How Safe Are Health and Beauty Products?

Nov. 22, 2005 — -- You reach for your toothpaste, soap, shampoo and makeup about a dozen times in an average day. But how many times do you wonder what's actually in those products?

Researchers who do wonder have come up with some surprising findings: many popular brands contain ingredients that are known or suspected of causing cancer, reproductive harm or hormonal changes.

And the safety of these everyday products is largely unregulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or any other government agency.

"Because of minimal regulation, products plainly dangerous to your health can be, and are being, sold," said Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, in a CPC statement.

But many in the industry, and even some industry critics, claim that threats to human health from health and beauty products are exaggerated. These conflicting reports may leave consumers wondering what products are truly safe.

FDA and Industry List Ingredients of Concern

The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research group based in Washington, D.C., has developed an online guide to health care products called Skin Deep. This searchable database provides exhaustive information on the ingredients in 988 brand-name products including toothpaste, shampoo, soap and mouthwash.

Many of the popular brands listed in the Skin Deep report contain ingredients that EWG claims are known cancer-causing agents, potentially toxic to the kidneys, liver or digestive organs, or pose toxicity hazards to the nervous system.

The EWG report also includes a handful of product ingredients called "Top Ingredients of Concern." Among these are mercury, lead acetate, coal tar and petroleum distillates, which are prohibited for use in cosmetics by the European Union or are recognized by the FDA as unsafe for use in cosmetics above restricted levels. (Mercury, for example, is allowed by the FDA in eye area cosmetics at levels below 65 parts per million.)

The Cosmetics Ingredient Review is a panel of experts funded by the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, the trade association for the $32 billion personal care products industry. The CIR has established its own list of products it recommends eliminating, including HC Blue No. 1 (a hair coloring ingredient), the preservative chloroacetamide and hydroxyanisole, an antioxidant.

But because the CIR recommendations carry no legal or regulatory clout, these ingredients and others like them are still found in health and beauty products.

Are Consumers Acting as Guinea Pigs?

The FDA has little authority over most of the personal care products sold in the United States. The agency can take action if a product is found to be mislabeled or adulterated, but the FDA does not review products before they hit the shelves.

"Cosmetic products do not have pre-market approval," said Dr. Linda Katz, director of the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors. "We assess safety of cosmetic products on a post-market basis."

The responsibility for testing cosmetics -- including soap, makeup, shampoo, and other health and beauty products -- is left to manufacturers who conduct tests themselves and report the results with no independent review.

So are American consumers acting as guinea pigs for manufacturers of personal care products?

"Yes," said Lauren Sucher, director of public affairs for the Environmental Working Group. "Ninety-nine percent of products have ingredients that have not been tested."

This includes testing by the industry's own safety review panel, the CIR panel, Sucher noted.

According to Katz, the FDA conducts reviews for products that present a question of safety. "Even though we don't have pre-market approval [authority], we do do our own research and reviews as the need arises," she said.

But this research and testing has not resulted in any alteration in product ingredients or any change in product availability, according to the FDA.

Epstein, who is also professor emeritus of environmental and occupational medicine with the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, described health and beauty product oversight by the FDA as, "virtually nil. They're asleep at the wheel."

Product Complaints Called 'Pseudoscience'

There are experts, however, who claim the information put forth by EWG and other critics lacks real scientific merit.

"The Environmental Working Group has a very fine reputation of producing first-class work," said Epstein, who nonetheless referred to the Skin Deep database as "pseudoscientific" and described the report as "provocative."

"It lacks scientific value," Epstein said. "While I applaud the intent ... I think the science is poor and it plays into the hands of the other side."

Purified water and sodium chloride -- ordinary table salt -- are included in the EWG report as ingredients that are untested and therefore considered suspect. Epstein considers their inclusion "an overstatement."

Epstein also questions the listing Skin Deep gives to hydrogen peroxide, acetone, menthol and boric acid, calling these ingredients cancer risks. There is no hard evidence linking these compounds to cancer, he claims.

The CTFA has also released a statement deriding the Skin Deep information as riddled with false claims, noting that, "every cosmetic product on the market today has been substantiated for safety -- including by examining studies and testing -- as required by federal law."

But Sucher of EWG counters that the CTFA statement is patently misleading. Federal requirements for cosmetic safety testing are virtually nonexistent, and when tests are conducted, the results are reviewed by the CIR, a panel made up of industry appointees.

Sucher challenges the cosmetics industry to present its own tests on health and beauty products for public scrutiny. "If you have better information than we have, please let us see it."

A Compact for Safe Cosmetics

Many consumers who are concerned about potentially dangerous ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products have turned to alternatives that include more organic and natural ingredients.

More than 200 manufacturers have signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, a nonbinding pledge to eliminate the use of ingredients known or suspected of causing cancer, mutations or birth defects within three years.

The compact was developed by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, supported in part by the EWG. Some of the inspiration for the compact came from the European Union, where stricter regulations for cosmetic safety are in place.

Avalon Natural Products, based in Petaluma, Calif., signed the compact and is currently replacing some product ingredients with safer alternatives.

"We strive to use as many natural or organic ingredients in our products as we can," said Morris Shriftman, senior vice president of marketing for Avalon.

But there are limits to ingredient replacement. "Because consumers have certain expectations about how these products should perform, you often can't get the performance levels that consumers expect using organic ingredients exclusively," said Shriftman.

Parabens, a widely used preservative in shampoos, conditioners and skin creams, has also been scrutinized as an endocrine disruptor that may produce abnormal hormone effects. Avalon is seeking to eliminate parabens as a precautionary measure.

"Signing the compact is just part of a bigger commitment that we've made to the safety and purity of our products," said Shriftman, who added that the compact has had a positive impact on the bottom line. "Sales are up 15 [percent] to 17 percent. This commitment to safety and purity has been good for us."