You are here: Home / Regulations / Opinion Poll :: Should We Give Up Lipstick, Candy, Water or Listening to Skin Deep?

Opinion Poll :: Should We Give Up Lipstick, Candy, Water or Listening to Skin Deep?

Posted by on May 27, 2010 · 14 Comments 

I’ve got a question for you.  Should you give up lipstick, candy or water consumption first?  It is a legitimate question based on the newest article from Skin Deep “I’ll take my lipstick unleaded, please” by Jane Houlihan. Below is a chart that takes a close look at the levels of lead (Pb) found by the FDA in lipsticks, the allowed level of lead in drinking water by the EPA and allowed levels of lead in candy.

Lipstick vs. Water vs. Candy

Let’s just say that long before the lipstick is going to kill you the water will have done you in.  Even your favorite candy will kill you before the lipstick does.  I’m sorry to say that if you are going to follow the direction of Skin Deep and throw out your lipstick then you are going to need a very large trash can.  Make sure you clear your home of all water and any other drink that has water in it, chocolate and candies of any kind.

How much lead is too much lead according to the EPA?

“Federal standards initially limited the amount of lead in water to 50 parts per billion (ppb). In light of new health and exposure data, EPA has set an action level of 15 ppb. If tests show that the level of lead in your household water is in the area of 15 ppb or higher, it is advisable – especially if there are young children in the home – to reduce the lead level in your tap water as much as possible. (EPA estimates that more than 40 million U.S. residents use water that can contain lead in excess of 15 ppb.)”  (source: EPA)

Obviously the FDA has a lower threshold limit for lead and yet they are being beat up by Skin Deep once again.  The FDA allows 20 ppm lead in straight undiluted FDA approved colors.  But there is not a lipstick on earth that is 100% color.  Most colors have even lower than 20 ppm lead and every batch of color must be approved by the FDA before it goes to market.

On September 2, 2009 the FDA updated their website: Lipstick and Lead: Questions and Answers

An important section of the update is included here:

“How has the FDA followed up on the latest reports?

FDA scientists developed and validated a highly sensitive method for the analysis of total lead content in lipstick and applied the method to the same selection of lipsticks evaluated by the CSC. FDA found lead in all of the lipsticks tested, ranging from 0.09 ppm to 3.06 ppm with an average value of 1.07 ppm. FDA concludes that the lead levels found are within the range that would be expected from lipsticks formulated with permitted color additives and other ingredients that had been prepared under good manufacturing practice conditions.

An article on FDA’s testing method was published in the July/August 2009 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmetic Science.1 The article includes results for lead in all the lipsticks we tested. FDA’s testing method is now available for use by any suitable analytical laboratory for the determination of total lead in lipstick.

Is there a safety concern about the lead found by the FDA in lipsticks?

No. FDA has assessed the potential for harm to consumers from use of lipstick containing lead at the levels found in its testing. Lipstick, as a product intended for topical use, is only ingested incidentally and in very small quantities. FDA does not consider the lead levels that it found in the lipsticks to be a safety concern. FDA also notes that the lead levels that it found are lower than limits recommended by other public health authorities for lead in cosmetics, including lipstick.

It has been reported that levels of lead in certain lipsticks exceed those for candy. Is this a fair comparison?

No. The FDA-recommended upper limit for lead in candy is 0.1 ppm. It is not scientifically valid to equate the risk to consumers presented by lead levels in candy, a product intended for ingestion, with that associated with lead levels in lipstick, a product intended for topical use and which is ingested in much smaller quantities than candy.” (Source: FDA.gov)

The test methods that the FDA used for the most recent study can be found here and are available to the public.

Does the FDA take lead seriously?  Can we trust the FDA to look out for the best interest of consumers?
Yes and yes.  The FDA has been actively involved in setting standards and recalling products based on levels of lead being too high.  Examples are these recalls made by the FDA for lead contamination:

Dagoba Organic Chocolate Recalls “Eclipse 87%,” “Los Rios 68%,” And “Prima Matera 100%” Dark Chocolate Products Because of High Lead Levels

Cost Plus World Market Recalls Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow Speckleware Beverage Containers and Glass Water Tank For Potential Lead Exposure Risk

State Health Department Warns Consumers Not to Eat Chaca Chaca, Lead-Contaminated Candy From Mexico

Speaking of Candy

What about the difference in allowed ppm of lead in candy vs. lipstick.  The Environmental Working Group chose the level of candy to compare to instead of water.  The numbers sure look more shocking when you compare ppm of lead in lipstick vs. candy at first glance.  But a realistic look at consumption of just one piece of candy vs. lipstick exposure takes all the thunder out of the exposure.  (See above chart)

Don’t give up candy yet!  For more information on lead in candy read the FDA’s page: Supporting Document for Recommended Maximum Level for Lead in Candy Likely To Be Consumed Frequently by Small Children and Guidance for Industry: Letter to Manufacturers, Importers, and Distributors of Imported Candy and Candy Wrappers.

What does the FDA say on Lead Poisoning from Cosmetics? Read their web page dedicated to  Kohl, Kajal, Al-Kahal, or Surma: By Any Name, a Source of Lead Poisoning.

Last Thoughts and Bottom Lines

Here is the bottom line – not one single case in U.S. medical literature of anyone getting lead poisoning or cancer from lipstick!  For more information on why lead is found in food and lipstick read my blog post The Real Story on Lead and Cosmetics.

In her article Skin Deep activist Jane Houlihan says, “If it’s made for the lips and contains lead at levels that mandate a warning under California’s Proposition 65, why doesn’t the manufacturer take steps to reduce the lead in this “Made in China” lip gloss?” This question just goes to show how little Jane Houlihan and the Environmental Working Groups knows about cosmetics.  California’s Proposition 65 requires that any product containing any one of 783 ingredients that trigger this warning statement put that warning statement on their label in order to sell cosmetics in California.  The ingredients in the Wink Strawberry Sangria Shimmer Lip Gloss that triggered the warning statement are:  Mineral Oil and Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA).  The colorants used are NOT the trigger that required this company to put the Proposition 65 warning on their label even though she is trying to make you think that is the cause.

Please, please, Skin Deep a.k.a. Environmental Working Group, educate yourselves on the cosmetic industry before declaring yourself the authority on the industry.  Stop misleading consumers with your poor science and alarmist methods.

Why am I spending all this time sharing my insider knowledge?  Because everyone deserves to know the truth and make educated decisions.  I could stop making lipstick tomorrow and it wouldn’t even make a dent in our annual revenue.  But good companies are being harmed all over the nation by these twisted reports.  During bad economic times the last thing these companies need to do is to lose sales over the misrepresentation of their products by Skin Deep and the Environmental Working Group.  You need to educate your customers with the truth about this organization and their regular misinformation propaganda.

What about you?  Are you going to quit wearing lipstick?  Quit drinking water?  Quit eating candy?  Or quit listening to Skin Deep?

Print FriendlyPrint Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author:  Kayla Fioravanti is the Vice President, Chief Formulator, ARC Registered & Certified Aromatherapist for Essential Wholesale and its lab division Essential Labs. Read more from this author

Related posts:

  1. The Real Cost of Unnecessary Pre-Market Test Proposed by Skin Deep & The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
  2. The Lead Debate Made Simple
  3. Lipstick and Lead: Questions and Answers

Filed under Regulations · Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

  • T.K.

    I understand that there are certain allowable levels of lead in the products discussed. However, if there are products containing lead that I can easily eliminate from my life, then I'll choose to do that. Looking at your chart above, would I rather have only a maximum of 15 ppm, or would I rather add in the lipstick and candy for a maximum of just over 18 ppm? Since I can control what I put in and on my body, I'll opt to eliminate the lipstick and candy and also eliminate that extra lead.

    Additionally, just because the EPA puts a maximum allowance on how much lead can be in your tap drinking water, don't assume that your local water provider's lead amount is the maximum. Check into it with your local water provider. My local water contains less than 5 ppm. So when I take into account that if I'm drinking unfiltered tap water that has 5 ppm, and then I add the combined lipstick and candy of just over 3 ppm (according to your chart), that 3 ppm equates to a very high percentage of lead that I can easily eliminate. I filter my tap water, so I'm not sure how much additional lead gets filtered out.

    The bottom line for me is that by eliminating as much lead as possible, even in small amounts, it adds up to a lot over time. That's important to me and my family!

  • http://theEcoDiva.com Elena

    Thank you for this well written and informative article. It is truly important to see the big picture and as HUGE as this issue is I think that EWG is starting in the right place by at least checking ingredients. There are many flaws in their work and I hope they are working on making this better.

    Having said that, I completely disagree with you that we should just sit back and not worry about minimal levels of lead in lipstick. We know that not any one thing will cause cancer, it is a toxic burden over time. Why not minimize this burden.

    There are amazing formulas and products that labs are simply not taking advantage. Probably due to cost of reformulating. While I do hope to see EWG make changes in their recommendations and create a more complete picture…please please don't tell the women out there to just throw their hands up and say,….Oh well…I guess I'll just go back to my regular stuff. Instead, we should be demanding that the HUGE brands that can afford reformulation set a new standard.

    Thank you for starting this conversation.

    Cheers,
    Elena
    TheEcoDiva.com

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    Thanks for your comments Elena and TK. The problem here is EWG/Skin Deep/CSC is not providing scientific information on “testing” the ingredients. Nothing has been published in scientific journals for peers to critique and respond to as normally done in the science and medical fields… basically they publish reports, hit the media and don't have the scientific evidence to back it. Industry insiders (large and small) have been calling them on this for years; many of us that produce natural and organic products have left CSC due to the misinformation being spread to the public.

    While I completely agree we need to be concerned, scare tactics aren't the way to convey this message. Well researched scientific backed information from experts in the industry are your best source. Would you go to a social worker if you were concerned about a mole for skin cancer? I think not- most would seek a doctor who is trained the specific field. I believe CSC has their heart in the right place, and I hope they work to improve their system, but the fear mongering and spread of information not based on science is just not fair to consumers. We need the science to back it. People can make their own decisions to minimize risk that way.

    I do not believe Kayla is telling us not to be concerned, but rather to educate ourselves with valid information backed by science.

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    and to follow up on my last statement: Kayla never told anyone to sit back and not do anything, she just posed the question, should we “quit listening to skin deep?”

    We started this site to bring the insider info to the public in a format that people could discuss with all those involved in the cosmetic industry: preservatives, supplies, formulators, company owners, trade organization leaders, aromatherapists… just read the bios on our experts! We've made this resource for everyone. We will not delete comments. Lisa and I respond to every contact and feedback submission. We are here for you. We are your inside resource.

  • http://www.indiebusinessblog.com Donna Maria Coles Johnson

    TK: Your reply is so thoughtful and as a woman, wife and mom, I respect it on many levels. Back to the point of EWG's assertions ….

    If an organization wants to influence behavior with regard to consumer products, they have two basic ways of doing so. Either do the hard work and produce reliable scientific information, or don't do the hard work and produce generalizations that sound well-researched, and then start people talking about it, and like the old “telephone game,” much of the non-truth becomes so ingrained that people just accept it as truth.

    So minimizing lead in life is necessary, its existence is a fact of life, and pointing the finger at any particular source of it without solid scientific evidence is a short-sighted and unhelpful response to the issue.

    Thanks for listening.

  • T.K.

    I agree that inciting fear into the public is not the way to go and that EWG should be more responsible when releasing information.

    But with all due respect, the title of the article is “Opinion Poll: Should we give up lipstick, candy, water, or listening to skin deep?” Her question, to me, came across as implying that there is nothing to worry about. While EWG I think does have alterior motives, I don't think that their information can be completely ignored. No issue is one sided, and to suggest that the general public quit listening to one side just because the other side is in disagreement, that's not responsible either.

    “Let’s just say that long before the lipstick is going to kill you the water will have done you in. Even your favorite candy will kill you before the lipstick does.” Again, while there are higher allowable levels of lead in water, that doesn't mean I want to add to it by using other lead-containing products. So, the FDA says that lead is ingested in minimal quantities from lipstick, but I must disagree with that. Most lipstick is eaten and/or licked off of lips rather than wiped off. And just as I wouldn't intentionally eat a chocolate bar that I know contains lead, I wouldn't intentionally use lipstick that contains lead. And what about children who get ahold of mom's lipstick thinking it's candy, and bite it off and ingest it? I think those instances are more than “minimal ingestion.”

    With all due respect, although the FDA is there to protect the American public, I truly believe they can and should be doing a much better job. How many times have they approved a new drug for use based on scientific study, and then had to recall the drug because it did, in fact, caused harm or even death to people? One time is too many times! And the bottom line is that the FDA does not have the funds or manpower to be more closely monitoring cosmetic ingredients and formulations. In fact, they don't test skin care or cosmetic products unless they get a substantial number of complaints about a product.

    So yes, full disclosure on all sides of the issue should be the standard. As you no doubt well know, scientific studies often produce varied results depending on the parameters of the study, who's performing the study, etc., etc. And humans conducting scientific studies aren't perfect and do make mistakes. In the end, it is up to each individual to come to their own conclusion on what products they will/won't use. As it is irresponsible for one side to imply that all products are “bad” without providing solid scientific evidence, it is also irresponsible for the other side to say “don't worry about it” just because they have a different point of view.

    • Perry Romanowski

      “…although the FDA is there to protect the American public, I truly believe they can and should be doing a much better job.”

      While you can point to some instances of drug recalls, I don’t know of any case where cosmetics were blamed/recalled for causing harm.  What evidence can you provide that would indicate that…
      1.  Cosmetics as they are regulated are harming people
      2.  Better regulation would lead to “safer” products

  • cactusandivy

    Hey T.K. -

    Welcome and thanks for your comments. You are correct, most lipsticks are eaten or licked off. What is the bigger picture? For me, it's the truth and facts surrounding the science.

    While I was listening live to the legislative session of the Colorado Safe Personal Care Products Act back in March, I heard the following spoken by Dr. Richard Adamson, a former cancer researcher. Dr. Adamson received his undergraduate degree in chemistry from Drake University and earned his M.S. and Ph.D. in pharmacology from the University of Iowa and his doctorate at 23. He also holds a M.A. in International Law and International Affairs from the George Washington University and has further graduate training in science, operational research and government and management. This is what Dr. Adamson said in reference to lead in lipstick:

    “Any ingredient that is from the soil, meaning, if it grew, would contain trace amounts of lead. Lead is not knowingly added to lipstick, however, trace amounts of lead may appear if it contains ingredients from the soil. You would have to consume 3 to 4 tubes of lipstick per day for 70 years to reach toxic lead exposure”. I don't consume 3 to 4 tubes of lipstick per day. Do you?

    I was mesmerized by his testimony. Why? Because I grew up believing that scientific proof trumps anything else on the table. And yes, the FDA has recalled certain drugs because they have caused harm or even death. I was on a particular medication that was doing wonders for me, never had a problem. The next thing I knew, it was removed from circulation and I was forced to look for an alternative drug. Digging deeper into why my medication was taken off the market, I found out that several people had experienced a heart attack. What I didn't find out was the shape those people were in when they had the heart attack. My point is, everyone's chemical makeup is different. I'm allergic to several drugs. If I take them, I go into shock. So, I don't take them.

    As you said, “as it is irresponsible for one side to imply that all products are “bad” without providing solid scientific evidence, it is also irresponsible for the other side to say “don't worry about it” just because they have a different point of view”. Kayla nor Personal Care Truth is saying 'don't worry about it'. What we are saying is here is the information. Not 'the sky is falling' or 'run for the hills'. Consumers are a savvy bunch of people and all we are here to do is provide the truth. Not half truths, generalizations, mis-information, fear mongering, scare tactics. Just the truth based on scientific facts.

    I can promise you that if later, the science proves otherwise, I will be one of the first to say so. I will not, however, follow EWG, Skin Deep or the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics blindly on their educated guesses, what if's or maybe's. The following was taken from the same legislative session in Colorado and is proof enough the other side doesn't have the science:

    “Susan Roll, Vice Chair of the Women's Lobby of Colorado, and a founding member of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Ms. Roll was asked by Representative Daniel Kagan where the independent scientific studies are and why they had not been brought to their attention in the course of lobbying this bill. Ms. Roll replied, “I am not a scientist, I'm a social worker. I am reading what you are reading, also just trying to make some educated guesses about it, honestly”.

  • T.K.

    Cactusandivy – thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate an ongoing discussion and open communication about many topics, and glad that I can find that here. I think you said it well when you said “everyone's chemical makeup is different.” Honestly, when EWG first started their lobbying, I was taken in my all their seemingly pertinent information. I have since come to realize what they really are – and that is a politically motivated lobbying group. However, I am thankful that they started the conversation because there are a lot of questionable products out there, and we need to ask questions and get answers in order to make informed decisions. Thank you for providing insight into the other side of the issues!

  • cactusandivy

    Hey T.K. -

    You are most welcome and thank you for continuing to add valuable points to this discussion. That's what it's really about. Kristin and I started this site not only to provide the truthful information backed by scientific facts, but we also hoped it would promote discussions like this. I admit that I have much to learn in many areas and I could not have surrounded myself with more talented, dedicated and very knowledgeable people.

    I can give you and all the readers of Personal Care Truth a guarantee. Between Kristin, myself and the experts on this site, if we don't know the truthful information we will find it. Personal Care Truth will never provide information we can't back by science, facts, studies, regulations, etc. It is a huge disservice to consumers to give them a sense of security or fear, with false information. I'd rather tell you I don't know and I will find out than 'maybe or I guess'.

    If there is anything you would like more clarity on or if you have a question for our experts in general or one in specific, please do not hesitate to contact us.

    Thanks again for your contribution to this discussion. We all have a lot to gain through educating ourselves instead of giving in to the fear mongers. We owe it to ourselves and family members to know the truth.

    Have a safe and happy Memorial Day weekend!

  • T.K.

    Cactusandivy – thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate an ongoing discussion and open communication about many topics, and glad that I can find that here. I think you said it well when you said “everyone's chemical makeup is different.” Honestly, when EWG first started their lobbying, I was taken in my all their seemingly pertinent information. I have since come to realize what they really are – and that is a politically motivated lobbying group. However, I am thankful that they started the conversation because there are a lot of questionable products out there, and we need to ask questions and get answers in order to make informed decisions. Thank you for providing insight into the other side of the issues!

  • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    Hey T.K. -

    You are most welcome and thank you for continuing to add valuable points to this discussion. That's what it's really about. Kristin and I started this site not only to provide the truthful information backed by scientific facts, but we also hoped it would promote discussions like this. I admit that I have much to learn in many areas and I could not have surrounded myself with more talented, dedicated and very knowledgeable people.

    I can give you and all the readers of Personal Care Truth a guarantee. Between Kristin, myself and the experts on this site, if we don't know the truthful information we will find it. Personal Care Truth will never provide information we can't back by science, facts, studies, regulations, etc. It is a huge disservice to consumers to give them a sense of security or fear, with false information. I'd rather tell you I don't know and I will find out than 'maybe or I guess'.

    If there is anything you would like more clarity on or if you have a question for our experts in general or one in specific, please do not hesitate to contact us.

    Thanks again for your contribution to this discussion. We all have a lot to gain through educating ourselves instead of giving in to the fear mongers. We owe it to ourselves and family members to know the truth.

    Have a safe and happy Memorial Day weekend!

  • Dene Godfrey

    I realise that I have arrived very late in this discussion, but TK, whilst I accept your desire to minimise your exposure to lead, your logic is not quite accurate when it comes to comparing exposures. You can't add the 3ppm to the 5ppm, because the concentrations refer to totally different exposure scenarios. Despite your earlier contention that a child biting off part of a lipstick is not minimal ingestion, that is precisely what it is. Even if the chlild ingested an entire stick (10g?), that is minimal ingestion, because 10g is a tiny amount to ingest, especially when compared to the daily weight of food ingested and when you consider that 3ppm of 10g is 0.00003g. Furthermore, the child is unlikely to want to repeat the experience, so this would be a one-off exposure – and minimal to the point of insignificance.
    I also challenge the view that most lipstick is ingested. I would argue that most lipstick is wiped off. Lead exposure from the use of lipstick is so miniscule when compared to the quantity ingested in food and drink that it is not worth the worry of trying to avoid it. In other words it would not be sufficient to provide the tipping point for any adverse effects.

    For me, the worst aspect of the way that EWG et al handle the lead question is that they give consumers (and regulators) the impression that lead is deliberately added to lipstick which is, of course, a complete nonsense, but typical of the EWG style of scaremongering.

  • Robert Tisserand

    If I am reading Kayla’s numbers correctly, there is approximately two billion times more lead in 64 oz of bottled water than in a single application exposure from a high-lead lipstick. Let’s assume you actually eat a whole tube of lipstick per day, and that this equals 100 applications. You are still going to consume 20 million times more lead in your water on a daily basis. To put it another way, if you were to eat 20 million tubes of lipstick per day, you would be ingesting as much lead as you do from drinking water. I think this is a fair comparison of risk. Risk is not about what is in something, it’s also about how much of it there is. The EWG are telling us that there is lead in lipstick, and that we should therefore be very concerned, but they do not, ever, assess risk.

Content Protected Using Blog Protector By: PcDrome.