back to top^

The Ugly Side of Beauty Products

In recent decades reproductive and developmental problems have become more prevalent--for example, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that male reproductive problems, including undescended testicles and hypospadias, doubled between 1970 and 1993. Environmental chemicals are strongly suspected to be contributing factors. Several recent reports highlight the presence of low-level concentrations of potential reproductive or developmental toxicants, particularly phthalates, in cosmetics and personal care products. A key question is whether these exposures are significant enough to cause harm.

Starting too young? Concern is mounting over the effects of long-term exposures to chemicals--such as phthalates--found in cosmetics and personal care products.
image credit: VStock/Alamy 

In June 2004, Environment California issued Growing Up Toxic: Chemical Exposures and Increases in Developmental Diseases, which details chemicals found in consumer products and their potential health impacts. Other reports released around the same time by the Environmental Working Group (Skin Deep: A Safety Assessment of Ingredients in Personal Care Products) and Friends of the Earth (Shop Till You Drop? Survey of High Street Retailers on Risky Chemicals in Products 2003-2004) support Environment California's publication.

According to these three reports, makeup, shampoo, skin lotion, nail polish, and other personal care products contain chemical ingredients that lack safety data. Moreover, some of these chemicals have been linked in animal studies to male genital birth defects, decreased sperm counts, and altered pregnancy outcomes. There is no definitive evidence for the same effects in humans, but widespread exposure, primarily to phthalates, has been shown to occur.

Phthalates, as key components in plastics, appear in many consumer products. The main phthalates in cosmetics and personal care products are dibutyl phthalate in nail polish, diethyl phthalate in perfumes and lotions, and dimethyl phthalate in hair spray. Often, their presence is not noted on labels.

"The concerns that are focused around this particular chemical [class] have arisen from a series of tests and studies that have been released recently that point to significant potential health concerns," says Sujatha Jahagirdar, an environmental advocate with Environment California. For example, a population study conducted by the CDC and published in the March 2004 issue of EHP demonstrated that 97% of 2,540 individuals tested had been exposed to one or more phthalates. Another preliminary study conducted at the Harvard School of Public Health and published in the July 2003 issue of EHP showed a correlation between urinary phthalate metabolite concentrations and DNA damage in human sperm. However, exposure sources in this study were unknown.

The personal care industry remains confident about phthalate safety, however. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel, an independent research group sponsored by the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, published a detailed literature review in February 2003 that unequivocally states that current use of phthalates in cosmetics and personal care products is safe. Marian Stanley, manager of the Phthalate Esters Panel of the American Chemistry Council, says, "Some of these concerns [from environmental groups] are based on high-dose animal testing. The exposure that we really see in people--and we have the CDC numbers to back that up--is remarkably low. To us, why bother getting rid of a highly useful product when there should be no concern?"

Therein lies the controversy--environmental groups view the CDC data as evidence of widespread exposure, whereas industry groups view it as evidence of low-level exposure that falls well below amounts shown to cause problems in animal studies. The environmental groups respond that although it may be low-level exposure, it is chronic low-level exposure. Says Elizabeth Sword, executive director of the nonprofit Children's Health Environmental Coalition: "In my view there is sufficient evidence to pique my concern, not only as a parent but as the executive director of this organization, to circulate this information directly to parents in a way that they can then make the healthiest decisions."

However, consumers cannot make such judgments without knowing the ingredients contained in the products they use. "There are industry trade secrets and formulations that for industry reasons are kept from the consumer," says Sword. "This prevents the consumer from making fully informed decisions."

Environment California and the other environmental organizations hope to change that through consumer education and policy reform at the state and federal levels. "Environment California is pushing for a commonsense chemical policy that requires chemical manufacturers to test . . . their chemicals before they are released into the market and also provide the public with the tools that it needs to protect itself from potential dangerous impacts," says Jahagirdar. "Labeling is an extremely important and ethical thing for manufacturers to be doing."

"I think a lot of this comes down to an individual's acceptance of risk," says Sword. "[Each person's] personal risk tolerance is different. I think what we as a society need to feel confident about is that adults will at least make better decisions if you give them a way to do so, particularly when the health of a child may be at risk from making a bad decision."

Julia R. Barrett
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/113-1/forum.html

back to top^

How Dangerous Are Your Cosmetics?
 
Most personal care and beauty product consumers would be slightly unnerved to find that the government doesn't require any mandatory testing for these products before they hit store shelves. As a matter of fact, a government agency found out that cosmetic manufacturers could use just about any raw materials in their products and then put them on the market without needing approval by the FDA.

The lack of government involvement has led to companies who manufacture these types of products to not adhere to any testing standards and market products that are considered to cause potentially damaging health risks.

A six-month computer investigation evaluated the safety of over 10,000 personal care product ingredients and included 2,300 people. The investigation revealed the following information on personal care use:

Each day, the average adult uses nine personal care products that contain 126 different chemical ingredients

Over a quarter of a million women and one out of every 100 men use on the average of 15 products a day

Findings From the Personal Care Safety Assessment:

Only 28 of the 7,500 products in the study were completely tested by the cosmetic industry's self-regulating panel

An astounding one-third of all the products assessed contained at least one ingredient that fell under the classification of human carcinogen

71 percent of the hair dye products evaluated had carcinogenic coal tar as part of their ingredients

Almost 70 percent of the products reviewed were found to have ingredients that could be tainted with impurities related to cancer and other health complications

54 percent of the products violated the safety recommendations proposed by the self-regulating Cosmetic Ingredient Review Board. Some examples of the unsafe ingredients in these products were discovered in diaper cream, products on the market for damaged skin such as chapped skin and other ingredients found in spray products

Over the course of keeping watch over the cosmetic industry, the FDA has banned a mere nine personal care products

Based on these findings, researchers agreed that the lack of monitoring by the FDA has led to a huge leniency toward the testing of cosmetic ingredients and has resulted in a large portion of products available on the market that pose health risks to the consumers.

Recommendations to Cosmetic Manufacturers by the Environmental Working Group:

• Take out all possible cancer carcinogens and other developmental toxins from products
• Ensure that ingredients are certified and free of impurities with known possible human carcinogens or developmental toxins
• Eliminate any ingredients that qualify as harmful or unsafe

www.ewg.org

back to top^

Endometriosis and PCB Exposure

Endometriosis may be related to exposure to persistent pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), according to research published in the May 2006 issue of Chemosphere. This gynecological disorder linked to infertility afflicts 10% of U.S. women of reproductive age. Researchers measured blood PCB levels in women undergoing laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis or other gynecological conditions. Higher levels of PCBs were detected in women with histologically confirmed endometriosis compared with controls.

Toxicologist Elena De Felip of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome and her colleagues measured 11 PCB congeners that are most abundant in human tissue. In 80 women aged 20 to 40, the sum of all congeners was 1.6 times higher in the 40 women diagnosed with endometriosis than in controls. Three congeners, PCBs 138, 153, and 180, were particularly higher in women with endometriosis. These three congeners have been reported to have estrogenic activity and to interfere with hormone-regulated processes.

PCBs have been used since the 1930s, mainly in electrical equipment. Although no longer manufactured, these persistent chemicals accumulate in the food chain; today meat, fish, eggs, and milk are chief sources of PCBs. But diet seems unable to explain the difference in PCB levels detected in the two groups of women, since "the dietary habits of the women were basically the same," says De Felip.

De Felip suspects that differences in how women detoxify and eliminate PCBs from the body may explain the disparity. These processes are mediated by polymorphic enzymes; therefore, she says, differences in toxicokinetic activity may represent the basis for the higher concentrations detected in women with endometriosis and may also be related to higher or lower susceptibility to that condition.

Studies of PCBs and endometriosis face several limitations. Researchers typically measure only a few widespread congeners that are selected because of their toxicological activities, including an association with cancer shown in animal models. "So we're only getting part of the picture," says Germaine Buck Louis, chief of the Epidemiology Branch at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

In a study described in the January 2005 issue of Human Reproduction, Buck's team measured 62 congeners in 84 women undergoing laparoscopy. Levels of 4 antiestrogenic congeners were 3.77 times higher in women diagnosed with endometriosis than in controls. "We don't fully understand the role of estrogenic and antiestrogenic PCBs," she says, but complex interactions of many PCBs as well as other chemicals may be involved in developing endometriosis.

Recent advances in PCB detection methods allow more congeners to be measured at lower concentrations. "Women with endometriosis may have low levels of a particular congener not found in [other women]," says Louis. Moreover, breastfeeding reduces PCB levels in women, so women without endometriosis may have lower blood levels because they become pregnant and breastfeed more often. "There's no ideal comparison group for endometriosis studies," says Louis, and "there are no easy answers."

Carol Potera
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/114-7/forum.html#endo

back to top^

Make-Up Holds Hidden Danger of Cancer  
By Amelia Hill

Women are being exposed to deadly diseases through the everyday use of common cosmetics bought over the counter.

The growing list of synthetic ingredients manufacturers add to their products are turning the most innocent-looking shampoos and moisturizers into cocktails of toxins that could cause cancer over years of sustained use.

These synthetic ingredients are inexpensive, stable and have a long shelf-life. Manufacturers love them, but although the majority of products appear safe in the short run the results from long-term use could be deadly.

Modern cosmetics contain a host of dubious ingredients thatwould be more at home in a test tube than on our faces. Coal tar colors, phenylenediamine, benzene, even formaldehyde, are just a few of the synthetic chemicals commonly included in shampoos, skin creams and blushes - toxins which are absorbed into your skin with every use.'

There is no question that people are being damaged by their cosmetics. How can they not be? So many things are put into cosmetics now that are carcinogenic and it is allowed because cosmetics are not considered to be as serious as drugs or food.

The adverse effects of toxins is compounded over decades, confusing hormone receptors and slowly altering cell structure. Chemicals are transmitted into the bloodstream in a number of ways: powders have the least absorption, while oily solutions or those designed to increase moisture allow more of the chemical to be absorbed.

Eye makeup can be absorbed by the highly sensitive mucous membranes. Hair sprays, perfumes and dusting powders can be inhaled, irritating the lungs. Lipstick is often chewed off and swallowed.

The United Nations Environmental Program estimates that approximately 70,000 chemicals are in common use across the world with 1,000 new chemicals being introduced every year. Of all the chemicals used in cosmetics, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has reported that nearly 900 are toxic - although other groups attack that figure as being far too conservative.

Compared to the toxins found in our air, soil and waterways, cosmetics seem a trivial pursuit to many environmental health and consumer advocacy groups. But many of the same poisons that pollute our environment, from dioxins to petrochemicals, can be found in the jars and bottles that line our bathroom shelves.

It is too early to know with certainty how serious the long-term impact could be on health, but warns that hormone-disrupting chemicals may lurk in cosmetics which could lower immunity to disease and cause neurological and reproductive damage. 'Many of these same ingredients have been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals,' she said. 'At best, a visit to your neighborhood cosmetic counter could result in allergies, irritations and sensitivities.'

The Observer April 7, 2002

back to top^

Reproductive & Developmental Hazards: Spotlight on Mercury
By Noah Chalfin

Maternal exposure to mercury via diet and airborne sources, especially in its organic forms, is associated with reproductive toxicity, and in the case of methyl mercury, profound neurobehavioral damage in the developing fetus.

Organic mercury (methyl mercury) is the most dangerous form of mercury because it is the most easily absorbed in the maternal gastrointestinal tract following ingestion, and it is readily transferred into the brain of developing fetuses. Levels in fetal circulation may be significantly higher than levels in maternal blood, and methylmercury appears in significant levels in breast milk.

Bacteria in the environment transform other forms of mercury into organic mercury, which is then taken up in algae eaten by fish, making its way into the human diet. Contaminated fish, particularly carnivorous fish such as swordfish, tuna, shark, and pike, are a major source of organic mercury exposure for many people.

Elemental mercury is a significant hazard only when inhaled. People may be exposed to mercury in the air from waste incinerators that are burning batteries, fluorescent bulbs, or medical waste. Oil and coal burning facilities also emit mercury into the atmosphere, since mercury is a contaminant of these fuels. Once elemental mercury is in the body, it passes easily into the brain and across the placenta to the fetus. 

Organic mercury exposure has resulted in two large epidemics of poisoning in recent history.

One episode, in the area around Minamata Bay in Japan, occurred in the 1950s, and the second series of outbreaks occurred in Iraq in the late 1950s, early 1960s, and early 1970s, when imported seed grain was treated with organic mercury to retard fungal growth. Instead of being planted, the grain was used for bread making, and thousands of people were poisoned. Although some adults developed symptoms, including constricted visual fields, numbness of the fingers and toes, and even poor coordination, the main victims of the exposure in both epidemics were children exposed before and after birth.

Organic mercury selectively damages the developing brain. In the outbreaks of poisoning in Japan and Iraq, infants had cerebral palsy, mental retardation, incoordination, weakness, seizures, visual loss, and delayed development. Often a child exposed to organic mercury in utero appeared fairly normal at birth, with only slight abnormalities of reflexes and muscle tone, but later had seizures, long delays in learning to walk and talk, and severe clumsiness. At lower-dose levels, the only observed effects were abnormal muscle tone and reflexes and mild developmental retardation when retested at an older age.

Health effects of organic mercury are similar in animal studies and the human population. It is one of the best-understood developmental toxicants. Organic mercury interferes with cell division and migration of cells in the developing brain. Studies in mice have shown that cells in the developing brain stop in the middle of cell division when exposed to organic mercury.  In addition, methylmercury binds to DNA and interferes with the copying of chromosomes and production of proteins, processes that are essential to life.

Two major ongoing studies of people who eat a lot of fish - one in the Seychelles Islands and one in the Faroe Islands - are attempting to evaluate the low-dose effects of methylmercury on brain development. Preliminary results are conflicting, with the Seychelles study showing little or no effect, and the Faroe study showing subtle but significant impairment of brain function.
Based on the aforementioned Iraqi study, the U.S. EPA projected that the highest chronic exposure to methylmercury tolerable without likely health effects is 1.0 µg/kg body weight/day, and on that basis set a reference dose (RfD) of 1.0 µg/kg/day.

The evidence of adverse health effects from elemental and inorganic mercury exposure is not clear. These forms of mercury do not appear to affect the developing brain like organic mercury does. Although animal studies indicate that elemental mercury can damage male fertility, men occupationally exposed to elemental mercury vapor did not have any apparent decrease in fertility compared to a group of unexposed men, nor did their children have a greater risk of malformations. Animal studies, however, have shown that elemental mercury can be toxic to the fetus.

A different study of exposed male workers found a twofold-increased risk of spontaneous abortion among their wives. Studies in women, mostly dental assistants, have found conflicting results as to whether elemental mercury increases the risk of spontaneous abortion. One large cohort study demonstrated spontaneous abortion and other pregnancy complications in exposed women. Several additional studies suggest that women occupationally exposed to elemental mercury may have an increased risk of menstrual disorders, particularly heavy bleeding and severe menstrual cramps.

Citation of references has been excluded for the sake of brevity. Please contact the author noah@cetos.org for fully cited article reprints, or with questions pertaining to a specific point.

http://www.cetos.org/articles/reprodevel.html