A few of you have asked me what I think of Lee Doren’s attack video on the Story of Cosmetics. I questioned the guy’s credibility in an email, which then became the subject of its very own attack video (aren’t we having fun!).

In this email, I pointed out that the principle source for Doren’s critique was “a newsletter editor who works for George Mason University, which does not have a reputation for unbiased independent work, and also happens to be heavily funded by oil interests.” I was talking about Trevor Butterworth of GMU’s STATS.org, which is notorious for its assaults on climate change and environmental health science.

Here’s back-up for my description of GMU: an explosive story in the Aug. 30 New Yorker by Jane Mayer about “the billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.” Everyone who cares about America should read this article.

Also see Frank Rich’s NYT piece, “The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party.”

Mayer’s 10,000-word exposé reveals how David and Charles Koch – who own a conglomerate of oil, chemical and consumer product companies and who have a combined worth of $35 billion – have funneled staggering amounts of money to “grassroots” groups, think tanks, climate science deniers and other efforts to demonize government and derail environmental regulations. (Read more about the environmental record of Koch Industries.)

According to Mayer, Koch family foundations have donated more than $30 million to George Mason University and its Mercatus Center, a non-profit organization described by Wall Street Journal as “the most important think tank you’ve never heard of” and by Democratic strategist Rob Stein as “ground zero for deregulation policy in Washington.”

The head of lobbying for Koch Industries in DC, Richard Fink, is also the founder of the Mercatus Center, which happens to promote the interests of Koch Industries (such as the time they argued against EPA efforts to reduce smog from oil refineries on the grounds that smog might protect people from skin cancer).

Koch Industries has also lobbied to prevent EPA from classifying formaldehyde as a “known carcinogen” in humans; meanwhile, David Koch sits on the advisory board for the National Cancer Institute, which published a major study last year that found significantly higher rates of leukemia in people exposed to higher amounts of formaldehyde (the same formaldehyde found in low levels in leading baby shampoos).

I recommend some deep breathing exercises or having a shot of whiskey handy as you read the Mayer piece.

Speaking of oil tycoon weirdness, John Stewart takes on Fox News for hyping the sinister terrorist funding behind the Ground Zero mosque – but neglecting to mention that the head of this sinister funding group is the same Saudi prince who is part owner of Fox News. What’s a little conflict of interest among friends! Check out Stewart’s hilarious follow-the-money clip featuring Team Stupid vs. Team Evil.

And speaking of following the money, I’ve been wondering where the funding is coming from for Personal Care Truth, a website devoted to opposing the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. Headlined by two small business owners, the website’s narrative closely tracks talking points used by the likes of STATS.org and the trade associations that represent big chemical and cosmetic corporations. People close to the group have asked about funding and been told it’s “donated web work.”

Hmmm.

Next up: I will be reporting from the road on my South African adventure! Also check out: Round II of my debate with John Bailey of the Personal Care Products Council about the Safe Cosmetics Act on LA’s KPCC.

UPDATE: I’ve heard from Kristen Cotte and Lisa Rogers that they are personally funding Personal Care Truth from their own pockets. I’m glad to hear that’s the case. I do remain concerned about the ideological similarities that seem to tie back to this massively funded effort to seed doubt about environmental health science. Here are a couple good books on the topic of how science has been manipulated to support corporate interests: “Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution” by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner — a “historical account of corporate control of the lead, plastics, and petroleum industries and the campaign of denial regarding the toxic effects on workers, consumers, and the general public of chemicals used in the manufacture of paint, toys, furniture, plastics, and other products.” Also: “Doubt is their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health,” by David Michaels.

Thanks to Ben Harper for the inspiration in your rocking song Better Way. Check it out, especially if you’re feeling the world getting a bit wacky. These are interesting times we live in! But a better way is worth working for, and that’s the heart of what we were saying in the Huffington Post piece by me and Annie Leonard, “Why we made the Story of Cosmetics.”

Thanks to all of you who posted comments and are engaging in the discussion about creating a healthier beauty industry. Whatever your views, there’s one thing we can all agree on: There are huge shifts taking place right now that haven’t been seen in a very long time.

My new friend Sarah Finney Robinson put it this way: “I’m a scholarly, long-view type of person, and I personally see the shift to a green economy — including safe cosmetics, green lifestyle, green business, products and services, legislative overhauls, design, education — i.e. everything — as a huge civilization shift, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Industrial revolution.”

What an exciting time to be alive! There are so many opportunities and positive signs that things are moving in a generally good direction. Just a few of my favorites from the past week:

Small businesses that are making the world a better place: A shout out to the 50-plus companies that joined today’s call with Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to discuss the Safe Cosmetics Act. This stakeholder process is an important part of ensuring that legislative reform is both meaningful and workable.

Thanks to Shannon at Grateful Body for lunch, your wisdom and for making awesome chemical-free products with so much love.

Love this website: Practically Green, a five-minute quiz to show how well you’re walking the green talk. I aspired to “wicked green” but came in at “adventurously green” so I’ve got some work to do! (And love the Crazy Make-up blog!)

Lisa Morahan

Passion into Action: I was glad to hear about Elise Parker’s work to elevate women’s voices in See Jane Do (hear her interview with me on KVMR airing in Sacramento and online Weds. Aug. 25, 1-2 p.m. PT), and to connect with Lisa Morahan who founded an organization to help fellow cancer survivors.

Here’s some of Lisa’s story, and stay tuned to the website www.safecosmetics.org for a new page with more of Lisa’s story and others with inspiring tales to tell.

“At my last oncologist follow-up appointment, I asked her thoughts on the various causes of cancer and what we as consumers could possibly do to reduce our risk. She said she wished people would just stop smoking. While she agreed organics were probably a good idea, she really didn’t have the answers and recommendations I was looking for. She suggested that after I did my research, I should let her know what I found. That made me a little mad and scared, yet it was a sobering reality. The doctors don’t know; it is up to us. I decided the best way I could get information would be to host a Healthy Living Expo — to gather experts from various disciplines to share their knowledge to help us all live strong, healthy, happy lives. Join us Nov. 14, 2010 at Saratoga Healthy Living Expo!”

Keep the positive energy flowing everyone. Keep sending me your stories, and keep believing in a better way!

Isn’t it fun to live in a democracy? Where we get to mud wrestle over issues like how to protect public health from harmful chemicals while also ensuring that businesses can continue to operate.  Call me an idealist, but I believe it’s possible to have both!

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is committed to that goal, and is engaged in a stakeholder process with the many signers of the Compact for Safe Cosmetics to discuss the challenges and opportunities ahead in the effort to reform 70-year-old cosmetic regulations. There are certainly issues to work through as the legislative process goes forward.

There’s also a lot of misinformation being circulated by opponents of reform. No, the Safe Cosmetics Act would not ban coffee, it would not require testing of every product, it would not require labels to contain information about water contaminants in water.

For example, somebody posted on another website that the water in her product contains the following which would have to be listed under the bill:

Aqua (lead, acrylamine, alachlor, alpha/photon emitters, antimony, asbestos, arsenic, atrazine, barium, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, beta photon emitters, beryllium, bromated, cadmium, carbofuran, carbon tetrachloride, chloramines, chlordane, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, chlorite, chlorobenzene, chromium, copper, cyanide, 2,4-D, dalapon, o-Dichlorobenzene, p-Dichlorobenzene, 1,1-Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene, Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, dinoseb, diquat, endothall, endrin, ethylbenzene, fluoride, glyphosate, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, mercury, radium, uranium, vinyl chloride, xylenes)

First of all, if all these chemicals are in her water, she needs to get a good FILTER! This also says something about how polluted our water has become — and why it’s important to stop contributing “trace” levels of toxic chemicals to the environment from billions of products sold daily around the world.

But as for the legislation, no it wouldn’t require those chemicals to be put on labels. The FDA considers water to be water. The disclosure requirement in the bill is meant to address the common contaminants in products that everyone in the industry already knows are a problem: formaldehyde, 1,4 dioxane, etc.

Let’s jump right to the best part. Of all the strange things I heard yesterday from the cosmetics industry, this  quote from doctor-for-hire Richard Adamson was most bizarre. “We humans are all chemicals put together and formatted in a very sophisticated manner by our maker and by evolution.”

Yes he really said that, at a press conference. What does he mean? Maybe he’s trying to say that only God can give you cancer? He certainly doesn’t think cosmetics will, according to his testimony at yesterday’s hastily organized press event put on by the Personal Care Products Council (to which they neglected to invite certain top reporters who are following the story — guys, come on.)

The event was billed as “setting the record straight” about the Story of Cosmetics and the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. (Click here for MP3 audio of the press conference put on earlier in the day by bill sponsors Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Rep. Edward Markey, actress Fran Drescher, EWG and Breast Cancer Fund.)

Key points made at the industry conference: They are really eager to get to work with Reps. Markey and Schakowsky and already have a meeting scheduled on the Hill. (John Bailey and lobbyist John Hurson had to leave midway through the event for a meeting with bill sponsors, but weirdly, when a reporter asked them specifically who they were meeting with, they wouldn’t say and told the reporter to “look at the bill.”)

Bottom line, they don’t like this bill: it will dump an unnecessary amount of data on FDA, they couldn’t deal with it, they’d have to build a new building to put all the researchers. Safety standard would ban a glass of water. Ridiculous to require everyone in supply chain to register with FDA. Would make it virtually impossible to put products on market. Removing trade secrets is huge problem. Bill is not scientifically responsible.

They don’t like the movie either. “They’re really mad about the movie,” says my source. According to a statement read by press person Kathleen Dezio (former beverage industry apologist for benzene in soda), the film is a “harsh unscientific shockumantary that bears no resemblance to the real story of cosmetics. It is repugnant and incredibly offensive to suggest that cosmetic companies would manufacture, and FDA would allow them to market, products that are dangerous or contain toxins that cause cancer or any other disease.”

They took special exception to the “cheap attack” in the video about the industry’s philanthropy efforts to raise money for cancer. “In fact, through its Look Good. Feel Better program, the industry has helped 700,000 women in the U.S. overcome the appearance-related side effects of cancer treatment,” Dezio said.

“The ‘real’ story of cosmetics is that of an industry with a proven, lengthy track record of responsibility and safety and a strong commitment to making the lives of consumers better.”

So there.

NEW: Great NYT blog by David Herzenhorn The Nanny and the Senators

Today I finally got to debate with John Bailey, former head of FDA office of cosmetics and current cosmetics industry spokesman, in a fantastic hour on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman. Actress Fran Drescher and EWG’s Jane Houlihan joined the fun to help promote Annie Leonard’s rocking new film the Story of Cosmetics.

And right now, I am listening to Rep. Jan Schakowsky tell reporters about the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 – a landmark bill that is the first major effort in over 70 years to overhaul cosmetics regulations.

What a day! This is the culmination of nearly a decade of work by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the growing concerns in the mainstream scientific community about the cancer risk of the thousands of unregulated chemicals, such as those we put on our bodies every day.

So what is the beauty industry’s response to the growing concerns? It’s worth remembering they have been gearing up for years — hiring lobbyists and launching PR campaigns – for this legislative fight. Also see chapters 8 and 9 of my book for more lobbying tricks from the chemical/cosmetics industries and details about my undercover trip to an industry conference in 2006 when John Bailey and the companies joked about how “user friendly” he was to industry during his 30-year tenure at FDA — and their plans to ward off regulations.

Here’s a look back at some of the greatest hits of lame industry arguments about why it’s OK to keep making toxic products.

1. Toxic chemicals are just like salt.

According to John Bailey, hazardous chemicals can be compared to salt in cooking – small amounts are fine. “A little salt on your peas or tomatoes can be good. But a lot of salt can have adverse health effects on your blood pressure, and too much can be fatal,” Bailey explained to the New York Times.

Bailey made the comment after reports first broke that popular children’s bath products were contaminated with 1,4 dioxane, a petrochemical listed as “known to cause cancer” by the state of California.

Cancer-causing chemicals on the baby’s head are like salt on your peas? Um, no. Industrial chemicals derived from oil byproducts, mixed together with other toxic substances (like say, the formaldehyde that is also found in many kids’ bath products) are nothing at all like salt. There’s nothing here that’s “good for you.” There’s no reason on Earth for baby shampoos to contain carcinogens.

2. Toxic chemicals in cosmetics are like caged tigers.

This pearl of wisdom comes from Proctor & Gamble toxicologist Tim Long, as quoted in Mark Schapiro’s excellent book, “Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for American Power.“

“Imagine you encounter a tiger in the wild, and then encounter another tiger behind its protective enclosure in a zoo,” Long said. The wild tiger is inherently dangerous, but a tiger behind bars is not dangerous at all. “It’s the same thing in products. There may be inherent toxicity to a particular chemical, but if you use it under certain conditions the exposure is minimal and they present no risk.”

This unsettling parable takes us to the heart of the industry’s reasoning: the little bit of toxic chemicals in this product is OK as long as the product is used as directed, and if we pretend that people aren’t being exposed to that same nasty chemical from a dozen other products, and if that exposed person happens to be just like the 200 pound male who is the model for most chemical risk assessments, if that chemical has even been studied at all.

Thanks, but I’d rather not have flesh-eating tigers in cages all over my bathroom sink.

3. Parabens aren’t as potent as birth control pills.

“The potency of parabens in products such as deodorants is a million times lower than in the birth control pill and that is considered safe,” Dr. Christopher Flower of the industry trade association told the Daily Mail.

Comparing a widely used cosmetic ingredient to a sterilizing pharmaceutical drug doesn’t seem like the smartest angle. But then, it is true that parabens – the most commonly used preservative in beauty products – can mimic estrogen in the body, and therefore have the potential to interfere with normal bodily functions such as, say, breast development or reproductive capacity.

The amount of parabens in any one product may be low – or maybe not; there’s no way to know since companies don’t have to disclose ingredient concentrations. And unfortunately, since most products on the market contain parabens, most consumers are being dosed with these hormone-disrupting chemicals dozens of times a day, every day, from babyhood throughout their lives.

4. Lead is only a problem for kids.

When reports broke that popular lipsticks are contaminated with lead, a few industry types made the point that lead (a known neurotoxin) is a health concern mostly only for kids, and kids don’t wear lipstick. Yes they do (see this cute little girl in our ad). But more importantly, I’d like to ask these guys: Where do you think kids come from?

They come from the bodies of women, millions of whom wear lipstick every day. If we want to protect children from toxic substances, we need to protect women — all women who are, may be or may one day want to become pregnant.  Lead builds up in the body and stays in the body for a long time, so lead smeared on the lips several times a day (as the package instructs) is not a good thing.

You’d think companies that claim to have the power to erase years from our lives could figure out how to make lipstick without lead.

5. The FDA is protecting consumers, so there’s no need to worry.

“Certainly within the cosmetics law, there are sufficient checks and balances that will ensure that products and their ingredients are safe,” John Bailey from the trade association told National Public Radio.

Sufficient checks and balances? Where? FDA has no authority to require companies to safety test their ingredients and no power to require recalls of unsafe products, according to the agency’s own website. Cosmetics are the least regulated products at FDA. Instead of government oversight, cosmetics companies get to make the rules themselves.

Do we really want these guys deciding which chemicals are safe to put on their bodies? That’s the system we currently have — the industry gets to decide for itself what’s safe. We have the opportunity to change that right now. Please call your Congressional representative today and urge them to co-sponsor and support the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. As Rep. Ed Markey said, there is a real chance to pass this legislation due to the massive broad-based from all corners. Please join us! www.safecosmetics.org

Monday, July 19, 2010 — People have been asking me how the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics was so fortunate to hook up with Annie Leonard to create the upcoming film, “The Story of Cosmetics.” It was luck mixed with a bit of divine intervention.  I’m lucky enough to live in Berkeley in the first place  (where Annie herself convinced me to move years ago) and was at a party where I heard about early plans to create a series of short films based on “The Story of Stuff” — Annie’s viral video that has been viewed more than 12 million times and inspired front-page stories in New York Times, LA Times, and coverage on Colbert and Good Morning America.

The SOS team was looking to work with established campaigns to delve further into key issues raised in the original film, and they thought the cosmetics story would be an ideal way to illustrate the problem of  “toxics in, toxics out” — i.e., when you put toxic chemicals into products like, say,  baby shampoo, you end up with toxic baby shampoo … and toxic babies (“duh,” as Annie says in the film).

From there, the fundraising prowess of SOS executive director Michael O’Heaney and CSC coordinator Lisa Archer got the project off the ground, and the creative genius of Annie, Jonah Sachs and Louis Fox (masterminds of the viral hits the Meatrix and Store Wars) gave it flight. Watching these three work together on filming of Story of Cosmetics was truly a highlight of my career. A huge thanks also to Erica Priggen, Allison Cook, Heidi Quante and the rest of the staff at Free Range Studios and Story of Stuff, and to the whole team at Campaign for Safe Cosmetics: Lisa, Mia, Jane, Janet, Stephenie, Shannon, Marisa, Cindy, Alex, Leeann, Bill, Nancy, Ian, Jamie, Genevieve and to ALL of you who work with us. What a priviledge to work with such a talented and dedicated group of people!

We are all proud to present to you the Story of Cosmetics (coming July 21) and ask you to blog, Facebook, tweet it out to everyone you know. And please join us in giving the beauty industry a makeover!

NEW: See Parents magazine August issue for major story about cosmetics, chemicals and your health.

Stacy Malkan is co-founder of the national Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author of the award-winning book, “Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry.” She is a leading expert on toxic chemicals in beauty products, chemical regulatory policies, and how to find safe green alternatives. Stacy is frequently interviewed by major media including New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle and USA Today. Television appearances include Good Morning America, ABC 7 Chicago and ABC’s View from the Bay. Stacy is a former journalist and newspaper publisher. She currently lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Limited speaking engagements available Fall 2010 and Spring 2011. To book speaking gigs with Stacy contact: Jodi Solomon’s Speaker’s Bureau.

For press interviews: contact Stacy here.

Reviewer comments

“The uplifting story of activism by women and teens who have been fighting for safe cosmetics against a billion-dollar industry.” — Wall Street Journal

“An encouraging and empowering story!” — LA Times blog

“Read this book! It is educational, unsettling, and inspiring. Personally, I have made several changes in the products I use and the quantity.” Kaffeine Buzz

“Check out this book!” EcoSmart Consumer

“A must read for anyone who uses any type of cosmetic/beauty/personal care product.” Threadbanger

“This is an outside-the-box book that reads like a captivating novel and lands much to close for comfort… It is a must-read.” Alive Magazine, April 2008.

“Great Reads of Winter 2008!” MS magazine

Articles by Stacy Malkan

Petroleum in Perfume, Huffington Post

Pretty In Pink? Companies market make-up to girls as young as 3, and the health implications are huge, Natural Solutions magazine

Roses are Red, Lipstick (Still) has Lead, Alternet

Panic in the Organic Aisle, Conscious Choice magazine

Toxins to be Pulled from Cosmetics, Yes Magazine

A quarter million views and counting! Don’t miss “THE STORY OF COSMETICS” – a groundbreaking 7-minute film by Annie Leonard: send it to your friends, post to Facebook, tweet…

Annie Leonard is the creator of the viral hit “The Story of Stuff“ that has been viewed more than 12 million times and inspired front page stories in New York Times, LA Times plus Colbert Report and Good Morning America.

Click here to view the Story of Cosmetics!
The Facts behind the Story: Fully annotated script
Myths Vs. Facts
Frequently Asked Questions
Show your friends, host a viewing party! Here is our Viewing Party Kit

Download cool Story of Cosmetics images here.

The Story of Cosmetics is a collaboration of Story of Stuff, Free Range Studios and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of non-profit health and environmental groups including Breast Cancer Fund, Environmental Working Group, Clean Water Action, Women’s Voices for the Earth, Friends of the Earth, the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition and others.

Read all about the Making of the Story of Cosmetics, and also see the Big News about the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010!

May 17, 2010 – Something doesn’t smell right, and not just in the Gulf. The destruction of life caused by the oil spill has everyone’s attention; what many people don’t realize is that the toxic effects of oil addiction are hitting much closer to home …

You may notice it in the funny, unpleasant feeling you get when standing in an enclosed space with somebody who is wearing too much perfume. If so, you’re not alone…

Read more on my Huffington Post blog. Comment on the blog at Huff Post, or any of the postings here, and be entered to win a free copy of my book “Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry”

May 12, 2010 – The things I do for the cause. Today, during a TV interview about the new “Not So Sexy” fragrance report, the reporter asked me to spray some perfume in the air for the cameras. Anything for the b-roll!

Going for maximum visuals, I reached for the super propellant body spray. Old Spice was jammed by a safety lock, so, next thing I know, I’m shaking up the swarthy black-and-blue can of Axe deodorant and blasting a jet stream of chemicals into my living room.

Big mistake! The air was suddenly noxious, my eyes watered. “I can’t even smell it,” the reporter said. “Just wait,” I replied. “The cloud is coming your way.” A moment later she was making an uncomfortable face.

Now, three hours later, the potent scent still lingers on my clothes and skin (and I didn’t even spray the stuff on my body!) — and I’m wondering if there’s any connection to the scratchy throat thing I have going on.

OK, yes, I have a bias: I’m sensitive to fragrances. And I’m not alone: a significant percentage of the population reports adverse reactions to fragrance exposure.  

While it’s nice to have one, I don’t need a peer-reviewed study to tell me that. Most people I’ve talked to about the new fragrance report – from scientists to reporters – have mentioned they get weird reactions to fragrance, too.

If I were a cosmetic industry exec today, I’d be thinking about how to fix that problem. I’d be gathering together my best heads to say, hey, let’s figure out how to make perfumes that don’t contain 10 allergens, a bunch of estrogen mimics, and a whole lot of petrochemicals that haven’t been assessed for safety (these are the average findings for the tested fragrances; Axe actually fared somewhat better – see results).

Yes I’d do that instead of sending out weird press releases with air quotes, or telling reporters that consumers wouldn’t be able to understand labels that included fragrance chemicals.

It’s tempting to air vent some Axe into their next crisis management PR meeting, and see how that goes over. Coughing fit anyone? Or maybe just some hot girls falling at their feet.