Dusting for Cracks in the Beauty Industry

HEALTHY LOOKS AND TOXIC INGREDIENTS

There also exists a more worrisome and concrete issue related to our Health. Herizons Magazine – a Winnipeg-based non-for-profit publication focused on the Canadian Women’s Movement, from health and the environment to politics and legal cases established since 1979 – has published an article examining the health risks associated with the chemical ingredients that go into cosmetics. Reportedly, men are not entirely free from these alleged risks.

According to the article, the Canadian Hotlist of restricted and banned chemicals was expanded in 2003 “from less than 100 to almost 500” chemicals after reviewing some in the European Union hotlist. Praznik agrees with the figure, more or less (he put it “just over 600”), but as far as the rest of the article goes, he expresses disagreement or at least scepticism. One reason for the difference in the number of ingredients in the hot list, explained Praznik, is because in Canada they name the compounds, while in the EU they name each individual ingredient that goes into a compound.

For instance, the article mentions that hydroquinone, a chemical deemed a carcinogen in the European Union, is used in many skin whiteners and hair straightening products in certain parts of the world where it is not banned. Though not used in cosmetics in Canada, it is used in certain drugs. Moreover, the article also mentions that studies have found that black women under 40 have a higher breast-cancer incidence compared to white women of the same age group. The studies also show that it is the former group that is more exposed to these products, even from childhood in some cases.

However, Praznik says that these studies are not entirely founded, and that many lack coherent scientific research. He asserts that “some of these groups … come out and say there is a hazard … and [that] therefore there is a risk. [But] they don’t look at the exposure level; they don’t look at route of exposure, etc.”, referring to the formula for risk that he produced for me, namely: Risk = Hazard x Exposure.

Speaking specifically about hydroquinone, he told me that it is found even in blackberries and other types of fruit and red wine. Therefore, though our harmful exposure to it is mostly from foods, Health Canada has deemed that the amounts will be so small that it will not do us harm. He did not refer to the drug side.

Praznik also suggests that even if hydroquinone was used in cosmetics we would not be exposed to it “sufficiently to do [us] harm”.

He reassures me that “for any particular ingredient of personal care product, there is a potential hazard to it; [but] the question is how are we exposed to it and how much?” He then said what Health Canada looks for in exposure is the amount and the route of exposure.

“For something to do harm to me, I have to ingest it and get it in my bloodstream. If I’m putting it on my skin which is hugely impervious – if it was easy to penetrate the skin the pharmaceutical industry would have been using that for years to get drugs in the system”. He then said that “if the exposure comes through ingesting it or getting it in our bloods-stream and were putting a small amount of it on our skin … there is no risk”.

But the article in Herizons Magazine suggests that our skin, particularly women’s, who have “greater percentage of fat” than men, does absorb chemicals that are “fat-soluble more easily”. Breast tissue, the article says, “is one such site where chemicals can accumulate.”

Parabens and phthalates are two such chemicals. The first is used to preserve antiperspirants and creams; the second one is also commonly found in personal care products, like soaps and perfumes. The article also cites that scientists “suspect the absorption of cosmetics through the skin could explain why young women in one study had 20 times the level of phthalates in their body compared to young men”.

The chemicals have been found to be harmful, to different degrees. The former has been found to possibly be linked to the development of breast cancer, but does suggest that more research is needed. The latter has been found to be linked to liver malfunction, low testosterone levels and low sperm counts (yikes!).

The article also says that studies have also found that “the accumulation of chemicals found in personal care products may affect men and women’s offspring”.

It sources a study done by the University of Rochester which found that the “development of the genitals of boys whose mothers had high levels of phthalates in their bodies was less complete compared to those exposed to lower levels”.

The article also criticizes Health Canada for not demanding that products undergo independent testing, and that instead it only requires an ingredient list to be produced. It also criticizes the fact that governments have historically exempted cosmetics from listing their ingredients on their packaging, unlike food manufacturers.

Praznik, on the other hand, tells me that “what we’ve seen from some in the environmental community and women’s organizations … is that they have said that if there is a hazard we shouldn’t do anything with it … so in other words if something has potential to do harm we should just avoid it”.

In response to the criticism about Health Canada and the lack of independent testing, he asserts that “ingredients-testers test their products [and that] manufacturers do certain amount of testing as well. Health Canada looks at studies that are related to these ingredients that are done all around the world and at what other jurisdictions do as well … that’s why there are things they prohibit and restrict”.

He furthermore states, as a former provincial minister of Health in Manitoba, that Health Canada never ignores any independent studies, and that “if there is a risk with any ingredient that is new and substantiated, it will be addressed … in this industry,” he continues, “if using the ingredient that the evidence says there is a problem with, it will drop that ingredient very quickly”.

Health Canada, he also said, “works very closely with regulators in Europe and the United States and in Japan as well. They are always talking to regulators and they are always looking at scientific information”. His own criticism is that many of the environmental and women’s groups “take stuff that is not really scientific and simply repackage it,” and because there is nothing new in them Health Canada and regulators dismiss them. Often times, he adds, the people “who do these studies or claim to do these studies … don’t go and give it to Health Canada, and they have a press conference instead.”

“Heath Canada,” he assures me, “works for the Canadian public … so they are the Honest Brokers,” unlike NGOs who have to raise money and have a cause or agenda, and industry which, although, as he says, never wants to cause harm to consumers, people still can criticize them and say that they are only trying to sell a product.

“These are the people who are the Honest Brokers; these are the people without self interests, other than the protection of consumers … if they look at this and say there isn’t a problem, I think consumers can take comfort in that.”

Still, Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep has created “fact sheets that identify which chemicals and which companies to avoid. [And] Revlon, Estée Lauder, Avon, L’Oreal and Johnson & Johnson are ranked in the group’s top 20 of concern. Chanel cosmetics are not tested on animals, but the group gives them the number two rating of brands to avoid, citing a lack of safety data available for the ingredients used.”

Moreover, according to Environmental Working Group’s report, “hair colour, nail polish and nail treatments contain some of the most toxic chemicals.” Notably, the article goes on to say, “OPI’s natural nail strengtheners … contain toluene, formaldehyde and dibutyl-phthalate—three of the top ingredients of concern.”