"The system for regulating cosmetics [in the U.S.] is virtually nonexistent," Archer says. "Other countries are far ahead." The E.U., for example, has banned the use of more than 1,000 substances in cosmetics; in contrast, the FDA has barred the use of eight substances for use in cosmetics: bithionol, chloroflurocarbon propellants, chloroform, halogenated salicylanilides, methylene chloride, vinyl chloride, zirconium-containing complexes, and prohibited cattle materials (to prevent the spread of mad cow disease).
Other chemicals are restricted to certain uses and require special labeling. Earlier this year, for example, the FDA concluded that carmine, an extract from insects used as coloring in some makeup and food, was a common allergen. As a result, it ruled that beginning next year carmine must be listed as an ingredient rather than simply as "color added" on cosmetic and food labels.
Another government group, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), can take legal action if it discovers that companies are making false advertising claims. But its power doesn't extend to some of the most popular buzzwords of today's market. Claims such as "natural," "organic" or "hypoallergenic" have no specific legal definition in the cosmetic world. Rather, the terms such as hypoallergenic "mean whatever a particular company wants [them] to mean," the FDA's Web site says.
Consequently, consumers should beware, Archer says. "Unfortunately… people see these words and associate them with a better product," she notes.
Is the fox guarding the henhouse?
A patchwork of voluntary organizations have cropped up in the absence of more robust government regulation.
In an attempt to track ingredients and stave off widespread harm, the FDA runs the Voluntary Cosmetic Regulation Program. Participating cosmetic makers and distributors file lists of products and their ingredients with the agency. The FDA can then notify companies in the database if a certain ingredient is found to be potentially troublesome.
The industry-backed Personal Care Product Council (PCPC)—whose membership covers about 15 to 20 percent of U.S. cosmetics companies, which make more than 80 percent of products on the market—encourages companies to do substantial testing before introducing products to the market. Bailey says that most companies perform computer modeling and will run ingredients through a database of toxins. Beyond that, he notes, "finished products typically go through a battery of testing…[and]…usually there will be in-market monitoring, as well" to watch for complaints. He says that the best way to ensure safety is for companies to stick to ingredients that have proven safety track records.
Cosmetic companies have also been receiving guidance from the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), which was started (and is funded) by PCPC in 1976 to evaluate ingredients in beauty products. The CIR's Web site promises that "review processes are independent from the Council and the cosmetics industry," noting they are conducted by a nine-member panel that includes a toxicologist, a dermatologist and a consumer representative as well as nonvoting FDA and industry officials. The CIR has reviewed about 1,500 ingredients to date, which Bailey says account for more than 80 percent of the ingredients commonly used in cosmetics.
The CIR's findings, however, are nonbinding. "Their decisions and whatever conclusion they make need to be reevaluated by the FDA to see if we concur," the FDA's Katz says. When tipped off by the CIR, the FDA will go back to the raw data—including toxicology analyses and adverse-reaction reports—and conduct its own analysis before ruling on whether to limit or ban a certain ingredient or suggest recalls.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentExcellent post. Some very interesting assumptions and yes we should be careful about what we put on and in our bodies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://buymineralblush.com">Blush</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's in your personal care products? Go to www.cosmeticsdatabase.com to find out. Then buy your non-toxic products at Ava Anderson Non-Toxic - the first line of truly non-toxic products.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.avaandersonnontoxic.com/debcole
>>"including the estimated four pounds (1.8 kilograms) of lipstick an average lipstick-wearer consumes in a lifetime, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit public interest organization based in Washington, D.C."<<
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a ridiculous myth that has been perpetuated over and over in the media. I was hoping with a name like scientific media, you might have done some maths before publishing it. A lipstick weights 4.2 g. To consume 1800 g of lipstick over your lifetime, you would need to use a whole 428 lipsticks. This would mean, every year for 60 years, completely using up 7 lipsticks, and eating every bit of it. Please stop reprinting this ridiculous myth!!!!!
Excellent post. this is very useful post for me......<a href = http://geniusbeauty.com > health news </a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeauty Gold offer human hair extenion, wigs, drawstrings, electrical hair equipment, contant lense to a customer.
http://www.beautygold.co.uk/
just we need to use more natural products
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<A HREF="http://www.soapway.ca"> handmade soap </A> ...etc
Excellent post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.layladbeauty.co.uk
just we need,products natural is the best