Lead in lipstick: FDA gives moms the toxic kiss off
Posted September 3rd, 2009 by Stacy MalkanIt took nearly two years, but FDA has finally published its study on lead in lipstick, and the findings are not reassuring. FDA found up to four times more lead in lipstick than previous reports.
Even less reassuring is the fact that FDA spent two years studying the problem, only to discover that, yup, there really is lead in lipstick – and then decide that, no, they’re not going to do anything about it.
Wasn’t FDA once the world’s gold standard agency for consumer protection? Don’t they exist for the purpose of ensuring that America has the safest possible food, drugs and cosmetics?
If so, one might expect FDA to work with companies to ensure they are making the safest possible lipstick with the lowest levels of lead.
Instead, FDA put up a web page dismissing health concerns about leaded lipstick because “lipstick is a product intended for topical use, is only ingested incidentally and in very small quantities.” This statement is not based on science. There are no studies we can find that look at how much lipstick gets into the body. Such studies are not required of industry, and have not been conducted by FDA.
The statement also defies common sense: if lipstick doesn’t end up in the body, where does it go? And why does it need to be reapplied so frequently?
The lips are one of the most sensitive and absorbent parts of the body; plus, as anyone who has used lipstick knows, the product gets onto our tongues, our teeth, our food and into our mouths.
Lead also builds up in the body, so small amounts add up to significant exposures over time, and even the smallest amounts of lead can harm developing brains. In a review of recent science, Harvard Medical School researcher David C. Bellinger, PhD, concluded: “No level of lead exposure appears to be ‘safe’ and even the current ‘low’ levels of exposure in children are associated with neurodevelopmental deficits.”
So, if we want to protect developing children from lead exposure, we need to protect women who are pregnant – as well as women who may be pregnant or who may someday want to become pregnant — from unnecessary lead exposures. In other words, we need to protect all women from unnecessary lead exposures by getting the lead out of lipstick.
An interesting finding of the FDA study is that lipsticks made by three manufacturers had consistently higher lead levels. The most lead-contaminated brand, made by Manufacturer A, had 11 times more lead than the average level found in the bottom 10 brands. Who is Manufacturer A? FDA won’t name the brands.
We did name brands in the 2007 study conducted by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics , which also found that a few brands had consistently higher lead levels. Those were L’Oreal, Maybelline NY (made by L’Oreal) and Cover Girl.
These companies can do better, and they must be held accountable to make the safest products possible. The appropriate action for FDA is to do what a group of U.S. Senators asked them to do two years ago: set a maximum level of lead in lipstick that corresponds with the lowest lead levels found in laboratory tests.
FDA took a similar step to protect children from lead in candy, by setting a maximum lead level of .1 ppm. This level was not chosen because .1 ppm of lead is safe in candy, it was based on the reasoning that .1 ppm is the lowest lead level candy manufacturers can achieve. Using its own logic, FDA should set a similar standard for lead in lipstick.
Help us give the beauty industry a makeover by joining the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics action list and sign our petition to give the FDA a makeover too.
Stacy Malkan is a co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author of the award-winning book, “Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry.”
13 Comments
August 22, 2011 at 8:23 pm by Andrea BraicaI have been suffering for 5 yrs now with the effcts of chemicals stored in my body from cosmetics. For all of this time I have seen numerous doctors and all are in disagreement with me about make up staying in the skin. They tell me the body has a way of shedding unnatural debris and makeup would not stay in the skin foryears. They are WRONG. I cannot tell you how many different shades of yuk I have taken out of my body. Please if anyone out there has this problem email me with the solution. I do not know how to rid my body of these toxins
[Reply]
July 4, 2010 at 4:08 am by replica lipstick”One in every 13 women is exposed to a known or a probable human carcinogen every day, with one in every 24 women — or 4.3 million total — exposed to personal care ingredients that are known or probable reproductive and developmental toxins,” So it’s not only cosmetics, it’s shampoos,dental and skin care products.
[Reply]
September 13, 2009 at 12:28 am by Ann-Marie Kuczunfollow the money…..FDA takes TOO long for everything……esp. regarding medicine and the body…..lips are connected to……etc.
[Reply]
September 9, 2009 at 10:30 am by TanyaWhile we’re on the subject of kissing babies, we also kiss our husbands, our teenagers, our moms, grandmothers (and even a few choice others)on the cheek! My point is that more than moms should be concerned about lead in lipstick, or carcinogens in cosmetics. Dads and granddads should be really concerned too. I am thinking this is not an issue limited to just women….so forward this info to the men in your life that this would impact. The circle of influence is larger when you think about everyone that you come in contact with. The more people we can motivate to speak out, the sooner we can effect change.
[Reply]
September 9, 2009 at 10:15 am by Valerie Cookson-BottoStacy’s voice is a much needed driving force to clean up the beauty industry which has been undercover for far too long. It is because of the work that the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has done that I have been moved to take action. I now am a representative for an certified organic skin care line with organic mineral cosmetics, who is a Compact signer. I also spread the word about the “dirty secret” of the personal care industry through informal seminars and organic spa parties. Go to http://www.betterchoices.mienterprize.com for more on the way I have turned my passion into action. Thank you Stacy for all of the work you do and motivation you give us all to do our part.
[Reply]
September 8, 2009 at 4:01 am by PatriciaThe troubling aspect of this, however, is that many believe it’s just a matter of time before we connect the scientific dots and see a picture of increased risk.”One in every 13 women is exposed to a known or a probable human carcinogen every day, with one in every 24 women — or 4.3 million total — exposed to personal care ingredients that are known or probable reproductive and developmental toxins,” So it’s not only cosmetics, it’s shampoos,dental and skin care products.
[Reply]
September 4, 2009 at 9:17 am by RachelWow, it seems that if there is lead in lipstick then this warning should be all over the news and not blown off as if it is nothing that we need to worry about. casino
[Reply]
September 3, 2009 at 5:50 pm by KDOf course lipstick gets absorbed into the body. Maybe the lips are not as quick to absorb as the skin, but as pointed out–it comes in contact with your tongue, teeth (ultimately down your throat), and yes the skin surrounding your lips. And hey, while you’re moving into your lead-paint-free housing, make sure you don’t kiss your kid on the cheek and leave a lipstick stain. The skin is the largest organ in the body. It absorbs everything. The FDA should know better. This is a very disappointing turn of events indeed. I guess they must be getting funding from L’Oreal, Maybelline and Cover Girl. Meanwhile, there are lead-free companies out there. A quick Google search will get you there. Use those products and talk ‘em up to your friends. The biggest changes happen sometimes over time, via word of mouth. Grassroots, baby.
[Reply]
September 3, 2009 at 4:45 pm by carolNeither the industry nor the FDA NEEDS to conduct the required studies, they have already been done by Harvard Medical School, one of the most trusted institutions on the planet… If their finding is…NO LEVEL OF LEAD IS SAFE…that should be the end of it..If they think something has to be eaten to be absorbed by the body… we’d be eating nicotine and nitro patches instead of slapping them on our arms..Who are these people at the FDA and what rock have them been hiding under.. Hey, we can make the bad products go away by spending our money on the good ones.. Vote with your pocket book! L’Oreal, Maybelline and Cover Girl…there’s a place to start.
[Reply]
Sahila ChangeBringer Reply:
September 8th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
@carol,
well, no level of mercury is safe, and yet they use it as a preservative/fixative in children’s vaccines, and flouride is a toxic industrial waste, and we put it in drinking water, toothpaste, and now mouthwash…
None of this is about safety and caring about other people – its about big business and profit and how to get rid of industrial waste….
[Reply]
Well said, Stacy! Great post. Thanks for helping to keep the pressure on this agency that is supposed to be protecting citizens, not the cosmetics industry.
[Reply]
Trackbacks
Leave a Comment