Have you every tried to learn what the ingredients on the
labels for shampoo actually are? Personal care items, like soap, shampoo, and
cosmetics, utilize preservatives to maintain freshness. Without preservatives, these
products would quickly develop bacteria, dry out, and produce an odor as they
decay. Instead of using a wide variety of natural preservatives, companies
often opt for synthetic preservatives that scientists created to be more cost
effective and longer lasting. However, further testing concludes certain
synthetic preservatives parabens harm consumers. Some chemicals cause cancer
and infertility, yet companies continued to sell products with these chemicals.
In the European Union, over one thousand chemicals are banned for use in
cosmetics
("European Laws"). The United States currently bans eight ingredients from beauty
products and restricts the amount of three more chemicals ("Ingredients Prohibited
& Restricted"). The government place more regulations on the personal care and
cosmetic industries to eliminate carcinogens and other harmful ingredients that
can lead to death by adopting the European Unions’ regulations on the cosmetic
industry.
According to the Federal Drug
Administration of the United States, a cosmetic product legally may include a
safe amount of the three ingredients, including mercury ("Ingredients Prohibited
& Restricted"). However, the FDA cannot ensure all consumers come in contact
with less than the certain “safe” amount of these chemicals. For example, mercury
accumulates over time in humans from air near coal-burning factories and food
as well as cosmetics and contributes to at least 143,000 deaths worldwide (Kennedy and Yaggi). Different people can
tolerate different levels of mercury and other chemicals in their cosmetics
based on their exposure elsewhere ("Health Effects of Mercury"). The FDA cannot guarantee
people stay under a dangerous level of exposure to harmful chemicals if they
allow them in cosmetics because they cannot control other factors. Thus, the
government should not allow harmful chemicals in cosmetics at all.
Makeup and other personal care
items do not merely sit on top of the skin. The skin absorbs harmful chemicals,
the lungs inhale airborne particles from powders, the mouth ingests chemicals
from lipstick and other lip products. Nanoparticles in powders and sprays
absorb easily into skin (“Top Tips for Safer Products”). Once the chemicals
breach the skin, they move to the bloodstream. As blood flows through though
the body, it distributes harmful chemicals all over the body.
Most women continue using
cosmetics during pregnancy. In pregnant women, harmful chemicals can diffuse
from the mother’s blood to the fetal blood. In developing fetuses, mercury
exposure can cause neurological damage, leading to low intelligence and lack of
coordination. ("Health Effects of Mercury"). Parabens mimic the effects
of estrogen. Exposure to parabens as a fetus has been linked to infertility in
males ("Antiperspirants
and Breast Cancer"). Cancer is not a disease; it is a disorder where cells divide
rapidly and uncontrollably as a result of mutations in the cells DNA. The
cancer cells do not preform any beneficial function to the body. Instead, they
restrict the ability of noncancerous cells to preform their intended function.
Without treatment, the cancer invades crucial areas of the body until their
victim dies. Carcinogens do not simply “give people cancer.” Instead, they
cause mutations in the cells DNA, which may cause the cell to become cancerous.
Exposing babies to carcinogens not only increases their risk of developing
cancerous mutations, but also potentially life-threatening mutations. By
regulating cosmetics according to the European Union standard, we stop exposing
innocent children to chemicals that could cause them death or life with a
disability.
Because parabens mimic
estrogen, they may cause breast cancer. Estrogen is a hormone that causes cells
in the breast to divide. The addition of parabens can artificially trigger
unwelcome division. After many parabens-induced divisions, cells may make a
mistake while copying the DNA and the cell could wind up with a cancerous mutation ("Antiperspirants and
Breast Cancer"). Breast cancer is the second most common cancer after prostate
cancer and it has the third most deaths after Lung and Colorectal cancer. Over
40,000 Americans die from breast cancer every year, yet the government won't
take a simple measure to protect American consumers ("Common Cancer
Types").
Most Americans knew someone who died at the hands of cancer; this is not some
obscure disease. Yet the government has yet to take the simple step of removing
carcinogens from cosmetics.
The economic consequences of regulating cosmetics are
insignificant compared to the consumers' safety. The companies will have to
spend money reformulating their products. However, giving companies ten to fifteen
years to reformulate their products minimizes the impact on the economy. The government
could offer incentives to companies that reformulate their products before the ten
or fifteen year deadline. Still, the costs of reformulating may get passed on
to the consumer, leaving people with a lower income less access to cosmetics. As
unfair as this sounds unfair, keeping low-income women healthy and alive is
more important than their access to cosmetics. Makeup is not a necessity;
people do not need makeup to live. Forgoing makeup is safer than to expose
yourself to the carcinogens and other harmful chemicals. The price increase
won't even be very significant. Companies reformulate products anyway, so their
scheduled reformulation that they put away money to fund could fall in the ten or
fifteen year regulation period. Some large companies sell products in Europe
and the United States but use different formulas; the European formula is
different to exclude restricted ingredients. The European division could share
its formula with its American counterpart. Obviously they would not share with different
companies. Some people may argue that natural preservatives cost more than the
harmful ones. However, expensive companies like MAC, Lancôme, Dior, and Chanel
use harmful chemicals like parabens, but Burt's Bees offers relatively safer
products for a fraction of the cost. While the lip product with the highest
lead concentration is Benetint by Benefit Cosmetics, a product that retails for
thirty dollars, Wet 'n Wild sells a lead-free lipstick for two dollars. In
fact, some of the world's largest makeup companies, Revlon and L'Oreal, pledged
to gradually reformulate their products to meet European Union standards ("Nonprofits: Endose the
Campaign").
These standards are not harsh; the EU still has a competitive cosmetic industry
with a variety of products ranging from cheap to luxury.
The United States has banned ingredients before that were deemed
harmful. Recently, the FDA has moved toward banning trans fats from all foods
because they increase risk for cardiovascular disease (Jalonick). Trans fats
are common in cheaper foods, and food is necessary for life. Not only will this
move cause many companies to reformulate, but it also has economic
repercussions for farmers (Knutson). This shows the FDA has placed safety above
economic interests and raising the costs for consumers if the evidence and
public opinion are against that harmful component. They must stay consistent
and do it will all substances shown to cause harm.
The United States should restrict ingredients used in
personal care products, such as shampoo, soap, and cosmetics. Investigators
linked many of these chemicals to cancer. When women who are pregnant or may be
pregnant in the future (chemicals like mercury can linger) use products with
these chemicals, they can inhibit development of vital systems, like the
nervous system, or cause unviable genetic mutations. The government should take
precautions, like a ten to fifteen year deadline, when making this transition
to safer cosmetics to minimize repercussions. To move the FDA to action, people
must write to them expressing their concern with the number of harmful
ingedients in cosmetics.
Works Cited
"Antiperspirants
and Breast Cancer Risk." American
Cancer Society. N.p., 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
"Common Cancer
Types." National Cancer Institute.
National Institutes of Health, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
"European
Laws." The Campaign for Safe
Cosmetics. Safe Cosmetics Action Network, 2011. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
"Health Effects
of Mercury." United States Environmental
Protection Agency. N.p., 9 July 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
"Ingredients
Prohibited & Restricted by FDA Regulations." U.S. Food and Drug Administration. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 22 June 1996. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
Jalonick, Mary
Clare. "FDA to Ban Trans Fats." Huffington
Post 7 Nov. 2013: n. pag. Huffington
Post. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Kennedy, Robert F.,
Jr., and Marc A. Yaggi. "Mercury Poisoning Is a Growing Global Menace We
Have to Address." The Guardian.
Guardian News and Media, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Knutson, Jonathan.
"FDA Ban Would Affect Area Farmers." Grand Folks Herald 19 Nov. 2013: n. pag. Grand Folks Herald. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
"Nonprofits:
Endose the Campaign." The Campaign
for Safe Cosmetics. Safe Cosmetics Action Network, 2011. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
"Top Tips for
Safer Products." Skin Deep Cosmetics
Database. Environmental Working Group, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
*If anyone wants links to the websites I used, just ask.
**Please comment with any additional arguments you can think of!
