62 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"A study by the Food and Drug Administration found 400 lipsticks on the market tested
positive for lead.
Lead is not intentionally added to lipstick, but is found in color additives or pigments used to formulate the product.

L'oreal and Maybelline lipsticks ranked among the top most-contaminated in the FDA study."
http://www.turnto23....974/detail.html

They should change their ad to say-"Lead poisoning-maybe it's Maybelline."

“It’s disturbing to see that L’Oreal makes five of the top 10 most lead contaminated brands.
L’Oreal issued this statement in response:
“The FDA’s independent study, which will be published in the May/June, 2012 issue of the
Journal of Cosmetic Science, confirms that lipsticks
pose no safety concerns for the millions of women who use them daily."

(You bet-we love lead-right?)

http://boston.cbsloc...ular-lipsticks/

http://www.fda.gov/C...n/ucm137224.htm

[Hayden]

Shame on L'oreal and Maybelline because they are big players in the lipstick and makeup industry. Its all about money and cheap manufacturing.

Here's the full list so the ladies can avoid:
http://www.fda.gov/C...htm#expanalyses

[mariaandrea]

I'm glad I stopped wearing lipstick years ago, but my daughter and I looked up her favorite brands, which I'm glad to say are pretty far down the list, but unhappy to know they have lead in them at all. The FDA doesn't regulate lead in cosmetics because they are ingested in minute quantities, but think about how women wear lipstick. Daily and re-applied at least a few times a day. That totally ups the exposure.

Some more from the FDA website, all of which I take with a huge grain of salt:

Quote

Is there a safety concern about the lead levels FDA found in lipsticks?

No. We have assessed the potential for harm to consumers from use of lipstick containing lead at the levels found in both rounds of testing. Lipstick, as a product intended for topical use with limited absorption, is ingested only in very small quantities. We do not consider the lead levels we found in the lipsticks to be a safety concern.

It has been reported that levels of lead in certain lipsticks exceed those for candy. Is this a fair comparison?

No. The FDA-recommended upper limit for lead in candy is 0.1 ppm. It is not scientifically valid to equate the risk to consumers presented by lead levels in candy, a product intended for ingestion, with that associated with lead levels in lipstick, a product intended for topical use and ingested in much smaller quantities than candy.

What are FDA's next steps for lead in lipstick?

Although we do not believe that the lead content found in our recent lipstick analyses poses a safety concern, we are evaluating whether there may be a need to recommend an upper limit for lead in lipstick in order to further protect the health and welfare of consumers.

[erikc76]

Oh wow that is absolutely horrifying.  I'm honestly not a fan of makeup on women to begin with, but I can't imagine putting something toxic on your skin on a regular basis.  Hopefully most users of lipstick don't suffer longterm or irreversible health problems over this, that would be so terrible.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Bigger question being-
why no regulations on products for woman?

[jasserEnv]

This is a larger study based on findings from a few years ago showing lead in the products so what is worse than the fact that these products contain lead is that these companies have known about the problem and have done nothing about it. Essentially, until they get enough push back, they are going to keep doing what they are doing regardless of any negative health effects that it might cause. This is what is truly repulsive in my mind.

[Sandra Piddock]

I use lipstick rarely, and when I do, it's an Avon mauve/pink colour. It seems to be the reds that are high in lead content. It certainly isn't right, though - there must be something they can do to reduce the lead content, whether it's safe or not.

[MakingCents]

This is scary,not only is it lead in cosmetics but it's lead in LIPSTICK, which means it no doubt gets into your mouth, you lick it, it gets on the food you eat.  If the lead is in the lipstick there's no doubt it gets ingested.  How irresponsible of the FDA.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

MakingCents, on 19 February 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

This is scary,not only is it lead in cosmetics but it's lead in LIPSTICK, which means it no doubt gets into your mouth, you lick it, it gets on the food you eat.  If the lead is in the lipstick there's no doubt it gets ingested.  How irresponsible of the FDA.

The irresponsibility lies squarely on maybelline and l'oreal and others. It isn't necessary for the product
to be viable, so why use it?

[zararina]

"L'oreal and Maybelline lipsticks ranked among the top most-contaminated in the FDA study."

That was alarming as huge companies like them can not ensure customer's safety. What more those unknown or not even familiar brand that had been circulating in the market.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

zararina, on 20 February 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

"L'oreal and Maybelline lipsticks ranked among the top most-contaminated in the FDA study."

That was alarming as huge companies like them can not ensure customer's safety. What more those unknown or not even familiar brand that had been circulating in the market.

Exactly. Big box stores, $$ stores, pharmacy's all carry make-up brands from who knows where, who knows
what ingredients? Buyer beware.
And let them know that this is unacceptable-toxins in make-up.

[j_pin]

Wow. I had not heard of this. So scary! I'm going to have to check my make-up box and see what's in there.

What brands do you guys recommend?

I also like how it says the FDA study says it's not a threat to women who use it. Riiiight. Like we can trust those cronies.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Try to use organics. It's not always a 100% guarantee but the odds are better.
The problem being-all companies-not some-all companies bury chemicals under the "fragrance" word
and get away with it.
I can't list links (spam) but there are producers out there that provide safer products.

[MakingCents]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 20 February 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

The irresponsibility lies squarely on maybelline and l'oreal and others. It isn't necessary for the product
to be viable, so why use it?

True,  but where the FDA fails us is to say that it's safe.  THere is no safe level of lead.  YOu never know how your body is going to react to heavy metal exposure.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

MakingCents, on 20 February 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

True,  but where the FDA fails us is to say that it's safe.  There is no safe level of lead.  You never know how your body is going to react to heavy metal exposure.

I'm not saying the federal agencies set up to protect consumers couldn't be better; they can and should be.
But with this current group in the congress, I doubt any significant oversight will be added.
If anything, funding is being cut to many of these agencies.
But going backwards, I agree. Regulations should have been put into place on this toxic substance (and others)
years ago.
It just p*sses me off that companies have to have regulations in place from the government regarding
toxins.
Why can't they just make good products for their consumers, which are mostly woman.

It's like they're saying, "Oh, there's no restrictions against putting crushed glass into our eye make-up,
so let's add some."

[Shortpoet-GTD]

You may agree or disagree with PETA's tactics, but they are bringing (alleged) animal testing/abuses to light from
Avon, Estee Lauder and Mary Kay cosmetics.

"The Chinese government requires animal testing for beauty products sold in China, and PETA reports that while Mary Kay has been trying to work with the government to come up with new testing solutions for cosmetics that don't involve animals,
Estee Lauder and Avon have gone along with the government requirements without complaint.
Since the companies are all currently doing animal testing, none of these companies' products can bear the "cruelty free" designation (indicated by the leaping bunny logo), and have been removed — after long standing —
from PETA's "Don't Test on Animals" list to the "Do Test" list.
From a PETA news release: "PETA is financially supporting the efforts of the Institute for In Vitro Sciences (IIVS),
which is putting together a coalition of corporate experts, providing training for scientists in China in the use of non-animal test methods, and working with officials there to promote the acceptance of non-animal methods that are used in the U.S.,
the European Union, and much of the world."

http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green

[MakingCents]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 21 February 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

I'm not saying the federal agencies set up to protect consumers couldn't be better; they can and should be.
But with this current group in the congress, I doubt any significant oversight will be added.
If anything, funding is being cut to many of these agencies.
But going backwards, I agree. Regulations should have been put into place on this toxic substance (and others)
years ago.
It just p*sses me off that companies have to have regulations in place from the government regarding
toxins.
Why can't they just make good products for their consumers, which are mostly woman.

It's like they're saying, "Oh, there's no restrictions against putting crushed glass into our eye make-up,
so let's add some."

The crushed glass analogy is a great one.  I'm going to use it.  Even if there are no regulations against something, that doesn't mean it has to be used.

[movn4ward]

This is very alarming for me as I am a regular makeup wearer. Even if I do not wear anything else I wear glosses and lipstick. Everyday! Someone saying oh don't worry you are only using a little poison is ludicrous. Would it be okay if a minute amount of cyanide were ingested - maybe once, but when you go to everyday that is a completely different and potentially lethal thing.

I generally purchase from natural and organic small cosmetic companies, but have just recently started purchasing my lipsticks from them. I am glad that I do now, but who knows the damage that may have already been done. Now, I wonder what is in the mascara I use daily since I am unable to find a natural/organic one that works.

This makes me very angry as a consumer. My contention is with all the notices the FDA puts out about different products that have small quantities of toxins in them we as consumers should be outraged. Imagine the toxins ingested and present on a daily basis from cosmetics, foods, and the air in general. Maybe alone they do not amount to much but we have to remember that they all add up and our bodies are fighting against all of them. So it isn't just the lead in the lipstick, but a combination of things we come in contact with several times each day. Sorry, I got carried away there.

The point is - I agree with other sentiments here, that this is unacceptable and these companies make enough to do better. The FDA cannot be trusted with all the comforting words, and there needs to be regulations and RESTRICTIONS regarding manufacturing of cosmetics.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

movn4ward, on 06 March 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

This is very alarming for me as I am a regular makeup wearer. Even if I do not wear anything else I wear glosses and lipstick. Everyday! Someone saying oh don't worry you are only using a little poison is ludicrous. Would it be okay if a minute amount of cyanide were ingested - maybe once, but when you go to everyday that is a completely different and potentially lethal thing.

I generally purchase from natural and organic small cosmetic companies, but have just recently started purchasing my lipsticks from them. I am glad that I do now, but who knows the damage that may have already been done. Now, I wonder what is in the mascara I use daily since I am unable to find a natural/organic one that works.

This makes me very angry as a consumer. My contention is with all the notices the FDA puts out about different products that have small quantities of toxins in them we as consumers should be outraged. Imagine the toxins ingested and present on a daily basis from cosmetics, foods, and the air in general. Maybe alone they do not amount to much but we have to remember that they all add up and our bodies are fighting against all of them. So it isn't just the lead in the lipstick, but a combination of things we come in contact with several times each day. Sorry, I got carried away there.

The point is - I agree with other sentiments here, that this is unacceptable and these companies make enough to do better. The FDA cannot be trusted with all the comforting words, and there needs to be regulations and RESTRICTIONS regarding manufacturing of cosmetics.

From an older article (may be better now-may be worse)
http://www.naturalne..._chemicals.html
Mascara-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mascara
From a 2008 article about companies that put mercury in their mascara-
http://gomestic.com/...-product-fresh/

If you use a lot of product, do your homework. Check out the companies on-line, get reviews from sites, etc.
Do they openly list their ingredients or leave you guessing?

If it says "organic" or "natural"-is it? Or is it just greenwashing?
Too often, companies put harmful ingredients in and it's listed under "fragrance"-so they get away with it.
Definitely buyer beware situation.

[bryce12]

I am not surprised by this development at all. A lot of skin care companies have outsourced their manufacting to China and other developing countries where they are not quality checks are not that stringent.  Its time for us to take a stand and reject the products that do not pass quality and safety tests.