You slather, spray, and paint them on and rub them in. Cosmetics are so much a part of your daily regimen that you probably never think twice about them. If they’re on store shelves, it seems reasonable to figure that they’re safe to use, despite those unpronounceable ingredient lists.
Probable Carcinogens Found in Baby Toiletries
By Lyndsey Layton, Washington Post Staff Writer
March 13, 2009
March 13, 2009
More than half the baby shampoo, lotion and other infant care products analyzed by a health advocacy group were found to contain trace amounts of two chemicals that are believed to cause cancer, the organization said yesterday.
Some of the biggest names on the market, including Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo and Baby Magic lotion, tested positive for 1,4-dioxane or formaldehyde, or both, the nonprofit Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported.
The chemicals, which the Environmental Protection Agency has characterized as probable carcinogens, are not intentionally added to the products and are not listed among ingredients on labels. Instead, they appear to be byproducts of the manufacturing process. Formaldehyde is created when other chemicals in the product break down over time, while 1,4-dioxane is formed when foaming agents are combined with ethylene oxide or similar petrochemicals.
The organization tested 48 baby bath products such as bubble bath and shampoo. Of those, 32 contained trace amounts of 1,4-dioxane and 23 contained small amounts of formaldehyde. Seventeen tested positive for both chemicals.
“Our intention is not to alarm parents, but to inform parents that products that claim to be gentle and pure are contaminated with carcinogens, which is completely unnecessary,” said Stacy Malkan, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which is calling for the government to more strictly regulate personal care products such as shampoo, lotion and makeup.
Companies that manufacture and sell the products tested by the group stressed that they comply with government standards.
“The FDA and other government agencies around the world consider these trace levels safe, and all our products meet or exceed the regulatory requirements in every country where they are sold,” Johnson & Johnson said in a statement. “We are disappointed that the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has inaccurately characterized the safety of our products, misrepresented the overwhelming consensus of scientists and government agencies that review the safety of ingredients, and unnecessarily alarmed parents.”
The European U nion has banned 1,4-dioxane as an ingredient in personal care products, but the Food and Drug Administration has not established a safe limit for the chemical in shampoo, lotion and other toiletries. It maintains that the trace amounts found in those products are not harmful.
A 1982 study by the FDA showed that 1,4-dioxane can penetrate human skin when used in lotion.
Health advocates argue, however, that federal regulators have not considered the cumulative effect of chemicals in personal care products.
“The levels we’ve found are relatively low, and the industry often says there’s just a little bit of carcinogen in my product,” Malkan said. “The problem is, we’re finding a little bit of carcinogen in many products. Many of these products are used every day, so we’ve got repeated and frequent exposure to these low levels of chemicals. They’re not the safest and purest products, and parents ought to know that.”
In addition, government studies have not examined the effect of chemical exposure on the particular vulnerabilities of infants and children, whose bodies are still developing, the advocates said.
Several Democratic lawmakers said the report is evidence that the nation’s chemical regulation system needs to be changed.
“The fact that we are bathing our kids in products contaminated with carcinogens shows how woefully out of date our cosmetics laws are and how urgently they need to be updated,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.). “The science has moved forward; now the FDA needs to catch up and be given the authority to protect the health of Americans.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) called the findings “horrifying” and said she intends to introduce legislation that would require stronger oversight of the cosmetics industry.
The report can be found at http://www.safecosmetics.org/toxictub.
No Perfume Means Healthier Air!
Perfume today is not made from flowers but from toxic chemicals. It’s about as romantic as hazardous waste.
More than 4,000 chemicals are used in fragrances. Of these, 95% are made from petroleum.
No agency regulates the fragrance industry, yet perfume chemicals are as damaging to health as tobacco smoke.
Some toxic chemicals found in fragrances:
Toluene, ethanol, acetone, formaldehyde, limonene, benzene derivatives, methylene chloride, and many others known to cause cancer, birth defects, infertility, nervous system damage, or other injuries. The EPA found chloroform as well in fabric softeners.
As Romantic as Hazardous Waste
Toluene was found in every fragrance sample collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a 1991 report. “Toluene was most abundant in the auto parts store as well as the fragrance section of the department store.” Toluene has been proven to cause cancer and nervous system damage and is designated as hazardous waste.
Read More
July 23, 2008
Subject: Front page story of Seattle PI newspaper
This article isn’t exactly leading edge news, but having it on the front page helps! I refer everyone to the new book, “Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power,” by Mark Shapiro.
The Cliff Notes version is: The European U nion (and Japan, Canada, Korea, and new countries every day) are refusing to import products that contain formulations of products manufactured in the U.S. because of their toxicity, and their REACH legislation (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm ) is demanding reformulations, product testing for toxicity, and warning labels. The U.S. chemical industry is fighting it with thousands of lobbyists, unsuccessfully. And we, as U.S. consumers, must continue using the most toxic variations of these products, with no testing, no warning, and certainly massive ignorance on the part of physicians, 80% to 90% of whom own stock in pharmaceutical companies!
If you haven’t believed me, maybe more articles like this will help you understand why I, like the other “canaries” in our community of chemically injured people, are saying “This mine is not safe. Get out.”
Here are some alternatives:
http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=household
http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=hazards (types of toxicity)
– Marsha Miliman
Subject: Front page story of Seattle PI newspaper
This article isn’t exactly leading edge news, but having it on the front page helps! I refer everyone to the new book, “Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power,” by Mark Shapiro.
The Cliff Notes version is: The European U nion (and Japan, Canada, Korea, and new countries every day) are refusing to import products that contain formulations of products manufactured in the U.S. because of their toxicity, and their REACH legislation (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm ) is demanding reformulations, product testing for toxicity, and warning labels. The U.S. chemical industry is fighting it with thousands of lobbyists, unsuccessfully. And we, as U.S. consumers, must continue using the most toxic variations of these products, with no testing, no warning, and certainly massive ignorance on the part of physicians, 80% to 90% of whom own stock in pharmaceutical companies!
If you haven’t believed me, maybe more articles like this will help you understand why I, like the other “canaries” in our community of chemically injured people, are saying “This mine is not safe. Get out.”
Here are some alternatives:
http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=household
http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=hazards (types of toxicity)
– Marsha Miliman
Chemicals in your cosmetics
2/1/07
By Jeffrey Wolf
By Jeffrey Wolf
KUSA – You slather, spray, and paint them on and rub them in. Cosmetics are so much a part of your daily regimen that you probably never think twice about them. If they’re on store shelves, it seems reasonable to figure that they’re safe to use, despite those unpronounceable ingredient lists.
But at least some of what’s in your cosmetics might not be so good for you. One example is the family of chemicals known as phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates), which may be linked to developmental and reproductive health risks. The industry says phthalates are safe, but some companies have dropped them in response to public concern. Essie, OPI, and Sally Hansen, for example, are removing dibutyl phthalate (DBP), which is used to prevent chipping, from nail polishes. Other big-name brands that have reformulated products to remove some phthalates include Avon, Cover Girl, Est?e Lauder, L’Or?al, Max Factor, Orly, and Revlon.
If you’re trying to cut back on phthalates, however, sticking with these brands may not make much of a difference. You’ll find phthalates in too many other personal-care products, including body lotions, hair sprays, perfumes, and deodorants. The chemicals are used to help fragrances linger and take the stiffness out of hair spray, among other reasons. They’re also in detergents, food packaging, pharmaceuticals, and plastic toys. And they have turned up in our bodies.
Although phthalates show up in so many places, they’re often absent from labels because disclosure is not always required. That’s the case with fragrances. We tested eight fragrances and although none of the products included phthalates in its ingredient list, they all contained the chemicals. Some were made by companies that specifically told us their products were free of phthalates, and two even say as much on their Web sites.
Getting your nails done or spritzing on your favorite perfume obviously isn’t going to kill you. But the health effects of regular long-term exposure, even to small amounts, are still unknown.
Companies that have eliminated phthalates are no doubt getting the message that people are paying more attention to ingredients. But public concern isn’t the only factor driving the reformulations. Another reason is a European ban. Although the U.S. has outlawed just eight cosmetic ingredients, the European U nion has banned more than 1,000. For companies that make cosmetics, complying with E.U. rules makes good business sense. It’s more efficient to sell the same product worldwide. It’s also good PR. About 380 U.S. companies have publicly pledged their allegiance to cosmetic safety by signing the Compact for Global Production of Safe Health & Beauty Products, under which they voluntarily pledged to reformulate globally to meet E.U. standards.
The reformulation trend is likely to gain further momentum from the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005, which took effect only this year. Manufacturers that sell over $1 million a year in personal-care products in the state must report any products containing a chemical that is either a carcinogen or a reproductive or developmental toxic agent. Among those that must be disclosed are the phthalates DBP and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). California plans make this information public, possibly on the Web, so some companies may choose to remove rather than report the ingredients.
Despite the laws, pacts, and reformulations, questions about safety remain. Cosmetic industry critics argue that the Food and Drug Administration has not told companies what “safe” means, leaving them to make their own decisions. In fact, with cosmetics, the government generally takes action only after safety issues crop up.
Take the case of Rio hair relaxers. In December 1994, the FDA warned against two products sold through infomercials after consumers complained about hair loss, scalp irritation, and hair turning green. Rio announced that it would stop sales but there were reports that it continued to take orders. The California Department of Health then stepped in to halt sales and in January 1995, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles filed a seizure action. By then, the FDA had received more than 3,000 complaints. Rio later reformulated and renamed its products.
The Rio case illustrates how holes in the government’s cosmetic regulatory system can hurt consumers. The industry essentially regulates itself. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel, made up of physicians and toxicologists and funded by the industry’s leading trade group–the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA)–assesses ingredient safety. Another industry group reviews fragrances and helps create safety standards. But manufacturers aren’t obligated to do anything with this information.
“We’re working on the honor system when it comes to cosmetics safety,” says Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a research and advocacy group. “In the absence of federal standards, we have a huge range of safety in the products we buy every day.”
The FDA has made efforts to improve its ability to spot problems and issue warnings. The agency now has a computerized database, called CAERS, that collects reports of problems such as allergic reactions. Complaints can be sent via the FDA Web site or by calling a district office. But Amy Newburger, a dermatologist at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City and a former member of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel, says her experiences make her wonder about the system’s effectiveness. In one case, she filed a report by phone and on the CAERS system after she and several of her patients got a rash with blisters after using an anti-aging treatment. It wasn’t until a year later, in November 2006, that the FDA sent an e-mail asking her to complete some forms, she says. The FDA responds that it doesn’t provide information or feedback to people who file complaints. It simply routes them to the appropriate office for evaluation. The FDA says it may also send reports to companies.
Scientists know very little about how repeated exposure to small amounts of phthalates in cosmetics may affect your health, if at all. But some studies suggest that the chemicals are present in our bodies.
In 2005, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that it had found breakdown chemicals from two of the most common cosmetic phthalates in almost every member of a group of 2,782 people it examined. A separate study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) in 2005 showed that men who used the most personal-care products, such as after-shave and cologne, had the highest urinary levels of a breakdown product of diethyl phthalate (DEP).
In rodent studies, phthalates have caused testicular injury, liver injury, and liver cancer. We found no such clear hazards in human research. But we did find studies suggesting that phthalates may be associated with other health issues, including the following four examples from one source alone, EHP, which is a leading journal published by the National Institutes of Health. In 2000, EHP published a small study that said elevated blood levels of phthalates were associated with premature breast development in young girls. Another report in 2003 found that men with higher concentrations of two phthalate breakdown products in their urine were more likely to have a low sperm count or low sperm motility. A study published in 2005 said women with higher levels of four phthalate compounds in their urine during pregnancy were likelier to give birth to boys with smaller scrotums. And a 2006 report cited low testosterone levels in male newborns exposed to higher levels of phthalates in breast milk.
Experts in the industry and the government are aware of such reports but say there is no cause for alarm. The FDA, for instance, concluded after a thorough review of the literature that “it’s not clear what effect, if any, phthalates have on health.” And the CTFA, the industry trade group, notes that government and scientific bodies in the U.S. and Canada have examined phthalates without restricting their use in cosmetics. After the 2005 report linking phthalate exposure to smaller scrotum size, in particular, the trade group said, “The sensational and alarming conclusions being drawn from this single study are completely speculative and scientifically unwarranted.”
Even companies that have dropped phthalates from products say they are safe. “This policy is driven by a wish to allay public concern and does not reflect concern with the safe use of the ingredients,” Avon said after announcing that it would cut DBP from its product line. John Bailey, the CTFA’s executive vice president for science, says ingredients like DBP in nail polish are simply not a hazard in such small amounts.
On the other side are some environmental and public-health advocates who say possible carcinogens and reproductive toxins do not belong in cosmetics, no matter how small the amount. “We take issue with the idea that a little bit of poison doesn’t matter, because safer alternatives are available,” says Stacy Malkan, communications director of Health Care Without Harm. “Companies should be making the safest products possible, instead of trying to convince us that a little bit of toxic chemicals are OK.” While the scientific jury is still out, we at ShopSmart believe it makes sense to reduce your exposure to phthalates, especially if you’re nursing, pregnant, or trying to become pregnant.
