The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Cancer-Causing Chemical in Shampoos Subject of Ground-Breaking Legal Agreement
The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) announced today it has reached first-ever legal agreements with 26 major companies to discontinue using the cancer-causing chemical cocamide DEA in shampoo and personal care products.
In August 2013, CEH brought lawsuits against companies selling products in California that contain cocamide DEA without a health warning, as required under Prop 65, the state’s consumer protection law for toxic chemicals. In June 2012, the stated listed the chemical as a known carcinogen based on the assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which evaluated skin exposure tests on animals. Cocamide DEA is a synthetic chemical created from a chemical reaction between coconut oils and diethanolamine. It has been used for decades in shampoos and other products as a foaming agent.
On May 2, CEH legal settlements with 14 companies were finalized in Alameda County Superior Court. Under the agreement, the companies agreed to stop using cocamide DEA in their products. While the litigation is binding only in the state of California, it is expected that the companies will stop selling products containing the chemical nationwide. The 14 companies are:
Ampro Industries, Inc.
Accessory Zone, LLC
Avlon Industries, Inc.
House of Cheatham, Inc.
Lush Handmade Cosmetics Ltd.
McBride Research Labs, Inc.
Michel Design Works Ltd.
Person & Covey, Inc.
Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy, Inc.
Somerset Toiletry Company, Ltd.
Todd Christopher International, Inc. dba Vogue International
Trans-India Products, Inc. dba Shikai Products
CEH has signed agreements with 12 other companies, which are expected to be approved by the court in June. The 12 companies are:
Farouk Systems, Inc.
Fisk Industries, Inc.
Golden Sun, dba Newhall Labs, Inc.
Grandall Distributing Co, Inc.
Grisi Hnos., S.A. de C.V.
Hoyu America Transition Co.
Imperial Dax Company, Inc.
Mudlark Papers, Inc.
Skinfood USA, Inc.
Olympic Mountain and Marine Products, Inc.
Walgreen Co. and its subsidiary Drugstore.com, Inc.
There are ongoing cases pending against more than 100 other companies.
“These legal settlements are a great victory for children’s and families’ health. Simply put, there is no reason why anyone should be lathering a cancer-causing chemical into their hair or their children’s hair,” said CEH Research Director Caroline Cox. “This is also a victory for California’s Prop 65 consumer protection law, which promotes safer products and insures our right to know when common products pose serious health threats.”
Despite these legal settlements, some companies continue to sell unlabeled products containing the carcinogen. In April, CEH bought children’s bubble bath products containing cocamide DEA from Dollar General stores, almost six months after CEH notified Dollar General that it was in violation of California law.
Items containing cocamide DEA that CEH purchased recently from Dollar General. Photo credit: CEH
“It’s absolutely crazy that federal law allows cosmetics companies to use chemicals linked to cancer in shampoos, lotions and makeup,” said Janet Nudelman, director of program and policy at the Breast Cancer Fund and director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “Kudos to California and the Center for Environmental Health for taking action to get companies to stop using cocamide DEA. Now it’s the job of Congress to give the $71 billion beauty industry the makeover it needs by setting regulations that protect human health.”
In their new report, Safer Suds: Eliminating a Cancer-Causing Chemical in Shampoos and Soaps, CEH and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics are urging Congress to adopt federal legislation for safer personal care products—the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013.
The cosmetics industry is virtually self-regulated. Decisions about ingredient safety are left up to the cosmetics industry. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot require these companies to conduct safety assessments before using chemicals nor can it require product recalls. The Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013 would require:
A phase-out of ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects and developmental harm
Creation of a health-based safety standard that includes protections for children, the elderly, workers and other vulnerable populations
Elimination of labeling loopholes by requiring full ingredient disclosure on product labels and company websites, including salon products and the constituent ingredients of fragrance
Worker access to information about unsafe chemicals in personal care products
Data-sharing to avoid duplicative testing and encourage the development of alternatives to animal testing
Adequate funding so the FDA has the resources it needs to more effectively regulate the cosmetics industry
The two groups recommend the following steps to avoid cocamide DEA in the products you use:
Carefully read labels on your soaps, shampoos and other similar products. Don’t buy products that list cocamide DEA as an ingredient. While companies are removing this chemical from their products, there are still old products on store shelves.
Check out the Think Dirty® app to learn more about the potentially toxic ingredients in your cosmetics and personal care products. Don’t buy products that list those ingredients.
Tell Dollar General to stop selling products that contain cocamide DEA.
Ask your Representative to co-sponsor and support the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013. Congress needs to know that this issue is important to consumers
YOU ALSO MIGHT LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Global Banks, Led by JPMorgan Chase, Invested $1.9 Trillion in Fossil Fuels Since Paris Climate Pact
By Sharon Kelly
A report published Wednesday names the banks that have played the biggest recent role in funding fossil fuel projects, finding that since 2016, immediately following the Paris agreement's adoption, 33 global banks have poured $1.9 trillion into financing climate-changing projects worldwide.
By Patti Lynn
2018 was a groundbreaking year in the public conversation about climate change. Last February, The New York Times reported that a record percentage of Americans now believe that climate change is caused by humans, and there was a 20 percentage point rise in "the number of Americans who say they worry 'a great deal' about climate change."
England faces an "existential threat" if it does not change how it manages its water, the head of the country's Environment Agency warned Tuesday.
By Jessica Corbett
A new analysis revealed Tuesday that over the past two decades heat records across the U.S. have been broken twice as often as cold ones—underscoring experts' warnings about the increasingly dangerous consequences of failing to dramatically curb planet-warming emissions.
By Madison Dapcevich
Ask any resident of San Francisco about the waterfront parrots, and they will surely tell you a story of red-faced conures squawking or dive-bombing between building peaks. Ask a team of researchers from the University of Georgia, however, and they will tell you of a mysterious string of neurological poisonings impacting the naturalized flock for decades.
The initial cause of the fire was not yet known, but it has been driven by the strong wind and jumped the North Santiam River, The Salem Statesman Journal reported. As of Tuesday night, it threatened around 35 homes and 30 buildings, and was 20 percent contained.
The unanimous verdict was announced Tuesday in San Francisco in the first federal case to be brought against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, alleging that repeated use of the company's glyphosate-containing weedkiller caused the plaintiff's cancer. Seventy-year-old Edwin Hardeman of Santa Rosa, California said he used Roundup for almost 30 years on his properties before developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
"Today's verdict reinforces what another jury found last year, and what scientists with the state of California and the World Health Organization have concluded: Glyphosate causes cancer in people," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "As similar lawsuits mount, the evidence will grow that Roundup is not safe, and that the company has tried to cover it up."
Judge Vince Chhabria has split Hardeman's trial into two phases. The first, decided Tuesday, focused exclusively on whether or not Roundup use caused the plaintiff's cancer. The second, to begin Wednesday, will assess if Bayer is liable for damages.
"We are disappointed with the jury's initial decision, but we continue to believe firmly that the science confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer," Bayer spokesman Dan Childs said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman's cancer."
Some legal experts said that Chhabria's decision to split the trial was beneficial to Bayer, Reuters reported. The company had complained that the jury in Johnson's case had been distracted by the lawyers' claims that Monsanto had sought to mislead scientists and the public about Roundup's safety.
However, a remark made by Chhabria during the trial and reported by The Guardian was blatantly critical of the company.
"Although the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue," he said.
Many regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have ruled that glyphosate is safe for humans, but the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer found it was "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. A university study earlier this year found that glyphosate use increased cancer risk by as much as 41 percent.
Hardeman's lawyers Jennifer Moore and Aimee Wagstaff said they would now reveal Monsanto's efforts to mislead the public about the safety of its product.
"Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup," they wrote in a statement reported by The Guardian.
Hardeman's case is considered a "bellwether" trial for the more than 760 glyphosate cases Chhabria is hearing. In total, there are around 11,200 such lawsuits pending in the U.S., according to Reuters.
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias told Reuters that Tuesday's decision showed that the verdict in Johnson's case was not "an aberration," and could possibly predict how future juries in the thousands of pending cases would respond.