Toiletry and Fragrance Assn
November 15, 2001, at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills, CA.
I attended an all day, seminar with the heads of the CTFA
from Washington, D.C., and other members of
the cosmetic, personal care products and fragrance organizations, manufacturers and industries.
I attended as a facilitator of the CA State Dept of Health, Skin Cancer Prevention
It was very enlightening, and not surprisingly, quite an eye opener, and from
quite a fiasco.
Included on the Board of this group, were members from Nu Skin,
Herbalife, Shaklee, (these are three Multi Level Marketing Companies) and various other
well known brand names and private label cosmetic company distributors,
manufacturers and suppliers.
I was excited because I read in the table of the days discussions the chemicals
that I knew about: Cocoamide
DEA, Diethanolamine, TEA, triethanolamine, Mineral Oil, and
Propylene Glycol (propylene oxide) . The First chemical brought up suspected of being
a carcinogen was the information on Cocoamide
DEA (diethanolamine) and TEA
(triethanolamine). They reminded the group that in 1983 it was
considered suspicious, and again in 1994, found to be a carcinogen and again in 1998. They
talked about John Bailey, the former FDA director and his findings and reports
about the chemicals in everyday products, that he was one of the first to report
on such questions of safety concerns of Diethanolamine,(DEA) and
mineral oil and propylene
They indicated that the peer reviewed studies done in 1994, stated
that DEA caused cancer
in female mice, and that again in 1998,
carcinogenic activity was found in some rats. All they could say was that those studies
"did not prove conclusively for their opinions" that it causes cancer in all mice and rats (males too). They are still studying it and should come out with results early in 2002. Until then,
they won't require any new labeling on products containing it except to
require a label "health alert" or "health warning", which they
believe will be enough to protect consumers.
The next chemical
brought up was Mineral Oil,
where they indicated that children have died from ingesting it.
They realize it is a dangerous product, but again, they only want to
"put a health alert" label on those products containing it.
They will not take it off the market.
Oxide (Propylene Glycol derivative)- 6th Report on Known Carcinogens from
now indicates that propylene glygol , a derivative of propylene oxide is a known
carcinogen. This chemical is in automobile anti freeze, baby wipes,
deodorant, salad dressing, shampoo, shaving gels, cosmetics, and more.
They are studying AHAs (alpha hydroxy acids from any source) and are questioning
their safety. They want to put another "health alert"
label on them. They want to advise people who use AHAs in
concentrations 10% or larger that they should use sunscreen to protect themselves from
because once the layers of the skin are removed from AHAs, the skin is
unprotected from skin damage and cancer. They are testing AHAs on mice and rats for safety, but
won't have any data until next year (2002), and won't release results now due to economic
problems. Basically, all they want to do is to put the "health
alert" label on AHAs products to indicate that it is safe as long as sunscreen is used.
They are still studying other topical chemicals in products causing toxic problems,
but they won't have results until next year, 2002.
They want sunscreen manufacturers to have only one #SPF 30, and not have all the other numbers and less ingredient listing.
They also want to put a warning label on sunscreens, called "Sun
alert". because they have been not tested properly for long range affects
They are banning the words "anti aging " claims, and reducing the labeling requirements on sunscreens, moisturizers, foundations,
except for the "health alert".
Oral care products. Get this one! Even though fluoride has been on the
market for many decades
and known to cause cancer, and other dental problems,
are still testing fluoride toothpastes on mice and rats to see how harmful or
safe it is.
The results should be in by 2002.
was discussion about the distinction between drugs and cosmetics, sunscreens, anti dandruff, anti-perspirants, AHA'S, anti microbial
soaps. All of these could be labeled as drugs and need approval by the FDA. All
of this these items are in discussion.
They indicated that there is "still" NO
APPROVAL NEEDED FOR NEW PRODUCTS TO COME ON THE MARKET, EXCEPT FOR COLOR
With regard to any potentially harmful chemicals, they proposed putting a "health alert" label on products. They say that would
be enough "to
A 2 oz size of a product does not have to list all the ingredients.
Anti microbial soaps and claims - they did a 1994 study on products used around home, schools, health care facilities, they
still don't know if these products are safer or better to use than just soap and
water. They are still testing for efficacy and safety. There could be an antibiotic resistance problem, but
they think it would not be significant.
Fragrances - simply putting a health alert labeling about allergens and
irritants would take care of consumer
safety, even though studies done on synthetic fragrances show carcinogens are present.
They are questioning whether or not to require labeling on essential oils.
they have been evaluating the studies and looking into the research, and
still do not have any firm conclusions or
restrictions yet.How many years have we all been using plastics?
Talc - deferred as a carcinogen as of this time (can you believe they don't think asbestos is
a carcinogen after studies show it is?)
are issuing a requirement that products must havean expiration date, month, year and labeling as carcinogenic
if these chemicals are used from the Category 1 or 2 list of carcinogens.
I sat at lunch together with Guy Langer from DD Chem, the man who buys the raw materials
for most of the 6 big cosmetic companies . I drilled him on chemicals, and he said they buy the raw materials from India, Russia and other countries to sell to us. He does not tell the customers if something is questionable or
carcinogenic and he does not know himself
all the facets of the chemicals.
This meeting was en eye opener. I asked a lot of questions, I asked the attorney sitting up on the
board, about the 1994 peer reviewed study about DEA causing
cancer in female rats
and mice. That wouldn't it be prudent
and safe to just take it off the market, since it does cause cancer in female
He agreed, but
their hands are tied and the economics of this industry
are so large with Proctor- Gamble, Johnson-Johnson, and all the other
Giant personal care industry manufacturers,
that pump money into the
governing hands and powers that be, that really nothing is going to be done about it.
One of the ladies
quietly and jokingly
called me a "trouble maker"
(not to the public's ears- but to me
privately when we were debating the issues) because I was bringing up and showing them the
scientific paperwork and the peer reviewed studies on DEA, and
facts from the GAC 6th Report on Carcinogens indicating that
Propylene Oxide, of which Propylene Glycol is a derivative, is
carcinogenic, and also the
9th Report on Carcinogens about Mineral Oil and Coal Tar
regarded as known carcinogens.
can read from this summary that the CTFA is not looking out for our best
interests (they love receiving those big dollar bills in their pockets from the
industry giants who have controlled the industry since 1938). They are aware and
know that some of the chemicals in our daily used products are harmful and
carcinogenic, yet they will only require putting "warning labels" on
We are definitely on our own with this matter, and I don't believe in our
lifetime that the laws will be changed to take these
horrible chemicals out of consumer products.
We have to understand the chemicals we are putting in and on our bodies everyday
and share this information with everyone we care about. We do have safe choices
available to us, and the Public Has
the Right to Know what they are using.
Please pass this information on to anyone you think might be interested.
My favorite company safe
products without harmful chemicals