Toxins in your hair
he Brazilian Blowout, which is a popular keratin-based hair treatment, promises to tame unruly curls and transform them to frizz-free, smooth hair that lasts for months. They cost several hundred dollars and are offered mainly everywhere. Vogue magazine calls it "seriously liberating". However, despite all the acclaims, they can be quite dangerous. The first to report problems was a hairstylist from Portland, Oregon. She has experienced shortness of breath, eye irritations, and nosebleeds. She then filed a complaint with the local Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA soon discovered that Brazilian Blowout products contain the toxic carcinogen formaldehyde, even though they were advertised as formaldehyde-free. The U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that a beauty product is safe for people to use if it contains less than 0.2% of formaldehyde. The Brazilian Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution was found to have contained 6.3-10.6% according to OSHA tests. After a warning from the company, more hairstylists came forward. Some have also reported burning eyes and throats, loss of smell, and shortness of breath while performing the treatment. Obviously, this is a big issue because expose to formaldehyde has been linked to nose cancer, throat cancer, and leukemia.
Before reading this article, I didn't know that Brazilian Blowouts were so dangerous. I always heard good things about them. This is outrageous. It's the companies jobs to test their products for safety before they're sold to the public. As Jamie Silberberger of Women's Voices for the Earth said, "All products should be tested for safety before they hit the market. This is standard policy for the food and drug industry". I feel so bad for the hairstylists that have been continuously exposed to the toxins in the beauty products. It's also sad how women just want to have their hair done, but there's all these toxins in the products they use which can pose a large threat to their health. Hopefully, now that we have the "Safe Cosmetics Act", it will give the FDA the ability to restrict harmful toxins and chemicals in beauty products. Maybe we should ban Brazilian Blowouts until we can find a way to get rid of the hazardous toxins in products that shouldn't have them in the first place. It's good that there's an alternative form of the Brazilian Blowout now, which is called the Brazilian Blowout Zero, and is plant based. It is said to work just as well as the original treatment and "releases no formaldehyde before, during, or after treatment". We should try focusing on other toxins in products now, to reduce the damage they can do as soon as possible and allow all people to live in safety.
Source: http://www.emagazine.com/includes/print-article/magazine/8738/
Article in source written by Lindsey Blomberg on August 12, 2011
Before reading this article, I didn't know that Brazilian Blowouts were so dangerous. I always heard good things about them. This is outrageous. It's the companies jobs to test their products for safety before they're sold to the public. As Jamie Silberberger of Women's Voices for the Earth said, "All products should be tested for safety before they hit the market. This is standard policy for the food and drug industry". I feel so bad for the hairstylists that have been continuously exposed to the toxins in the beauty products. It's also sad how women just want to have their hair done, but there's all these toxins in the products they use which can pose a large threat to their health. Hopefully, now that we have the "Safe Cosmetics Act", it will give the FDA the ability to restrict harmful toxins and chemicals in beauty products. Maybe we should ban Brazilian Blowouts until we can find a way to get rid of the hazardous toxins in products that shouldn't have them in the first place. It's good that there's an alternative form of the Brazilian Blowout now, which is called the Brazilian Blowout Zero, and is plant based. It is said to work just as well as the original treatment and "releases no formaldehyde before, during, or after treatment". We should try focusing on other toxins in products now, to reduce the damage they can do as soon as possible and allow all people to live in safety.
Source: http://www.emagazine.com/includes/print-article/magazine/8738/
Article in source written by Lindsey Blomberg on August 12, 2011
Lead in Lipsticks
A shocking federal analysis revealed that 400 shades of lipstick contained varying amounts of lead in them, which can cause cancer or reproductive problems. According to testing by the Food and Drug Administration, 5 lipsticks by Maybelline and L'Oreal were ranked among the top 5 most contaminated lipsticks. In addition, two Cover Girl and two NARS lipsticks had also landed in the top 10. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has been pushing the government for years to set limits on lead levels in lipstick. The FDA resisted and insisted that the levels detected during testing do not pose safety risks. The first report of lead in lipstick dates back to the 1990s. In 2007, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics tested 33 red lipsticks and found that two-thirds of them contained lead, and that one-third exceeded the FDA's limit in candy. Following this, the FDA had their own experiment and tested 20 lipsticks. They then expanded the analysis to 400 lipsticks shades in their study. The FDA called the accusations unfair, and that comparing lead to candy was unfair. Online, they posted, "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".
The Personal Care Products Council agrees with the FDA's statement. Halyna Breslawec, head scientist of the Council, said her group has been petitioning to limit the amount of lead allowed in cosmetics. Most lead in lipstick, or any cosmetic for that matter, is not intentionally put in. Many color additives that the FDA has approved for use are mineral-based, and so they contain small amounts of lead that are naturally found in soil, water, and air. Finding the true safety level for lead is questionable. The FDA's analysis found that the highest lead concentration was in Maybelline's Color Sensational Petal Pink lipstick at 7.19 parts per million. The average lead level in the other 400 tested lipsticks was 1.11 parts per million, relatively low compared to Maybelline's. However, the FDA does not consider their findings dangerous. In an online statement, they said "We do not consider the lead levels we found in the lipsticks to be a safety concern. The lead levels we found are within the limits recommended by other public health authorities for lead in cosmetics". The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics sees the results in a different way, "The lead content in Maybelline’s Pink Petal is more than twice as high as levels found in the previous FDA report and more than 275 times the level found in the least-contaminated product in the recent report". They also stated that the least contaminated products, which was Wet 'n' Wild Mega Mixers Lip Balm, was also the cheapest, “demonstrating that price is not an indicator of good manufacturing practices".
There really is no safe level of lead exposure. Experts have stressed that children and pregnant women should stay away from them. Over time, lead builds up in the body. When lipstick containing lead gets applied every day, several times a day, gradually it can build up to a significant amount. After reports of lead in lipstick resurfaced in 2008, the California state attorney general's office was concerned whether cosmetics firms had run afoul on one California's law, which required businesses and companies to provide warnings if they are knowingly exposing their consumers to chemicals that can cause cancer and reproductive harm. California later concluded that the concentration of lead in the lipsticks were not high enough to trigger the law. Businesses did not have to warn consumers until the lead concentration reached five parts per million. The majority of the lipsticks in the FDA's study fell below that level. Two of them exceeded it: Maybelline’s Pink Petal and L’Oreal’s Colour Riche Volcanic. However, the California state attorney general's office has not taken any further actions.
Before reading this article, I didn't know that lipstick, or any cosmetics, contained lead. Though products containing lead were not proven to have caused any serious harm, I'm still concerned. I think that we should still lower the limit on lead concentrations in cosmetics as a precaution. They might not be toxic right now, but who knows if they will be in the future? It's better to be cautious right now than to not do anything and regret our decision in the future when we could've done something to prevent it from happening. Also, I don't see why lead is even in lipstick. It's not like it benefits the lipstick or the consumer. Lead is not needed, and it can be a dangerous poison and cause problems in the future. It should be eliminated, or at least, limited to safe amount.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/400-lipstick-brands-contain-lead-fda-says/2012/02/14/gIQAhOyeDR_story.html
Article in source written by Dina ElBoghdady on February 14, 2012
The Personal Care Products Council agrees with the FDA's statement. Halyna Breslawec, head scientist of the Council, said her group has been petitioning to limit the amount of lead allowed in cosmetics. Most lead in lipstick, or any cosmetic for that matter, is not intentionally put in. Many color additives that the FDA has approved for use are mineral-based, and so they contain small amounts of lead that are naturally found in soil, water, and air. Finding the true safety level for lead is questionable. The FDA's analysis found that the highest lead concentration was in Maybelline's Color Sensational Petal Pink lipstick at 7.19 parts per million. The average lead level in the other 400 tested lipsticks was 1.11 parts per million, relatively low compared to Maybelline's. However, the FDA does not consider their findings dangerous. In an online statement, they said "We do not consider the lead levels we found in the lipsticks to be a safety concern. The lead levels we found are within the limits recommended by other public health authorities for lead in cosmetics". The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics sees the results in a different way, "The lead content in Maybelline’s Pink Petal is more than twice as high as levels found in the previous FDA report and more than 275 times the level found in the least-contaminated product in the recent report". They also stated that the least contaminated products, which was Wet 'n' Wild Mega Mixers Lip Balm, was also the cheapest, “demonstrating that price is not an indicator of good manufacturing practices".
There really is no safe level of lead exposure. Experts have stressed that children and pregnant women should stay away from them. Over time, lead builds up in the body. When lipstick containing lead gets applied every day, several times a day, gradually it can build up to a significant amount. After reports of lead in lipstick resurfaced in 2008, the California state attorney general's office was concerned whether cosmetics firms had run afoul on one California's law, which required businesses and companies to provide warnings if they are knowingly exposing their consumers to chemicals that can cause cancer and reproductive harm. California later concluded that the concentration of lead in the lipsticks were not high enough to trigger the law. Businesses did not have to warn consumers until the lead concentration reached five parts per million. The majority of the lipsticks in the FDA's study fell below that level. Two of them exceeded it: Maybelline’s Pink Petal and L’Oreal’s Colour Riche Volcanic. However, the California state attorney general's office has not taken any further actions.
Before reading this article, I didn't know that lipstick, or any cosmetics, contained lead. Though products containing lead were not proven to have caused any serious harm, I'm still concerned. I think that we should still lower the limit on lead concentrations in cosmetics as a precaution. They might not be toxic right now, but who knows if they will be in the future? It's better to be cautious right now than to not do anything and regret our decision in the future when we could've done something to prevent it from happening. Also, I don't see why lead is even in lipstick. It's not like it benefits the lipstick or the consumer. Lead is not needed, and it can be a dangerous poison and cause problems in the future. It should be eliminated, or at least, limited to safe amount.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/400-lipstick-brands-contain-lead-fda-says/2012/02/14/gIQAhOyeDR_story.html
Article in source written by Dina ElBoghdady on February 14, 2012