Stop Giving Cancer Patients Toxic Cosmetics to 'Look Good, Feel Better'
It's outrageous that the products that each of us use every day as part of our hygiene, self-care and beauty regimens are full of harmful chemicals, linked to a range of health problems including breast cancer. You would hope that when the country's largest cancer charity gives products to cancer patients as part of a psychosocial support program, it would uphold the highest safety standards.
Unfortunately, that's not the case. At least that's not the way the Look Good, Feel Better program works.
Look Good, Feel Better is a nationwide program for cancer patients administered by the American Cancer Society. The free workshops offer tips for cancer patients who are looking for advice on how to handle some of the physical changes that come with treatment. In addition to these tips, the program provides free cosmetic kits, donated by corporations that are members of the largest national trade group for the cosmetics industry, the Personal Care Products Council.Photo credit: Shutterstock
Both the American Cancer Society and the Personal Care Products Council claim to care about women living with breast cancer, but when our members in active treatment for cancer sent us their kits to evaluate, we found out that the program is giving toxic products to women in cancer treatment.
Numerous products in the Look Good, Feel Better kits contain chemicals that are linked to increasing cancer risk and may even interfere with cancer treatment:
- Parabens: Parabens are chemicals often used as preservatives in personal care products and can be absorbed through the skin. These chemicals may increase breast cancer risk by mimicking the hormone estrogen. Because breast cancer is a hormone-driven disease, common treatments target our hormones—and hormone disruptors like parabens may also interfere with the effectiveness of breast cancer treatment in addition to increasing our risk of disease. Scientists have found that breast cells that have been exposed to methylparaben in the lab are less responsive to the common breast cancer hormone therapy, Tamoxifen.
- Formaldehyde releasers: Formaldehyde releasers are also used to preserve personal care products and can be absorbed through the skin. In order to prevent microbial growth, these chemicals slowly and continuously release small amounts of formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen.
- Fragrance: “Fragrance" is a term used by companies to hide ingredients under the assertion that they are “trade secrets." The International Fragrance Association, an industry trade group, published a “transparency list" of more than 3,000 chemicals commonly used in fragrance. From this list, we know that “fragrance" conceals hormone disruptors and carcinogens. Fragrance also conceals sensitizers, allergenic fragrance ingredients that can, trigger asthma, sneezing, headaches and contact dermatitis. This is particularly concerning for women in cancer treatment.
- Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE): Commonly known by the trade name Teflon, this chemical is used in cosmetics for smoother application of the product and to fill in fine lines and wrinkles on skin. PTFE can be contaminated with the possible carcinogen and hormone disruptor perfluorooctonoic acid (PFOA), which is linked to altering mammary gland development.
That's just a sample of the chemicals of concern we uncovered. Because not all Look Good, Feel Better kits are the same, there's no telling what's in the kits given to cancer patients.
The chemicals in these products are a serious concern for the program's volunteer cosmetologists, who donate their time to run the workshops, as well as for cancer patients. A recent report found that the breast cancer risk for cosmetologists is five times higher than the general population. Volunteers wanting to help women in cancer treatment should not have to put their own health at risk to do so.
The health risks of these cosmetics and personal care products extend to the general public as well. Anyone can purchase these products at local stores. Toxic cosmetics end up on store shelves and in make-up bags because regulation of cosmetic products is a sham. The personal care products industry is one of the least regulated industries in the U.S. Companies are not required to demonstrate a product is safe before it lands on store shelves—or in makeup kits. And the Personal Care Products Council spends millions of dollars lobbying against cosmetic safety regulations to make sure it stays that way.
The cosmetics and personal care industry claim that exposure to chemicals linked to increased cancer risk at low doses is harmless. But a clear and growing body of scientific evidence points to the role of environmental exposures, specifically human carcinogens and endocrine disrupting chemicals—even in low doses—in increasing women's risk of breast cancer. Cosmetics and personal care products are not one-time exposures; many of these products are used daily (or even more often) and multiple chemicals in multiple products add up.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) and Environmental Working Group (EWG) provide useful resources for anyone interested in researching some of the chemicals to avoid. But the truth is that too little is known about the safety of many commonly-used chemicals. And there are examples where the replacements for certain chemicals have turned out to as bad or worse than the chemical they were replacing. None of us should feel like we need an advanced degree in science to go shopping. And so-called safer products should not be out of reach of low-income people who may not be able to afford premium prices. We should all be able to trust that the products on our shelves have been safety tested and we are all protected, no matter our educational background or income.
It's time the American Cancer Society and Personal Care Products Council stand together to protect cancer patients and prevent cancer in the first place. They need to ban companies from participating in the Look Good, Feel Better program if the chemicals used in their products are linked to increased breast cancer risk or interfere with breast cancer treatments.
Now that would really make us feel better.
Take action now to tell these pinkwashers that Poison Isn't Pretty by sending your letter to the Personal Care Products Council and the American Cancer Society to demand that no corporation that uses harmful chemicals in their personal care products is allowed to participate in the Look Good, Feel Better program!
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
A tornado tore through a city north of Birmingham, Alabama, Monday night, killing one person and injuring at least 30.
- Tornadoes and Climate Change: What Does the Science Say ... ›
- Tornadoes Hit Unusually Wide Swaths of U.S., Alarming Climate ... ›
- 23 Dead as Tornado Pummels Lee County, AL in Further Sign ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By David Konisky
On his first day in office President Joe Biden started signing executive orders to reverse Trump administration policies. One sweeping directive calls for stronger action to protect public health and the environment and hold polluters accountable, including those who "disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities."
Michael S. Regan, President Biden's nominee to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, grew up near a coal-burning power plant in North Carolina and has pledged to "enact an environmental justice framework that empowers people in all communities." NCDEQ
- Report Urges Biden to Reverse Trump's Environmental Rollbacks ›
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ›
- Biden's EPA Pick Michael Regan Urged to Address Environmental ... ›
- Biden Faces Pressure to Tackle 'Unfunded' Toxic Waste Sites ... ›
By Katherine Kornei
Clear-cutting a forest is relatively easy—just pick a tree and start chopping. But there are benefits to more sophisticated forest management. One technique—which involves repeatedly harvesting smaller trees every 30 or so years but leaving an upper story of larger trees for longer periods (60, 90, or 120 years)—ensures a steady supply of both firewood and construction timber.
A Pattern in the Rings<p>The <a href="https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/coppice-standards-0" target="_blank">coppice-with-standards</a> management practice produces a two-story forest, said <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bernhard_Muigg" target="_blank">Bernhard Muigg</a>, a dendrochronologist at the University of Freiburg in Germany. "You have an upper story of single trees that are allowed to grow for several understory generations."</p><p>That arrangement imprints a characteristic tree ring pattern in a forest's upper story trees (the "standards"): thick rings indicative of heavy growth, which show up at regular intervals as the surrounding smaller trees are cut down. "The trees are growing faster," said Muigg. "You can really see it with your naked eye."</p><p>Muigg and his collaborators characterized that <a href="https://ltrr.arizona.edu/about/treerings" target="_blank">dendrochronological pattern</a> in 161 oak trees growing in central Germany, one of the few remaining sites in Europe with actively managed coppice-with-standards forests. They found up to nine cycles of heavy growth in the trees, the oldest of which was planted in 1761. The researchers then turned to a historical data set — more than 2,000 oak <a href="https://eos.org/articles/podcast-discovering-europes-history-through-its-timbers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">timbers from buildings and archaeological sites</a> in Germany and France dating from between 300 and 2015 — to look for a similar pattern.</p>
A Gap of 500 Years<p>The team found wood with the characteristic coppice-with-standards tree ring pattern dating to as early as the 6th century. That was a surprise, Muigg and his colleagues concluded, because the first mention of this forest management practice in historical documents occurred only roughly 500 years later, in the 13th century.</p><p>It's probable that forest management practices were not well documented prior to the High Middle Ages (1000–1250), the researchers suggested. "Forests are mainly mentioned in the context of royal hunting interests or donations," said Muigg. Dendrochronological studies are particularly important because they can reveal information not captured by a sparse historical record, he added.</p><p>These results were <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78933-8" target="_blank">published in December in <em>Scientific Reports</em></a>.</p><p>"It's nice to see the longevity and the history of coppice-with-standards," said <a href="https://www.teagasc.ie/contact/staff-directory/s/ian-short/" target="_blank">Ian Short</a>, a forestry researcher at Teagasc, the Agriculture and Food Development Authority in Ireland, not involved in the research. This technique is valuable because it promotes conservation and habitat biodiversity, Short said. "In the next 10 or 20 years, I think we'll see more coppice-with-standards coming back into production."</p><p>In the future, Muigg and his collaborators hope to analyze a larger sample of historic timbers to trace how the coppice-with-standards practice spread throughout Europe. It will be interesting to understand where this technique originated and how it propagated, said Muigg, and there are plenty of old pieces of wood waiting to be analyzed. "There [are] tons of dendrochronological data."</p><p><em><a href="mailto:email@example.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Katherine Kornei</a> is a freelance science journalist covering Earth and space science. Her bylines frequently appear in Eos, Science, and The New York Times. Katherine holds a Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of California, Los Angeles.</em></p><p><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://eos.org/articles/tree-rings-reveal-how-ancient-forests-were-managed" target="_blank">Eos</a></em> <em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Earth's ice is melting 57 percent faster than in the 1990s and the world has lost more than 28 trillion tons of ice since 1994, research published Monday in The Cryosphere shows.
By Jewel Fraser
Noreen Nunez lives in a middle-class neighborhood that rises up a hillside in Trinidad's Tunapuna-Piarco region.