Corporate Cover-Up: The Regulation of Our Cosmetic Companies

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the government entity that is responsible for regulating chemicals in cosmetics in the United States. According to its web site:

  • The FDA cannot regulate or require companies to do safety testing of their cosmetic products before they are released to the marketplace. Neither cosmetic products or cosmetic ingredients are reviewed or approved by FDA before they are sold to the public.
  • The FDA does not have the authority to require manufacturers to register their cosmetic establishments, file data on ingredients, or report cosmetic-related injuries. The FDA maintains a voluntary data collection program, and only those cosmetic companies that wish to participate in the program forward data to FDA.
  • The FDA is not permitted to require recalls of cosmetics. They can only monitor a company once it voluntarily decides to conduct a product recall.
  • If the FDA wishes to remove a cosmetic product from the market, it must first prove in a court of law that the product may be injurious to users, improperly labeled, or otherwise violates the law.

As a result, many cosmetics that contain harmful chemicals currently go to market without any kind of safety testing. If it is later determined that a product is truly harmful, the FDA cannot simply remove it from the market, even though many people may already be using it. The FDA bears the cost and burden of proving that a chemical is harmful, when it should be the cosmetic companies that have to prove their products are safe before releasing them to market.

The Role of Industry is not Working in the Public's Best Interest

The Cosmetic, Toiletry & Fragrance Association (CTFA) is the leading US trade association for companies in the personal care products industry. (A trade association is a group made up of individuals and companies in a specific business organized to promote their common interests.) In 1976, the CTFA established the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) to assess the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics. The CIR claims that while it is funded by the CTFA, their review of chemicals is unbiased and independent from the cosmetics industry. Cosmetic companies often rely on the scientific expertise of the CIR to back up their claims that their products are safe, but since the CIR is funded and directed by those same companies, its findings and recommendations often puts the companies' interests ahead of consumer health. For example, many consumers have written letters to Avon regarding their concerns about parabens and phthalates in cosmetics, and Avon replied that the CIR has concluded these chemicals are safe for use in cosmetics.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is also a trade association, made up of companies in the business of chemical manufacturing. The ACC was previously known as the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, and the Chemical Manufacturers Association. The ACC receives its funding from chemical companies and industries, and promotes views that serve that industry's economic interests, often over the interests of the public's health.

In November of 2003, the Environmental Working Group obtained an internal ACC memo outlining the chemical industry's plans to conduct a covert campaign attacking the growing movement in California for the precautionary principle of public health. A precautionary approach to chemical regulation would require that new chemicals be tested for safety before they could be put out on the market. The European Union is working to implement this approach through a far-reaching new chemical regulation policy called REACH. In recent years, California has taken steps to protect public health by regulating and banning a number of toxic pollutants. For example, California has recently banned the use of PBDEs, toxic chemicals found in some flame-retardants. Mounting evidence suggest PBDEs disrupt proper brain development, and impair intelligence and motor skills in young children.

Putting profit before people should not be "business as usual". The American Chemistry Council states that the precautionary principle is "a threat to the entire U.S. chemical industry". The leaked memo reveals their plans to fight against increased chemical safety testing and regulation and to conduct a public campaign to attack the precautionary principle.

Many concerned citizens and a diverst array of non-profit groups, including BCA and the Bay Area Working Group on the Precautionary Principle, have been working to advance the precautionary principle of public health in California. Shortly after the above memo was leaked BCA received a letter from the American Chemistry Council. Click the links below to read our exchange of letters.

In the last letter we received from the American Chemistry Council, they suggest that phthalates are protective against breast cancer. The suggestion that phthalates may be protective for breast cancer is reminiscent of a claim made several years ago by a senior official at the National Cancer Institute that the evidence about the massive dioxin exposure in Seveso, Italy. The official claimed that dioxin—now a proven carcinogen—was protective against breast cancer. We know now that that claim proved to be wrong—dead wrong.

We can protect our health and prevent future mistakes if we move towards policy that puts public health first. Dr. Mocarelly, the physician in charge of assessing health problems in people exposed during the Seveso disaster, says "I think this accident teaches us that it is better to take care of the environment before these things happen. Not after."

So Who Is Regulating Our Cosmetics?

Because testing is voluntary and controlled by the cosmetic manufacturers, many ingredients in cosmetic products are not safety tested at all. The Environmental Working Group's report Skin Deep states that 89% of ingredients used in personal care products have not been evaluated for safety by the CIR, the FDA, nor any other publicly accountable institution (FDA 2000, CIR 2003). The absence of governmental oversight for this $35 billion industry leads to companies routinely marketing products with ingredients that are poorly studied, not studied at all, or worse, known to pose potentially serious health risks. It's time to protect consumers.