You and I start out each day with lathering on facial cleanser, moisturizers, deodorant, using toothpaste and several other “health and beauty” products. And we end the day with similar rituals using maybe a dozen products including soaps, shampoo and a dizzying array of hair products, lip balm, sunscreen, etc. The men and children in our lives have yet other products.

No Safety Testing Required
How often have you thought about the ingredients in these products? Unless we have an allergy to a product or its ineffective we assume that it’s safe to use. Right? Aren’t these products in the categories monitored by the Food & Drug Administration? The truth be told–they’re not. We consumers are on our own.
A non-profit organization, the Environment Working Group (EWG), reports on their website that major gaps in public health laws allow cosmetic companies to use almost any ingredient they choose–even lead, mercury and placenta. Ingredients in any kind of product–sunscreen, mascara, deodorant, baby shampoo–are sold to consumers with no restrictions and no requirements for safety testing, reports the Group.
EWG tests products and on the website report by brand name and product the toxicity levels they find. You (and your friends) should research what’s on your bathroom counter–85 million have already done.
The Group is also working to improve the regulatory environment–there are petitions to support–but without a whole lot of success.

FDA won’t enforce Warning Labels
In response to a cosmetic safety petition filed by the EWG, the FDA issued a final response in 2005 affirming its inability to enforce a requirement that a warning label be posted on products that have not been substantiated for safety. So not only are the ingredients not tested for safety, you’re not going to be notified of such.
Furthermore, the FDA declined to develop guidance for the cosmetic industry on what must be done to substantiate safety and what standards must be met to ensure safety. In other words, the industry will set all the rules for itself, and the FDA abdicates responsibility. Visit http://www.cosmeticdatabase.com/

Nano technology dramatically raises Risks
The regulatory environment has been dangerous already, but new technology gives a quantum boost to the dangers. Stacy Malkan, author of Not Just a Pretty Face: the Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, tells us in her book (New Society Publishers, 2007):
“As if there weren’t enough concerns about the toxicity of cosmetic chemicals, manufacturers are rushing to incorporate nanotechnology that uses particles 80,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. Nanotechnology has been touted as the next revolution in cosmetics and packaging. However, nanoparticles, being so tiny, have the potential to penetrate unusually deeply into the skin and organs, causing exotic physical effects.

Animal studies show that some nanoparticles can penetrate cells and tissues, move through the body and brain and cause biochemical damage. As one example, carbon fullerenes–also called buckyballs, and currently being used in some moisturizers–can cause brain damage in fish, and even low levels of exposure can be toxic to human liver cells. The health impacts of nanomaterials in cosmetics and sunscreens remain largely unknown, pending completion of long-range studies that have only recently begun. But that’s not stopping the cosmetics industry from leading the charge to incorporate the inadequately tested technology into products we put on our faces and in our hair.

“In one of the most dramatic failures of regulation since the introduction of asbestos, corporations around the world are rapidly introducing thousands of tons of nanomaterials into the environment and onto the faces and hands of hundreds of millions of people, despite the growing body of evidence indicating that nanomaterials can be toxic for humans and the environment,” said a May 2006 report by Friends of the Earth. The group filed the first-ever legal challenge on the potential health impacts of nanotechnology in a 2006 petition to the FDA, demanding that the agency monitor and regulate nanoparticles in cosmetics.

“Hundreds of personal care products already contain nano-sized ingredients, and thousands more contain ingredients that are available in nano form but don’t include information about particle size on the labels, according to a Skin Deep analysis. Since nano-sized ingredients are absorbed differently into the body, they require separate safety studies. But as Iane Houlihan noted, “Manufacturers seem to be following the pattern they established with conventional chemical ingredients–put poorly tested chemicals into personal care products and do the science later, if at all.”

“With no safety framework and little government oversight, the cosmetics industry is operating in a virtual Wild West. And the West has gotten wilder still.

• Nanoemulsians in shampoo encapsulate active ingredients and carry them deeper into hair shafts.
• Nanosomes of Pro—Retinol A penetrate the skin’s surface to soften wrinkles and reduce the appearance of fine neck creases.
• Nanovectors transport and concentrate active ingredients in the skin.

“In the absence of federal regulations, some cities are trying to get a handle on the situation. Berkeley, Calif., became the first city to regulate nanotechnology in December 2006, and other cities may follow suit. Under the Berkeley law, companies and research labs that make or use nanoparticles must disclose that fact to the city government and provide information about known health or safety risks.”
My question: With no federal regulations, are city health inspectors going to enforce city laws to post warnings to consumers? Not likely to happen. For the foreseeable future, we consumers are on our own.
Salud!
Beverly A Jensen, Ph.D.
President, www.WomensMedicineBowl.com