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.

Wondering about all those skin care “nutraceuticals” hitting the market? Me too! And be prepared for even more pills popping up in the cosmetics aisle. Market research company Kline Group reports that beauty supplement category growth is poised to grow to $2.5 billion by 2012.

So I was intrigued when I read a release issued by Dr. Joshua Fox, medical director of Advanced Dermatology and The Center for Laser and Cosmetic Surgery in New York, and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Dermatology, cautioning consumers to be wary of supplements.

My people (snort) phoned up his people and asked if we could have a chat (we did!), and now I have a big old Esthy crush on Dr. Fox.

My regular readers know that this is a very big deal, since I love to point out Dubious Docs almost as much as I love covering the beauty events at my local CVS. But any MD cautious enough not to jump on a billion-dollar-band-wagon has my undivided attention.

The FDA does not regulate cosmetics and nutritional supplements. As long as the manufacturer does not advertise or market the product like a drug, they are free from any FDA restrictions. These companies are within their legal right to use terms like “helps” or “promotes.” And this, Dr. Fox feels, is a huge source of concern, particularly when vitamins are mixed with additional substances like herbs, enzymes and botanicals. So the supplement market is a bit like the Wild West, and Dr. Fox urges caution.

“Supplements are being promoted with minimal data to back up the claims,” warns Dr. Fox. “They need better clinical studies.”

Dr. Fox shares an example of a research team that went to China and found what appeared to be a miracle herb that helped with atopic dermatitis, a particularly difficult to treat skin disorder. But several months down the road, further studies showed that the herb caused liver abnormalities.

“Herbs do not necessarily equal good,” cautions Dr. Fox. “ They may be more detrimental in the long run, even if they appear to ‘cure’ in the short term.”

Or they could have additional side effects not readily known, even if the herb or vitamin is a household name.  Dr. Fox points out that the herb Echinacea and Vitamin E both promote bleeding, so taking these supplements prior to surgery, for example, could be problematic.

Dr. Fox is a proponent of taking care of the skin (and body) through healthy eating and, when necessary, supplementation, but he urges consumers to pay attention to what they are ingesting. He is skeptical of any claims that have not been thoroughly and rigorously put through the research machine.

But most consumers aren’t as science-minded—even me! We were discussing a recent study about the effects of oral antioxidants. Initially the skin showed improvement in the first 6 -12 months. But by 24 months, the improvement stopped. So, what if we took antioxidant supplements for six months, stopped for a while and picked it up again, I asked. That’s where science trumped me!

Dr. Fox pointed out that I was basing my views on assumptions that if something was proven false then the opposite must be true. But in science, even the opposite cannot be proven true based on something simply being false. Scientists need more studies to say definitively. PHEW.

“The consumer’s first line of defense is to be a skeptic,” explains Dr. Fox. “Supplements do a have a role in skin care, but science still has a lot of catching up to do. I rely on seeing the results of controlled studies, published in reputable medical journals, before I make any recommendation.”

Topical applications of antioxidants do have a lot of data and research behind it, Dr. Fox points out.

So what’s the bottom line? Here’s your takeaway:

Just like doing your regular grocery shopping, take a closer look at the fine-print details. Check if the supplement has any added substances and do do your homework before adding it into your regimen.

If you have started supplements, watch for signs of skin irritation, including itching, rashes, acne flare-ups, skin discoloration, burning and hives.

Consult your doctor before starting a supplement regime to make certain the supplement will not interact with any medication you may be on or cause any potential problems given your medical history.

Visit Dr. Fox’s nifty New Age Skin Research Foundation, which provides free information to the public on skin health and conditions. The Foundation also provides funding for innovative research in dermatology.

This tidbit of info comes my
way from the Journal of Investigative Dermatology via CosmeticsDesign.

Researchers at Rutgers
University applied 4 different types of moisturizers to rats and then exposed
them to UVB rays. The results? Anywhere from 24 – 95 percent increases in
non-melanoma tumors (i.e. basil cell and squamous cell carcinoma) depending on
the product used.  This is leading
researchers to conclude that certain ingredients are causing higher risk levels
when exposed to UVB rays.  They are
speculating that sodium lauryl sulfate and mineral oil could be the cause of
the carcinoma surge.

Of course, research is
always on-going and this theory could change next week. (For an interesting
read on the perils of epidemiology, I highly recommend Gary Taube’s insightful
New York Times Magazine piece Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?) Clearly
more investigating needs to be done.

That said, it is one more
reason why I am pretty stoked that my Blue Lizard Sensitive Suncream SPF 30 5 fl oz. sun block is my go-to daytime
moisture cream, which I will continue to use through the winter months as
well.  Time to stock up!

For the past two weeks we have been studying electricity and its applications for skin. It’s ranged from pretty boring–anyone want to give me the dictionary definition of plug–to downright fascinating. The beauty-speak of ions and electrolytes meant nothing to me all these years–it was just jargon to make something SOUND impressive. But, electricity does have meaning to the body and the skin. Electrolytes, which are made up of ions, regulate the pH levels of the body, and they are extremely important in hydration (this is where osmosis comes in–making sure intracellular and extracellular fluids are balanced). They also play a role in the body’s muscular and nervous systems (which I will be covering in a few weeks).

In terms of beauty treatments, some are more effective than others but each serves a certain purpose and it is not simply snake oil. High frequency machines are germicidal, and perfect for zapping acne post-extractions (to keep post-facial breakouts from occurring). Galvanic currents help with product penetration. Faradic currents (such as those silly “shock” belts that you see on info-mercials that tout a no-exercise solution to weight loss) actually DO exercise the muscles, thereby increasing muscle tone, but you have to use them daily to see any sort of results.

I get to play with some of the machines at school tonight! Fun!