CHEMICAL GOOD LOOKS

[megabuff]

The following is an extract from BY Emily Yoffe, U.S. NEWS &
WORLD REPORT, November 10, 1997, pp. 86, 91

Each day American women reach for shampoo and conditioner,
deodorant, moisturizer, and dusting powder. We apply blusher,
eye shadow, mascara, and lipstick, then maybe dab on a nail
polish and perfume. We look good, we smell good, and we have
just exposed ourselves to 200 different synthetic chemicals. As
American consumers we have every confidence that someone in a
lab coat in a big government building has checked out these
substances. Right? Not exactly. "You know more about the
chemical ingredients in your dog’s collar than you know about
the toxicity of the chemicals you’re putting on your skin.",
argues David Wallinga, a senior scientist with the Natural
Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C. It turns out that
cosmetics - a group of products that includes makeup, skincare
creams, hair-care products and dyes, baby lotions, and
deodorants, on which Americans spend about $22 billion a
year—comes to us almost un-examined by the Federal Government.
And, as recent events on Capitol Hill indicate, the situation is
not about to change.

To get a prescription or even an over-the-counter drug on the
market, a manufacturer must first prove the drug’s safety and
effectiveness to the Food and Drug Administration. The burden of
proof rests on industry. That’s not the case for cosmetics,
although the FDA regulates them, as well. Except for a handful
of banned chemicals, manufacturers can add almost any
ingredients to those revitalizing eye creams, vitamin-stuffed
conditioners, and kiss-resistant lipsticks, and if questions
about the safety of products arise, the burden is on the
government to prove the product is unsafe. With a budget of
about $5.5 million—less than one per cent of the FDA total—and
around 30 employees, the cosmetics division is rarely up to that
challenge, say critics.

The law governing cosmetics says that they may not contain
"harmful substances". But how the tests for harmful or unsafe
substances will be conducted is left up to the companies
themselves. The FDA doesn’t accept standards for proper safety
testing - and doesn’t require companies to do any testing at
all. If the company does tests, the FDA has no authority to
review the records. Companies test synthetic chemicals in
cosmetics for their tendency to cause allergic reactions and
irritate skin (protests over using animals for these tests have
led many companies to do them in test tubes and on human
subjects). But as for possible long-term toxic effects of
exposure to synthetic cosmetic ingredients, says John Bailey,
Director of FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors, "those kind of
issues are not addressed very well

[megabuff]

This summer, the cosmetics industry almost won an even laxer
regulatory set-up from Congress. Republican Sen. Judd Gregg
introduced an amendment to the FDA reform bill that would have
prohibited states from requiring warning labels on products
containing suspect chemicals, or otherwise filling the vacuum in
the federal rules. Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, with the
support of the Clinton administration, managed to defeat the
proposal. "The reason preserving the states’ ability to act is
so important is that FDA’s regulation has been so weak.".
Kennedy says.

Ironically, the law that created the modern FDA in 1938 is
itself partly the product of public concern over
cosmetics-caused injuries. An eyelash-dyeing product called Lash
Lure was damaging the eyesight of many women, and after one
woman died and another was blinded, Lash Lure became the first
product seized under the new FDA authority. Since then, the
rules governing the manufacture and distribution of foods and
drugs have been endlessly revised. But the cosmetics rules
haven’t been changed much, despite a revolution in the way
scientists think about the skin.

In the 1930’s, skin was thought to be essentially an impermeable
barrier, a more attractive version of armadillo plate. But since
at least the 1960’s, it has been widely known that the barrier
can be breached, partly as a result of demonstrations that some
pesticides could enter the body through the skin. In the 1980’s,
in particular, molecular biologists began piecing together a new
understanding of the skin as a reactive, dynamic organ. This
view led to the development of transdermal patches, which
deliver drugs into the body through the skin. Back to top

Not all chemicals can pass through the skin, however. Many
ingredients in cosmetic creams are designed to sit on the
surface, helping to keep the skin moist by holding in water,
says Jim Riviere, Director of the Cutaneous Pharmacology and
Toxicology Center at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.
Many ingredients in these products, such as fatty acids, are
identical to chemicals that occur naturally in the human body.
"Most ingredients I’ve come across in cosmetics are fairly
benign compounds.", Riviere says.

But there is a controversial class of chemicals in cosmetics
that may be absorbed through the skin. These are the color
additives, derived from petroleum, known as coal tars. Coal tar
colors (they are also found in foods, like M&Ms) are the single
group of ingredients in cosmetics required to be tested for
safety.

In 1960, there were about 200 on the market. But because so many
have been found to be carcinogenic, such as Red No. 2, which was
banned in 1976, today the list of approved colors numbers about
45.

[megabuff]

Hair dyes derived from coal tars are mostly exempt from federal
rules.

Women who use dark dye for many years might increase
their risk of dying from cancer. The FDA’s Bailey says these
remaining dyes have been so widely tested that he has "very high
confidence that they’re safe". Not everyone is so sure. Dr.
Andrew Weil, the natural health maven, advises avoiding the
color additives whenever possible. "[Many] are energetic
molecules that can interact with DNA, potentially causing
mutations that lead to cancer", he writes.

There is an extraordinary loophole in the FDA regulations
regarding testing and approval of colors. In 1938, the industry
managed to win an exemption so that hair dyes derived from coal
tars don’t have to meet the standard that products not be
harmful under normal use. As the FDA’s own publication on hair
dye points out, "Compounds suspected of causing cancer are found
in temporary, semi permanent, and permanent dyes." Back to top

Bad Hair Daze

Does that mean hair dyes cause cancer in people who use them?
The epidemiological studies are mostly reassuring. In 1994, a
large survey found that dye users had a slightly lower rate of
fatal cancers than women who didn’t color their hair. But there
is one exception: Women who used dark hair dye for two decades
or more had a four times greater risk of dying from two cancers
of the immune system, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and multiple
myeloma.

The FDA itself is looking into Alpha Hydroxy Acids (AHA), which
are added to skin creams to help smooth out fine wrinkles.
"We’ve demonstrated that the use of AHAs increases sensitivity
to sunlight", says Bailey. He speculates that the chemicals may
also make skin more susceptible to skin cancer and perversely to
even more wrinkling from sun damage.
Of course the question arises, how much do we really want to
know about the safety of our cosmetics? We face so many dangers
in life, do we have to live in fear of our moisturizers, too? As
an experiment, I cross-checked the ingredients in my Anti-Aging
face cream with A Consumer’s Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients.
Most seemed fairly harmless. Until I got to zinc sulfate, about
which the dictionary noted that "injection under the skin of 2.5
milligrams per kilogram of body weight caused tumors in
rabbits." That’s when I began to wonder if the Anti-Aging
moniker was a macabre joke. Is the idea that if I use it, I
won’t live long enough to get my full complement of wrinkles?
But I’ve already paid good money for it, and I’m still using it.

In 1978, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, did an analysis of how the laws should be changed to
improve cosmetics safety. The office suggested reforms like
establishing industry-wide standards for safety testing and
reviewing data from countries that have banned particular
ingredients to see whether similar actions should be taken here.
Those are just the kinds of reforms industry critics are seeking
today—and will be seeking for a long time to come.
_________________
Maree McGoldrick
www.bodiorganic.com