The Price of Beauty: Chemicals in My Cosmetics?
I am not a morning person, but every day a host of personal care products — from toothpaste to mascara — help me transform from hermit crab to butterfly. Yet some environmental groups claim that there’s a dark side to my routine: I may be lathering up and caking on a host of dangerous chemicals.
According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the average woman uses 12 personal care projects a day. I use about 18. They suggest that I and women like me should reconsider what and how many products we use, and they set up a database to help in the process called the Skin Deep Cosmetics Database. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (EWG is one of 10 “founding members”) also suggests using this database.
But will it really help? Probably not. An examination of some of the claims these groups make reveals that their science is “skin deep” — in fact, much of it is plain wrong. There is little evidence that personal-care products are the bane that these groups claim.
For example, the “Skin Deep” database ranks my toothpaste 4 and my soap 5 on a one-to-10 hazard scale. Both products share the same “hazard,” 1,4-Dioxane, a chemical ranking 10 on the Skin Deep hazard scale. The group’s database indicates that nearly 12,000 products might contain this substance.
Am I concerned? Not at all. This chemical isn’t even an ingredient in these products; it is a trace-level contaminant associated with making other ingredients.
There isn’t any data indicating that trace exposures to 1,4-Dioxane pose any problems. Indeed, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “The 1,4-dioxane levels we have seen in our monitoring of cosmetics do not present a hazard to consumers.” Of note, FDA has the power to pull any product off the market that poses a real risk to human health.
To justify its ranking of 1,4 Dioxane, EWG cites research that is not relevant: a handful of studies showing that rats exposed to high levels of the chemical formed tumors and suffered kidney damage. But humans are not rats and our exposure is multitudes lower. At high enough doses, rats even get cancer from high doses of chemicals found in broccoli, carrots, and peas! Will EWG call those goods hazardous?
There aren’t any studies linking the chemical to cancer in humans. A few studies link it to kidney problems in workers exposed to it over a long period, which is not relevant to the trace amounts in consumer products.
EWG claims that another culprit is my moisturizer. Supposedly, it contains an allegedly high-level hazard chemical listed in the Skin Deep database: vitamin A. Listed as Retinyl Palmitate in the EWG database, vitamin A/retinol helps control wrinkles.
Just like environmentalists the tactic is create a sense of threat out of whole cloth and let over reaction begin and watch us tie ourselves into a big knot trying to find ‘solutions’ to non existent problems.
Makeup and lipstick (all those colors have to be basically evil incarnations or something) are all subject to the ‘Silent Spring’ treatment. Hey it worked back then and we got DDT banned. Oh and those millions of kids under 5 who have died to malaria hey just remember we did it ‘for the children’.
I am hearing new studies show that ladies panties have all sorts of toxic elements to them so do your part and go commando and show your compliance every day to all around you to say see ‘I am pantie free’. Make sure you carry a sufficient supply of foil wrapped ‘supplies’ for all the praise that may encourage.
Hey that may be totally snark and ultimate stupid but it does fit with what they are trying to push.
Great article!
“But every day a host of personal care products — from toothpaste to mascara — help me transform from hermit crab to butterfly.”
Well, I think toothpaste is important because healthy teeth are important. Not having painful cavities should not be confused with vanity.
But I always wanted to know who women were making themselves up for? Is it for men, themselves, or for other women? And think of all that lost time spent in front of the mirror trying to “improve” what the Lord already has given them, beautiful faces, a lovely form, and a smile that makes men melt.
Well, this is all well beyond my pay grade. I think women are fine the way they are. Perhaps the more makeup you use, the more you’re trying to hide? You look great, ladies. Leave well enough alone.
My body tells me quickly what is toxic and what is not, with allergic reactions in the form of sneezing, rashes or watery eyes. I trust that test rather than the agenda of yet another money-grubbing “environmental” organization. When they campaign to against mercury-laden fluorescent light bulbs I might listen.
Libertyship46, Just remember the words from the Van Morrison song “All the girls walk by dressed up for each other”.
Talking about tooth paste. Read the book “The Fluoride Deception”. In the 1940′s Johns Hopkins stated that fluoride is a poison. Nothing has changed since then. According to the book (which is well documented) it can cause dental florosis, florosis of the bones, interfers with the bodies enzymes. Even NBC had a short news commentary on it several months back about the potential to mottle teeth. Read the warning label on your tube of tooth paste. its intersting.
You ignored dose, which makes your claim as useless as the ones in the article.
Chlorine is also poison, I suggest you eliminate it from your diet.
Just remember, water is a chemical too, and high enough doses can kill people. In fact, we homo sapiens are made up of chemicals.
More people die from DiHydrogen Monoxide overdose than from moisturizer overdose.
Fluorides can cause nuclear wars like documented in Kubrick’s “Doctor Strangelove”
Not if maintain the purity of your precious fluids.
Peace On Earth
“Our data is essentially meaningless, but we hope it will scare you into giving us money.”
It works for the global warm-mongers, why not for them?
Don’t know about toxicity, but face paint sure smells vile and makes women look just painted, but not better at all.
Plus it cost an amazing amount of money and most men hate it(apparently it’s gross to kiss)… not to mention the spots the skin develops when it’s doused all day in whatsits and can’t breathe, which is the actual cause of problems (and wrinkles), chemical ingredients or not.
Phase One:
Publish study showing that normal cosmetics are unsafe so people should use green ones.
Phase Two:
Comercialize “green” cosmetics
Phase Three:
Laugh to the bank.
It worked for vegetables, it works for energy, and now it is cosmetics.
“At high enough doses, rats even get cancer from high doses of chemicals found in broccoli, carrots, and peas! Will EWG call those goods hazardous?”
Sure. Carbon Dioxide is a fantastically dangerous pollutant threatening all life on the planet, so sure, peas are poison. Do you hear me?
PEAS ARE POISON!!1!
Thanks for a great common sense look at the Skin Deep rating system.
In response to JFM’s comment above about the commercialization of “green” cosmetics, I have also been disappointed in many brands and their changes.
Although the EWG website and rating system has its problems, I would like to know what alternative website Ms. Logomasini would suggest to learn about the chemicals we are being exposed to in our society? I do not feel that the EWG people or other similar organizations are necessarily making us more fearful, only more informed overall, and thus able to have some type of moderately informed opinion when buying cosmetic products.
I do not understand Ms. Logomasini’s comment about wanting to retain “freedom” to use “valuable personal care products.” I think this is a concern that is unwarranted. When fewer toxic and potentially toxic chemicals are allowed, the quality of our products goes up, not down. This has taken place thoughout history. Sometimes we have our setbacks, but generally, we make progress. Learning about problems is not about acquiring more fear, it’s about learning, changing, and growing. It’s painful sometimes, but overall it’s a happy process that makes us happier in our lives. Also, generally, the healthier we get, the happier we can feel, since we do rely a lot on chemicals in this physical body of ours.
Ms. Logomasini feels that the EWG site presents very negative ratings and too much unwarranted negativity. I personally do not understand the low (positive) ratings and apparent acceptance of a lot of chemicals and products there. We need to have this conversation about chemicals, however, and keep updating the regulations, and doing the testing, and not assume that companies are always on our side, when they most certainly are not.