Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Sustainable cosmetics summit afternoon talk by stacy malkan
Similar to Sustainable cosmetics summit afternoon talk by stacy malkan (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Sustainable cosmetics summit afternoon talk by stacy malkan
- 1. Stacy Malkan Co-Founder, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics www.SafeCosmetics.org Shifting Paradigms: Science, Policy and Consumer Preferences
- 6. “ Researchers should evaluate the effects of low-level exposures to combinations of potential carcinogens, as well as exposures that may begin in utero and extend through a lifetime.”
- 7. Lack of Safety Data 85,000+ synthetic chemicals in commerce 1,000+ new chemicals synthesized/year No human health data for at least 90% Of the 12,500 chemicals in cosmetics more than 80% have not been assessed for safety by CIR
- 11. Regulated? Only lightly. Competent? Maybe not.
- 13. National Safe Cosmetics Act www.SafeCosmetics.org/SafeCosmeticsAc t
- 14. Compact for Safe Cosmetics www.SafeCosmetics.org/Compact
- 16. Into the Future… www.SafeCosmetics.org/business
- 18. #1 concern for household products: Safety Personal Care Products 57% Cleaners/detergents 56% Deloitte, 2011 Rapid growth in naturals market “a consumer reaction to concerns about the health and safety of chemicals used.” Packaged Facts, 2009
- 20. Eco-aware moms: 69% of moms $1.45 trillion in buying power Eco-aware teens: educated, active, tech savvy
- 23. Finally people are protesting the fragrance Abercrombie uses to constantly gas its stores
Editor's Notes
- Are you paying attention to the emerging science and what we know now that we didn’t used to know?
- Fundamental principle of toxicology first expressed by Paracelsus in That is to say, substances considered toxic are harmless in small doses, and conversely an ordinarily harmless substance can be deadly if over-consumed. For example, salt – this actual quote was used by an industry spokesperson in a NY Times article: ''A little salt on your peas or tomatoes can be good. 'But a lot of salt can have adverse health effects on your blood pressure, and too much can be fatal.'‘ So this was the comparison with toxic chemicals like 1,4 dioxane in baby shampoo: a little can be good but too much is no good. Here’s the problem with this simplistic comparison. It isn’t true. Science has come a long way in the last 5 centuries.
- We know now that it’s not just the dose that makes the poison but many other factors have to be considered when figuring out risk. Timing of the dose – if the exposure occurs in utero or during other critical windows of development Children more vulnerable than the 250 pound adult male that most risk assessments are based on (if they’re done at all) We know that chemical mixtures can have enhanced toxicity – for example there is evidence that phthalates when mixed together have an exponential toxicity than if we’re exposed to one phthalate at a time. Low dose effects have to be considered because at extremely low levels some chemicals can act like hormones, fitting like a key in a lock and scrambling up normal development and bodily functions – whereas higher doses of those chemicals don’t have an impact. Need to look beyond cancer: just as an example, formaldehyde – cancer at high levels, allergies at low levels – and many kids are getting exposed to formaldehyde from so many different sources – kitchen cabinets, wood particle board, carpeting, shampoo, bubble bath, body wash, etc. So we have to consider aggregate exposures from many sources The other problem with dose makes the poison is people don’t want to hear it – they don’t want to hear it. They don’t want to hear that it’s just a couple of carcinogens at low doses contaminating the baby shampoo that is labeled pure and gentle The final problem with the blanket assumption that low doses are safe is that there isn’t the science to back it up.
- Just to put some numbers to what we don’t know: More than 80% of cosmetic chemicals not reviewed by industry safety panel Of the 85,000 synthetic chemicals currently on the market, 90% have no human health data and the chemical industry continues to produce chemicals and sell them to you without adequate data for impacts on health and the environment This system encourages ignorance -- I did a google search for images for “ignorance” and here’s what came up:
- Risk assessment recognizes that the health risk of chemical is equal to the hazard of that chemical times the amount of exposure. The problem is, we have a regulatory system that encourage ignorance on all parts of the equation. First of all, no requirements for the cosmetics industry to conduct risk assessments and no safety standards for how to do so. And also, you can't figure out the answer to this equation (risk) if you don't have solid information about hazard and exposure -- and unfortunately, there are no requirements for cosmetics companies to assess the hazard of the chemicals they use or to understand how much their customers are being exposed. It reminds me of the time the Cosmetics Ingredients Review panel tried to determine the risk of phthalates in cosmetics by calculating exposure numbers on the back of a lunch napkin. (See Chapter 2 of my book for more on that story.) They don’t know, nobody knows, how much phthalates are getting into people’s bodies from cosmetics – or how phthalates are interacting with toxins and impacting the body. The bottom line is that, given the current data gaps, risk assessment requires a huge amount of guess work and can be easily manipulated to any outcome.
- Are you ready to deal with the changing policies that are driving the need for greater transparency, accountability and precaution?
- Drivers: This WSJ story is a good example of the trends we see in US; increased awareness that products aren’t regulated the way people believed they were, Regulated? Only Lightly. lack of trust in industry, Competant, maybe not. April Kinkead who went into a salon for an eyebrow wax, but the salon technician applied wax to her bottom lip and Kinkead was left with a dime-sized scab that took weeks to heal. Brazilian Blowout scandal Mercury in skin lighteners scandal Trust the companies system isn’t working for the public and for consumer confidence – recognition of that and that’s why I believe we are going to see policy change in the US – industry groups recognize that regulations from the 1930s are not inspiring consumer confidence – so the fight is going to be not over whether there is policy change but whether it actually moves the industry forward.
- Transparency and precaution: governments and consumers are saying, we want to know what’s in products, we want to know chemicals are being assessed for safety and for that information to be shared publicly and we want you to stop using chemicals with known hazards. Europe Cosmetics Directive bans 1100 chemicals known or highly suspected of causing cancer, birth defects and reproductive harm – 30 other countries followed suit Canada developing hot list of chemicals not to use in cosmetics – also have set limits on chemicals like formaldehyde which enabled them to ban Brazilian Blowout along with several other countries. Japan and sweden banned formaldehyde releasing preservatives still widely used in baby products sold in US. REACH requiring the chemical industry to generate data on tens of thousands of chemicals over the next decade, while it specifically exempts cosmetics, if chemicals end up on CMR list they are automatically banned from cosmetics. In feb. EU announced first six substances banned under REACH – including 3 phthalates and musk xylene United States No safety assessments No safety standard Almost no chemical bans No limits on hazardous chemicals
- Restrict or phase out ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects and developmental harm Create a health-based safety standard that includes protections for children, the elderly, workers and other vulnerable populations Close labeling loopholes by requiring full ingredient disclosure on product labels and company web sites, including the constituent ingredients of fragrance and salon products Require data-sharing to avoid duplicative testing and encourage alternatives to animal testing Provide FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors resources it needs to provide effective oversight of the cosmetics industry
- Many companies are already well down this road In 2004, we asked companies to sign a pledge, more than 1500 signed it agreeing to No EU banned chemicals Replace hazardous ingredients with safer alternatives Full disclosure of ingredients including fragrance Public accountability – being able to track this publicly which we’ve done and we’re in the process of finishing up that review and we will be announcing this fall all the companies that met all the requirements of the Compact – 450 companies showing it can be done
- Whole Foods Premium standards – reformulations Triclosan not allowed Organic standards have to mean something – kudos Look for other major retailers to demand transparency and name bad actor chemicals: Wal-Mart announced late last year that it would begin requiring suppliers of hundreds of thousands of products to disclose the presence of over 3,000 “chemicals of concern.” The expectation is that the giant retailer could quietly drop problematic products from its stores
- Fragrance ingredients Remove known bad actors and raise bar for industry Phthalates Triclosan Ethoxylates Formaldehyde releasers Hair, nail salon product
- I talked a bit this morning and I want to talk more about the new consumer consciousness. Driven by knowledge that is ever expanding due to the other drivers – emerging science and policy shifts that keep this issue in the news. And the final question I want to pose:
- Eco Aware Moms, are you ready for them. According to a survey of 4,000 Americans conducted in 2010 by EcoFocus Worldwide, the EcoAware Mom market includes more than 51 million women, is 69% of Moms, and has more than $1.45 trillion in buying power. The survey data “presents a powerful new archetype for 21st century Moms.” Eco Aware Teens: is an archetype to pay close attention to. I work with a lot of teens, I talk to teens and hear from students almost every day and I can tell you that the ones who do get it, are extremely well informed, with a grasp of the issues that goes so far beyond what I was thinking back in the 80s, it’s astonishing, and they are active, they are organizing, they have the advantage of being tech savvy in a way that most of us probably can’t begin to match and they are making a lifestyle and career choices out of educating the public about what they know. So the shifting consumer paradigm is only going to expand.
- New consumer paradigm – aware consumer, consumer that is demanding transparency, consumer that has access to the tools to disseminate their stories far and wide.
- Sum up: