2
The Chemical Threat to Your Health
Before we talk about why most American consumers remain in the dark about the health threat posed by cosmetics and personal-care products, we need to talk a little bit about what that threat is and how we know it’s a threat.
Your Skin Is a Carrier, Not a Barrier
Often called our “miracle garment” because it is so strong yet soft, skin is the body’s largest organ; the average adult is covered by about ten square feet of it. Averaging less than one-tenth of an inch in thickness, a square inch of it holds about twenty blood vessels, 650 sweat glands, and 1,000 nerve endings.
Your skin is enough of a barrier to keep fluids within your body (except for its controlled release of perspiration through sweat glands), but it also readily absorbs many things with which it comes into contact. When your skin wrinkles after being immersed in water, for example, it does so because it has expanded from absorbing some of that water.
Carcinogens in cosmetics and personal-care products pose greater cancer risks than food contaminated with carcinogenic pesticides and other industrial carcinogens, because chemicals taken in by the mouth are absorbed by the intestines and pass into venous blood, which is then taken to the liver. Once inside this organ, carcinogens can be detoxified to varying degrees by enzymes before they reach the rest of the body. Carcinogens absorbed through the skin, in striking contrast, bypass the liver and enter blood circulation—and body organs—without this protection.
Even more disturbingly, there is evidence that the permeability of skin to carcinogens may be greater than that of even the intestines, the part of the body designed for nutritional particle absorption. In evidence presented at 1978 Congressional hearings, the absorption of carcinogen nitrosodiethanolamine (NDELA), was shown to be over 100 times greater when exposure occurred on the skin than through the mouth. (This is particularly important as consumption of the closely related carcinogen diethylnitrosamine in nitrite-preserved bacon has been associated with up to four- and sevenfold increased risk of childhood brain cancer and leukemia, respectively.
1)
As difficult as it might be to believe, mainstream manufacturers and regulatory authorities appear unaware of the high permeability of skin, or else simply choose to ignore this as a critical concern. (One Canadian manufacturer even labeled its cocoa butter product as “Fast Absorbing.” The product contained three carcinogens, diazolidinyl urea, TEA, and polysorbate—ingredients you don’t want absorbing at any speed.)
Conventional cosmetics and personal-care products contain many frank and hidden carcinogens, making them the most important and still unrecognized class of avoidable carcinogen exposure for the overwhelming majority of consumers in major industrialized nations. The reason for these unique risks can be explained by both individual and interactive factors.
Exposure to carcinogenic ingredients in different products through the skin is lifelong, even preceding birth as a result of maternal skin absorption at the earliest stages of pregnancy. Exposure is also frequently prolonged; many commonly used products are intended to remain on the skin rather than be washed off immediately, providing increased opportunity for absorption. But products don’t necessarily need to remain in contact with skin for long periods of time. A 1989 study showed that 13 percent of the carcinogenic preservative butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and 50 percent of the carcinogenic pesticide DDT are absorbed through human skin quite rapidly.
2
What We Know and How We Know It
So we know products applied to the skin can be, and are, absorbed. What kind of evidence de we have on the carcinogenicity of ingredients in cosmetics and personal-care products, and just how reliable is this evidence?
The data we use in this book has been compiled from numerous sources. These include World Health Organization International Agency for Cancer Research monographs; U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) reports, based on rodent tests, of some 600 chemicals; and NTP’s infrequent Annual Reports on Carcinogens (initiated in 1978, with twelve reports published by 2006). These summarize evidence on a range of carcinogens identified through animal tests or human studies.
Additional sources of information on carcinogenic ingredients include the 1980 Science Action Coalition’s Consumer’s Guide to Cosmetics ; my own books, including the 1974 Legislation of Consumer Product Safety and the 1995 The Safe Shopper’s Bible; the 1998 The Breast Cancer Prevention Program; the 2005 Unreasonable Risk of Cosmetics and Personal Care Products; and the press releases and petitions of the non-profit Cancer Prevention Coalition, an association of which I am the current chairman. Finally, evidence on the carcinogenicity of relatively few ingredients and contaminants is admitted, though usually trivialized or dismissed, in the industry’s own Cosmetic Ingredient Review Compendium, published annually by the Personal Care Products Council.
I’ll be talking largely about carcinogens rather than other toxins, especially when it comes to particular ingredients. This is because cancer data is the hardest (which is to say, the most convincing) of all health data collected over the past thirty years. Other categories we have good health data on are allergens and hormone-disruptive chemicals. This information is based on two kinds of evidence: evidence from laboratory studies on animals, and evidence from epidemiological studies (studies on humans). In the majority of cases where chemicals that cause cancer in humans were identified by epidemiological studies, animal studies first predicted their toxicity. So we know that mice and rats, the standard test animals, are effective in enabling us to predict which chemicals will be carcinogenic to humans.
There is an overwhelming consensus, in fact, in the informed independent scientific literature—confirmed by expert bodies, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—that positive results in well-designed animal tests create the strong presumption of human cancer risk.
3 It’s a consensus that is also reflected in a wide range of U.S. and international legislative and regulatory precedents.
About 800 industrial chemicals in current use have been shown to be carcinogenic in standard rodent tests. The results of most of these positive tests were initially dismissed or challenged by the industry concerned, and in some cases these results are still being challenged, to protect the profitability of products. The industry claims that the products’ effects on human beings are the best proof of safety. But doing epidemiological studies on individual carcinogenic ingredients in cosmetics and personal-care products is a largely impossible task to perform.
Epidemiological studies depend on the ability to identify population groups exposed to a particular carcinogen or carcinogens, and then to compare their cancer rates with those in unexposed groups. For instance, large-scale epidemiological studies involving millions of people have been conducted on the effects of tobacco use, based on the comparison of lung cancer rates in people who smoke from one to four packs of cigarettes daily for varying periods of time to lung cancer rates in non-smokers. Smaller-scale studies have been conducted on cancer rates in workers exposed to carcinogenic products or processes in a range of industries, based on comparisons to unexposed workers in the same or other industries, or to unexposed groups in the general population.
Doing epidemiological studies on individual carcinogenic ingredients in cosmetics and personal-care products is so difficult because the vast majority of people are exposed, in varying degrees, to the same products and chemicals. In two notable cases, however, such studies have been successfully performed. Epidemiological studies demonstrated excess risks of ovarian cancer in pre-menopausal women who frequently dusted their genital areas with talc or used talc-dusted tampons. Other studies showed the excess risks of a wide range of cancers in women who used black or dark brown permanent or semi-permanent hair dyes for prolonged periods.
Unlike air pollution and water pollution, where it is difficult to get a handle on the sources of our exposure to individual carcinogens, what we put on our bodies in the form of cosmetics and personal-care products is something that we can control. But there is no way of isolating individual ingredients’ effects so as to identify their impacts on health.
Tests for carcinogenicity must be conducted on the products’ individual ingredients and contaminants rather than on the products themselves. The effects of carcinogenic ingredients in a single product are too small to detect reliably, let alone be effectively matched to individual ingredients. So it’s important to note that when you see labels proclaiming “Not Tested on Animals,” these claims relate to the whole product and generally involve irritation or allergy tests in rabbits or guinea pigs rather than toxicity tests on individual ingredients.
The majority of cosmetics and personal-care products manufactured and sold by mainstream companies are veritable witches’ brews of carcinogenic ingredients and contaminants. For instance, many baby soaps, baby shampoos, and bubble baths hide a carcinogenic contaminant called 1,4-dioxane in a range of ingredients known as ethoxylates. This contaminant is not intentionally added to these products, but is rather created, as many contaminants are, during the manufacturing processes.
Because we do have clear evidence for the identity of chemicals that induce carcinogenic effects in rodents and are thus likely to be carcinogenic in humans, our inability to do these kinds of tests is less important. We don’t actually need any more studies or scientific data to feel confident about these chemicals’ effects. We have reached the point where doing more studies becomes a superb excuse for inaction or delay on the part of industry, when they should be dealing with the problems that have already been identified.
The Vulnerability of Children
By over a decade ago, some thirty U.S. and international studies had confirmed the high incidence of cancers in children whose parents were exposed to a variety of chemical carcinogens in the workplace during pregnancy. Also, an increased incidence of brain cancer and leukemia has been reported in children whose mothers were exposed to nitrosamine carcinogens in nitrite-preserved meats during pregnancy. As opportunities for carcinogen exposure have increased since 1978, we’ve seen a striking 29 percent increase in the overall incidence of childhood cancers.
4Infants and young children, therefore, appear particularly susceptible to carcinogens, a fact that has been fully recognized for well over two decades. This susceptibility reflects their limited ability to detoxify chemical carcinogens due to their immature liver enzymes, as well as the much higher speed at which their cells are dividing. Rapid cell division means a greater probability that exposure to carcinogens will cause genetic mutations in cells and initiate the development of cancer. The effects of this may not appear until much later in life; a 1989 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council concluded that a high percentage of preschool children are likely to develop cancer in later life as a result of consumption of fruits and vegetables commonly contaminated by some eight carcinogenic pesticides.
5Despite a widespread recognition of this greater cancer risk to children, common cosmetics and personal-care products, even those aimed at children, still contain toxic ingredients. The often stunning ignorance about this fact was revealingly illustrated in 1994 when Child Magazine selected a book titled Raising Children Toxic Free, by Drs. Needleman and Landrigan, as “One of the Ten Best Parenting Books of the Year.” Although these authors are leading pediatricians and experts on toxic chemicals, they showed no awareness of the toxic and carcinogenic risks of personal-care products, except for in a brief reference to lead in hair dyes.
In 2002, my co-author of
The Safe Shopper’s Bible, David Steinman, purchased two dozen products for babies and sent them to a laboratory to have them tested for the presence of two carcinogens, 1,4-dioxane and ethylene oxide. They were detected in eighteen of the baby products, though, as contaminents, they were not listed on any of the product labels. That means mothers who use multiple products on their children, such as shampoos, soaps, and bubble baths, are potentially exposing their babies to multiple doses of these carcinogens every day. A subsequent study by the Environmental Working Group concluded that at least one-quarter of all personal-care products sold in the U.S. are contaminated with dioxane.
6 With odds like these, the risk of exposure, to our children and ourselves, is gravely high.
Types of Carcinogens
There are two major classes of carcinogenic ingredients. The first is “frank” carcinogens, a category that includes more than forty substances. The second is “hidden” carcinogens, a category that includes approximately thirty substances. The ingredients in this category either can break down to release carcinogens, are carcinogen precursors (precede the emergence of another), or appear as contaminants in a range of ingredients. Carcinogens that can induce genetic damage are also known as “genotoxic.”
While frank carcinogens appear on product labels, their complex chemical names convey little or no meaningful information to unsuspecting consumers. Still, at least they are listed; “hidden” carcinogens, as the name suggests, aren’t listed at all. Instead, they “hide” in other ingredients (or in combinations of ingredients). For instance, lanolin, which is derived from sheep’s wool and is used on babies’ skin and the nipples of nursing mothers, is commonly contaminated by DDT-like carcinogenic pesticides.
The presence of hidden carcinogens is unrecognized even by most chemists, toxicologists, and cancer prevention experts, let alone consumers. Hidden carcinogenic ingredients you should be aware of fall into three major groups:
1. Contaminants: Carcinogenic ingredients found hiding in otherwise non-carcinogenic ingredients.
2. Formaldehyde Releasers: Non-carcinogenic ingredients that break down in the product itself, or on the skin, to release the frank carcinogen formaldehyde.
3. Nitrosamine Precursors: Non-carcinogenic ingredients that react with nitrites in the product or on the skin to form potent carcinogens known as nitrosamines. Nitrites appear in personal-care products in one of three ways: 1) nitrites are added to the product as anti-corrosive agents; 2) nitrites are released by the degradation of other chemicals, often when the product is exposed to air; or 3) nitrites turn up as contaminants in the raw materials that make up the product.
Some ingredients cross between categories. Diethanolamine (DEA) is both a frank and a hidden carcinogen. By the mid-1970s, it was discovered that DEA, used by metal workers as a detergent or surfactant in cutting fluids, reacted with nitrite preservatives to form the potent carcinogen nitrosodiethanolamine (NDELA) in a process known as nitrosation. A similar interaction occurs between closely-related DEA and triethanolamide (TEA) derivatives and nitrites, and it was subsequently recognized that DEA, commonly used in cosmetics and personal-care products, also interacts with nitrite preservatives or contaminants in
any product, or with nitrogen oxides in the air, to form NDELA on the skin.
6 In 1997, studies showed that DEA is also a frank carcinogen: painting mouse skin with DEA, or its fatty acid derivatives, induces liver and kidney cancers.
7,8
A Roadmap of Chemical Dangers
The following tables cover the common categories of toxins found in cosmetics and personal-care products. Some of these will be familiar from reading this chapter; others we’ll discuss in more detail later on. Chemicals listed in these tables will be referenced throughout the remainder of this book, particularly in Part Two: Identifying Product Dangers.
Table 1: Frank Carcinogens
These chemicals have themselves been shown in laboratory testing of mammals to cause cancer. There are more than forty ingredients in this category that show up in cosmetics and personal-care products.
| Acesulfame | DEA cocamide condensate |
| Acrylamide | DEA oleamide condensate |
| Aspartame (NutraSweet) | DEA sodium lauryl sulfate |
| Auramine | Diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) |
| Bisphenol-A (BPA) | Dioctyl adipate |
| Butadiene | Disperse blue 1 |
| Butyl benzyl phthalate | Disperse yellow 3 |
| Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) | Formaldehyde |
| Chromium trioxide | Glutaral |
| Coal tar dyes | Hydroquinone |
| • D&C | Lead |
| • Green 5 | Limonene |
| • Orange 17 | Metheneamine |
| • Red 3, 4, 8, 9, 17, 19, 33 | Methylene chloride |
| • FD&C | Mineral oils |
| • Blue 2 | Nitrofurazone |
| • Green 3 | Phenylenediamines (following |
| • Red 4, 40 | oxidation) |
| • Yellow 6 | Pyrocatechol |
| Cobalt chloride | Saccharin (Sweet’N Low) |
| Cyclamates | Silica (crystalline) |
| Diaminophenol | Talc (powder) |
| Diethanolamine (DEA) | Titanium dioxide (powder) |
Table 2: Hidden Carcinogens
These chemicals a) frequently appear as contaminants in other ingredients; or b) may not cause cancer themselves but can become carcinogenic or create carcinogenic byproducts under certain conditions, such as when they interact with other chemicals in a product. More than three dozen hidden carcinogens can be found in cosmetics and personal-care products.
| CONTAMINANTS |
|---|
| Ingredient | Contaminated With |
|---|
| Acrylate and methacrylate | Ethylhexyl acrylate |
| polymers | |
| Amorphous silicates | Crystalline silica |
| Alcohol ethoxylates | Ethylene oxide, 1,4-dioxane |
| • Laureths |
| • Oleths |
| • Polyethylene glycol (PEG) |
| • Polysorbates |
| Butane | Butadiene |
| Coal tar dyes | Arsenic, lead |
| Condensates and quaterniums | DEA |
| Glyoxal and polyoxymethylene | Formaldehyde |
| urea | |
| Lanolin | Organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, ceteareths |
| Petroleum | Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons |
| Phenol ethoxylates | Ethylene oxide, 1,4-dioxane |
| • Nonoxynols |
| • Octoxynols |
| Polyacrylamide and | Acrylamide |
| polyquaternium |
| FORMALDEHYDE RELEASERS |
| Diazolidinyl urea |
| DMDM-hydantoin |
| Imidazolidinyl urea |
| Metheneamine |
| Polyoxyethylene |
| Polyoxymethylene |
| Quaterniums |
| Sodium hydroxymethylglycinate |
| NITROSAMINE PRECURSORS |
| Brononitrodioxane (nitrite donor) |
| Bronopol (nitrite donor) |
| Cocamidopropyl betaine |
| DEA and fatty acid condensates |
| DEA sodium lauryl sulfate |
| Diethanolamine (DEA) |
| Morpholine |
| Padimate-O |
| Quaterniums |
| Sarcosine |
| Triethanolamine (TEA) |
Table 3: Hormone Disrupters
These chemicals imitate the effects of natural hormones produced by the human body’s endocrine system. The endocrine glands—the adrenal glands, pancreas, thyroid gland, pituitary gland, ovaries, and testicles—produce hormones essential to human growth, development, and metabolism. The body mistakes these synthetic chemicals for its own hormones and natural processes are disrupted. About thirty of these disruptive chemicals can be found in cosmetics and personal-care products.
| PRESERVATIVES |
|---|
| Parabens |
| • Benzylparaben |
| • Butylparaben |
| • Ethylparaben |
| • Methylparaben |
| • Propylparaben |
| Resorcinol |
| Triclocarban |
| Triclosan |
| DETERGENTS (SURFACTANTS) |
|---|
| Disodium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (Disodium EDTA) |
| Ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) |
| Phenol ethoxylates |
| • Nonoxynols |
| • Octoxynols |
| SOLVENTS (PLASTICIZERS) |
|---|
| Bisphenol A (BPA) |
| Butylbenzene phthalate (BBP) |
| Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) |
| Diethyl phthalate (DEP) |
| Diethylhexyl phthalate, or dioctyl phthalate (DEHP) |
| Dimethyl phthalate (DMP) |
| Nonylphenol (NP) |
| LAVENDER & TEA TREE OIL |
|
| METALLOESTROGENS |
| Aluminum |
| Cadmium |
| Copper |
| Lead |
| Tin |
| SUNSCREENS |
| 4-Methyl-benzylidine camphor (4-MBC) |
| Benzophenone-3 (BP3), or Oxybenzone |
| Butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane (BMDM), or Avobenzone (Parsol) |
| Homosalate (HMS) |
| Octyl-dimethyl-paba (OD-PABA) |
| Octyl-methoxycinnamate (OMC), or Octinoxate |
Table 4: Penetration Enhancers
These chemicals improve the body’s absorption of other ingredients, which can be dangerous if those other ingredients include toxins from the previous three tables. There are approximately thirty-five penetration enhancers that can commonly be found in cosmetics and personal-care products.
| GENTLE DETERGENTS |
|---|
| Diethanolamine (DEA) |
| Monoethanolamine |
| Triethanolamine (TEA) |
| HARSH DETERGENTS |
|---|
| Bisabolol |
| Disodium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (Disodium EDTA) |
| Ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) |
| Glyceryl laurate |
| Sodium lauryl sarcosinate |
| Sodium lauryl sulfate |
| HYDROXY ACIDS |
|---|
| Alpha Acids |
| Alpha-hydroxy acid |
| Alpha-hydroxycaprylic acid |
| Alpha-hydroxyethanoic acid |
| Alpha-hydroxyoctanoic acid |
| Glycolic acid |
| Glycolic acid and ammonium glycolate |
| Glycomer in cross-linked fatty acids and alpha nutrium |
| Hydroxycaprylic acid |
| L-alpha-hydroxy acid |
| Lactic acid |
| Mixed fruit acid |
| Palmitic acid |
| Poly-alpha-hydroxy acid |
| Sugar cane extract |
| Tri-alpha-hydroxy acid |
| Triple fruit acid |
| Beta Acids |
| Beta-hydroxybutanoic acid |
| Salicylic acid |
| Trethocanic acid |
| Tropic acid |
| Alpha and Beta Acids |
| Citric acid |
| Malic acid |
| SUNSCREENS |
| Benzophenone-3 (Bp-3), or Oxybenzone |
| Octyl-methoxycinnamate |
| NANOPARTICLES |
Table 5: Common Allergens
These chemicals cause an allergic reaction in many humans. There are about fifty allergenic ingredients in perfumes and fragrances (see
Table 7) in addition to these commonly found in cosmetics and personal-care products.
| IN HAIR PRODUCTS |
|---|
| Shampoos | Formaldehyde, fragrances, lanolin, solvents, surfactants |
| Hair dyes | p-Phenylenediamine (ppd), p-toluenediamine |
| Waving solutions | Ammonium thioglycolate, glyceryl thioglycolate |
| IN NAIL PRODUCTS |
|---|
| Artificial nails | Methyl methacrylate |
| Nail base coats | Phenol formaldehyde resin |
| Nail varnishes | Resins (aryl sulfonamide, formalde- hyde, methyl methacrylate) |
| Nail hardeners | Formaldehyde |
| IN COSMETICS |
| Lipsticks | Castor oil, colophony, pigments (e.g., eosin, azo dyes, carmine), perfumes, preservatives, propyl gallate |
| Eyebrow pencils | Pigments |
| Eye shadows | Colophony, preservatives (e.g., parabens, triclosan), pigments |
| Mascaras | Colophony, preservatives (e.g., tri closan, parabens), pigments |
| IN OTHER PRODUCTS |
|---|
| Deodorants | Fragrances (e.g., cinnamic salicy late, jasmine, methyl anisate, bal sam of Peru) |
| Shaving products | Propylene glycol |
| Depilatories | Thioglycolate |
| Toners | Arnica, coumarin, lanolin, oak moss |
| Face creams | Benzyl alcohol, lanolin, cetyl alco hol, parabens, propylene glycol, stearic acid |
| Sunscreens | Benzophenone-3 (oxybenzone), benzyl salicylate, coumarin, para aminobenzoic acid (PABA) |
| COLORANTS |
| 2,5-Toluene diamine | FD&C Red 2 |
| 3,4-Toluene diamine | FD&C Blue 2 |
| Acid Blue 9 | FD&C Yellow 6 |
| Acid Orange 3 | Henna |
| Acid Yellow 6 | p-Phenylenediamine (ppd) |
| Acid Yellow 10 | Red 22 |
| Acid Yellow 17 | Red 2G |
| Acid Yellow 23 | Resorcinol |
| PRESERVATIVES |
| Benzalkonium chloride | Imidazolidinyl urea |
| Butylated hydroxyanisole | Metheneamine |
| Diazolidinyl urea | Methyldibromoglutaronitrile |
| DMDM hydantoin | Parabens |
| Ethylenediamine | Quaternium-15 |
| Ethyl methacrylate | Thimerosal |
| Formaldehyde |
| See also: Table 7, for common allergens in perfumes and fragrances. |