The Chemical Safety Improvement Act
This...
Not That...
January 29, 2012
Why are we not “Honest” when it comes to our baby product ingredients?
By Kimberly Stempien
Recently, Good Morning New York had a segment with film actress Jessica Alba. She was not on to discuss her latest movie rather her new business venture. It is called “The Honest Company”. Jessica along with her partner developed a website to sell chemical free baby products. Products include; diapers, body wash, diaper cream, and laundry detergent. Their mission statement says; “ The Honest Company was created to help moms and to give children a better, safer start.”
This immediately sparked my concern. Why are we not omitting
these chemicals from all our baby products? Is it the responsibility of
celebrity moms and educated individuals to raise awareness? If the science is proven and support is given
what is holding up our government’s regulation of these products. Why has the FDA not intervened?
There are four chemical additives that have raised awareness.
These ingredients are: Phthalates, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Mineral Oil, and Formaldehyde. Each have been researched and documented
with possible future health concerns ranging from developmental disorders to
being endocrine disruptors (harming the human hormonal system). They are
commonly found in name brand baby products such as Johnson and Johnson. In fact, they are generally the first four
ingredients.
Phthalate ingredients are found in most soap, detergents,
even toys. They are a form of plastic and make those lofty lathers in baths.
Some issues of these ingredients are they have been shown to be endocrine disruptors. A study in 2007, published in
Pediatrics indicated, “Phthalate exposure is widespread and variable in
infants. Infant exposure to lotion, powder, and shampoo were significantly
associated with increased urinary concentrations of monoethyl phthalate,
monomethyl phthalate, and monoisobutyl phthalate, and associations increased
with the number of products used. This association was strongest in young
infants, who may be more vulnerable to developmental and reproductive toxicity
of phthalates given their immature metabolic system.”1
Another study done at Mount Sinai Medical Center led by Susan Teitelbaum found
“an association between concentrations of Phthalates with BMI and waist circumference
among overweight children.”2
Sodium Laureth Sulfate has been found to cause dermatitis
and eczema. “Some data has been
released by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the Cosmetic,
Toiletry and Fragrance Association. This indicates the percentage of Sodium
laurel Sulfate in household and personal products could range from 0.01 per
cent to 50 per cent.” 3 Additionally, a study at the University of
Georgia Medical College indicated that “Sodium Laureth Sulfates penetrated
young children’s eyes and prevented them from developing properly, and caused
cataracts to develop in adults.” 4 Shouldn’t this be reason enough to leave these ingredients
out?
The following could be a possible indication of why
regulation has not happened.
The FDA regulates chemicals in products under the “Toxic
Substances Control Act” of 1976. It is
important to note, not much revision of these chemicals listed have been accessed
over the last 35 years. Except for
exemption of color additives and few prohibited ingredients, an estimated seven
ingredients in cosmetic products, they do not regulate the cosmetic industry. The FDA gives regulation of cosmetic products
to “The Cosmetic, Toiletries, and Fragrance Organization” for self-regulation. I smell conflict of interest! If they are
benefiting from the added premiums they can charge for the safer products what
incentive do they have to make them all safer without government intervention.
The average difference between the unsafe brand and chemical free product
ranges from a quarter to fifty percent higher in price.
So why hasn’t the FDA outlawed these ingredients? It seems
the issue lies with cosmetics not being regulated as a drug would. Meaning the tests and trials that are done
with medical drugs before approval do not apply to what gets put on baby’s
bottoms. There is very little monitoring by the US government. In fact, recent
action to provide consumer warning labels of Phthalates in toys and body care products
have failed to be seen.
In the European Union, many chemicals are omitted from
cosmetic baby products.
For example, in Denmark Phthalates are banned in products
for children under the age of three. In
my research I found the European Union legislation to be unanimous with no
resistance from industry.
My recommendation would be to have the government do more
research and regulate cosmetic products like a drug. The European Union has not
had a problem regulating these known additives. Let’s get going and take this
research seriously. What’s the alternative, having Hollywood actors like Alba
make declarations at the golden globes!
Why is this important?
UPDATE 2014:
Most environmental activists agree: our current system for accessing chemical safety has to be revised in the United States. The Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, is the nations primary safe chemicals act. It was implemented in 1976. TSCA has not been revised since its implementation in 1976, and unfortunately it has been widely recognized that it is a system of regulation that quickly proved inadequate for ensuring chemicals are safe. It grandfathered the 80,000 chemicals that were on the market in the early 1970’s. In 30 years only 200 have been tested and they have partially restricted only five. Other issues include, TSCA does not require chemical companies to prove that the chemicals they make are safe before they end up in products. In fact, manufacturers, routinely keep basic safety information secret, making it difficult for the consumer to make informed choices.
The Safe Chemicals Act was introduced to the United States
Senate on April 14, 2011 by Senator Frank Lautenberg and co sponsored by
senators Amy Klobucher, Charles Schumer, and Barbara Boxer. The Safe Chemicals
Act would essentially modernize TSCA.
The reason for the bill is several states in the United States, other
countries, and the marketplace all continue to progress ahead of any chemical
safety policies at the national level. It would protect families from toxic
chemicals. It would improve the safety of chemicals used in consumer products,
increase public information, protect the most vulnerable, children, and protect
disproportionately affected hot spot communities.
Since writing this piece J&J has committed to banning formaldehyde from its baby products in 2015. The Honest company has grown and now has offerings in major retailers like Target.
Progress is being made but a lot of work still needs to be done. The only way “all” companies will comply would be proper regulation of
cosmetic ingredients and an update to our outdated US chemical laws.
The Safe Chemicals Act was revised in 2013. It has progressed to hearings.
The Safe chemicals act of 2013 was renamed The
Chemical Safety Improvement Act.
It has bipartisan support and is a comprehensive revision to TSCA. It is
currently still delayed due to conflict between environmental and industry
leaders. A lot of people feel it’s a softer compromise to the original Safe Chemicals Act.
Let’s hope like everything else these days it won’t be held
up for too much longer.
We all deserve better protection!
Be Well,
Kim
Kim
Sathyanarayana S, Swan SH et
al. (2008, February)
Baby Care Products: Possible
Sources of Infant Phathalate exposure, Pediatrics, Vol.121, NO. 2
2 The Mount Sinai Hospital/ Mount Sinai School of
Medicine - Susan Teitelbaum.
“Exposure to chemical found in
personal care products may contribute to childhood obesity.” January 20, 2012.
3 http://www.babycentre.co.uk/worry-watch/sls/
4 University of Georgia Medical College.
http://www.healthy-communications.com/slsmostdangerousirritant.html
Comments
Post a Comment