names include:
| INCI ingredient | Function | Found in |
|---|---|---|
| Polyethylene (PE) | Exfoliant bead, film-former | Scrubs (now banned), makeup |
| Polypropylene (PP) | Texture, opacifier | Lotions, foundations |
| Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) | Glitter, film-former | Glitters, eye products |
| Polyurethane | Film-former, suspension | Sunscreens, mascara |
| Acrylates Copolymer / Crosspolymer | Film-former, viscosity | Sunscreens, foundations, primers |
| Methacrylate copolymers | Film-formers | Long-wear makeup, mascaras |
| Nylon-12 / Nylon-66 | Texture, soft-focus | Powders, primers |
| Polyquaternium-7, -10, etc. | Conditioning polymer | Some shampoos, conditioners |
| Silicone elastomers (specific solid forms) | Texture, soft-focus | Primers, foundations |
Note: liquid silicones like dimethicone are not microplastics under the new definition. They are liquids, not solid particles. Some advocacy groups conflate the two; the regulation does not.
What is exempt
Not all polymers are banned. The regulation includes exemptions for:
- Natural polymers (cellulose, chitin, etc.) — never in scope
- Biodegradable polymers that meet specific OECD biodegradation criteria
- Polymers used in industrial processes that do not end up in consumer products
- Soluble polymers (those that fully dissolve in water at use concentrations) — important for some film-formers that appear polymeric on the INCI but dissolve in skin
- Specific medical and industrial uses with derogations
The exemption list is important because some “plastic-sounding” ingredients are actually fine — cellulose-based polymers, hyaluronic acid (a natural polymer), and biodegradable synthetic alternatives like polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA).
What replaces microplastics in cosmetics
Brands have been reformulating since 2018 in anticipation of these rules. The replacements:
- Cellulose-based microparticles (e.g., bamboo cellulose, oat cellulose) for exfoliating scrubs
- Apricot, walnut, jojoba ground particles — natural exfoliants
- Silica beads — mineral, not in scope
- Mica — mineral pigment for shimmer (some sustainability concerns of its own around supply chains)
- PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoate) for some film-forming uses — biodegradable polymer
- Modified natural polymers like crosslinked starch, modified cellulose
- Biodegradable glitters based on cellulose film coated with mineral pigment
Most major brands have already completed the rinse-off transition. Leave-on cosmetic reformulation is the larger task and is well underway.
Why this matters beyond marketing
The case for the ban isn’t aesthetic — it’s environmental. Microplastics in personal-care products:
- Wash down the drain and pass through most wastewater treatment plants
- Accumulate in waterways and ultimately in marine organisms
- Are also detected in agricultural soil, drinking water, and human tissue samples
- Take decades to centuries to biodegrade
The European Commission’s impact assessment estimated that cosmetic microplastics account for roughly 3,800 tonnes per year of intentional microplastic release in the EU before the ban — a relatively small fraction of total microplastic pollution (which is dominated by tire wear, textile shedding, and degradation of larger plastics), but the most directly preventable.
How to spot microplastic-free products today
While the leave-on ban doesn’t take full effect until October 2027, many brands have already reformulated voluntarily. Quick INCI checks:
Likely contains microplastics:
- Glitter products listing PET, BOPP, or polyester
- Long-wear foundations, primers and mascaras with acrylates copolymer or methacrylate copolymers prominently in the INCI
- Sunscreens with high-position acrylates crosspolymers
Likely microplastic-free:
- Products listing biodegradable-certified film-formers (look for “certified biodegradable” or specific OECD claims)
- Mineral makeup
- Glitter products specifying cellulose-based, mica-based, or biodegradable certification
The forthcoming EU regulatory text requires brands to phase out non-compliant inventory by the October 2027 deadline for leave-on cosmetics. After that date, products on shelves must comply or be reformulated.
How LuxSense scores polymers and microplastics
Our scoring framework treats microplastic-bearing ingredients differently from other ingredient categories:
- In-scope microplastics (polyethylene as a solid particle, PET in glitter, acrylates as film-formers in leave-on contexts) score lower — typically in the 30s–50s — reflecting the EU phase-out trajectory and environmental concerns.
- Exempt polymers (cellulose, natural polymers, certified biodegradable alternatives) score higher — typically in the 80s–90s.
- Liquid silicones (dimethicone, cyclomethicone variants not in scope) score on their own merits — typically in the 70s — reflecting that they are not microplastics under the new rules but have separate environmental considerations.
Our methodology accounts for the regulatory phase-out timeline, so a film-former that is compliant in 2026 but scheduled for phase-out in 2027 carries a lower score now than a fully exempt alternative.
FAQ
Are all silicones banned?
No. The regulation targets solid synthetic polymer particles. Liquid silicones like dimethicone are not microplastics under this rule. Some solid silicone elastomers do fall in scope.
What about “microplastic-free” claims?
Until October 2027 for leave-on products, the claim is meaningful — it indicates the brand has reformulated ahead of the legal deadline. After 2027, it becomes essentially redundant for EU-sold products.
Is the UK following the same rules?
The UK inherited the EU framework post-Brexit and has so far aligned closely with the EU microplastic restrictions. Specific UK rules may diverge over time, but the current trajectory is parallel.
Browse the polymer ingredient profiles or scan any cosmetic with LuxSense to see which polymers it contains and how they fare against the EU microplastic phase-out.