Last Friday, the NY Times reported that the FDA is now expressing concern over the long term health effects of BPA–a concern that has been growing with the public for decades.
BPA is used to make plastics and is found in items that hold food and drinks. While the FDA insists that they do not consider BPAs unsafe, they are calling for more research as well as a little more prudence on the part of the consumer in eliminating BPA labeled products. And what is BPA? An artificial estrogen.
According to the Environmental Working Group, the scientific research team hired to examine the BPA controversy back in the mid-Aughts had financial ties to BPA manufacturers, and in 2007 Congress opened an inquiry into potential conflicts of interest that may have effected the outcome of that report.
So why is this a topic of conversation for BeautyOlogy? Because over the past few weeks, I received a few inquiries about chemicals and cosmetics. Since this is a massive, complicated issue, this is the first post in a series that explores the controversies and the claims in the cosmetic chemical wars.
Last week I caught this op-ed in industry trade publication Cosmetics Design that offers full support of what it believes to be the much maligned paraben. While there are plenty of other controversial cosmetic chemicals we could look at, none has garnered as much attention as the paraben. Much like BPA, they are a hot button issue.
Parabens are chemicals used as preservatives in just about every personal care product imaginable. Some parabens are actually naturally occurring–methylparaben is an antimicrobial found in blueberries. Most of the parabens found in personal care products are synthetic.
Like BPA, parabens are estrogenic, and estrogen has been proven to play a role in the occurrence of breast cancer. Researchers in the UK did a study that found high concentrations of parabens in 18 out of 20 samples in breast tumors. While the result of that study (as well as one out of Northwestern University that saw similarly concerning results) called for more research into any possible link between the two, most scientists conclude that there is no link between incidents of breast cancer and the use of products containing parabens. The American Cancer Society agrees with these findings.
The op-ed writer from Cosmetics Design and their commenters are tired of having to justify the use of parabens in their product. They argue that the safety has never been called into question, and that it is the best method to insure that cosmetic products remain free from bacteria and microbial contamination. Similarly, the well regarded blog The Beauty Brains, whose creators identify themselves as cosmetic chemists, think the anti-paraben bandwagon is pure bunk.
Many in the industry are clearly concerned with the organic product makers touting their product as “paraben” free. By putting “paraben free” claims on the label, they claim, it forces the assumption that products that do contain parabens are dangerous. They believe the “organic” market is creating a climate of fear surrounding what they see as a proven and cost effective method of retaining the integrity of the product. The Beauty Brains also believe this assessment.
According to paraben supports, the “organic” cosmetic industry, as well as organizations like the Environmental Working Group, are yelling fire in a crowded theater. They see the paraben alarmists as fear-mongering to the media (sensationalism sells) to boost brand visibility without scientific data to back up the claims.
And there is absolutely no scientific data that proves without any doubt that parabens are linked to breast cancer. However, there are also no studies that prove without any doubt that parabens are NOT linked to breast cancer or any other health concerns. Complicated, right?
Conventional wisdom says that science is the definitive answer. Science is a lot more fluid than people realize. As an example, look at the prescription drugs the FDA approves only to recall a few years later, once the full effects of those drugs have been known and used on a wide population. Research, particularly in the area of the human body and disease, is constantly evolving and conclusions are constantly being revised. One scientific study that finds something safe could be discredited as more research is done and the technology to do this research advances.
More cynically, much has been made in recent years about who funds these research studies. Like the earlier BPA study cited by the Environmental Working Group, often research is paid for by a company that has a profit motive. One would hope that ethics would trump profit motive at all time, but these days ethics appear to take a back seat to corporate interests time and again. Blind trust is no longer prudent.
Of course, it must be pointed out that there are plenty in the industry that have rightfully questioned the studies done by the Environmental Working Group (and I have a few issues with them as well, which will be explored in later posts). Blind trust is not prudent on either side of the issue either.
That said, I have a problem with calling parabens, as well as other controversial (hell, even non-controversial) cosmetic chemicals, 100 percent safe. In my opinion, we just don’t have a definitive answer.
In the next post in this series, we will look at the toxicity in natural ingredients (it’s only fair, not to mention eye opening). The series will wrap up with a look at the marketing of “organic” beauty and, more importantly, what really matters to the consumer.
