Allison Barker
September 13th, 2016
News, BBC. "Plastic Microbeads to Be Banned by 2017, UK Government Pledges." BBC News. BBC, 3 Sept. 2016. Web. 9 Sept. 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37263087>.
The article that I chose was about microbeads, or small plastic particles that are put into everyday objects such as toothpaste, body scrubs, and face wash that are now widely thought to hurt the environment, and the increasing efforts at public and legislative levels to ban them from production. Recently, the United Kingdom government announced plans to ban microbeads by 2017, and a consultation on the logistics of such a ban will begin later this year. Microbeads are extremely popular in many cosmetics, although a number of companies have volunteered to phase out their microbead use by 2020. Although these beads serve a cosmetic purpose, the toxic plastic particles often are washed down the drain and into the ocean, where unwilling animals can involuntarily consume them. In fact, 100,000 plastic particles can enter the ocean due to a single shower. Because these particles are so small, they are more likely to be ingested by animals and move up the food chain than larger pieces of plastic, and it has been said that a plate of six oysters can contain up to 50 particles of plastic. It is widely believed that the cost of these beads outweighs the benefit, especially due to the fact that harmless alternatives to microbeads can be used to achieve the same effect. Although the exact ecological cost of widespread microbead use is unknown, the environment committee believes that more research is required because more than 280 marine species are known to ingest microplastics. Due to these findings, the US recently became the first country to announce an impending microbead ban in cosmetics, which pressured other countries into taking action. Currently, the European Commission is developing proposals to ban microbeads in the EU.
The ban of microbeads has a large impact on the lives of many Americans, including me. Microbeads are in almost every product that one can think of, such as shampoo, toothpaste, and body wash. In fact, the face wash that I use contains microbeads. I had no idea that they were so bad for the environment, and I think that it is important that the public is educated about this important issue because many people may be just as unaware about the harmful effects of their actions as I was. Further, this article ties into our study of biological magnification, as the toxic chemicals in the plastic ingested by the animals on the lower trophic levels would go on to effect the entire food chain. The recent bans on microbeads will have a large impact on the use of cosmetics in many countries and will hopefully set a precedent for putting the health of the environment over profit.
I thought that this article was well-written and informative. The author concisely and clearly described the results of many studies that showed the damage that microbeads did to the environment and gave many examples of how easily these particles are ingested. However, the author was unclear in the last few paragraphs about who Theresa May was. The author described how important she is, and included quotes of others about her, but never explained who she is or what she did. If I were to change this article, I would make the last section more clear. Overall, though, this article informed me on a topic that I did not know very much at all about.
Allison Barker’s current event contained many aspects that were well done. For example, Allison’s summary of the use of microbeads was succinct and informative which made it is easy as a reader to understand the importance of the topic. A second aspect that contributed to her passage was how she was able to describe the impact that microbeads has on everyday people. This made me become invested in the story since microbeads are found in everyday products. A third aspect of Allison’s current event that deserves recognition was her excellent citation. Having a clear and visible citation made it easy for me to read more into the topic.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was a well written current event, there were still areas that could use improvement. One area that could have been improved was in her summary she does not provide examples of alternatives to microbeads but instead just states that there are alternatives. Being more specific would enhance the reader’s understanding of microbeads. Another aspect that needed work was the relevance paragraph. Allison never mentioned the effects of microbeads on humans, so it loses its personal drive.
After reading this current event, I am now aware of what microbeads are and how they are detrimental to the environment. I never knew that microbeads existed in everyday products and that they eventually are transferred into the ocean and hurt sea life. My perception of microbeads is now greater in depth and I will attempt to limit my personal use of microbeads.
Allie did a good job of summarizing the issue at hand and fully explaining the impact that microbeads have on the environment. This made the topic easy to understand and was helpful to the reader. She also did a good job of relating the issue to the real world by giving examples of products that microbeads are in. Finally, she explained the history of microbead legislation very clearly and gave a broad picture on the politics of microbeads.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I think Allie could improve is her explanation of the opposition to banning microbeads. She explained why microbeads are bad for the environment, but did not explain why they are not yet banned. Another thing that could improve this review is a suggestion of alternatives to microbeads to inform the reader of a plan to solve this problem.
Allie's review made me aware of the dangers microbeads pose and I will now make an effort to avoid products that use them. It also gave me information on what was being done in the US and the EU to ban this toxic and unnecessary substance.
Ali' current event was very interesting and well done. One aspect of her review that was good was the summary explaining what microbeads were and why they are bad for the environment. She explained what they are in: body wash and toothpaste, and the danger of them: fish can consume them because they are small. I also liked how she gave statistics to better explain how they are hurting the environment: "In fact, 10,000 plastic particles can enter the ocean due to a single shower." A second aspect of her review that is well done is connecting the article to topics we are studying in class. She talked about biological magnification and how small fish consuming the chemicals on lower trophic levels will affect the whole food chain. The third thing Ali did well was explain the politics behind this issue. She talked about the U.S.'s goals in fixing the microbead problem and how that influenced the European Union to take action as well.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Ali did a very good job on her review, there were some aspects that could have been better. She stated that "more than 280 marine species are known to ingest microplastics," and more research needs to be done because the exact ecological cost of the use of microbeads is unknown. It would have been good to explain what research the environment committee is planning to do, if the article says it. A second aspect that could have been improved is when she stated that there are alternatives to microbeads. She could have listed other options to microbeads that would have served a similar purpose in toothpaste, body scrubs, etc. but would be harmless to the environment.
I really enjoyed reading Ali's current event. I have heard that microbeads were harmful to the environment in the past but I have always wanted to know more about them and how they were harmful. Like Ali, I use many cosmetic products that have microbeads in them so it was very interesting to read this article as it affects me personally. This changed my perspective on science because it is scary to see how a seemingly harmless product can have such a devastating effect on ecosystems. It is also interesting to see how scientists are dealing with this issue and I am happy to read that they are planning to do more research on the affect of microbeads and that more and more countries are planning to ban them.
I commented on Allison’s review of the article “Plastic Microbeads to Be Banned by 2017, UK Government Pledges”, by BBC. Overall, Allison did a great job reviewing the article. First of all, I like how Allison started off her review by saying exacting what microbeads. I have heard of microbeads before, but I did not know what they were used for. Allison says they are used in face wash, body scrubs, and toothbrushes and are small plastic particles. This is helpful to a reader who did not know what microbeads were. I also liked how Allison explained both the negative and positive uses for these beads. They can positively used for pleasure in cosmetics; however, they can negatively end up in the ocean to be ingested by sea animals. Finally, a third thing I liked that Allison did was back up the argument with personal evidence. She stated how she uses microbeads on a regular basis, but also, how she thinks people should be educated on the negative effects these microbeads cause.
ReplyDeleteAlthough overall Allison did a good job reviewing the article, there were some areas she could have improved. For example, Allison did not specify why exacting these substances can be harmful to animals. She states that they can ingest the beads, but failed to clarify what the consumption of the microbeads can do to the animal. Also, I wish that Allison had suggested a more clear solution. She suggested educating the public on this issue, but did not say why this would help. In order for this to be effective, I think she would have needed to specify ways to make the public help stop this issue.
From reading this article and Allison’s review, I learned that people can do many small things to help the environment. If people switched to body scrubs or face washes without microbeads, they could potentially save the lives of many sea animals. I choose this article to read because the title interesting me, in part because I was interested in what exactly microbeads were. This article was interesting because it shows how little we know about how our actions affect the environment. Before reading this, I would not have thought that using a different body scrub could help the environment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNews, BBC. "Plastic Microbeads to Be Banned by 2017, UK Government Pledges." BBC News. BBC, 3 Sept. 2016. Web. 9 Sept. 2016.
ReplyDelete.
I read Allison Barker’s review of the BBC News article, “Plastic Microbeads Manned by 2017, UK Government Pledges” and thought that she did a very good job. I particularly liked her summary of the article and its main points. She kept her summary short and concise, which summaries are supposed to be, yet still included enough information for the reader to understand what happened in the article. In addition, I liked her connection between her own use of products that contain microbeads, specifically her face wash. I thought that this was a very clever way of tying in the relevance the article has to our daily lives. Once Allison made this connection, my attention was drawn. I also liked how she gave details and numbers, specifically when saying,”the environment committee believes that more research is required because more than 280 marine species are known to ingest microplastic”. She also uses numbers when writing, “In fact 100,000 particles can enter the ocean due to a single shower”. These numbers helped the reader conceptualize how environmentally unfriendly these beads truly are.
Although Allison did a very good job in her review, she could use some improvement. I thought that she should have quoted some parts of the article, as this always emphasizes the validity of everything being said. I believe this is an important part of an article’s review and it should have been included. In addition, she never provided examples of alternatives to microbeads. She stated that their were alternatives in the beginning of her review, however explaining what the alternatives are would have made her writing stronger. However, I think that Allison still wrote an excellent review.
I thought that the review was written very well and Allison chose a great article to talk about. I think that the topic is very prevalent in all of our lives and Allison has further educated me on the topic. I never knew about this issue before reading Allison’s review and now feel knowledgeable on this topic. Overall, I really enjoyed Allison’s review and learned a lot from it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
ReplyDeleteNews, BBC. "Plastic Microbeads to Be Banned by 2017, UK Government Pledges." BBC News. BBC, 3 Sept. 2016. Web. 9 Sept. 2016. .
Allison Barker wrote an excellent review to the article “Plastic Microbeads to Be Banned by 2017, UK Government Pledges” by BBC News. I thought that Allison’s summary included relevant and important information and was written in a way that was easy to understand. I like how she began her review by immediately defining microbeads and providing examples so that the reader could visualize and connect with the subject. She did an amazing job of explaining why microbeads are damaging the environment so that her description of the planned legislation to ban them made sense. Allison wrote that “because these particles are so small, they are more likely to be ingested by animals and move up the food chain than larger pieces of plastic, and it has been said that a plate of six oysters can contain up to 50 particles of plastic.” In this sentence, she explained that microbeads affect marine species throughout the ocean because the particles are transferred through the food chain, and she provided evidence to prove that the microbeads are being ingested by marine creatures. I love how Allison included a personal connection to the article by admitting that she uses products that contain microbeads and then stating that she believes that others should be educated about this important issue.
Although she wrote an amazing review to the BBC article, there are some areas that could be improved. Allison did a very good job of explaining that microbeads are damaging to the environment, but she didn’t explain why they haven’t yet been banned. This is a little confusing because if they affect so many marine species, shouldn’t their production be halted immediately? In the last paragraph of her review, Allison criticizes the author for not explaining who Theresa May is. However, she never provides any background information on this woman so the reader of Allison’s review is left confused about the identity and the importance of Theresa May.
I think that this article is extremely interesting and important because it includes information about a component of many beauty products that it harmful to marine species. I agree with Allison that awareness must be raised about this issue so that people can avoid these products before the ban is instituted. I chose this review to comment on because I thought that I had heard something about this subject before and I wanted to gain more knowledge and information about microbeads and their future use. Now that I have read this review, I will make sure to avoid products that contain microbeads and I will try to buy products with the alternatives that Allison mentioned.
I read Ali’s review of the article, “Plastic Microbeads to Be Banned by 2017, UK Government Pledges”, from BBC. I was very impressed by her work and thought she did an exceptional job. In particular i thought her summary was concise, yet very informative for readers who may not know a lot about the topic at hand. I also really admired the way she connected the use of microbeads to her own life as she wrote, “In fact, the face wash that I use contains microbeads. I had no idea that they were so bad for the environment, and I think that it is important that the public is educated about this important issue because many people may be just as unaware about the harmful effects of their actions as I was.” By using a personal example it is easier for the reader to understand the concept and it’s daily effect on their lives. Finally, I thought Ali’s use of numerical data helped to strengthen the factual accuracy or validity of her points.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Ali did a great job, there were still a few things she could have improved upon. For instance, while she did include facts provided by the article she didn't directly quote it. If she had given the actual words from the author the reader would have been able to read their style of writing for themselves and get some more insight into the article. I also felt Ali left some questions unanswered. When she addresses the possible alternatives or solutions to microbeads I found myself wondering what those other options exactly were, however this was never revealed.
I gained a lot of new knowledge from reading Ali’s review. ALthough i have heard of this topic before and knew the current discussion I had never read into so much detail. I was shocked to hear the dramatic effect these beads have, specifically the numbers provided. I also was to surprised to read that it won't be until around 2020 that this product is completely “phased out”