Is it Last Christmas for glitter?
It’s true – a ban restricting the sale of glitter is now in force throughout the European Union. But what does this mean for those of us who really like shiny things - in particular, sparkly Christmas decorations, cards, toys, and wrapping paper? Here, LGC Standards takes an in-depth look at what the law says about glitter, and why the EU is cracking down on this “microplastic in disguise”. But because it’s the time for Christmas gifts, we also present you with a short but fabulous history of glitter, as well as a sneak peek into a greener future.
The end of glitter?
It was an announcement that sparked alarm amongst the glitterati. When news broke about the introduction of a ban on glitter across the EU last October, lovers of the sparklier things in life went into panic – or panic buying - mode. Among those desperate to stock up before the restrictions came into effect was Sam Dylan, a German TV personality who told Bild he had stocked up with 82 packets of glitter, costing €180. “I am truly shocked by it,” said Dylan, who starred in Germany’s version of Big Brother. “In my world everything has to glitter.” Meanwhile Luca Valentino, from the Pop Idol spin-off Deutschland Sucht den Superstar, accused the EU of “taking away the last sparks of glamour”, adding that he used three jars of glitter a year because “my life is very colourful”.
Gli-story (or a history of glitter)
Perhaps one of the reasons that the EU ban caused such consternation was the surprisingly central place that glitter has occupied in people’s lives - over not just centuries, but millennia. The word “glitter” has been around since the 14th century, possibly derived from the Old Norse glitra, meaning “to shine”. But glittery things have been used for much longer than English speakers have possessed a word for them. Flecks of mica, a shiny rock still used to make paint and some glitters today, featured in cave paintings from the Upper Palaeolithic Period, and were also used to decorate Mayan temples. In the last century BCE, Queen Cleopatra used a proto-glitter for cosmetic effect: dazzling lovers like Julius Caesar and Mark Antony with eye shadow made from ground lapis lazuli stone and flecks of golden pyrite.
Jumping forward a mere two millennia, it’s commonly accepted that modern glitter was born in 1934, when Henry Ruschmann – a German-born farmer and machinist – developed a high-speed tool for cutting photographic films and paper. The apparatus would, however, jam occasionally - spraying the floor with tiny fragments of shiny coloured paper, which workers decided to take home and use as Christmas decorations. Ruschmann’s farm, in Bernardsville, New Jersey, subsequently became the location of a company called Meadowbrook Farm Inventions, which today remains one of the world’s leading glitter manufacturers.
Moving swiftly on from “schnibbles” - the original name Ruschmann gave to his shiny new invention – plastic glitter became a “necessity” at Christmas in World War Two-era America. With candles, neon lights, and even the Statue of Liberty’s torch extinguished because of potential air raids, the New York Times recommended replacing Christmas tree candles with dime-store plastic glitter for “additional scintillation”.
Fast-forwarding another 30 years, glitter’s next triumph came when it gave its name to a whole, particularly shiny, new musical genre. Glam Rock, also known as Glitter Rock, was an early 1970s phenomenon notable for the heaps of sparkle worn by stars such as Marc Bolan, Slade, and David Bowie – whose alter ego Ziggy Stardust made liberal use of glitter, and its close relative, the sequin. After the Glam scene died out, glitter returned with a confrontational edge in the early 2010s – in eye-catching “glitter bombing” stunts staged by LGBT activists in protest at the conservative views of some prominent US politicians.
More recently, thanks to the embrace of stars like Lady Gaga, and festival fashion trends like “glitter beards” and even “glitter bums”, living life with a sparkle seems to have become more mainstream and relevant than ever. Which begs the question: “Why is the EU trying to ban glitter?”
“A microplastic in disguise”
Perhaps we should say at this point that the EU isn’t just being a Grinch in enforcing a glitter ban. That’s because, despite its feelgood reputation, conventional glitter is a significant contributor to global plastic pollution, and could be helping to make both humans and the planet ill. As the EU’s executive arm, the European Commission, explains in a briefing document, “The purpose of banning microplastics, which includes glitter, is to reduce the environmental pollution and risk to the environment that they cause.”
“I would certainly consider glitter to be a microplastic,” adds Joel Baker, a professor from the University of Wisconsin, given that glitter is commonly made from tiny pieces of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which are bonded to aluminium or other synthetic materials to make them reflective. These plastic substances used in glitter can adversely affect human health by damaging our immune and reproductive systems, and potentially causing developmental delays and cancers. Glitter and other microplastics “can also act like magnets for other toxic environmental pollutants, carrying additional toxins into the human body.” What’s more, research published in October this year shows that four common microplastics can interfere with the adsorption and transport of the antibiotic tetracycline, “potentially attenuating antibiotic effect and at the same time promoting antibiotic resistance.”
In the wider environment, glitter contributes to the contamination of our soil, air, water and food. In the oceans, marine wildlife mistake microplastics for fish eggs, and the ingested microplastics disrupt digestion, causing malnutrition and weight loss. Afterwards, when humans or other animals eat these marine animals, they take in the microplastics as well. Still another environmental problem with glittery Christmas cards and festive wrapping paper is that they can’t be reused in an ecologically-friendly manner. “The sustainability charity Wrap has long had (glitter) on its avoid list, The Guardian points out. “While it brings colour and sparkle to Christmas .... (glitter’s) presence is the ‘kiss of death from a recycling perspective.’”
So what’s in the glitter ban... (and not)?
Known formally as Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055, the EU glitter ban is an attempt to stop the release into the environment of around half a million tonnes of microplastics – or particles smaller than 5mm that are insoluble and resist degradation. Announced in September 2023, the ban outlawed glitter powder and loose glitter used for arts, crafts and play within weeks – or at least as soon as existing stocks ran out. A number of other goods – including glittery rinse on- and off cosmetics, make-up, lip and nail products – have been given individual transitional periods before their bans come into force between 2026 and 2035.
On Christmas goods, EU officials reportedly said at first that the glitter ban would apply to “‘glazed decorative objects such as Christmas decorations or party hats, whose glitter comes off during normal use.’” However, the glitter law soon faced a business backlash as, according to The Guardian, “It was not until (it) was passed that specialist Christmas firms discovered it applied to them.” A Belgian decorations producer, Goodwill M&G, therefore challenged the new law on the basis that there had been no consultation or transition period. And although that case was dismissed in March this year, it may have helped persuade the EU to rethink its original legislation. “The Commission now seems to be rowing back on its commitment (and) has quietly updated its website to exempt most uses of glitter from the microplastics restriction,” claimed Hélène Duguy, from the Rethink Plastic Alliance advocacy group. The Guardian also reported that “In a big climbdown (Goodwill M&G) has been told the law does not apply to Christmas decorations.” The EU has attempted to clarify the situation by stating that "Only glitter made of non-biodegradable, insoluble plastic is (banned, and) plastic glitter is not affected by the ban if it is contained by technical means, forms solid films (e.g. paints, certain inks) or, during end use, it is permanently incorporated in a solid matrix (e.g. glitter glue).” It also now states that “Articles with glitter affixed on their surface do not fall within the scope of the restriction”, potentially making many Christmas decorations and toys exempt from the ban.
A shining future? New trends and alternatives in glitter
Despite its imperfections, there are signs that the EU’s glitter ban is already having a positive effect – even beyond the borders of the bloc. In Britain, where the new law does not officially apply because of Brexit, the department store chain John Lewis is nevertheless planning a “significantly reduced” role for glitter in this year's Christmas ranges. Instead, it is experimenting with materials such as felt and papier-mâché on its festive decorations, while those that do contain glitter are surprisingly compliant with Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055. “This year on boxed baubles we’re moving towards using glitter that’s encapsulated inside the bauble to prevent shedding,” explains the group’s Christmas buyer, Charlie Murray. “We’ve also introduced baubles that have a metallic finish to provide the Christmas sparkle without glitter.”
Another of the guiding principles behind the glitter ban was that “plastic glitter can be replaced with more environmentally friendly glitter that, for instance, does not pollute our oceans.” Here, too, there has been significant progress, with many biodegradable, cellulose-based and plastic-free glitter products already on the market. They include the (EU) 2023/2055-friendly Bio-glitter range, which is now the only glitter sold at the Hobbycraft chain of arts and crafts stores in the UK, as well as several “planet friendly beauty glitters” endorsed by Vogue “for the eco-conscious reveller to wear over the Xmas party season.” Stephen Cotton, a chemical engineer who helped create Bio-glitter, says more needs to be done to support the transition from damaging to eco-friendly glitter, even within the EU. “(But) there are now good options available,” he adds. “We can still have the bright, fun, sparkly effects (and) guilt-free. It just needs a little effort in changing.” As one Australian “conscious cosmetics” company with its own eco-glitter range puts it, “We're only at the beginning of finding ways to continue our love affair with glitter without hurting the planet – but with ingenuity we'll be able to keep sparkling like all of the glittery icons that have gone before. And sparkle we shall.”
Get more from LGC Standards
