Does Beauty Have a Cost?

The Ecological Footprint of the

Cosmetics IndustryAlexandra Noelle Penny

Brown UniversityEnvironmental Studies

April 3, 2008

 

In the News… 

• “Fresh-Faced Eco-Consumers” (NYT, Nov 1 2007)

• “Should You Trust Your Makeup?” (NYT, Feb 15, 2007)

• “Lead Tests Raise Red Flag for Lipsticks” (Boston Globe, Oct 11, 2007)

• “Don’t Pucker Up: Lead in Lipstick” (Good Morning America, Oct 12, 2007)

Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry

by Stacy Malkan

Cosmetics??shampoo

Face wash

Aftershave

Nail polish

Lipstick

Contact solution

Hair sprayConcealer

mascara

Deodorant

Lotion

sunscreen

Styling mousse

Toothpaste

soapperfume

cologne

Research Questions:

To what extent does the cosmetics industry pose a threat to human health and the environment due to toxic ingredients in product formulation and waste

associated with packaging?

What possible regulatory regimes would force the cosmetics industry to internalize its negative

externalities and protect consumers?

RISK ANALYSISexposure and

effects on human and

environment

DESCRIBE RISK

based on “best available evidence”

MANAGE RISK

weigh and adopt policy

alternatives based on sound

science, economics, ethics, etc.

Addressing Risk…

Risk Assessment(fr. USEPA, van Woerkum, Portney)

Precautionary Principle?

Environmental Risks

Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants Found in Streams of the U.S., 1999-2000•First national study examining organic wastewater contaminants in streams•139 streams sampled: 1 or more of chemicals tested found in 80% of streams;

7 or more found in 50% of streams•Low concentrations with potential effect; not necessarily additive

Environmental Toxicant:

Packaging Waste:• Increased waste to landfill • Heavy metals used in manufacturing process• Energy consumption• Greenhouse Gas Emissions• Raw material consumption

Source: EPA Online. Accessed 4/2/2008

Human Health Risks

USE– determined by:•Route of exposure vary• Target(s) affected– dermal, nervous system, reproductive system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, etc.• Effect of stressor– carcinogen, developmental/reproductive toxin, neurotoxin, endocrine disruptor, allergen/ immunotoxican, persistence/bioaccumulation, cellular level changes, mutations, skin irritation

Source: Skin Deep: Cosmetics Safety Database; Accessed 11/6/2007

Women Men•12 products/day

•168 unique ingredients•6 products/day

•85 unique ingredients

n=2000

Exposure

• Toxic Ingredients• Potential Contaminants

• “Safe for topical application in the present practices of use and concentrations in cosmetics” –CIR safety review assessment

• Reproductive/developmental toxicant, causes birth defects

• Federal labeling requirement for nail polish; not other products

• Phthalates found in: deodorant, fragrance, hair gel, hair mousse, hair spray, lotion, shampoo, nail polish

• In 2007– OPI, Sally Hansen, and other manufacturers reformulated nail polish to remove dibuthyl phthalate (DBP)

Photo: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/fashion/07nails.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Phthalates

(Source: Houlihan, et.al. Not Too Pretty: Phthalates, Beauty Products & the FDA, July 8, 2002)

OutlineI. Background

A. Environmental Risks

B. Human Health Risks

C. Packaging Waste

II. Case StudyA. Lead In Lipsticks

B. Toxic Ingredient Analysis

C. Sustainable Packaging Analysis

III.Findings

IV. Recommendations

Case StudyTesting Lipsticks for Lead Background:

“A Poison Kiss: The Problem of Lead in Lipsticks” published by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Oct 2007.

Concern over Lead:• Proven neurotoxin– linked to: interference with

brain development, miscarriage, reduced fertility, hormonal changes

• Levels accumulate in body over time• Most detrimental to fetal development • Multiple routes of exposure: water, paint, lipsticks

applied multiple times per day

Testing Lipsticks for Lead10 Lipsticks from CVS Thayer St.

• 1 of 10– no detectable lead

• 9 of 10– levels over .1ppm, the FDA

recommended limit of lead in candy

• 2 of 10– over 0.6 ppm, higher than all but 1 of the 33 lipsticks tested by

EWGCoverGirl Incredifull Lipcolor

Maximum Red My study: 0.25 ppmEWG: 0.12 ppm and 0.56 ppm

L’Oreal Colour Riche True Red

My study: 0.61 ppmEWG: 0.50 ppm and 0.65 ppm

Hazards Assessed:Cancer

Developmental/reproductive toxicity

Neurotoxicity

Endocrine disruption

Allergies/ immunotoxicity

Miscellaneous

Violations, Restrictions, Warnings

Organ system toxicity

Persistence and Bioaccumlation

Multiple, additive exposure sources

Mutations

Biochemical or cellular level changes

Ecotoxicology

Occupational hazards

Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs)

Source: Skin Deep: Cosmetics Safety Database. Online. Accessed 4/1/2008

Assign Scores as a Function of:1. Lowest known harmful dose where that information is available2. Weight of the evidence (limited, moderate, and strong evidence)3.Source of the data: ranked

credibility

EWG: Cosmetics Safety Database

Toxic Ingredients in Product Formulation

Shampoo Ingredient Summary

• 10 of 10 shampoos contain fragrance• 2 contain DMDM Hydantoin (VO-5 and Garnier)• 6.7% of ingredients– High Hazard• 84% of ingredients– No FDA Review• Coal Tar– Hazard Ranking 10!!

Shampoo Products Hazard Rating Data Gap %

Neutrogena T/Gel Therapeutic Shampoo Original Formula 7 67

Heads & Shoulders Pyrithione Zinc Dandruff Classic Clean 5 78

Matrix Biolage Hydratherapie Ultra-Hydrating Shampoo 6 77

Redken 5th Avenue NYC Fresh Curls Shampoo 6 82

VO5 Herbal Escapes Kiwi Lime Clarifying Shampoo 6 79

Pantene Pro-V Full and Thick Shampoo 5 74

Rusk Sensories Calm Shampoo 6 81

Garnier Fructis Fortifying Shampoo Sleek and Shine 5 83

Herbal Essences None of Your Frizzness Smoothing Shampoo 5 81

Marc Anthony Aroma Organics Volumizing Shampoo 4 74

Neutrogena T/Gel label

Lipstick Ingredient Summary

Lipstick Products Hazard Rating Data Gap %

Almay Hydracolor Red

L’Oreal Colour Riche Penelope’s Red 320 6 88

L’Oreal Colour Riche True Red 315

Lumene Bright Smile So Magnetic 10 6 88

Neutrogena Moisture Shine Soothing LipSheers Sunny Berry

Burt’s Bees Lip Shimmer Cocoa 3 85

CoverGirl Incredifull Lipcolor Maximum Red 964

Maybelline Moisture Extreme Royal Red E190

Revlon Renewist Lipcolor Red Reinvented 200

Revlon Super Lustrous Cherries in the Snow 440 5 89

• Difficult for SkinDeep database to keep up

• All except Burt’s Bees contain FRAGRANCE

Packaging Analysis

• Energy Use: BTUs of energy to produce the packaging materials

• Greenhouse Gases: Measured in CE (Carbon Equivalence) – the carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases emitted

during production and recycling/disposal

• Material Inputs: grams of raw material required to produce the packaging materials

• Chemical Bad Actors: comparative figure! weighted average representing the level of chemical ‘bad actors’ used in production;

• Normalized packaging systems to unit of product• Environmental Packaging International-- Design for Environment

(DfE)• Metrics from MERGE data, EDF/ Sustainable Packaging Coalition

Metrics:

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

No

rmali

zed

Valu

es

Neutrogena Head &Shoulders

MatrixBiolage

Redken VO-5 PantenePro-V

Rusk Calm GarnierFructis

HerbalEssences

MarcAnthony

Material Health Values

Energy

GHG

Material Inputs

Chemical Bad Actors

Shampoo Packaging

Lipstick Packaging

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

No

rmal

ized

Val

ues

AlmayHydracolor

Red

L'OrealColourRiche

Penelope'sRed 320

L'OrealColour

Riche TrueRed 315

LumeneBright Smile

SoMagnetic 10

NeutrogenaMoisture

ShineSoothingLipSheers

SunnyBerry

Burt's BeesLip Shimmer

Cocoa

CoverGirlIncredifullLipcolorMaximumRed 964

MaybellineMoistureExtreme

Royal RedE190

RevlonRenew istLipcolor

RedReinvented

200

RevlonSuper

LustrousCherries inthe Snow

440

Material Health Values

Energy

GHG

Material Inputs

Chemical Bad Actors

Very similar to product to

packaging ratio– limitations of

database– most component

materials were called

“Plastic Other”

So What?Significant Findings

Who is responsible?

Risk Mitigation Tactic

Problem?

Lead in lipsticks FDA Business as Usual No safe dose

Shampoos and Lipsticks contain

phthalates

FDA Labeling Imperfect

information; No perceived risk

EPA Clean Water ActLack of information, funding for studies

Excessive, non-recyclable packaging

IndustryMarket incentive to design recyclable, reusable packaging

Not required to internalize the costs

ConsumersPower of consumer

demandLack of awareness;

no demand

No safety assessment on many ingredients

FDA Authority to ban Assume safe

CIR Industry-derived risk analysis

Protect commerce

The Cosmetics Industry• $35 Billion Source: Skin Deep. Online. Accesses 11/11/2007

• 1972– The Cosmetics Review Board– the self-regulating industry panel

• Cosmetics Toiletry and Fragrance Association

“There have been many reports over the years about lead being present in lipstick, mostly alleging that there are high levels and providing a test purporting to confirm the presence of lead. Most of these reports have been internet hoaxes and have been circulating for many years.”

Cosmetics Legislation Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetics Act

Gives FDA authority over “poisonous and deleterious substances”

FDA lacks authority to require pre-market testing

The Fair Packaging and Labeling ActFalse or misleading statements on packaging considered “misbranded” and subject to regulatory action

EPA: Resource Conservation& Recovery Act (RCRA)Controls the management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes

OSHA: Hazard Communication Standard

NGO Initiatives:

• Environmental Working Group Cosmetics Safety Database

• Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Over 500 cosmetics companies have joined

• Sustainable Packaging Coalition

Photo: www.NotTooPretty.org

RecommendationsFDA: • Require labeling of dangerous chemicals, such as phthalates• Prohibit marketing of products containing chemicals known to

cause birth defects to women of child bearing age• Consider aggregate exposure of industrial chemicals humans

are exposed to • Make effort to ban noxious ingredients where viable

alternatives exist

RI Department of Health: • Protect citizens: model after Prop 65, require warning labels

on products with harmful chemicals

Cosmetics Industry:Recommendations for Sustainable Packaging:• source reduced• comply with applicable heavy metal limits• comply with applicable minimization requirements for other noxious

and hazardous substances• be recyclable, compostable, and/or yield a certain energy gain

when incineratedSource: Environmental Packaging International; Online: Accessed March 6, 2008

Buyer BEWARE: • Fragrance • Triethanolamine• BHA• Eugenol• Ceteareth—12 OR 20• Phenol/ Bisphenol A• any ingredient ending with “paraben”

Best/ Worst Brands:

Dr. Bronner’s

Nurture My Body

**Burt’s Bees

Terressentials

Encoura

To name a few….Search product for ingredient information on www.cosmeticsdatabase.com

Shampoo

Aubrey Organics

Shikai

Tom’s of Maine

Desert Essence

Weleda

Willow Lake

L’Oreal Kids

Philosophy

African Pride

**Redken

**Neutrogena

Nexxus

Michael diCesare

Bumble and Bumble

**Matrix

Valana Minerals

ColoreScience

bareFaced

CosmicTree Essentials

CARGO&care

Jane Iredale

CITY Lips

Alchemy of Colour

Color Me Beautiful

Canary Cosmetics

LipstickBEST BEST

WORST WORST**Revlon

Avon

Skin Alison Raffaele

Dior

Jelly

Vincent Longo

**Lumene

Sue Devitt

Paula Dorf

Passport

AcknowledgementsCaroline Karp

Thesis Advisor

Catherine Goodall, Amit Sheth, and Sha ShaEnvironmental Packaging International

Dave Murray and Joe OrchardoSpectrometer Analysis in Environmental Chemistry Lab

Daniela Quilliam and Bill DundulisRI Department of Health

Family, Friends, Brown University…

THANK YOU FOR COMING…