The Green Beauty Guide: Your Essential Resource to Organic and Natural Skin Care, Hair Care, Makeup, and Fragrances (5 page)

A cream delivers 300 percent more moisture? The shampoo makes hair five times shinier? Show us the proof, officials say. “The Cosmetics Directive does require that when a claim for efficacy is made for a cosmetic product, full substantiation for the claim should be available,” says the European Union’s Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC. Most often, such claims are validated by consumer testing, surveys, and clinical studies. Women slather creams on freshly washed, dry faces, and miracles happen— skin looks moisturized, and wrinkles are less visible. Women wash their greasy, limp locks with a new fruity shampoo and, what do you know, their hair looks shiny and clean. What a breakthrough!

Rarely do we learn if the dermatologist involved in the study was on the payroll of the cosmetic company, or if the study was peer-reviewed, double-blind, or carried out by an independent laboratory. No one bothers to tell us whether a sufficient number of participants was involved. (Most studies are done in vitro, in a glass tube.) If people were involved, how many participants were there? Most studies involve thirty to eighty volunteers, of whom “67 percent reported firmer skin” after a few applications. Did they apply the cream to clean skin? Did they sleep well? Did they drink lots of water? We will never learn, but these factors are important. We never know who conducted the study—the company itself or a laboratory, or whether this laboratory was founded by the company to substantiate this and many other marvelous claims, such as “makes you look ten years younger.” What would happen if an eighteen-year-old started using it? Will she suddenly look like a preschooler? Such claims look impressive in press releases and ads, but they are never published in scientific journals and validated by the scientific community.

Pseudoscientific blabber and impressive sales pitches aside, none of these so-called tests gives any information that is helpful for your skin and for a good reason: no one tests the skin care product to find out if it is making skin truly healthy—or at least not hurting it. All that matters is instant cosmetic effect. Beauty products are evaluated for safety
after
they are released to the marketplace.

Beauty products are evaluated for
safety after
they are released to the marketplace.

In most countries, it’s up to the manufacturers to ensure that their personal care products are safe. In the United States, the cosmetic industry-funded Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) evaluates the safety of cosmetic ingredients and products. It is very unlikely that a group of cosmetic manufacturers would voluntarily question the safety of the ingredient they buy in hundreds of tons and use in thousands of products. Neither cosmetic products nor cosmetic ingredients are reviewed or approved by the government health agencies before they are sold in stores.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) employs a hands-off approach to cosmetics: there is no harm until harm is proven. Instead of testing beauty products before they appear on the market, the FDA regulates products only after they are sold, investigating health complaints when and if complaints are filed. At the same time, the FDA estimates that only 3 percent of the 4,000 to 5,000 cosmetic distributors have ever filed reports on injuries to consumers with the government agencies.

If there is a safety problem with a cosmetic product—for example, a number of allergic reactions arising in many people—the FDA can take action to obtain the manufacturer’s safety data on the product and ask for detailed safety testing results. Most of the tests are performed to ensure that the product is effective in delivering the promise. Human studies conducted by manufacturers often focus on overall appeal—such as a pleasant smell, silky feel, or a light texture—or short-term results, such as an “instant lifting effect.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture reminds us that label claims of a product being “dermatologist tested,” “sensitivity tested,” “allergy tested,” or “nonirritating” carry no guarantee that it will not cause those reactions. Such tests only prove that the product is effective against wrinkles, dandruff, or sunburns, and the results can be visible in a matter of minutes, days, or at least a few weeks.

All safety-related tests are performed on animals. Since there is not yet enough information on alternatives to animal testing ensuring human safety to validate the use of certain chemicals, the FDA at this point will only accept animal safety data. While the European Union (EU) has banned animal testing of cosmetic products since 2000, elsewhere beauty products are most often tested on genetically modified mice or rabbits whose lifespan is much shorter compared to that of a human being.

Even if a complaint is filed, sometimes it takes decades to come up with a sizable body of complaints to invoke an investigation. Then it may take another decade to convince legislators that they should ban the substance from cosmetic products. The FDA has the authority to declare a product misbranded, adulterated for reasons such as improper labeling, or dangerous to health. Generally, the FDA must prove these allegations in court. For this reason, the FDA will often accept the industry’s action of voluntarily withdrawing a substance from use. Many manufacturers prefer to voluntarily recall the questionable product or quickly reformulate it to remove the dubious ingredient. In June 2008, when California filed a lawsuit against the manufacturers of shampoos, body washes, and dishwashing liquids contaminated with 1,4-Dioxane, only one manufacturer, Beaumont, quickly reformulated its products, removing the ethoxylated compounds from the ingredients. This proves that cosmetic manufacturers are well aware of the potential harm caused by some of their ingredients but will do nothing until they face a lawsuit.

And in most cases, even lawsuits are powerless. The investigation can take years, and during all this time no one can prohibit the manufacturers and stores from selling potentially cancer-causing beauty products. No one will voluntarily slap a sticker saying “Warning: Can Cause Cancer” on their so-called organic products. You see, such stickers won’t help sales.

In sixty-seven years, the FDA has banned or restricted only nine personal care ingredients. It took the FDA twenty years to ban the use of lead in paint on toys and furniture. However, a recent wave of recalls of millions of children’s toys that were contaminated with excessive amounts of lead in paint shows that such bans mean very little when it comes to the millions of items sold in thousands of stores. Testing of toys, as well as of the rest of consumer products, is voluntary, sporadic, time-consuming, and money-consuming— and, therefore, rare.

In sixty-seven years, the FDA has banned or restricted only nine personal care ingredients.

Medical research has already proven that synthetic fragrances trigger asthma (Curtis 2004), that the detergents in shampoos can damage eye tissue (Scaife 1985; Neppelberg 2007), and that hair-dye chemicals can cause bladder cancer and lymphoma (Zhang et al. 2008). Absorbed into the body, toxic chemicals can be stored in fatty tissue or organs such as the liver, kidneys, breasts, ovaries, and brain. Cosmetic companies accuse the media of alarmism, but scientists are finding plastic components called phthalates in urine (Adibi et al. 2008), parabens and antibacterial agents such as Triclosan in breast-tumor tissue (Darbre 2006), as well as the hormone-disrupting fragrant component xylene in human breast milk (Reiner et al. 2007).

Still think that blue metallic eye shadow is your cosmetic bag’s worst secret?

1,4-Dioxane: Silent Killer

This hidden cancer-causing petrochemical has been found at high levels in dozens of babies’ and adults’ personal care products, including baby baths and hair dyes. In July 2007, laboratory tests revealed the presence of this petroleum-derived contaminant in popular baby products, including bestselling baby baths and baby washes sold worldwide. The tests also found the carcinogen in some of the most popular shampoos, body washes, and many other personal care products used daily by millions of women worldwide.

1,4-Dioxane is considered a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Animal tests have indisputably proven its tumor-promoting activity (Stickney et al. 2003). 1,4-Dioxane is also on California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65) list of chemicals known or suspected by the state to cause cancer or birth defects. U.S. federal regulators, particularly the Integrated Risk Information System, consider 1,4-Dioxane’s potency to be equivalent or greater than many pesticides (EPA 1992, 2000).

This carcinogen forms during a procedure called ethoxylation, a cheap shortcut that companies use to provide mildness to harsh ingredients. This process requires the use of the cancer-causing petrochemical ethylene oxide, which generates 1,4-Dioxane as a byproduct.

This is why you will never find 1,4-Dioxane in ingredient lists. No warnings are given either. Because this contaminant is produced during manufacturing, the U.S. Department ofAgriculture does not require 1,4-Dioxane to be listed as an ingredient on product labels, and the practice of assessing risk one chemical at a time does not account for the combined effects of very low levels of hidden contaminants in personal care products and from other sources.

The FDA has been measuring 1,4-Dioxane levels since 1979, but because the agency has little authority over the cosmetic industry, it has no power to make the manufacturers reduce levels of 1,4-Dioxane. All you can do at this point is carefully scan the ingredient label. Check product labels for ingredients that contain “eth” in their name, such as sodium laur
eth
sulphate, (PEG) poly
eth
ylene glycol, ol
eth
, myr
eth
, cetear
eth
—basically, any ingredient that has an
eth
in its name most likely tests positive for 1,4-Dioxane. Unfortunately, many so-called “natural” and “organic” beauty products contain ethoxylated synthetic ingredients, and many well-known shampoos, baby products, and even dish detergents bearing words “organic” and “eco-friendly” on their labels revealed whopping amounts of toxin during tests carried out by the Organic ConsumersAssociation. For more information, check
www.the greenbeautyguide.com
.

Some Greenwashed Products Are
Contaminated, Too

The shocking results of the recent study by the Organic Consumers Association revealed that many personal care and household cleaning products claiming to be “natural” or “organic” are contaminated with traces of 1,4-Dioxane. Astonishing amounts of 1,4-Dioxane were found in “natural” dishwashing liquids and other so-called earth-friendly products.

In June 2008, the attorney general of California filed a major lawsuit against Avalon Natural Products (manufacturer of the Alba brand),Whole Foods Market California (manufacturer of the Whole Foods 365 brand), Beaumont Products (manufacturer of the Citrus Magic brand), and Nutribiotic, the manufacturer of well-known shampoos and conditioners, whose products tested highest for 1,4-Dioxane. The lawsuit alleges that these companies should have put warning labels on products containing high levels of 1,4-Dioxane, stating that they may cause cancer. As the investigation continues, check
www.thegreenbeautyguide.com
for more information.

The Solution

It’s no secret we are ready to pay more for beauty products that claim to be clean from contaminants. However, a visit to any health food store unfortunately reveals the majority of products in the personal care section with “organic” brand-claims contain only cheap water extracts of organic herbs and maybe a few other token organic ingredients to justify the “organic” claim on the label. The core of such products is composed of conventional synthetic cleansers and conditioning ingredients usually made in part with petrochemicals, often containing toxic contaminants like 1,4-Dioxane.

The general rule of thumb is to avoid products with unpronounceable ingredients. To avoid 1,4-Dioxane, the Organic Consumers Association urges consumers to search ingredient lists for indications of ethoxylation including:myreth, oleth, laureth, ceteareth, and any other “eth,” PEG, polyethylene, polyethylene glycol, polyoxyethylene, or oxynol in ingredient names. Watch out for “eths” and PEGS, and your health will thank you.

When I was writing this book, I suffered a lot of sleepless nights because I couldn’t stop thinking about all the damage I have possibly done to my baby by using a breast pump made of plastic with bisphenol-A or treating her bottom to PEG-containing baby wipes. The new research on 1,4-Dioxane came out when the book was almost ready, and I developed a sort of mental immunity to these sort of shocks. Without much surprise, I discovered that I was washing my baby’s cutlery and bottles with a fruity-smelling dishwashing liquid that claimed to be “pure, earth-friendly, and all-natural.” It had the name “Masha” scribbled on it to let all fellow dishwashers know that this supernatural and super clean detergent must only be used on baby cutlery, cups, and bottles. Down the drain it went in an instant. From now on, we wash our dishes with unscented organic liquid soap, and for baby cups and bottles, it’s baking soda and a chunk of plain old-fashioned olive soap. I’d rather not take any chances.