iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Laura Turner Seydel

GET UPDATES FROM Laura Turner Seydel
 

It's Time to Tell Congress: No More Toxic Chemicals in Our Products!

Posted: 10/03/11 04:40 PM ET

Having been brought up by a family passionate about conservation and the environment, I have always been quite attuned to the environment's connection to human health.

My father, my son and I underwent the Environmental Working Group's first intergenerational toxic body burden test, which tested our blood for the presence of 80 chemicals in our bodies. There were clear differences between the three generations in the level of toxic chemicals. My father showed high levels of heavy metals, such as mercury and lead. I showed traces of synthetic musk, a fragrance found in many cosmetics and a hormone-disrupting carcinogen. My son had the highest levels of flame-retardants, teflon and rocket fuel chemicals in his blood. Some of the chemicals the tests detected were banned more than 30 years ago. So how are they still in the products we use on a daily basis?

The reason this is such a big deal is because the ubiquitous exposure to chemicals is linked to growing rates of illnesses we see in our children -- learning disabilities, ADHD, autism, thyroid disease, pediatric cancer and more.

I was shocked to learn that even the cosmetics I use and the sunscreen I slather on my children to protect them could very well be causing harm. Americans apply an average of 126 unique ingredients on their skin daily. These chemicals -- whether they seep through the skin, are inhaled through the nose and mouth, or rinse down the drain -- raise concerns for human health and the impacts they may have to wildlife, rivers and streams.

To top it off, there is no required safety testing of the chemicals in these products we use every day. Consumers only have the industry's self-appointed safety panel, which time and again falls far short of compensating for the lack of government oversight. Currently, cosmetics manufacturers may use almost any ingredient or raw material in soap, shampoo or makeup without outside review or approval.

The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn't even have the authority to keep chemicals that are known to be toxic out of our personal care products or to order safety recalls in the event that harmful products make their way onto store shelves.

Consumers in the United States are at a disadvantage compared with consumers in the European Union and Canada, which enjoy stronger protections from toxic chemicals in personal care products than we do.

An example of the need for stricter regulations is the recent controversy over a brand of the popular keratin hair straightening treatment that was available in salons nationwide. Salon workers in Oregon began complaining about various health effects, including nose bleeds, breathing problems and eye irritation.

Oregon OSHA and Oregon Health University's Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology (CROET) did testing that confirmed that two products had high levels of formaldehyde despite them being labeled "formaldehyde-free."

How are these products able to make their way into salons? Salon employees and clients are led to believe that the products are safe, even though studies have proven that they are not. Is there anything we can do to prevent this from happening again?

Fortunately, the "Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011" has been introduced in Congress by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). It sends a loud and clear message that the American people deserve to have safe products in the marketplace. It also takes into consideration the needs of small business owners -- mostly owned and operated by women -- and levels the playing field for all companies.

If this bill becomes a law, it would give the FDA the much-needed authority to make sure a product is safe, restore consumer confidence and ensure that dangerous products are removed from shelves.

Political infighting at the expense of our health needs to end. I ask all members of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- to come together on this issue and pass the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011.

We all can help make this happen by letting our elected representatives know we want this bill passed. Call, write or visit your member of Congress, and demand that Congress take action to make sure that personal care products are safe for our families.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 15
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gloriaswanson43
Ask and you will get more info.
12:09 PM on 10/12/2011
Both the EU and Canada have said that the current levels of lead in lipstick are not a concern.

Read through the bill and you can see the problems. This will not protect small businesses. It will put additional burdens on them to test every single ingredient and list everything that's in it. which includes your lavender EO and Olive Oil. If one person in a million (i think that's the number) has a skin reaction or an allergic reaction then the ingredient can no longer be used. Again, there goes your lavender EO as well as your jojoba oil. There are already laws and regs in place (why do you think perfume lovers don't like IFRA and RIFM. they take the naturals out of perfumes.) Most ingredients used are already on the list of GRAS. These are the same ingredients used in products in both the EU and Canada. This bill will not make you safer. It will limit your options to just the big companies. I for one do not want to lose the small organic/natural companies.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:49 AM on 10/05/2011
Register as a Democrat, now. The dem primaries are the only elections that can save the Republic from the sellouts. Vote for the CPC progressive, Kucinich, Dean, Grayson and such.

Then re-register as an Independent if you want, but vote straight Dems in the general.

Otherwise the corporatists folks don't care about your health.

The GOPTea want to get rid of the FDA.
09:43 PM on 10/04/2011
I and many have been trying to tell Congress, etc. for over a decade. Also pass the "Safe Chemicals Act of 2011" by Senator Lautenberg, NJ since that also covers our cleaning products, air fresheners, detergents, soaps, fabric softner, and it goes on and on. Why they have allowed this to happen at our expense is beyond me.

Seem they can do whatever they want to us and we have no recourse. You have to change the way you do everything when you have difficulties with everyday fragrance, etc. since it is everywhere.
02:19 PM on 10/04/2011
Thanks for spreading the word...we can also promote change with our money...visit the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics website and find out what products we should be buying. www.safecosmetics.org.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brett y
Frack the frackers!
12:05 PM on 10/04/2011
Let's talk about removing fluoride from everything as well.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sabelmouse
i love to tumble , ask me why .
06:37 AM on 10/04/2011
consumers in germany went on a nationwide boycott to get formaldehyde out of shampoos and bubblebath.
i was shocked when i found it still around in ireland in the late 90s.
10:12 PM on 10/03/2011
I think the Safe Cosmetics Act is an interesting idea, but wouldn't a reform of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) do the trick, but also protect us from non-cosmetic exposures too? Lautenberg's Safer Chemicals Act of 2011 provides such a reform. I'd like to even see the Lautenberg Bill go farther than it does even. If it was up to me, I'd reform the heck out chemicals in both arenas, but I'm not optimistic about either bill making it out of committee.
08:06 PM on 10/03/2011
While no one disputes the importance of ensuring the safety of cosmetics, reliance on cruel and archaic animal tests only hinders progress on this front. The Safe Cosmetics Act must include provisions that only non-animal methods will be used to test cosmetics ingredients. Without such language in the Act, we can be sure that companies will use unreliable tests on animals where qualitative--and not quantitative--results mean that companies can exercise latitude to interpret test results in their own favor. Companies will laugh all the way to the bank, while consumers will continue to be unsafe. And most disturbingly, we, as a society, will continue to subject countless sentient animals to pain, suffering and death for the sake of vanity.
08:04 PM on 10/03/2011
As a natural beauty blogger, you'd think I'd be all for this legislation. I am not. We don't need more regulation (god knows the government is FAR too deep into everyone's business - especially small business - already). What we NEED is education. Not only about the potential dangers in ALL cosmetics - but truly natural options people can use in lieu of synthetic chemical-filled beauty products (regardless of labeling).

It is absolutely possible to keep your mitts off the products in the stores and choose TRULY natural alternatives instead. It's cheaper, healthier - and more effective.

If you don't trust a company to do what's right, don't buy their stuff. Government regulations aren't going to magically make corporations ethical. If anything, it will do the opposite.

Want proof? Look at the FDA and their corporate (Monsanto) bedfellows. Think the corruption is just going to magically stop when you introduce cosmetic companies into the mix?

If you want to shut out the small guys and give favors to big corporations, get the FDA involved. It's a general rule.

And if this isn't enough to convince you, an entire huge network of small natural beauty businesses (who are historically THE most ethical and safe) vehemently oppose this legislation, because it will cripple their ability to earn a living.
12:08 PM on 10/04/2011
Dear Crunchy, I agree with you that people need to choose toxic-free products. Unfortunately, it's currently legal for cosmetics companies to hide the toxicity of their products, to keep the true contents of products secret from consumers (such as the carcinogens commonly found in baby shampoos), to call their products "pure" and "natural" anyway, and to generally otherwise confuse consumers into thinking their products are safe -- with no safety standards whatsoever defined in the law.

The result is that unsafe products that companies wouldn't dare sell in other countries are readily available in the US. Case in point: Brazilian Blowout -- even the cosmetics industry is now admitting it's unsafe, Canada and many other countries banned the product a year ago, yet it's still being sold across the US!

Where I disagree with you is your comment that small businesses vehemently oppose this legislation. There are many protective provisions for small businesses in the Safe Cosmetics Act, and consequently, many small businesses are supporting it. Here's more information about the reasons why: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/06/24/5-reasons-why-safe-cosmetics-act-makes-sense-small-business

To sum it up, we need to exercise our purchasing power as well as political power to shift the market so safe cosmetics.
05:43 PM on 10/04/2011
Thank you so much for your reply. I appreciate your insight. In return, I wrote a somewhat lengthy reply on my blog (http://www.crunchybetty.com/should-we-give-the-fda-more-power-safe-cosmetics-act-2011) and I fully welcome you to come and share your thoughts on the matter there. (I was going to post it here, but it was something like 700 words ... too much for the 'Po to handle.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brett y
Frack the frackers!
12:17 PM on 10/04/2011
How many of the Earth's unique treasures are plundered and destroyed to assauge human vanity?
06:03 PM on 10/03/2011
On the surface, the Safe Cosmetics Act looks wonderful: even the language in support of non-animal testing methods is good. But it creates a whole new requirement to test every ingredient in cosmetics products. Much of this testing is still performed on animals using tests designed in the 1930s and '40s that fail to provide reliable information that can be used to protect people.

It is all too easy to glibly talk about the need for additional testing of products and never think about the rabbits who will have their skin shaved so that corrosive and irritating substances can be applied or dripped into their sensitive eyes; the guinea pigs, mice, and rats who will have their stomachs pumped full of toxic substances via a tube lodged in their throats; or the dogs who will languish in solitary confinement while forced to eat chemical-laced food before being killed.

It’s hard to imagine that anyone really believes that more animals should suffer so that we can have another shade of lipstick or eyeliner. But people need to understand that without legislation requiring the exclusive use of human-relevant, non-animal methods, this is exactly what will happen.

Oh and fyi, the Environmental Working Group received a failing grade on PETA’s www.meangreenies.com report card of environmental organizations because of the group’s incessant calls for massive animal testing. Please contact info@peta.org for more information.
04:52 PM on 10/03/2011
The potential for chemical reform is quite exciting, but it should be done in a way that doesn’t sacrifice millions of animals (for toxicity testing) in the name of better protection for human health and the environment - and to bring the latest lipstick shade to the market. The revised bill should mandate and create market incentives to use nonanimal methods. We need to ensure that chemical testing is in line with the 21st century and relies on modern, human cell and computer-based methods that provide accurate data on how a chemical acts and what the impact on human health may be.
09:55 PM on 10/04/2011
People all over the world have been seriously affected by these products. I am tired of migraines when someone else wears something that is not safe. We have no control over what a neighbor uses or someone at work. That is why most with problems with chemicals in our products such as irritant induced asthma, chemical sensitivity, reactive airways disease, migraines, vomiting, etc. Even some toothpaste have pesticides in it. If we put pesticides in something someone was to put in their mouth we would be in trouble. What is the difference. It is crazy that these laws have dragged for so long. The TSCA was adapted in the 70's but no one bothered to enforce it.