I'm struck by the ads placed in this editorial piece warning about the unregulated cosmetic industry and its toxicity hazards . Both adds are on female face cosmetics. Was this intentional? The irony of it all.
21
I recently tried two highly advertised moisturizer creams targeted for "mature" women. Both of these creams caused me to break out in hives. Although these were not high end cosmetics, that's $40 I won't see again.
13
Women ! Lay off the cosmetics. You are beautiful the way you are !
19
Regulations on cosmetics? That's all you've got? With all that's going on -- the collapse of the Virginia Democratic Party, the way racism and sexual abuse have once again shown to be at home on the left, the horror of infanticide, the power of Trump's messages on anti-Semitism and his invoking the heroism of Americans past and present, the silly Congresswomen whispering whether to stand, clap or scowl at the State of the Union Address, the revived appeal of socialism on the left -- with all this, the Sunday editorial team chooses to concentrate on cosmetics regulation? That's ignoring the oncoming hurricane and focusing on rinsing out your coffee cup. Where do you stand on these issues?
My sister almost lost eye sight because of foul makeup.
Women, don't fool around with makeup. Save money too.
9
Thank you, NYT, for highlighting this safety and health matter.
23
I think they should start by outlawing testing on non human animals. We humans are all guinea pigs in the end. There are other reliable tests available and one would think in this century we could create the rest needed.
18
The real shame is that companies are torturing and murdering millions of animals each year to test their makeups, creams, shampoos, and toothpastes. This is an outrageous ethical outrage and governments around the world explicitly require it. Most concerning of all is the Chinese government, which mandates animal torture even for products proven safe elsewhere.
29
Please add to the list of problem products:
- lipsticks that plump your lips.
My wife had a sudden problem with her lips swelling and splitting. It was quite an ugly sight. Since she has many lipsticks and uses a different one just about every day, it took more than a month to figure out it was the plumping lipsticks that was causing the problem.
As long as companies are allowed to sell untested products, this kind of problem will continue. I fully agree that we need better oversight of companies that sell chemicals as personal care products.
BTW - I took a quick look at the Environmental Working Group's website, ewg.org (NOT ewg.com). It looks interesting. I will spend some time reviewing it.
5
How about we stop holding women to ridiculous beauty standards that require all these chemicals?
23
In this era of gender equality and #MeToo, why do women continue to use cosmetics and men do not?
6
If you can’t eat it you shouldn’t smear it on the 1 million pores all over your body.
Even amounts of chemicals that are “safe” in an application may not be safe over a decade. Shampoos included.
The inly solution is to buy 100% natural ingredient products with expiration dates.
Don’t use sunscreen, stay out of direct sun and wear a hat and loose clothing.
Don’t use “lotion” but use natural oils.
No need for special creams for special parts of the body.
11
If Congress acts. No, it’s ‘If we had leadership’. Imagine if every woman in the Senate and House stopped wearing any makeup. Television hosts....no makeup. And encouraged every woman....and men...to ‘just say no’. Until new safety laws are passed.
Maybe with the TSA workers, the air traffic controllers....we are relearning how much real power we have out here. And what unified action can accomplish in a short time. When cosmetic sales plummet, when airports are shut down...it’s amazing how .....40 years of inaction can be remedied.
As an aside, every doctor asks....do you smoke? Maybe they need to start asking for a list of cosmetics. No more free rides - but then cigarettes have covered for ...everything.
5
Personal Care Products (PCPs) are a subset of what are now called "Emerging Contaminants" (ECs) or "Chemicals of Emerging Concern" (CECs). One aspect that deserves more attention is the contamination of PCPs on ecosystems, drinking water and food web. PCPs are being identified as cause for concern when they become regularly detected in the environment in significant concentrations, and share physical chemical properties of known toxics. Many ECs have escaped regulation because their physical chemical properties do not predict persistence in the environment and ability to travel long distances to become global pollutants, but are "pseudo-persistent" because they are continually released in such large quantities that natural processes of environmental degradation are insufficient. PCPs are showing up in the remote Arctic, evidence that they are now of global concern. Unfortunately the sheer quantity of ECs make them difficult to regulate under our current international frameworks (e.g. Stockholm Conventions). Citizen and political initiatives on local and bio-regional levels are needed. See Chemicals of Emerging Arctic Concern, Arctic Monitoring Assessment Program http://AMAP.no
9
I know it's off topic but what about all the plastic packaging cosmetics come in....think of all those millions and millions of mascara tubes in landfills that will literally be here for-ever. Why in the world isn't that stuff packaged in heavy paper or compostable packaging??
22
A partial fix: stop wearing makeup. Whats wrong with the way women look au natural?
13
....much of the blame is with the FDA - I call it the Feckless Drug Administration....they allowed the Opioid manufacturers like Purdue to make addicts out of millions of Americans -it's not surprising they're allowing the manufacturers of cosmetics to put carcinogens and who knows what else in cosmetics. It's another bloated, corrupt federal bureaucracy that needs to be drained.
11
Would you wash your hair with motor oil?
Of course not. But petroleum in a main ingredient in many hair care products, skin lotions, cosmetics, and laundry detergents.
Would you paint your skin with turpentine?
No? But nail polish and remover are just as toxic.
Read the ingredients. Learn what they are, and the harm they can cause.
Remember, you’re as beautiful as you were the day you were born, 100% natural.
5
Just say NO to makeup, ladies and gentlemen. Animals will be spared from cruel and completely unnecessary experiments. And your face will appreciate it too. Natural beauty is always better than some chemical concoction you buy in a box, especially if it’s coming from China. Buyer beware.
14
This would be different if men wore make up.
18
We blame women for trying to be attractive. Let's be honest about the real reason we don't do anything.
4
About dangerous imported products.....I have been using a "natural" cream from China, Yiganerjing for various skin rashes. I have lately been slathering it on only to luckily discover that the UK has banned it because it is not natural, but tested for a potent steroid, clobetasol, and for two anti-fungals that cause heart failure. I have been having mysterious heart issues..constant afib that landed me in the ER... and thank my stars that I did some sleuthing. The cream is still being sold on the popular auction site which just refused my alert on what I consider criminal packaging and claims. I have thrown the package away and my heart issues are resolving as I write this, the day after discontinuing the cream. Jody's post about using only products from Canada and Europe seems smart. I would bet the FDA never investigated Yiganerjing the way a government agency of the UK did. My thanks to them. The product is still for sale on that auction site. Beware.
11
The advent of cannabis (non-psychoactive cannabidiols, CBDs) into cosmetic and wellness products, coupling natural essential oils and the potentially healing effects of the herb, could be disruptive to the cosmetic industry. Trump's signing of the Farm Bill now allows Canadian front-runners in the rapidly evolving new industry to challenge traditional American beauty suppliers. (Google "Canadian cannabis cosmetic industry")
I was surprised to learn that many plants naturally contain cannabidiols. Most cannabis cosmetics will use coconuts as their source, which is much richer in CBDs than cannabis hemp.
1
Many people and mostly women know that they are hideous creatures who must cover their appearance and mask their disgusting odor. So, regardless of whether these chemicals are toxic, and they certainly are, they should be allowed so we are not subjected to the malodorous smell and hideous appearance of these people. This, of course, is sarcasm.
I think many people are just easily brainwashed to use any number of products that are unhealthy. They are good consumers as the masters demand. They are trained to hate themselves as they are and it works.
Perfume should be outlawed in public places just like cigarette smoking.
5
Lobbyists for corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare kings and queens in the cosmetics industry insure that they are not regulated by buying legislative, executive and judicial branch officials docile duplicitous deception denial and deflection.
Who knew?
1
Pardon my cynicism, but does anyone really think that in the regulatory climate of this "administration" anything will be done to protect products that are mainly used by women? They are poisoning the air we breathe and the water we drink. Why should we think they care about the safety of any products?
16
The Environmental Working Group EWG, is an excellent resource for information about cosmetic products.
11
This has long been a big issue that gets little attention. I switched to simple soaps and pure oils a long time ago, because of all the mineral oil, petrochemicals, additives and preservatives, many of which are unnecessary and frankly toxic. Meanwhile, perfumes and colognes, which aren't even mentioned here, are some of the worst offenders - containing anything and everything with zero oversight. Dior's "Poison" is a rather ironic name, no doubt.
And to the point about "chemophobia," I don't think that's necessarily true. When everyone you know suffers from some kind of eczema, allergy, sensitivity or worse, it's time to take a hard look at the formulations of all these products, which have known carcinogens sitting right on their ingredients list. Perhaps these companies don't like the notion of regulation, but this is a public health issue that is costing families, employers, cities, states and the federal government a lot of money in many different ways, including treatment for health issues, lost work time, et al.
Lastly, noticing that the "related stories" accompanying this one are few and far between, I think the New York Times should put more muscle into this story as a public health threat than an op-ed.
8
I was in a cosmetics shop at the mall yesterday which proudly states that its products are not tested on animals. Baloney. I have in front of me their helpful 'Ingredients Guide.' Random page, random product. 'Sodium lauryl sulfate' which is an anionic surfactant is the first listed ingredient. Go online, look for SDS (safety data sheet). Section 11, toxicology, and I see the LD50 (the lethal dose for 50% of the tested population) for rabbits and rats. Section 12, ecological information, and I see the bioaccumulation factor in carp and its LC50 (lethal concentration) for fathead minnow and daphnia. Don't get me wrong - I am all for limited and professionally conducted animal testing which saves far more animals than it ever kills, because environmentally harmful chemicals are regulated and controlled in order to at least minimize their effects. But please don't ever think that you are being somehow virtuous in paying inflated prices for bogusly sold cosmetic products.
3
Surprised that this article did not mention plastic micro-beads in facial products that end up in marine life that humans eat. We are vain, careless & greedy in the overuse of cosmetics; however, we also can educate better via our media. Celebrity worship drives the need to use more & more vanity products. Can our need to be "beautiful" please stop making the rest of human & animal life sick?
13
Another example of corporate greed. It never ends because Wall Street is all about the money tainted water in Flint Michigan, food recalls , lead paint etc Politicians just don’t Care and the residents are abused.
Not surprising we were importing beads from India high in lead money talks and only money .
1
Don't use cosmetics. Problem solved.
3
The NYT Editorial Board is concerned about our wellbeing. But..."Cosmetics Safety Needs a Makeover." An example of semantic surrealism.Perhaps: "Our Safety Needs ongoing Monitoring." "Thousands of chemicals, in billions of dollars worth of products, are being governed by regulations that haven’t been updated in decades." An example of chronic toxic innumeracy.Perhaps:"Faux governing of outdated, unassessed regulations, by inadequate numbers of staff, are enabled by elected and selected personally unaccountable policymakers and a complacent population at large." How do each of us contribute, if we choose to, to move from words of whatever accuracy, meanings and implications to necessary actions, helping to make a difference which can make a sustainable difference?
How I wish the FDA would move sunscreen to the cosmetics arena. They have not approved any new UV filters since 2006. We are so far behind Europe, it's pathetic.
I buy my sunscreen from international websites + eBay + slather on chemicals that have been safely used in France since 1992.
Get off your duff, FDA.
Regarding actual cosmetics, we need to watch out for ourselves, read ingredient lists, + use our wallets to put manufacturers like Wen out of business. Manufacturers in general care about only one thing: the bottom line. If you think they care about you or your health, you are sadly mistaken. If you think the FDA is looking out for you, you have another think coming.
9
I have been making my own products for years, due in large part to information from “serious magazines”, and the EWG- whom I trusted bc they include citations from pubmed.
Having recently retired from my 30 year as an academic social scientist with expertise in quantitative research methods and statistics, I had the time to read the scientific literature myself.
I am ashamed to say I bought all of the hype about the dangers of “preservatives” and other “chemicals”, as well as the idea that skin is akin to an absorbent sponge (if this were true, salt scrubs would kill us by drawing all of the water out of our bodies-like slugs).
It turns out that there is almost no credible scientific evidence that parabens are endocrine disruptors. In fact, they are effective across a wide ph range, against many types of bacteria (and I believe fungi as well), in very small amounts. Not only that, they are inert!! The hysteria about them has led cosmetic companies to start using alternatives which are less effective, less stable, and have to be used in such high amounts that they are causing allergic reactions far more frequently.
In contrast, you should be VERY afraid of preservative free products, especially if they contain water, which is the perfect medium for microbial growth. Cosmetic chemists are worried that someone will be seriously hurt by such products, and they should be.
FDA oversight & regulations DO need updating, but they should be based on sound science-not hysteria.
7
Everyone should be checking the ewg.org (Environmental Working Group) database before buying all personal or cleaning product and buy only those that receive their approval certificate.
9
I suspect that the toxic chemicals in makeup are contributing to the incidence of cancer in women.
4
Why would the Cosmetic industry and the FDA bother to make cosmetics safe?
Women wear them, not men. Men merely run the business. (Lauder is one of the top US billionaires)
THIS IS WHY WOMEN NEED TO COMPRISE 50% OF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND THE SUPREME COURT!
10
Since 2012, I have run a Facebook support group for people allergic to isothiazolinones, a group of preservatives that has gone from being rarely used to now one of the top preservatives in personal care products, cleaning products, and industrials.
The unique thing about isothiazolinones is that they are sensitizing; that means that the allergy creates itself from repeat exposure to the product. The body burden becomes too much at some point, and your immune response system triggers in what will be a lifelong sensitivity to the chemical in even trace amounts. Isothiazolinone is a neurotoxin biocide seen in common formulations as Methylisothiazolinone, Benzisothiazolinone, Methylchloroisothiazolinone, and Octylisothiazolinone. The words themselves are so long that consumers don't even try to understand them, but they're in an overwhelming majority of our products now, including non-cosmetic products (95% of house paints have isothiazolinone and may off-gas to cause reactions months after the paint dries). Our estimates are that women are exposed on average 17 times per day.
Reactions range from skin rashes to nerve pain and muscle spasms to bronchial and even anaphylactic reactions. The length of time to recovery goes from days to months after exposure. I was personally sensitised to isothiazolinone after using La Mer face cream in 2006.
Europe, Canada and other countries now either ban or restrict some variants of it, but there's no movement to follow their lead here.
7
Another piece of evidence in the proof that women do not pay attention or really care that much. These facts have been known since the 1960's, yet this industry has grown since and has been using more and more chemicals.
If women paid attention, or cared more about what it is they are using rather than its effects on their beauty...it is sad that all you women have been played for so many eons. Why else would you not have had the right to vote until the 20th century? Why else did you not have paid-leave? Why else does the American way want to send your son to war, not college? Women do not pay attention - I see little evidence contrary to that statement.
1
Thanks for this editorial calling out both government and industry for egregious failures to protect us.
beautypedia.com is a website founded by Paula Begoun for research-based cosmetics recommendations. Free site. They don't have the means to check every cosmetic out there, but they do look at many makeup and skin care products for their efficacy and also for possible irritants/dangers.
2
What’s worse is the Chemicals Law (ensia) that passed in 2016 — 80K plus chemicals in use with a handful tested by EPA in years long process — ten chemicals at a time. Can you say slow walk?
3
Toxic chemicals don't belong on our faces or bodies or anywhere else on our skin. The corrupt American cosmetics and Big Pharma and Big Plastics industries are to blame for illnesses, diseases, deaths attributable to the use of cosmetics and products that can kill human beings. Consumer anxiety is real! Not a figment of our imaginations. What can be absorbed through our skins can kill us and is doing so. Just ask anyone who suffers from "chemophobia", who becomes ill and dizzy walking down the detergents and soaps aisles in our huge Big Grocery markets.
"Itchy and Scratchy" should be the logo for too many cosmetics and tainted products we are consuming and using today.
3
Rule of thumb, if a product lists “fragrance” as an ingredient, I don’t buy it. That could be up to a thousand synthetic chemicals which surprise, surprise are cheaper to use. Frankly, the industry can’t be trusted.
7
I have never understood cosmetics. I have met very few people of any gender that look better for them. And in this day in age, where we rush to (rightly) ban plastic bags, why are we still in the throes of a completely pointless industry that produces nothing of value but a lot of waste? Even if all cosmetics were made from natural products, they would still be an environmental disaster. How many lipstick tubes are floating around that big plastic pile in the ocean?
I realize cosmetics are but one of a myriad of pointless products we create, but they are also one that has helped keep women to a silly set of "beauty" standards that we men mostly do not have to confront. Unless you are in theater or the circus, they have no justifiable function. Cosmetics should go the way of cigarettes.
6
In addition, I can only imagine the tragic consequences these chemicals and toxins have on our environment and the poor animals in which they’ve been tested.
6
A common preservative, methylisothiazolinone, is frequently found in liquid soaps and shampoos. It was recently labeled "contact allergen of the year" by a prominent group of dermatologists and its use is severely restricted by the EU. Estimates are that 10% of the population is allergic. It can cause severe, horribly itchy rashes. Yet it is not regulated in the US.
5
I’ve never been allergic to anything.
After numerous years of facial red rashes (to the point of them bleeding and scabbing over) and finally finding an excellent dermatologist that requested a patch test on me, she discovered I’m allergic to Methylisothiszolinone. I’ve gone through every product in my house to see if this ingredient is in any of them and discarded all that contained it. Thank you so much for your timely comment. I’m so thankful for the temerity of my dermatologist in finding acresolution to my problem. It’s hard to believe it is still allowed in U.S. products.
5
In shampoos and other lathering cleansers you want to avoid sodium laureth sulfate - it's an irritant and it dulls hair color. In toothpaste and almost any product labeled "antibacterial" you want to avoid triclosan, which causes significant reproductive disorders in animals. Yes, a major toothpaste brand uses triclosan, for no good reason at all.
5
I spend half my time at the grocery store checking the ingredients of the items in the food aisles, and buying only all-natural and organic foods. Yet, like many others, I do not think twice before putting on lipstick multiple times a day. All that red dye and all those chemicals that end up in my tummy probably have the last laugh.
4
The day cosmetics go out of fashion; complexion of many will start to glow again naturally. Yes cosmetics like the soda and tobacco industry has caused addiction to chemicals, not all them safe. Long term use of cosmetics can be harmful to the skin and I thank the editorial board of the NYT for taking on the multi-billion dollar global unsafe cosmetics industry. It is also true that the cosmetics industry does not have to deal with stringent regulations and even the regulations are not enforced with any certainty and uniformity.
Most people are ignorant of the purpose of skin other than its obvious role in covering flesh, bones, blood and muscles. Last month I realized in full measure, the importance of skin in maintaining water and electrolyte balance by acting as a filter to remove excess water, oils, excess electrolytes stored under the skin and toxin in the body. Certainly skin moisturizers are essential in cold dry weather and oils and butter have been used for centuries to keep skin healthy.
Wrinkles are one of the many annoying symptoms of aging and one can excuse those who will have to do whatever it takes to smooth wrinkles away.
A healthy looking skin is not all about just skin health it is also a lot about healthy lifestyle, getting balanced nutrition with vitamins and mineral (eg Iron) supplementation, accelerated sweating to get rid of toxins from under the skin, either in a dry sauna, yoga or an aerobic vigorous exercise that results in serious sweating.
4
Thank you for this overview. However, it’s shocking that you make no mention of the fragrance industry (often called the flavoring and fragrance industry) whose products, protected by trade secret laws, often contain 200 chemicals or more—chemicals like formaldehyde and toluene which are heavily regulated in occupational settings, ie, the workplace—but as you say, not in products that we slather all over ourselves and our children.
Also not mentioned, regulations limiting workers’ chemical exposures in factories or labs are based only on adult workers’ five-day week, 8-hour a day environmental exposure—the same chemicals in personal care products which require protection in the workplace (masks, gloves, etc)—are allowed to be applied all over the largest organ of the body, the skin and have no similar recommended limitations or protections—applied alike to the skin of babies, children, developing young adults and immune compromised people.
Whole fields of medical research and science have arisen since these regulations were put into place—epigenetics, personalized medicine, endocrine disruption—our understanding of chemicals in the environment and of how the body responds to them is worlds away from where it was thirty years ago.
For anyone to blithely echo the industry’s platitude that it has a “good track record” with regard to health effects of these chemicals does not have a good understanding of the implications of the latest science.
6
My French dermatologist has a very low opinion of American skincare and cosmetic products and explained why (inadequate labeling, insufficient testing and highly questionable chemical ingredients banned here) in some detail, when I began consulting with her ten years ago. Now whenever I visit my daughters, currently living in the US, they always ask me to bring over supplies of their French/European products.
8
Even the "scent free" washing detergents are now causing problems for me with additives in those "new, greatly improved" ones on the market. There needs to be a list of everything on any product including preservatives and "fillers". I have trouble with medicines using lower cost preservatives and fillers so I suspect but cannot validate causality in soap? Seriously, this is not acceptable.
50
@poslug -try avoiding any products with methylisothiazolinone, which is a challenge!
2
I had a rash on my face for years, was told it was eczema, one year it got so bad I shopped new dermatologists. One tried to prescribe oxycodone! Luckily I found one who said I was probably allergic to toothpaste, even tho I was using a low chemical one - Toms I think. I started researching and realized how many chemicals are in toothpaste... now I make my own w just baking soda and coconut oil. Not only did the rash go away for good, but so too a chronic stomach ache and burning eyes... we def need better regulations, and also a medical approach that considers removing root causes rather than adding more drugs, creams etc.
133
Working as a dermatologist in the UK (until I retired recently) I was never alarmed about the ingredients of US cosmetics. That's because it was impossible to KNOW what went in to these products - because they lacked any ingredient labelling.
Cosmetic products and toiletries for the US market are BANNED in the UK and across the European Union - not because they're necessarily harmful, but because their labelling doesn't comply with European rules. Sadly, some US products do make it in under the radar. They end up being sold illegally in places like street markets and door-to-door whilst their vendors try to keep ahead of the authorities. That IS sad - that products from the world's most advanced nation end up sitting furtively sold alongside dangerous Chinese electrical goods, counterfeit designer labels and dubiously legal synthetic drugs.
Look at any European Union cosmetic. Every single ingredient - tens, even hundreds - are fully declared and the safety data on these chemicals is easily and transparently available. US manufacturers tend to dismiss this as 'bureaucratic overreach' but the fact is that Europeans know exactly what they're putting on their skin. Americans don't.
It's been stated that, in exchange for a good post Brexit US/UK trade deal, all the 'Euro rules' have got to go. 'Flexibility', 'light touch' and proportionality' are the watchwords of the US negotiators. This doesn't deter the fanatics - 'good enough for Americans, good enough for us'. Hmmm.
105
At one time the US was the world leader in product safety, but that was a long time ago. The decline of US product safety, of course, has not been impacted by the 10s of millions of dollars companies have spent in an attempt to “educate” (aka influence) politicians, or at least that’s what we are expected to believe.
The concerns laid out in this article are really issues that deserve a global solution. After all, consumers everywhere deserve to know that the products they purchase are safe and do not contribute to or cause long-term health issues.
8
The first thing I do when purchasing cosmetics, moisturizers or OTCs is look at is where the product is manufactured. Unfortunately many cosmetics now list the product was manufactured in the USA but also includes imported ingredients. I noticed this trend started with CVS with their in-house brands - there is often no country of origin listed on their brands which is why I steer clear of their brands. I used to try to buy products made in the USA which is now all but meaningless because the ingredients are imported and so when possible I purchase brands manufactured in Europe or Canada. I trust Canada especially and appreciate that there are no other imported ingredients in their brands.
47
Yes, yes, yes! And we also need additional regulations for food supplements.
Companies have proven to be woefully inadequate at self regulation. There are too many examples of businesses that knowingly and willingly continue to sell unsafe products. Short term profits rule over any potential long-term liability.
Regulations will not kill small businesses. Regulations will allow small businesses to thrive knowing that they have minimized risk to their clients.
37
Recently, I looked up the ingredients of a face cream and body lotion that I had been using for a while and it was disheartening to know how so many of the ingredients contained in these products were toxic chemicals. Over time with exposure to these unregulated products, it is scary that one will never know how much harm it may have already caused. I switched to only organic products.
People in this deregulated country are on their own whether it includes cosmetics, vitamins, and medications. It's time for the politicians to look out for their constituents and not to the corporate lobbyists.
50
@MSS.... "I switched to only organic products"..... Some of the most toxic chemicals known are found in "naturally" occurring plants and animals.
12
Perhaps the most important aspect of this article is how it points out the irrational chemophobia of many folks. If one were to be truly concerned about "toxic" chemicals, the first thing one would do is ban the consumption of plants and plant products (Ex., coffee). Plants are loaded with toxic compounds, as that is the primary mechanism by which they discourage predators. In addition, we metabolize many chemicals found naturally in plants into known carcinogens.
Consider formaldehyde. Plants, but not mammals, contain high levels of methylated sugars. When we eat these sugars, the methyl groups on these sugars are converted into formaldehyde. So that "healthy" green salad comes with a nice dose of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.
Or how about coffee? During the roasting process, one generates massive amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a group of very potent carcinogens. Toluene is also produced during roasting. Other known carcinogens at significant levels in coffee include acrylamide, acrolein and caffeic acid. The vast majority of chemicals in coffee have not been tested for carcinogenicity. Yet, it is abundantly clear that coffee does not cause cancer.
The bottom line is that we are continuously exposed to multiple carcinogens and other toxins at low levels and this is not problematic. If you use cosmetics, you are being exposed to toxin levels that are trivial compared to what we eat. Don't worry and keep looking good!
3
I don't know if they are any better, but I purchase my cosmetics only at department stores. I also purchase well known and the more expensive brands because I think they are safer. I feel more at ease and think the quality of the ingredients are superior. When you are using these products on your eyes and face, price should not be of concern. Of course, there are many brands at the department stores that are still affordable for the average consumer. Health and safety first should be the prime factor when buying any product but especially when applying those to the body.
1
@WPLMMT
I also used to think price for cosmetics was a protection, but sadly I have had to toss hundreds of dollars of my longtime favorite cosmetics because they contain toxic
ingredients.
Let the buyer beware, but this buyer is finding it difficult to find nontoxic products as good or conveniently sold! One source said a lipstick I had was ok, and another source said it was toxic! It is still in my handbag and by my makeup mirror because it is my best choice until I do better!
Furthermore, I am not at all consoled by the added incentive of no animal testing. As my scientist husband pointed out to me, when no animals are tested for the products before they are near my eyes, lips, him and my children, then I must realize the first animal tested for safety is me.
So today I continue my search for healthy products to replace my old favorites that were false friends. Not as easy a search as for healthy foods, but I am determined to find them.
Thank you, NYT, for bringing this lapse of oversight to your front page!
8
This is but one area in which capital is dismantling safety features put in for the public by governmental agencies. Eventually global capital business will change the products it produces, the planet it dumps into and the people who live here to an unsustainable state. Profit as the be-all and end-all will also be the kill-or-destroy-all of capitalism. Will it happen overnight? No. Cosmetic deregulation or lack of regulation is simply one small aspect of how capital eats democracy.
4
My biggest fear in cosmetics (and everything else) is nanoparticles. These are unregulated in the US, often produced in unsafe conditions, not listed on ingredient list as nano, and a whole host of other dire consequences. I didn't see it mentioned un this article. Did I miss it? Am I crazy? Anyone have snything to say on this?
11
Republicans have eliminated the Consumer Protection Agency even as they have tried to dismantle every government program that protects people.
30
Personal Care Products (PCPs) are a subset of what are now called "Emerging Contaminants" (ECs) or "Chemicals of Emerging Concern" (CECs). One aspect that deserves more attention is the contamination of PCPs on ecosystems, drinking water and food web. PCPs are being identified as cause for concern when they become regularly detected in the environment in significant concentrations, and share physical chemical properties of known toxics. Many ECs have escaped regulation because their physical chemical properties do not predict persistence in the environment and ability to travel long distances to become global pollutants, but are "pseudo-persistent" because they are continually released in such large quantities that natural processes of environmental degradation are insufficient. PCPs are showing up in the remote Arctic, evidence that they are now of global concern. Unfortunately the sheer quantity of ECs make them difficult to regulate under our current international frameworks (e.g. Stockholm Conventions). Citizen and political initiatives on local and bio-regional levels are needed. The NYT editorial call for action in Congress is needed and timely. See Chemicals of Emerging Arctic Concern, Arctic Monitoring Assessment Program, https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/AMAP-Assessment-2016-Chemicals-of-Emerging-Arctic-Concern/1624
4
Wore cosmetics at 13 when finally permitted by my Mom. Stopped soon after as they were too much effort. Other under explored hazards are deodorants, chemically enhanced soaps, strongly scented products. Stopped deodorants (1957) when my aunt explained that one must change brands every 6 months as the body accommodates (quite possibly not true.) Scary enough in 1957 to convince me. Have avoided scented products, chemical products ever since. We need not only to examine the sale of dangerous products, but the social paradigm that creates the market.
9
I have significantly pared back cosmetic products I use. I use one cleanser and one serum made in Iceland and that is it. Not only does it free up bathroom space, I no longer feel enslaved to the beauty industry. And I have stopped using perfumes, candles, air fresheners, fabric softeners, etc. I do miss the scents, but if it smells good and comes in a package, it most likely is not good for you or the environment.
13
Environmental Working Group has great info for cosmetics and toxicity. They list specific products and rate them. Stay away from products with too many ingredients and names you don't recognize. Also, just go organic.
12
If updating regulations for cosmetics mean imposing new restrictions, then I am against it! I support the Trump era lessening of regulations so that business and industry may thrive in a competitive rather than a restrictive economic environment. Thank you.
1
What if the restrictions are on harmful, potentially deadly chemicals? What’s the point of having an unregulated economy if we’re killing ourselves off?
1
Would you feel the same for drugs and the food that you consume? This is a ridiculously naive and dangerous thought process.
2
I will use only European and Canadian brands, as I trust their governments care more for their citizens than ours.
59
After using "Fruition", a prodcut that Estee Lauder has discontinued, my lips and facial skin began to swell. I discovered that it contained mango, to which I am very allergic. Cosmetics should contain allergy warnings.
9
@BJM allergies are increasingly common. Expecting "mango" to be listed as an allergen is not realistic. Name anything and someone is allergic to it. For instance, I am extremely allergic to all synthetic dyes. They are in everything and labelled on nothing.
1
Correcting your incorrect numbers on Wen Cleansing Conditioner in 2016, the FDA uncovered 22,000 of the complaints of hair loss, rashes and persistent scalp infections, Wen acknowledged 28,000 in court in December of 2015 and that was while actively avoiding documenting complaints such as ours. (They didn’t document the first time I called, and that is most victim’s experience) my daughter Eliana is the girl in the article linked to. Her hair fell out on contact with Wen and she is still suffering the effects 4+ years later.
(The 200 you mention was just the beginning of one of many multi-plantif cases, not including the class action.)
Before I went to Washington to lobby for cosmetic safety, along with my then 11 year old, I was shocked that the FDA doesn’t even have recall authority on dangerous cosmetics. Even Senator Hatch didn’t believe me when I told him that. The FDA doesn’t even have authority to ask for their formulations. Wen may have settled their class action, but they can still sell it, and continue to harm many thousands every year.
55
A big omission in this editorial: Mandatory Expiration-Date Labeling. All products expire. Cosmetics, which are not required to carry expiration-date labels, can last a year but only if stored in darkness. Major brands sell new products at flagship retailers, then moved them to what they term as The Gray Market. Expired cosmetics are sold at drugstores at reduced prices, where low-income customer spend a large portion of their income on outdated, ineffective and dangerous “brand” cosmetic products. While working at a top-branded firm, we were told that contributions to both political parties had always guaranteed the status quo.
18
I am glad the editorial board mentioned chemophobia because the labelled photograph implies a black and white danger associated with certain substances. Toluene, for example, is an acutely hazardous substance in macroscopic quantities. In the tiny quantities found in nail polish, Toluene is not a respiratory hazard with typical use. If a child were to habitually take deep sniffs from a bottle, however, that would plausibly lead to negative outcomes.
8
@Jon The article states that the respiratory effects caused by Toluene affect the nail industry's workers :"they’ve linked chemicals in nail polish to serious health problems in nail technicians". See additional article listed below "Perfect Nails, Poisoned Workers."
8
It used to be the labels "Made in America" or Made in the USA" meant that the products were safe --- or at least we thought they were. Magical thinking, I guess. And among the imports Chinese products are always suspect (think melamine, heavy metals etc, etc, etc). I remember reading several years ago that over 250,000 new chemicals were created in our lifetime. It's probably a lot more now.
Why are cancer rates soaring? (Not only because of better detection...)
And why do more and more people have "chemophobia"? (Who can you trust? Surely not the corporations if any information goes against their interests.)
After reading some of the comments here, it might help if we all stopped buying products without adequate labeling and without governmental recognition of safety. Just stop -- for six months -- long enough to use up the stuff we probably have in our cupboards --- and long enough to alert the corporations that they will not have our business until we have legitimate safety assurances for our families.
25
@Lily "There are an estimated 150,000 substances in commerce today, of which less than 1000 are routinely monitored in the environment" Personal Care Product chemicals are a subset of many Chemicals of Emerging Concern (aka Emerging Contaminants) that do not have regulatory protocols or escape through loopholes.
Chemicals of Emerging Arctic Concern, Arctic Monitoring Assessment Program.
https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/AMAP-Assessment-2016-Chemicals-of-Emerging-Arctic-Concern/1624
1
About an hour ago, I recommended our political and media leaders stop using cosmetics until we get new safety legislation. Bit evidently the Google moderator doesn’t like suggestions of...communal action. Glad your comment made it.
1
This is Ronald Reagan's deregulated America. In the 60s and early 70s, Congress passed several powerful environmental protection statutes, but since then, there has been very little done to protect the environment and the public safety. Even implementation of the new TSCA is moving along at a crawl. Thousands of new chemical products are in food, drugs, cosmetics and other consumer items, all of these enter the waste stream, and there's very little known about a lot of it because "government is the problem," and Repubs don't want new laws and "deregulation" is deemed a key part of an economic miracle. And many people believe this is best for all of us.
45
@Jsw I don't disagree about how the Reagan years put the kibosh on environmental (and worker) protections, but note what the article says: The laws governing the authority of the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors have never been updated since first enacted in 1938.
7
There may be no such thing as "safe" in this regard since ingredient mixtures may be "less safe" than individual ingredients, as if they tested them. Perhaps the safest thing is to move to Europe. While they are far from perfect, their REACH legislation puts the burden on companies and embodies the "precautionary principle".
13
@Reader
I know people who live here in San Diego having moved from Europe for various reasons. They are delighted to shop at our local, organic food store - terrified to go to others, due to the U.S.'s lax regulation of food, supplements, and cosmetic products.
As for moving to Europe, it sure is a tempting thought!
5
@Reader
My conclusion exactly.
1
The larger cosmetics companies try to stave off lawsuits by doing thousands of the same repetitive tests on animals. Example: picture a long row of rabbits immobilized in holding mechanisms as harsh ingredients are poured into their eyes. These tests are done over and over ad infinitum to bolster the companies' abilities to fight any lawsuit that might happen, In the absence of FDA action, they don't know what they might need and test everything they can, subjecting hundreds of thousands of animals to agony every year and then killing them. Tissue samples cultured in the lab do an equally effective job of testing but don't pack the same punch in court. This should be a part of the FDA's approach --- keep these animals out of the labs.
34
The FDA does not even require safety studies on separate ingredients of vaccines and their toxicity before they are injected into our bodies . Why would they bother trying to regulate toxic ingredients in cosmetics?
Our regulatory agencies are losing credibility fast.
The consumer is on their own!
10
df...."The FDA does not even require safety studies on separate ingredients of vaccines and their toxicity before they are injected into our bodies.".....This is a false statement. You need to check your source and be more careful.
2
But at least many of these items, used of course as directed, are often proudly labeled to have never been tested on animals! So now all we have is nonscientific testing on human animals, caveat emptor, for purely cosmetic (in other words non-essential) purposes.
5
Thank you for this editorial! We need such legislation. In the meantime, in addition to the ewg database, there is an FDA study of lead in cosmetics from 2010 that I consult for a sense of which cosmetics companies are better about limiting lead: https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/productsingredients/products/ucm137224.htm#expanded_survey
10
I read the label of my Revlon Lip Cusion lip tint. It took some technology to read the 4 point typeface. There are ingredients like polypropylene and other plastic in this product. Plastics. I thought micro particles of plastic were banned by the FDA? Is this polypropylene somehow not considered to be in micro particle format? I don’t understand how.
I would never think that polypropylene would be a legat ingredient for a cosmetic. I’m disappointed I discovered it after the fact (thank god for labels). This means that people are probably ingesting small amounts of plastic all the time.
16
Lots of luck that cosmetic companies will list ingredients!
Let’s start with expiration, sell by or date of manufacture.
It as if there is a closely state held secret regarding dates.
I have called manufacturers ( looking at you, Coppertone sunscreen, Nivea body lotion) to find out how to identify the expiration date. Why not just put it on the container?
I was told to reference the lot number. I found a website that helps to identify that information, checkcosmetic.net, but lately
I have come up with nothing.
Why should the consumer have to hire a private detective to find something as simple as an expiration date?
Not optimistic about listing ingredients.
28
The dispersion of control, and regulation, and public health care, is allowing the Cosmetics Industry to gouge us and convincing far too many of the imperious need to use their products...or else. The harm, and the expense, have been well documented. But words without corrective actions are sterile and hypocritical. Have we become too complacent in the name of vanity? Can you imagine how upside down are our priorities, when the F.D.A. gets 8 million (annual budget) against the 'military' that consumes the vast majority of our taxes, 600,000, 000 million dollars? Irrational, right?
10
Who knows what we really are doing to ourselves when we put the products that allegedly will make us look better and perhaps younger on our skin? While clinical studies have issues and could have better checks on some practices, the goal of such studies are to protect the users of a drug or device. (See, for example, the FDA rules that were created for device studies after the Dalkon Shield IUD fiasco.) Regulating make-up is a good idea.
Your editorial appears as the government seems more interested in degregulation more in funding and protecting efforts to protect consumers. This sentiment along with strong opposition of the producers of cosmetics undermines the possibility of studies and regs to ensure cosmetics are safer and maybe really make us look better.
You should expand your concern to those who provide beautification services. Deregulation of those industries is being pushed through legal strategies and through legislative and administrative changes to existing laws and regulations. We also should be concerned if inspections of beauty/barber facilities and training for their operators are eliminated or limited. While excessive regulation is also harmful, I want the equipment and towels used by anyone doing my hair or nails to be really, really clean, not subjectively clean with perhaps residue that could cause infection on them. Train the operators to know how to do their job well AND safely. Make owners understand why this is better. All this is needed.
5
There is a common element tying concerns about cosmetics, our food supply, drinking water, herbal supplements, and lots of other things.
It’s our corrupt political system. When’s the last time you heard anything about campaign reform? Seems like the day before the last election to me. That hollow conversation will rev up again during the next election cycle and, discouragingly, likely go dormant again the day after the election. Has the swamp been drained? If it has, it’s only to make way for a giant cesspool.
Unless you hire a lobbyist, what real connection do you have with elected officials? Vast amounts of money pour into campaigns to sustain the connection of these influence peddlers to policy makers. The voice of the individual is drowned out.
Clean cosmetics, or clean anything, isn’t going to happen without clean government.
68
@Watchful Eye
Time for you to turn your watchful eye on the future with hope.Many of us are reading about newly elected women among millions of dedicated Democrats who never voted for the current regime. Change is possible. Contribute to worthy candidates. Do whatever you can. Help make change a reality.
4
The media can play a vital role by informing the public about health hazards in personal care products, food, beverages and drugs, especially because government agencies are unlikely to become better watchdogs in the foreseeable future. The Times takes a step in the right direction with this editorial. Hopefully The Times will expand its coverage of health hazards fostered by corporate indifference in its news, editorial and health sections. An informed public seems to be the most reliable defense against unhealthy products and corporate greed.
19
I know this is absurdly anecdotal but I know three very young people -- all under the age of 40 -- afflicted with aggressive cancers. Two of them are dead and the other's body is ravaged by the treatments. All three are women.
I wonder what the statistics are on new incidences of cancer by gender for people ages of the 30-40 age group.
8
I found a website ten years ago that lists the toxicity of products that go on our hair and skin.
While an informed shopper, the products I was using were all revealed to be unhealthy.
Since then, the only things that touch my skin are natural oils (Jojoba in summer and Lanolin liquid in cold month) and coffee grinds (hair conditioner and color). I wash my skin and create body masks for vegetables and fruits that are leftover from my cooking.
Skin is the largest organ of the human body. Feed it well.
34
I have a health condition that is retriggered by exposure to any type of benzene (sodium benzoate, benzyl benzoate, benzyl alcohol, etc.) or isopropyl alcohol. These ingredients are in all kinds of products — shampoos, liquid hand soaps, dish soaps, sunscreens, moisturizers, etc.
Like other commenters here have experienced, last year I was in Europe for 3 weeks and didn’t have a recurrence. (At that time I was unaware the chemical was in liquid hand soaps, something I discovered upon my return to the US where I’ve been battling flare ups ever since because these chemicals are in EVERYTHING in the US.) That experience has left me wondering if Europe has stricter regulations around these chemicals. Why the US so often chooses the priorities of companies over its citizens is beyond me.
54
@L Europe has a lot stricter regulations.
30
@L. "Why the US so often chooses the priorities of companies over its citizens is beyond me. "
Money.
21
@L
Two words - Citizens United.
8
And we are surprised by this situation because.........."women and children slather....." Could it be that concerns about these products are less because mostly women and children are impacted? If ingredients in shaving creams were discovered to be carcinogenic, see how fast legislators and other powers in that market would respond. Money and attention go to what and who is valued. As the congressional womens' restroom becomes more crowded, more issues that impact women will be addressed. Men are not concerned as to whether there is acetone in nail polish remover in part because they have never used it.
85
We should adopt an approach to regulating chemicals the way they do in Europe. Companies there must show their products to be safe rather than regulators or consumer groups needing to prove that they are not.
163
Big cosmetic business in the USA want these regulations because they can afford to pay fees - Their goal to knock out small businesses who do a better job making safe and good products.
5
The conclusion in your last sentence that the products of smaller companies are safer has absolutely no basis.
7
As long as the ssue is labeled, as in this opinion piece, something that involves women and children little action will take place.
Male representatives and senators using makeup to face tv cameras should be told they may be applying asbestos laced products to their complexion.
37
Many people assume that “drug store” products like toothpaste and shampoo are regulated like food or pharmaceuticals.
Not only is that not the case, but as revealed in films like “Stink” and books like “Sicker, Fatter, Poorer” beheometh companies coupled with lax regulation of chemicals in these products translates to serious negative impact on human health: infertility, ADHD and asthma to name a few.
As the exposes show, can protect yourself and your family from harm, but we shouldn’t have to worry what’s lurking in our toothpaste.
12
SWEIN (So What Else Is New)!
Big Pharma, Big Oil, Hospital Privatization, Chemical Firms, Medical Devices inserted into People, Big Banks, and on and on. Government is there for companies to get away with rules and regulations for their industries, at the expense of the average American.
So do I expect any new regulations to suddenly appear for the cosmetic industry? NO!
24
@Majortrout ~
"So do I expect any new regulations to suddenly appear for the cosmetic industry? NO!"
Especially under the current administration!
3
I use European brands of cosmetics and skincare. European safety standards and testing are significantly better in most cases.
148
@S T
I would not be so sure about European brands. Thinking of Unilever (Dove) they'll gladly give you toxins in any of their products, same applies to the German brand Nivea.
1
@S T You + me both!
ewg.com - easy to use website and a great resource. if you can't find the lroduct you're looking for on their list you can request to have it added.
32
@maria link does not work :(
@maria it is: ewg.org not .com but thanks for pointing it out.
4
I suffered for several years from a variety of chemical sensitivities that no dermatologist was able to help me with, other than to dose me heavily with steroids. I had to figure out on my own what skin care products would not cause me problems and allow my skin on my face and body to stay in balance. In Germany I found a moderately priced line called Lavera and it solved the problem of what to put on my skin. The other part, what to stay away from in household products, has been more challenging and has required a lot of effort. I pretty much stay away from all household products from the big national companies and wear gloves to the gym. Caveat emptor.
22
I've found that you can clean just about anything in the house with various combinations of white vinegar, water, and/or baking soda.
For mold, I use diluted bleach if necessary.
The chemical-laden cleaning products are unregulated as to their contents and they are expensive as well.
28
Disheartened that products put on the skin, mouths, eyes of unsuspecting women are not vetted for health safety.
Showing the chemicals that are harmful does little good.
Give us the names of the products that are safe and harmful.
Then we can choose.
Price doesn't seem to be an indication of safety.
Why don't we have this information readily at hand?
Is it because women are primarily the victims?
If these were products for cars, we would certainly expect information and recalls.
Isn't it time to protect all consumers from risk?
58
This article mentions "pricey vacations" for lawmakers responsible for regulating the cosmetic industry. Why not just call them bribes?
175
@Carl Hultberg because responsible journalists like the NYT know they can't call it a bribe until and unless they have evidence that there was a quid pro quo. I read the NYT because it is responsible journalism.
3
Thanks for the article about cosmetics. I'm grateful to live near an organic food co-op that carefully vets the products in its supplement and cosmetic section. As for the F.D.A., it's ability to monitor the safety of everything under its purvue - cosmetics, prescription drugs, food, medical devices - so as to protect public health - has been systematically stripped away and watered down for years due to those industries' campaign contributions to and lobbies on Congress. There's a reason Public Citizen says not to take a pharmaceutical drug until it's been on the market for seven years - only then does its safety profile come clear.
77
Nice photo of beauty ingredients and labeling those that can be harmful. The best idea is simply to go to the Environmental Working Group website and check out the ingredient deck of product(s) you are interested in. Glad to see you note the dangers of Mercury, a potent neurotoxin with no safe minimums. Now, can you get the product ingredient pages for shots and do the same? This was missed a couple of weeks ago. Thanks in advance.
36
@lechrist. Reminder: in the not too distant future we will all be inhaling more mercury because the regulations concerning the amounts that can be disseminated into the air for disposal by corporations have been removed. No amount of choosing a different product can save you from inhaling that poison. Only death provides the end of breathing.
8
@lechrist ~
Thank you for mentioning the EWG. Here is a link to their cosmetics page:
https://www.ewg.org/key-issues/consumer-products/cosmetics
6
Thank you for this article. These products are marketed as harmless and helpful. Many years ago my infant daughter broke out in worse and worse rashes from the baby powder my husband used after every diaper change, a product we thought would help keep her dry. We then had to apply creams to cure the never ending rash. When I ran out of powder and didn't get around to buying more for a week, the rash cleared up and we never used it again! More recently, my fault, I applied old make-up. It stung, and I immediately took if off with cold cream, soap, and water. My eyes puffed up and it took two weeks plus cortisone cream to rid myself of a sore, ugly rash. As someone with asthma and sensitive skin, I return to my usual unadorned state with only coconut oil and plain soap, which hopefully are okay as a beauty products. I expect no justice or oversight from the irresponsible party of Trump, so I guess we are left with lawsuits and calling out companies.
70
@Dr. Conde
I discovered that I was allergic to a preservative, methykchloroisothiazinolone, that is in an amazing array of personal care products. Unfortunately it doesn’t always appear on ingredient labels or is in products, like liquid hand soaps in public restrooms, that are hard to avoid. Why are manufacturers not required to ensure the safety of their ingredients?,
33
@Dr. Conde I, too, have allergic reactions to many over-the-counter lotions, moisturizers, soaps and sunscreen. I have learned to buy pure Castile soap, CeraVe moisturizers, and make my own body scrub with olive oil and sugar. I'm still looking for a decent toothpaste and currently use baking soda to brush my teeth, a good unscented deoderant which is not an antiperspirant because clogging up armpit pores cannot be a good thing, and an unscented shampoo that does nothing but clean my hair. As it is, I dilute shampoo by 50% water.
14
@JB Why are manufacturers not required to ensure the safety of their ingredients?
Because all they care about is profits.
11
These products are NOT medicines, but used only to treat the mind of those wearing them.
Some, with severe skin or other disfigurement, may wish to use some cover or base, but really, who needs glittering eye liner?
Not only should this be re-examined, but also the enormous fleecing of those who buy useless supplements and additives which have been allowed ever since the fiddling by Hatch with the Dietary Supplement Health 'education' Act.
13
@reid Do you have a connection to Big Pharma? A hundred years ago, prior to patented, oil-industry based medications for profit, medicines were mostly from nature (herbs, vitamins, etc.). Throughout history, this has been the case and has worked well to serve humans without extraordinary cost and no or minimal sides effects.
The third cause of death in the US is medical error, mostly due to the ingestion of prescribed drugs. On the other hand, the US government has thousands of studies proving the efficacy of supplements like curcumin (turmeric), vitamin C, vitamin D and on. You can search them out yourself on greenmedinfo dot com.
Please educate yourself. Useless? I think not.
3
The Federal government is barely keeping tabs on edibles; I have no proof but deep suspicions about products imported from countries which are worse that the US ( Fish from China anyone?). stoppped buying one item for my dog when I read that it, too, was made in China and touted as a healthy snack.
Now, with the rollback of regs from Trump and the Band of Republican raiders, the government has moved away from protection of the basics, the absolute necessities, clean water and air.
Should cosmetics pass more stringent tests? Of course. But it looks like anyone concerned will have to go to the independent sites who try to track this stuff, at leas until the government can change and catch up. Or if we could borrow some European standards, perhaps it would save time. They are almost uniformly more stringent.
As @MGL noted - it isn't just about what some additives do to us, but to every living thing in the world's ecosystem.
83
My awareness has been based on articles in serious magazines. Microscopic additives to powders end in rivers and oceans where the are a serious threat to animals and fish. And they are found in sources of drinking water. Let's not experiment with how many toxins humans and the environment can absorb. Time for scientific supervision.
Hope? times may be changing. Let's hope the trend in politics for more women and Democrats to win elections will curb the old-boys Republicans. It's probably too late for them for them to move with the times.
107