Cosmetics and Cancer

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in America, after heart disease and around one in four deaths in the EU are as a result of cancer. Cancer can be characterised as a cluster of diseases where normal cells multiply beyond normal growth mechanisms, generating millions of similar self-multiplying cells that become cancerous when they spread beyond their normal area (metastasis). There are over 100 types of cancer.

It is thought that every cancer develops from one altered cell, which fails to respond to normal attempts to control its growth, inheriting or aquiring DNA damage. Its offspring may develop and multiply to create a tumour. In most cells acquired damage is repaired and cells return to normal, or if it is not repaired, the cell does not divide, but in instances of cancer there are cell cycle errors.¹

Before cancer appears two steps are believed to take place. In the initiation step a genetic change occurs in a cell and only culminates in cancer if promotion follows. This genetic change may be something that you are born with or may be created by initiators such as viruses, hormones, chronic inflammation within the body, or exogenous (external) agents such as radiation, carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals, biological or physical agents). Promoters instigate rapid cell growth before the cell has had the chance to repair the DNA damage. Cancer promoters include chronic inflammation, radiation, hormones and environmental chemicals. Research has also suggested that extremely low frequency eletromagnetic fields (ELF-EMFs) may play a part in cancer promotion², as does a high-fat diet and excess calorie intake.

It can take up to 20 years for cancer to appear after exposure to an initiator. If an individual is not exposed to many promoters, it may never materialise. Once the cancerous growth no longer requires exposure to a promoter, it grows independently (the progression phase). Synergism takes place when two or more substances interact, heightening each other’s effects, leading to more cancers than would be produced by the total sum of the substance’s individual effects. Exposure to certain occupational chemicals and smoking would be an example of this, or alcohol consumption and smoking.

Environmental or Genetic?

Studies have shown that environmental factors play a huge part in the onset of cancer, with only around five per cent being genetically predisposed.³ Environmental factors from this perspective can incorporate anything that people are exposed to, such as substances consumed, smoking, natural and medical forms of radiation, including exposure to the sun, workplace exposures, drugs, social and economic factors and substances existing in the air, water and soil.⁴ In addition, aging, alcohol, infections, hormonal factors, pollution, lack of exercise, sexual behaviour that elevates exposure to particular viruses and consumer products are all implicated in various types of cancers, to different degrees.

Chemicals and Breast Cancer

Did you know? Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and incidences are highest in North America, Northern Europe and Australia. ⁵

Experts have estimated that only around 47 per cent of breast cancer incidences can be attributed to well-established risk factors (such as later age at first birth, higher family income and family history of breast cancer).⁶ According to Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, head of the Centre for Toxicology at the University of London, most women do not acquire breast cancer through genes but during their lifetime and although high alcohol consumption, high fat diets and other such lifestyle factors contribute to the risk of developing breast cancer, they cannot account for the huge number of newly diagnosed cases.⁷

Experts have estimated that only around 47 per cent of breast cancer incidences can be attributed to well-established risk factors (such as later age at first birth, higher family income and family history of breast cancer).⁶ According to Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, head of the Centre for Toxicology at the University of London, most women do not acquire breast cancer through genes but during their lifetime and although high alcohol consumption, high fat diets and other such lifestyle factors contribute to the risk of developing breast cancer, they cannot account for the huge number of newly diagnosed cases.⁷

As the Breast Cancer Fund notes in its recent 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 the staggering incidences of breast cancer.”⁸ Exposure to natural oestrogen present in the body during a lifetime is associated with breast cancer. Endocrine disrupting Compounds (EDC), which interfere with the actions of natural oestrogens, androgens and other hormones in the body, may present an increased breast cancer risk.⁹ Scientists at the Silent Spring Institute in Massachusetts compiled scientific data linking chemicals with breast cancer and identified, in total, 216 chemicals that have been associated with increased mammary gland tumours in animals including, industrial chemicals, chlorinated solvents, products of combustion, pesticides, dyes, radiation, pharmaceuticals, hormones, natural products and research chemicals. Almost all of the chemicals were mutagenic and the majority caused tumours in multiple organs and species.¹⁰
Some of the compounds found in personal care products that are associated with breast cancer include:

• 1,2-propylene oxide – Used as a fragrance.
• 1,3-butadiene – Plasticiser used in rubber sponges for cosmetic application. Cosmetic’s containers may contain this substance and it can be an impurity in butane – a propellant added to aerosol personal care products.
• 1,4-dioxane – Petroleum derived byproduct of the ethoxylation process that can be present in shampoos, body wash and other foaming cosmetics as an impurity.
• 2,4-diaminoanisole sulphate – An aromatic amine used in hair dyes.
• Benzene and other organic solvents (such as toluene and formaldehyde) – Used in nail polish, nail polish remover and perfumes.
• Bisphenol A – Synthetic chemical used in the production of epoxy resins and polycarbonate plastics, used for food, drink and cosmetic packaging.
• Ethylene oxide – Non-ionic surfactants used in cleansing products are produced from ethylene oxide, traces of this volatile chemical may remain.
• Synthetic musks - Synthetic chemicals commonly used in a range of fragranced consumer products, including, perfumes, aftershaves, cosmetics and personal care products as fragrances and fixatives.
• n-nitrosamines – Nitrosamines can be formed in cosmetic products in the presence of nitrosating agents.
• Nonylphenol – Organic compound belonging to alkylphenol family. Nonylphenols can be found in various cosmetic products (nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates banned for this purpose in the EU where they are classified as a hazard to health and environmental safety).
• Parabens – Preservative and antimicrobials commonly used in cosmetic products.
• Phthalates – Used as plasticisers in a range of personal care and other consumer products.
• Placental extract – Refers to extracts from human and cow placenta found in hair conditioners, shampoos and other grooming products
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) – common contaminants in petrolatum found in petroleum jelly, lipsticks, baby lotions and oils; tobacco smoke (active and passive exposures).
• Titanium dioxide – White pigment used in sunscreens, mineral make-up and other cosmetics.
• Triclosan – Organochlorine used as an antibacterial in soaps, toothpastes, mouthwash etc.
• Urethrane (ethyl carbamate) – Ester of carbamic acid used as a co-solvent in hair care products, sunscreens, nail polish, mascara, foundation.

Campaigners Push for Ban on Chemicals Linked to Breast Cancer

In the EU campaigners have urged MEPS to strengthen chemicals legislation, following a report suggesting that some chemicals may be associated with rising incidences of breast cancer. Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, head of the Centre for Toxicology at the University of London, has pointed to significant evidence that the rise in breast cancer is linked to environmental exposures to substances such as hormone disruptive chemicals that mimic oestrogen. In the report commissioned by the health and environmental alliance HEAL and Chem Trust, Professor Kortenkamp said,

“There is overwhelming evidence that oestrogens are strong determinants of breast cancer risks…Given that natural oestrogens and man-made oestrogens used as pharmaceuticals have a role in breast cancer, concerns arise about the potential contribution of industrial chemicals and pesticides with hormonal activity.”¹¹

Oestrogens are required for breast development but they also play a role in the development of breast cancer. Natural oestrogens act on the ‘end buds’ of the epithelial ducts in mammary glands to promote growth through elongation and branching of the duct system. This takes place initially during the foetal stage and then again at puberty and finally during pregnancy. It is this growth of the end buds that links oestrogens to breast cancer. Oestrogens cause an increase in cells that can be prone to cancerous growth. The breast is most susceptible to cancer causing influences during periods of growth, such as during puberty. In the womb, the mother’s oestrogen levels affect the number of end buds that develop in the foetus, with higher levels of oestrogen causing more end buds to grow, this effectively increases the cell pool from which cancer cells can be drawn.

Although Professor Kortenkamp acknowledges that numerous factors play a role in breast cancer, he continues, “There is a case for relinquishing the dominant view of breast cancer as a life-style and genetic disease and for reappraising the role of environmental factors, including chemical exposures. With UK breast cancer incidence at an all time high, risk reduction will not be achievable without considering preventable causes, particularly exposure to chemicals.”¹²

As well as prohibited industrial chemicals such as PCBs, still being detected in human tissues, there are a host of chemicals used in consumer products that have hormone disrupting properties, including phthalates, bisphenol A, UV filters, commonly used preservatives such as parabens, and numerous others. Many of these have been found to act in a similar way to the sex hormone oestradiol, although much higher concentrations are required to cause as pronounced effects. Environmental pollutants such as PCBS and certain pesticides do not act alone, but in combination with natural oestrogens and other hormonally active chemicals in a woman’s body, including chemicals released during the preparation of food, man-made chemicals including environmental pollutants (dioxins, pesticides, PCBs), synthetic cosmetic constituents (such as some synthetic fragrances, UV filters, antioxidants) and plant derived oestrogens present in some foods. Although the hormonal strength of these chemicals in much lower than natural or pharmaceutical oestrogens, research has shown that quite a significant number of chemicals can enhance the effects of natural oestrogens.¹³

Professor Kortenkamp presented evidence that whilst low levels of certain individual chemicals have no detectable impact on breast cancer, the combined additive effect of mixtures of these chemicals (even at low concentrations that would not usually present an observable effect), has a much greater impact. Testing a combination of 11 xenoestrogens (man-made chemicals that behave like oestrogen in the human body) on the actions of the hormone oestradiol, Professor Kortenkamp found that the combined effect of the xenoestrogens led to a dramatic enhancement of the hormone’s action, even when each agent was present at levels that do not individually generate measurable effects.¹⁴

Other research demonstrated than four organochlorines acted together to enhance the proliferation of human breast cancer cells, suggesting again that mixtures of certain chemicals produce a combined effect even when each agent is present at concentrations that individually produce insignificant effects. The combination effects of the mixture were stronger than the effects of the most potent individual component (thus the combined effects were synergistic).¹⁵

As well as discussing the issue of chemical mixtures, Professor Kortenkamp also noted the importance of exposure levels at different times in a woman’s life, such as development in the womb and puberty. Human studies have demonstrated that the daughters of women who took diethylstilboestrol (DES) to avoid miscarriages had an increased risk of breast cancer¹⁶ and studies on laboratory animals have suggested that exposure to synthetic oestrogenic compounds in the womb can result in persistent alterations of the mammary gland, signifying that these compounds may increase susceptibility to breast cancer ¹⁸. Professor Kortenkamp commented that the EU has funded a great deal of research on the subject but also said to CORDIS News, “this is not entirely matched by an equally well founded and well thought out regulatory approach to complement this, to act on the basis of scientific evidence.”¹⁹

This report is being examined by MEPs in Brussels who are presiding over whether Europe-wide legislation could help stall the rising incidences of breast cancer, which have increased by 50 per cent in some European countries over the last 20 years.²⁰

Carcinogens in Cosmetics

Mainstream beauty products contain a variety of known carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic ingredients such as p-phenylenediamine, diethanolamine (DEA), acetaldehyde, certain azo and coal tar dyes, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), adipic acid, ethyl acrylate, organic solvents (such as formaldehyde, benzene and toluene) and lead acetate. Additionally they may contain impurities in the form of nitrates which can react with other ingredients in the product to form carcinogenic substances, for example, nitrosodiethanolamine. Chemicals such as diazolidinyl urea, Imidazolidinyl urea, DMDM Hydantoin and quaternium 15 degrade to release the suspected carcinogen formaldehyde, and polyethylene glycol (PEG) can be contaminated with the carcinogens, 1,4-dioxane and ethylene oxide, to name but a few.

Carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic chemicals may only be used in cosmetic products at low concentrations, but we commonly use a myriad of cosmetic products and numerous other consumer products containing cancer-causing ingredients. We are also exposed to many other carcinogens in our environment. Our exposure to cosmetic products is over a prolonged period of time and even prior to birth we are exposed to carcinogenic agents, through our mother’s use of cosmetic and other consumer products.

The skin is highly permeable to toxic substances. According to Dr Samuel Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and author of The Safe Shopper’s Bible and Unreasonable Risk, evidence presented at a 1978 Congressional hearing, suggested that skin absorption of nitrosodiethanolamine (NDELA) is 100 times greater than absorption by mouth.²¹ Dr Epstein points out that carcinogens taken in by mouth are absorbed from the intestines and transported to the liver, where they can be detoxified to different degrees, depending on the substance, but carcinogens absorbed through the skin reach can enter the bloodstream without this prior protective detoxification by the liver.²²

In addition, numerous substances, known as penetration enhancers, increase the skin’s absorption of toxic ingredients, these include: sodium lauryl sulphate, polyethylene glycol (PEG), propylene glycol (PPG), acetone, cetereath compounds (including cetereath-12 and cetereath-20), cocoyl sarcinosine, ethanol, limonene, lactic acid and disodium EDTA.

Many studies have found that the risk of cancer developing is elevated if exposure to carcinogens begins in infancy, rather than later on in life. Young children have a greater susceptibility to carcinogens because the cells rapidly divide during childhood and if they are rapidly dividing following exposure to a carcinogen, any genetic mutation that has occurred is more likely to be fixed.²³ There are various other reasons why babies, young infants and children are at greater risk. For instance, children take in more oxygen per kilogram of body weight than an adult and therefore more air pollutants, low molecular weight compounds can readily cross the placenta, newborn babies have more absorbative skin because it is not fully keratinised (therefore without one of the skin’s main protective barriers) until several days after the baby is born and various organs such as the lungs and brain are still developing. Children have different exposures, pathways of absorption, tissue distribution and responses to environmental exposures, and they also eliminate chemicals in different ways.²⁴ This all needs to be considered when looking at the potential adverse health effects of environmental exposures.

The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency program that evaluates agents of public health concern, produce a report on carcinogens (ROC), which currently contains 246 listings of known and reasonably anticipated human carcinogens.²⁵ Our households and other external environments play host to a variety of known and potential carcinogens. Some of those listed substances we may commonly encounter that are known or suspected of causing cancer, according to the U.S. National Toxicology Program, include:

• Tobacco
• Red and preserved meats
• Salt
• Salt-preserved foods
• Alcoholic beverages
• UV radiation from the sun
• Sunlamps or tanning beds
• Viruses and bacteria
• Ionising radiation - from sources such as radon
• Radioactive substances - released by atomic bombs or nuclear weapons, and x-rays
• Pesticides - such as ethylene oxide, DDT, amitrole, hexachlorobenzene, lead acetate and lindane
• Medical drugs - such as cyclophosphamide and chlorambucil used to treat cancer
• Oestrogens - long-term users of combined oestrogen and progesterone oral contraceptives may have an increased risk of early-onset breast cancers and liver cancer; tamoxifen may also increase the risk of developing endometrial cancer
• Solvents - such as benzene, chloroform, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene
• Fibres
• Fine particles and dust - such as asbesto fibres, ceramic fibres, wood dust and silica dusts
• Dioxins
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
• Metals - such as arsenic, beryllium compounds, cadmium metal and cadmium compounds, chromium, lead and nickel
• Diesel exhaust particles
• Toxicants from fungi
• Vinyl chloride
• Benzidine.


Known and potentially carcinogenic ingredients in cosmetics include among other things:

• Acetaldehyde
• Acrylates
• Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA)
• Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)
• Coal tar
• Hydroquinone
• Synthetic musks (used in fragranced consumer products)
• Teflon
• Organic solvents (e.g. toluene, formaldehyde, xylene)
• Phthalates
• UV filters in sunscreens (e.g. padimate O, para-aminbenzoic acid (PABA), oxybenzone, avobenzone).
• Cosmetic grade lanolin
• Hair dyes
• Parabens
• Talc
• Silica
• Diethanolamine (common ingredients containing diethanolamine (DEA) include: cocamide DEA, cocamide MEA, Lauramide DEA, Myristamide DEA, Oleamide DEA etc)
• Artificial colours

Some carcinogenic impurities (not listed on the label)

• Acrylamides
• 1,4-dioxane
• Nitrosamines
• Ethylene oxide
• Formaldehyde
• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

For more info Toxic Beauty is available from Amazon and book stores nationwide.

<sub>1. Klatz, R., Goldman, B., The Science of Anti-Aging Medicine, The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, January 2003, p10.
2. Tenenbaum, D.J., A New View of ELF-EMFs: Are they Linked with Cancer Promotion?, Environmental Health Perspectives, October, 2000: 108 (10): 469.
3. ‘Cancer Facts and Figures 2004: Basic Cancer Facts,’ American Cancer Society (ACS); accessed September 25, 2008; online at: www.cancer.org.
4. ‘Assessment of Technologies for Determining Cancer Risks From the Environment,’ OTA (Office of Technology Assessment), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, June, 1981; online at: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu.
5. Brody, J.G., Rudel, R.A., Environmental Pollutants and Breast Cancer, Environmental Health Perspectives, June 2003: 111 (8): 1007-1019.
6. Madigan, M.P. et al, Proportion of Breast Cancer Case in the United States Explained by Well-established Risk Factors, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1995: 87 (22): 1681-1685.
7. Kortenkamp, A., ‘Environmental Contaminants and Breast Cancer: The Growing Concerns about Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals,’ Produced for The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), October 2006; online at: www.wwf.org.uk.
8. ‘State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment,’ Fifth Edition, Breast Cancer Fund, 2008; online at: www.breastcancerfund.org.
9. ‘State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment,’ Fifth Edition, Breast Cancer Fund, 2008; online at: www.breastcancerfund.org.
10. Rudel, R.A. et al, Chemicals Causing Mammary Gland Tumours in Animals Signal New Directions for Epidemiology, Chemicals Testing, and Risk Assessment for Breast Cancer Prevention, Cancer, June, 2007: 109 (12): 2635-66.
11. Kortenkamp, A., ‘Breast Cancer and Exposure to Hormonally Active Chemicals: An Appraisal of the Scientific Evidence’, A Background Briefing Paper for the Health and Environmental Alliance (HEAL) and CHEMTrust, April, 2008: online at: www.chemtrust.org.
12. Kortenkamp, A., ‘Breast Cancer and Exposure to Hormonally Active Chemicals: An Appraisal of the Scientific Evidence’, A Background Briefing Paper for the Health and Environmental Alliance (HEAL) and CHEMTrust, April, 2008: online at: www.chemtrust.org.
13. Kortenkamp, A., ‘Environmental Contaminants and Breast Cancer: The Growing Concerns about Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals,’ Produced for The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), October, 2006: online at: www.wwf.org.uk.
14. Rajapakse, N., Silva, E., Kortenkamp, A., Combining Xenoestrogens at Levels below Individual No-Observed-Effect Concentrations Dramatically Enhances Steroid Hormone Action, Environmental Health Perspectives, September 2002: 110 (9): 917-921.
15. Payne, J., Scholze, M., Kortenkamp, A., Mixtures of Four Organochlorines Enhance Human Breast Cancer Cell Proliferation, Environmental Health Perspectives, April, 2001: 109 (4): 391-397.
16. Palmer, J.R. et al, Prenatal Diethylstilbestrol Exposure and Risk of Breast Cancer, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, August, 2006: 15 (8): 1509-1514.
17. Munoz-de-Toro, M. et al, Perinatal Exposure to Bisphenol-A Alters Peripubital Mammary Gland Development in Mice, Endocrinology, 2005: 146 (9): 4138-4147.
18. Maffini, M.V., Endocrine Disruptors and Reproductive Health: The case of Bisphenol-A, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 2006: 255-254: 179-186.
19. ‘Campaigners Urge Politicians to Act on Chemicals-Breast Cancer Link,’ CORDIS News, April 3, 2008; online at: http://cordis.europa.eu/news/home_en.html.
20. Batty, D., ‘Campaigns Urge Ban on Cancer-Link Chemicals,’ The Guardian, April 2, 2008; online at: www.guardian.co.uk.
21. Epstein, S.S., Unreasonable Risk: How to Avoid Cancer and Other Toxic Effects, from Cosmetics and Personal Care Products: The Neway’s Story, Second Edition, Environmental Toxicology Inc, 2005, p41.
22. Epstein, S.S., Unreasonable Risk: How to Avoid Cancer and Other Toxic Effects, from Cosmetics and Personal Care Products: The Neway’s Story, Second Edition, Chicago: Environmental Toxicology Inc, 2005, p43.
23. ‘Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in our Children’s Food, Natural Resources Defense Council, February 27, 1989; online at: www.tobaccodocuments.org.
24. Bearer, C.F., How are Children Different from Adults?, Environmental Health Perspectives, 1995: 103 (6): 7-12.
25. ‘Report on Carcinogens: Eleventh Edition,’ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program (NTP), Research Triangle Park, NC; accessed September 25, 2007; online at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov. And email from C.W. Jameson, Ph.D., Director, Report on Carcinogens, DHHS, NIH, NIEHS, September 25, 2007.</sub>

L'Oreal fail to back up marketing claims

We all know that cosmetics companies embellish the truth when it comes to marketing their products. In fact when researching my book, Toxic Beauty, I found that most of their claims are unfounded. Simply put, no cosmetic product banishes wrinkles, you’ll be lucky to even get a slight improvement.

Advertisements are accompanied by ludicrous claims that often make me simultaneously chuckle and cry, at the outlandishness and the deception.

With that in mind, I can’t help but feel glad that L’Oreal is being taken to the Market Court in Sweden for making claims about Lancome High Resolution and Vichy LiftActiv Pro products that the Consumer Ombudsman (KO) says are not backed up by scientific evidence.

The Lancome advert suggests that the product can smooth wrinkles by up to 70 percent. The Vichy product is advertised as ‘the source of healthy skin’ with the ability to reduce wrinkles by up to 43 percent. I often wonder if these large multinational cosmetics companies pluck these figures out of thin air because they certainly do not appear to be grounded in reality.

The KO has suggested that these claims border those made for pharmaceutical products and should be backed up with substantial scientific evidence, which as of yet has not been provided. The ombudsman is also requesting that the Market Court clarify the sorts of evidence required for such marketing claims.

For the full story see Cosmeticsdesign-europe.com.

Greenwashing cosmetics companies face lawsuits

Greenwashers beware. According to an article published in a legal journal greenwashing brands may increasingly face litigation. Lawyers Victoria Davis Lockard and Josh Becker from US firm Alston & Bird warn that eco-fraud is ‘the latest flavor of consumer product class litigation’ – lawsuits where multiple plaintiffs take action against a product that has failed to deliver on its advertising claims.

Lockard and Becker claim that not only may the courts be more sympathetic to an environmental cause than exaggerated efficacy claims, but the plaintiffs in eco-fraud cases will have powerful allies in the form of environmental watchdogs and public interest groups, such as Greenpeace.

It’s not just disgruntled consumers that file class actions but also competitors, regulators and public prosecutors. In 2008 Dr Bronner’s Magic Soaps filed a lawsuit in the California Superior Court against a variety of brands marketed as ‘organic’ and ‘natural’ because their claims were misleading . Brands singled out included Jasons, Avalon, Nature’s Gate, Kiss My Face, Juice “Organics”, Giovanni, Desert Essence, Ikove, Estee Lauder, Stella McCartney’s CARE, Ecocert (organic standards) and OASIS standards.

Many of these brands make natural or organic claims but use petrochemical ingredients, such as sodium myreth sulphate (made in part with the carcinogen ethylene oxide), cocamidopropyl betaine (made with non-organic material combined with the petrochemical amidopropyl betaine), olefin sulphonate (a pure petrochemical) and various other synthetic ingredients.

Source: Cosmeticsdesign.com

Need for common 'nanomaterial' definition in cosmetics

Dr Gerald Renner from Colipa has called for a common definition of the term ‘nanomaterial’ at a conference in Brussels on regulation of nanotechnology.

Leading figures from industry, regulators and consumer groups gathered at the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) nanotechnology conference to discuss safety concerns, consumer attitudes and regulation.

Need for a definition

Talking at the conference about what regulatory moves remain to be taken, Colipa’s Director of Science and Research Dr Gerald Renner said a
common definition of ‘nanomaterial’ needs to be agreed upon and then applied with common sense.

Currently different definitions exist in different parts of the world causing confusion for companies operating in a global marketplace.

Renner said that broad definitions are around but warned that they are not necessarily useful or practical to achieve a regulatory objective in a specific sector.

Safety debate

The trade body representative also discussed safety issues and measures currently in place in Europe to protect the consumer.

He said the transition from ‘not knowing’ to ‘knowing a lot’ has happened in many applications for nanotechnology. Renner said that in cosmetics, it is now known which nanomaterials are used, the characteristics of those materials and their safety profile.

While Renner said all nanomaterials used in cosmetics have undergone a full safety assessment, representatives of consumer groups remain unconvinced about the safety credentials of nanomaterials.

Sue Davis, chief policy officer at UK consumer advocacy group Which?, said serious safety concerns surround the use of certain nanomaterials.

Of particular concern to Which? are fullerenes and nanosilver, which Renner said were used ‘sporadically’ in cosmetics.

Davis said fullerenes are used in anti-ageing creams despite safety concerns while nano-silver are found in toothpastes in spite of potential toxicity.

Read the full article at Cosmeticsdesign-europe.com

Will USDA-NOP finally explicitly include cosmetics?

The boom in unofficial organic standards for cosmetic products is a huge source of confusion for consumers who don’t know which standards are the most stringent. I sometimes wonder if some members of the ‘organic’ industry enjoy the bewilderment because it makes it easier for them to market synthetic concoctions as ‘organic’ and ‘natural,’ without redress. 

It is often suggested in the media and by some cosmetic companies that there are no official certification standards that can be applied to cosmetic products, but this simply isn’t true. The United States Department for Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) has standards in
 place that can be applied to cosmetics and these standards clearly define terms such as ‘synthetic’ and ‘non-synthetic’ (or natural). However, up until now, although the USDA allows cosmetic manufacturers to certify to the standards provided they meet the provisions, there is no explicit reference to cosmetics under its definition of ‘agricultural products.’ 

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is a 15-member advisory group to the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) and the Certification, Accreditation and Compliance Committee (CACC) make recommendations to the NOSB.

The CACC issued a document on March 13, 2009 stating that “organic cosmetics and personal care products should be recognized explicitly by the NOP to ensure that customers and businesses alike have an unquestioned home in the USDA National Organic Program.” 

Michal McGuffin, President of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) has expressed his support that the NOP should be amended to explicitly include cosmetics and suggested that by not recognising organic cosmetics, the proliferation of private standards has occurred, leading to inconsistent regulation of organic cosmetics. I second this statement!

The USDA only regulates organic cosmetics if they apply for USDA certification. Cosmetics with USDA approval can claim organic certification on three levels: ‘100% organic,’ ‘organic’ (must contain 95% organic ingredients) and ‘made with organic’ (must contain at least 70% organic ingredients). 

A CACC spokesperson has said that if the CACC document was adopted as it stands, private standards would have no place in the marketplace and only ‘100% organic’ and ‘organic’ products (those containing 95% organic ingredients) would be allowed to bear USDA certification.

This would have numerous benefits, increasing regulation of products marketed as ‘organic,’ hopefully instilling more consumer trust in organic products, putting to bed claims that there are no official standards for cosmetics and ensuring that manufacturers can only bear ‘organic’ labels if their products contain at least 95% organic ingredients, rather than a lax 70% stipulation.

If the NOSB adopt the CACC recommendation they will present it to the NOP for enforcement. This would be a positive move and provide clarity for consumers. 

Source: Cosmeticsdesign-europe.com 

Natrue and NPA Join Forces

European certifier of ‘natural’ cosmetics Natrue has signed a mutual recognition agreement with the Natural Products Association (NPA) in the US, meaning that products complying with the standards of either of these bodies will not have to undergo the full certification process again when they wish to market their products across the Atlantic. Natrue also signed an equivalency agreement with Quality Assurance International (QAI) certifiers earlier in the year.

I am not Natrue’s biggest fan. Their standards are abysmally weak
 (see here). The NPA standards have some good points (such as prohibition of ammonium- and sodium lauryl sulphate, PEG compounds, sarcosinates, cocomide DEA, parabens etc), but intensive chemical processes such as fat-splitting, esterification and hydrogenation are permitted with toxic metal catalysts such as nickel and palladium, remnants of which could possibly be present in the final formulation.

The standards also discuss products branded as natural being made with at least 95 percent natural ingredients, but this wouldn’t necessarily mean that those ingredients were organic, although thankfully they are not claiming to be organic.

I know I keep on harping on about it but I still recommend the USDA standards, which are more rigorous – consisting of hundreds of pages as opposed to the NPA’s 8 page standards, which go into little detail.

It concerns me that manufacturers of pseudo-natural products are banding together in a bid to promulgate mediocre and in many cases dire organic and natural certification standards. I am aware that natural doesn’t automatically mean inert and indeed some natural ingredients have demonstrated toxic activity, but I do have a problem with manufacturers duping consumers, who understandably believe that a product labelled as ‘natural’ or ‘organic’ or features one or both of these terms in the brand name, is actually as the manufacturer would suggest.

In my opinion brands need to tell the truth, so if they are marketing a hybrid product containing synthetic and natural chemicals, they should under no circumstances advertise their product as natural or organic. I feel sorry for small businesses that are honestly endeavouring to sell genuinely organic products because the market is being swamped with greenwashers, who couldn’t give a fig whether or not consumers are being sold a lie.

Tips for consumers

• Cut down dramatically on your use of beauty and personal care products, we don’t need most of them anyway and they burn a hole in our pockets. My partner is 46, he’s never used a moisturising cream, cleanser etc in his whole life and he doesn’t look a day over 30. Nutrition is key. All the cosmetics in the world are not going to make up for an unhealthy lifestyle. If you’re not prepared to put the effort into looking after your body, then be prepared to accept the consequences.
• Stick to the basics as much as possible.
• If you experience an adverse reaction to a product, whether it’s a conventional or ‘natural’ cosmetic, stop using it immediately. Itchy, stinging skin is not a sign of the product working.
• Don’t believe the marketing hype. Genuine and honest organic beauty brands don’t brag about how their product miraculously de-wrinkles your face and body. No beauty product can do this, regardless of what they might say.
• If you are going to use beauty products, opt for those certified by the USDA or if you live in the UK opt for products certified at least 95 percent organic by bodies such as the Soil Association.
• Alternatively make your own cosmetic products in the comfort of your home. By doing this you will know exactly what ingredients are going into your cosmetics. If you wouldn’t eat processed food, why apply heavily processed cosmetics to your skin?

See Cosmeticsdesign-europe.com  for more info about the equivalency agreement.

Organic Certification Boom Confuses Consumers

The boom in organic certification schemes is counterproductive, confusing for consumers and draws attention away from producers of genuinely certified organic products, who are lost amongst larger competitors that dupe consumers with weak certification labels and false claims. “Certification wars” are well underway and on Cosmeticsdesign-europe.com  you can see a video of Amarjit Sahota, director of organic market research organisation, Organic Monitor, discuss the issues involved. Sahota has called for the possibility of a global standard becoming a reality, but I am far from convinced unless the standards are stringent, official and enforced.

If you are looking for genuinely organic products look for the seal of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - as seen on the left and opt where possible for 100 percent organic certified brands such as Terressentials, Eselle and Beyond Organic Skincare.

Environmental Chemicals Linked to Birth Defects

Professor Richard Sharpe of the Medical Research Council highlighted in a report commissioned by CHEM Trust published last week that chemicals in consumer products may contribute to human male reproductive disorders that manifest at birth (cryptorchidism – undescended testes, hypospadias –where the opening of the urethra is abnormally positioned somewhere along the underside of the penis, between the base and just below the tip), or in young adulthood (impaired semen quality or testicular germ cell tumours). Such disorders are collectively referred to as Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome, a phrase coined by Professor Niels E Skakkebaek MD.

In recent decades incidences of malformation of the penis, low sperm counts and testicular cancer have all increased. Incidences of testicular cancer have almost doubled over the last 25 years, according to the report and are six times more common in the developed world than in developing countries. Perhaps even more startling is the data revealing that across Western Europe, more than 1 in 6 young men have an abnormally low sperm count, which will adversely impact on their fertility.

Sharpe believes that exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals (in particular exposure to mixtures of such chemicals) may contribute to the deteriorative state of men’s reproductive health, the origins of which can be traced to development in the womb.

According to Sharpe, “TDS disorders are common: indeed, some have increased in incidence in a time-frame that implicates environmental causes, and experimental animal and wildlife studies suggest that TDS-like disorders are induced by, or associated with, fetal exposure to certain environmental chemicals.”

Testosterone is required to form a normal penis and make the testicles drop, but Sharpe suggests that everyday chemicals in the environment and consumer products have the potential to block the action of testosterone in the womb and harm future male reproductive health.

Sharpe said; “Because it is the summation of effect of hormone disrupting chemicals that is critical, and the number of such chemicals that humans are exposed to is considerable, this provides the strongest possible incentive to minimise human exposure to all relevant hormone disruptors, especially women planning pregnancy, as it is obvious that the higher the exposure the greater the risk”.

Evidence from experimental studies in rats has established that a growing number of environmental chemicals can inhibit androgen production/action (androgens are hormones in charge of developing and preserving male sexual characteristics – the main one being testosterone), and cause testicular dysgenesis syndrome-type disorders. Studies looking at mixtures of chemicals have demonstrated that environmental chemicals display additive effects, even though the individual chemicals at those levels are without significant effect (this is often referred to as the ‘cocktail effect.’)

Experiments on rats have confirmed that if hormones are blocked during 8-12 weeks gestation, animals suffered from fertility problems such as undescended testes and low sperm counts. During this time window androgens must act to ensure later correct development of the male reproductive system. Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome-type disorders arise if there is insufficient androgen action during this time frame.

Phthalate exposure has been linked in one study with cryptorchidism in male offspring and with reduced anogenital distance (distance between the genitals and the anus – which is a potential sign of feminisation as the anogenital distance is shorter in girls than in boys). Other studies have shown that phthalates may reduce neonatal testosterone production in three-month old boys and neonatal marmasets. Although Sharpe suggests that the role phthalates may play in testicular dysgenesis syndrome is currently uncertain.

Phthalates are the most abundant man-made chemicals in the environment, regulated as pollutants when released into the environment by industry, and used in all manner of consumer products, including cosmetics.

I interviewed Professor Richard Sharpe for my latest book Toxic Beauty, and he discussed Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome, saying,

“Our present understanding is that a central feature of the disorder is dysfunction of the production or the action of testosterone – the male sex hormone, which is made in foetal life and is responsible for essentially modifying the phenotype of a foetus to change it from a female to a male.”

The term “phthalate syndrome” has been coined, according to Professor Sharpe, “to cover the range of abnormalities that are seen after in utero exposure of rats to certain (not all) phthalates.” In animals exposed to certain phthalates “the epididymis may degenerate postnatally, initially forming but not getting enough testosterone support to remain viable after birth…the testis forms more or less normally but develops certain scattered abnormal features (called focal dysgenesis) after birth. The gubernaculum is a cord of tissue that connects the testis and epidymis to the abdominal wall, a connection that is essential for the testis to migrate through the abdomen, then through the abdominal wall into the scrotum.” Maintenance and development of the gubunaculum relies on a secretion from the Leydig cells (responsible for testicular androgen production), which is “reduced by phthalate exposure, hence the occurrence of cryptorchidism.”

Although, Professor Sharpe is not yet convinced that phthalates definitely cause problems in humans, he does recommend caution on the part of mothers-to-be, in using cosmetic products.

“We have a special case where mothers are potentially exposing the foetus to environmental chemicals via her lifestyle choices. The foetus has no say in that and will just bear the consequences. My recommendation is that it is extremely prudent for women who are planning to become pregnant, to embark upon a programme of reducing their exposure, certainly via the use of cosmetics and creams. It is too late once they are pregnant. In that way they can benefit the foetus and not suffer unduly themselves, just for giving up for that period of time…”

You can read the report online at Chemtrust.org.uk.

Beware: Greenwashing on the Rise

A report published by North American environmental marketing firm TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, entitled The Seven Sins of Greenwashing (a follow up to the 2007 report, The Six Sins of Greenwashing) has revealed that the number of products making environmental claims has increased by an average of 79 percent in stores visited in 2007 and 2008, and 98 percent of products commit at least one of the Sins of Greenwashing highlighted in the report

TerraChoice researchers investigated retailers in the US, UK, Australia and Canada in November 2008 and January 2009, with instructions to record allproducts making environmental claims. 

In the US and Canada 2,219 products making 4,996 green claims were recorded, and tested against guidelines provided by the US Federal Trade Commission and other relevant bodies for environmental labelling.

Over 98 percent of the 2,219 products assessed committed at least one of the previously identified Six Sins of Greenwashing and a Seventh emerged – ‘the Sin of Worshipping False Labels.’ In practice this means generating fake certification labels or false suggestions of third party endorsement. 

Greenwashing is rampant, particularly in the categories of toys, baby products, cosmetics and cleaning products with a meagre 25 of the 2,219 products evaluated found to be ‘Sin-free.’

What Are the Seven Sins?

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-off – Suggesting a product is green based on narrow criteria e.g. saying paper is eco-friendly because it comes from a sustainably-managed forest even though its production may involve environmentally damaging processes such as CO2 emissions and water and air pollution.

2. Sin of No Proof – lack of substantiation for claims by supporting information or third party certification.

3. Sin of Vagueness – Broad claims that lack any real meaning, such as ‘All Natural.’ Arsenic and formaldehyde are naturally occurring and poisonous, which does not make them very green!

4. Sin of Irrelevance – Truthful but pointless claims such as CFC-free, which is irrelevant because CFCs are banned anyway.

5. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils – Claims that may be true within a category but distract the consumer from the broader environmental impacts of that category e.g. organic cigarettes or hybrid cars.

6. Sin of Fibbing – Simply making totally false environmental claims.

7. Sin of Worshipping False Labels – Creating fake certification labels or false suggestions of third party endorsement.

Other findings included:

• Green advertising has increased tenfold in the last 20 years and has almost tripled since 2006.
• Greenwashing presents risks such as misleading consumers into thinking their purchase has some kind of environmental benefit when in fact it doesn’t; taking market share away from products making legitimate eco-claims; leading to scepticism about all environmental claims. 
• Legitimate eco-labelling is also on the rise and almost twice as common as it was in the previous study (up from 14 percent to 23 percent of products).
• Greenwashing is an international problem with similar patterns found in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.
• 23 percent of products commit The Sin of Worshipping False Labels. 

Cosmetic products were mainly guilty of committing The Sin of Vagueness, by using the term ‘Natural,’ because they were not adhering to any official definition and it is misleading as some natural substances are toxic. They were also found guilty of The Sin of No Proof by bearing organic claims which were not supported by certification schemes. 

Advice for Consumers

TerraChoice advise consumers to keep supporting genuinely green products rather than giving up, looking for products with reliable eco –labels (see the report), opt for products offering transparency, information and education and for green shopping tools visit www.sinsofgreenwashing.org and www.ecologo.org. 

Source: TerraChoice Report

Schoolgirl Suffers Allergic Reaction to Hair Dye

Today the Daily Mail reported a story about Carla Harris, a 15 year old schoolgirl who suffered a potent allergic reaction to L’Oreal Recital hair dye, causing her head to swell up to twice its normal size, leaving the teenager in agony for several days. You can see an image of the damage caused on the Daily Mail website.

Despite conducting a patch test prior to using the product, Carla still had a severe reaction after using the L’Oreal hair dye and was admitted into hospital and treated with antihistamines and steroids.

Carla and her mother Lynn have called for the banning of para-phenylenediamine (PPD), the toxic chemical that doctors suggested caused the problem.

Two-thirds of hair dyes contain PPD, which was banned from use in hair-dyes in the 20th century in Germany, France and Sweden, because concerns arose about its harmful effects.

I can sympathise, when I was 16 years old after a number of years using hair dyes without adverse reactions, I applied a semi-permanent hair dye which caused over a third of my hair to fall out. Unfortunately it never grew back and in subsequent years more of hair fell out. I just put it down to me being sensitive but my mother told a woman at her workplace about my unfortunate incident with the hair dye and she explained that her daughter had used the very same hair dye and all of her hair had fallen out. It wasn’t until many years later that I began to reseach the toxicity of ingredients used in cosmetics and other beauty products.  

Hair Dye Today, Gone Tomorrow

Modern hair-dyes contain numerous synthetic chemical ingredients and are one of the top consumer complaint areas for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Cosmetics and Colours, with complaints ranging from damaged hair to symptoms necessitating a visit to the nearest emergency room. Some consumers have reported burning, redness, hair loss, irritation, swelling of the face and difficult breathing due to their use of hair-dyes. Some hair-dyes can permanently alter the physical structure of the hairshaft and cause irreversible damage to the hair.

PPD along with other related aromatic amines, have been the primary agents used in permanent hair-dyes for over 100 years. PPD is also used in textile and fur dyes, photographic developer, printing and photocopying inks, black rubber and gasoline. The properties which make it effective as a hair-dye, such as its low molecular weight, capacity to bind to protein, and ability to penetrate the hair shaft and follicle also make it among the most potent of contact allergens.¹

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards warns of this substance, “prevent skin contact, prevent eye contact” and states that when PPD is inhaled respiratory support should be administered. Symptoms of exposure include respiratory irritation, bronchial asthma, sensitisation and dermatitis.² In rare cases allergy to PPD can cause death.

PPD is not approved for direct application to the skin,” ³ yet when hair-dye is applied it usually does come into contact with the scalp and very often the forehead and ears. According to Dr John P McFadden senior lecturer at St John’s Institute of Dermatology, patients with contact allergies to hair-dyes often have dermatitis around the face or hairline and sometimes facial swelling is so severe that the patients must be hospitalised. He also highlights the growing number of individuals suffering allergic reactions to PPD in patch tests. ⁴

A survey of one London contact dermatitis clinic, where eczema patients were patch tested for reactions to PPD found that allergy to the substance had almost doubled from 4.2 per cent in January 1999 to 7.1 per cent in December 2004. The study’s authors state that the “disturbing” increase in positive reactions to PPD over the six year period where research took place “may be due to subjects dyeing their hair in increasing numbers and perhaps at an earlier age. ⁵ Patch testing data from other countries such as Belgium, Portugal, Denmark, Germany and Singapore support this pattern. Dr John P McFadden writes in the British Medical Journal that more than 1 million Thai adults and 1.3 million adults in Germany may be sensitive to PPD. ⁶

Of those individuals who are allergic to PPD 10 per cent also react to semi-permanent hair-dyes. Those who have a sensitivity to PPD may also develop a cross-sensitivity to azo and aniline dyes (used in hair-dyes, ballpoint pen inks, gasoline, diesel oil and as a colourant in foods and medications), benzocaine and procaine (used in local anaesthetics), para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA – used in sunscreens and some face creams), para-aminosalicylic acid (used for tuberculosis), sulphonamides (used in pharmaceutical drugs), carbutamide (used in diabetes medication) and hydrodiuril (a diuretic medication). ⁷

According to the Scientific Committee of Consumer Products (SCCP), an expert panel of scientists which provide the EU Commission with opinions on ingredients used in consumer products, PPD sensitises 100 per cent of laboratory animals used in predictive allergenicity testing at high enough concentrations. ⁸

Occupational exposure to PPD has caused liver injury, asthma, contact dermatitis and contact urticaria. PPD has also proven to be mutagenic in cell cultures, genotoxic in human lymphocytes when combined with hydrogen peroxide, causing chromosomal abnormalities, neurotoxic at moderate to high doses in animal studies and it has also caused lung cancer in a study on mice.

Other hair colourants linked with cancer and/or other adverse effects include m-phenylenediamine, N,N-BIS(2-hydroxyethyl)-p-phenelenediamine sulphate, 2,5-toluenediamine, 2-amino-4-nitrophenol (banned for use in hair-dyes in the EU and Canada), 2-nitro-p-phenylenediamine, 4-amino-2-hydroxytoluene, 2-methyl-5-hydroxyethylaminophenol, resorcinol, 1-napthol, to name but a few.

The oxidiser hydrogen peroxide is a skin, eye and respiratory irritant and can actually burn the skin. It is strongly irritating and can be corrosive at concentrations of 10 per cent. If ingested, hydrogen peroxide can cause severe internal damage and bleeding and if splashed into the eye it can result in ulceration of the cornea. Hydrogen peroxide can also cause genetic damage in vitro by forming free radicals. Apoptosis (programmed cell death) is reported to play a role in neurodegenerative diseases such as, traumatic brain injury and strokes. One study found that hydrogen peroxide induced apoptosis in cultured cerebral vascular smooth muscle cells, in a concentration-dependent manner providing a possible association between exposure to hydrogen peroxide and neurodegenerative diseases and strokes. ⁹ Hydrogen peroxide has also been found to have a dose dependent toxic effect on immature mice neurons in vitro. ¹⁰ In Japan this substance is banned for use in hair-dyes.

There is an array of questionable ingredients used in hair products apart from the dye components, for example:

Sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS), polyethylene glycol, oleic acid and propylene glycol – are all irritants and penetration enhancers.

The oleth family of ingredients (e.g. oleth-2, oleth-10), polyethylene glycol (PEG) ethers of oleyl alcohol and nonoxynols (e.g. nonoxynol -9), which are ethoxylated alkylphenols – can be contaminated with the carcinogens ethylene oxide and 1,4-dioxane.

 Polysorbate 20 – again poses a risk of 1,4-dioxane contamination.

Diethanolamine (DEA) related ingredients such as cocamide DEA, cocamide MEA, lauramide DEA and triethanolamine (TEA) – may be contaminated with carcinogenic nitrosamines.

Chlorides are extremely irritating to the mucous membranes.

<sub>1. McFadden, J.P., Allergy to Hair-dye, British Medical Journal, 2007: 334: 220.
2. ‘National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards: p-Phenylene Diamine,’ Centre for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH), NIOSH Publication No. 2005-149, Washington, DC, September, 2005; online at www.cdc.gov/niosh.
3. ‘Temporary Tattoos and Henna/Mehndi,’ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Office of Cosmetics and Colours, College Park, MD, April 18, 2001; Updated September 18, 2006; online at: www.cfsan.fda.gov.
4. McFadden, J.P., Allergy to Hair-dye, British Medical Journal, 2007: 334: 220.
5. Patel, S. et al, Patch Test Frequency to p-Phenylenediamine: Follow up Over the Last 6 Years, Contact Dermatitis, 2007: 56: 35-37.
6. McFadden, J.P., Allergy to Hair-dye, British Medical Journal, 2007: 334: 220.
7. ‘DermNet NZ: Allergy to Paraphenylenediamine,’ New Zealand Dermatological Society Incorporated; accessed January 4, 2008; online at: http://dermnetnz.org.
8. ‘Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) Opinion on p-Phenylenediamine,’ European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Brussels, Belgium, Adopted by the SCCP during the 9th Plenary Meeting of October 10, 2006; online at: http://ec.europa.eu/health.
9. Jianfeng, L. et al, Hydrogen Peroxide Induces Apoptosis in Cerebral Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells: Possible Relation to Neurodegenerative Diseases and Strokes, Brain Research Bulletin, December, 2003: 62 (2): 101-106.
10. Mischel, R.E. et al, Hydrogen Peroxide is Selectively Toxic to Immature Murine Neurons in Vitro, Neuroscience Letters, August, 1997: 231 (1): 17-20.</sub>