Protecting water-based cosmetics from microbes that can cause rashes or infections has traditionally been the job of synthetic preservatives. But owing to a combination of toxicity concerns and consumer pressure, some cosmetics makers are eschewing specific preservative molecules such as formaldehyde or parabens or avoiding synthetics entirely reports Marc Reisch. (1)
In their place, ingredients makers have come up with a variety of plant extracts and protein derivatives to preserve personal care products. However, these systems are relatively new to the market and, in one case last year, may have failed to stop microbial contamination of a sunscreen product for babies.
Marketers, rather than scientists, seem to be in charge of formulating products these days by insisting on so-called natural ingredients, when for instance, they label personal care products as being formaldehyde and papaben-free. Such a claim ignores the fact that both the US and European regulatory authorities have found little evidence that these ingredients cause cancer in the low amounts used. (1)
Formaldehyde is often paired with another ominous term--cancer. So perhaps, it's not surprising that people freak out a bit when they hear that formaldehyde is in baby shampoo, hand lotion, or vaccines.
The risk of getting cancer from breathing formaldehyde which tends to off-gas from furniture and fabrics indoors is about the same as the risk of cancer from drinking two glasses of beer or two cans of cola every day.(2)
Also, if cancer is your fear, it's worth staring into your wine glass at the alcohol. Bruce Ames and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, have developed a measure of possible cancer hazard which compares the dose of chemicals humans are exposed to, and the estimated dose that gives tumors to half the test animals in a lifetime experiment. They report that wine is actually more carcinogenic than formaldehyde. (3)
Indeed high enough doses of inhaled formaldehyde can cause cancer, leading OSHA and EPA to set limits for safe exposures. However, every minute of every day on every inch of this planet, formaldehyde is all around us and inside us.
Our own bodies create formaldehyde as a normal by product during amino acid synthesis and overall metabolism, including breaking down antibiotics and other medications. It's also in drinking water and the air we breathe. Homer Swei, a scientist at Johnson & Johnson, points out that 90 percent of the formaldehyde around us is naturally occurring, with 60 percent of that coming form plants and trees, yet it's still perfectly fine to walk through the woods. (4)
Many foods contain naturally occurring formaldehyde:
- Fruits and vegetables (2.3-60 mg/kg)- apple, apricot, banana, cabbage, carrot, cauliflower, cucumber, grape, onion, pear, plum, potato, spinach, tomato, watermelon, radish.
- Meat and meat products (4.6-20 mg/kg)- beef, pig, sheep, poultry, ham and sausages
- Dairy products (1-3 mg/kg)- goat's milk, cow's milk, cheese
- Seafood (1-98 mg/kg)- cod, shrimp, squid, crustacean
- Others (0.02-8.7 mg/kg)- alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, brewed coffee, instant coffee, syrup. (5)
The Independent Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) requires that free formaldehyde (including that released by preservatives) make up less than 0.2 percent of a product's total ingredients. These low levels of formaldehyde meet even the most conservative consumer notification standards in the nation, those of California's Proposition 65. According to Swei, "It would take more than 40 million baby shampoo baths in a single day to reach formaldehyde levels set by California's Proposition 65." (4)
Then there's lipstick and concerns about metals. Linda Loretz, Personal Care Products Council chief toxicologist, cautions that the finding of trace amounts of metals on lipstick needs to be put in context, given their natural presence in air, soil, and water. "Food is a primary source for many of these naturally present metals, and exposure from lip products is minimal in comparison," Loretz says. "An example: trace amounts of chromium or cadmium from lip products are less than 1% of the exposure people could get from their diet. (6)
Add the fact that modern analytical techniques have become so good that they can now measure concentrations in the parts per trillion range or less, it is now possible to detect the presence of the same amount of material that wouldn't have been detected twenty years ago. So is the lipstick or cosmetic now less safe, simply because we can now detect a tiny bit that was there all along?
If you really want to get concerned, read John Emsley's book,
Nature's Building Blocks. All of the toxic metals discussed when talking about cosmetics are covered in Emsley's book, and all are present in food we eat daily. None can be totally excluded from the diet unless a person decides to do without food. (7)
Steve Milloy concludes, "Everything is 'contaminated' with trace levels of something that could be considered 'toxic' at some very high exposure level. But it is the dose that makes the poison, and no harm to health has ever been shown to be caused or contributed to cosmetics or lipsticks by these agents." (8)
References
- Marc. S. Reisch, "Close scrutiny of cosmetic preservatives continues," Chemical & Engineering News, cen.acr,org, June 9, 2014
- D. L. Ray, Environmental Regulations: Costs and Benefits, (Washington, DC, George C. Marshall Institute, 1993)
- Bruce N. Ames and Lois Swirsky Gold, "The causes and prevention of cancer," in Risks, Costs and Lives Saved, Robert W. Hahn, Editor, Oxford University Press, 1996
- Tara Haelle, "No more formaldehyde baby shampoo," slate.com, March 3, 2014
- "Foods known to contain naturally occurring formaldehyde," World Health Organization, accessed April 3, 2015
- "Lipstick study opens up concerns about carcinogens," USA Today, May 2, 2013
- John Emsley, Nature's Building Blocks, (Oxford University Press, 2001)
- Steve Milloy, "Claim: lipstick contaminant could cause stomach cancer; troubling levels of toxic metals," junkscience.com, May 2, 2013
