Nexus - 1401 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

A powerful lobby However, you may choose to believe the words of the cosmetics industry that has billions of dollars in profits at stake. A huge conglomerate, the industry willy-nilly manages to get its way in countries where ignorance flourishes. In the European Union, toxic cosmetic ingredients were banned thanks to a new bill enacted in 2003 and implemented in September 2004. However, in the USA, the US$35 billion cosmetics industry is amply applying its resources—which it must be said it does not lack—to fight a similar ban tooth and nail. California Assemblymember Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) worked to introduce a bill that would ban the same two types of phthalates as were banned by the EU, and subsequently possibly other chemicals blacklisted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Phthalates are chemicals used in some nail polishes and hair care products and have been proved to cause birth defects and reproductive problems in animals. Judy Chu's Phthalates Ban Bill (AB 908) would have been the first-ever phthalates ban in the United States, but in January 2006 the bill was declared to have "died".* Aside from banning two phthalates, Chu would also have cosmetics manufacturers adhere to a new rule requiring all products to include a list of their ingredients, especially hazardous chemicals. As things currently stand, product labelling is both inadequate and often confusing, such that a layperson is never quite certain what to make of the ingredients listed. In 2004, Chu sought to empower the consumer to make more informed choices about the cosmetics they use via her AB 2012 or Consumer and Personal Care Consumer Product Hazards Bill, which would require disclosure to the State Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment of all chemicals in cosmetic products that cause cancer or reproductive harm.’ However, this bill has also "died". The cosmetics industry lobby has successfully managed to sway opinion its way by trotting out the excuse that listing their products’ ingredients could either infringe on or endanger their trade secrets. So, for now, phthalates are here to stay, unlabelled. It is pertinent to mention that safety groups quoting the ill- effects of chemicals do not rely on hearsay. As an example, significant research into the ealth impacts of phthalates has been ————— conducted, such as a study by Dr Shanna : Ti! ™ Swan, professor of obstetrics and Hipikiré o F gynaecology at the University of Rochester, eqtine A inking the chemical to feminisation in JoTHinGress boys. A government-funded study, it Coach, showed a distinct correlation between he ee prenatal phthalate exposure and a shortened anogenital distance (AGD) in male babies, a inding which in turn implies that these aby boys are more likely to have incomplete testicular descent and smaller penises. Interestingly, these changes —— occurred at phthalate levels that have been “a . measured in about one quarter of women in A the United States.’ that we ingest these, but we still view cosmetics and their like as products that we only use externally. Our conscious mind has not absorbed the fact our skin is a living sponge, as prone to the harmful effects of toxins as, say, our digestive system. It is our lack of awareness and agitation that is spurring the rise of the cosmetics industry. As a result, while activists are effectively continuing their campaign against the tobacco industry, consider that it's been years since cigarette packets were made to carry a warning "Cigarette smoking is injurious to health", but no similar injunction to carry a statutory warning has been made for cosmetic and personal care products. Loose standards Thus, as opposed to the stringent standards that should be developed for cosmetics, the reality is quite the contrary, meaning that the cosmetics industry gets away with a lot. For instance, in the USA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require safety testing, either by the manufacturer or by its own staff, of the final beauty product before it hits the market. Thus, both the final product and its ingredients remain suspect. In the agency's own words, "a cosmetic manufacturer may use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product without an approval from FDA".' So while cosmetic companies would have you believe that they care very much for your skin and conduct rigorous sensitivity and safety trials (on animals, but that brutality makes for another story) prior to launching a product, in truth, as researchers from the National Research Council point out, "of the tens of thousands of commercially important chemicals, only a few have been subjected to extensive toxicity testing, and most have scarcely been tested at all"? The US National Environmental Trust, an industry watchdog, paints a dismal picture as the outcome from the absence of standards and testing. "Because the FDA does no pre-market health testing of chemical ingredients in cosmetics, for industry to claim considerable safe use over many years is to wholly neglect the fact that we have no publicly verifiable way of knowing such a claim is true," says Nick Guroff, the group's California organiser.’ a ( AHinkine oF Getta A NoTHinGHess CoacH, s emarvitf. How bad is bad? Shocking news indeed, but what is most important for a consumer to realise is that incidents we hear of are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. 28 = NEXUS www.nexusmagazine.com DECEMBER 2006 — JANUARY 2007