The Hidden Dangers of Cosmetics and Household Cleaning Products
Elizabeth Buschert
Biology Senior Seminar
November 5, 2007
I. Introduction
Thesis: More comprehensive testing and regulation of chemicals, especially those used in cosmetics and household cleaning products, is needed in the United States to protect human health and the environment.
Synthetic chemicals are all around us. As well as the chemicals which are used in our buildings, paints, plastics, clothes, varnishes, and other objects, there are a plethora of chemicals which are in products that we use every day and don’t think about. In the course of a day most people apply deodorant, brush their teeth, perhaps using mouthwash, and wash their hands and faces with soap. People also shower and use soaps and shampoos, or apply cosmetics and hair gels. As well as the chemicals which we apply to ourselves to make us clean beautiful, and pleasantly scented, there are armies of chemicals used for the same purposes in our houses. We use products to clean our mirrors, sinks, showers, floors, carpets, furniture, clothing, dishes, appliances and more.
While people use many chemicals in the course of a day or a week, few people stop to think about them or to question the safety of the countless products that we apply to ourselves or are exposed to through our lifetimes. It generally seems to be the assumption that if it is sold in stores and advertized, just like pharmaceutical products and foods, it must have been tested and approved. Likewise, few people stop and think about where the chemicals in products end up. When they wash their hair, the shampoo goes down the drain and they cease to consider it.
This trust may be misplaced, especially in the United States. This paper will examine the current regulations and regulatory bodies, as well as some of the products and chemicals in cleaning and cosmetic products. The current network of regulations and government agencies does not cover all products or guarantee that the products we use are thoroughly evaluated for health and environmental effects before going on the market. More comprehensive testing and regulation of chemicals, especially those used in cosmetics and household cleaning products, is needed in the United States to protect human health and the environment.
In the United States there are currently a number of regulatory bodies and acts of legislation that cover different aspects and contexts of chemical use, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration. While some aspects of chemical ingredients are controlled, none of these bodies oversees or specifically regulates household cleaning products or cosmetics in a comprehensive and binding way.
Household cleaning products, and the chemicals contained in them, generally fall under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in 1970 with the idea that it would be a single agency responsible for research, monitoring, standard setting, and enforcement to protect the environmental quality of the United States (EPA History). The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and safeguard the environment (EPA History). Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was passed by Congress, in 1976, the EPA is authorized to regulate chemicals which pose a risk to health, although it excludes substances regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (Leahy et al.). While this may seem to cover all chemicals used or produced, in reality there are still many untested chemicals. Under the TSCA, the EPA has only required testing of less than 200 of the roughly 62,000 chemicals which were already in production when the act came into effect, although it has since added 20,000 chemicals to its registry (Leahy et al.). Uninvestigated existing chemicals are assumed safe under this legislation. As far as cleaning products are concerned, this does not seem to require studies as to the safety of the products in homes and as they are typically used. In fact, when the EPA itself was investigating to find environmentally preferable cleaning projects as part of a pilot project, it was unable to comprehensively assess health risks due to “difficulties in obtaining complete product formulation information; incomplete hazard and pharmacokinetics information for most product components; and incomplete data on actual releases and exposures.” (EPA Cleaning Products Pilot). Clearly then, there is a lack of comprehensive testing and study on the environmental and health effects of cleaning products.
Cosmetics, on the other hand, are regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA Cosmetics) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Act defines a cosmetic as “(1) articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and (2) articles intended for use as a component of any such articles; except that such term shall not include soap” (FDA Cosmetics). While this act puts cosmetics under the authority of the FDA, this only prohibits the “marketing of adulterated or misbranded cosmetics in interstate commerce” (FDA Cosmetics). Again, this sounds as though cosmetics are regulated and tested by the FDA, however in reality the FDA has no authority over cosmetics or cosmetic companies. Even if the cosmetics are adulterated or misbranded, the FDA is not authorized to require a recall of these products (FDA Cosmetics).
Cosmetics, with the exception of some color additive ingredients, also do not need to be approved by the FDA or any other governmental agency before going on the market, but instead are self regulated (FDA Cosmetics). The result is that there is no real regulation of the vast majority of cosmetic products and ingredients by the government or any other body other than the manufacturers themselves.
In sum, although there are many different synthetic chemicals used in the manufacture and formulation of both cosmetics and cleaning products, there is little or no regulation on these products in terms of their effects on human health and the environment other than the manufacturer’s discretion.
Given that there is not rigorous government testing or regulation of cosmetics and cleaning products, there is much that is unknown about the health and environmental impacts linked to exposure to many of these substances. However, more and more research is being done and these substances are increasingly causing concern to consumers.
In any given cleaning product there are potentially many chemicals. The average household today contains 62 toxic chemicals (Grant, n.d.). Dish soap, laundry detergents, and many other products that are used do not list their ingredients, so it is difficult to determine exactly what health risks are to consumers using the products. However, more and more research is linking these products to dangers and health problems. As far as immediate effects are concerned, many cleaners contain strong chemicals that are skin, eye, or respiratory irritants and can cause reactions, or are toxic, especially if ingested. The number one cause of household poisonings is dishwasher detergents, which often contain concentrated dry chlorine (Beach, n.d.). Drain cleaners, oven cleaners and acidic toilet bowl cleaners are the most dangerous as they contain corrosive chemicals and acids which produce irritating fumes, and can cause burns (The Green Guide, 2006). Fragrances are also found in just about any and every product. According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, one third of the substances used in fragrances are toxic, however, since the fragrances are considered trade secrets, companies are not even required to list the ingredients on the label (The Green Guide, 2006). People use these products and chemicals frequently on surfaces that they cook and eat off of, without considering their effects.
In addition to short term toxicity, many cleaners are linked to chronic health effects or are carcinogenic. A study in Massachusetts found that exposure to toxic chemicals from cleaning products aggravates asthma, and is associated with asthma attacks (Report, 2007). Formaldehyde, phenol, benzene, toluene, and xylene are chemicals that may be familiar from chemistry classes, where they are treated with caution to prevent human exposure. These chemicals are found in household cleaning products, and are toxic to the immune system and carcinogenic (Grant, n.d.).
Another category of chemicals frequently found in cleaning products which is a growing cause for concern is volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These compounds are generally synthetic, and are used in a plethora of substances from plastics and paints to cleaning products and cosmetics. Despite their widespread use, there has not been a comprehensive investigation into their effects on humans and the environment. What is known, however, is not encouraging. Many are known or suspected to cause cancer in humans or other animals, and they can also cause irritation, headaches, and damage to the liver, kidneys and central nervous system (EPA An Introduction to Air Quality). Levels of many organic compounds have been found to be 2 to 5 times higher indoors than out of doors, and much higher after certain activities (EPA An Introduction to Air Quality). Again, not much is known about the health dangers of the levels commonly found in homes, although these compounds are suspected carcinogens (CPSC, n.d.). While the specific effects of these compounds on people using cleaners in their homes is uknown, according to the National Cancer Association women who work in the home are at a 54% higher risk of developing cancer than women who work outside of the home (Grant, n.d.). These are some of the known or suspected risks associated with use of cleaning products in the home, although still more is unknown about the ingredients and their effects, particularly over the course of a lifetime of exposure.
It may be expected that cleaning products would contain harsher chemicals, as they are designed to remove dirt. However, cosmetics and personal care products such as soap and deodorant, which are designed and intended to be applied to the human body, are also linked to many health risks and hazards.
In addition to the known or suspected dangers, there are also many products and ingredients on which there is no information available. Even well established name brand products which are commonly used, for example Dial Antibacterial Liquid Hand Soap, are not well tested. The Environmental Working Group, which is a non-profit organization dedicated to informing and protecting consumers through research and public information, maintains a database on the health and environmental dangers of cosmetics and personal care products (EWG About). According to this database, Dial Antibacterial Hand Soap contains ingredients that are linked to violations, restrictions, warnings, organ toxicity, endocrine disruption, and bioaccumulation, among other things (EWG Dial). Further, there is no FDA review or “no data/high uncertainty” on 76% of the products ingredients and 38% of the ingredients have not been reviewed by the industry (EWG Dial). Other hand soaps and products in the database are linked to cancer and other detrimental health effects.
Other studies and groups have also found disturbing and concerning ingredients in cosmetics. A recent study by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found one third of lipstick samples to contain levels of lead exceeding the federal limit for candy, which is especially a concern for children or pregnant women who may be affected by lead poisoning (Drake, 2007). Other cosmetics are starting to include recently developed nanotechnology in their products. Nanotechnology in cosmetics is using super fine particles of ingredients, or incorporating super small capsules and particles in a product (Greenfieldboyce, 2006). This technology does not require FDA approval, nor are companies compelled to label the products as using nanotechnology (Greenfieldboyce, 2006). More research is needed to determine whether these products are safe, as no safety data is currently available, despite the products already being in use (Greenfieldboyce, 2006). Consumers have no way of knowing what is found in a given product even by reading the label.
Even where there has been limited testing done on ingredients in some contexts, the effects of exposure from multiple sources over the lifetime of an average person is often not considered. Phthalates, for example, are the main component of many products, from PVC pipe to pesticides to cosmetics (DiGanger et al.). They are not well regulated; however they are ubiquitous environmental contaminants and nearly always found at some level in the human body (DiGanger et al.). Even though these substances are widely used and known to be found in the human body, little is known about their health effects. While animal tests have shown toxicity as well as adverse effects on developing male reproductive systems, there have been no studies examining the effects of phthalates on humans (DiGanger et al.). Another study showed that phthalates were found in three quarters of the 72 cosmetics tested, however none of them listed phthalates on the label (Houlihan, 2002). Without accurate or available information on the ingredients included in a given product, or their effects on human health, it is impossible even for concerned consumers to make intelligent choices about their purchases.
In addition to health concerns, there are also many concerns about the environmental effects of cleaning products and cosmetics. In the normal use of these chemicals they are released to the environment, particularly into aquatic environments. Cleaning products such as toilet bowl cleaners and dish detergents are washed down the drain with wastewater. Likewise, cosmetics, shampoos and soaps are rinsed down the drain and end up in wastewater. Most wastewater is treated, although in the case of combined sewer overflows, when too much water overwhelms a plant and it releases waste without processing it, it is possible that some wastewater is not even treated before entering the environment. However, even treating wastewater does not completely protect aquatic organisms from chemicals found in wastewater, as many synthetic chemicals are not completely removed by treatment methods (Hemminger, n.d.). These chemicals are also not currently a part of water monitoring programs in the United States (Hemminger, n.d.). Nor is there toxicology data on the effects of these chemicals on aquatic organisms, although there is concern about what effects they may have (EPA Pharmaceuticals).
Available studies and information show that there is reason for concern and more comprehensive research. For example, the US Geological Survey found persistent compounds, which break down to form other persistent chemicals shown to interfere with reproduction in fish, from detergents in 69% of streams tested, as well as disinfectants in 66% (The Green Guide, 2006). Other studies have found the active ingredients in antibacterial hand soaps and toothpastes, as well as other chemicals in streams tested (EWG A National Assessment, 2005). More attention has been given in the past to the effects of bioaccumulative and persistent compounds in the environment. While these metabolites and other compounds are not all necessarily persistent, there is concern that they could cause changes in fish and aquatic organisms that are constantly exposed to low levels and mixes of these chemicals in water (Hemminger, n.d.).
Yet another reason to be concerned about chemically polluted water is the possibility of drinking water contamination, as more and more chemicals are being detected in municipal drinking water supplies. The EPA has currently set standards for drinking water levels of 90 contaminants, and also has a list of chemicals which are not currently subject to regulation but which are known or expected to be found in drinking water (EPA Drinking water ). According to the Environmental Working Group tap water in 42 states is contaminated with more than 140 unregulated chemicals (EWG A national assessment, 2005). More study is needed to determine the effects of these chemicals, particularly in combination, over a long periods of time.
Overall, as is seen from these examples, there is cause to be concerned about what is known of the health effects of both cleaning products and cosmetics. Although there is some research that shows that these substances are detrimental both to human health and the environment, the vast majority have not been thoroughly studied and the effects of multiple exposures on people, as well as the effects of exposures to multiple chemicals, have not been determined in a clear or definite manner. Another reason for concern is that while specific effects are not always known, it has been generally observed that cancer rates, as well as genetic conditions and other diseases which were rare in the past are becoming increasingly prevalent in today’s society. While it cannot be proven at this time, it seems possible that there is a link between these conditions and the number of chemicals that humans are now exposed to on a daily basis.
Action needs to be taken to prevent human and environmental exposure to dangerous chemicals from cleaning products and cosmetics. While environmental contamination from these chemicals, as well as chronic health concerns, may take time to dissipate, it is possible for people to make individual choices to reduce the risks from these products. There are a number of steps that can be taken to reduce the risks and hazards of chemicals, including education, legislation, and personal actions.
More people need to be educated about the risks and concerns of cleaning products and cosmetics, as has been illustrated in this paper. Most people are not aware of the dangers that they are exposing themselves and the environment to in the course of their daily routines and tasks, and they need to be informed of these risks. It is generally assumed that governmental or other organizations are protecting the public, and this is not the case. Before action can be taken to resolve the problem, people need to be informed of its existence.
Stricter legislation is also needed on these products to protect people. Currently people often cannot even accurately determine the risks of a given product because the information does not exist or is not publicly available. Stricter legislation on product labeling and product testing would allow people to make more informed choices, and updating current legislation to be more holistic and comprehensive in its evaluation of chemicals and products is needed. As an example of possible legislation, the European Union has recently enacted REACH, which requires all chemicals produced or imported in quantities exceeding 1000 kilograms to be registered, and use of any chemicals considered to be of high concern, such as carcinogenic, mutagenic or bioaccumulative chemicals, must be authorized (Leahy et al.). In addition, companies must provide information on the physical properties, as well as health and ecological effects of chemicals to be registered (Leahy et al.). Similar legislation in the United States should be passed to protect consumers and the environment.
Finally, many of these chemicals can be avoided by using safer alternatives instead of untested products. Buying less harmful products can be difficult, as not all ingredients are consistently listed on the label. Consumers must also be cautious, as claims made on many products, such as “biodegradable” “natural” and “non-toxic” are meaningless because there are no standards set for these labels in cosmetics and cleaning products and they are unverified (Consumer Reports 2007). While these are difficulties, there are many resources online which provide information on the known dangers of products as well as alternatives which are safer. The Environmental Working Group’s cosmetics database, at http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ contains known safety and toxicity data on thousands of personal care products and cosmetics, as well as statistics on the testing of the ingredients. For cleaning, there are some more environmentally friendly cleaning products available in some stores which can be used. Another extremely cost effective alternative is to use common household items such as vinegar, lemon juice, baking soda, salt, and hot water to clean. Recipes and instructions for homemade cleaning solutions are also readily available online, two fairly comprehensive websites are http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/8088/clngrn.html, and
http://www.eartheasy.com/live_nontoxic_solutions.htm.
Household cleaning products and cosmetics are a hidden and unconsidered threat to health and the environment. Humans are responsible for this threat, and are affected by this threat, and so it is our responsibility to work to reduce it and protect ourselves and our environment. More research and regulation is needed to inform consumers about these threats so that they can make safe and informed choices. With change we can save ourselves and the earth from being poisoned by our own cleansing and beautifying activities.
Beach, Glenn. (n.d.) Poisons under your sink: Hidden danger of cleaning products.
Retrieved Nov. 3, 2007 from MamasHealth.com website. www.mamashealth.com/doc/cleanprod.asp
CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission). (n.d.) The Inside story: A guide to air
quality. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission website. http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/450.html
Consumer Reports (2007). Eco-Labels center. Retrieved Nov. 5, 2007 from the
Consumer Reports website.
http://www.greenerchoices.org/eco-labels/eco-home.cfm
DiGanger, Joseph, et al. (n.d.) Aggregate exposures to phthalates in humans. Retrieved
Nov. 1, 2007 from the Health Care Without Harm website. www.noharm.org/library/docs/Phthalate_Report.pdf
Drake, John C. (2007). Lead tests raise red flag for lipsticks. Retrieved Nov. 4, 2007
from the Women and the Environment website. http://womenandenvironment.org/newsreports/media/Press%202007/leadlipstick
EPA. (n.d.) An Introduction to Air Quality. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from the United
States Environmental Protection Agency website. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.htm
EPA. (n.d.) Cleaning products pilot project. Retrieved Nov. 4, 2007 from the United
States Environmental Protection Agency website. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/pubs/cleaner.pdf
EPA. (n.d.) Drinking water contaminant candidate list Retrieved Nov. 4, 2007 from the
United States Environmental Protection Agency website. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/index.html
EPA. (n.d.) History. Retrieved Nov. 4, 2007 from the United States Environmental
Protection Agency website. http://www.epa.gov/history/.
EPA. (n.d.) Pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Retrieved Nov. 4, 2007 from
the United States Environmental Protection Agency website. http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/
EWG (Environmental Working Group). (n.d.) About the Environmental Working Group.
Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from the Environmental Working Group website. http://www.ewg.org/about
EWG (Environmental Working Group). (2005). A national assessment of tap water
quality. Retrieved Nov. 4, 2007 from the Environmental Working Group website. http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/findings.php
EWG (Environmental Working Group). (n.d.) Dial Antibacterial Liquid Hand Soap.
Retrieved Nov. 4, 2007 from the Environmental Working Group website. http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/product.php?prod_id=10301
FDA. (n.d.) Cosmetics. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2007 from the United States Food and Drug
Administration website. http://www.cfan.fda.gov
Grant, George. (n.d.) Are you poisoning your children?. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from the
Health Recipes.com website. http://www.healthrecipes.com/household_poisons.htm
Greenfieldboyce, Nell. (2006). Safety of nano-cosmetics questioned. Retrieved Nov. 1,
2007 from the National Public Radio website. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5257306
The Green Guide. (2006). Household cleaning supplies. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from
the National Geographic website. http://www.thegreenguide.com/reports/product.mhtml?id=15
Halford, Bethany. (2006). Fullerene for the face. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2007 from the
Chemistry and Engineering News website.http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/84/8413sci3.html
Hemminger, Patricia. (n.d.) Consumer Pollution. Retrieved Nov. 4, 2007 from the
Pollution Issues website.
http://www.pollutionissues.com/Co-Ea/Consumer-Pollution.html
Houlihan, Jane, Brody, Charlotte, Schwan, Bryony. (2002) Not too pretty. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2007 from The Campaign
for Safe Cosmetics website. http://www.safecosmetics.org/docUploads/NotTooPretty_r51.pdf
Leahy, Patrick, Lautenberg, Frank R., Jeffords, James M.. (n.d.) Chemical regulation: Approaches in the United States,
Canada, and the European Union. Retrieved Nov 2, 2007 from the US Government Accountability Office website. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06217r.pdf
Report: Household cleaners causing health problems. (2007) Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007
from The Boston Channel website. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/13745179/detail.html