The trends in health risks are based on a synthesis of findings from clinical studies, toxicological research, and regulatory assessments. These include experimental data on allergic reactions, long-term exposure effects, and endocrine disruption, as well as updates from regulatory bodies on banned or restricted substances.

The trends in ecological risks are derived from environmental monitoring studies, ecotoxicological research, and reports on the persistence and bioaccumulation of cosmetic ingredients in ecosystems. These studies provide insights into how these substances affect aquatic life, microbial communities, and overall ecosystem health.

Cosmetic ingredients, while enhancing appearance and personal hygiene, can pose significant health risks to consumers. These risks range from immediate allergic reactions to long-term health concerns, including hormonal disruptions and chronic illnesses. Understanding these risks is crucial for making informed choices about cosmetic products.

Cosmetic ingredients not only affect human health but also pose significant ecological risks. These substances can accumulate in the environment, disrupting ecosystems and harming wildlife. Understanding these risks is essential for developing sustainable cosmetic products.

Cosmetic compounds are emerging environmental contaminants that are hazardous to human health (Juliano and Magrini, 2017).

People encounter toxic metals through multiple exposure pathways. Many consumers use these products daily and thereby expose themselves to the risk of these toxic metals. Numerous studies have shown that cosmetics components may harm the environment (Juliano and Magrini, 2017; Issac and Kandasubramanian, 2021; Young, 2022) and human health (Okereke et al., 2015; Nduka and Kelle, 2018; Ad and Mn, 2019). It has been documented that the use of cosmetics can cause cancer, mutation, reproductive damage, and endocrine disruption (Amasa et al., 2012). Some chemicals used in personal care products can negatively affect the hormone system, even at low concentrations (Vandenberg et al., 2012; NYS Health Foundation, 2013). Endocrine-disrupting substances like parabens and phthalates may be most dangerous during fetal and early postnatal development when organ and neurological systems are forming (Francisco et al., 2012; Nassan et al., 2017; Bouyssi-Kobar et al., 2019; Adegoke et al., 2021). Endocrine disorders and several types of cancer have been related to exposure to these substances. For instance, endocrine disruptors have been associated with breast cancer since it is known that they alter how women’s bodies use estrogen. Endocrine disruptors have also been linked to immune system damage, which increases susceptibility to health problems (Adegoke et al., 2021). Many cosmetics have also been connected to severe hazards like infections and burns (Biskanaki et al., 2023). Hair loss, blisters, nosebleeds, bleeding gums, and a loss of taste and smell have all been connected to formaldehyde-based on “keratin treatments,” which are used to straighten hair (Scott Fabber, 2020). Plenty of proof exists indicating that personal care items are tainted with heavy metals, as reported by Siti Zulaikha and co-authors in 2015, along with supporting visual data (Siti Zulaikha et al., 2015).

More than 10,000 chemicals can be found in cosmetic products (Kaličanin and Velimirović, 2016). The European Union has stricter rules, and its precautionary approach recognizes that substances linked to cancer and birth abnormalities are not allowed to be added to cosmetics. A total of 1,328 substances known or suspected of causing cancer, genetic mutation, reproductive damage, or birth defects are prohibited from cosmetics under E.U. regulation. Comparatively, the U.S. FDA has only forbidden or limited the use of 11 substances in cosmetics. European Union legislation, in contrast to American law, mandates pre-market safety evaluations of cosmetics, mandatory registration of cosmetic products, government approval for the use of nanomaterials, and outlaws the use of animals in cosmetic testing (European Union, 2009; FDA, 2022; Onel et al., 2019; Gautam et al., 2022).

Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, mercury, aluminum, zinc, chromium, and iron are found in various personal care products like lipstick, whitening toothpaste, eyeliner, and nail polish (Siti Zulaikha et al., 2015). While some metals are added deliberately as ingredients, others appear as contaminants. These metals pose significant risks to human health and the environment.

Lead: Lead exposure from cosmetics has been linked to various health issues, including developmental delays in children, reproductive problems (Environmental, 2019), and neurological damage. Chronic exposure to lead can lead to kidney damage, hypertension, and impaired cognitive function.

Mercury: Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can accumulate in the body over time, leading to neurological disorders, kidney damage, and skin rashes. Prolonged mercury exposure can also impair cognitive function and affect fetal development in pregnant women (EPA, 2001).

Cadmium: Cadmium exposure from cosmetics has been associated with lung damage, kidney dysfunction, and bone disorders. Long-term exposure to cadmium may increase the risk of cancer and disrupt hormonal balance in the body (Ramelli et al., 2012; Genchi et al., 2020; Charkiewicz et al., 2023).

Arsenic: Arsenic is a carcinogen that can cause skin lesions, respiratory issues, and cardiovascular problems. Chronic exposure to arsenic has been linked to various types of cancer, including skin, lung, bladder, and liver cancer (Palma-Lara et al., 2020; Speer et al., 2023).

The presence of these toxic metals in synthetic cosmetics highlights the importance of rigorous testing and regulation to ensure product safety and protect consumer health. Consumers should be aware of the potential risks associated with certain ingredients and prioritize products that are certified to meet safety standards (Canada, 2007).

Impurities such as heavy metals are frequently found in cosmetic and personal care products. This explains why the concentration of heavy metals found in the products was so low. Their presence in cosmetics does not necessitate their labeling as product contaminants. Even if the harmful metals were only present in trace amounts, they are known to accumulate and cause poisoning. If permitted to build up over time, the gradual release of these metals into the human body could be detrimental to the biological system. Because of these metals’ lengthy half-lives, they may build up in the body’s organs. The uncertainty factor is applied to risk characterization in the last stage of the safety assessment of cosmetic compounds. The MoS is the name given to this uncertainty factor.

The World Health Organization (WHO) generally considers a margin MoS value of 100 as a benchmark for determining the safe use of a substance (Siti Zulaikha et al., 2015).

Health risks associated with heavy metals are assessed by estimating risk levels and categorizing them as either carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic hazards. So, the hazard index (HI), Systemic Exposure Dosage (SED), and MoS were used to estimate the non-cancer health risks of different harmful substances found in various types of cosmetics.

To assess non-carcinogenic risk, especially from exposure to chemicals, two primary metrics are used: the Hazard Quotient (HQ) and HI. These are commonly applied in human health risk assessments (Nduka et al., 2016; Eticha et al., 2018b; Arshad et al., 2020). The HQ value < 1 is considered to be safe while that greater than 1 is unsafe for human health. The HQ level was calculated using Equation 1.

Hazard Quotient H Q : is used to estimate the risk of non-carcinogenic effects from a single substance. H Q = S E D R f D (1) The SED value was calculated by an expression: S E D m g k g d = C s × A A × S S A × F × R F × B F B W × 10 − 3 (2) where, Reference Dose (RfD): is the maximum acceptable oral dose of toxic substance, established by a regulatory agency like EPA. It represents a daily exposure level that is assumed to be without significant risk of adverse effects on life. SED is the systematic exposure dose, Cs indicates metal concentration in the sample (mg/kg), SSA is the surface area of skin onto which the product is applied (cm²), AA shows the quantity applied (g/cm²), RF is the retention factor, F indicates the application frequency of a product/day, BF is the bioaccessibility factor, 10⁻³ (mg/kg) is used as unit conversion factor, BW is the average body weight (70 kg) (Eticha et al., 2018b; Arshad et al., 2020).

HI: is used to estimate the risk of non-carcinogenic effects from exposure to multiple chemical substances (Equation 3) (Eticha et al., 2018b; Arshad et al., 2020). It is the sum of the Hazard Quotient for all chemicals considered. HI = ∑ H Q i (3) HQi: The Hazard Quotient for each chemical.

The HI value in sample hydroalcoholic gel samples tested in the study is less than 1. The HI levels were much less than 1, meaning that the samples were safe for human health (Arshad et al., 2020). The study conducted on Health Risk Assessment of some Cosmetic Products sold in Keffi Markets, Nasarawa State Nigeria revealed that HI, pressed powder, dental powder, eye shadow, and eyeliner, 9.61 × 0³, 6.0 × 10⁴, 7.2 × 10⁶, and 1.0 × 10⁹ respectively. Results are in agreement with those reported by Health Canada (2016). HI levels for the lotion and sunblock were greater than 1 at both 50% and 100% bio-accessibility, which demonstrated that excessive use of these products may cause health risks to consumers. In the case of hair dye, foundation, whitening cream, and lipstick, HI values reported by Abed Elaziz et al. (2016) were also less than 1 for different facial cosmetics.

The carcinogenic analysis is realized by the evaluation of the probable cancer risks due to exposure to heavy metals. The ILCR is the incremental probability of a person developing any type of cancer over a lifetime as a result of 24 h per day exposure to a given daily amount of a carcinogenic element for 70 years. The permissible limits of ILCR for one or more heavy metals are 10⁻⁶ < ILCR <10⁻⁴ and computed as reported previously (Equation 4) (Arshad et al., 2020). LCR = S E D × S F (4) where SF represents the carcinogenicity slope factor (mg/kg/d)/-1 and it approximates the cancer risk per unit intake dose of an agent to cause cancer over an average lifetime.

The study conducted (Gnonsoro et al., 2022) on Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals (Pb, Cd, Hg) in Hydroalcoholic Gels of Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire depicted that the mean values of ILCR for lead and cadmium are 2.59 × 10⁻⁸ ± 1.15 × 10⁻⁸ and 4.78 × 10⁻⁹ ± 1.56 × 10⁻⁹ respectively. For a single heavy metal, an ILCR below 1 × 10⁻⁶ poses an insignificant cancer risk and can be disregarded, whereas an ILCR exciding 1 × 10⁻⁴ signals a significant health concern due to the heightened risk of cancer. Therefore, the hydroalcoholic gel samples tested in the study did not pose a carcinogenic risk through dermal sensitivity for lead and cadmium.

In the context of cosmetic products, assessing carcinogenic risk involves analyzing exposure through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact.

Ingestion of cosmetic products generally occurs through incidental ingestion of lip products or accidental ingestion by children. This pathway necessitates careful calculation of doses based on product usage and the concentration of harmful substances, coupled with regulatory measures to limit such substances in lip and oral care products (FDA, 2022; Salles et al., 2023).

Inhalation exposure is significant for aerosolized products like sprays, powders, and perfumes. Here, risk factors include the concentration of airborne particles, the frequency of use, and environmental ventilation. Proper risk assessment involves estimating inhalation rates and using inhalation-specific toxicological data, with mitigation strategies such as regulating volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and promoting safe usage practices (Oh and Kim, 2020; SCCS, 2023).

Dermal contact is the primary exposure pathway for most cosmetics, which are applied directly to the skin. This involves considering skin permeability, product formulation, and application frequency. The risk is assessed by evaluating the product’s concentration, the surface area exposed, and absorption rates, with regulatory measures ensuring the exclusion of known carcinogens and comprehensive safety testing of ingredients (Chedik et al., 2024).

Integrating these pathways into a comprehensive risk assessment allows for a complete understanding of carcinogenic risks associated with cosmetics, ensuring products meet safety standards and maintain consumer safety and confidence (Canavez et al., 2021; Canada, 2007).

Maximum Allowed Limit: Regulatory limits for hazardous metals in various cosmetic products as specified by different health agencies.

Lead (Pb) and Cadmium (Cd) are common hazardous metals found in synthetic cosmetics. Table 1 provides examples of these metals in various cosmetic products and their associated carcinogenic risk assessments.

Including specific examples of carcinogenic risk assessments for hazardous metals in synthetic cosmetics enhances the study’s relevance. It provides a clear, detailed understanding of the potential carcinogenic risks and regulatory standards, helping to inform both consumers and regulatory bodies about the safety of cosmetic products.

Table 2 also suggests that certain cosmetics, especially eyeshadow, and lipstick, have relatively high HI values for certain metals, indicating a potential risk of adverse health effects from exposure to these metals through cosmetics. This suggests the need for further assessment and possibly regulation to ensure consumer safety.

The SED predicts the number of chemicals that enter the human body by various exposure means and is computed as Equation 2 (Arshad et al., 2020).

According to the study conducted by Eticha et al. (2018a), on the determination of levels and exposure risks of metals in lipsticks, the result revealed that the calculated SED (μg/kg bw/day) and MoS of heavy metals from the lipstick products. The SED of cadmium and zinc from the samples ranged from 7.98 × 10⁻⁸ to 1.61 × 10⁻⁶, and 4.02 × 10^–5 to 8.04 × 10⁻⁵ μg/kg bw/day for 50% and 100% bioaccessibility scenarios (Eticha et al., 2018a).

The study done in Nigeria on Concentrations and exposure risks of some metals in facial cosmetics indicates the SED of cadmium, lead, and chromium in lipstick samples in the range of 1.96 × 10⁻⁵ to 3.92 × 10⁻⁵, 6.61 × 10^–5 to 1.13 × 10^–4, and 5.43 × 10^–5 to 1.09 × 10^–4 μg/kg bw/day respectively at both 50% and 100% bioaccessibility (Iwegbue et al., 2016).

At 50% and 100% bioaccessibility, the MoS for cadmium and zinc chromium in lipsticks are 5.10 × 10⁶ to 2.55 × 10⁶, 3.72 × 10⁸ to 1.86 × 10⁸, and 5.53 × 10⁶ to 2.76 × 10⁶, respectively (Iwegbue et al., 2016). The MoS for zinc and cadmium in lipsticks at 50% and 100% bioaccessibility, respectively, is 2.49 × 10⁶ to 1.24 × 10⁶ and 1.25 × 10⁹ to 6.27 × 10⁸, according to (Eticha et al., 2018a). Nonetheless, the World Health Organization (WHO) states that a product’s MoS value is safe to use if it is greater than 100 and that a value up to 100 is acceptable (Iwegbue et al., 2016; Eticha et al., 2018a; Arshad et al., 2020).

Another study suggests that in the samples of hair dye, foundation, whitening cream, and lipstick MoS was greater than 100, which revealed that the evaluated samples were safe for use. However, in lotions and sun-blocks- blocks the MoS values for Cd, Cr, and Pb were below 100, which indicated that these products are not safe for use, particularly concerning Heavy metal contamination. In different cosmetic products analyzed (Usman et al., 2021) levels of MoS were found to be higher than 100 while MoS for lipsticks was almost similar to the previous study as reported by Arshad et al. (2020) (Equation 5). M O S = N O A E L S E D (5)

Nevertheless, if the amount of metal in the samples is above the WHO’s recommended threshold of 100, which indicates that a material is acceptable for use, continued use of the products may cause these metals to accumulate to dangerously high levels in the human body. It is advised that regular monitoring systems and the establishment of maximum allowable levels for heavy metals in cosmetic products be put in place to mitigate any potential dangers to human health linked with the use of cosmetics.

The analysis suggests that while these harmful substances are present in cosmetics, the risks associated with their non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic exposure are relatively low when used as directed. However, it's essential to consider cumulative exposure from multiple sources and potential synergistic effects when evaluating overall risk. Additionally, continuous monitoring and regulatory oversight are crucial to ensuring the safety of cosmetic products.

The values in Table 2 depend on various factors such as cosmetics brand (Arshad et al., 2020), frequency of use, exposure pathways, and individual factors such as age and health status.

Cosmetic ingredients can enter the environment through various pathways, including but not limited to, direct discharge (Paulsen, 2015; Tsiouli and Fytianos, 2023) from manufacturing facilities (Juliano and Magrini, 2017) into water bodies, runoff (Oluwole et al., 2020). from urban areas during rainfall events., leaching from landfills (Ejeromedoghene et al., 2021; Tsiouli and Fytianos, 2023) where cosmetic products are disposed of Yadav. (2023), and via personal use and disposal practices such as washing off products in sinks and showers (Tsiouli and Fytianos, 2023). Additionally, microplastics and other solid particles from cosmetic formulations can accumulate in soil and water bodies through wastewater treatment effluent or direct release, further contributing to environmental contamination (Juliano and Magrini, 2017; Pereira and Pereira, 2018; David and Niculescu, 2021; Young, 2022).

The most significant pathway for cosmetic ingredients to enter the environment is through wastewater discharge (Khalid and Abdollahi, 2021). This is particularly concerning because wastewater treatment plants may not effectively remove all cosmetic ingredients, leading to their release into aquatic environments (Juliano and Magrini, 2017). Once in aquatic systems, these compounds can persist, bioaccumulate, and biomagnify through the food chain (Li et al., 2023). They can also transform more harmful substances through processes like photolysis and oxidation. Ultimately, many of these compounds end up in water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and oceans, where they can have adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems and potentially enter the human food chain through seafood consumption (Ghosh et al., 2023; Osman et al., 2023).

They discharge into the atmosphere, water, and soil throughout the production process, posing major environmental dangers. According to a US Government Accountability Office review, nanoparticles with antibacterial capabilities that are never provided in large enough numbers may interfere with the beneficial activity of microorganisms in water treatment facilities and render the suggested water for reuse ineffective. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles used for disinfection and to break down contaminants may also be able to drive other organic transformations and have an impact on atmospheric photochemical processes. Similarly, a study done by the University of Toledo discovered that nano-TiO₂, a substance that is thought to be near home, lowered the organic processes of microorganisms after an hour of exposure. As a result, it has been proposed that these particles, which wind up at civic sewage treatment plants, might damage creatures that are essential to maintaining the ecosystem (Gupta et al., 2022).

The effluents from wastewater treatment plants and sewage sludge, which are frequently used as a fertilizer, are probably the most significant sources of pollution. Ultraviolet filters (UVFs), often used in the production of cosmetics, can directly enter water bodies when washed off the skin during recreational activities such as swimming, or bathing, as well as indirectly through wastewater from the use of personal care products, washing clothes, and industrial discharges (Juliano and Magrini, 2017).

Ultraviolet filters (UVFs) are chemicals used in sunscreens and other cosmetics to protect the skin from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Common UV filters include oxybenzone, octinoxate, and avobenzone.

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) of UV filters, such as oxybenzone, octinoxate, and avobenzone, is a critical area of study due to their widespread use in sunscreens and personal care products. These chemicals are designed to absorb or reflect UV radiation, protecting human skin from harmful effects. However, their release into the environment through activities such as swimming, bathing, and wastewater discharge raises significant ecological concerns.

Ultraviolet filters can be highly toxic to various aquatic organisms. For example, oxybenzone has been shown to cause coral bleaching by promoting viral infections in coral cells, disrupting their symbiotic relationship with algae. This can lead to the loss of coral reefs, which are crucial for marine biodiversity (Wood, 2018; Miller et al., 2021; Mozas-Blanco et al., 2023). Similarly, octinoxate has been found to cause developmental issues in fish and invertebrates, impacting reproduction and population dynamics (Schlumpf et al., 2008).

Many UV filters are lipophilic, meaning they can accumulate in the fatty tissues of aquatic organisms. This bioaccumulation can lead to biomagnification up the food chain, posing risks to predators, including birds and mammals that consume contaminated fish and invertebrates. Persistent UV filters can remain in the environment for extended periods, further exacerbating their ecological impact (Peng et al., 2017).

Several UV filters have been identified as endocrine disruptors (Table 3). They can interfere with the hormonal systems of aquatic organisms, leading to altered reproductive behaviors, growth patterns, and developmental processes. For instance, studies have shown that UV filters like 4-MBC (4-methylbenzylidene camphor) can affect the endocrine system of fish, leading to decreased fertility and altered sex ratios (Wang et al., 2016; He et al., 2021).

Parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics to inhibit microbial growth, include methylparaben, ethylparaben, and butylparaben. These substances can enter aquatic systems via wastewater, where they pose toxic risks to various forms of aquatic life such as algae, crustaceans, and fish. The endocrine systems of these organisms can be disrupted by parabens, causing reproductive and developmental issues (Mozas-Blanco et al., 2023). Despite being biodegradable, the pervasive use and continual release of parabens result in their accumulation in the environment, creating long-term ecological risks (Mozas-Blanco et al., 2023).

Triclosan, an antimicrobial agent found in numerous personal care products like soaps, toothpaste, and deodorants, poses environmental risks (Table 3). It can persist in aquatic environments, where its presence is toxic, leading to significant water contamination issues (Al et al., 2016).

Synthetic cosmetics pose several risks to flora, which refers to the plant life within a particular ecosystem (Elisha and Terry, 2021; Faccio, 2020). These risks primarily stem from the production, usage (Nduka and Kelle, 2018), and disposal of synthetic cosmetics, as well as the ingredients contained within them (Juliano and Magrini, 2017; Lafforgue and Lafforgue, 2021).

Chemical Pollution: Synthetic cosmetics often contain various chemicals, such as parabens, phthalates, sulfates, and synthetic fragrances (Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2023). When these products are washed off during bathing or disposed of improperly, these chemicals can find their way into water bodies through sewage systems (Juliano and Magrini, 2017). Once in the water, they can negatively impact aquatic flora by disrupting their growth, reproduction, and overall health (Gonsioroski et al., 2020; Issac and Kandasubramanian, 2021).

Soil Contamination: Improper disposal of synthetic cosmetics, such as dumping unused products or washing them off directly onto soil, can lead to soil contamination (Bowen, 1975). Chemicals from these cosmetics can leach into the soil, affecting the microbial communities essential for nutrient cycling and plant growth (Yadav, 2023). Contaminated soil may also hinder the germination of seeds and the growth of plant roots (Paulsen, 2015; Yu et al., 2022).

Habitat Destruction: The production of synthetic cosmetics often involves the extraction of natural resources, such as minerals and petroleum (Martins and Marto, 2023). This extraction process can lead to habitat destruction, particularly in biodiverse areas rich in flora. Deforestation, soil erosion, and habitat fragmentation are some of the consequences that can directly harm plant species and disrupt ecosystems (European Business and Biodiversity Campaign, 2010).

Invasive Species Introduction: Some synthetic cosmetic ingredients, especially microplastics and non-biodegradable substances, can inadvertently introduce invasive species into natural habitats (Lauren, 2019; Osman et al., 2023; Ziani et al., 2023). For example, microbeads used in exfoliating scrubs can enter water bodies and act as vectors for the spread of invasive plant species, disrupting native flora and outcompeting indigenous plants.

Air Pollution: The production and transportation of synthetic cosmetics contribute to air pollution through the release of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Air pollution can negatively impact plant health by interfering with photosynthesis, damaging leaf surfaces, and altering soil pH levels through acid rain deposition, ultimately affecting the composition and distribution of flora within ecosystems (Florentina and Io, 2011; Acwin Dwijendra et al., 2023).

Different parts of the plant (Table 4) can provide ingredients for cosmetic and personal care products (Faccio, 2020).

It has been documented that components taken from plant parts such as bark, flowers, fruit, leaves, nuts, petals, pollen, seeds, roots, sprouts, stems, and other types of plant parts are used to create cosmetic products (Gupta and Prakash, 2013). This may result in plant species disappearing from the environment. As a result, plant biodiversity declines. This contributes to additional global warming through deforestation, which once more has a detrimental impact on human welfare (Sagbo, 2021; Nadeeshani Dilhara Gamage et al., 2022).

The loss of different plant parts used as ingredients in cosmetic formulations can have significant ecological and physiological consequences for the plant species involved, potentially affecting their growth, reproduction, and survival in their natural habitats.

Without appropriate action, the loss of biodiversity will keep accelerating, with unexpected impacts on the economy and society (Spangenberg et al., 2012). The following elements are the main causes of biodiversity loss on a global scale: habitat degradation and ecological devastation, excessive use of natural resources (Spangenberg et al., 2012; David Elisha, 2021; Hatipoglu, 2023).

Most often, factory farms serve as the primary locations where pigs are slaughtered for their meat, and where portions of their bodies are processed to produce the cosmetic ingredient “glycerine” (Abattoir, 2015; National Pork Board, 2009). For instance, factory farms seriously harm the ecology (Anomaly, 2015). Due to the high concentration of phosphorus and nitrogen in factory-farmed pigs’ feces, when it contaminates areas outside the farm, it may cause a great deal of harm (Chemiczne and Wody, 2012; Fiut and Urbaniak, 2016).

Water gets excessively enriched in minerals and nutrients due to eutrophication, which is caused by run-off pollution from waste pits at factory farms. As a result, there is an excessive development of algae, which frequently causes the water’s oxygen levels to drop. Fish and other aquatic plant and animal life are subsequently killed as a result. ‘Dead zones’ are places where this happens (Yang et al., 2008).

In addition to being exploited and slaughtered for their meat, skin, and milk, cattle are also used to produce tallow and other cosmetic elements from their carcasses. Because so many cattle are produced for these purposes and because cattle emit such large amounts of greenhouse gases, these businesses are always bad for the environment (Durrans, 2013).

Every year, many millions of fish are murdered for food, oils, and substances like guanine. The effects on the ecology and, naturally, the fish, who suffer and perish, are very harmful (Kibria, 2024).

Oceans encompass 70% of the planet (Wang, 2021). The entire ocean ecology may collapse if we do end up with fishless or almost fishless oceans in the future, as is anticipated (Durrans, 2013). Species that depend on fish for sustenance would become extinct if humans wiped them off. Algae, kelp, plankton, krill, and worms would all suffer greatly without the symbiosis that all these species form in nature. The effects on the environment are mind-boggling (Bert, 2016).