Cosmetics

Earlier this year, researchers found that hospital patients could be contributing to the spread of superbugs through their hands. 

Now, a new study conducted by researchers from Aston University found that household make-up products, like beauty blenders and mascara, could be a hotspot for deadly superbugs. 

“Consumers’ poor hygiene practices when it comes to using make-up, especially beauty blenders, is very worrying when you consider that we found bacteria such as E.coli -- which is linked with faecal contamination -- breeding on the products we tested,” said researcher Dr. Amreen Bashir. 

Keeping beauty products clean

To understand how beauty products could be a host for superbugs, the researchers tested popular make-up products that were donated for the purposes of the study. 

All donated products had been used by consumers and were put into one of five categories before the researchers tested them for various strains of bacteria: beauty blenders, mascara, lip gloss, eyeliner, and lipstick. 

The researchers found that 90 percent of all products donated for the study had been contaminated; the team detected traces of E.coli, the bacteria known to cause staph infections, and Citrobacter freundii.   

The study revealed that beauty blenders, which have grown in popularity recently, were the biggest culprits of such bacteria. The researchers say these products are susceptible to new bacteria as they’re often left damp after each use. To make matters worse, over 60 percent of consumers reported using beauty blender after dropping it on the floor, while over 90 percent never cleaned these products.

Importance of proper hygiene

These findings are particularly important because consumers buy and utilize beauty products on a regular basis, and many are unaware of the bacteria they could be exposing themselves to. 

Moving forward, the researchers hope that consumers taking their beauty product hygiene seriously, as these findings highlight how they could be contaminating themselves with a wide array of life-threatening bacteria. 

“More needs to be done to help educate consumers and the make-up industry as a whole about the need to wash beauty blenders regularly and dry them thoroughly, as well as the risks of using make-up beyond its expiry date,” said Dr. Bashir. 

The FDA is warning consumers that several cosmetic products marketed to teens have been found to contain traces of asbestos, a known carcinogen.

The agency has issued a safety alert and recall of the following two products: Claire’s JoJo Siwa Makeup Set (SKU #888711136337, Batch/Lot No. S180109) and Beauty Plus Global Effects Palette 2 (Batch No. S1603002/PD-C1179). Both products are made with talc.

“Consumers who have these batches/Lots of Beauty Plus or Claire's products should stop using them,” the agency said.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) notes that the FDA’s latest safety alert is the third to be released in less than two years following the discovery of asbestos in kids’ cosmetics.

Just a few months ago, the FDA’s tests found asbestos in the following products:

• Claire’s Eye Shadows – Batch No/Lot No: 08/17;

• Claire’s Compact Powder – Batch No/Lot No: 07/15;

• Claire’s Contour Palette – Batch No/Lot No: 04/17.

Stopping asbestos contamination

To fix the persistent problem, a bipartisan group of legislators are pushing a cosmetics reform proposal. The legislation would, in part, give the FDA the authority to ensure that products do not contain dangerous ingredients like asbestos.

Currently, cosmetic companies aren’t required to share safety information with the FDA.

“Cosmetic products and ingredients, with the exception of color additives, do not have to undergo FDA review or approval before they go on the market,” the FDA says on its website. “FDA monitors for potential safety problems with cosmetic products on the market and takes action when needed to protect public health. Before we can take such action against a cosmetic, we need sound scientific data to show that it is harmful under its intended use,”

A separate bill recently introduced by Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) would require warning labels on cosmetic products that contain asbestos and are marketed to children.

“Whether you are a construction worker or teenager, inhaling even the smallest amount of asbestos can cause cancer later in life,” Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs, said in a statement. “Congress should act swiftly to ensure that cosmetics are free from dangerous chemicals and contaminants.”

Claire’s Stores is recalling Claire’s Eye Shadows, Claire’s Compact Powder and Claire’s Contour Palette.

Testing by the Food and Drug Administration indicates the possible presence of asbestos fibers in product samples from one lot of each product. Inhalation of asbestos over time has been linked to serious adverse health consequences.

Claire’s says it is not aware of any adverse reactions, injuries or illness.

The following products, sold in Claire's stores nationwide from October 2016 – March 2019 and online, are being recalled:

• Claire's Eyeshadows, UPC #888711847165, SKU #84716, Lot No. 08/17
• Claire's Compact Powder, UPC #888711839153, SKU #83915, Lot No. 07/15
• Claire's Contour Palette, UPC #888711401947, SKU #40194, Lot No. 04/17

The SKUs and UPCs can be found on the price tickets affixed to the products, and all batch numbers are shown on the back panels below the ingredient lists.

What to do

Customers who purchased the recalled products should discontinue their use and return them to a Claire’s store for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Claire’s at (800) 252-4737, option 2, from 9:30 a.m. – 7 p.m. (EDT).

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) researchers say they have confirmed the presence of asbestos in certain cosmetics products marketed by Claire’s and Justice.

The agency released independent test results and issued a safety alert warning consumers not to use certain cosmetics sold by Claire’s. While acknowledging existing limits on its authority to regulate cosmetics, the FDA said it is taking news steps to “better ensure the safety” of these products.

At the end of 2017, Claire’s withdrew more than a dozen products from its shelves after a TV news report suggested they contained asbestos, a known carcinogen. A Providence, R.I. TV station interviewed a woman who said she discovered her daughter’s makeup from Claire’s contained asbestos.

The mother, who works as a law clerk in a firm that specializes in asbestos litigation, decided to send off her six year-old's makeup kit to be tested. She said the results came back, showing the product contained asbestos.

Routine monitoring

Months later, Claire’s filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a move said to be unrelated to the discovery of asbestos in some of its products.

“As part of our work to protect consumers from unsafe cosmetics on the market, the FDA routinely monitors the market for cosmetic products that may pose a public health risk,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a statement. “This is how the FDA, in 2017, first became aware of reports of asbestos contamination in certain cosmetic products sold by Claire’s and Justice retailers.”

Justice voluntarily recalled its Just Shine Shimmer Powder and seven additional cosmetic products in September 2017. Those additional products included Just Shine Bronzer Brush, Makeup Palette Pinks, Blues and Glitter Cream, and Eye Shadow Palette Cool, Pinks, Eye Shadow and Glitter Cream.

In December of that year, Claire’s removed its Ultimate Mega Make Up Set, Metallic Hot Pink Glitter 48-Piece Makeup Set, Bedazzled Rainbow Heart Makeup Set, Rainbow Bedazzled Star Make Up Set, Rainbow Glitter Heart Shaped Makeup Set, Mint Glitter Make Up Set, Rainbow Bedazzled Rectangle Make Up Set, and Pink Glitter Palette with Eyeshadow & Lip Gloss.

Company responds

The FDA said its tests confirmed the presence of asbestos in three product samples collected from Claire’s and one from Justice, a finding disputed by Claire’s. The retailer said it is disappointed at the agency’s action, contending the FDA test results contain “significant errors.”

Nonetheless, the FDA has issued a safety alert warning consumers to not use three of Claire’s products: Claire’s Eye Shadows – Batch No/Lot No: 08/17; Claire’s Compact Powder – Batch No/Lot No: 07/15; and, Claire’s Contour Palette – Batch No/Lot No: 04/17 because they tested positive for asbestos.

Many consumers, and even legislators making important decisions, are unaware of exactly what’s in the products they use every day. But as technology advances, it becomes clear what chemicals and additives -- oftentimes hidden in household products -- pose a danger to consumers.

For decades, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has allowed the use of lead acetate in many popular hair dyes that work to color hair over a gradual period of time. However, in a recent announcement, the agency reported that even though in the past the chemical appeared to not pose a threat to consumers, recent findings are actually showing the opposite.

In an effort to keep consumers’ safe from the potential dangers of the lead acetate, the FDA has finalized its ruling on a color additive petition, effectively putting a stop to the use of the chemical in hair dye moving forward. All manufacturers have one year to update their products and ensure they are lead-free.

“Today’s action is part of our commitment to protect Americans by reducing exposure to toxic elements and builds upon federal efforts to reduce exposure to lead,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb. “In the nearly 40 years since lead acetate was initially approved as a color additive, our understanding of the hazards of lead exposure has evolved significantly. We now know that the approved use of lead acetate in adult hair dyes no longer meets our safety standard.”

A number of manufacturers have already started switching from lead acetate to bismuth citrate -- an ingredient that doesn’t contain lead. The FDA also encourages consumers to keep an eye on labels if they wish to steer clear of potentially contaminated products before they’re off store shelves for good.

Staying safe

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), lead exposure is dangerous to both adults and children, but perhaps more so for children due to their tendency to put their hands in their mouths after touching things on the floor. Additionally, their developing brains and bodies are affected more severely than adults and can experience developmental delays, brain damage, and damage to the kidneys and nervous system.

For adults, lead exposure can lead to organ damage and raise blood pressure. Pregnant women should also be particularly cautious, as the effects of lead exposure can cause birth defects in an unborn baby.

In addition to hair dye, lead can be found in:

• Paints and ceramic products

• Gasoline

• The production of metals, ammunition, and batteries

• Burning fossil fuels

• Drinking contaminated water

• Household dusts

• Pottery

• Cosmetics

• Toys

To prevent exposure to lead, the CDC suggests keeping the house -- including floors, counters, toys, etc. -- as clean as possible. Additionally, ensure that children’s hands are clean and that any repainting in the home is done with lead-free paint.

Both the CDC and FDA warn that no amount of lead in the blood is safe, and consumers should be informed and stay cautious.

Due to the highly-publicized events in Flint, Michigan and in other parts of the country, consumers are becoming more aware of just how bad lead can be for their health. However, unbeknownst to many, there are a multitude of products that contain trace amounts of lead.

One of the biggest industries where this truth comes across is in cosmetics; many lipsticks, lip glosses, lip liners, eye shadows, and lotions contain the element. While the amounts are too low to do any kind of immediate damage, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released guidelines that will decrease its use even further, to no more than 10 parts per million (ppm).

“[The FDA] has concluded that a recommended maximum level of 10 ppm for lead as an impurity in cosmetic lip products and externally applied cosmetics would not pose a health risk. We consider the recommended maximum lead level to be achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices and to be consistent with the 10 ppm maximum lead level for similar products recommended by other countries,” the agency said.

Advocacy groups want more

The FDA arrived at its 10 ppm figure after thoroughly investigating several different lipsticks and their lead content. Its findings suggest that allowing for 10 ppm of lead would not pose a “significant health risk” to consumers.  A previous study by the FDA of 400 cosmetic lip products found a wide range of lead levels – ranging from 0.026 ppm to 7.19 ppm. Eye shadows had a higher range of lead content, ranging from 6.7 ppm to 9.4 ppm.

The FDA says that the impact of the lead in these products is likely reduced even further, since the products are only applied to small areas of skin. However, there are many advocacy groups who believe that the product is too dangerous and should be eliminated entirely.

“Lead has no place in personal care products, especially products marketed to children, who are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead. While we welcome renewed attention from the FDA, we urge the agency to prohibit the presence of lead in lip products marketed to children and to require a warning on all personal care products that contain lead,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group.

Faber goes on to call for additional oversight of cosmetic products and other dangerous substances, saying that “Congress should also act swiftly to reform cosmetics law to require FDA reviews of other dangerous substances in cosmetics. Sadly, lead is not the only toxin hidden in our personal care products.” 

Today, the Texas Supreme Court struck down a state regulation requiring professional eyebrow-threaders to first get a cosmetology license requiring 750 hours of cosmetology training (with no focus on eyebrow threading) and pass two cosmetology exams (which ask nothing about eyebrow threading).

The court ruled 6-3 in favor of defendant Ash Patel, when deciding Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR). The non-profit Institute for Justice, which joined Patel in his lawsuit, said in a statement today that:

The case began in 2008, when TDLR suddenly decided that eyebrow threading—a traditional South Asian practice that uses only cotton thread to remove eyebrow hair—required the same license that conventional cosmetologists need for techniques like waxing, makeup and chemical peels. TDLR issued $2,000 penalties to threaders across the state and ordered them to quit their jobs until they completed coursework in private beauty schools costing between $7,000 and $22,000. None of this coursework is required to address eyebrow threading and the state’s cosmetology examinations do not require any knowledge of threading.

Three threaders and two threading business owners joined with the Institute for Justice and sued TDLR in 2009, arguing that the Texas Constitution prohibits useless and expensive training requirements that do nothing to protect the public.

This is not the first pointless cosmetology licensing law to be overturned in Texas this year, with help from the Institute for Justice. In January, a federal judge ruled against state requirements mandating that professional hairbraiders meet the same high licensing standards as barbers. In April, the state House of Representatives voted unanimously to deregulate hairbraiding, and in June the governor signed the braiding bill into law.

At the time, an IJ attorney called the ruling a victory for hairbraiders in the state, but added “occupational licensing has gone too far when 1 in 3 Texans are forced to obtain a government license to simply go to work each morning.”

Texas Governor Greg Abbott is expected to sign House Bill 2717 into law, deregulating the practice and teaching of professional hair braiding and repeal the occupational-licensing requirements that required hair braiders to meet the same strict licensing requirements as barbers and cosmetologists.

Texas' state House of Representatives unanimously voted to pass HB 2717 in April, after a contentious legal battle spanning three decades.

Texas law strictly regulates barbers and cosmetologists, mainly on safety grounds: among other things, those trades require the use of sharp tools and potentially dangerous chemicals. Braiding hair requires neither, yet in 2007, when the state started regulating hairbraiders and teachers of the art, it mandated that they meet the same licensing requirements as barbers or cosmetologists.

Dallas resident and African hairbraiding expert Isis Brantley has been braiding hair professionally for over 30 years — and the law has hassled her over it for almost that long.

She started braiding at home in her kitchen, but was arrested when she tried opening a salon. “As soon as I opened up the shop, wow, the red tape was wrapped around my hands,” she told the Texas Tribune in April. “Seven cops came in, in front of my clients, and arrested me and took me to jail like a common criminal. The crime was braiding without a cosmetology license.”

Wrapped in red tape

Brantley spent years challenging the hairbraiding regulations in court, and in 2007 the state modified the requirements: henceforth, hairbraiders seeking a license would only have to show 35 hours of formal training rather than 1,500 hours, and Brantley specifically was “grandfathered in” and granted a braiding license.

So she won the legal right to professionally braid hair, but when she tried opening a school to give others the 35 hours of instruction they'd need to to do the same, the state told her a braiding school must meet the same standards as a barber school.

Brantley sued the state in 2013, saying that the barber regulations on her braiding school were unconstitutional and unreasonable. The non-profit Institute For Justice, which joined Brantley in filing her suit, outlined the requirements Texas set before Brantley could legally teach the art of traditional African hairbraiding:

… Isis must spend 2,250 hours in barber school, pass four exams, and spend thousands of dollars on tuition and a fully-equipped barber college she doesn’t need, all to teach a 35-hour hairbraiding curriculum.  Tellingly, Texas will waive all these regulations if Isis goes to work for an existing barber school and teaches hairbraiding for them. 

That “fully equipped” barber college would have to include at least 10 student workstations, each with a reclining barber chair, plus one hair-washing sink for every two workstations. None of these are required, or used in any way, for braiding hair.

In January, a federal judge ruled that Texas' regulations on hairbraiding schools were unconstitutional and did nothing to advance public health or safety, nor meet any other legitimate government interest.

During that trial Arif Panju, the Institute For Justice attorney who represented Brantley in her court battle, noted that the state couldn't identify a single hairbraiding school capable of meeting those strict barber-school requirements. And today, Panju called Governor Abbott's stated intention of signing HB 2717 into law this afternoon “a final victory for natural hair braiders across Texas. It also serves as recognition that occupational licensing has gone too far when 1 in 3 Texans are forced to obtain a government license to simply go to work each morning.”