Despite their skin compatibility, acrylate copolymers are increasingly scrutinized for their environmental persistence:

These polymers are not biodegradable, and many are classified as solid synthetic polymers—thus contributing to microplastic pollution when rinsed off (e.g., face washes, hair gels).
A 2021 study by UNEP flagged acrylates as microplastic analogs that escape wastewater treatment systems, potentially entering marine ecosystems and being ingested by aquatic life.

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and EU Green Deal (2022) have proposed restrictions on intentionally added microplastics, which include solid acrylate copolymers in rinse-off products.
California Microplastics Strategy (2022) calls for limiting microplastic release from cosmetics.

For brands and consumers seeking safer alternatives:

Xanthan gum, hydroxyethylcellulose, and aloe-derived biogums as natural thickeners
Polyglutamic acid or biosaccharide gum for film-forming properties
Biodegradable acrylates (under R&D)

Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Panel. (2012). Safety Assessment of Acrylates Copolymer. https://www.cir-safety.org
UNEP (2021). From Pollution to Solution: A Global Assessment of Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution. https://www.unep.org/resources
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2022). Proposal for Restriction on Microplastics. [https://echa.europa.eu/restrictions-under-consideration]
SCCS (2021). Scientific Advice on Microplastics in Cosmetic Products. [https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/files/2021-04/md_microplastics_cosmetics_en_0.pdf]
California State Water Resources Control Board. (2022). Microplastics Strategy Document. [https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/microplastics/]