Apr 30, 2008
Here's the most stunning fact for me about the chemicals used in cosmetics: traces of lead have been found in lipstick.
That's huge, because we put lipstick in our mouths, intentionally or not, and because small amounts of lead can be very toxic (especially to small children). There's even more lead in lipstick than the maximum permitted in toys. Once again, this is a case of cosmetics companies saying we don't get enough of it to hurt us -- but how do they know? I've been wearing lipstick for decades, and I would have liked to know lead was in it and chosen to forego.
It must be something about things that are brightly-colored, because nail polish has toxic chemicals that have already been banned in the EU. They are called phthlates, and they are endocrine disrupters and reproductive toxins. Phthalates are hidden in hair sprays, too, under the term "fragrance " in ingredient labels, according to the Huffington Post article.
Here at RealSelf.com, we are fans of Butter London nail polish, which does not have any of those.
In eye products, we run the risk of mercury. We all know it's in the tuna, but I didn't expect to find it in cosmetics, where it may still be used as a germ killer and preservative. Even a small amount of mercury can have neurotoxic effects (make you crazy), so I'd like to see it gone.
More subtle, but no less dangerous,are petroleum-derived carcinogens that are by-products of manufacturing processes, including the one by which sodium lauryl sulfate becomes sodium laureth sulfate-a common ingredient in shampoos, body washes and, most disturbingly, baby-bath products.
Again, from Huffpo, "a study released in February 2007 showed 1,4-Dioxane contamination in kids' bath products, as well as some adult products. 1,4-Dioxane is a known animal carcinogen and probable human carcinogen, as well as a skin and lung irritant. It is strongly suspected to be toxic to the kidneys and nervous system. And since it is not an intentional ingredient, it is not listed on product labels. While manufacturers know how to strip 1,4-Dioxane out of grooming products, few do."
The failure to strip 1,4-Dioxane from grooming products is frightening to me. It tells me some cosmetics manufacturers are pretty callous. While we are all willing to make some sacrifices for beauty, we should at least be aware if we are sacrificing future health.
posted by francine
Return to Beauty Cred
4/30/08
You've got to stop getting your scientific information from the Huffington Post. They seem to start and stop their research at the PR department of fear mongering groups like the Environmental Working Group and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. These groups manipulate science to scare people, not to make them safer.
We wrote about Lead in lipstick previously debunking most claims. And the problem was just dismissed by the California Attorney General because the quantities of lead in lipstick are well below the Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL) for lead laid down by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. You've got to understand that California has some of the most reactive regulatory agencies in the world. If there was even a hint of a problem they would make manufacturers stop. (http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/news/ng.asp?id=83794-proposition-lead-lipstick)
As far as phtalates go, despite the ban by the EU it is not supported by years of science. According to the CTFA "Government data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that human exposure levels to phthalates are far below minimum safety levels set by regulatory agencies.
The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Health Canada, and other scientific bodies have examined phthalates used in cosmetics and have not restricted that use.."
So, who should you believe, the scientists who collect data or governmental agencies that are run by lawyers & who make political decisions not based on science?
You also don't run the risk of mercury in eye products. Mercury was actually banned in the US in 1974. And legitimate cosmetic companies no longer use the preservative that had mercury. (http://thebeautybrains.com/2008/01/24/no-more-mercury-in-mascara-in-minnesota/)
Your information about petroleum derived chemicals is also suspect. Cosmetic grade petroleum derivatives are some of the most highly regulated ingredients in the industry. Even the EU allows them because the ingredients are purified to remove all traces of any carcinogenic materials. There is no evidence that they pose a problem in cosmetics.
Finally, the levels of 1,4 Dioxane found in cosmetics are also below FDA limits and have never been shown to be harmful. Despite what is claimed in the article, cosmetic manufacturers do reduce the level of this byproduct as low as they can.
Articles like these are particularly bothersome to me because they distort science, sensationalize mundane results, and propagate ignorance and a fear of chemicals throughout society. Being a cosmetic formulator, I interact with these chemicals all the time. I've looked at the safety data and am confident that at the level of exposure does not represent a significant risk.
If you are really afraid of chemical exposure, don't use any cosmetic. They are not critical for good health (except maybe soap). But they do improve our quality of life and they have for thousands of years.
No cosmetic manufacturer wants to be known as the company that is poisoning people, so they are very reactive to all bad publicity. A few years ago companies removed a surfactants called DEAs out because of a single rat study showing some potential health issues with the compound. Follow-up studies were not able to reproduce the original one, but manufacturers were so scared by it the entire industry jumped to remove the compounds. They would remove these compounds too if it were easy enough. It's not.
Lead is in our environment. You can find it everywhere if you look hard enough. But science has proven that there are safe levels of even toxic ingredients. The ingredients used for chemotherapy actually kill human cells. (Fortunately, they kill cancer cells faster.)
There are many things to worry about in this world. The safety of your cosmetics is not one of them. If you want to be healthy, eat vegetables, lose weight, and stop smoking. After that, there's not much else you can do.
4/30/08
Thanks, Beauty Brains! I'm an avid reader of your blog and I am so happy you participated in the conversation. I know you are a cosmetics formulator and a chemist. Me, I'm a writer. What we do at RealSelf.com is try to start the conversation, rather than control it, so at least we make people aware that there is some controversy. Then our readers, people like you, can help make the information better.
For example, my own daughter is pregnant, and she has been told by the fertilization specialist who treats her not to color her hair or nails during the pregnancy. This is not information from the Huffington Post, so if this is misinformation, how is it getting into the medical community in this fashion?
Again, thanks for taking the time :-)
5/7/08
Colors of lipsticks on the market remain essentially the same, but the names, such as “strawberry rose,” are frequently changed to induce customers to buy. A typical lipstick formula contains castor oil, about 65 percent; beeswax, 15 percent; carnauba wax, 10 percent; lanolin, 5 percent; certified dyes, soluble; color lakes, insoluble; and perfume. Frosted lipstick includes a pearling ingredient that adds luster to the color. Such an ingredient may be a bismuth compound or guanine.. The main difficulty with lipsticks results from allergy to the dyes or to specific ingredients.
5/8/08
Editor's note: Thank you to Ruth Winter for her response! For BeautyCred readers, Ruth is a Consumer Advocate who has written A Dictionary of Medicines, A Consumner's Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients, A Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives, and many others. If you'd like to learn a bit more, Ruth also has a professional profile on RealSelf.com, at this link: http://www.realself.com/pro/ruth-winter.