The toxic chemicals present in cosmetics in the modern day market are harmful to humans and the environment. Despite this knowledge, these chemicals remain unregulated and most consumers are completely unaware of their dangers. Though the US is required to regulate our personal care products to insure consumer safety, these regulations do not effectively demand transparency. Due to the lenient regulations riddled with loopholes currently enforced by the United States government, states must enforce safe cosmetics bills to make sure these safety risks are being accounted for on a state level, and eventually on a national level. Vermont’s government could better regulate these harmful chemicals on a state level by passing House Bill 308, a safe cosmetics bill that would allow the Vermont Board of Health to examine carcinogens being used in cosmetics including “trade secrets” often defined as “fragrance” or “flavoring” on labels, as well as requiring manufacturers earning $1,000,000 dollars or more to identify all chemicals used in their products found to cause cancer or reproductive issues.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938 was the first set of laws passed by Congress to allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to control the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics. Since then, the last law passed on cosmetic safety was the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 that involved the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the regulation of toxic substances. Before this law was passed, the ingredients used in products in the United States were rarely recorded and mostly unknown to consumers.  The TSCA of 1976 was the last law passed in the United States regarding safe personal care products. In 1976, there were no cell phones, cosmetic safety apps like SkinDeep or ThinkDirty, and few knew the dangers of the chemicals existing in makeup and other personal care products. An updated nation-wide regulation is imperative in modern day U.S. To this day, “the FDA does not review what goes into cosmetics before they are marketed, cannot compel companies to provide data-including health effects data, and cannot recall products.”(Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, 2016). “Once hazardous chemicals are in use, the enforcement burden on the EPA is so high that it has succeeded in banning or restricting only five substances, and often only in specific applications: polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin, hexavalent chromium, asbestos and chlorofluorocarbons.” (Urbina, 2013)

In 2005, the California Safe Cosmetics Act was signed. It ensures that cosmetic companies must publicly declare their use of harmful chemicals. (Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, 2016). Though is may seem like a small victory among many of the institutionally hazardous problems present in the multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry, it took massive efforts from California citizen’s to pressure the Safe Cosmetics Act to be passed and remains a huge achievement for California and the fight for safer cosmetics nation-wide. Various federal cosmetic regulations have been proposed since 2005, but none have seemed to fully succeed as this one did. Along with the various proposed bills to increase cosmetic regulations and enforce the precautionary principle, there have also been proposed bills that won’t enforce any chemical testing and would require less information from cosmetic manufacturers on their ingredients. These opposing bills and opinions of representatives are a major roadblock in making major progress in the realm of safe cosmetics.

In 2013, University of Vermont Senior Anna Tadio introduced the H. 308 Safe Cosmetics Legislation in Vermont. The bill would mimic California’s bill and demand cosmetic companies making over one million dollars to publicly disclose their ingredients and their health effects. This bill would protect the health of Vermonters, support small business, and act as a similar model to other states and encourage the federal government to take further action. Since it usually takes two years for a bill to pass, this bill never did pass, but it was introduced and the Human Services committee seemed interested in it and even considered fast tracking it. Tadio’s thesis proves that passing any sort of bill on a state level is incredibly difficult, but not impossible. When she proposed the bill, many Vermont politicians, even Jill Krowinski with whom she worked with in creating the bill, were completely unaware of the hazardous health dangers in cosmetics and their lack of regulation. Tadio proved that is change is difficult, but not impossible. With the right connections, information, and dedication, proposals such as H.308 can be passed with enough pressure from the public. (Tadio, 2013).

Annie Leonard, in her video The Story of Cosmetics, released in 2010, covers the many hazards of chemicals in cosmetics. “On average, a woman in the US uses about 12 personal care items daily, a man 6, each product has about a dozen or so chemicals. Less than twenty have been deemed safe by the industry safety panel.” (Leonard, 2010). Of those remaining 80% many are carcinogens (causing cancer), neurotoxins and reproductive toxins (linked to reproductive toxicity), parabens (linked to breast cancer), phthalates (hormone disrupters), and even lead (deathly effects on children, reproductive issues among many others). Despite this knowledge, many of these chemicals remain unregulated and are masked on ingredient labels as “fragrance” or “flavoring.” This marketing technique is not only deceiving consumers, but it is harming their health and wellbeing by way of industry loopholes.

Many of these loopholes have gained recognition after a few of the cosmetic scandals that happened in the past several years including the discoveries of lead in lipstick, mercury in face cream, and formaldehyde in hair straightening products. It was uncovered when Brazilian Blowout hair straightening product with formaldehyde in it went on the market to salon professionals that, since they were not being marketed on a fully retail basis, it had surpassed approval from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. The FDA could not recall the hair smoother despite knowing their was formaldehyde in it even after many customer complaints and inquires that that might be the case. A similar scandal happened with lead being found in 33 popular lipstick brands. Lead is a dangerous neurotoxin that has dangerous effects on children’s health and women’s reproductive systems upon exposure and ingestion. Despite these scientific facts, the FDA claims on their website, “Although we do not believe that the lead content found in our recent lipstick analyses poses a safety concern, we are evaluating whether there may be a need to recommend an upper limit for lead in lipstick in order to further protect the health and welfare of consumers” (FDA, 2016). For the FDA, the administration that is supposed to be protecting me from these hazardous health risks, to believe that small doses of lead being ingested as lipstick is not of urgent concern in appalling. This proves that new updated bills are of utmost necessity in the United States. These loopholes must be closed and transparent labeling and testing must be demanded of these popular cosmetic brands.

“On cosmetics labels, words like herbal, natural, even organic have no legal definition. That means that anyone can put anything in a bottle and call it natural. And they do.” (Leonard, 2013) This falsified use of the word “natural,” that Annie mentions in her video is what is called green washing. Green washing is a marketing technique used by companies to appeal to eco-friendly buyers by marketing their products as though they are good for the environment, even when they are not. Similar to green washing, many companies, especially cosmetic companies, are guilty of pink washing. Pink washing is marketing a product that ‘fights breast cancer,’ when in reality the product usually contain chemicals that have been linked specifically to breast cancer. This is the irony of the world of cosmetics. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act was based enforced in 1994, and must be updated to match the many advances made in United States since then.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a project of the Breast Cancer Fund, works to educate and protect consumers about the products they are purchasing and using. Cosmetics are personal. It makes telling someone the truth about these products they have chosen to purchase and use extremely difficult and often emotional. Campaign for Safe Cosmetics works not only to accomplish that complicated task, but also to pressure the multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry to change their ways and demand transparency. In 2004, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics was launched by the Breast Cancer Fund and a compact was signed by more than 50 environmental, women’s and health groups and mailed to 250 cosmetic companies asking them to remove phthalates and sign the Compact for Safe Cosmetics. Since then, 1,500 companies have signed. In 2006, Orly and Sally Hensen agreed to remove formaldehyde, toluene, and dibutyl phthalate from their nail polish, as a result of pressure from the campaign. In 2007, campaign founder Stacy Malkan published “Not Just a Pretty Face,” a book exposing the ugly side of the beauty industry. In 2010, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 was created, as well as Annie Leonard’s Story of Cosmetics video, which now has 1.8 million views. These are just a few of the many successes achieved by the campaign.

More recently, Senators Dianne Feinstein, a democrat from California, and Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, have been urging the Senate HELP committee to introduce the Personal Care Products Safety Act of 2015. This bill will both ensure that products are tested to be safe before they are marketed to the public as well as require the FDA to review at least five risky chemicals per year. This could hopefully stop the lead in lipstick and formaldehyde in hair straightener scandals from occurring. (Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, 2016). The only issue that remains unaddressed by this act is the issue of its effect on small businesses. Anna Tadio made a point in her proposed Vermont bill that companies earning under $1,000,000 can be exempt from these testing regulations. I think this is a vital part of the bill because it exempts people like soap-maker Kathy Long of Gary, Indiana, who has been petitioning Senator Feinstein and Senator Collins on their proposal, from having to pay for expensive lawyers so she can focus on growing her small business. Small soap-makers like Kathy are not who should be targeted. It is the multi-billion dollar cosmetic industry, an industry known for disguising products as safe when they are not, who should be demanded to make serious change.

Though cosmetics have been largely unregulated and unexamined up until this point, there is a big push to take legal action towards safe cosmetics and ensuring cosmetic ingredients are not harmful to human or environmental health. By petitioning these companies, pressuring the government, and educating people about these dangers, progress will be made and steps will be taken towards a safer future for makeup. H.308 did not pass, but there is hope because of the increased awareness with much thanks to people like Annie Leonard and organizations such as the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Breast Cancer Fund. There is hope that with enough increased public pressure and exposed information that bills like H.308 can and will pass on the state and federal levels. Cosmetics and personal care products are wonderful necessities in the modern world that are not worth sacrificing completely over fixable problems like the elimination of hazardous chemicals. Though change will not happen over night, there is hope that with progressive leaders being elected into office that there is a safe cosmetic industry in our future.

Works Cited:

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (2016). Retrieved from http://www.safecosmetics.org/

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (2016) Historic Federal Cosmetic Safety Legislation Could Finally Protect Consumers From Dangerous Chemicals in Personal Care Products. Retrieved from http://www.safecosmetics.org/about-us/media/press-releases/historic-federal-cosmetic-safety-legislation-could-finally-protect-consumers-from-dangerous-chemicals-in-personal-care-products/

Halley, Colleen (2010, July 22) Nothing pretty about toxic cosmetics. Retrieved from http://www.vpirg.org/uncategorized/nothing-pretty-about-toxic-cosmetics/

Leonard, Annie (2010, July 20). The Story of Cosmetics. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfq000AF1i8

Long, Kathy (2016) Withdraw Senate Bill S.1014– Personal Care Products Safety Act. Retrieved from https://www.change.org/p/dianne-feinstein-withdraw-senate-bill-s-1014-personal-care-products-safety-act

Sigurdson, Tina and Roth, Galen. (2015, August 21). Brazilian-style Blowouts: Still Poisonous, Still In Salons. Retrieved from http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2015/08/brazilian-style-blowouts-still-poisonous-still-salons

Tadio, Anna (2013). Safe Cosmetics Legislation in Vermont. Passing H. 308 in the Vermont Legislation. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=envstheses

Urbina, Ian. (2013, April 13). Think Those Chemicals Have Been Tested? Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/sunday-review/think-those-chemicals-have-been-tested.html?_r=1

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016). Hair-Smoothing Products That Release Formaldehyde When Heated. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductsIngredients/Products/ucm228898.htm

World Health Organization (2015, August) Lead poisoning and health. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs379/en/

Emily Soderberg is a University of Vermont student and well-researched cosmetics consumer.