Lead in Lipstick!

[SarahLouise]

I saw that programme too. I couldn't believe the sister who goes through a bottle of deodorant a week and EATS toothpaste 8 times a day! It's also quite horrible to think that as lipstick wearers we digest about 10 blocks of lard in our lifetime. I saw another programme a few weeks ago about cosmetics and apparently the average woman spends £180,000 on make-up in their lifetime

 

[nyx]

Actually, the MAC matte lipsticks were ranked in the middle, listing moderate risk.

It appeared in both the less than 0.02 parts per million (lowest level) and the less 0.1 ppm group (middle)--same lipstick (Viva Glam), but different test results, showing that there may be some inconsistencies in either the samples or the testing. However, as the report showed, that second sample of MAC tested at 0.03, only 0.01 more than the lower group's amount. Plus, that level (less than 0.1ppm) is the FDA recommended limit of lead in candy, so I know it's testing better than some of the candy that my son could eat. In all, I feel that makes it safer to use than some of the other lipsticks on the list. I love Russian Red so it makes my day.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

It appeared in both the less than 0.02 parts per million (lowest level) and the less 0.1 ppm group (middle)--same lipstick (Viva Glam), but different test results, showing that there may be some inconsistencies in either the samples or the testing. However, as the report showed, that second sample of MAC tested at 0.03, only 0.01 more than the lower group's amount. Plus, that level (less than 0.1ppm) is the FDA recommended limit of lead in candy, so I know it's testing better than some of the candy that my son could eat. In all, I feel that makes it safer to use than some of the other lipsticks on the list. I love Russian Red so it makes my day.

The problem is that lead absorption is cumulative, so even if there are "allowable amounts" or below, over time it can cause health problems. Also, "The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there is no safe level of lead exposure for children and has called for eliminating lead hazards in children's environments."

I didn't know until recently that the FDA allows some lead in candy.

 

[nyx]

The problem is that lead absorption is cumulative, so even if there are "allowable amounts" or below, over time it can cause health problems. Also, "The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there is no safe level of lead exposure for children and has called for eliminating lead hazards in children's environments."

I didn't know until recently that the FDA allows some lead in candy.

Since I had my son, I started thinking about things that I never would have thought about when I was younger. Ah carefree youth! I agree that there are no safe levels of lead, but I would rather where a tested lipstick than a non-tested one. If MAC is testing at less than 0.02 or 0.03, and I'm going to wear lipstick (which, unfortunely, I'm a lipstick junkie, so that's a given), I'd rather it be one that tests low than high. I'm sure I'm overanalyzing this a bit, as I doubt he's getting much from me kissing him, as I rarely kiss him on the mouth--don't want him to catch any of my germs I try to keep all of my makeup out of his reach, but I don't want to come home one day and find he's eaten a tube of lead-filled lipstick

 

[Paisley]

If I were eating lipstick like candy, I'd be a more concerned. But I go through about a tube of lipstick per year.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

If I were eating lipstick like candy, I'd be a more concerned. But I go through about a tube of lipstick per year.

Lipstick, like candy, is ingested.

 

[Paisley]

I'm aware of that. It's not the poison, it's the dose.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I'm aware of that. It's not the poison, it's the dose.

Right- and because it's absorbed and accumulates, a teeny tiny dose each time translates into dangerous levels over time.

 

[Paisley]

This article at Snopes.com doesn't address this study in particular, but does describe FDA regulation of cosmetics and puts the exposure to lead into perspective. I for one won't be throwing out my L'Oreal lipstick.

One thing I found from the EPA's web site that I thought was interesting was that 20% of our exposure to lead comes from drinking water. (Bottled water isn't necessarily any better than tap.)

 

[$ally]

Well, our Moms and Grandmothers survived without brain damage, so I imagine we will be fine too.

 

[ASimpleLady]

I just got some Clinique Angel Red! Now I'm worried about it. Should I return it???

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I just got some Clinique Angel Red! Now I'm worried about it. Should I return it???

I'm going to try and get a credit for mine! I use other Clinique products.

 

[ASimpleLady]

I received mine last week from Sephora. I guess I'll email their C.S. and see what happens.

 

[Blondie]

This article at Snopes.com doesn't address this study in particular, but does describe FDA regulation of cosmetics and puts the exposure to lead into perspective. I for one won't be throwing out my L'Oreal lipstick.

One thing I found from the EPA's web site that I thought was interesting was that 20% of our exposure to lead comes from drinking water. (Bottled water isn't necessarily any better than tap.)

Hi Paisley, i posted the same report as you , but was told it was not revelant to this topic, go figure ????? ( i deleted my post )
SO glad you have posted it as well,
i think it's important to keep it all in perspective..........

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Hi Paisley, i posted the same report as you , but was told it was not revelant to this topic, go figure ????? ( i deleted my post )
SO glad you have posted it as well,
i think it's important to keep it all in perspective..........

Actually, I didn't say it wasn't relevant, what I said was that the article was referencing a different report, and I thanked you for posting it.

 

[Paisley]

Well, our Moms and Grandmothers survived without brain damage, so I imagine we will be fine too.

My great-grandfather was accidentally shot when he was a child and lived to a ripe old age with a bullet in him. Not that it did him any good, of course.

 

[ShortClara]

Well, our Moms and Grandmothers survived without brain damage, so I imagine we will be fine too.

$ally, while I'm not using any of the lipsticks on the list and I'm glad, I thought of that, too!

 

[olive bleu]

And what is interesting is that the Body Shop, which had been an independent company with a strong commitment to the environment and concern about chemicals is now owned by Loreal. The Bodyshop had a low lead content, Loreal had a high lead content.

I remember reading an article about the sale of the Body Shop to L'oreal, and part of the agreement was that L'oreal agreed to commit to maintaining the same production standards.I remember wondering why on earth the founder would sell out, but then just learned that she recently died of cancer.fftopic:

 

[Fleur De Guerre]

She didn't die of cancer actually, she died of a brain haemmorhage, but she was also suffering from hepatitus C. She sold off the Body Shop over a year ago when she had no reason to suspect she wouldn't live for many, many years to come.

 

[Jenautica]

This topic is going on over at SuicideGirls as well, and rather than post a link and violate any of FL's rules, I thought I'd just add a particular post that was interesting. Take it for what it's worth, just another person's opinion.


First of all, the organization who released this information to the press, The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, is one and the same with the Environmental Working Group (EWG), with whom I previously took great exception to in this thread regarding their alarmist Skin Deep Report, a database that skews and misrepresents data so that even the most innocuous cosmetics ingredients appear as if they're going to kill you nine ways to Sunday.

Second of all, while the lab that The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics had perform these tests appears to be independent and not the EWG's lackey, the results are currently simply hearsay until the lab itself releases the results. I am especially interested in how sample selection was done; for instance, did the lab itself procure the samples using standardized randomizing methods, or did The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics hand them a bunch of tubes and say "Okay, just test these"? Big difference. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics/EWG has an agenda to be sure, and having seen how they've manipulated facts in the past, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them to accurately report or represent anything.

Third, while lead in anything sounds alarming, lead is also pretty hard to avoid, because it's in almost all of our drinking water supply - mostly from pollution, but some naturally occurring. Lipstick would necessarily have to use water in its manufacturing process, and so any lead in unfiltered water would wind up in the lipstick, which is a much more likely explanation than some sort of evil cosmetics industry plot to poison us all, as The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is cleverly urging us to conclude.

Fourth, there is already a he said / she said battle starting between The Campaign and the manufacturers, even just in the article you linked:

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of public health, environmental and women's groups, said the FDA has not set a limit for lead in lipstick.


and then lower down:



The FDA has "set strict limits for lead levels allowed in the colors used in lipsticks, and actually analyze most of these to ensure they are followed," the association's statement said.


Until the FDA speaks up, it's an open question as to who's lying. But of the two parties - the trade association who has the FDA breathing down their neck constantly vs. the consumer watchdog organization that is constantly criticizing and baiting the FDA - it's not hard to guess which one I find more credible as to knowing what the FDA does and doesn't require. And keep in mind that at this stage, no investigative reporting has been done - Reuters is just regurgitating a press release and everyone's regurgitating Reuters.

Fifth, if you hash the actual numbers, it really isn't anywhere near as scary as it sounds. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics says in the article that out of 33 brand-name red lipsticks, "61 percent had detectable lead levels of 0.03 to 0.65 parts per million (ppm)". The EPA's limit for lead in drinking water is 0.015 ppm. Somehow that sounds scary, right? It could be anywhere from twice to many times the level allowed in water! But keep the following in mind:

Parts per million can also be expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/l). Keep in mind - PER LITER VOLUME. Okay, so you drink a liter of water in a day no problem. How long is it going to take you to EAT A LITER OF LIPSTICK?

And finally, the health risks of lead ingestion has been demonstrated to be many hundreds of times greater in children than adults, which is why there is so much concern right now over lead in toys. (There are just as many products made exclusively for adults that have just as much lead in them, but lead poses less of a danger to adults.) So don't put friggin' lipstick on your kid.

I truly am concerned about the systematic poisoning of everything in our world and naturally do not want to personally ingest ANY lead for any reason. But it's all about perspective. If you want to personally reduce the amount of lead you consume, it would be exponentially more worthwhile to install a water filtration system in your home than it would be to stop buying red lipstick.