Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Is Your Lipstick Safe?

By Anuja Mendiratta, Ms. Magazine. Posted December 11, 2006.


Personal care and hygiene products from toothpaste to eyeshadow contain thousands of largely unregulated chemicals that could pose serious damage to your health.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Anuja Mendiratta

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

That lipstick or nail polish you may be wearing -- are they a danger to your health? How about your deodorant, toothpaste, body lotion, soap?

Seemingly innocuous personal-care products contain a host of largely unregulated chemicals and toxic ingredients. Some of those chemicals -- phthalates, formaldehyde, petroleum, parabens, benzene and lead -- have been variously linked to breast cancer, endometriosis, reproductive disorders, birth defects and developmental disabilities in children.

Women and girls should be particularly concerned, as our bodies are uniquely susceptible to certain environmental chemicals. Women have a greater percentage of fat in comparison to men, so fat-soluble chemicals such as parabens and toluene tend to be more readily absorbed and fatty breast tissue can be a long-term storage site for some of the more persistent toxic chemicals. Hormones also play a role: Synthetic chemicals such as alkylphenols (found in some detergents) and bisphenol A (found in hard plastics) can mimic natural estrogens in the body -- and excess estrogen can play a role in the development of breast cancer. Childbearing women may also pass toxins to fetuses in utero or to newborns when breastfeeding.

But U.S. consumers are left in the dark about vital safety information: Cosmetic companies are not required to label many of their products' ingredients, and the Food and Drug Administration does not mandate premarket safety testing of those ingredients.

And that's why the California Safe Cosmetics Act is such a landmark achievement.

Signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last October and taking effect in 2007, it requires manufacturers to disclose product ingredients found on state or federal lists of chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects. The law further authorizes the state to investigate the health impacts of chemicals in cosmetics, and requires manufacturers to supply health-related information about their ingredients. Finally, the act enables the state to regulate products in order to assure the safety of salon workers.

California is the first state in the nation to pass such legislation, thus serving as a model for the other 49. "This is an important disclosure bill, and an important victory for women's health," says Jeanne Rizzo of the Breast Cancer Fund. "California has set the stage for states to assert regulatory authority around toxic chemicals in cosmetics, which the federal government has thus far refused to lead on."

Adds California state Sen. Carole Migden, who championed the legislation, "It is beyond belief that consumers are not being told whether or not they are putting carcinogens on their skin, in their hair or on their face. [The law] represents a triumph of grassroots efforts over money and power. Even in the face of a multinationally funded lobbying machine, common sense and the public good prevailed."

While many known toxic components have been banned in Europe from use in personal care products, similar ingredients remain legal in products marketed to the American public. Currently, the FDA does not review the ingredients in cosmetic and beauty-care products, but instead relies on self-regulation by the cosmetic industry's own Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) panel. According to the watchdog Environmental Working Group, only 11 percent of the 10,500-plus ingredients that the FDA has documented in personal-care products have been assessed for safety by the CIR panel.

In response to the lack of government oversight, an international Campaign for Safe Cosmetics was initiated in 2002 to pressure the personal-care industry to phase out known toxic ingredients and replace them with safer alternatives. Manufacturers have been encouraged to sign the "Compact for Safe Cosmetics," and to date more than 300 have done so, including The Body Shop, Burt's Bees and Aubrey Organics.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: cosmetics, safety, toxins, chemicals, health

Anuja Mendiratta is a senior program officer with the Women's Foundation of California and on the steering committee of the California Health Nail Salons Collaborative; she is also a freelance writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
callous
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 11, 2006 1:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole Food and Drug Administration should be impeached for callous disregard of human health. To them, women are fair game for toxic trouble. Kudos to California for setting an excellent example for the feds to emulate if we ever get a federal government that cares for human health.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: callous Posted by: mkeeling@jam.rr.com
links not working
Posted by: alternetrose on Dec 11, 2006 3:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The links listed in your last paragraph are not working.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: links not working Posted by: redjenny
Not just cosmetics.
Posted by: heid on Dec 11, 2006 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It isn't just cosmetics that require outside policing. The FDA has become little more than an arm of the pharmaceutical and medical appliance corporate world. It MUST be overhauled and set up so that any money, in any form and for any reason, that reaches anyone involved in oversight will end that person's career in oversight and prevent that person's ability to ever take a single penny for any reason from that industry.

The medical world itself requires such ouside policing. Anyone who thinks that doctors self-police is living in an imaginary world. The harm done by this huge business surely must far outweigh the good done by it.

We need oversight for every type of business, and the oversight must be moneytight; no money, in any form, can be allowed to get into the hands of the overseers from the overseen, and the punishment for it happening should be severe, both for the overseer and the overseen.

Corporate control must be stopped.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't get paranoid over 9/11! Get paranoid over lipstick instead!
Posted by: BazookaTooth on Dec 11, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just find the juxtaposition of today's articles striking.

As much lipstick as my wife and I have ingested kissing each other, the fact that we're still here should bear witness about lipstick being okay.

Companies may need some nudges--even kicks in the ass--to practice safety, especially as far as their workers are concerned. But even the greediest CEO understands that killing consumers is bad for business.

Thank you for reminding me that I need to reapply.

*big lipsticky kiss*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cosmetics - Chemicals and Dead Cows
Posted by: Aimee on Dec 11, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cosmetics include shampoos, men's and women's makeup ... there are are so many dangerous chemicals as well as animal waste. I stopped buying all cosmetics except those by KISS which do not contain animal products.

I have put together a site:
Animal Parts in your Food and Cosmetics :
http://www.dataoptions.com/Vegetarian/animaluses.htm which lists many links about this issue.

Cheers,
Aimee

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we are all corporate "guinea pigs"...
Posted by: badkitty68 on Dec 11, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks Aimee, for the site you mentioned. I hope the FDA doesn't react by stepping up more useless animal testing of ingredients. I would like to see every product labeled with info on if the finished product or component ingredients were tested on animals.
Animal-based testing is such a fraud - the results can never be accurately extrapolated to humans, and therefore provides misleading results and a false sense of security. Not to mention it is cruel, inhumane, and unethical - ie, WRONG!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boycott
Posted by: BlueTigress on Dec 11, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ladies (and makeup wearing men), throw out all your cosmetics and only purchase and wear the ones that are safe.

After a while, the big names will get the idea and retool their formulas.

Hit them in their bottom line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternatives are available
Posted by: wireup on Dec 11, 2006 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For most of the 1980s I owned a natural food store. I did this because it was my lifestyle - I worked as I lived. No food in my store had chemicals, sugar, caffeine, or anything harmful except for 1 item - margarine - which I usually discouraged people from buying.

With cosmetics it was different. Most body care products on the market at the time had chemicals, even ones that claimed not to be tested on animals. It was a losing battle.

UNTIL...the day that the Aubrey Organics salesman walked into my shop. I had never heard of this company which manufactures their products and sells directly to health food stores. There are literally NO CHEMICALS of any kind in these bodycare products. Since 1981 they are the only ones I have used.

I no longer own a natural food store but I continue to purchase these products in health food stores and always will. I can't imagine ever using anything else.

You can also purchase directly from them:

http://www.aubrey-organics.com/

As for the FDA, if it were up to me, I would trash the entire organization and reconstitute it anew because they are nothing but a front for the drug companies. There is a well-known revolving door here that needs to be closed down PERMANENTLY.

Not long ago a survey was done and it was discovered that in one year more people in this country used alternative health than went to doctors. Reform the FDA so that it TRULY represents us, with its makeup reflecting reality, i.e. ALTERNATIVES.

Separate the drugs from the FDA.

Take the profit-motive out of medicine. As things now stand, it is in the interests of medicine and the drug companies to keep us sick - after all, if we're well and don't go to doctors, they make no money.

One way to do this, it seems to me, is single-payer national healthcare, as is done in every civilized country except here!

Long ago in China doctors were only paid as long as the patient remained well. If the patient became ill, the doctors were not paid. This makes sense to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Alternatives are available Posted by: zorrobird
» another alternative Posted by: alterhead
Wow
Posted by: vangogh69 on Dec 11, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean, the FDA allowed the softdrink companies to let Benzene develop in their products; has allowed rBgh (Bovine Growth Hormone) in the milk supply (a known carcinogen); are we really surprised that cosmetics are toxic as well? The natural environment is so knowingly poisoned on behalf of the almighty dollar that by this point, what isn't contaminated?

That said, this is really a slight article and need not be posted here. I mean, a little article on Pinochet would be nice, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lipstick, the war, our food, our water, our health, our planet.....
Posted by: WitchyNy on Dec 11, 2006 1:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do we keep 'skirting' the issue? We need to get rid of big companies. We need to get rid of profit-based corporations.
There is no other answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

alternatives
Posted by: alterhead on Dec 11, 2006 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.allnaturalcreations.com offers alternatives to commercial health and beauty products.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tom's of Maine Owned by Colgate- Palmolive
Posted by: pixiequix on Dec 12, 2006 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yup.
Check out Tom's brand report at the Environmental Working Group's ingredient safety database.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thanks for this article
Posted by: lindalee on Dec 12, 2006 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm so glad to read this on Alternet. I switched over to all natural products many years ago...in the bathroom, kitchen, laundry and bedroom. People think I'm nuts to change my life like this, but they say this while swallowing 6 different medications. My sister thinks I'm nuts to stop using Chapstick yet she tells me she's addicted to it. When I stopped using petrolatum, my lips were fine. My son wasn't convinced that his canker sores would stop being so frequent if he used the toothpaste I bought from JASON cosmetics. He switched last week after developing 3 from using Colgate (sodium lauryl sulfate)....he couldn't eat. I could go on and on. Good for CA - I hope it spreads to the east coast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

health wellness and cosmetics PURE SAFE AND BENEFICIAL
Posted by: arbonnegirl on Jan 20, 2007 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had stopped using products with animal by products when I found out what all was involved in the process. I have started using a line of products that are PURE SAFE AND BENEFICIAL. Arbonne has more than cosmetics so that we can use all safe products for our bodies. It also has an awesome opportunity to change your life and the lives of others for a lifetime. We should all be cautious as to what we put in and on our bodies.

KM
www.lifesambiance.myarbonne.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]