Once more for the record: Lead in lipstick is still a problem
How nice to know that John Hurson, lobbyist for the Personal Care Products Council, was thinking about me the other night from somewhere in the DC area (a bar perhaps?). At 7:15 p.m. on Jan. 31, he tweeted, “@safecosmetics Does Stacy Malkan know that FDA says your attack on lead in lipstick is crap?”
No I hadn’t heard that one. Here’s what I do know: lipsticks still contain unacceptable levels of lead and cosmetics companies need to get it out of there. Lead builds up in the body over time and it is extremely toxic to the developing brain. Here are some important quotes on the topic.
“No safe blood lead level has been identified,” states the U.S. Center’s for Disease Control.
“Even the current ‘low’ levels of exposure in children are associated with neurodevelopmental deficits,” writes David Bellinger, PhD, of Harvard Medical School.
“Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, because lead easily crosses the placenta and enters the fetal brain where it can interfere with normal development,” said Sean Palfrey, M.D., a professor of pediatrics at Boston University and medical director of Boston’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.
You have to remember, guys at the Personal Care Products Council: children begin their lives in the bodies of women, millions of whom are using lead-containing lipstick every day.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics first reported the problem of lead in lipstick in 2007. FDA followed up with its own study; with a more sensitive detection method, the agency found even higher levels of lead in lipstick. Yes the levels are overall low, but, see above, there is no safe level of lead exposure.
Most disturbingly, both studies revealed that certain brands of lipstick had much higher lead levels than others (hello L’Oreal and Maybelline) — so clearly there is plenty of room for improvement.
As for FDA, the agency has conducted no safety assessments and has no evidence to back up claims of safety, as we pointed out in a letter to FDA dated January 2010 (still waiting for a response on that one). Meanwhile, environmental groups and several U.S. Senators are insisting that FDA set safety standards for lead in cosmetics based on the lowest lead levels that companies can feasibly achieve – as FDA did with candy.
Does that clear it up?
February 4th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Thank you, Stacy, for being persistent in getting the facts out about FDA, lead, and lipstick!
That lobbyist with the PCPC must have had one too many Cosmopolitans in his K Street hangout…..
first af all, since he doesn’t have science and health facts on his side, he must resort to bullying.
Or was he gloating over industry influence over FDA?
Either way, this guy must have trouble sleeping at night or will if he ever musters any integrity. Does he think we like going around telling people things that make them feel uncomfortable? We’re certainly not getting rich from it….could it be we want a safer world?
Perhaps the US doesn’t have to fall as Rome did, some say, due to lead contamination dumbing down the population. This guy just may have had a bit too much lead exposure himself, poor thing!
Why do corporations spend money on guys like him, when they could put that money toward making safer products? Then we could all go and do something else with our time!
February 4th, 2011 at 9:57 am
@ safecosmetics Does the Personal Care Producs Council realize that Stacy Malkin is more than a vocal author, but a voice of thousands of everday people? Of a movement quickly approaching a tipping point makeover? Powered by the PCPC very own ex-consumers? What would make one mudsling tweet talk? Stress and job insecurity?
February 4th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Very clear! Thank you for continuing to report the truth. The PCPC continues to spread misinformation to the public, if one looks deeply enough they will find that the PCPC is not unbiased in the least. Keep up the great work Stacy!
February 9th, 2011 at 12:11 am
Well said Stacy. I can’t believe there hasn’t been any action on this in the 3 years since CSC broke the story, or in the year since the FDA confirmed your findings…and in fact found even higher levels than CSC did. It’s disgraceful.
February 9th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
I find it amusing how some try to misinform others through grandiose statements and accusations without supporting them with any facts. Way to bust through the B.S., Stacy!