updated: Jan. 5, 2010
top news stories
Doug Schoon's Picks of the Most Important
Cosmetic & Personal Care News Stories
Below is a collection of the seven most significant cosmetic news stories of 2009-2010. These briefs provide factual and honest information for both beauty industry professionals and consumers. This is important “need to know” information for everyone who uses cosmetics or personal care products.
#1 — Are Chemicals Killing Us? — June 2009
Are Chemicals Killing Us?
Toxicologists Believe Media Overstates Risks
Can you believe the news media when they tell us that every day we are being poisoned by chemicals we routinely used to improve our lives? No we can't, according to a survey of 937 members of the Society of Toxicology (SOT). This survey of toxicology professionals found that the public doesn't get a full and balanced picture of chemical risks. For instance, these knowledgeable experts overwhelmingly reject the notion that exposure to even the smallest amounts of harmful chemicals is dangerous or that the detection of any level of a chemical in your body indicates a significant health risk. And they are nearly unanimous in rejecting the notion that “organic” or “natural” products are inherently safer than others. Here are some other interesting facts that came out of this survey. click to read more of this article
- 74% believe that cosmetics do not pose a significant health risk.
- 90% believe “organic or natural” products are NOT inherently safer.
- Only 77% believe the US regulatory system is NOT inferior to Europe's.
- 89% do NOT believe that “phthalates” are a high risk.
- 97% think “Teflon” should NOT be rated as a high risk.
- 91% believe “biphenol A” (BPA) should NOT be rated as a high risk.
- 97% feel “parabens” should NOT be rated as a high risk.
- 96% believe “triclosan” should NOT be rated as a high risk.
- Only 14% rate “formaldehyde gas” as a high risk.
- Only 6% believe that any exposure to harmful chemical is unacceptable.
- 96% say that Greenpeace overstates the health risk of chemicals.
- 80% said the Environmental Defense Fund overstates chemical risk.
- 79% say the Environmental Working Group (EWG) overstates risks.
- 80% say PETA overstates risks.
- 90% say media coverage of risks lacks balance and diversity.
- 74% believe the news media pays too much attention to individual studies rather than examining the overall evidence.
- 73% believe the media pays too much attention to individual scientists rather than what the scientific community believes as a whole.
- 68% believe the news media pays too much attention to studies put out by environmental groups.
- 80% believe that leading national newspapers, magazines and television networks overstate chemical risk.
- 97% say the media doesn't distinguish between good studies and bad studies.
- WebMD is the only news source rated as accurate by the majority of toxicologist.
What’s the take-home message? “Lousy studies make the news” according to one of the authors. Don’t rely on activists or the media to tell the truth about chemical risks. Schoon Scientific believes that consumer advocacy groups and news media are doing a very poor job and NOT providing the public with truthful information, but instead are exaggerating and distorting supposed chemical dangers and causing irrational fear, confusion and unfounded concerns. Click on the link below and download the pdf file to see more eye-opening statistics.
Source: http://stats.org
Report PDF file: http://stats.org/stories/2009/Survey_7.09.pdf
#2 — Newest Data on Parabens — January 2010
Newest Data on Parabens Suggest No Adverse
Hormonal Effect on the Body
A new study performed at the request of the EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) show that parabens are only partially absorbed after dermal exposure and also strongly suggests they are fully metabolize before they can enter the bloodstream. The metabolite PHBA (para-hydroxybenzoic acid) was found in the bloodstream, but no concentrations of parabens were measured. Since PHBA is not known to have any estrogenic effects and is found widely in plants and human food, these trace exposures in humans pose no health risk. click to read more of this article
“The study confirms the results of a number of other research studies, which concluded from their work that parabens are metabolized rapidly and to a large extent in living organisms and therefore cannot exhibit any adverse effects," states the industry trade group COLIPA.
For several years, some consumer advocacy groups have distorted information to aggressively attack paraben preservatives just to create fear in the minds of consumers. Scientists who have reviewed the latest data believe it will convince the SCCS of the safety for these important ingredients.
Source: www.CosmeticsDesign.com
#3 — Fear and Politics Trumps Science — April 2009
Fear and Politics Trumps Science and Rational Thinking
Despite recommendation by scientists at the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) which regulates toys, Congress recently implemented a ban on the use of phthalates in all children’s toys. The Consumer Product Safety Commission opposed the ban because “there was not a risk of injury to children” according to Dr. Marilyn Wind of the CPSC. This conclusion was reached after studying phthalates in toys for more than 25 years. This extensive study included toys which are used as teethers and pacifiers. Scientists at the CPSC believe children were not exposed to even a slight risk from products containing these chemicals. click to read more of this article
Scientists at the FDA reached the same conclusion and reported to Congress that a ban was not necessary to protect the public. Unfortunately lawmakers such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) were easily duped by advocacy groups into believing that these ingredients are linked to reproductive toxicity, despite evidence to the contrary presented by two different groups of government scientists.
A favorite tactic used by advocacy groups is to link their demands to “children”, knowing this will pressure politicians to easily give in, rather than stand up for what is right. Activists regularly and successfully use the “children card” to pressure politicians into making decisions that are contrary to science and reason.
Even so, Dr. Wind stands by the results of the government research, “I know we did really good science and sometimes people don’t listen to the good science.”
Source: www.npr.org
#4 — Lead in Lipstick Is Not a Concern — Sept. 2009
FDA Study Confirms Traces of Lead in Lipstick
Is Not a Safety Concern
A report released by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) consumer advocacy group has needlessly alarmed consumers by raising irrational fears that many popular lipstick products contain dangerous levels of lead. FDA scientists tested the same selection of lipsticks evaluated by the CSC and have determined that the lead levels present are safe and well below limits recommended by other public health authorities. The FDA found that lipsticks tested had average levels of 1.07 ppm or 0.0001%.
click to read more of this article
Since lead is a naturally occurring substance found throughout nature, it would be practically impossible to completely eliminate all traces of lead and it's not at all surprising to find trace levels that are far lower than what occur in normal drinking water. California’s has set the most stringent levels for lead in the US and it allows up to 5 ppm in cosmetics. The FDA concluded that the lead levels are within The range that would be expected from lipsticks formulated with permitted and approved color additives.
This is not the first time the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has issued dire and unfounded warnings concerning cosmetic products. Even now, they continue to demand that the FDA require lipstick to be 100% lead free. In the opinion of Schoon Scientific, this consumer advocacy group has repeatedly distorted information to needlessly frighten and alarm consumers, and they should not be considered as a credible source of information.
Source: www.fda.gov
For credible information about lead in lipstick or lipstick ingredients see: www.cosmeticsinfo.org
#5 — Bogus Study Tricks Media — July 2009
Bogus Study Tricks Media and Frightens Consumers
In recent decades periodic, unverified reports of a worldwide decline in sperm count/quality and increases in testicular cancer have been blamed on ingredients found in plastics, cosmetics and children's toys. A 2005 study performed by Dr. Shanna Swan loudly proclaimed that hormone disrupting ingredients in plastics, cosmetics and children's toys known as “phthalates” were causing baby boys to develop abnormally smaller penises (hypospadias). Dr. Swan’s so-called “study” utilized previously unknown test methods which have never been validated by the medical community or other scientists. Consumer advocacy groups pounced upon this single study, and offered it as proof that “phthalates are poisoning us”. The news media gave widespread attention to the Swan study treating it as if it were a valid and substantiated scientific report, when in fact it was neither.
click to read more of this article
Now a major new study of children in New York State by researchers at the New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center looked into this issue to determine if hypospadias rates have actually increased. What were the results?
“Hypospadias rates have not changed in New York State from 1992 to 2005. Combined with previous studies that demonstrate sperm counts are not declining, these data suggest that testicular dysgenesis syndrome… may not be evident in humans”
In other words, Dr. Swan and the consumer advocacy groups were totally wrong and neither penis size or sperm counts are declining, nor is there evidence that plastic or cosmetic ingredients are responsible for such effects. Despite the hundreds of the news stories generated by Dr. Swan's original and incorrect report that genital deformities may be caused by phthalates in cosmetics and plastic toys, to date not a single mainstream media publication has reported this new information. Schoon Scientific wonders why, and so should you.
Source: http://www.eurekalert.org
#6 — “Free from” Misleads Consumers — May 2009
“Free from ...insert your scary story here...”
Using terms such as “contains no...” or “free of...” misleads consumers into believing the ingredient safety is questionable, when scientific evidence may show the ingredient is safe. Chris Flower of the CTPA, a UK cosmetic trade association provides this example, “in the case of parabens, we feel that people are trading on the false allegations of safety concerns.”
Claiming a product is “paraben-free” suggests to consumers that paraben containing products are unsafe, when in fact parabens have a long history of safe use. Such marketing tactics are also designed to imply that the replacement ingredients are safer and better. click to read more
The CTPA says, “We strongly suggest that safety shouldn’t be used as a route to commercial benefits, as it suggests the other products are inherently unsafe. We are all required to provide safe products and this kind of practice undermines the industry as a whole.”
In the same article Cosmetics design-Europe.com reported that France’s regulatory body responsible for “competition and fraud control” concluded that drawing attention to the absence of certain preservatives in cosmetics can mislead the consumer.
Source: www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com
#7 — Cancer Rate Falls — December 2009
Cancer Rates Continue to Fall in the US
Cancer diagnosis and deaths continued to decline in the US according to the latest available data States a recent report from the National Cancer Institute. New diagnosis for all types of cancers has fallen on average about 1% each year between 1999 and 2006.
This information flies in the face of scare mongering claims made by consumer advocacy groups who want us to believe that increased use of cosmetics and personal care products are causing more cancers. These fear based activist groups continue to use such erroneous claims to needlessly frighten the public and raise unfair and unwarranted concerns. Both the US FDA and Health Canada have publicly stated that cosmetics are among the safest product categories under their regulation and neither have expressed concerns that cosmetics or personal care products are contributing to an increase in cancer in humans.
Source: The Wall Street Journal (December 8, 2009)
View the past News Briefs archive
Website design by Orangeport Studios
© Copyright , Schoon Scientific, LLC. All rights reserved.