Glinskaya 1 Catherine Glisnkaya Mr. Anthony Borrero Engl 1102 03.20.13 C.A.P. Project draft 3. A beauty elixir, or poison?

Many people nowadays seem to be concerned about safety and regulations in drug and food industry, but we take little stance when it comes to the safety of cosmetics. We simply are not being cautious of what we buy when it comes to shampoos, toothpaste, baby powder etc., being led by attractive bottles, advertisement, slogan or some catchy word presented on the label. Do we, American customers, even look at the back of the bottle? Even if we do, do we understand what we are reading there? Ammonium lauryl sulfate, dimethicone, cocamidopropyl betaine, guar hydropropylytrimonium were only a few names I found on my shampoos label. Ingredient such as Ammonium lauryl sulfate is one of the top chemicals listed on the toxic twelve list - the list that contains dangerous ingredients [Toxic Cosmetic Ingredients]. If so, why it is still present in the shampoo I bought? In fact, about 90% of beauty and personal care products that foam contain Ammonium lauryl sulfate. It is linked to eye damage, depression, diarrhea, skin irritation, and even death [Toxic Cosmetic Ingredients]. It is quite shocking information, which raises several questions which I will pursue further. Are the accusations of cosmetics industry in using hazardous chemicals solid? If yes, are the companies not abiding the safety rules, or there are simply no regulations to adhere to? To find answers to these questions we need to consider if the safety of cosmetics is a relatively new issue,

Glinskaya 2 or it has been brewing up for years. When did we start to see the lack of power over the cosmetics industry and a breach in customers safety? We also need to consider if there are any alternatives to choose and how we, as customers, should respond to the issue of safety in cosmetics industry. To start with, lets travel back to 1930ies, when a huge scandal around one of the most popular cosmetic companies took place. Several women suffered corneal damage after using an eyelash beautifier an eyelash and eyebrow dye called Lash Lure. Moreover one of the women went blind [Cancer Prevention Coalition par 1-3]. Taking into consideration that these injuries happened several decades ago, we would assume that now, after dramatic cases like that the government would have corrected the situation by carefully regulating cosmetics industry. Unfortunately, passing legislative regulations has not become the result of these tragic events. American government seems not to notice the safety concerns. This, again, may be proven by about 38,000 injuries related to cosmetics, which required medical treatment, that were registered in America in 1990 [Cancer Prevention Coalition par 3]. Unfortunately the issue of safety in cosmetics still continues, accumulating thousands of new cases of injuries each year for about 70 years since the first scandal appeared on the scene. Many of the customers suffer from skin rashes, inflammation and burns, blistering, allergies that are caused by cosmetics. These injuries, according to Thompson Solicitors, can leave lasting effects or even leave scarring [Thompson Solicitors]. Furthermore, according to The Legal Line a company that works with customers claims, some allergic reactions related to cosmetics may effect the respiratory system with serious health implications, even to the point of causing asthma [The Legal Line].

Glinskaya 3 This information brings me to my main concern regarding the safety of cosmetics. If so many injuries were caused by cosmetics and so many cases of skin irritation, skin burn are still happening nowadays, why not to restrict or prohibit the usage of dangerous chemicals, or at least label them correctly? In fact, 89 % of all available to cosmetics chemicals were never evaluated [The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, par 1]. Then, who is responsible for monitoring the situation? Greta Chapin-McGill in her article Marketing Requirements for Beauty Products points out several organizations that keep an eye on the cosmetics industry where The Food and Drug Administration (the FDA) seems to play the most important part [par1]. The FDA, which promises on their website to protect and promote consumers health, does in fact has the authority to inspect manufacturers facilities [Chapin-McGill, par 1, FDA]. It has been administered the control in 1938, when the Congress passed the Federal Food and Drug Cosmetic Act (FD&C). This act was triggered by the scandal around Lash Lure, which was mentioned earlier. Yet, since the Act was passed, it was amended only once, in 1960, only to monitor color additives in beauty products [McGill]. If to explore the FDAs website closer, it is clear that the FDA does not have power to regulate cosmetics industry. Speaking the FDAs words, cosmetic ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority [FDA par 1]. However, it points out that there are some regulations which violation can turn out into some mystical regulatory action [FDA par 1]. Unfortunately, that action is not specified. Nevertheless, there are indeed listed 8 chemicals prohibited in the use of cosmetology. The list consists of bithionol, clorofluorocarbon propellants, chloroform, halogenated salicylanilides, methylene chloride, vinyl

Glinskaya 4 chloride, zirconium-containing complexes and prohibited cattle materials with some exceptions in specified risk materials. The last one actually implies that vertebrae of the tail, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, strangely, can still be used in cosmetics [FDA par 4-11, par 19]. In addition to that, there is another exception to the rules, which is hidden underneath proficient language. The FDA states that the use of chlorofluocarbon propellants is prohibited in cosmetic aerosol products intended for domestic consumption [FDA par 4]. Does this mean that customers and workers in professional salons are left to be envenomed? Yet, the list is not completed. Besides those 8 humbly represented chemicals the FDA also itemizes cosmetic ingredients that are restricted by regulations. Only two chemicals are represented in this category: hexachlorophene and mercury compounds. By putting them into restricted section, the FDA clearly and obscenely states that these chemicals can be used, if no other alternative is found to be effective and safe [FDA par 12]. Indeed, do they mean that mercury in my eye cream is safe? As a matter of fact, the FDAs list of Selected Cosmetic Ingredients of 8 prohibited and 2 restricted chemicals looks extremely poor in comparison to one that European Union agreed on. The EU passed the Cosmetics Directive in 1976 with following amendments in 1979, 1985 and 11 corrections [Council Directive 1,2]. This document lists 1371 chemicals banned for usage in cosmetics industry [Council Directive 65]. Dene Godfrey comments on the number of the chemicals, arguing that the majority of the ingredients listed by the EU has never been used in cosmetics [Godfrey par4]. But, when it comes to customers health and safety, shouldnt the government, including the FDA, be more precautious about whats allowed in our cosmetics? The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health reported 884

Glinskaya 5 chemicals available for use in cosmetics as toxic[Cancer Prevention Coalition par 1]. And yet, the FDA leaves the banned list with 8. Summing it all up, the FDA really does not seem to have any authority over the cosmetics industry, except for it can control the color additives [FDA par1]. In that case, are there any other institutions the consumers can rely on in terms of safety? The campaign for Safe Cosmetics on their website mentions Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) as a safety panel that examines chemicals used in cosmetology. However, in the history of more than 30 years it has reviewed only 11% of ingredients that are currently being used in cosmetics and named 9 unsafe ingredients [The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics par 3]. This statistics does not give much confidence in the panel, although its effort is appreciated. In addition to that, words on the labels if the products seem to be too vague and unclear. What does it mean natural, safe, and pure? These terms are undefined with no indication of the danger the bottle might contain. Nor does the CIR take into consideration a likelihood of the exposure of the body to multiple hazardous chemicals during extended periods of time [The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics par 3]. Since neither independent campaigns nor a government institution can fully provide the safety of cosmetics, the industry is left to self-regulate. What the companies do to insure the safety of their products? Apparently, companies do their own testing. At the same time, according to the FDA, they lack sufficient data and generally refuse to disclose the results [The Campaign for safe Cosmetics par 2]. In addition to that according to Rachael Pomerance, The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in the study of 17 popular fragrances found on average 14 undisclosed chemicals [Pomerance par 2]. Moreover, out of 4 to 5

Glinskaya 6 thousand distributors, only as few as 3 percent have filed reports on customers injuries. [The Campaign for safe Cosmetics par 2]. To top this huge mountain of disguise in cosmetics industry, the FDA estimated that less than 40 percent out of 2,000 to 2,500 cosmetic manufacturers are actually registered [The Campaign for Safety Cosmetics par 2]. After all the information hunted out of the cumulus of the research, it is inevitably clear that cosmetics industry is left self-regulated with the companies and procedures we cannot completely trust. By this time you should be trying to get out of the sinking in quicksand of trust to government, companies and campaigns, trying to find the solution to the problem of the safety of cosmetics.

[conclusion] what to do? Except for the options not to buy the products that contain dangerous or potentially hazardous chemicals (to fight with the help of our wallets, so to speak), we need to change the way how the cosmetics are produced. Although it has been an attempt to correct the situation the Safety Act of 2011, it was lobbied by the companies. Passing the laws etc. We no longer can go by the FDAs paper of gateway for manufacturers and need to authorize real laws and authorize an institution, whether its the FDA, or any other one, with the power to impose the law. By choosing the word power I mean it, I mean that we need to have an institution that can regulate the process of production, the chemicals being used in it and labeling of the products. And if something goes wrong to have the power to recall the line and to fine the company for not strictly abiding the regulations.

Glinskaya 7

Works Cited Page Chapin-McGill, Greta http://www.ehow.com/facts_5071101_marketingrequirements-beauty-products.html#ixzz2PHJJzD1f

Toxic Cosmetic Ingredients Toxic Chemicals In Cosmetics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMk4osS20OY

Rachael Pomerance How Safe Are Your Cosmetics? http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2012/07/31/how-safeare-your-cosmetics Cosmetics and Skin http://www.cosmeticsandskin.com/bcb/lash-lure.php Cancer Prevention Coalition http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmetics/cosmetics_persona l_care.htm Thompson Solicitors http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/productliability/dangerous-products-personal-injury-compensation.htm The Legal Line http://www.thelegalline.co.uk/product_liability_faulty-productliability-personal-injury-compensation-claims.aspx#cosmetics The FDA http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/SelectedCos meticIngredients/ucm127406.htm Council Directive http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1976L0768:20100 301:en:PDF Godfrey, Dene http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/03/the-eu-has-banned-over1000-chemicals-the-fda-has-only-banned-9/ The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics http://safecosmetics.org/section.php?id=75