Glitter — a staple of festival fashion and stage makeup — could soon face restrictions in Illinois under a proposed bill targeting microplastic pollution.

Illinois state Rep. Kimberly Neely Du Buclet, a Democrat whose district covers parts of Chicago’s South Side and surrounding neighborhoods, introduced legislation in January that would ban the sale of nonbiodegradable glitter in personal care products in Illinois, including body paints, makeup and hair products that contain nonbiodegradable plastic glitter.

Du Buclet said the legislation is intended to protect wildlife, waterways and public health by reducing preventable sources of microplastic contamination.

Environmental advocates point to broader plastic pollution concerns in the region. A 2024 report from the Alliance for the Great Lakes, based on two decades of volunteer cleanup data, found that about 86% of litter collected on Great Lakes beaches is composed partially or entirely of plastic, much of it being small pieces that can break down into microplastics as they enter the water and food webs. The report notes that once plastic enters the lakes, it does not disappear, but rather fragments into tiny particles that have been found in water used by millions of people.

Although younger voters consistently rank environmental protection among their top priorities, some Columbia students questioned whether targeting cosmetic glitter meaningfully addresses the region’s broader plastic pollution problem.

As an avid body-glitter user, senior photography major Hannah Fanning was appalled at the proposed legislation.

“I wear a lot of body glitter, like every single day,” she said.

Fanning questioned how a bill like this could be regulated with online shopping and delivery services making products so regularly available. 

She emphasized that there are other sustainability issues that can take place over a ban of body glitter. 

“I get it for the environment, but there are a lot of bigger things that need to be more sustainable than body glitter.”

Sophomore acting for stage and screen major Ahmed Ankolkar also opposed the ban.

“I understand why it’s a problem given the waters are congested, but it’s so dumb — like it’s really stupid,” he said. “A bill should be proposed in a more realistic and productive way.”

Jaiya Everett, a junior graphic design major, said she supports the ban as long as there are more biodegradable alternatives available 

“As long as you can still be very sparkly, but with biodegradable options,” she said.  

Still, Everett questioned whether body glitter should be a legislative priority. While she acknowledged that large events such as Lollapalooza could contribute to microplastic buildup in Illinois waterways, she said broader environmental education might have a greater impact.

“What I can think of before I go to banning body glitter is informing people about what can be properly recycled,” she said.

Lucy Mandlowitz, a sophomore theatre arts production and practice major, said she was surprised when she first heard about the proposal.

“When I first heard it, I thought it was going to be banning things that are productive, but then I heard body glitter and I was shook,” she said.

After reflecting on the environmental concerns, Mandlowitz said she believes biodegradable alternatives could offer a compromise.

“I remembered that body glitter is nonbiodegradable, but I know for a fact biodegradable body glitter exists,” she said.

She compared the situation to an episode of an old animated web series produced by Mattel.

“It reminded me of ‘Barbie: Life in the Dreamhouse’ when they had the glitter shortage,” she said.

The bill is expected to be considered during the spring legislative session, which concludes in May. If approved, the ban would take effect Dec. 1, 2029.

Copy edited by Venus Tapang