Index Click on the red dots to jump to the articles. NEW! Shock Report - Hormones in Shampoo and Conditioner Cause Early Puberty in Girls NEW! New Restrictions Proposed for Fragrance Chemicals in Cosmetics NEW! Cosmetics Giants Use Misleading Advertisements NEW! Mother of Two Dies After Using Hair Dye NEW! EU Votes for ban on sales of cosmetics that have been tested on animals Anti-Ageing and Anti-Wrinkle Creams Do Not Work Perfumes cause allergies Gender Bending Chemicals in Make-up Animal Testing - Ethical Labelling Do Antiperspirants Cause Breast Cancer? Does Talc Cause Cancer of the Ovaries? The Safety of Alpha-Hydroxy Acids (AHAs) Concern Over Anti-bacterial Soaps, Lotions and Other Household Products Longer Articles by the Authors of Cosmetics Unmasked Baby Products Unmasked - What products should you be using on your baby? Contaminants in your Cosmetics - You won't find these listed on the label. The Truth about Cosmetics - What can cosmetics really do for you? NEW! The Truth about Antioxidants - Health Miracle or Profitable Hype?

Hormones in Shampoo and Conditioner Cause Early Puberty in Girls

An article published in New Scientist on 3 April 2002 described how girls as young as eight, and in one case just 14 months, started to develop pubic hair and breasts after using shampoo that contained hormones. Unbeknown to many parents, a few hair products - especially some targeted at African-Americans - contain small amounts of hormones that could cause premature sexual development in girls. If these cosmetics can cause early puberty in females, what are they doing to males?

For more details click here.

Back to the index

New Restrictions Proposed for Fragrance Chemicals

In recent years there has been much talk about the increasing number of allergies caused by fragrance chemicals in cosmetics and toiletries but as yet there is no legislation to control the use of natural or artificial fragrances. The European Union (EU) Commission now plans to plug this gap in the law.

Under current legislation there are no restrictions on the quantities or combinations of fragrance chemicals that may be used in cosmetics. When fragrance chemicals are added, the law requires only that the label on a cosmetic or toiletry includes the word 'Parfum' in the EU or 'Fragrance' in the USA. There are no requirements to name individual fragrance chemicals in the list of ingredients. This is because a typical perfume contains a mixture of a large number of fragrance chemicals, often between 50 and 100 and it would be impossible to list them all on a small label. This creates a problem for people who are sensitive or allergic to a particular fragrance chemical. Buying cosmetics becomes a lottery for them because they can never know if the offending chemical has been used in a product or not.

All of this is set to change. The EU Commission has asked the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) to make recommendations on for the control of fragrance chemical used in cosmetics. The SCCNFP responded with three lists:

• A list of 24 chemicals that are most frequently reported as contact allergens
• A list of 36 fragrance chemicals that should be banned from cosmetics
• A list of 78 chemicals (in 28 families) that should be restricted. The exact form of the restriction has not been finalised yet but it is possible that these chemicals could be individually listed in the ingredients and the amounts that can be used will be limited.

It is interesting to note that many of these chemicals are natural plant extracts or were originally obtained from plants but are more easily and cheaply made by artificial means.

For a full list of these fragrance chemicals and details of the proposed restrictions, click here.

Back to the index

Cosmetics Giants Use Misleading Advertisements

Yet again the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints made against three leading cosmetics manufacturers. All three companies ran advertisements in the UK national press and in magazines which made misleading or unsubstantiated claims about their products. In other words, despite making claims that "test show", "latest research" and "tested by an independent laboratory", these manufacturers could not provide the ASA with any reliable evidence that their cosmetics actually do what they claim!

On 18th July 2001 the ASA ruled that Chanel could not substantiate the claims they made for their skin care product called "Précision Age Delay". Two weeks later on 1st August 2001 the ASA upheld complaints made against an under-eye lift serum called "Sudden Change" produced by UK Home Shopping Ltd who were trading as Cosmetic Laboratory Sales. A week after that on the 8th August the ASA upheld complaints made against Christian Dior UK Ltd. who could not substantiate the claims they made for their skin care product called "NoAge Essential". All three companies were ordered not to repeat their advertisements.

Click here to read more about these cases and others.

Back to the index

Mother of Two Dies After Using Hair Dye

Mrs Narinder Devi, a 39 year old who suffered from mild asthma, died of anaphylactic shock, an extreme form of an allergic reaction, shortly after using an oxidation (permanent) hair dye at her home in Birmingham, England last August.

The inquest, which was held on 8th May 2001, was told that Mrs Devi felt extremely hot and started to suffer breathing difficulties while she was applying the hair dye. She poured cold water onto her head in an attempt to cool it shortly before collapsing. Paramedics were called but they failed to reviver her. The jury considered the evidence for forty-five minutes before returning a verdict of misadventure.

The product Mrs Devi used to colour her hair black was Laboratoires Garnier Modiva. She selected this product because it was ammonia-free. When she had previously coloured her hair Mrs Devi experienced some irritation and assumed it was caused by the ammonia in that product. With hindsight we can assume that the irritation was caused by the colorants that are common to almost all brands and colours of hair dye.

The irritation Mrs Devi suffered was probably a symptom of sensitisation, the first stage in developing an allergic reaction. On this occasion some of the dyes probably penetrated her skin and her immune system mistook them for harmful organisms. She started to produce antibodies against these chemicals which stayed in her body, waiting to spring into action the next time she encountered these dyes. When the dyes were used again last August, her immune system started to react against them causing an allergic reaction. Allergic reactions can be of varying severity but in this tragic case it was extremely severe and resulted in anaphylactic shock - a rare but potentially fatal condition that requires emergency medical treatment.

For full details of sensitisation, allergic reactions and anaphylactic shock, and cosmetic ingredients that can cause these reactions, see Chapter 15 - Medical Matters in Cosmetics Unmasked.

So what were the offending chemicals that caused Mrs Devi's death, how dangerous are they and why are they allowed to be used in products that can be purchased by anybody?

Oxidation hair dyes contain a cocktail of chemicals and are available in a large variety of colours and tints. The number of coloured dyes available to the manufacturers, however, is limited so several different dyes are usually blended together to produce the required colour. Of these dyes the following are known to cause allergic reactions in some individuals:

• 2,4-Diaminophenol
• m-Phenylenediamine (also called meta-Phenylenediamine or MPD)
• p-Phenylenediamine (also called para-Phenylenediamine or PPD)
• N-Phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (also called N-Phenyl para-phenylenediamine)
• Toluene-2,5-diamine

Variations of these ingredients can also cause allergic reactions and these can be easily be identified. They have the same names as these five ingredients followed by HCl, Hydrochloride or Sulfate (e.g. Toluene-2,5-diamine sulfate).

Any hair dye sold in the European Union that contains any of these ingredients or their variations must carry the following mandatory warnings:

Can cause an allergic reaction. Do not use to colour eyelashes or eyebrows.

When supplied for professional use in a salon it must also warn that suitable gloves should be worn. The package should also advise you to carry out a patch test before using the product and it should give clear instructions on how this should be done. Essentially you should apply some of the whole product (not just the coloured part) to an area where your skin is thin, for example, on your upper arm or behind your ear. If there is any sign of redness, soreness, swelling or irritation during the next twenty-four hours, do not use the product. You should do this every time you colour your hair. Even if you have used the same hair dye twenty times before, it is still possible for the twenty-first application to cause sensitisation and if it does, the twenty-second time you use it you will suffer an allergic reaction of varying severity. Impractical as it sounds, you should also perform a patch test if you are having your hair coloured at the hairdressers (although we have never heard of a hairdresser offering this service).

Following Mrs Devi's death the inquest heard that Laboratoires Garnier Modiva only advised that the colorant part of the product should be tested whereas six other leading manufacturers of hair dyes recommended that the whole product (including all the component parts) should be tested in following the manufacturer's instructions. Christopher Ball, the Birmingham Deputy Coroner said that he would be suggesting to Laboratoires Garnier that they should consider following the other manufacturers advice concerning sensitivity tests.

So why are these chemicals allowed to be used in hair dyes?

The answer is that there are few alternatives and for some colours there are no alternatives. For example, p-pheneylenediamine is the only truly black compound that can be used in permanent hair dyes. The regulating authorities acknowledge the fact that there is a real social need for hair dyes and, providing the instructions are followed carefully, they consider the risks in using these potentially harmful ingredients are small and are outweighed by the benefits they bring to some people.

So how small are the risks?

There have been several reports of people suffering allergic reactions to the chemicals in oxidation hair dyes but in the last 20 years there have only been two deaths that have been directly linked to these products. When you consider that billions of hair dyes have been used at home and in salons during this time, the odds of suffering an allergic reaction are small and the chance of dying is minute. You are more likely to die in an aeroplane accident, or win the lottery jackpot, or be killed in a traffic accident on your way to the hairdresser's than you are to die as a result of using hair dyes.

Anaphylactic shock is a rare and life threatening extreme allergic reaction which can be triggered by almost anything. People have died from anaphylactic shock after insect stings, eating peanuts and even using rubber gloves. If hair dyes are banned, perhaps rubber gloves should be banned as well.

Back to the index

EU Votes for ban on sales of cosmetics that have been tested on animals

3 April 2001

Today the European Union Parliament voted for a Europe-wide ban, within the next five years, on the sale of all cosmetics and toiletries that have been tested on animals.

Current plans to ban animal testing for cosmetics has been put back, yet again, to June 2002 and it is highly likely that this deadline will be further delayed. No new licences for animal testing have been issued since 1998 and manufacturers who hold existing licences have been asked not to use them. In effect, this means there is a voluntary ban on animal testing by manufacturers in the UK. Austria and the Netherlands have a similar voluntary ban but animal testing of cosmetics continues in France, Italy and Belgium where annually, 38,000 animals are experimented on by the cosmetics industry.

This new law effectively prevents manufacturers from sending their products to countries outside the EU to be tested on animals and it also prevents the import of cosmetics that have been tested on animals. It may be the only way to force the cosmetics industry to step up its research into alternative tests, which include human testing by volunteers, computer modelling and in-vitro test on cell cultures.

It may take some time for all of the offending products to disappear from the shelves but, if you want to buy cosmetics that have been manufactured humanly now, look out for the new 'happy bunny' logo.

Back to the index

Anti-Ageing and Anti-Wrinkle Creams Do Not Work

On 14 February 2001, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that two leading manufacturers of face creams could not advertise their products as anti-aging or anti-wrinkle. The ASA examined the manufacturers test data and found that it did not stand up to scrutiny. In simple terms this means that there was no scientific evidence that these creams made any difference to fine lines and wrinkles.

These creams were based on an ingredient called Retinol. Retinol is just vitamin A and it must not be confused with Retinoic acid (also called Retin-A or Tretinoin), which can remove some fine lines but it is a controlled drug that has some serious side effects and is only available with a doctor's prescription.

Many skin experts agree that vitamin A is a mild exfoliant that soaks into the outer layer of dead skin cells and loosens them, allowing them to be slowly removed during normal washing and towelling. This exposes the underlying skin cells which are softer and more flexible, and less likely to show fine lines. This process can take up to two years to show any real effects and high concentrations of vitamin A (Retinol) are required. Most anti-wrinkle creams that you can buy off the shelf contain relatively small amounts of Retinol. This makes them less effective at removing wrinkles and you certainly won't reduce your fine lines in the few weeks that the manufacturers claim.

To be fair, the other ingredients in these creams are usually moisturisers which temporarily moisten and soften the outer layer of skin cells which makes the skin more flexible and helps to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles. This effect lasts for six to twelve hours before the skin dries out again.

Exfoliants based on alpha-hydroxy acids (AHAs) will remove the outer layer of skin cells much more rapidly than Retinol based treatments but there are concerns about the side effects of these products. For more details, see the article below. (Click here to go directly to this article.)

Back to the index

Perfumes cause allergies

The following is from a report by Niels Møller Madsen, Journalist, Danish Environment, Internet Edition 2, September 1996.

"Several of the best selling, exclusive perfumes and perfumes in soaps and cosmetics contain fragrance allergens. According to new research, the number of Danish eczema patients with perfume allergy has doubled since 1979."

A study by Dr. Jeanne Duus Johansen and Professor Torkil Menné of Gentofte University Hospital Dermatology Department in collaboration with the Danish EPA and the National Environmental Research Institute, suggests that people with eczema should take more care over the cosmetics and toiletry products they use. Many of the fragrances in soap, shampoo, creams, perfumes, etc., may cause allergy.

It doesn't help to buy the more expensive products, though. The study shows that even the more expensive products commonly contain allergenic fragrances, and that each individual product usually contains several of them. Moreover, the concentration of the allergenic fragrances sometimes exceeded the perfume industry's own guidelines for product safety.

Perfume allergy on the increase

The study concluded that the number of eczema patients with perfume allergy has doubled since 1979 from one in twenty eczema patients to one in ten in 1995. This has been attributed mainly to an increased use of these products, including an increased usage by men. The study showed that between one and two percent of the Danish population (50,000-100,000 people) are allergic to fragrances, and so risk developing the disease, allergic contact eczema, when they use perfumes or other perfumed cosmetic products.

The most commonly used perfumes can provoke allergic eczema

Studies of two of the strongest fragrance allergens carried out by Jeanne Duus Johansen and Torkil Menné in collaboration with colleagues from Odense University Hospital Dermatology Department showed that two in three people with perfume allergy develop eczema if they are exposed to the cinnamon fragrance, cinnamon aldehyde (cinnamaldehyde), and the clove fragrance, isoeugenol. This occurs at concentrations that the perfume industry considers safe, and which may be found in cosmetic products. In an additional study, when 335 female eczema patients were tested for allergy to the ten most purchased, exclusive perfumes in Europe, seven percent reacted to one or more of them.

Scientists at the Department of Environmental Chemistry at the National Environmental Research Institute have undertaken comprehensive chemical analyses of selected perfumes and other cosmetic products available on the Danish market. They found that the most allergenic fragrances were common in cosmetic products - both the exclusive perfumes and the so-called "natural" perfumes, i.e. perfumes based on natural ingredients.

Only a few fragrances are known allergens

Fragrances used in soaps, creams, shaving foam, etc., are made up of numerous chemicals - anywhere from ten to 300 and often more than 100. While only a few of these fragrances seem to provoke allergy, (dermatologists use eight well-known fragrance allergens to test patients for perfume allergy).the problem is that they are present in the majority of products.

Tests by the perfume/cosmetics industry

The majority of studies have been undertaken by the perfume/cosmetics industry, and only a minor part are publicly available. Jeanne Duus Johansen suggests that when the results are made public, they are likely to show better results than those of the studies she has been involved with. This is because the industry tests perfumes on healthy persons and so the number of allergic eczema reactions will always be lower than in the studies at Gentofte University Hospital, where the substances are tested on eczema patients. This means that the industry's research will not show how the products affect people with allergy problems.

However, the European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Group has undertaken a major study of how eczema patients react to 50 common fragrances. By far the majority of the fragrances did not provoke an allergic reaction.

Few controls on fragrances

There is no law prohibiting or limiting the use of allergenic fragrances in perfumes. The industry draws up its own guidelines for the use of the harmful fragrances in consumer products. Some of the fragrances are so allergenic that the industry advises against their use; in other cases it recommends that the fragrance only be used to a limited extent. However, there is no control over the adequacy of these recommendations and whether they are followed by the perfumeries.

The EU Cosmetic Products Directive specifies upper limits for the concentration of other ingredients in cosmetics and these other ingredients have to be listed on the cosmetic labels. However, this does not apply to fragrance chemicals. This would be impractical the industry claims as perfumes are usually comprised of too many chemical substances to be easily listed. But the study indicates that perfume allergy can be prevented either by requiring the declaration of selected fragrances so that persons allergic to the fragrance can avoid the product, or by directly stipulating limits on the use of allergenic fragrances.

For more information about this report in Danish Environment, visit their web page 'Perfume causes allergies'

See Chapter 3 - Colorants and Fragrances

Back to the index

Gender Bending Chemicals in Make-up

Reported in the Daily Mail on 2 January 2001: "WOMEN could be endangering the health of their unborn babies by using cosmetics and perfumes to look and smell good, according to new research. ...Many of the products they use are thought to contain a range of chemicals which can interfere with the reproductive system and other vital organs. The chemicals, known as phthalates and previously used in children's soft plastic toys, have been found in some makeup and toiletries."

Contaminated cosmetics and toiletries are more common than we would like to believe and some of the contaminants pose a real threat to our health. They enter the products in a number of ways, often in microscopic quantities but even at these minute concentrations there is a risk of adverse effects. One notorious contaminant is the group of endocrine disrupter chemicals or EDCs, more commonly known as gender benders.

When EDCs enter the body they are mistaken for hormones and can trigger those functions that are normally controlled by our own hormones. Hormones are fairly potent chemicals so we only produce a small amount of them. It is for this reason the endocrine system can be disrupted by extremely small quantities of EDC contaminants. They are known to cause feminisation of males resulting in a lower sperm count and underdeveloped genitalia.

Over forty-five gender benders have been identified and the list includes pesticides and partly degraded pesticides; chemicals that leech out of plastic containers into cosmetics and food; detergents, surfactants and antioxidants used in cleaning products, cosmetics, toiletries, spermicides and food; and pollutants that are generally at large in the environment such as PCBs (poly chlorinated biphenyls), industrial and domestic effluent containing detergents, and garbage containing plastics.

When chemicals called phthalates are added to PVC they act as plasticisers and the PVC becomes soft and pliable. In this state it is used for making packaging and containers for food, cosmetics and toiletries, and for making soft toys and teething rings for young children. The danger of these chemicals leaking out of the plastic container and into the food or cosmetic, or the child's mouth has been well documented and the range of phthalates commonly used to soften PVC is under investigation for EDC activity. They have been banned on safety grounds from children's toys because of fears about the future fertility of children.

There are now calls for action to take the chemicals out of cosmetics. It has been impossible to discover the full extent of the problem, but a number of manufacturers have admitted that phthalates are in their products. The chemicals are found in makeup, perfumes, shampoos, deodorants, sunscreens, nail varnishes and conditioners. The Department for Trade and Industry has confirmed it is carrying out a safety review.

Tests carried out by the US Government's Centre for Disease Control and Prevention found high levels of phthalates in the urine of 300 adults. Scientists discovered particularly high concentrations in the urine of women. Dr David Santillo, an expert on phthalates at Exeter University, says: 'If they have been found in the urine that means they are present in the bloodstream and are capable of crossing the placenta to the womb and be absorbed by the unborn child.'

Environmental pressure group Greenpeace is collating data on the extent to which phthalates are used in products bought by British consumers and has called for a ban on phthalates in cosmetics to follow the ban on their use in toys. 'If these chemicals are known to be potentially harmful then they should not be used in cosmetics,' says Mark Strutt, toxins campaigner with Greenpeace UK.

Manufacturers of cosmetic products such as nail polish and deodorants are still allowed to use phthalates, as long as they label them as one of the ingredients. Phthalates also appear in many leading brands of perfume, but the manufacturers are not obliged to list them among the ingredients. Fragrances are only listed as 'parfum' which disguises the fact that they contain a number of chemical compounds such as phthalates.

According to the Daily Mail report, the brands of perfume which add the chemical include Chanel, Max Factor and Calvin Klein's Obsession and Eternity and phthalates are also found in beauty products such as Oil Of Olay, No 7 and the Beauty Without Cruelty Range, as well as anti-ageing creams, shampoos and at least two deodorants.

A US environmental research body has issued a warning to women who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy to avoid contact with anything that contains a particular phthalate: dibutyl phthalate (DBP).

Cosmetics manufacturers insist their products are subject to stringent safety tests and claim that there is no evidence those containing the chemicals are a health hazard. A spokesman for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association in the UK has been quoted by the report as saying 'The exposure levels are much lower than those known to cause concern.' However it is questionable whether low exposure levels in a cosmetic product are safe for two reasons. Firstly, some EDCs can accumulate in body tissue so the levels can build up over time. Secondly, we are being exposed to a large number of these chemicals. They are not only in the cosmetics and toiletries we apply to our skin but also the food we eat, the water we drink, and the even in the detergent residues on the plates we eat from. If we only have one twentieth of our tolerable daily intake (as set by the EU Scientific Committee on Food) for each gender bender but are exposed to twenty or more of these chemicals each day, then we will easily reach or exceed the tolerable daily intake.

According to the report, a spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said that an investigation into the chemical's safety was taking place. As a follow-up to a study by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Working Group analysed the contents of popular cosmetic brands and found 37 varieties of nail polish, top coats and nail hardeners containing DBP (dibutyl phthalate). When it examined applications for patents for beauty care products, it found many companies planned to use the chemicals in shampoos, conditioners, antiperspirants and even sunscreens.

See Chapter 13 Common Sense and Cosmetic Safety

From a report on 27 December 2000 by the New Economics Foundation http://www.neweconomics.org on

The Naked Consumer - why shoppers deserve honest product labelling - Word Version

Also reported in the The Guardian on December 29, 2000.

The London-based think-tank, the New Economics Foundation (NEF), carried out a telephone survey of some of Britain's top stores to find out how many goods were ethically labelled and found that only 1% of the goods on sale in Britain's high streets informed shoppers about their origins.

The report highlights two disputes that pose a threat to the future of ethical labelling, one between the US and Europe over GM food and the other over cosmetics. Having postponed the banning the testing of cosmetic ingredients on animals within the EU until June 2002, and the sale of products that had been tested on animals elsewhere, the EU is trying to strengthen the definition for the labelling of cosmetics as cruelty-free or not tested on animals.

An amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive would require manufacturers to limit labels of this kind to products where "neither the finished product, nor its prototype, nor any of the ingredients contained in it have ever been the subject of such tests including for purposes outside the scope of this Directive." This would effectively ensure that almost no products would be qualified to be labelled "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals." Most products that currently contain such labels may not have been tested on animals but the ingredients used in these products almost certainly will have been.

A new form of words submitted by the European Parliament's Industry Committee to the Environment Committee seeks to significantly improve the amendment by increasing its flexibility. Under the altered amendment the time-frame affecting the screening of ingredients for animal testing would include a cut-off date.

According to the report, at least one manufacturer had threatened to defy the directive on the grounds that no product could meet the original strict definition. A final decision by the Council of Ministers is expected in spring 2001, but there is legal doubt about whether their definition would be enforceable.

Fears about GM foods, the BSE crisis and chemical additives have fuelled demand for more information about the products consumers buy. The report says, "Labels create a feedback mechanism for shoppers to tell companies what they really want. Banning them is a form of censorship that guarantees a type of market failure, and forces people to live with their heads in the sand. It's time for ethical trade to escape the retail ghetto." NEF director Ed Mayo said, "Labels are a sign of a new understanding among enlightened businesses world-wide that their purpose is not just to make a profit for shareholders - no respectable business believes that any more."

See Chapter 17 on Animal Products and Animal Testing

There is a scare-mongering rumour, mainly on the Internet, that aluminium based antiperspirants are a major cause of breast cancer. There are numerous articles written by people who do not appear to be scientifically or medically qualified and they offer no scientific, medical or statistical data to back up their claims. Their reasoning shows a lack of understanding of how the human body works and they ignore all of the medical facts that we do know about breast cancer. In addition to breast cancer, some authors also link aluminium based antiperspirants to prostate cancer in men and Alzheimer's disease.

Medically qualified authors dismiss the rumour as pure nonsense. The risk factors associated with breast cancer are well known and unless some solid evidence is produced to say otherwise, it is fair to assume that antiperspirants are not one of them.

In fact there are two pieces of compelling evidence that antiperspirants do not contribute to breast cancer. Firstly, the mortality rate from breast cancer in the UK has remained fairly constant throughout the whole of the twentieth century despite antiperspirants not being widely used until the fifties or sixties. Secondly, breast cancer is rare in Japanese women living in Japan, but Japanese women who live in the USA and eat an American diet, have the same incidence of breast cancer as the average American woman. Since antiperspirants are used widely in both the USA and Japan, these cosmetics cannot be a significant risk factor and diet plays a much greater role. A high fat, low fibre diet increases the risk of developing breast cancer.

See Chapter 7 on Deodorants and Anti-perspirants

Back to the index

Does Talc Cause Cancer of the Ovaries?

It is a well established fact that inhaling mineral dust, especially asbestos dust, causes lung disease and can result in various forms of cancer including lung cancer. Talc, an absorbent mineral that is commonly used in a number of cosmetics, especially talcum powders, has recently been highlighted in the media because of the uncertain link between cancer of the ovaries and the use of talc based powders for genital hygiene. Many articles on this subject have been scare-mongering and ill informed while others misinterpret the scientific data and warn us against using talcum powder and items which may contain traces of talc such as condoms, tampons, sanitary towels, contraceptive diaphragms, and even rubber gloves.

The link between talc and ovarian cancer was first reported in the 1930s and the anti-talc league misused this fact to start rumours of conspiracies and cover-ups by the cosmetics manufacturers. Although there have been several articles in the medical literature over the past sixty years, there have been relatively few scientific studies until quite recently.

Between 1984 and 1987 a study was carried out in Boston which involved 235 white American women with ovarian cancer and a control group of 239 women of similar age, race and residence who were not suffering from any form of cancer. The results showed that 49% of the women with ovarian cancer regularly used talc for genital hygiene while only 39% of the control group used talc in the same way. The research group concluded that excessive and regular use of talc for genital hygiene may be linked to an increased risk of ovarian cancer but it was unlikely to be the cause of the majority of ovarian cancers.

A similar study in Buffalo, New York involving 499 ovarian cancer patients and a control group of 693 women with other forms of cancer such as cancer of the colon or stomach, found about the same proportion of each group regularly used talc. This study concluded that there was no link between ovarian cancer and the use of talc for genital hygiene. Critics of this study, however, pointed out that asbestos fibres had been found in some samples of talc and these had been linked to cancer of the stomach, colon and lungs. They believe that there is a small but significant link between the use of talc and an increased risk of cancer. There have been no studies linking the use of talc based baby powders with ovarian cancer later in life.

In 1994 the FDA decided against a consumer warning on products containing talc because there was insufficient evidence for a causal link between talc and ovarian cancer. Cancer of the ovaries is the fifth most common cause of cancer death in the UK but only about one woman in 12,500 is likely to be affected by this form of cancer and using talc is unlikely to significantly increase the risk. Women in the high risk group for ovarian cancer include those who:

• are over 50 years of age
• have a family history of ovarian, breast or colon cancer
• are suffering from breast or colon cancer
• have had no children
• have not used the contraceptive pill
• have used fertility drugs for more than three ovulation cycles
• are of Ashkenazi Jewish decent
• live in Western countries

A panel of federal science advisers of the National Toxicology Program, a joint effort of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, has recently said there is not enough scientific evidence linking the use of talc in feminine hygiene products to ovarian cancer and declined to place talc on the federal list of proven and suspected cancer-causing substances.

Some medical experts who have stated opinions on this subject believe that the liberal use of talc should be avoided. If talc does increase the risk of cancer it is only slight but since talc is not essential to health or hygiene, the risk is not worth taking. When studies first appeared suggesting that talc migrated into the ovaries to cause tumours, many feminine hygiene products replaced talc with cornstarch. If you are worried about using talc the answer is to switch to a product that is based on cornstarch (labelled as Zea mays in the UK). This is soluble and can be rapidly metabolised to harmless substances in the body.

See Chapter 6 on Soaps, Shower Gels and Cleansing Lotions

Back to the index

The Safety of Alpha-Hydroxy Acids (AHAs)

Reported in the Chemical Market Reporter, Schnell Publishing Company, Inc. August 28, 2000

The safety of alpha-hydroxy acids (AHAs or the so-called skin peelers),which are ingredients used in numerous face creams to peel the top layer of dead skin cells from the face and so reduce the appearance of wrinkles, is coming under increasing scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Union Commission. Neither agency is considering a complete ban but both are calling for further study.

AHAs may actually cause skin to age quicker by increasing sensitivity to UV radiation. Removing the outer layer of facial skin cells removes part of the skin's natural barrier to the sun's rays. Recent studies, sponsored by the FDA, show that AHAs, specifically glycolic acid, can make skin more susceptible to sun damage, including sunburn. But this is a temporary effect and is reversible after the use of an AHA product is discontinued. The FDA is now considering a label request petition submitted by the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA) regarding sun sensitivity along the lines of, "Sun Alert: Because this product may make your skin more sensitive to the sun, be certain you have adequate sunscreen protection while using this product and for a week after you discontinue use." It is asking for two years from the date of final regulation to introduce labelling.

There are also concerns about the effects of long-term use of AHAs and the FDA is collaborating with the National Toxicology Program to assess the safety of long-term use although it doesn't expect any results for several years. AHA's can cause skin irritation including severe burns and where the depth of penetration removes too much of the outer layer of skin it can allow the absorption of other cosmetic ingredients which are not intended to be absorbed and are harmful if they are.

See the Chapter 5 on Skin Care and Chapter 14 on Sun and Skin for further details.


Back to the index

Concern Over Anti-bacterial Soaps, Lotions and Other Household Products

Reported in The Seattle Times June 15, 2000

At the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates, held on June 11-15, 2000 in Chicago, concern was expressed about the use of antimicrobials in consumer products. The report (Council on Scientific Affairs Report 2 - Use of Antimicrobials in Consumer Products) considers whether the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products such as antibacterial hand lotions and soaps might be a significant source of antimicrobial resistance, with negative implications for public health.

The AMA has urged the government to step up regulation of anti-bacterial soaps, hand lotions and other household products but they stopped short of discouraging the use of such products after the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association expressed concern that it would alarm the public.

Doctors are concerned the anti-microbial products may be contributing to the proliferation of drug-resistant bacteria. The group's action follows a warning from the World Health Organization about the growth of drug-resistant infections.

See Chapter 6 on Soaps, Shower Gels and Cleansing Lotions

Back to the index

© Gina & Steve Antczak, 2001

This page was last updated, 7 April 2002

CosmeticsUnmasked.Com