News Coverage
Beauty's Ugly Face
Published December 15, 2002
Dublin, Ireland, 15 December, 2002 Birth defects, absent testicles, cancer, liver damage, kidney problems and decreased fertility conjure up a number of images: Chernobyl, Saddam Hussein's fantasies coming to fruition, or the effects of a chemical or biological attack.
In fact, the chemicals that might have such horrendous results are lurking in our bathrooms and on our dressers, with a stamp of official approval and wrapped in expensive packaging.
Modern cosmetics are packed with chemicals more at home in a test tube than on our faces. The amounts are negligible, we tell ourselves, and they wouldn't be on the market were they not absolutely safe.
The global cosmetics industry is worth in the region of $ 124 billion every year, a figure that suggests that the general public is convinced of the benefits of using these lotions and potions. But as we gear up for the annual festive splurge, claims that our beauty regimes are exposing us to a cocktail of toxic chemicals are becoming more widespread.
Some frightening statements have appeared in press reports in recent months: "Put down the lipstick if you value his sperm." "In a lifetime a woman eats about 4.5kg of lipstick. Most contain coal tar dyes that are carcinogenic." "Nail varnish contains some of the most toxic substances in cosmetics including toulene, a central nervous system toxin." "Powder foundations are up to 80 per cent talc, a known carcinogen." Is this just scaremongering? Are we exposed to more carcinogens eating burned toast? Consumers are beginning to wake up to the fact that we know very little about the chemicals we slather over our bodies. Irritants, toxins, potential carcinogens (which cause cancer), mutagens (which damage DNA) and teratogens (which cause birth defects) are just some of the chemicals said to be lurking in these feel-good products.
Two weeks ago, the New York Times ran full-page adverts advising readers that toxic chemicals linked to birth defects are being found in alarming levels in women of childbearing age. The ad's fine print went on to inform readers that many of these chemicals "are being added to popular cosmetics and beauty aids".
The ads were commissioned by Coming Clean, the Environmental Working Group and Health Care Without Harm. A few weeks earlier an equally controversial ad ran with the slogan "Something has come between me and my Calvins".
Swedish scientists found high levels of a chemical blamed for causing infertility in some of the best-known perfumes and cosmetics. Chanel No 5, Christian Dior's Poison, Eternity from Calvin Klein and Tresor by Lancome, were among 34 toiletries found by a Swedish study to contain di(ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) or other phthalates.
The study found phthalates, which are already banned in toys, in nearly 80 per cent of products tested. Women aged 20 to 40 appeared to receive the highest exposures, up to 20 times greater than the average person, and in some cases above the accepted safety standard.
The European Commission is now proposing a ban on the use in cosmetics of two of the most potent forms of phthalates amid fears they are responsible for decreased fertility, reproductive defects and genital abnormalities.
Australian toxicologist Peter Dingle, author of Dangerous Beauty, claims that more than 15 per cent of people suffer from adverse reactions to personal care products and that the number of people affected by long-term exposure to these chemicals -- a kind of slow poisoning -- may be much higher.
Most people assume that if a product is legal, it's safe.
"They're wrong," warns Dingle. "This is an incredibly powerful industry that spends billions convincing us we need its products, many of which are in fact damaging our skin." Industry assurances that the toxic chemicals are present in amounts too small to cause harm do not take into account long-term and cumulative effects, he argues. With some 9,000 chemicals currently included in personal care products, are we being sufficiently protected against their potential toxicity? The World Health Organisation has linked aluminium to Alzheimer's Disease, yet several brands of deodorants and cosmetics still contain aluminium. The (US) National Cancer Institute has stated that mouthwashes with 25 per cent or higher concentration of alcohol increase your risk of oral and throat cancer. Some brands exceed that concentration.
It is estimated that 99 per cent of all cosmetic and body care products contain some form of paraben preservatives.
British researchers found that these have the ability to mimic oestrogen in the body, which could play a role in falling sperm counts, and in the rising incidence of breast cancer in women. The use of parabens remains widespread.
Topping the agenda in the US at the moment is the use of alpha hydroxy acids (AHAs), sometimes called fruit acids or glycolic acid.
These have become a fashionable staple of many beauty creams; many women report their skin to be smoother after using them, because they act as a mini chemical peel. Crucially, the peel strips away some of the skin's ability to protect itself against the sun.
The Food and Drug Administration now wants cosmetic makers to tell consumers they may be more prone to sunburn when using products containing wrinkle-softening AHAs. A draft warning label the FDA published would recommend using a sunscreen and limiting sun exposure while using cosmetics containing AHAs, and for a week afterwards.
American environmental writer Kim Erickson believes everything from shampoo to moisturising creams and nail polish are likely to contain traces of hazardous waste. "Although for most of us, the majority of products appear safe in the short term, the results from long-term use could be deadly," Erickson writes in Drop-Dead Gorgeous -- Protecting Yourself from the Hidden Dangers of Cosmetics.
According to Erickson, 200 synthetic chemicals may be absorbed into the body with every cosmetic application -- some implicated in cancer, hormonal disruptions, neurological problems, irritations and allergies.
Reading, never mind understanding, the ingredients listed on many products is no mean feat. A glance at a typical lip balm label, for example, reveals that it contains salicylic acid, phenol and lanolin. Hardly illuminating for those without a scientific background.
Salicylic acid is a preservative that has caused birth defects in animals; phenol is a potential carcinogen and strong irritant; while lanolin is a skin sensitiser that can be contaminated with pesticides.
The camphor that gives it the buzz is an irritant and central nervous system stimulant readily absorbed through the skin.
The effect of toxic agents in personal care products is a complex topic, says Irish toxicologist Claire Chambers, who sits on the European Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers.
"I have not seen any evidence to support concerns about the cumulative effect of so many ingredients over time, but we may have accepted things historically at standards that are no longer acceptable." Chambers maintains that there is a false impression that the industry is largely unregulated, but concedes that anomalies do exist.
"Take preservatives. They are needed to stop the cosmetics from deteriorating," she says.
"They have a very necessary use. The concentration levels are key and they are regulated. However, the European Union also lists certain preservatives that may have other uses'. Those other uses are not clearly defined." Chambers adds that it is something that is being "looked at".
An example of the complications that result is provided by a substance called formaldehyde. Its safety was reviewed in 1984 by a panel of scientific experts commissioned by the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA), a trade association representing the cosmetics industry.
The CFTA concluded that there was insufficient data to show that cosmetics containing more than 0.2 per cent of formaldehyde were safe.
Cosmetics and toiletries sold within the EU may contain formaldehyde as a preservative, and restrictions have been applied to its use.
Regulations governing its use as an antibacterial in handwash, for example, are more lax. If a nail hardener contains more than 0.05 per cent of formaldehyde the label must clearly display these warnings: Contains formaldehyde' and Protect cuticles with grease or oil'.
But these warnings are not required on shampoo, shower gel or family bubble bath, all of which can legally contain four times as much formaldehyde.
It may seem odd that no standard safety level exists for all products.
But there would be no point. Manufacturers are legally obliged to list only ingredients that are added intentionally. They do not have to list any ingredients that are not intended to be part of the product. For example, they do not have to list any of the solvents they use to add fragrance chemicals. Any of the 2,600 such chemicals can be listed under the term parfum'.
According to Chambers, the register of chemicals used in personal care products within the EU was formulated in 1976.
"Many of these chemicals are very, very old. One dossier for an old chemical included tests done as far back as 1907. We are revisiting many of these to ensure that there are no problems. But providing we are satisfied with the research done, age does not mean the work is invalid," she says.
Chambers and her committee ensure "a huge margin of safety" when it comes to personal care products, but she readily agrees that the way in which these various ingredients interact with each other is largely unknown.
"This is a major problem. Where do you start? And if you look at a mixture, are you going to look at a drinker, a smoker, someone with allergies or not? Epidemiological factors must be considered." In June the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products Intended for Consumers proposed a strategy for identifying genotoxic/mutagenic chemicals and to evaluate the potential adverse health effects they might represent for consumers.
This arose after a scientific study reported a possible link between the use of hair dyes and the occurrence of bladder cancer.
Chambers says that hair dyes are being closely scrutinised. "At the moment there is a problem with some of the hair dyes. They are being revisited, as there have been a few incidents of people dying from anaphylactic shock an extreme form of an allergic reaction having used a hair dye." She stresses that these tragedies must be put in context. "It happens with peanuts. More and more people are getting sensitised to things, and nobody seems to know why. If you develop cancer the last thing you would implicate would be the hair dye. If there is a major survey that suggests hairdressers are more prone to it -- that's different," says Chambers.
Dr Gillian Murphy, a consultant dermatologist at Beaumont Hospital, believes the EU legislation is adequate. "The European legislation is actually very strict. Had these chemicals been causing serious damage we would have seen patterns emerging. I am comforted by the fact that they have been on the market for so long." Murphy also takes issue with some of the test procedures.
"There is an issue about sun-screen having oestrogenic activity. The particular chemical fed in vast quantities to baby rats caused an increase in weight in their uterus. Does that mean a chemical used on the skin in a much smaller dose causes similar problems in humans? "I honestly don't think it does. The test is just a test and its relevance to humans is questionable.
"Virtually all hair dyes contain paraphenylenediamine PPD ," adds Murphy.
"PPD doesn't pass the modern tests. What would happen in the European Union if all hair dyes were taken off the market because the European Union found that they don't pass a test? There would be a riot. I don't think it would pass Dail eireann. Think of how many politicians would be affected." Murphy stresses that there is no proof to suggest that cosmetic ingredients cause long-term damage. But it could be argued that no definitive proof exists about the long-term effect of using ecstasy.
Women have long risked their health in the quest for beauty. From the second until the 19th century, women whitened their faces with lead oxide, which accumulated in the body, leading to paralysis and, in some cases, death.
The first eyeshadows used lead and antimony sulfide, and lips were reddened with mercuric sulfide, both highly toxic substances.
Sales of cosmetics and personal care products are expected to exceed $ 145 billion in 2005, with the industry outpacing most others.
Demands for more comprehensive labelling and standard safety levels for all products seem reasonable.
Twenty years ago, the words 'free from artificial colours and flavours' were rare on food packaging. Now they are commonplace. It is high time the same was done for cosmetics.
