Lipsticks, Perfumes May Be Hazardous to Health
EmailBeware of lipstick-stained lips before puckering up this Valentine’s Day. They could be covered in lead.
Reuters first reported that a new study conducted by the FDA found that 400 lipsticks on the market tested positive for lead, according to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition that advocates for safer cosmetics and hygiene products.
Maybelline Color Sensation by L’Oreal USA was the worst-offending lipstick of the group tested, the Campaign said. It contained more than 275 times the amount of lead that was found in the least-contaminated product.
Children’s products in the U.S. cannot contain more than 100 parts per million of lead. The highest offending lipstick contained 7.19 parts per million, the group said.
Oddly, the least contaminated was also the least expensive: Wet & Wild Mega Mixers Lip Balm. This just shows that cost is not a factor in lead levels, said Stacy Malkan, co-founder of Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
“There is no safe level of lead exposure,” Malkan told ABCNews.com. “It builds up in the body over time. A little bit every day is adding up and staying with you.”
Malkan said women use an average of 12 cosmetic and hygiene products per day.
Lead is a poisonous metal, and it was banned from paint products in the U.S. in 1978. The element is particularly dangerous to young children because it can cause blood and brain disorders in developing bodies.
There are no FDA standards in regulating the amount of chemicals in products, said Malkan. Companies don’t even need to know the chemicals that they are putting in their products.
“When these companies are asked about these chemicals, they argue, ‘it’s legal, so it’s OK,’” said Malkan. “That’s why we’re calling for the FDA to set a standard and give guidance to these companies for the best manufacturing practices.”
There is no safe level of lead for children, according to the CDC. The government agency issued a report that implored companies to keep lead out of their products to prevent exposure to pregnant women and children.
But the FDA seems to disagree. The government agency told Reuters in a statement, “The FDA did not find high levels of lead in lipstick. We developed and tested a method for measuring lead in lipstick and did not find levels that would raise health concerns.”
Lipstick is only the latest cosmetic to raise red flags. Kim Anderson, executive director of Ava Anderson Non-Toxic, a cosmetic line of chemical-free products, said customers should shy away from any product that lists “fragrance” as an ingredient.
“If they’re using the word fragrance, that company could be hiding up to 600 chemicals under that word,” said Anderson, who advocates for safer cosmetic regulations. “Seventy-five percent of the time, fragrances contain phthalates, a known-carcinogen that causes reproductive issues in the body.”
Even perfumes are coming under fire. A proposed bill in New Hampshire would prohibit state employees from spritzing on perfume or cologne before heading to work. The reason? For some people, these fragrances can cause severe allergic reactions. Interestingly, the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters enacted a policy in Spring, 2010, which banned employees from wearing fragrances, as well.
“We support such a ban,” said Malkan. “As we see more perfumes, we see more people who are sensitive to the fragrances, that can cause headaches, breathing difficulties and asthma. The fact that the CDC has a fragrance-free policy should be an indicator of something.”
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is launching the Kiss Lead Goodbye contest Tuesday, when women are encouraged to submit video submissions to hear what they have to say to cosmetic giants that put lead in their products. Learn more at www.SafeCosmetics.org/kissleadgoodbye
Man Discovers He's a Woman at the Hospital 
Head Trauma, Behavior Problems Linked
God bless New Hampshire! I hope that bill makes it to my state. There is nothing worse than being sickened by a stinking co-worker all day.
Posted by: Lori | February 14, 2012 February 14, 2012, 2:25 pm
Rumor has it that it was invented to avoid bathing.
Posted by: dashdot | February 14, 2012 February 14, 2012, 3:13 pm
The amount of toxins that we are putting in our bodies on a daily basic is ridiculous. I use the amazing Ava Anderson products because I love them and the way they make me feel…what an added bonus to know that they’re SO MUCH better for you than anything else on the market. So glad this is helping to get the toxic word out.
Posted by: jean | February 14, 2012 February 14, 2012, 3:28 pm
This article and “crusade” is a marketing campaign for a “natural” line of cosmetic products. It is misrepresenting the results of the study done by the FDA. The amounts of lead found in the products tested is miniscule compared to what is the maximum limit. Lead is a dangerous metal that can cause serious health effects, but so is butter. Lead can be found in some quantity just about anywhere. Tap water, the air we breathe, even in vegetables touted as “Organic” through absorption of the metal through the soil. Lead also is not easily absorbed through the skin, so unless you are eating the entire stick of lipstick, the total amount that will actually enter your body is much less. Everyone needs to stop getting so scared and assuming everything is dangerous. Instead learn the facts, not some marketing gimmick.
Posted by: GReggzz732 | February 14, 2012 February 14, 2012, 3:48 pm
Seriously, there are so many toxins in cosmetics that it’s beyond ridiculous. There’s a website that holds a database full of independently-funded research that’s been done on products most people use every day of their lives. The website is called Skin Deep, just do a search for Skin Deep database and you’ll find it. Then look up your favorite products and you’ll likely be ready to stop using them all together.
There are stores in our area that make boasts about all the natural beauty products they sell and the majority of those are just as toxic as the other ones.
When it comes to the word natural I like to remember a few things: lead is all-natural; arsenic is all-natural. Don’t trust any product without fully researching all its ingredients first.
Posted by: MP | February 14, 2012 February 14, 2012, 3:59 pm
I think some people are missing the point: personal hygiene and beauty products receive NO safety review before they hit the shelves. Many of them do in fact contain substances that are known to have negative health impacts. Right now most consumers think they are safe but we really have no scientific evidence that that is true. This is not a crusade for “natural” products (a term that has no meaning, anyway). This is a reminder that buyers need to beware–and perhaps demand more accountability on the part of manufacturers to prove their products are safe.
Posted by: Kelly | February 14, 2012 February 14, 2012, 7:08 pm
Humans have been using cosmetics ages. it is only recently that we have the technology to detect even the smallest traces of a compound in things we consume. You are more likely to consume containment that get mixed in your tap water from run off and dirty pipes than the lead from the these lipstick.
Posted by: Cindy | February 14, 2012 February 14, 2012, 7:46 pm
I clicked on the commerical link ABC News so ‘generously’ provided for the supposed “chemical free” cosmetics company, Ava Anderson Non-Toxic. Except, I couldn’t find ANY ingredients listed on the site, not even under the individual PRODUCTS. To find out their ingredients, you have to SEND FOR THEIR CATALOG. If their products are so wonderful, why can’t they list what’s in ‘em online, for the edification of ABC News readers?
Also, did anyone else notice that Ava Anderson apparently started the company when she was FOURTEEN years old? How old is she NOW? Are her products effective for any of us above the age of 30? 50? Older?
I can’t understand why the author of this piece saw fit to mention/link to this SPECIFIC company in the first place? Nepotism? Kickback? Are you an investor? Please specify. The public’s right to know, and all that.
Posted by: mjkbk | February 14, 2012 February 14, 2012, 8:11 pm
All makeup like lipsticks, mascara, foundation, etc. should have an expiration date on them. We seldom know how long ago it was packaged and could be detrimental to one’s health
Posted by: janice | February 14, 2012 February 14, 2012, 11:00 pm
Excellent, completely informative piece, ABC — the best of the stories on this important subject that was especially newsworthy today. Cosmetics have to be safe; it’s just that simple. I made the complete switch out of name-brand inorganic cosmetics and fragrances two years ago and a set of allergic symptoms that were baffling my doctor started to clear up within months. When the companies that produce these poisonous products are sued, especially the public companies, change will happen fast. So-called “edible lipsticks” are out there but they tend to be sold as specialty caché items and are, therefore, more expensive; this story shows that correlation is false. Thank you. Also, consider what non-biodegradable nail polish and nail polish remover are doing to our environment. In my community in the Bay Area (CA), regular nail polish and remover have to be trashed as toxic waste. Ingredients in cosmetics need to be listed on the product — and this has to be enforced. Take the lead out of paint on your walls but wear it on your nails and swallow it with every bite and sip … does that make sense? We need to get vocal and responsive about this now.
Posted by: Lynn Cee (Ms.) | February 15, 2012 February 15, 2012, 5:19 am
To MJKBK – you are wrong on every accusation -
1. ALL Ava Anderson products list all ingredients on the webiste. On the “shop” page, it is clearly labeled with many large, brightly colored links to our ingredients adn benefits of those ingredients. We are proud of our ingredietns and happily share them.
2. The company was founded by Ava with the help of her parents and a seasoned team of managers, based on her year of researching the issue of toxic chemicals in personal care products. Her family takes no salary, but supports her in this important endeavor to educate and facilitate change.
3. Ava’s products are effective for all Americans of any age who choose to reduce their body burden of toxic chemicals, and also wish to reduce the impact of these chemicals on the environment.
4. Ava Anderson Non Toxic is a Campaign for Safe Cosmetics “Champion” and has earned the right to be asked for input by any news agency, like ABC, just as the owner of any other personal care company could be. We never pay for press, advertising or endorseements and are privately owned. We have never heard of this journalist until she called us yesterday.
We have over 32 products that are organic, safe and effective. The author did make one error, we are not “chemical free”, because even water is a chemical. We are a “harmful chemical free” product line.
We also offer the opportunity for anyone who wants to earn an income to build a buisness sharing our products and message. We have well over 1,200 consultants in 48 states in just 24 months, earning an income in a tough economic climate, and are proud to be named by Entrepreneur Magazine as “Emerging Entrepreneur, 2011″ finalist.
Finding a problem, trying to fix the problem, not profiting personally, and dedicated to paradigm shifting change for the beneit of Americans and our enviornment. Great job Ava!
Posted by: kim | February 15, 2012 February 15, 2012, 5:34 am
What are Ms. Malkan’s credentials? This article, and related ones, give a lot of weight to the side of the alarmists without really presenting any firm evidence that there is cause for concern. As noted in this article, even the lipstick with the highest amount of lead had less than 8% of the minimum level that would be cause for concern in children. That means that even if the lipstick contained 10 times the measured amount of lead, they would still considered safe, even for children. Lead is by far more dangerous for children, but not really of particular concern to adults. Thus we can gather that this level of lead is even less dangerous for adults, who are largely the ones who actually use lipstick. So, unless there are children running around gobbling up lipstick by the barrel, it seems there’s a lot of smoke being made about a very small fire here.
Posted by: Bob | February 15, 2012 February 15, 2012, 6:06 am
Why is a “News” website allowing Kim Anderson to write long public comments promoting her company and congratulating her daughter Ava?
Not profiting personally…really? Their company is a for-profit corporation – and it not “chemical free” by the way — all cosmetics are 100% chemical!
Ava Anderson Nontoxic brand lipsticks contain lead because they are made with the EXACT same colorants as the brands that tested positive for lead.
Posted by: Susan Apito | February 15, 2012 February 15, 2012, 1:57 pm
First, Ava Anderson did not start a company on her own. She was likely pushed into it by her mother who financed the whole thing with family. She may be a smart 14-year-old starting a business but she certainly didn’t do it all on her own. Additionally, letting Kim Anderson, Ava’s mother, post her full media kit disguised as a “comment” is outrageous. She’s a pushy parent trying to disguise her own business as her teen daughter’s. It’s basically water in a bottle and we all know water has lead in it.
Posted by: Joan Branden | February 15, 2012 February 15, 2012, 11:10 pm
Wow, Joan, you are making some pretty strong assumptions and accusations about two women you have never met–”she’s a pushy parent trying to disguise her own business as her teen daughter’s.” I was a pretty intense young woman myself, who declared at age 6 that I would go to Harvard (and did, although from a family where we were on welfare when I was 6 years old), and I therefore understand that there are young people who know what they want from an early age, and are passionate and determined enough to pursue it. I know many people who have started businesses, and the majority of them have borrowed money from someone to do it. Why is it so unusual that a 14 year old would also require outside support to start a business?
And Susan, you disagree with Kim Anderson being allowed to respond to comments on the story, but then cavalierly go on to make a statement that “Ava Anderson Nontoxic lipsticks contain lead,” a statement which is not at all backed up by fact (they don’t contain lead, that’s the whole point)…do you see the hipocrisy in that?
Posted by: Danielle | February 22, 2012 February 22, 2012, 9:34 pm