Left Brain laments…
The Environmental Working Group gives a great illustration of why doing your research on the Internet won’t always get you the complete answer. Recently they came out with a story suggesting teenage girls around the country are contaminated with “toxic” chemicals throughout their blood. They took blood and urine samples from 20 teenage girls and found 16 chemicals including phthalates, parabens, triclosan and musks. According to the EWG, these compounds have been linked to cancer and hormone disruption. All 20 girls tested positive for parabens.
By the end of the article, you’ll see that they think their results demonsrtate the government and cosmetic industry are not doing enough to protect people from toxic chemicals. They call for more regulation, reformulation by cosmetic companies and smarter choices by teenagers. These may be valid suggestions but things are more complicated than the EWG lets on.
Unfortunately, the EWG never lets good science get in the way of their conclusions. They let junk science fuel their inexplicable vendetta against the cosmetic industry.
Paraben Puzzle
Take one aspect this study for example. They detected methylparaben and propylparaben in all the girls tested. This is interesting and raises some questions like, why are the parabens there? If the EWG was driven by science, they would go about answering this question and a series of others. For instance.
- Will you find the same level of parabens in adult women?
- Are there any natural metabolic processes that result in the production of parabens (or a compound that gets detected as a paraben)?
- What are the other possible sources of parabens?
- What evidence is there that parabens have an effect on health?
But they are not curious, or science-based. They merely collect data that supports their mission: To scare everyone. If you’re not afraid of the products you use, then they just aren’t trying hard enough.
The EWG raises some interesting questions, but their conclusions are premature. Doesn’t it seem more likely that the parabens found in these girls came from the food they ate? Methylparaben and propylparaben are widely used as food preservatives. People actually put food into their bodies not cosmetics. And teenage girls are more likely to eat processed foods than adult women so that they would have more trace preservatives could be explained by this fact too.
Real Tragedy of Government Regulation
It seems incredibly strange to this Beauty Brain that the EWG goes after a self-regulated industry that has FDA oversight, but says next to nothing on the true outrage of governmental regulation…the health food supplement industry. Here is an industry that can basically put anything they want, make nearly any claims they want, and the FDA can do practically nothing. They are a tragedy waiting to happen.
Beauty Brains Bottom Line:
We can appreciate what the EWG is trying to do. Their Skin Deep database is interesting and if the data was better scruitinized for scientific accuracy, it could be useful to consumers. Instead, it’s like most things on the EWG site. Filled with junk science and filtered research that supports only their political position, not the complete truth.
Oh and if you are worried about toxins in your blood, don’t waste your money on detoxifying footpads. They don’t work. A better way to detoxify is to eat real food, not too much, mostly plants.
Remember, there are no parabens in peaches.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent post on the importance of critical thinking & not blindly accepting as true everything we read. There are many organizations out there spinning facts to suit their purposes, & it’s always a good idea to do some research.
I know people who wouldn’t see a different between eating something and smearing it on your skin; I’ve been told to my face by people who I thought were smarter that whatever you put on your sakin goes right through as if you’d eaten it. *sigh*
We should all take a bath in vitamins, who knew?
Thank you for critiqueing the EWG article. I had read it already, and felt mildly alarmed about their conclusions, even though I could see it had a lot of holes in it. So, today’s post has been very reassuring. Also I agree with you completely about the supplement industry.
Blooming marvellous. Thank you, O voices of sanity and reason. “Forewarned is forearmed”: and as ever the EWG takes that completely the wrong way. Whereas the Beauty Brains do quite the opposite.
Now we just have to ensure that this post gets a higher Google hit rate than the EWG site for their name …
I am a company signer of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and have submitted my products to the Cosmetic Safety Database for their evaluation (they found them a zero on a scale of 0-10 from low-high risk). I believe in their general mission, but I agree with much of your article.
It is true that some scare tactics are used and conclusions are drawn from incomplete evidence. The fact that parabens were found does not indictae they came from skin care products. Maybe also, their harmfulness has not been sufficiently proven, but they are at least suspect.
Some of the other chemicals like triclosan probably did come from skin care. I do not think people are ingesting that.
You are totally correct that ALL science is presented through someone’s perspective and opinion when it is reported back to the general public. Rarely are the simple facts and results not interpreted or skewed to support one thing or another. Much of it becomes propaganda for a particular cause.
I also agree with you that a great way to detoxify is to “eat real food, not too much, mostly plants.” (That is the slogan of Michael Pollan’s book In Defense of Food—highly recommended). But my question is, if you believe that is a smart way to eat for health, why should it be any different for skin care? If simple and natural is a good idea for dietary intake–why doesn’t the same hold true for what you put on your skin?
I know that not everything you put on your skin makes it in. I know that not all natural substances are safe and benign. But, I also think that using suspect chemicals UNTIL harm is proven is a silly idea. Why take the risk if there are simpler and less suspect ingredients?
Look at all the meds that are taken off the market after years of harming people. They were scientifically studied and approved for use by the FDA, but later we come to see that maybe this “conclusive science” we depended on was not so 100% conclusive. Look at Celebrex. That was one of the most popular drugs out there and all the while causing bleeding ulcers and heart attacks and death. It had been rigoroulsly studied—though obviously not rigorously enough.
If yoiu think you should eat simple natural food to try to stay healthier–why should you put tons of chemicals on your skin in your skin care products?
Thanks for the interesting topics and discussion.
Emily,
You raise some great points (and thanks for the reference to that quote. I heard the advice during a Science Friday interview on the radio but didn’t know who it was).
I see skin and health as different. Your body’s digestive system has evolved to metabolize natural foods. So, it’s best suited for eating these things. Now, that is not to say processed foods are all bad. I remain skeptical of the perils reported about eating high fructose corn syrup. But it makes sense to me even if it’s not proven.
On the other hand, there’s nothing natural about using cosmetics. Our skin evolved to dry out, get red, get wrinkles, etc. Putting cosmetics on your body is a decidedly non-natural thing to do. Therefore, using natural ingredients doesn’t provide the same benefits as eating natural foods.
For cosmetics, I think we should use the ingredients that work the best. If they are natural, that’s nice but it doesn’t add any extra benefit.
Yes, things could be found to be unhealthy with more research. This could be true of “natural” products too. IMO, there’s an assumption of safety that isn’t warranted.
If safety is of utmost concern, people shouldn’t use cosmetics at all. There are no health reasons people would need to use cosmetics (except maybe cleansers).
Thanks for the discussion
Thank you for pointing out how misleading and incomplete the EWG reports are. I am dismayed by the number of consumers who take everything this group writes as fact, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Most people have no idea how much reputable cosmetic companies care about what goes into their products–after all, they use them too. In contrast, so many “all natural” lines formulate on the belief that if it grows from the ground it must be (or smell) marvelous for skin, and skin is subjected to many needless irritants on this belief.
EWG are folks that throw up their skirts about everything. I disregard what they say.
So if our skin doesn’t soak up what we put on it, why does the Patch work? Why does the Dr. give my grandmother a patch with her medication?
Isn’t is better to be safe then sorry many years later?
I’m sticking w/the EWG.
And Emily, your point was well presented. Thank you.
Sasha,
Some things do penetrate the skin. That’s why patches work for certain chemicals. But for the vast amount of chemicals, they don’t penetrate the skin. Why do you think they don’t give diabetics a patch to deliver their Insulin? It’s because insulin is like most other chemicals, it won’t penetrate the skin far enough to get into the bloodstream.
And as far as being safe than sorry, that’s your perrogative. It’s just that there are NO cosmetics that are more safe than others. The only way to be completely safe is to stop using cosmetics.
Here are a few facts about parabens and the “study” that started the whole thing. A report on breast cancer suggested that parabens be further studied as they are weak estrogen mimics (Concentrations of Parabens in Human Breast Tumors. Journal of Applied Toxicology 2004, 24, 5-13). An observation, a suggestion for further studies – not proof. Yet, the damage was done – a supposed link between breast cancer and parabens was established and the Internet is now full of sites suggesting consumers avoid cosmetics that use parabens. And yet, even the AUTHORS of this paper commented that carcinogenicity was not considered in their study and the presence of parabens was not claimed to cause the breast tumors (see European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Products’ SCCP/0874/05 Opinion on Parabens, Underarm Cosmetics and Breast Cancer publish in 2005). The SCCP has cleared the use of methyl paraben and ethyl paraben. Fear, not facts, are causing a move away from the safe use of parabens and many other chemicals. And I’ll add one fact of my own. I sent the EWG copies of these reports with a non-attacking introduction suggesting that with this additional information, I hoped they would correct their misrepresentation of methyl and ethyl parabens. That was a long time ago and as I expected, they have no interest in presenting a balanced viewpoint or sharing with their subscribers the WHOLE truth. So they are not just misinformed – they have the information are purposely not sharing it.
This is horrendously bad science. A sample size of 20? What the hell does that prove? ANY result you get with a sample size of 20 will not be close to statistically significant. This study isn’t worth anything but fire fuel if they can’t get more than 20 girls to participate- they’ve proven nothing except that they are horrible “scientists”.
The EWG is an organization with a warped agenda that bases its “findings” on psuedo science. They gain credibility because they are delivering a message that is in vogue right now. Thank you for shedding light on org.
Interesting discussion. I go with the better safe than sorry approach as well. Using chemical free cosmetics is a no brainer for me. This is an area wheret we actually have control over what we expose ourselves and our family to. If sparing my tween the chemicals in her daily personal care routine(we’re talking shampoo,lotion and toothpaste-not even make up) can ,even potentially, reduce her risk of developing breast cancer later in life-why wouldn’t I make the lower risk choice? I see this as vitally important. AVOID RISK when possible,it’s common sense.
Ask yourself:Why does the EU forbid over 1000 chemicals that are allowed to be used in American made cosmetics? The FDA is not protecting us-looks like that’s our job until we can get more legislation to do so.
@Magda – Everything contains chemicals. There is no such thing as “chemical free”.
The problem with what your suggesting is that the alternatives haven’t been tested for safety. By avoiding certain products you could be unwittingly increasing your risk.
The regulation of any chemical is not based on science but on politics. Pointing to what the EU does versus the US doesn’t tell you anything about how safe an ingredient is.
I visited the Sylvester Cancer Research Hospital in Miami, seeking a second opinion for my dear neighbor.
The ONCOLOGY nurse of 18 years, spent 9 hours with me, while my neighbor received platelets.
She warned me of websites, funded by the BIG multi-BILLION dollar pharmaceutal/cosmeceutical companies. She was HONEST and quite informative.
Why do other countries have research linking synthetic, toxic cehmicals to cancer? What is the motive for a BILLION dollar PROFIT making industry to CURE CANCER or even tell us how to PREVENT IT? Where does all that money go? Why do our CHILDREN and PETS have cancer? Why does the industry SELF regulate? Why do companies fight labeling what is in their product? What is the motive for HEALTHCARE when DISEASE care is so lucrative? Why are MAMMOGRAMS promoted instead of THERMOGRAPHY? Anyone ever check the American Cancer Society’s background? Try Prevent Cancer Coalition’s website.
For you non-believers, take the risk.
The nurse I spoke too said the synthetic, toxic products used on our skin, our children’s skin IS related to cancer. NON STICK coatings, plastic, antibiotics in meat and poultry, GMO/GE food, hair dye, radiation via XRAYS, nano make-up, IS related to getting cancer. Why would SHE lie to me?
There are so many websites funded by BIG PHARMA/COSMECEUTICALS to keep us taking their drugs, using toxic products so they PROFIT. CAVEAT EMPTOR! EWG is NOT the enemy…it’s our own ignorance. Research outside of the USA and learn what is truly killing us off.
Apologize for reviving a long-silent debate. But I’ve been troubled by one thing about the Darbre findings. I’m probably thinking too much about things I don’t know anything about, and I haven’t read the full paper or follow-up studies, so I don’t know whether the samples were obtained from surgical specimens or from, say, needle biopsy. In either case, I don’t really know how free samples of tissue would be of artifact from the removal of the tissue–what I’m getting at is, could everyday skin care products like moisturizer, etc, be present in the sample because the scalpel or needle contacted traces of these skin care products while piercing the skin? I will say my mom is a two-time breast cancer survivor (not a recurrence, that’s two separate primary tumors in different breasts), and in the absence of a smoking gun, I won’t think twice about putting parabens or deodorant on my skin (nor does she).
Sorry, I meant to post the above on the perils or parabens discussion where the brains mention the Darbre study…whoops. But briefly mentioned in above discussion as well.
P.P.S. Both mom and I eat soy whenever we want, too:)
Interestingly enough, almost no antiperspirants / deodorants contain parabens. They don’t need to because they contain triclosan which is preservative enough.
Yeah, I guess I was never worried enough to read the label. But others had suggested that–similar to what is alleged about parabens–aluminum in antiperspirant is an “endocrine disruptor” that will cause breast cancer if we don’t watch out. But these same people will say how wonderful soy products are (despite their being phyto-estrogens) because they are all natural and “chemical-free.” Sorry to be such a grouch, but I imagine some of these same people are drinking a glass of red wine a day per Dr. Oz, although alcohol really DOES give men boobies (and is the one potential everyday “chemical” at least theoretically related to breast cancer that I do think twice about).
Aside from it giving men boobies, the other rationale for actually giving some thought to alcohol consumption is that concern about its impact on breast cancer risk is actually in the mainstream. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_3_2x_Alcohol_use_and_cancer.asp?sitearea=PED
Stating that the EWG didn’t cite any research that condemns parabens is irrelevant. You could find that research on your own.
“People actually put food into their bodies not cosmetics,”
…transdermal skin patches that administer medication have been shown in many cases to be more effective than those taken orally. Hmm, that’s weird. Maybe it’s because our skin is absorbent. No.. it can’t be…
Attacking health supplement companies did not distract me from the real issue, if that’s what you were going for. I don’t see how that topic is at all relevant. Yeah, that industry has it problems, too. So what?
I consistently find very little “science” in your articles. Just an understanding of basic chemistry, lack of real research, distracting attacks on loosely related parties, and a nice pat on the back to encourage me to march into Walmart’s body wash aisle with my head held high. It’s not that I don’t want to feel safe about the products I use, it’s that you don’t give me ANY legitimate reasons to do so.
“It’s just that there are NO cosmetics that are more safe than others. The only way to be completely safe is to stop using cosmetics.”
Oh, and that. That is silly. You mean you really can’t rank a list of ingredients in certain ratios by their safety? I’m pretty sure you can, if you have sufficient research. And for the record, I don’t believe there is a whole lot of conclusive research on the danger of parabens, I just don’t think that makes them automatically safe. Neither does a fairly weak sampling of 20 girls with methylparaben in their blood. But still, it’s not “misleading…” and the fact that parabens have been flagged as potentially dangerous makes me interested in what further research proves, as opposed to interested in pointing and laughing at those who are worried.
{ 2 trackbacks }