The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
The Latest Cosmetics Scandal: Toxic Nail Polish
California Environmental Protection Agency’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) announced on April 10 that some nail care products typically found in many of California’s estimated 48,000 nail salons and sold directly to consumers contain high levels of hazardous chemicals despite their labels claiming otherwise. These chemicals, dibutyl phthalate and toluene, have been linked to birth defects, asthma and other chronic health conditions.
Dibutyl phthalate was banned from cosmetics in Europe in 2003, which prompted consumer groups to demand that the chemical be removed from products sold in the U.S. Many top nail polish brands then began claiming their products were free of dibutyl phthalate, even labeling as such, but the DTSC tests reveal that products from brands including Sation, Dare to Wear, Chelsea, New York Summer, Paris Spicy, Sunshine, Cacie and Golden Girl actually contain high levels of the chemical.
This misbranding of nail polish is the latest in a series of scandals that have rocked the cosmetics industry, including formaldehyde in Brazilian Blowout hair straightener, lead in L’Oreal lipstick, carcinogens in Johnson’s baby shampoo and mercury in skin-lightening creams.
“Consumers have had it with the current system that tolerates cosmetics companies outright lying to consumers, putting dangerous chemicals in our products, and getting away with it,” said Lisa Archer, director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at the Breast Cancer Fund. “It’s clearer than ever that we need to overhaul our country’s outdated and broken cosmetics laws to protect workers and all of us.”
The House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee is currently debating the inclusion of cosmetics regulation in must-pass user fee authorization bills, and health advocates are urging members to ensure that any regulation they adopt is meaningful and effective. They say the regulations must include the phase-out of ingredients linked to cancer and reproductive or developmental toxicity; a safety standard that protects workers, babies and other vulnerable populations; full disclosure of ingredients; and FDA authority to recall dangerous products from the market—all of which are elements of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 (H.R.2359), sponsored by Reps. Jan Schakowsky, (D-IL), Ed Markey, D-MA), and Tammy Baldwin, D-(WI).
In the case of nail polish, worker safety is of particular concern, as nail salon workers are heavily exposed. In California there are approximately 121,000 nail technicians and 284,000 cosmetologists offering nail services on a part-time basis; more than 380,000 nationwide. Women make up 96 percent of this workforce. “Many salons choose brands that do not contain toluene and dibutyl phthalate as a way to protect workers and customers from potentially harmful exposure to these chemicals,” said Julia Liou of the National Healthy Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance and co-founder of the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative. “The fact that some manufacturers are making false claims regarding their ingredients is a major public health problem. The heath of workers who use these products day in and day out is at stake here. No worker should suffer occupational exposures and health impacts due to manufacturer misrepresentation.
For the report, DTSC sampled 25 nail care products bought from six San Francisco Bay Area locations. Of the 12 products that claimed to be free of at least one of what’s known as the “toxic-trio”—toluene, dibutyl phthalate and formadlehyde, 10 contained toluene, and 4 contained dibutyl phthalate. Toluene is a neurological and a developmental toxicant that can cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, loss of short-term memory, and is proven to be toxic to a developing fetus. Both of these chemicals can impact the health of nail salon workers as well as consumers. Dibutyl phthalate can cause adverse effects on the male and female reproductive systems, as well as developmental problems in infants and children.
“Manufacturers that don’t get their labels right are putting those that do in a bad light,” said Debbie Raphael, DTSC director. “Manufacturers must ask themselves a basic question: ‘Is it necessary to make nail care products with these ingredients?’ Asking that question is a primary goal of DTSC’s Safer Consumer Products Regulations,” Raphael said. The regulations, scheduled to go into effect in 2012, are an effort to make selected product manufacturers analyze alternatives to toxic ingredients in their products.
“This report shows that companies are including harmful chemicals in their products, and are not being truthful about it,” said Miriam Yeung of the National Health Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance. “More disturbing is that the cosmetics industry continues to be almost completely unregulated—the FDA still does not have the power it needs to keep consumers and salon workers safe. Over 40 percent of nail salon workers are Asian American women. These are hardworking women trying to make a living while providing the service that their customers want. They deserve better.”
In 2006, under consumer pressure generated by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, leading salon nail polish manufacturer OPI agreed to remove the “toxic trio” chemicals—formaldehyde, toluene and DBP—from its nail polishes and treatments, and several other manufacturers followed suit. Yet the DTSC study highlights the fact that voluntary action on the part of industry is not backed by any kind of enforcement.
“Clearly we have a big problem. While the FDA has the responsibility to protect the public by ensuring cosmetics are safe and non-toxic, under current law it doesn’t have the authority to do so,” said Archer of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “The DTSC study illustrates the importance of states having the right to regulate toxic chemicals to protect people’s health, and that ultimately we need stronger laws at the federal level that set a bottom line of safety, no matter where you live and work.”
The DTSC report can be found online by clicking here.
For more information, click here.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Last week, the Peruvian Palm Oil Producers' Association (JUNPALMA) promised to enter into an agreement for sustainable and deforestation-free palm oil production. The promise was secured by the U.S. based National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in collaboration with the local government, growers and the independent conservation organization Sociedad Peruana de Ecodesarrollo.
The rallying cry to build it again and to build it better than before is inspiring after a natural disaster, but it may not be the best course of action, according to new research published in the journal Science.
"Faced with global warming, rising sea levels, and the climate-related extremes they intensify, the question is no longer whether some communities will retreat—moving people and assets out of harm's way—but why, where, when, and how they will retreat," the study begins.
The researchers suggest that it is time to rethink retreat, which is often seen as a last resort and a sign of weakness. Instead, it should be seen as the smart option and an opportunity to build new communities.
"We propose a reconceptualization of retreat as a suite of adaptation options that are both strategic and managed," the paper states. "Strategy integrates retreat into long-term development goals and identifies why retreat should occur and, in doing so, influences where and when."
The billions of dollars spent to rebuild the Jersey Shore and to create dunes to protect from future storms after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 may be a waste if sea level rise inundates the entire coastline.
"There's a definite rhetoric of, 'We're going to build it back better. We're going to win. We're going to beat this. Something technological is going to come and it's going to save us,'" said A.R. Siders, an assistant professor with the disaster research center at the University of Delaware and lead author of the paper, to the New York Times. "It's like, let's step back and think for a minute. You're in a fight with the ocean. You're fighting to hold the ocean in place. Maybe that's not the battle we want to pick."
Rethinking retreat could make it a strategic, efficient, and equitable way to adapt to the climate crisis, the study says.
Dr. Siders pointed out that it has happened before. She noted that in the 1970s, the small town of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin moved itself out of the flood plain after one too many floods. The community found and reoriented the business district to take advantage of highway traffic and powered it entirely with solar energy, as the New York Times reported.
That's an important lesson now that rising sea levels pose a catastrophic risk around the world. Nearly 75 percent of the world's cities are along shorelines. In the U.S. alone coastline communities make up nearly 40 percent of the population— more than 123 million people, which is why Siders and her research team are so forthright about the urgency and the complexities of their findings, according to Harvard Magazine.
Some of those complexities include, coordinating moves across city, state or even international lines; cultural and social considerations like the importance of burial grounds or ancestral lands; reparations for losses or damage to historic practices; long-term social and psychological consequences; financial incentives that often contradict environmental imperatives; and the critical importance of managing retreat in a way that protects vulnerable and poor populations and that doesn't exacerbate past injustices, as Harvard Magazine reported.
If communities could practice strategic retreats, the study says, doing so would not only reduce the need for people to choose among bad options, but also improve their circumstances.
"It's a lot to think about," said Siders to Harvard Magazine. "And there are going to be hard choices. It will hurt—I mean, we have to get from here to some new future state, and that transition is going to be hard.…But the longer we put off making these decisions, the worse it will get, and the harder the decisions will become."
To help the transition, the paper recommends improved access to climate-hazard maps so communities can make informed choices about risk. And, the maps need to be improved and updated regularly, the paper said as the New York Times reported.
"It's not that everywhere should retreat," said Dr. Siders to the New York Times. "It's that retreat should be an option. It should be a real viable option on the table that some places will need to use."
Leaked documents show that Jair Bolsonaro's government intends to use the Brazilian president's hate speech to isolate minorities living in the Amazon region. The PowerPoint slides, which democraciaAbierta has seen, also reveal plans to implement predatory projects that could have a devastating environmental impact.
Last week we received positive news on the border wall's imminent construction in an Arizona wildlife refuge. The Trump administration delayed construction of the wall through about 60 miles of federal wildlife preserves.