Guinea pig science - did you sign up for this?

Why has it happened again? The Government's latest decision on plastic microbeads demonstrates another massive failure to protect public health, and our economic interests. And it was completely foreseeable. Allowing these sorts of products to go on sale is like Dirty Harry - shoot first, ask questions later.

What's happened? Associate Environment Minister Scott Simpson has announced that the Government will ban the sale and manufacture of wash-off products containing plastic microbeads earlier than previously expected. About 100 personal care products in New Zealand contain the tiny plastic beads. It is estimated about 10,000 tonnes a year of plastic microbeads are used globally, which are usually used for exfoliation or polishing.

Why does it matter? Plastic is a toxic substance. And the agreed research shows that in the ocean, plastic attracts and absorbs other toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Fish and other marine life then eat the plastic. This is bad for marine life, as Scott Simpson, admits when he says, "Microbeads pose a high risk to our aquatic and marine environments. They are too small to retrieve or recycle, do not biodegrade, and are mistaken by marine life for food, causing long-term damage to marine animals."

If you like eating fish, it's what Scott does not say that's more interesting. What happens when those 'marine animals' are eaten by humans? Well, all the toxins ingested by the fish, go into your body. You are what you eat.

We're deceiving ourselves if we don't see that what we put into the ocean, is going into the human food chain. Do you want plastics and other chemicals in your food?

The question that's not being asked here is why products with plastic microbeads were ever allowed to go on sale in the first place?

Basic science tells us that any synthetic chemical that goes down the sink, toilet or other drain; and which is too fine to filter out (think about all those pharmaceuticals, pesticides, herbicides, cleaning products etc) will end up in the water system. And all water ultimately makes its way to the ocean. This is why the clothing industry is under pressure to do something about microfibres from fleece and other plastic-based fabrics.

Economic impacts: The answers may not be easy, but let's at least be clear about the real issues. This is not just about 'marine life', it's about our food and water. The more toxins we allow in there, the more costs that will ultimately be foisted on to the economy - healthcare bills, lost productivity from illness, seafood that people won't want to buy, and potential harm to our national brand image - NZ 100% Pure?

The solution? There are three obvious ways to stop these sorts of chemical experiments before they do harm.

First, there should be clearer regulations about what chemicals and materials are allowed to be sold if they will ultimately be discharged into the environment. The onus might perhaps be better placed on manufacturers to demonstrate, that there will be no cumulative toxic impact from the sale, use and disposal of their products. Perhaps they should even be asked to give a guarantee or take out insurance, so that if their claims prove to be wrong, financial compensation to clean up the mess is their responsibility, rather than the taxpayer's.

Second, manufacturers can take a more responsible and proactive approach to product design. This means making more intelligent and informed decisions about materials, how those materials will degrade with normal product use, and where they will end up at the end of the product's life. Manufacturers can also take more responsibility for the product, and its constituent chemicals, over the entire life-cycle. The costs for this sort of extended producer responsibility should be factored into the business model, and incorporated in the product price, rather than leaving ratepayers and taxpayers to clean up their mess.

Third, people buying products could make more informed choices and avoid products that leave a toxic legacy. This sort of behaviour change would be supported by additional labeling information, so that we can know exactly what's in the products we buy.

The business case? You're probably thinking, that sounds great - but what about the costs? Sure, there might be some cost in the short-term to tighten regulations, re-design products, or improve labeling information. But in reality, these are investments not costs. They will be more than out-weighed by the long-term benefits. Here's why.

Enhance brand: Many companies are already taking a proactive stance by re-thinking the material components and design of their products. Why? Because it's good for their brand, good for their reputation, and reflects retail trends towards more ethical and sustainable purchasing. There are some simple principles and practices that can be woven into the product design process that constructively challenge designers to re-think material choices and product design.

The Body Shop is a case in point. Using a proactive science-based approach, the Body Shop has made a commitment to being the world's most ethical and truly sustainable global business. To achieve that, the Body Shop is using the Future Fit Business Benchmark (FFBB). FFBB offers a robust set of goals and indicators that define a gold standard for sustainability based on the Natural Step framework. And, as an accredited partner, we're using that approach with a growing number of clients.

Manage risk and reduce costs: Having an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is rarely the most cost effective strategy. Allowing toxic chemicals to enter the water system is likely to increase healthcare costs (paid for by the taxpayer), puts the quality of our seafood exports at risk, and undermines NZ's brand as a source of clean, safe and healthy food. It also potentially puts our tourism brand at risk.

Political cost: Like me, you'd probably like to see our politicians spending their time solving the really important issues. Spending taxpayer money and valuable political time fixing problems that were entirely foreseeable, and which could have been prevented before they happened, is a complete waste of time and money. And, in the interim, irreversible harm has been done to our oceans, our food supply and our economic interests. That would be like Emirates Team New Zealand having put a mast on their boat that they knew would break. It's not a smart way to win.

Conclusion: We need to ask better questions about what products are made of, and whether they should even be sold if they contain synthetic chemicals that will ultimately end up in the environment. End of story. The upstream responsibilities lie with the manufacturers and the regulators. And if they fail us, then its up to us to make more informed choices about what we buy.

Perhaps we should do all three?