Hmmm...Assemblyman/Lawyer going after deep pocketed defendent, or does he really care about our health? *Scratches Head*
Please, Mr. Democrat, save us from ourselves!
The dems are real good at making cosmetic changes.
They can have my make-up when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!
Just for the record, I know a lady who was in the "beauty business" for years who now has asthma and other health problems; did nails for years. Can't be around a lot of stuff now.
Many people with asthma are seriously endangered by stuff like perfumes (most perfumes are based on petroleum by prodcts).
That never stopped these nannies in the past.
A new "sin-tax" in the making?
Specifically, what are the chemicals in question. I hate when people throw around anacronyms figuring they're sounding scientific. Also, it sounds like the next cash cow for the trial lawyers. Ban the substances and then any woman that has a health complaint can sue the cosmetics manufacturers. I guess the asbestos lawsuits aren't bringing in the $$$ like they used to.
I'd heard that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer.
I just saw a teaser that our local news (KDKA-Pittsburgh) is doing a report on this story tonight.
Isn't this why we used to test products on animals? Call PETA and complain!
I wonder how much you would really have to eat for it to cause illness. </sarcasm>
Sorry, I'm all out of toxic nailpolish remover.
dibutylphthalate (DBP) and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). The DEHP concentrations were as high as 3.7 parts per million (ppm). However, the wraps used on these cheeses did not contain either phthalate as a primary plasticizer, and concentrations in the cheeses could not be clearly attributed to migration from the wraps. Other possible sources include glues and inks used on the printed labels, and background environmental contamination in the cheese itself. Both DBP and DEHP have been shown to be present in dairy foods independent of contact with plastic wraps.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 18, 2005
CONTACTS: Nick Guroff, NET, 415-863-8934 x109; Rebecca Farmer, BCA, 415-243-9301 x16; Kevin Donegan, BCF, 415-346-8223 x14
Safe Cosmetic Bill Faces Critical Vote
Public Health Advocates Challenge Industry's Faulty Science
SACRAMENTO, CA—Tomorrow in the Assembly Health Committee, Assemblywoman Judy Chu's (D-Monterey Park) legislation to promote cosmetic safety will receive its first and most critical legislative vote. Assembly Bill 908 would prohibit the use of two ingredients (DBP and DEHP, two chemicals known as phthalates) in personal care products that have been linked to male infertility, birth defects in the male reproductive system and premature breast development in females. Volumes of research on these chemicals have already been conducted at independent research institutions and published in peer reviewed journals. Cosmetics giants Revlon, Unilever and L'Oreal recently announced plans to remove the phthalates DBP and DEHP, while the European Union has prohibited these two hazards from cosmetics altogether.
"The question tomorrow before the Health Committee is not about whether the science exists to support a ban on these health hazards. Without a doubt it does," said Jeanne Rizzo, Executive Director of the Breast Cancer Fund, an environmental health organization that is co-sponsoring the bill. "We commend industry leaders such as L’Oreal and Revlon who have voluntarily agreed to discontinue using phthalates in their products worldwide. We can’t wait for decades, as happened with nicotine, lead and DDT, for other manufacturers who refuse to take leadership on this issue."
The results of scientific research on chemicals tend to differ based on the source of funding. A recent compilation of new science on another problematic chemical (bisphenol-A) in consumer products, found that over 90 percent of independent studies reported harmful effects of low dose exposure, while 100 percent of industry-funded studies reported no significant adverse effects. This same trend has held true with regard to DBP and DEHP. While supporters of AB 908 point to the studies that have informed the National Toxicology Program and the State of California's designations of these chemicals as reproductive toxicants, industry trade groups have “substantiated” the safety of DBP by relying on outmoded EPA safety levels—a safety level determined by a rat mortality study published in 1953, long since obsolete.
"Industry's hired guns will argue the science isn't there. When the science is presented, they will do everything in their power to discredit it. If they can't discredit it they will claim that acting on the science will put the little guys out of business," said Nick Guroff, California Representative for the National Environmental Trust. "Make no mistake about it, if these guys really cared about small business, they'd be putting their millions into safer products and not high-paid consultants."
Contrary to what many consumers may believe, the FDA has no legal authority to require safety assessments of cosmetics (www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html). Product safety is by default the responsibility of the industry and its own appointed Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel. The CIR has found just nine of 1,175 reviewed ingredients unsafe for use in cosmetics. Further, the CIR has reviewed only 11 percent of the ingredients in personal care products for their safety at large. Not only is this panel unable to act with autonomy from the industry, even when CIR has issued health recommendations, they have been ignored by industry (www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/report/safety_violations.php).
"Industry lobbyists can't have it both ways. They can't on the one hand claim that they know phthalates are safe and then on the other claim that we would need more research to prove them harmful," said Barbara Brenner, Executive Director at Breast Cancer Action. "It's time to stop the hamster wheel on these hazards and get them out of products. Women’s lives are at stake."
AB 908 will be heard in room number 4202 after 1:30 tomorrow afternoon. Other bills related to safe consumer products Senate Bill 484 (Migden) and AB 319 (Chan) will be heard on April 20 and April 26, respectively. SB 484 would require cosmetics manufacturers to report the use of harmful chemicals in their products to the state, while AB 319 would prohibit DBP, DEHP, and bisphenol-A from children's toys. For peer reviewed research on the phthalates DBP and DEHP please note the listing provided below. Abstracts and complete studies will be made available upon request.
Men can be deemed hazardous to women so will they be banned next?
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Calls Product Reformulations by L’Oréal, Revlon and Unilever a “Victory for Women’s Health and Consumers”
SAN FRANCISCO -- January 13 -- In a telling example of how new European safety standards for cosmetics are affecting products sold on U.S. shelves, L’Oréal, Revlon and Unilever confirmed they have eliminated certain toxic chemicals from their products.
In response to an investigation by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of U.S. health and environmental groups, both L’Oréal and Revlon said they are now in compliance with the European Union 7th Amendment Cosmetic Directive; Unilever’s policy on reformulation was less clear.
The EU law requires that cosmetics companies stop using chemicals that are known or highly suspected of causing cancer, impaired fertility or birth defects, such as the phthalates DBP and DEHP used in some fragrances, hair sprays and nail polishes. Companies were required to stop placing such products on store shelves by January 1.
The companies’ responses followed repeated requests by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to clarify whether they would stop using chemicals known or highly suspected to be carcinogens, mutagens or reproductive toxins everywhere their products are sold. In September, the Campaign named the three companies in a full-page advertisement in USA Today, which depicted a young girl applying lipstick with the headline, “Putting on makeup shouldn’t be like playing with matches.”
“We commend L’Oréal and Revlon for announcing they will globally reformulate their products to eliminate the use of dibutyl-phthalate and other toxic chemicals,” said Jeanne Rizzo, executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund, a founding member of the coalition. “This is a victory for women’s health and consumers. Regrettably, U.S. law still permits companies to put unlimited amounts of toxic chemicals into cosmetics sold in the United States.”
The three companies may differ, however, in whether they are reformulating globally to meet the new European standards or are taking a market-by-market approach. For companies that do not reformulate globally, their products containing hazardous ingredients will continue to be available to U.S. and other non-European consumers.
In a letter dated December 21, L’Oréal Senior Vice President for Research and Development Alan J. Meyers wrote unequivocally that his company’s products are in compliance with the EU cosmetics directive “no matter where they are sold around the world.”
Revlon Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications Catherine Fisher wrote on December 20 that “all products sold by Revlon are currently in full compliance with… EU Directives 76/768 EEC.”
The response from Unilever on the company’s reformulation policy was unclear. While Senior Vice President for Research and Development David Duncan wrote that Unilever “does not use [DBP and DEHP] as an ingredient in our products,” the letter of December 15 did not state whether the company’s products sold in the United States and other markets would comply with the EU directive, which also requires elimination of many more ingredients known or highly suspected to be carcinogens, mutagens or reproductive toxins (CMRs).
Contrary to popular perception, the FDA does not evaluate cosmetics products for safety before they are sold. The FDA states on its Web site that “neither cosmetic products nor cosmetic ingredients are reviewed or approved by FDA before they are sold to the public.” The statement continues, “FDA cannot require companies to do safety testing of their cosmetic products before marketing.”
“We are pleased these leading companies are removing some of the worst toxic chemicals from their products,” said Bryony Schwan, national campaigns director for Women’s Voices for the Earth, a founding member of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “This is just a first step to making truly safe cosmetics, however.”
The Campaign is asking all cosmetics companies to sign the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, a pledge to immediately remove all EU-banned chemicals, inventory all ingredients and develop a plan to replace chemicals of concern with safe alternatives within three years. For more information, visit http://www.safecosmetics.org/companies/compact_with_america.cfm.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics will publish a “report card” in March grading major cosmetics companies on their reformulation policies and their responsiveness to consumer inquiries about safety. The full correspondence with the above three companies is available.
Founding members of The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics include: Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, Breast Cancer Fund, Commonweal, Friends of the Earth, Women's Voices for the Earth, Environmental Working Group, National Black Environmental Justice Network and the National Environmental Trust. For more information and background on the campaign, see www.SafeCosmetics.org.
They'll have to pry my makeup from my cold, dead fingers in order to get it! What a waste of time and tax dollars.