ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP REPORT ON PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS: AMBITIOUS,
BUT FLAWED
CHICAGO, IL, July 2, 2004 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- The Environmental Working
Group (EWG) should be commended for its June "Skin Deep" report on
personal care products. EWG should also be commended for its FDA petition to
recall or issue "warning labels on 356 personal care products"
that, as admitted by the industry's Cosmetic Ingredient Review safety panel,
"lack sufficient data to support their safe use in personal care
products." Regrettably, however, EWG's report is confusing and
scientifically flawed.
EWG emphasizes that "only 11 percent of 10,500 personal care products,
identified by the industry's trade association, have been publicly assessed
for safety." However, this seems an overstatement. Such
"suspect" ingredients include: purified water; sodium chloride
(table salt); citric acid; natural amino acids; natural botanicals;
FDA-approved colorants; and many food additives approved in 1958 by the FDA
as "Generally Recognized As Safe."
Moreover, EWG is apparently unaware that substantial information on a wide
range of carcinogenic ingredients, carcinogenic contaminants in other
ingredients, and ingredients causing dermatitis in most products, marketed by
most major companies, has been widely available for nearly a decade. The Safe
Shopper's Bible (Macmillan, 1995), which I co-authored, details such information
on these unsafe products. The book also provides information on safer
products, marketed by smaller companies.
Furthermore, EWG's claim that "consumers and government officials have
no way of knowing of ingredients that can be contaminated with impurities
linked to cancer" is questionable. This information is admitted,
although trivialized, by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, with particular
reference to a large group of detergents (ethoxylates) which, unless
purified, are contaminated with potent carcinogenic impurities. More
disturbingly, officials of the federal National Cancer Institute are fully
aware of such long-standing information, of which they have failed to inform
consumers; the American Cancer Society goes still further by virtually
dismissing any cancer risks from cosmetics.
EWG's listing of "Carcinogens in Personal Care Products" identifies
eight "known and probable human carcinogens." However, no reference
is made to talc, identified as a lung carcinogen, following inhalation tests
in rodents by the National Toxicology Program in 1993. This is of particular
importance in view of the common use of talcum baby powders. Of greater
importance are several publications, in leading medical journals since 1982,
reporting that frequent use of talc as a genital dusting powder, practiced by
about 17% of women, increases risk of ovarian cancer by four-fold.
Based on these concerns, the Cancer Prevention Coalition and the Center for
Constitutional Rights filed a 1994 petition to the FDA seeking "Carcinogenic
Labeling on all Cosmetic Talc Products." The FDA has remained
unresponsive.
EWG's computerized "Skin Deep" report is detailed in two major
searchable sections, Find Products You Use, and Customer Shoppers Guide. The
Find Products section evaluates 7,500 products sold by many leading cosmetic
companies. These products are evaluated on the basis of "Health
Concerns," including: cancer; pregnancy problems; safety violations;
harmful impurities; penetration enhancers (ingredients which increase skin absorption
of other ingredients); unstudied ingredients; and allergies and other health
concerns. Products in 25 different categories are each evaluated on the basis
of "Top Five Ingredients of Concern."
However, these evaluations are marred by errors of omission and commission:
"Ingredients of Concern,"
incriminated as posing risks of cancer in different products, include:
tocopherol (vitamin E); hydrogen peroxide; acetone; menthol; sodium
borate; boric acid; zinc sulfate; propylene glycol; and parabens.
However, there is no evidence on the carcinogenicity of these
ingredients, although there has been such speculation for parabens.
More puzzling are the Top Five Ingredients
incriminated as posing risks of "Allergies and Other Health
Problems." These include sodium borate; boric acid; tocopherol;
acetone, and silica. However, none of these are known allergens. Also,
contrary to EWG, a fragrance is not an ingredient, nor as implied,
necessarily allergenic. In fact, fragrances contain mixtures of
ingredients, many of which pose no risks of allergy. Moreover, no
information is provided as to nature of the unspecified "Health
Problems."
Inexplicably, the report omits any reference
to ingredients known to induce genetic damage (mutagens), such as
aminophenol, hydroquinone, and crotonaldehyde, even though these have
been clearly incriminated in recent European Scientific Committee
reports.
EWG unfavorably rates all
products containing "penetration enhancer" ingredients, which
facilitate absorption of other ingredients through the skin. However,
this rating extends to most products, as these contain water, and oil or
fatty ingredients. These ingredients are necessarily mixed together to
form stable solutions, by the addition of detergent (surfactant)
ingredients. There are two main types of detergents, sodium or ammonium
lauryl sulfate, and a wide range of unrelated ingredients, known as
ethoxylates. Most companies avoid the use of sulfate detergents, as they
irritate or damage the skin. While purified ethoxylates are not
irritants, they are safe "penetration enhancers." However,
this is of no concern, unless the product also contains toxic
ingredients.
