Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Assn Annual Meeting  

                  Held November 15, 2001, at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills, CA.

Dear Concerned Citizens,
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 Program.

It was very enlightening,  and not surprisingly, quite an eye opener, and from my opinion, 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 glycol.

They indicated that the peer reviewed studies done in 1994,  stated  unequivocally 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.

Propylene Oxide (Propylene Glycol derivative)- 6th Report on Known Carcinogens from GAO,
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 sun damage, 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, etc, 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, they are still testing fluoride toothpastes on mice and rats to see how harmful or safe it is. The results should be in by 2002.

There 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 ADDITIVES.

With regard to any potentially harmful chemicals, they proposed putting a "health alert" label on products. They say that would  be enough "to protect"  consumers .

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.

Phthalates - Endrocrine distruptors- 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?)

They 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 unequivocally 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 rats? He agreed, but said 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.

You 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 products. 

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