Presentation on theme: "Does Beauty Have a Cost? The Ecological Footprint of the Cosmetics Industry Alexandra Noelle Penny Brown University Environmental Studies April 3, 2008."— Presentation transcript:
Does Beauty Have a Cost? The Ecological Footprint of the Cosmetics Industry Alexandra Noelle Penny Brown University Environmental Studies April 3, 2008
In the News… Fresh-Faced Eco-Consumers (NYT, Nov 1 2007) Should You Trust Your Makeup? (NYT, Feb 15, 2007) Lead Tests Raise Red Flag for Lipsticks (Boston Globe, Oct 11, 2007) Dont Pucker Up: Lead in Lipstick (Good Morning America, Oct 12, 2007) Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry by Stacy Malkan
Research Questions: To what extent does the cosmetics industry pose a threat to human health and the environment due to toxic ingredients in product formulation and waste associated with packaging? What possible regulatory regimes would force the cosmetics industry to internalize its negative externalities and protect consumers?
IDENTIFY RISK what is the hazard of concern? RISK ANALYSIS exposure and effects on human and environment DESCRIBE RISK based on best available evidence MANAGE RISK weigh and adopt policy alternatives based on sound science, economics, ethics, etc. Addressing Risk… Risk Assessment (fr. USEPA, van Woerkum, Portney) Precautionary Principle?
Environmental Risks Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants Found in Streams of the U.S., 1999-2000 First national study examining organic wastewater contaminants in streams 139 streams sampled: 1 or more of chemicals tested found in 80% of streams; 7 or more found in 50% of streams Low concentrations with potential effect; not necessarily additive Environmental Toxicant: Packaging Waste: Increased waste to landfill Heavy metals used in manufacturing process Energy consumption Greenhouse Gas Emissions Raw material consumption Source: EPA Online. Accessed 4/2/2008
Safe for topical application in the present practices of use and concentrations in cosmetics –CIR safety review assessment Reproductive/developmental toxicant, causes birth defects Federal labeling requirement for nail polish; not other products Phthalates found in: deodorant, fragrance, hair gel, hair mousse, hair spray, lotion, shampoo, nail polish In 2007– OPI, Sally Hansen, and other manufacturers reformulated nail polish to remove dibuthyl phthalate (DBP) Photo: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/fashion/07nails.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Phthalates (Source: Houlihan, et.al. Not Too Pretty: Phthalates, Beauty Products & the FDA, July 8, 2002)
Outline I.Background A.Environmental Risks B.Human Health Risks C.Packaging Waste II.Case Study A.Lead In Lipsticks B.Toxic Ingredient Analysis C.Sustainable Packaging Analysis III.Findings IV.Recommendations
Case Study Testing Lipsticks for Lead Background: A Poison Kiss: The Problem of Lead in Lipsticks published by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Oct 2007. Concern over Lead: Proven neurotoxin– linked to: interference with brain development, miscarriage, reduced fertility, hormonal changes Levels accumulate in body over time Most detrimental to fetal development Multiple routes of exposure: water, paint, lipsticks applied multiple times per day
Testing Lipsticks for Lead 10 Lipsticks from CVS Thayer St. 1 of 10– no detectable lead 9 of 10– levels over.1ppm, the FDA recommended limit of lead in candy 2 of 10– over 0.6 ppm, higher than all but 1 of the 33 lipsticks tested by EWG CoverGirl Incredifull Lipcolor Maximum Red My study: 0.25 ppm EWG: 0.12 ppm and 0.56 ppm LOreal Colour Riche True Red My study: 0.61 ppm EWG: 0.50 ppm and 0.65 ppm
Hazards Assessed: Cancer Developmental/reproductive toxicity Neurotoxicity Endocrine disruption Allergies/ immunotoxicity Miscellaneous Violations, Restrictions, Warnings Organ system toxicity Persistence and Bioaccumlation Multiple, additive exposure sources Mutations Biochemical or cellular level changes Ecotoxicology Occupational hazards Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs) Source: Skin Deep: Cosmetics Safety Database. Online. Accessed 4/1/2008 Assign Scores as a Function of: 1. Lowest known harmful dose where that information is available 2. Weight of the evidence (limited, moderate, and strong evidence) 3.Source of the data: ranked credibility EWG: Cosmetics Safety Database Toxic Ingredients in Product Formulation
Shampoo Ingredient Summary 10 of 10 shampoos contain fragrance 2 contain DMDM Hydantoin (VO-5 and Garnier) 6.7% of ingredients– High Hazard 84% of ingredients– No FDA Review Coal Tar– Hazard Ranking 10!! Shampoo ProductsHazard RatingData Gap % Neutrogena T/Gel Therapeutic Shampoo Original Formula 767 Heads & Shoulders Pyrithione Zinc Dandruff Classic Clean 578 Matrix Biolage Hydratherapie Ultra-Hydrating Shampoo 677 Redken 5 th Avenue NYC Fresh Curls Shampoo 682 VO5 Herbal Escapes Kiwi Lime Clarifying Shampoo 679 Pantene Pro-V Full and Thick Shampoo 574 Rusk Sensories Calm Shampoo 681 Garnier Fructis Fortifying Shampoo Sleek and Shine 583 Herbal Essences None of Your Frizzness Smoothing Shampoo 581 Marc Anthony Aroma Organics Volumizing Shampoo 474 Neutrogena T/Gel label
Lipstick Ingredient Summary Lipstick ProductsHazard RatingData Gap % Almay Hydracolor Red LOreal Colour Riche Penelopes Red 320 688 LOreal Colour Riche True Red 315 Lumene Bright Smile So Magnetic 10 688 Neutrogena Moisture Shine Soothing LipSheers Sunny Berry Burts Bees Lip Shimmer Cocoa 385 CoverGirl Incredifull Lipcolor Maximum Red 964 Maybelline Moisture Extreme Royal Red E190 Revlon Renewist Lipcolor Red Reinvented 200 Revlon Super Lustrous Cherries in the Snow 440 589 Difficult for SkinDeep database to keep up All except Burts Bees contain FRAGRANCE
Packaging Analysis Energy Use: BTUs of energy to produce the packaging materials Greenhouse Gases: Measured in CE (Carbon Equivalence) – the carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases emitted during production and recycling/disposal Material Inputs: grams of raw material required to produce the packaging materials Chemical Bad Actors: comparative figure! weighted average representing the level of chemical bad actors used in production; Normalized packaging systems to unit of product Environmental Packaging International-- Design for Environment (DfE) Metrics from MERGE data, EDF/ Sustainable Packaging Coalition Metrics:
Lipstick Packaging Very similar to product to packaging ratio– limitations of database– most component materials were called Plastic Other
So What? Significant Findings Who is responsible? Risk Mitigation Tactic Problem? Lead in lipsticksFDABusiness as UsualNo safe dose Shampoos and Lipsticks contain phthalates FDALabeling Imperfect information; No perceived risk EPAClean Water Act Lack of information, funding for studies Excessive, non- recyclable packaging Industry Market incentive to design recyclable, reusable packaging Not required to internalize the costs Consumers Power of consumer demand Lack of awareness; no demand No safety assessment on many ingredients FDAAuthority to banAssume safe CIRIndustry-derived risk analysis Protect commerce
The Cosmetics Industry $35 Billion Source: Skin Deep. Online. Accesses 11/11/2007 1972– The Cosmetics Review Board– the self- regulating industry panel Cosmetics Toiletry and Fragrance Association There have been many reports over the years about lead being present in lipstick, mostly alleging that there are high levels and providing a test purporting to confirm the presence of lead. Most of these reports have been internet hoaxes and have been circulating for many years.
Cosmetics Legislation Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetics Act Gives FDA authority over poisonous and deleterious substances FDA lacks authority to require pre-market testing The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act False or misleading statements on packaging considered misbranded and subject to regulatory action EPA: Resource Conservation& Recovery Act (RCRA) Controls the management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes OSHA: Hazard Communication Standard
NGO Initiatives: Environmental Working Group Cosmetics Safety Database Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Over 500 cosmetics companies have joined Sustainable Packaging Coalition Photo: www.NotTooPretty.org
Recommendations FDA: Require labeling of dangerous chemicals, such as phthalates Prohibit marketing of products containing chemicals known to cause birth defects to women of child bearing age Consider aggregate exposure of industrial chemicals humans are exposed to Make effort to ban noxious ingredients where viable alternatives exist RI Department of Health: Protect citizens: model after Prop 65, require warning labels on products with harmful chemicals
Cosmetics Industry: Recommendations for Sustainable Packaging: source reduced comply with applicable heavy metal limits comply with applicable minimization requirements for other noxious and hazardous substances be recyclable, compostable, and/or yield a certain energy gain when incinerated Source: Environmental Packaging International; Online: Accessed March 6, 2008 Buyer BEWARE: Fragrance Triethanolamine BHA Eugenol Ceteareth12 OR 20 Phenol/ Bisphenol A any ingredient ending with paraben
Best/ Worst Brands: Dr. Bronners Nurture My Body **Burts Bees Terressentials Encoura To name a few…. Search product for ingredient information on www.cosmeticsdatabase.com Shampoo Aubrey Organics Shikai Toms of Maine Desert Essence Weleda Willow Lake LOreal Kids Philosophy African Pride **Redken **Neutrogena Nexxus Michael diCesare Bumble and Bumble **Matrix Valana Minerals ColoreScience bareFaced CosmicTree Essentials CARGO&care Jane Iredale CITY Lips Alchemy of Colour Color Me Beautiful Canary Cosmetics Lipstick BEST WORST **Revlon Avon Skin Alison Raffaele Dior Jelly Vincent Longo **Lumene Sue Devitt Paula Dorf Passport
Acknowledgements Caroline Karp Thesis Advisor Catherine Goodall, Amit Sheth, and Sha Sha Environmental Packaging International Dave Murray and Joe Orchardo Spectrometer Analysis in Environmental Chemistry Lab Daniela Quilliam and Bill Dundulis RI Department of Health Family, Friends, Brown University… THANK YOU FOR COMING…