Dear Drew Barrymore: Please Support Safe Products
You are beautiful, successful and on top of your game. You are a celebrated actress, a respected producer, and will soon make your directorial debut. How encouraging that a woman such as yourself, who hails from an iconic Hollywood family, has emerged as a woman of power in the film business for other young women to emulate.
Your career has no doubt been supported by a team of trusted advisors who help guide you to make the best decisions. How puzzling and disturbing, then, that they have apparently advised you to support a line of products made with ingredients linked to cancer, reproductive problems and neurodevelopmental defects.
Even more troubling: You agreed to front the Cover Girl “Dare to Be Beautiful” ad campaign, a rather patronizing new marketing blitz that “defends beauty’s honor,” presumably from sour feminists and environmentalists, like us.
“Some people have tried to make beauty an ugly word. They say it’s cold, false, intimidating. We say: stand up to that! Stand up for beauty that makes you LAUGH, that makes you THINK, that makes you get out there and create some beauty of your own!” cries the Cover Girl “Declaration Cloud.” (via Virginia’s awesome beauty-schooled blog.)
How about: Stand up for beauty that ISN’T TOXIC to our bodies and our souls; for beauty that is HONEST about what people really look like, and doesn’t contain chemicals that can damage our health and our children.
Drew, you look great in that lipstick, but tests conducted by Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found lead in many brands of lipstick, and some of the highest levels were found in the Cover Girl brand.
The fact is, Cover Girl by Procter & Gamble can do a lot better job supporting the true beauty they claim to defend.
Please Drew, think about the power you have to insist that Cover Girl and other cosmetics companies stop using toxic chemicals. Being truly “Beautiful” means having integrity and leadership to stand up to companies that make products that are not as safe as they could be.
There are plenty of make-up manufacturers who have taken great care to formulate products that are safe. We’d love to see you use your celebrity to promote cosmetics that are healthy and free of toxic chemicals – and then you are really going to ROCK it.
Stacy Malkan, 3/23/10
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Did you send this to her? I hope so. This is great. I’d love to see similar letters for all the other influential models who de facto put their stamp of approval on these personal care products.
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Wow! Thanks for using your voice and politely making a point that Hollywood needs to use their “power” and help influence people in a positive, healthy way. I just don’t understand how once presented with the facts about the dangers of these toxic ingredients iconic women, such as Drew Barrymore, can in good conscience put their faces on ads that promote companies with such irresponsible practices.
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Thank you, Stacy, very well put!! To tpo it off, the company is on PETA’s list that DOES test on animals, which is sad. It’s time they come into the 21st century all the way around!!
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:56 pm
AMEN, sister. Drew, are you listening?
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Love the article.
March 26th, 2010 at 4:50 am
In the unlikely event of my comment being published, I have to say that your comments about cosmetics are extremely inaccurate. The Skin Deep database doesn’t give any useful information on the true safety of cosmetics – it only tells you what hazards are associated with some of the ingredients. If those ingredients are not present at a high enough concentration to cause harm, then they are safe. To only look at the hazard of a chemical and deciding not to use any product containing it is like deciding never to cross a road (traffic hazard) irrespective of how many vehicles are nearby. Skin Deep also assigns zero hazard ratings to chemicals that have 100% data gaps. How does that make sense? If there are no data, how can they give a score of zero, or 3, or 10, for that matter. Some companies develop products using ingredients rated zero by SD – this means that these products have NO data on ANY ingredient. Is that supposed to be safe?
March 26th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Dene,
Yes Skin Deep is based on hazard, and it does a good job informing consumers about whether a given product contains a hazardous chemical, and showing them how often they may be getting exposed to a particular chemical. For example, methylparaben ranks a 10 in Skin Deep because there is strong scientific evidence that the chemical disrupts hormones, is toxic to the skin, and may interfere with gene expression. Companies do not have to disclose to consumers how much methylparaben is in a given product (the levels could be low or high), but we do know that methylparaben is used in more than 19,000 personal care products — so many people are being repeatedly exposed to this chemical on a daily basis (from the shampoo, deodorant, hair gel, body lotion, fragrance, etc…) Personally, I choose not to be exposed at all, when I can help it. Regarding the data gap, your information is incorrect. Skin Deep does ding products for containing ingredients that have not been studied for safety. http://www.cosmeticdatabase.org
March 28th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Stacy, I am afraid that you have missed the point entirely. Identifying the hazard is only a very small part of the evaluation of the safety of a product. On its own, it is useless information. Also, knowing the number of times you are exposed is relatively useless information. Two things are required to properly evaluate safety – the hazard and the exposure. Exposure is not just the number of times you are exposed – it is also the concentration to which you are exposed. To only give one of these items of information is, I repeat, useless.
If paracetamol was a cosmetic ingredient, it would certainly be scored 10, as it causes irreversible liver damage and, consequently, death. Skin Deep would be calling for it to be banned.
You choose to use methylparaben as an example. Yes, it is scored 10, but there is NO evidence that the chemical disrupts hormones. If you look closely at the SD entry for methylparaben, you will see that it states that methylparaben produced a positive uterotrophic response in vivo, approximately 100,000 times less potent than 17 beta-estradiol. (Routledge EJ, Parker J, Odum J, Ashby J, Sumpter JP, 1998). Wrong – it didn’t! What this study actually found was that BUTYLparaben was 100,000 times weaked than 17 beta-estradiol, and that METHYLparaben showed NO oestrogenic activity. That is not a slight error of interpretation, it is grossly inaccurate. If you check further amongst the ratings for the various parabens, you will see that the sodium and potassium salts all score 1. Bearing in mind that the toxicology of the straight parabens and their sodium/potassium salt equivalents are almost identical, I would say that SD got this wrong too!
The next study in the list is Pugazhendhi D, Sadler AJ, Darbre PD, 2007. SD claims that the study identified genes which are upregulated or downregulated to a similar extent by methylparaben, n-butylparaben and 17beta-oestradiol. What the study ACTUALLY found was that there were significant differences in global gene expression, not only between the parabens and 17beta-oestradiol, but also between the parabens themselves. Again, inaccurate reporting.
Returning to the question of hormone disruption, you and many other people (including the people at Skin Deep) make the error of assuming that, because a compound has been identifed as having oestrogenic activity it is, therefore, an endocrine disruptor. This is not the case. Oestrogenic activity simply means that the compound has the potential to bind to oestrogen receptor sites in the body. This does NOT mean that the compound then behaves the same as oestrogen – I refer you back to my comments on the Pugazhendhi study.
You have every right to make the choice to avoid parabens, but please make the decision on the basis of accurate information -Skin Deep fails to provide this.
You are correct `that Skin Deep does “ding” some ingredients with 100% data gaps, but there are a considerable of ingredients with 100% data gaps that it does NOT “ding”. I know of one company that specifically designs its formulations to use only zero-rated ingredients. This means that Skin Deep are effectively encouraging companies to use ingredients with no safety data. I find that indefensible.
The aims of Skin Deep are highly laudable, but they cannot meet their own claims to give the consumer any remote idea of the true safety of any product. I will leave you with a quote from Skin Deep – this appears above every product assessment:
“Given the incomplete information made available by companies and the government, EWG provides additional information on personal care product ingredients from the published scientific literature. The chart below indicates that research studies have found that exposure to one or more ingredients in this product — not the product itself — caused the indicated health effect(s) in the studies reviewed by Skin Deep researchers. Actual health risks, if any, will vary based on the level of exposure to the ingredient and individual susceptibility — information not available in Skin Deep.”
Does the average consumer looking at the database even read these disclaimers, never mind understand that they are saying that their ratings refer to the individual ingredients and that information on the ACTUAL health risks of the product in question is not available in Skin Deep? Their disclaimer proves my case for me.
March 29th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Dene, You point out exactly the problem with risk assessment (the idea that we can determine the health risk from chemicals in products under current policies and scientific ability). The two things needed to accurately assign risk are hazard and exposure, yet we don’t have adequate information for both sides of the equation. As you know, companies are not required to disclose concentrations of chemicals of products, studies are rarely done to determine the absorption rate of chemicals from cosmetics (though we know from a recent study that two parabens were found in the urine of every teenage girl tested), and aggregate exposure is unknown (how many times is a consumer exposed to parabens via multiple products in a single day). So the exposure side of the equation involves a lot of guesswork. On the hazard side, there are also large gaps in understanding, since chemicals are not studied in the way we are actually exposed: to low levels of combinations of toxic substances, repeatedly.
That’s why the only common sense approach is the precautionary principle: If there is scientific evidence showing that a chemical is problematic, choose a safer alternative. If a chemical has the potential to bind to estrogen sites, that’s enough for me to choose an alternative. For more info about why, I urge everyone to read “State of the Evidence,” the review of peer-reviewed scientific studies on environmental links to breast cancer published each year by the Breast Cancer Fund. http://www.breastcancerfund.org/media/publications/state-of-the-evidence/.
March 29th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Stacy, firstly, I would like to say that I appreciate your willingness to engage in this debate with me, but I am disappointed that you ignored all my references to Skin Deep publishing false information on parabens. I guess that there is no defence.
There ARE assessments available for exposure to cosmetics and, in the particular case of the European Union, stringent risk assessments ARE carried out on preservatives, amongst many other cosmetic ingredients. Again, in the EU, companies ARE required to disclose the precise composition AND the toxicological assessment in the Product Information Pack that must be completed for every product sold in the EU. Many of these products are little different to the ones sold in the US.
You say that the exposure side of the equation involves a lot of guesswork, but when was the last time you looked closely at the description of the scoring process in Skin Deep? It is exclusively based on estimation, a very subjective scoring system and pure guesswork. So where is the difference?
It is irrelevant to this discussion that two parabens were found in the urine of teenage girls. This only means that parabens have been absorbed (or ingested) and then excreted. This is not evidence of ANY adverse effects, although you seem to imply that this is the case. Indeed, the presence in urine would support the argument that parabens pass through the body – there is no evidence of bioaccumulation whatsoever.
I agree that chemicals are sometimes not studied the way in which we are exposed. The original study that claimed SOME parabens are oestrogenic used subcutaneous injection to administer the parabens (and I omitted to mention earlier, at a dose 4,000 times higher than normal daily exposure, in the case of butylparaben). This method of administration plus the huge overdose doubly exacerbates the observed effect (which, I may remind you, was extremely weak in the first place). This bears no relation to normal exposure, and I wholeheartedly agree with you on this matter.
With respect, the Precautionary Principle is not a common sense approach, for exactly the same reason as the Skin Deep database does not meet its claims. There is no risk assessment. It allows for a hysterical reaction to any seemingly adverse data, without ever considering any aspect of risk. To make any semblance of a reasonable decision on avoiding anything, you MUST assess the risk. I refer you back to my example of crossing the road. Using the precautionary principle would prevent you from crossing the road. This is not a flippant comment; the basic principle remains very much the same in both cases.
I have followed your advice and read part of the “State of the Evidence” and to prove it, I have copied part of the entry for parabens below:
“Parabens are a group of compounds widely used as anti-microbial preservatives in food, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics products, including underarm deodorants. Parabens are absorbed through intact skin and from the gastrointestinal tract and blood. Measurable concentrations of six different parabens have been identified in biopsy samples from breast tumors. The particular parabens were found in relative concentrations that closely parallel their use in the synthesis of cosmetic products. Parabens have also been found in almost all urine samples examined from a demographically diverse sample of U.S. adults.
Parabens have been shown to be weak estrogen mimickers, binding to the cellular estrogen receptor (ER). They also increase the expression of genes that are usually regulated by estradiol and cause human breast tumor cells (MCF-7 cells) to grow and proliferate in vitro.
See below for a table of cosmetics chemicals, including parabens, linked to increased breast cancer risk. ”
I will, first of all, make it clear to anyone else following this discussion that the Breast Cancer Fund is a lobby group, and NOT a research organisation. They have not done their research of the scientific research particularly well, in this instance, and show a lack of understanding of some of the science. A minor point, perhaps, but only FIVE parabens were claimed to have been detected in human breast cancer tumours, not 6 – this shows a lack of attention to detail. The fact that the parabens that were detected closely mirrored their relative proportions used in cosmetics actually reduces the possibility of them truly having been present in the tissues. I say this because what never gets reported in the fact that parabens were also detected in the “blank” controls – at similar concentrations to those found in the tissue. The presence of parabens in the supposedly blank controls strongly suggests they were present as contaminants in the blanks AND the tissues. In fact the highest blank results were higher than those in 12 of the 20 samples tested. Again, the relative proportions were also similar to those found in cosmetics. The significance of this is that it is extremely unlikely that the parabens could be absorbed through the skin, into the bloodstream and lodge in the breast tissue and still keep the same ratio of the different parabens. It is unlikely because there are enzymes in the skin and in the blood that break down esters (including parabens), and they do not have the same effect on all the different parabens. So, to spell it out, if the parabens had migrated through the body from the skin surface, they would not be present in the tissue in the same proportions as in the original cosmetic used. This particular study was extremely controversial and received much criticism because of many flaws in the methodology used, and in the interpretation of the results. For this reason, it is totally incorrect to state as a matter of fact that parabens are linked to cancer – they are not. Not even the authors of that study actually claimed any link!
The statement that parabens have been shown to be oestrogen mimickers is also incorrect, for the reasons I explained in an earlier post, as is the reference to gene expression. I suspect that the people at the Breast Cancer Fund simply looked on Skin Deep for their information, as they seem to have made exactly the same mistakes. This highlights again the dangers of reliance on Skin Deep – the misinformation just gets passed on to more people.
I am not expressing a point of view on much of this – these are serious factual errors in the interpretion and reporting of scientific studies. This is misinformation and should be addressed.
March 29th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Stacy stated “That’s why the only common sense approach is the precautionary principle: If there is scientific evidence showing that a chemical is problematic, choose a safer alternative.”
What I fail to understand is why you adopt the precautionary principle with ingredients (and product lines) which rate high on the Skin Deep database…but stop very short of applying the SAME principle when it comes to the ingredients with 90-100% data gaps.
Instead, you and others within the “Campaign for Safe Cosmetics” organization have publically applauded a product line(s) whose entire approach to formulation is to select ingredients which have yet to be evaluated by the Skin Deep researchers, and so have a “ZERO” by default, rather than “earn” the rating of ‘safe’.
Why don’t you assume those ingredients – those products – are dangerous until they are evaluated and “proven” safe according to the Skin Deep evaluation process?
March 29th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Yes I agree it’s good to debate these issues. My concern about parabens remains. When I suggested reading State of the Evidence (which is written and reviewed by independent scientists, not lobbyists, using peer-reviewed independent studies), I meant the whole report, not just the part about parabens. There is scientific consensus that the longer and more a woman is exposed to estrogen throughout her life, the higher her risk of breast cancer. I choose to avoid synthetic chemicals that may act like estrogen in the body, and parabens of all types are easy enough to avoid in personal care products.
As long as we have a government system that does not require any kind of safety assessments for chemicals or cosmetic products (and therefore ensures there is not enough information available to conduct credible risk assessments), we are forced to make choices without the full picture, that is true. In that scenario, it makes sense to avoid cosmetics that contain multiple hazardous chemicals.
Since this is a post about Cover Girl, I want to point out there are many toxicity concerns with that make-up. Many CG products contain quaternium 15 (a known allergen that also releases formaldehyde), multiple parabens, synthetic dyes and synthetic fragrance (made of who knows what). There are many companies making products without these problematic and hidden chemicals.
March 30th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Susan – good to see someone else enter this debate!
Stacy, again you give no response to my observations that several points regarding the reporting of various parabens are incorrect and , therefore, utterly misleading. You seem to have developed an irrational view on parabens. I say this because I have presented you with real evidence that they are not the concern that is claimed, and still you maintain your original view, apparantly without any dilution of conviction.
I chose to focus on parabens because they were the example you yourself introduced into the discussion. They are an excellent example of the misinformation that exists about the cosmetics industry, as they are probably one of the most well-publicised “chemicals of concern”.
The Precautionary Principle is ineffective as a sensible tool – it relies on the usefulness of the information under consideration – example, parabens! – and it is usually invoked in a highly selective manner. If all those who believe in this wonderful principle apply it consistantly, I could possibly give it a little credence, but they don’t.
I offer part of the section from Skin Deep on ethanol (ethyl alcohol):
“National Library of Medicine HazMap ETHYL ALCOHOL •Reproductive Toxin – A chemical that is toxic to the reproductive system, including defects in the progeny and injury to male and female reproductive function: Yes;
•Hepatotoxin: Hepatotoxin, Secondary;
•Neurotoxin: CNS Solvent Syndrome;
•PEL (OSHA) – Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 1000 ppm;
•RD50 – Concentration producing a 50% decrease in respiratory rate in experimental animals following a 10-minute exposure: 27314 ppm;
•LC50 – Lethal concentration in 50% of animals tested: 40727 ppm;
•IARC Carcinogen – International Agency for Research on Cancer; classifies chemicals as established (1), probable (2a), or possible (2b) human carcinogens: Known Carcinogen;
•TLV (ACGIH) – Threshold limit value (ACGIH): 1000 ppm;
•IDLH (NIOSH) – Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health: 3300 ppm;
•MAK – Maximum Allowable Concentration (Federal Republic of Germany): 500 ppm;
Mutalik S, Udupa N, 2003 ETHANOL Ethanol has been found to act as a penetration enhancer for many chemicals.
Frazier , L, 1998 ETHANOL •Reproductive toxicity hazards: suspected
Harvell, J, 1994 ETHANOL •Skin or sense organ toxicity hazards: suspected ”
This impressive list of hazards absolutely dwarfs those claimed for parabens, “immediately dangerous to LIFE or health (at only 0.033%), for example, so unless you can tell me that you don’t drink alcohol (and, similarly, smoke, or take aspirin, paracetamol, or pretty much any pharmaceutical drug) I submit that you use the PP highly selectively.
So why?
Why doesn’t Skin Deep assign a score of 10 to ethanol? The list of hazards is longer, and contains many of the same hazards as each of the parabens.
Why do you drink alcohol (I apologise if you don’t, but I suspect that the majority of those who use the PP do)?
Do you use the contraceptive pill? The doses of oestrogens to which you are exposed are millions of times more potent than butylparaben.
Methylparaben has specifically been found to have NO oestrogenic activity, and yet you maintain your stance against ALL parabens (and I am NOT suggesting that the others are, therefore, dangerous, but I use this as an example).
Butylparaben has been found to have extremely weak oestrogenic activity, but there is evidence that it does not mimic oestrogen – and no major breast cancer research organisation accepts any link to breast cancer, indeed, they make a point of stating this on their various web sites. And still you maintain your stance against all parabens.
Why?
March 30th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
For my book, I researched all the beauty products I was using as a teenager and learned that I had been exposed on a daily basis to at least 230 synthetic chemicals, most of which had never been assessed for safety, and some which had known toxicity (including 17 carcinogens, and 15 persistent bioaccumulative toxins) — all before breakfast. That included 26 different parabens. Show me the study that looks at the impacts on the body of a developing teenager to chronic, daily, low-level exposures to that typical combination of cosmetic chemicals.
Yes there are worse chemicals in cosmetics than parabens, I agree with that. Still, evidence that some parabens can bind to estrogen receptors and that they show up inside our bodies is enough for me to choose alternatives (despite your arguments). Most natural products companies in Europe got out of parabens a decade ago (because BDIH certification doesn’t allow them) and more American companies are doing the same (Whole Foods premium standard also doesn’t allow them). The companies I choose to support with my money are the ones formulating to those highest standards.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:50 am
Stacy,
Firstly, I will apologise for letting my frustration show through in my previous post, but you continue to fail to respond to specific points made by both me and Susan. You have not commented on the very real and demonstrable deficiencies and specified inaccuracies in Skin Deep. You fail to explain why (on the presumption that you DO drink alcohol), why you feel that it is ok to deliberately ingest quantities of a chemical that is KNOWN to be carcinogenic, hepatotoxic, and toxic for reproduction, whereas you avoid ALL parabens on the basis on some extremely weak oestrogenic activity exhibited by SOME of them. You fail to explain why the Precautionary Principle is such a good idea in only specific cases, but not, apparently, in others. (eg paracetamol, zero-rated ingredients with 100% data gaps on Skin Deep etc, as quoted earlier).
The use of numbers (“exposed to 230 synthetic chemicals”) is not an argument. The implication that the number of chemicals to which one is exposed has any bearing on safety is a redundant argument. Indeed, it could be argued that it may be more safe to be exposed to higher numbers of chemicals (natural OR synthetic) as, on the basis that the total exposure would be the same (you would still use the same number and quantity of products), the person would be exposed to lower concentrations of each individual chemical. This is an often-used argument, but there is no scientific basis for it whatsoever – it is a typical scare tactic used to cause unnecessary concern amongst scientifically naïve consumers. A large glass of wine (whatever time of day) contains far more carcinogenic material than all the cosmetic products used before breakfast, or even over the entire day. (The time of day of exposure is also irrelevant, and used only for dramatic effect – again, part of the scare tactics.)
If your number of chemicals included 26 parabens, then I would like to see your list (I must confess that I have not read your book). This is simply not possible, and further damages the credibility of your entire statement about the number of chemicals. There are not even 26 different parabens in existence, never mind that number being used in cosmetics. There are only SIX different parabens used as preservatives in cosmetics and, to save any chance of confusion, they are:
Methylparaben
Ethylparaben
Propylparaben
Isopropylparaben
Butylparaben
Isobutylparaben
Benzylparaben is not used in cosmetics (Dr. Darbre was completely wasting her time looking for it!). I don’t understand how you managed to find 26! It does beg the question of how many other chemicals did you count that don’t exist?
You make the observation that most natural cosmetics manufacturers got out of parabens a decade ago. I can’t dispute that, as I have no data, although I doubt that it was so long ago, but I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. This has no reflection on the safety of parabens whatsoever. All this means is that a standards body (with no legal or scientific standing) determined that parabens didn’t meet their natural or organic standards. These are not “high standards” with respect to safety, they are standards based on highly subjective views as to what constitutes organic, or natural. That is totally different.
Thank you for conceding that only “SOME parabens can bind to oestrogen receptors”.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:59 am
After I posted, I realised that I had not included the sodium parabens in my list:
sodium methylparaben
sodium ethylparaben
sodium propylparaben
so there are actually 9 parabens, although the sodium salts are, to all intents and purposes, the same as their equivalent paraben. The potassium salts are listed in some ingredients dictionaries, but are not actually used in cosmetics.
March 31st, 2010 at 4:41 am
[...] Malkan of Not Just A Pretty Face has a Dear Drew Barrymore letter about that COVERGIRL campaign. (You remember. This [...]
March 31st, 2010 at 9:42 am
I stated that incorrectly – what I meant is that I was exposed to 26 parabens of different types (which is kind of obvious. My sense about your arguments is that you are jumping on little points and not looking at the big picture).
Regarding alcohol, it’s an interesting comparison. The product is clearly labeled that it may cause harm and women are widely educated to avoid it while pregnant. There are no such warning labels on cosmetics that contain reproductive toxicants or carcinogens, and some of the most problematic chemicals are not even listed on labels (phthalates, formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane, for example) — so it is exposure without knowledge or consent.
I have commented on this blog previously that Skin Deep is not a perfect system and never can be — due to the huge gaps in safety data for cosmetic chemicals, the stunning lack of studies on highly exposed people such as salon workers, loopholes in labeling, the use of dozens of different chemical names in the US (unlike Europe and Canada which have standardized labeling), etc. — however it has strong quality control standards (which is not to say there aren’t some mistakes), is reviewed by MDs and chemists, and is a useful tool for researching products that is being widely used with 8 million searches per month. It is not worth debating with me about Skin Deep, as I have no control over it. If you have issues or corrections to suggest please email them to skindeep@ewg.org.
Thank you.
March 31st, 2010 at 9:59 am
I also urge everyone to read the article in today’s NY Times, “Weak Rules on Toxins and Safety” for more information about this topic. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/business/economy/31leonhardt.html
April 1st, 2010 at 12:06 am
Stacy,
The big picture about parabens is that there is not sufficient evidence to condemn any of them as being unsafe for use in cosmetics.
The big picture about Skin Deep is that it doesn’t give the consumer any clue as to the safety of any cosmetic product, despite its claims to the contrary.
I have to go into fine detail on the “little points” (many of them by no means so little), as you put it, in order to exemplify my argument that both of those statements are correct.
I have never accused you of claiming that Skin Deep is perfect, but you do claim that it has some use, which I dispute. Your statement that it is not worth debating with you about Skin Deep because you have no control over it is illogical. We have no control over our respective governments – does that mean we should not discuss what they are doing? Bringing this discussion into the public domain is, surely, the type of thing that blogs are partly designed to do? I am sorry if I have embarrassed you with questions and points that you are unable to answer, but you quote Skin Deep as a useful tool regarding safety, so I am challenging that view. If you make statements like this, you should be able to justify them.
Your response regarding alcohol doesn’t answer my points at all, I’m afraid. This is nothing to do with labels; my point is purely focussed on the assessment provided by Skin Deep. The relative toxicity of alcohol and methylparaben, by their assessment, and on the available data, is completely wrong. Methylparaben is not oestrogenic.
My point about 26 parabens has also, I think, not been properly answered. I do not understand the difference between “26 parabens” and “26 different types of parabens”. 26 is 26, and there are not that many parabens, as I explained, so there is an error in your method of counting the number of different chemicals. Any difference is certainly not obvious to me. You have not responded to my comments regarding the use of numbers as an argument for toxicity as, indeed, you have avoided many points that I have made. I would like to make it clear that I have addressed every single point that you have made.
There is a standardised system of labelling for cosmetic ingredients in the USA, it’s just that some US manufacturers ignore it (and NOT the much-derided multinationals, as they have the same labels for the EU as for the US in cases where the products are sold internationally).
Your link to the NY Times is interesting, but only highlights one single issue, and is not related to cosmetics.
This may well be my final post (sighs of relief all around!), as I have always been aware that I am never going to persuade you that parabens are not the demons they are made out to be – you have made your views too public to ever be able to retract them. Having said that, Paula Begoun (who, I am sure you are aware, is the author of Don’t Go To The Cosmetics Counter Without Me – a similar type of book to yours, I suspect) has said publicly that she thinks that perhaps the parabens are not as dangerous as previously thought – so it IS possible! But at least I hope that there are many silent observers of this blog that have taken a few of my points on board and will look a little more objectively at both the Skin Deep database, and the misinformation spouted about parabens.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in this debate with me – my comments to blogs are often not published because many people aren’t prepared to listen to anything that they don’t agree with. I respect you for that consideration.
April 1st, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Dene, I do not mind publishing your comments and I also appreciate the debate. I’m definitely not embarrassed either! We do disagree about Skin Deep. I believe it is a useful tool, but I will look into your claims about errors in the methylparabens entry.
The 26 parabens point is important, because it illustrates the way many teenagers (who love cosmetics, as I did) are typically exposed to them: several of the products I used every day contained 3 or more parabens each (the same parabens were used over and over), adding up to 26 exposures to different types of parabens.
It’s interesting that you see the NYT story as being about a single issue. I think the story covers several important issues that are relevant to this discussion:
1. The complexity of science for chemicals and health effects (for example, the zinc exposures were a problem not because zinc caused a direct health effect, but because zinc depleted copper which caused severe nerve damage — this bolsters my point that the simple risk assessments conducted today, in which single chemicals are tested for single diseases, are not sufficient for calculating true risk).
2. The observation that the US is not taking chemical risks seriously enough, and that regulators face a terribly high burden of proof that makes it nearly impossible to prove a substance is harmful (due to corporate secrecy and almost zero requirements for safety assessments). The toxicologist interviewed in the piece said he can get information for only about 20% of the chemicals we interact with on a daily basis.
3. This “trust the companies” system isn’t working. Here we have a story about reported deaths and disabilities from zinc-containing denture creams, yet GlaxoKlineSmith refuses to take the products off the market!
Perhaps I am too cynical about corporations and their science, but perhaps you are too trusting! (PS: Paula Begoun is not a credible independent source on this topic since she sells a product line that contains parabens). As a last point, I will say that I do agree with you that there is not enough evidence to condemn parabens as being unsafe across the board; however, I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that alternatives are preferable.
Thanks for the debate Dene. Maybe we will run into each other someday and go at it over (non-alcoholic) drinks!
April 7th, 2010 at 5:52 am
Thank you Dene & Stacy for the debate! It’s great to see people getting so engaged in such an important topic.
But Dene, I have to ask – why are you so determined to “defend” chemicals in cosmetics, when there are so many natural cosmetic alternatives? Why should we take the risk, if there’s the even the slightest chance these chemicals might be harmful (and I do believe they are)?
Just curious.
April 8th, 2010 at 2:01 am
[...] campaign, complete with $50,000 cash prize and a host of celebrities led by Drew Barrymore (see my Love Letter to Drew) who will “defend beauty’s honor” – apparently from environmentalists and feminists like [...]
April 8th, 2010 at 9:48 am
I really was going to stay quiet and give someone else a chance, but as a question has been directed at me, I have to respond!
Firstly, Stacy, please can you list the 26 parabens, then we can decide what the situation really is? And it may be semantics, but your example of zinc IS a direct health effect – it depletes copper; all effects from harmful substances follow some sort of pathway, but the effect described IS from a single substance – zinc!
I think that part of this discussion suffers from the fact that the EU seems to regulate cosmetic ingredients more strigently that the US, but I have observed that the EPA are serving an increased number of notices with regard to products deemed unsafe. But I tend to base my comments on the EU position, partly because many of the ingredients are common to both territories.
Jesse – why should I not defend the use of synthetic chemicals? You seem to be assuming that all natural chemicals are safe (please correct me if I am wrong), but this is by no means the case, although it is a very common assumption. Your use of the term “chemicals” implies that you think that “chemicals” are always synthetic. Everything in creation consists entirely of chemicals, be they natural or synthetic. There is no golden rule that states that natural is safe and synthetic is dangerous. The opposite can be true – it depends entirely upon the nature of each individual chemical, not its source. This is just a false perception promoted mostly by people selling “natural” products (which, quite often, are not so natural as they may claim), although the mainstream manufacturers do little to correct this perception.
Just a thought – if all cosmetics HAD to be manufactured from natural raw materials, where would all those crops be grown? The diversion of land previously used for food crops to produce biodiesil is already having an impact; switching totally from synthetics for cosmetics is neither practical or necessary.
April 8th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
It’s a good point about where natural materials would come from if all personal care products were made from them. That’s why we support green chemistry: scientists already know how to make synthetic chemicals that are benign to human health and the environment, based on the way chemicals are designed. Unfortunately, most of the 85,000 chemicals currently in commerce were created without this framework of ‘benign by design’. And disturbingly, even now, very little funding is flowing to green chemistry design; only a few colleges in the United States even teach it, and you can get a PhD in chemistry without ever studying toxicology or green design. Reminds me of that phrase “clinging hopelessly to the 20th century.”
Dene, you have already listed all the parabens I found in my products. I found the same parabens over and over and over in my products (26 times). If this is still unclear, please go to a store and choose 20 typical mainstream products that a teenager would use in a single day, and add up the parabens.
April 13th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Dene, Please take me up on my suggestion to see for yourself by counting the chemicals in a typical suite of products. Yes there were 26 parabens and 230 chemicals in my products (and that’s just what was listed on labels; many more chemicals are not disclosed on labels due to loopholes in labeling law).
April 28th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
EVERYTHING GIVES CANCER NOW THE AIR WE BREATHER THE SUN GIVE IT A REST WE CAN COMPLETELY REWIND THE ENTIRE ENVIRONMENT OF THE EARTH NOW ITS TOO LATE
April 28th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Breathe*
June 5th, 2010 at 4:40 am
Ha! I can see it! But okay – pretend it was on someone other than Drew… with a glamorous wouldn’t this look fab? Maybe it’s just me!
July 15th, 2010 at 5:59 am
I have been reading all this information about parabens..safe or not safe. I can comment truthfully they are not safe. I just completed chemotherapy and radiation for breast cancer. The biopsy on my tumour showed parabens. My tumour was 1.2 cm and 95% of the tumour was made up of parabens. I am 51 years old and my whole teenage and adult life I was using products with parabens. This is what caused my cancer. My advise…toss every single product that has parabens in them..and start over. I finally found a cosmetic and skin care line that is 100% paraben free. You can bet my 15 and 22 year old daughters are using paraben-free products.
July 19th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Dene, when I cross the road, I look in both directions. If I were to look only one way, or the other, good chance I would get struck by upcoming traffic. So thanks to both of you for having this discussion. I’m crossing the road now, and I see brand new cosmetic lines on the other side of the street, which have taken green ethics and chemistry into consideration, and are much more appealing to my sensibilities than last year’s fashion.
July 19th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Does anyone know if Drew Barrymore and Alicia Silverstone have collaborated on anything? That would make for an interesting conversation between the two regarding this issue.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:41 am
I don’t know if this comment will be allowed to remain on here, as some others of mine have been deleted, but this is so important that I hope it will be allowed to stand.
@ Penny, I am genuinely sorry to hear that you have experienced breast cancer, and I hope that you are fully recovered now, and will remain free of this for the rest of your life. I would never wish this awful disease on anyone, but that does not mean that I have to believe that your tumour was 95% parabens. I think that you may have misunderstood whatever information you were given about your biopsy. It is simply not possible that parabens could have accumulated in your breast to form a 1.2cm lump. (Additionally, I fail to understand why an analysis for parabens would be performed as part of the biopsy.) If what you say really is true, then this is so important that it should be published in a scientific journal and given maximum publicity. If you can give me proof, then I would be happy to contribute to that publicity.
@ Remy C – yes, you look both ways before you cross the road -you assess the risk properly, which was my entire point! But fashion should not enter into this discussion – it is safety that is paramount! You have the right to choose whatever type of cosmetics you desire, and I would never deny anyone that right, but please choose them for the right reasons, and not because of the disinformation about certain ingredients (not only parabens).
July 30th, 2011 at 2:08 am
Do you write your own article or not, if yes you do know what you’re doing, keep on the great job, oh and you might write some PDFs.