We’ve blogged before about our concerns of how the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Environmental Working Group are using fear mongering to scare consumers away from beauty products that are perfectly safe to use.
Competitive Enterprise Institute
We’re excited to see that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is now committed to exposing the facts behind the propaganda that these groups are spreading. According to Dana Joel Gattuso, author of the CEI Issue Analysis, The True Story of Cosmetics: Exposing the Risks of the Smear Campaign:
“As part of their effort to ban the use of synthetic ingredients from skin products, environmental extremist groups are working to incite fear among consumers, making outrageous and bogus claims that we are poisoning ourselves by using lipstick, makeup, deodorants, skin creams, and even baby products.”
These groups claim certain preservatives cause cancer, create neurological disorders, or cause hormone disruption while in fact when used properly, these ingredients protect users from bacteria that can cause eye infections, skin rashes, and even deadly infections such as E. coli and Salmonella. Similarly, the EWG claims the sunscreen ingredient, oxybenzone, can cause skin cancer even though cancer research organizations such as the Skin Cancer Foundation refute this claim.
Pending legislation
Perhaps the most disturbing point is that these groups are lobbying for the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, that would “ban any cosmetic and skin care ingredients that exceed a one in a million risk of an adverse health impact. That bill would effectively ban most ingredients since almost everything carries risk greater than one in a million.” CEI’s tongue-in-cheek video makes the point nicely.
Important note: While the Beauty Brains like CEI’s approach of making science-based decisions we also recognize that they have their own political agenda to push. You can read all about their conservative backing here.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
The way I view it, it’s all about political games, right?
I suppose activists have their own agenda to push…
Well, I think it’s a interests conflicts here. I was influented by the video The Story of Cosmetics and I”m replacing my usual cosmetics for safe ones. It’s not impossible to trade, as it has som many companies that use better and non-toxic ingredients.
I just don’t understand why these extremist don’t research for the truth. I have to have proof! I haven’t seen any proof what so ever! Just a bunch of here-say hype!
I wrote about this topic a while back.
http://femmeelle.blogspot.com/2011/06/can-your-makeup-really-cause-cancer.html
Very disturbing. I continue to think that unscientific thinking is going to ruin everything good about modern living…
Case in point: a lovely all natural bread that I very much enjoy has no preservatives. That is great by some people, but if we don’t refrigerate it, we have to throw it away in very short order because of the mold. I don’t think preservatives would adversely affect the taste, quality, or healthfulness of the product–but they would allow us to store our bread longer without mold.
I received this press release yesterday as well, and I was SO GLAD that a group was standing up to say something about the EWG. I’ve written about them previously on my blog, and I know that I’ve read very similar statements here on The Beauty Brains as well. I have no problem with people being concerned about chemicals, etc, but they do not correctly interpret any scientific studies. I’ve seen them interpret studies 180 degrees from what a study actually says. They send out a ton of press releases and get people worked up about an ingredient, thinking it is suddenly fully responsible for cancer or greatly distorts the endocrine system…. They are lobbyists, not scientists, and many people in the “lay” public don’t understand this fact. Their new numeric system for labeling safety in an ingredient is not really based in fact and seems to be pulled out of thin air. I get so many questions about it now, and it is truly driving me crazy, I’ve been sending out emails to readers left and right explaining studies about things like parabens and oxybenzone and what is actually in the literature.
I’ll be referring some people over here to your post, I fully agree with the Beauty Brains!
I am looking forward to following their work!
Thanks for pointing out how the EWG uses fear mongering to push their agenda. As an esthetician I get asked about their sunscreen report. I find that the EWG’s sunscreen report does more damage than good in the end. It drives me crazy that it gets such widespread media coverage when other important cosmetic issues do not. Thanks for the post!
Oh, and I finally watched the clip. Love it!
Since it seems everyone has an agenda, lets look at it this way… who has the most to lose if people begin to question the safety of synthetic chemicals? It seems the big cosmetic companies would have the most to lose in decreased product sales.
As far as the producers of this video, CEI, everyone should click the link the Beauty Brains provided above in the post and read about them. Lots of interesting projects they have been involved in that don’t seem to have consumer health as a priority. It says at the very bottom that CEI funding sources/contributors include PHILIP MORRIS. If you don’t know who Philip Morris is, they are the world’s largest tobacco company who tried to convince the public that smoking cigarettes do not cause health problems for decades.
CEI even describe themselves as “a pro-corporate front group headed by Frances B. Smith, the wife of CEI founder Fred Smith” in the Alliances section.
So… if CEI’s priority is working for corporations like Philip Morris, one would expect they would downplay potential health concerns regarding the synthetic chemicals found in cosmetics. Their bias is spelled out quite clearly.
Woah, woah woah: This article is complete propaganda bullshit. I cursed here because I cannot think of a way to express more strongly that anyone who reads this and even half-believes it has been duped. It’s fucking disgusting. If this website has any integrity, this post should be redacted and replaced with a non-biased article that’s not just an obvious regurgitated press release from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
First off, that pathetic disclaimer is both incorrect and doesn’t explain WHY CEI is so terrible. CEI is a libertarian think tank, not a conservative one, which is even scarier when it comes to issues of government regulation and corporate funding. CEI and groups like it are funded by companies like Exxon-Mobil and Pfizer specifically because it is in their financial best interest to promote the false idea that government regulation is bad.
The fact is,these companies simply do not care whether certain cosmetic ingredients are carcinogens because it will cost them money if they have to remove a cheap ingredient and replace it with a more expensive non-carcinogen. CEI is funded by entities who have a financial stake in preventing scientists and the public from investigating, determining whether a chemical is safe for human use, and banning it if it is not.
Look at asbestos or lead paint — without scientific testing and government regulation, we would still be exposed to these awful carcinogens every single day. But the really frightening part is, even after the dangers of asbestos and lead were uncovered scientifically, it took years for regulation to be implemented because powerful corporations resisted doing the right thing, all so they wouldn’t lose a few bucks. This is the kind of opinion this blog is promoting.
And yet, they say the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is biased? No, it is the exact opposite of biased, because it’s funded by people who just want to keep humans safe. They do not gain OR lose money whether a chemical is found to be a carcinogen or not.
Please educate yourself and don’t believe a word of CEI’s propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Safe_Cosmetics
Glad to see Beauty Brains cover this. I love and hate this topic. I love that people are thinking and trying to figure out what approach to skin care is right for their values, fears and goals. I hate the hysteria, politics and profit incentives that grab for attention.
Facts:
1. We (our scientists) don’t really know if these chemicals are bad
2. These chemicals make products last longer which means they are more affordable and convenient for people to buy and use
3. Some really beneficial products have the most publicized chemicals. These are products with long track records of helping people, and finicky formulations that may be impacted if the bases are changed to remove the chemicals; it takes years to tell if efficacy is diminished and I think ‘it ain’t broke enough to tinker with it’ for these. Some of the biggies are Retin A (has parabens) and some of the best sunscreens with parabens and retinyl palmitate.
4. Some of the chemicals getting a lot of attention get replaced with ones I think are even worse. The new products tout for example ‘paraben free’ and yet are stuffed with formaldehyde preservatives with names that most label reading consumers would not recognize as formaldehyde cousins.
I tell my patients that they need to explore where their anxieties, goals, values are and make their decisions based on that understanding. For some, the unknown is just too much and they want to use more natural products. Others want the benefits of some of the great products with these chemicals but will chose other products with less chemicals as well. Then there are those folks that just don’t believe the negative press at all and are not going to let it impact there choices. I wrote an article outlining my approach about it a year ago http://www.drbaileyskincare.com/blog/parabens-in-skin-care-products-and-skin-cancer/
YES! Like other above, I’ve been blogging about EWG silliness, and have also been discussing their absurdities on MakeupAlley for years now.
This is great: taking a stand against idiocy/lunacy and ignorance, standing up for reason and science, and informing and protecting all consumers–though especially women–from such manipulation and abuse. EWG propaganda and fear-mongering has worrying implications: anti-science and anti-feminist.
Am looking forward to more EWG critique. Three cheers for The Beauty Brains!
Thanks AC. We understand how this article could have set of your “bullshit detector.” But we’re not sure it’s accurate to say that “these companies do not care whether certain cosmetic ingredients are carcinogens because it will cost them money…” These same companies will also lose a lot of money from law suits and from lost sales due to dead customers if they are as careless about product safety as you suggest. Anyway you slice this is a complex subject and everyone is entitled to their point of view.
I also am not at all sure there’s any truth to the idea that carcinogens are cheaper than non-carcinogens and save companies money. Where is the evidence to support this claim?
I personally don’t think law suits scare the big cosmetic manufacturers. Large corporations can ride out some hefty liability lawsuits…. Going back to Philip Morris who is still around after having lost hundreds of millions in litigation to consumers who became ill with cancer from smoking. As is the Ford Motor company who paid billions out to families who were injured or killed in the Ford Explorer models that the company knew had faulty safety designs but decided to mass market the car anyhow. Even though people died because of their deception & negligence, they paid them off, took their scolding and got back to business…. Plus any litigation involving cosmetic ingredients would probably be a decade or two away, there’s too much money to be made in the meantime.
Wow… This video is very efficient!
It’s hard then to argue against her point of view!
@thebeautybrains sorry i just had to comment on your reply to AC.. “These same companies will also lose a lot of money from law suits and from lost sales due to dead customers if they are as careless about product safety as you suggest”…. I am sorry but wouldn’t be nearly impossible to trace exactly which products these cancer causing ingredients came from? Considering many women do not use just one brand. All I am saying is I do not believe that these BIG companies would lose any money due to dead customers because nobody would know about it.. and another thing.. it would probably take more than just a few years for the customer to develop cancer from those products .. a build up of the toxic products wouldn’t happen immediately. The amount of work that it would take to trace back which products were used and how much of each product was use is just too much and in my opinion it would never happen.. it would be too difficult to trace back. These companies are putting ingredients in their products in the amount that is said to be “safe” for consumers.. they DO care if their product gets pulled off the shelf or not but what they DON’T care about is the long term affect it will have on customers because they simply do not have to.. all they legally need to be concerned about is what is allowed.
@Tracy: As someone who as worked in “big companies” that make these products I know for a fact that there IS concern for the safety of the consumers. (Also, remember that most of who work in cosmetic companies use these products on ourselves and our families!)
I think companies would lose alot of money if there killing there costumers. Dead people don’t buy.
I think small companies that want to make a quick profit and do not need to stay for the long run are the ones to fear. ( If you are going to fear at all. )
The way I see it, everyone has their own interests to look after. That’s why I’ve started making my own beauty products at home. Yes, there is a learning curve with regards to preservation, texture, etc. But little by little, I’ve created simple products with tried and true ingredients that my family uses and loves. I don’t want to risk chemicals if I can avoid them.
I just want people to get a little more fascinated with the dangers of something other than cosmetics. Is it that deep down, we are a prudish society and don’t want women to enhance their looks and look too sexy? Do we, as women, feel guilty for being vain? Why such a focus on cosmetics and not, say, cheetos, footwear, sofas, dog treats (I just got them ALL over me at obedience class) or the soil content or our potted plants?
Its not 1950 anymore …we actualy take science classes.
Nice article and i loved the video.
To me, the cosmetic companies who use natural ingredients , seem to care more about their customers and the quality of the products they make.
Making your own beauty products at home can be fun though, and the learning process is awesome…all in good measure.
{ 6 trackbacks }