does beauty have a cost? the ecological footprint of the cosmetics industry alexandra noelle penny...
TRANSCRIPT
Does Beauty Have a Cost?
The Ecological Footprint of the
Cosmetics IndustryAlexandra Noelle Penny
Brown UniversityEnvironmental 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)
• “Don’t 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
Cosmetics??shampoo
Face wash
Aftershave
Nail polish
Lipstick
Contact solution
Hair sprayConcealer
mascara
Deodorant
Lotion
sunscreen
Styling mousse
Toothpaste
soapperfume
cologne
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?
RISK ANALYSISexposure 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
Human Health Risks
USE– determined by:•Route of exposure vary• Target(s) affected– dermal, nervous system, reproductive system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, etc.• Effect of stressor– carcinogen, developmental/reproductive toxin, neurotoxin, endocrine disruptor, allergen/ immunotoxican, persistence/bioaccumulation, cellular level changes, mutations, skin irritation
Source: Skin Deep: Cosmetics Safety Database; Accessed 11/6/2007
Women Men•12 products/day
•168 unique ingredients•6 products/day
•85 unique ingredients
n=2000
Exposure
• Toxic Ingredients• Potential Contaminants
• “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)
OutlineI. Background
A. Environmental Risks
B. Human Health Risks
C. Packaging Waste
II. Case StudyA. Lead In Lipsticks
B. Toxic Ingredient Analysis
C. Sustainable Packaging Analysis
III.Findings
IV. Recommendations
Case StudyTesting 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 Lead10 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
EWGCoverGirl Incredifull Lipcolor
Maximum Red My study: 0.25 ppmEWG: 0.12 ppm and 0.56 ppm
L’Oreal Colour Riche True Red
My study: 0.61 ppmEWG: 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 available2. 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 Products Hazard Rating Data Gap %
Neutrogena T/Gel Therapeutic Shampoo Original Formula 7 67
Heads & Shoulders Pyrithione Zinc Dandruff Classic Clean 5 78
Matrix Biolage Hydratherapie Ultra-Hydrating Shampoo 6 77
Redken 5th Avenue NYC Fresh Curls Shampoo 6 82
VO5 Herbal Escapes Kiwi Lime Clarifying Shampoo 6 79
Pantene Pro-V Full and Thick Shampoo 5 74
Rusk Sensories Calm Shampoo 6 81
Garnier Fructis Fortifying Shampoo Sleek and Shine 5 83
Herbal Essences None of Your Frizzness Smoothing Shampoo 5 81
Marc Anthony Aroma Organics Volumizing Shampoo 4 74
Neutrogena T/Gel label
Lipstick Ingredient Summary
Lipstick Products Hazard Rating Data Gap %
Almay Hydracolor Red
L’Oreal Colour Riche Penelope’s Red 320 6 88
L’Oreal Colour Riche True Red 315
Lumene Bright Smile So Magnetic 10 6 88
Neutrogena Moisture Shine Soothing LipSheers Sunny Berry
Burt’s Bees Lip Shimmer Cocoa 3 85
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 5 89
• Difficult for SkinDeep database to keep up
• All except Burt’s 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:
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
No
rmali
zed
Valu
es
Neutrogena Head &Shoulders
MatrixBiolage
Redken VO-5 PantenePro-V
Rusk Calm GarnierFructis
HerbalEssences
MarcAnthony
Material Health Values
Energy
GHG
Material Inputs
Chemical Bad Actors
Shampoo Packaging
Lipstick Packaging
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
No
rmal
ized
Val
ues
AlmayHydracolor
Red
L'OrealColourRiche
Penelope'sRed 320
L'OrealColour
Riche TrueRed 315
LumeneBright Smile
SoMagnetic 10
NeutrogenaMoisture
ShineSoothingLipSheers
SunnyBerry
Burt's BeesLip Shimmer
Cocoa
CoverGirlIncredifullLipcolorMaximumRed 964
MaybellineMoistureExtreme
Royal RedE190
RevlonRenew istLipcolor
RedReinvented
200
RevlonSuper
LustrousCherries inthe Snow
440
Material Health Values
Energy
GHG
Material Inputs
Chemical Bad Actors
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 lipsticks FDA Business as Usual No safe dose
Shampoos and Lipsticks contain
phthalates
FDA Labeling Imperfect
information; No perceived risk
EPA Clean Water ActLack of information, funding for studies
Excessive, non-recyclable packaging
IndustryMarket incentive to design recyclable, reusable packaging
Not required to internalize the costs
ConsumersPower of consumer
demandLack of awareness;
no demand
No safety assessment on many ingredients
FDA Authority to ban Assume safe
CIR Industry-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 ActFalse 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
RecommendationsFDA: • 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 incineratedSource: Environmental Packaging International; Online: Accessed March 6, 2008
Buyer BEWARE: • Fragrance • Triethanolamine• BHA• Eugenol• Ceteareth—12 OR 20• Phenol/ Bisphenol A• any ingredient ending with “paraben”
Best/ Worst Brands:
Dr. Bronner’s
Nurture My Body
**Burt’s Bees
Terressentials
Encoura
To name a few….Search product for ingredient information on www.cosmeticsdatabase.com
Shampoo
Aubrey Organics
Shikai
Tom’s of Maine
Desert Essence
Weleda
Willow Lake
L’Oreal 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
LipstickBEST BEST
WORST WORST**Revlon
Avon
Skin Alison Raffaele
Dior
Jelly
Vincent Longo
**Lumene
Sue Devitt
Paula Dorf
Passport
AcknowledgementsCaroline Karp
Thesis Advisor
Catherine Goodall, Amit Sheth, and Sha ShaEnvironmental Packaging International
Dave Murray and Joe OrchardoSpectrometer Analysis in Environmental Chemistry Lab
Daniela Quilliam and Bill DundulisRI Department of Health
Family, Friends, Brown University…
THANK YOU FOR COMING…