Cosmetics Companies Should be Concerned About Safety

Guy Montague-Jones writing on Cosmeticsdesign.com warns that cosmetics manufacturers should be wary of toxic chemicals in cosmetics and “learn from the mistakes made in the food and banking industries.” The contamination of products made by the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) has resulted in six deaths and made 600 people ill, leaving in its wake “a trail of corporate irresponsibility that would have been difficult to imagine three months ago…The Peanut Corporation of American is the perpetrator of a tragedy that reflects a failure to properly prioritise risk in modern business.”

Guy compares the toxic assets now crippling the global financial system to the toxic chemicals commonly used in cosmetics and highlights that a failure to invest in safety testing and risk management “could have catastrophic results.” As Guy notes in the US the FDA takes a hands-off approach to cosmetic safety and if manufacturers do not adequately assess the safety of their products the press will jump on any blunders.

Perhaps the industry is getting scared because as Guy point outs the UK cosmetic trade association known as the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA) estimates that the number of individuals who have read cosmetic scare stories in the UK has increased from 14 percent in 2005 to 34 percent today.

Unfortunately Guy denounces many of the reports as ’scaremongering,’ which is not entirely accurate because they are usually based on sound scientific research which has mounted over the years since synthetic chemicals have been included in consumer products. The problem is that the cosmetics industry along with other fields such as the food, pharmaceutical drugs and chemical industries seem to have warped perception of risk, despite evidence indicating that many of the synthetic chemicals we are exposed to on daily basis are hazardous to our health and the planet in general.

Let’s not forget that:

• Our foods are chock-full of toxic chemicals (such as aspartame, which has been linked with cell death, headaches, nausea, dizziness, depression, brain tumours, chronic fatigue syndrome and a range of other health concerns, and monosodium glutamate (MSG) a toxic flavour enhancer that can cause adverse reactions in doses as low as one gram. A Harvard Medical School Researcher found that nearly 30 percent of 1,529 people reacted to MSG, with symptoms ranging from headaches and dizziness to depression and insomnia).
• Animals are pumped full of hormones and are even fed arsenic compounds, which meat-eaters then consume when they tuck into their meat-laden meals.
• Non-organic fruit and vegetables have been found to contain pesticide residues and have up to 40 percent less nutritional value than organic versions.
• High fructose corn-syrup used in many packaged and processed foods has been found to contain the neurotoxin mercury.
  
• According the US Environmental Protection Agency, all of us carry at least seven hundred chemical contaminants in our bodies, most of which have not been adequately assessed for safety.
• Numerous drugs have been released onto the marketplace even though side effects include heart attacks, strokes, liver failure, gastrointestinal bleeding and other undesirable outcomes. In 2005 the British Medical Journal published a report which estimated that the total number of deaths in Britain from prescribed drugs (taken in the correct doses) exceeded 10,000 deaths per year. The arthritis drug Vioxx was taken off the market in 2004 after it transpired that Vioxx dramatically increased the risk of heart attacks, resulting in the death or maiming of 140,000 people in the US alone.
• Our water supplies often play host to hazardous bacteria, parasites and compounds, including the deliberately added Fluoride, which has a toxicity level somewhere between arsenic and lead. It was originally considered a nuisance pollutant, churned out in particular by the aluminium industry, until Post World War Two when a massive public relations drive saw the industry selling fluoride to water and toothpaste companies as a beneficial substance for teeth. The National Research Council’s (NRC) 2006 review of fluoride linked it to, among other things: IQ deficits in children, dental fluorosis, an increased risk of Alzheimers, increased fracture rates, hip fractures, increase in severity of certain types of diabetes, the initiation and promotion of cancers – particularly of the bone and altered thyroid functioning. Drinking water can also contain residues of pharmaceutical drugs such as beta-blockers and ibuprofen.

History has shown us that the food, pharmaceutical, cosmetic and chemical industries are not too concerned with learning from their mistakes, but are apparently more interested in dramatically increasing profits even if this is at the expense of consumer health. I would go as far as to say that the consequences of the synthetic chemical revolution have been catastrophic. ‘Corporate irresponsibility’ as Guy calls it, is not rare but the norm. Our health and the existence of our planet are at stake and consumers are increasingly becoming aware of this, so certainly, cosmetic manufacturers and other industries should be switching to a precautionary approach. Clearly the risk-based, ‘let’s wait and see’ attitude, where action has been taken after a substance or product has been found to cause harm, has lead to deleterious consequences for us all. ‘Scaremongering’ isn’t the word. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what synthetic chemicals will ultimately mean for our future. Let’s hope it’s not too late for us to find out and reverse the devastation our planet may well face in future.

Below is a small snapshot of some of the recent findings on toxic chemicals in cosmetics. It’s time for cosmetics companies to learn from their mistakes, or they will also suffer the consequences of their own corporate irresponsibility with the demise of our fragile earth.

Toxic Chemicals in Cosmetics: A Snapshot

• In 1992 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responsible for enforcing cosmetic and pharmaceutical regulations, declared that 65 percent of women’s cosmetics sampled contained carcinogenic contaminants. Yet since 1976 only nine chemicals used in cosmetics have been banned outright in the US and nearly 90 percent have not been safety-tested. The EU has banned over 1000, but that is still fairly meagre considering that over 20,000 chemicals are registered for use in cosmetics.
• Dr Chistopher Daughton and Dr Thomas Ternes of the Environmental Protection Agency or EPA (an agency of the US federal government tasked with protecting human health and the environment) explained in a report published in the Scientific journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, that personal care products are constantly entering the environment through sewage treatment facilities and where untreated sewage is discharged directly in rivers, streams and the oceans. Many of these compounds survive biodegradation and Dr Daughton and Dr Ternes suggest that exposure to personal care products and pharmaceuticals may be more chronic than pesticides because they are constantly introduced into the environment where humans reside or visit.
  
• In a US based study conducted in 2007 by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics on lipsticks bought in Boston, Hartford, Conn., San Francisco and Minneapolis, 61 percent of 33 brand-name lipsticks tested contained detectable levels of lead (a neurotoxin and potential reproductive toxin) at levels exceeding the FDA’s limit for candy.
• The Breast Cancer Fund noted in its 2008 report, State of the Evidence, “the increasing incidence of breast cancer over the decades following World War II paralleled the proliferation of synthetic chemicals…An important body of scientific evidence demonstrates that exposure to common chemicals and radiation may contribute to staggering incidences of breast cancer.”
• Research published in 2001 by the University of Southern California, comparing 897 patients with bladder cancer, who were hair dye users, found that US women who used permanent hair dyes at least once a month were twice as likely as non-hair dye users to have bladder cancer.
  
• Dr Darbre, Senior Lecturer in Oncology at the University of Reading found concentrations of parabens intact in 20 human breast tumours, in research published in 2004. Although the cosmetics industry originally contested that parabens couldn’t enter the deeper layers of the skin, parabens have also been found in raw sewage (demonstrating that they pass through the human body), in urine and in the blood stream of individuals using creams and lotions containing parabens.
• Many moisturisers and other cosmetic products are marketed as wrinkle-busting anti-ageing miracles, but a study published in Food and Chemical Toxicology in 2008 found that under sunlight six lipsticks and five facial products generated ROS or reactive oxygen species (products of normal oxygen metabolism that can damage cell structures if levels become too high in the body) and damaged cells via lipid peroxidation (where free radicals steal electrons from fats in cell membranes). Lipid peroxidation is a key factor in the ageing process, so all these ‘miraculous’ anti-ageing lotions and potions may well be having the opposite effect.
• Researchers at Imperial College discovered that women exposed to high levels of hairspray during pregnancy were twice as likely to have baby boys born with a genital defect known as hypospadias a condition in which the urinary tract grows on the underside, instead of the tip of the penis). The elevated risk is thought to be caused by endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals known as phthalates. The study authors concluded that inhalation contributes dramatically to the uptake of phthalates and suggest that a number of other toxic substances in hairsprays may have toxic effects when inhaled, including polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylpyrolidone, hydofluorocarbon and propylene glycol.
• Professor Richard Sharpe at the Medical Research Council’s, Human Sciences Unit has found that perfumes or scented creams may cause unborn boys to suffer infertility or cancer later in life.
  
• Professor Michael McCullough conducted a review of research, published in the Australian Dental Journal in 2008, which revealed that there is sufficient evidence linking alcohol containing mouthwashes with an increased risk of oral cancer. Ethanol in mouthwashes is a penetration enhancer allowing cancer-causing substances to more readily penetrate the lining of the mouth. Alcohol-containing mouthwashes were found to be a significant risk factor for head and neck cancer irrespective of whether users also drank alcohol and smoked, although drinkers and smokers had even higher risks of cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx.

The economic downturn has lead to public mistrust in corporations and I personally believe this to be a good thing, because it’s when we start questioning the motives of multinationals that they finally start to sit up and take notice.