The FDA is saying they will “look into” the report by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics that 61% of lipsticks tested contain lead. Here’s what FDA should do: test a wide range of lipsticks for lead and publicly report the results, so we can know how far the beauty industry’s lead problem goes. The CSC tests tell us two things: many lipsticks contain lead, and many do not. It’s obviously possible to make lead-free red lipstick. So why aren’t all companies doing so?

As top lead-offender L’Oreal keeps telling the press, their products are in “full compliance with FDA regulations.” Yet there are no FDA regulations limiting lead in lipstick. Now, US Senators are pressuring FDA to take action. Former presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, along with California Sens. Feinstein and Boxer, are calling on FDA to test lipsticks for lead and tell the public what they find. Stay tuned…

The “Not Just a Pretty Face” national road show and book tour is off to a rocking start! The first two rallies in Boston and Portland, Ore., drew more than 100 people each. In Philadelphia, 160 nursing students and faculty came to hear about the book, and we raised money for the 10 year anniversary of the Women’s Health and Environmental Network. Next up: Connecticut Nurses Association in Hartford.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is all over the news since the release of product tests that found lead in 61% of lipstick tested. Campaign spokesperson Stacy Malkan, author of “Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry,” appeared in media interviews across the US and Canada to call attention to the lack of regulatory oversight for personal care products. Here is a sample of coverage:Good Morning America, Reuters, Houston Chronicle, Boston Globe, ABC News Boston, NBC Boston, Lynn Item, Hartford Courant and South Florida Sun Sentinel.

Check out upcoming tour stops in Philadelphia, New York, Albany, Missoula, Minneapolis, San Francisco and Washington State.

Just when you think you’ve heard it all… along comes L’Oreal. New product tests by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found lead in lipstick — and six of the top 11 most lead- contaminated brands were made by the French company L’Oreal. The titan of the beauty industry responded not by apologizing, not by promising to get the lead out, but by using the same old tired excuses: other products contain more lead than our products; we can’t live in a lead-free world; and we’re in “full compliance with FDA regulations” — which isn’t hard to do because THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS. How dumb does L’Oreal think we are? When Mattel was caught with lead in its toys, the company didn’t argue that there’s more lead in water. They copped responsibility. But not L’Oreal … I guess we’re just not worth it. Take action to clean up L’Oreal!

The story was a hoax, according to Snopes, Urban Legends and the cosmetics industry. The email claimed that popular brands of lipstick contain enough lead to cause cancer, and said consumers could test for lead by scratching lipstick with a 24K gold ring. It was widely dismissed as bogus netlore. But a closer look at the story reveals some selective hoax slaying. Importantly, it’s not cancer that scientists are most worried about with lead exposure, but rather brain damage and learning disabilities. Yet the lead story was widely dismissed because “there’s not enough lead in lipstick to cause cancer.” The stuff about the gold ring definitely is bogus. But the most important part of the story – the part most relevant to consumers – is actually true: popular brands of lipstick do contain dangerous amounts of lead. Lipstick wearers and Snopes believers, beware.

Read the real story in this Oct. 2007 report by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics: “A Poison Kiss: The Problem of Lead in Lipstick.”

Baby toys from China aren’t the only products on the shelves with hidden dangers. Shampoos, lotions and deodorants manufactured right here in the USA contain chemicals that are suspected of contributing to cancer or reproductive harm. What is the beauty industry’s response to the growing concerns? Hire lobbyists and launch a PR campaign to convince you their products are safe.

But a closer look at common industry talking points reveals some not-so-artful airbrushing over the toxic truth. Here are the industry’s top five pretzel-logic reasons for using hazardous chemicals:

1. Toxic chemicals are just like salt.

According to John Bailey, chief spokesman for the US cosmetics industry, 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.

A week before the Times story appeared, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported finding 1,4 dioxane — a probable human carcinogen — in popular brands of baby shampoo and bubble bath.

Carcinogens on the baby’s head are like salt on your peas? Mixtures of industrial chemicals with various toxic properties in unknown quantities (and often not listed on labels) are not much at all like salt.

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 new 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: a little bit of toxic chemicals in this product and that product (and the dozen other products we use in the same day) will sit innocently in cages without escaping and putting us in mortal danger. 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 – are estrogenic and can disrupt hormones, and therefore have the potential to interfere with normal bodily functions such as, say, breast development or reproduction.

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, most brands contain parabens, so consumers are dosed with estrogenic parabens multiple times a day, every day.

4. We can’t live in a lead free world.

In its statement called “Rumor: Lead and Cosmetics,” the cosmetics industry explains that, “It is impossible to live in a lead free world … Compared to the amount of lead a person would ingest from eating and drinking ordinary foods, the amount expected from the use of cosmetics would be extremely small.”

Why should we expect any amount of lead to be in cosmetics? It may be impossible to live in a lead free world, but is it really impossible to keep the lead out of lipstick? You’d think companies that claim to have the power to erase years from our lives could figure out how to make products without chemicals linked to brain damage.

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 in the US get to decide for themselves what’s safe (see The High Price of Beauty by Virginia Sole-Smith.)

Cosmetics are safe? Just trust us, say the pretzel-logic weilding tiger tamers.