Anecdotes about the naive misuse of chemicals in bygone times are always colorful; historians love to recount the etymology of the term “mad hatter” (which became part of the vernacular during a period when milliners used the neurotoxin mercury to clean hats) and scoff a little at the fact that 19th-century cosmetics often contained lead and arsenic.
Others smirk at stories like these and marvel at modern medicine and science. They—we—feel evolved; hygienic and healthy, and indebted to progressive-era reform and the existence of regulatory organizations like the FDA.
But, new scientific developments and regulatory agencies notwithstanding, we still misuse chemicals naively. Recent studies have shown that toxins, from obvious offenders like lead and mercury to petrochemicals whose health impacts are still little understood, can be found in an astonishing number of cosmetics.
Though the public has a growing awareness of large-scale environmental crises and their potential effects on human health, the result of long-term, incidental exposure to the chemical cocktails in the dozen-plus personal care products the average U.S. citizen uses daily are often only dimly realized. However, citizens and environmental health advocacy groups are growing increasingly concerned, and increasingly proactive, as more and more data seems to suggest the need for an industry overhaul.
Stacey Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) and author of the book Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, in an email interview emphasized the need for consumer awareness and action: “Many popular brands of lotion, deodorant, makeup and even baby shampoos contain carcinogens, hormone-disrupting chemicals, and other chemicals that are toxic to the body. Some health effects are obvious, such as broken skin or rashes caused by products. But we [the CSC] are primarily concerned about long-term health effects such as cancer, infertility, learning disabilities and other chronic diseases that have been increasing.
“There is a lot of scientific evidence pointing to chemical exposures as a contributing factor. We are not saying that your shampoo will give you cancer tomorrow; we are saying that shampoos contain carcinogens that are adding to the toxic load—and there is no reason for it because companies already know how to make shampoo without carcinogens.”
Regressive-Era Regulations?
Contrary to commonly held assumptions, the FDA is not the principal agency in charge of reviewing cosmetic ingredients in the U.S. Rather, an industry-funded panel, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, regulates the safety of cosmetics. American standards and regulations are lax compared to those instituted by the E.U.: a mere 10 ingredients are banned from cosmetics in the U.S., compared to over 1,100 known or suspected carcinogens, endocrine-disrupters and mutagens outlawed on the other side of the Atlantic.
The Environmental Working Group has publicly challenged FDA “laissez-faire” regarding cosmetics. In a meeting held in mid-May an EWG spokesperson asserted, “The cosmetics industry enjoys a largely unwatched and unregulated status in the U.S. that raises serious concerns for public health, and closed door meetings between regulators and the industry may well widen these significant gaps…This process is inherently biased, conflicted and unacceptable.”
And it’s not just special interest groups documenting the abuses of the cosmetic industry. In February, 2007 two major newspapers reported on recent studies revealing the presence of two hazardous chemicals in cosmetics. New York Times writer Natasha Singer noted that eight fragrances tested by a consumer group contained DEHP, an endocrine-disrupting chemical banned by the E.U. And an article in the Los Angeles Times noted that traces of 1,4 dioxane, a carcinogenic petrochemical, were found in laboratory tests conducted on eighteen popular bath products for David Steinman, publisher of the magazine Healthy Living. According to the Los Angeles Times article, “… in 1985 the FDA asked the cosmetics industry to voluntarily limit the chemical to 10 ppm. But there are no standards governing it and no testing requirements.” And, of the eighteen products tested, three contained dioxane limits in excess of the recommendation.
Ironically, the name of the product with the highest dioxane concentration—23 ppm, more than twice the recommended level—was Herbal Essences Rainforest Flowers Shampoo. The oxymoronic quality of such a label (what could be purer or more beneficial than extracts from rainforest flowers?) hints at the dubious quality of most cosmetics advertising—and the need for consumer skepticism when shopping for personal care products.
The Dirty Dozen and How to Avoid Them
Developing a cynical resistance to seductive packaging and misleading advertising is only the first step in avoiding especially pernicious cosmetic ingredients, of course. The concerned consumer has to do a little homework. As Stacey Malkan notes in Not Just a Pretty Face, there’s no “easy shopping list” of benign products. However, Malkan and the CSC refer citizens to the extensive Skin Deep database developed by the Environmental Working Group. Skin Deep (cosmeticsdatabase.org) rates the safety—tentatively, due to ever-changing findings about health and chemicals—of thousands of personal care products based on data culled from over 50 reports on chemical toxicity.
When queried about products she herself avoids, Malkan listed “synthetic fragrance, because it is likely to contain phthalates… parabens (hormone disrupters) and synthetic chemicals such as sodium laureth sulfate or PEGS (which are often contaminated [with dioxins]). I choose products with simpler ingredient lists, and I use fewer products than I used to. I gave up hair color. At this point in my journey, I won’t buy products made by any of the major multinational beauty companies—Estee Lauder, Revlon, Procter and Gamble, L’Oreal, Avon. These companies are stuck in the past and working very hard to keep doing business as usual, which means polluting the environment and our bodies with toxic chemicals because it’s easier than changing.”
And in an overview of cosmetic safety called “Talking Points,” the CSC encourages shoppers to check labels for four major offenders: “mercury, often listed as thimerosal, found in some eye drops and mascaras; placenta, found in some hair relaxers; phthalates, often located in synthetic fragrance, nail polishes and hair sprays; and hydroquinine, often found in skin lightening products.”
Longer-Term Solutions
Malkan emphasizes savvy consumption as a way to reshape the market and, in an interview published in Grist magazine in May, cited some early signs of positive change. She noted that several brands reformulated nail polishes fairly rapidly when consumer concern reached fever pitch. In the same interview, Malkan said that nine states were currently considering “legislation to restrict toxic ingredients in personal care products” and claimed that the existence of more extensive regulations in the E.U. will probably hasten cosmetic cleanups in the U.S.
However, Malkan and the CSC also advocate more direct communication between citizens, the industry, and legislators. Letter writing and a little grassroots organization (the CSC suggests a “safe cosmetics” party, equal parts collegiate Amnesty International meeting and slumber-party makeover session) are potentially efficacious and immediate means of political change.
And, while the CSC might advocate wary consumption, its spokespeople also preach empowerment. At the end of our correspondence, Malkan offered a veritable CSC manifesto: “But the real story is, we have the power… to give the beauty industry a makeover.”•
