Microplastic-Free Cosmetics: How Manufacturers Are Replacing Controversial Ingredients and What It Means for Formulations

Photo: Patrick Hendry / Unsplash

The ban on microplastics in cosmetics, which is gradually coming into force under European legislation, is forcing manufacturers to find new solutions for the functions these particles performed – from exfoliation to emulsion stabilization. Replacing synthetic polymeric microparticles, however, is not straightforward: alternatives must meet not only ecological requirements but also technical parameters such as viscosity, dispersion capability, or sensory properties. This article explores current trends in microplastic replacements, their advantages and limitations, and how these changes affect the selection of raw materials and manufacturing processes in the cosmetics industry.

Why are microplastics disappearing from cosmetic formulations?

Microplastics, i.e. synthetic polymer particles smaller than 5 millimetres, have been used in cosmetics for many years as abrasives, strengthening or mattifying components. However, their negative impact on the environment – particularly on aquatic ecosystems – has led to a gradual ban in many EU countries. Since 2023, the REACH regulation has prohibited the intentional addition of microplastics to products, including cosmetics. Manufacturers thus face a challenge: to find functionally comparable alternatives that do not compromise product quality or safety.

The key issue is that microplastics performed specific functions in cosmetics – for example, in peels they provided mechanical cleansing, in make-up they improved coverage or extended shelf life. Replacing these functions requires a combination of natural or biodegradable materials, such as ground nut shells, cellulose, mineral powders (e.g. titanium dioxide) or plant waxes. However, these alternatives often require adjustments to the manufacturing process, as they differ in their physical properties, such as hardness, particle size or solubility.

What alternatives replace microplastics in different types of cosmetics?

In cleansing and exfoliating products, such as scrubs or toothpastes, microplastics are replaced by natural abrasives. The most common include ground walnut shells, apricot kernels or bamboo powder. These materials provide a comparable exfoliating effect, but their hardness and particle shape must be carefully optimised to avoid skin irritation. For sensitive skin, gentler alternatives such as cellulose or rice starch are used, which also have hydrating effects.

In decorative cosmetics, such as powders, lipsticks, or eyeshadows, microplastics provided a matte effect, improved adhesion, or extended shelf life. Here, mineral powders (e.g., kaolin, zinc oxide) or plant waxes (e.g., candelilla, carnauba) are used, which fulfill similar functions. The challenge, however, is achieving the same smoothness and covering power, as natural materials often require higher dosages or combinations with other additives, which can affect the final texture of the product.

Photo: Ricardo Gomez Angel / Unsplash

Challenges in reformulation: stability, safety, and costs

Switching to microplastic alternatives is not just a matter of replacing one ingredient with another. Natural materials often differ in their chemical and physical properties, which can affect the stability, durability, or effectiveness of the product. For example, plant waxes have a different melting point than synthetic polymers, which can complicate the manufacturing process or storage. Similarly, natural abrasives may react with other formulation components, such as preservatives or emulsifiers, requiring thorough compatibility testing.

Another critical factor is safety. Natural alternatives must meet the same requirements for dermatological and microbiological safety as the original ingredients. This means conducting extensive testing, including irritation, allergenicity, and stability tests under various conditions. Manufacturers must also consider that some natural materials may be more susceptible to microbial contamination, which requires adjustments to the preservative system. These changes often increase development and certification costs, which may be reflected in the final product price.

The Future of Cosmetics: Innovation and Sustainability as a Priority

The trend of replacing microplastics is part of a broader shift toward sustainable cosmetics. Manufacturers are investing in research and development of new materials that not only replace controversial ingredients but also improve the ecological profile of products. Examples include biodegradable polymers based on polylactic acid (PLA) or polysaccharides, which decompose in nature without forming harmful residues. These materials may find applications not only in cosmetics but also in packaging materials in the future.

For cosmetic manufacturers, it is crucial to monitor not only legislative requirements but also consumer expectations. Consumers increasingly demand transparency in composition, environmental sustainability, and ethical practices. This means that product reformulations must be accompanied by clear communication about the benefits of new ingredients. At the same time, it is important to collaborate with raw material suppliers who provide certified and verified alternatives to ensure the quality and safety of the final products.

Photo: American Public Power Association / Unsplash

How does the ban on microplastics affect supply chains in the chemical industry?

The ban on microplastics in cosmetics is fundamentally transforming the requirements for chemical raw material suppliers. Cosmetic manufacturers are now seeking reliable partners who can deliver alternative ingredients in the required quantities, quality, and with consistent properties. This places higher demands on production and logistics capacities, as natural or biodegradable substitutes often require specific storage and transport conditions—such as lower temperatures or protection from moisture. Suppliers must invest in developing new formulations and testing to guarantee that alternative ingredients meet the same functional parameters as the original microplastics, without compromising stability or performance.

For distributors like GCG Group, this means expanding their portfolio to include innovative raw materials such as modified starches, cellulose fibers, or synthetic polymers with rapid biodegradation. At the same time, demand for technical support is growing—customers need advice on reformulation, verification of compatibility of new ingredients with other components, and assistance with documentation for certifications (e.g., COSMOS, Ecocert). The supply chain is thus becoming more specialized and flexible to respond to rapidly changing legislative and market demands.

Practical impacts on manufacturing processes: from the lab to the production line

Replacing microplastics in cosmetic formulations requires adjustments not only in recipes but also in manufacturing processes. Microplastics often served as reinforcing, mattifying, or texturizing components that were easy to process—they had stable viscosity, low reactivity, and a long shelf life. Their alternatives, such as plant waxes or mineral powders, behave differently: they may require higher mixing temperatures, longer homogenization, or a specific order of addition to the mixture. Manufacturers must therefore optimize parameters such as mixing speed, temperature profiles, or filling pressure to achieve the desired product consistency.

Laboratories are increasing the frequency of stability, microbiological safety, and sensory property testing (e.g., cream spreadability, lipstick shine). Some alternatives, such as natural polymers, pose a higher risk of microbial contamination, requiring stricter hygiene control and potentially the addition of preservatives. On production lines, it may be necessary to install new equipment, such as dispersers for even distribution of solid particles or filters to remove unwanted impurities. These changes extend the time to market and increase costs, but they also pave the way for innovations in sustainable technologies.

Communicating with the end customer: how to explain changes in the product?

Reformulating cosmetics without microplastics also presents a challenge in marketing. Customers are often accustomed to specific product properties—such as long-lasting coverage in makeup or the silky feel of body lotion on the skin. If alternative ingredients slightly alter these properties, it is crucial to transparently and clearly explain why the changes were made and what benefits the new formulation brings. For example, with scrubs containing natural exfoliating particles (e.g., ground nut shells), it is important to emphasize that the product is more environmentally friendly, even if it may be less abrasive than versions with microplastics.

Manufacturers should use certifications and eco-labels (e.g., "microplastic-free," "biodegradable") as proof of their commitment to sustainability, while avoiding misleading claims. For instance, the term "natural" is not legally defined and can lead to misunderstandings. It is better to provide specific facts, such as "contains 95% ingredients of natural origin" or "exfoliating particles decompose within 28 days." Educating customers through websites, social media, or packaging helps build trust and acceptance of new formulations, even if their properties are not entirely identical to the original products.

Need Help with Reformulation?

When transitioning to microplastic-free formulations, it is crucial to select the right alternatives and verify their compatibility with other ingredients. GCG Group provides detailed technical data sheets and safety data sheets (SDS) for each raw material, and our experts are happy to advise you on selecting suitable solutions for your specific applications. Contact us – or browse our catalog of over 1,300 products right away.