How "natural" are the contents of your makeup case? Recent tests suggest that, advertising often to the contrary, cosmetics are holdouts in the trend towards truly organic and toxin-free products.
Over half of the lipsticks tested in an October 2007 study were found to contain lead. In onethird of the 33 lipstick samples, the quantity of lead was more than 0.1 parts per million, which is the legally allowable "safe" limit in candy by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In this case, it's not the acute toxicity that alarms toxicologists most; it's the possible effects on a developing fetus in pregnant lipstick users, as well as the cumulative effect of long-term lead absorption.
Spokespeople from L'Oreal and Cover Girl stated that they are in compliance with FDA regulations. But that isn't enough for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (www.safecosmetics.com), the coalition of groups that commissioned the tests and who say that the results reflect integrity problems in the cosmetics and the personal care product industries.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics works to improve cosmetic ingredient safety and accountability because with today's bombardment of chic marketing words like "natural" "healthy" "green" "cruelty-free" and "antioxidant-enriched," it's only the savviest of shoppers who can get below the hype.
Whatever we put on our skin, including our lips, is absorbed or ingested, much like whatever is in the food we eat. When it comes to food, consumers have caught on to the organic trend and seem to know to look for a "certified organic" seal, which is a guarantee of quality. But cosmetics and personal care products remain in a gray area hyped by big advertising budgets and our favorite superstars.
"In any given product, 90 percent or more of the ingredients are non-toxic," says Dr. Gary Ginsberg, toxicologist with the Connecticut Department of Public Health and co-author of What's Toxic, What's Not (Berkley/Penguin, 2006). "The typical surfactants, emulsifiers, oils and fragrances are generally safe. However, as with many things, the devil is in the details and it's small percentage items, some of which don't need labeling, which are most worrisome."
Ginsberg points in particular to the endocrine-disrupting effect of the common beauty ingredients phthalates, parabens and benzophenones. "Chemicals could theoretically affect a wide variety of hormones and systems, but the predominant trend appears to be towards feminization: making boys less male and increasing a woman's estrogen dose to the point where it becomes a risk to breast cancer," he says.
Lucky for us, Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Database, an online guide, helps separate the good, the bad, and the ugly. This tool for choosing cosmetics and personal care items by the Environmental Working Group (EWG, www.ewg.org) analyzes ingredients in almost 25,000 products against 50 toxicology and regulatory databases.
A typical makeup case would probably contain at least a mascara, a foundation and a lipstick. And to give you some examples, here's what Skin Deep has to say about these typical, randomly chosen products:
Maybelline Great Lash Mascara in Very Black
On a hazard scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the more toxic, this basic beauty staple rates a 5/10, containing ingredients linked to cancer, developmental/reproductive toxicity, allergies, immuno-toxicity and a variety of other concerns. Fifty percent of rated mascaras have lower concerns.
Safer options are Jane Iredale Purebrow Fix & Mascara (1/10) and Miessence Organic Mascara
in Pure Black (2/10).
Cover Girl Clean or Avon Personal Match Matte Liquid
Both of these foundations have a "Not Recommended" high hazard rating of 7/10. You might want to switch to formulations from Larenim, Valana Minerals or Lueur Jeune (all 1/10).
MAC Cream, Frost, Glaze Matte, Satin Lipsticks
Nice to see these offerings from a department store regular have a moderate hazard rating of 3/10, although MAC Amplified Cream Lipstick is 4/10. Or, try the Afterglow Cosmetics brand, whose lipsticks rate 1/10 and whose maker has signed the "Compact for Safe Cosmetics".
The Compact for Safe Cosmetics, signed by over 500 companies, is a pledge to formulate safer products; a full list of signatories is at
http://www.safecosmetics.org/companies/signers.cfm. So far, OPI, Avon, Estee Lauder, L'Oreal, Revlon, Proctor & Gamble and Unilever--all major cosmetic and personal care product
manufacturers--have refused to sign.
The Environmental Working Group points out that the FDA doesn't require companies to test their own products for safety. EWG also says that legal loopholes allow manufacturers to put almost any ingredient into their products. As a result, they are petitioning Congress to strengthen industry regulations. To sign the online petition, go to www.cosmeticdatabase.com.
The Skin Deep database is very useful for switching to safer products. So is looking for seals of organic certification rather than the rather meaningless word, "natural."
With temperatures dropping, it's a typical time to invest in new skin creams or winter colors. Do a little research first and make your purchase less toxic, truly.
Michelle Hancock is a part-time staff writer with Health Action Network Society (HANS) – a national, non-profit, membership-based charity headquartered in British Columbia, Canada. HANS monitors and reports on important health and environmental issues both national and global. Annual membership starts at $35. Visit www.hans.org or call 604-435-0512.