does beauty have a cost the ecological footprint of the cosmetics industry n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Does Beauty Have a Cost ? The Ecological Footprint of the Cosmetics Industry PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Does Beauty Have a Cost ? The Ecological Footprint of the Cosmetics Industry

Does Beauty Have a Cost ? The Ecological Footprint of the Cosmetics Industry

117 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Does Beauty Have a Cost ? The Ecological Footprint of the Cosmetics Industry

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Does Beauty Have a Cost? The Ecological Footprint of the Cosmetics Industry Alexandra Noelle Penny Brown University Environmental Studies April 3, 2008

  2. In the News… • “Fresh-Faced Eco-Consumers”(NYT, Nov 1 2007) • “Should You Trust Your Makeup?”(NYT, Feb 15, 2007) • “Lead Tests Raise Red Flag for Lipsticks”(Boston Globe, Oct 11, 2007) • “Don’t Pucker Up: Lead in Lipstick”(Good Morning America, Oct 12, 2007) Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry by Stacy Malkan

  3. Cosmetics?? shampoo Deodorant Aftershave Toothpaste Lipstick perfume soap mascara Lotion Face wash Nail polish sunscreen Hair spray Styling mousse Concealer cologne Contact solution

  4. To what extent does the cosmetics industry pose a threat to human health and the environment due to toxic ingredients in product formulation and waste associated with packaging? What possible regulatory regimes would force the cosmetics industry to internalize its negative externalities and protect consumers? Research Questions:

  5. Risk Assessment • (fr. USEPA, van Woerkum, Portney) Addressing Risk… Precautionary Principle?

  6. Environmental Toxicant: Environmental Risks Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants Found in Streams of the U.S., 1999-2000 First national study examining organic wastewater contaminants in streams 139 streams sampled: 1 or more of chemicals tested found in 80% of streams; 7 or more found in 50% of streams Low concentrations with potential effect; not necessarily additive Packaging Waste: • Increased waste to landfill • Heavy metals used in manufacturing process • Energy consumption • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Raw material consumption Source: EPA Online. Accessed 4/2/2008

  7. Toxic Ingredients • Potential Contaminants Exposure Human Health Risks n=2000 USE– determined by: Route of exposure vary Target(s) affected– dermal, nervous system, reproductive system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, etc. Effect of stressor– carcinogen, developmental/reproductive toxin, neurotoxin, endocrine disruptor, allergen/ immunotoxican, persistence/bioaccumulation, cellular level changes, mutations, skin irritation Source: Skin Deep: Cosmetics Safety Database; Accessed 11/6/2007

  8. Photo: Phthalates • “Safe for topical application in the present practices of use and concentrations in cosmetics” –CIR safety review assessment • Reproductive/developmental toxicant, causes birth defects • Federal labeling requirement for nail polish; not other products • Phthalates found in: deodorant, fragrance, hair gel, hair mousse, hair spray, lotion, shampoo, nail polish • In 2007– OPI, Sally Hansen, and other manufacturers reformulated nail polish to remove dibuthyl phthalate (DBP) (Source: Houlihan, Not Too Pretty: Phthalates, Beauty Products & the FDA, July 8, 2002)

  9. Outline • Background • Environmental Risks • Human Health Risks • Packaging Waste • Case Study • Lead In Lipsticks • Toxic Ingredient Analysis • Sustainable Packaging Analysis • Findings • Recommendations

  10. Case Study • Concern over Lead: • Proven neurotoxin– linked to: interference with brain development, miscarriage, reduced fertility, hormonal changes • Levels accumulate in body over time • Most detrimental to fetal development • Multiple routes of exposure: water, paint, lipsticks applied multiple times per day Testing Lipsticks for Lead Background: “A Poison Kiss: The Problem of Lead in Lipsticks” published by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Oct 2007.

  11. Testing Lipsticks for Lead • 1 of 10– no detectable lead • 9 of 10– levels over .1ppm, the FDA recommended limit of lead in candy • 2 of 10– over 0.6 ppm, higher than all but 1 of the 33 lipsticks tested by EWG 10 Lipsticks from CVS Thayer St. CoverGirl Incredifull Lipcolor Maximum Red My study: 0.25ppm EWG: 0.12ppm and 0.56ppm L’Oreal Colour Riche True Red My study: 0.61ppm EWG: 0.50ppm and 0.65ppm

  12. Toxic Ingredients in Product Formulation EWG: Cosmetics Safety Database Hazards Assessed: Cancer Developmental/reproductive toxicity Neurotoxicity Endocrine disruption Allergies/ immunotoxicity Miscellaneous Violations, Restrictions, Warnings Organ system toxicity Persistence and Bioaccumlation Multiple, additive exposure sources Mutations Biochemical or cellular level changes Ecotoxicology Occupational hazards Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs) • Assign Scores as a Function of: • 1. Lowest known harmful dose where that information is available • 2. Weight of the evidence (limited, moderate, and strong evidence) • Source of the data: ranked credibility Source: Skin Deep: Cosmetics Safety Database. Online. Accessed 4/1/2008

  13. Shampoo Ingredient Summary • 10 of 10 shampoos containfragrance • 2 containDMDM Hydantoin(VO-5 and Garnier) • 6.7% of ingredients–High Hazard • 84% of ingredients–No FDA Review • Coal Tar– Hazard Ranking 10!! Neutrogena T/Gel label

  14. Lipstick Ingredient Summary • Difficult for SkinDeep database to keep up • All except Burt’s Bees contain FRAGRANCE

  15. Packaging Analysis • Normalized packaging systems to unit of product • Environmental Packaging International-- Design for Environment (DfE) • Metrics from MERGE data, EDF/ Sustainable Packaging Coalition • Energy Use:BTUs of energy to produce the packaging materials • Greenhouse Gases:Measured in CE (Carbon Equivalence) – the carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases emitted during production and recycling/disposal • Material Inputs:grams of raw material required to produce the packaging materials • Chemical Bad Actors:comparative figure! weighted average representing the level of chemical ‘bad actors’ used in production; Metrics:

  16. Shampoo Packaging

  17. Lipstick Packaging Very similar to product to packaging ratio– limitations of database– most component materials were called “Plastic Other”

  18. So What?

  19. The Cosmetics Industry “There have been many reports over the years about lead being present in lipstick, mostly alleging that there are high levels and providing a test purporting to confirm the presence of lead. Most of these reports have been internet hoaxes and have been circulating for many years.” $35 Billion Source: Skin Deep. Online. Accesses 11/11/2007 1972– The Cosmetics Review Board– the self- regulating industry panel Cosmetics Toiletry and Fragrance Association

  20. Cosmetics Legislation Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetics Act Gives FDA authority over “poisonous and deleterious substances” FDA lacks authority to require pre-market testing The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act False or misleading statements on packaging considered “misbranded” and subject to regulatory action EPA: Resource Conservation& Recovery Act (RCRA) Controls the management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes OSHA: Hazard Communication Standard

  21. NGO Initiatives: Environmental Working Group Cosmetics Safety Database Campaign for Safe CosmeticsOver 500 cosmetics companies have joined Sustainable Packaging Coalition Photo:

  22. Recommendations FDA: • Require labeling of dangerous chemicals, such as phthalates • Prohibit marketing of products containing chemicals known to cause birth defects to women of child bearing age • Consider aggregate exposure of industrial chemicals humans are exposed to • Make effort to ban noxious ingredients where viable alternatives exist RI Department of Health: • Protect citizens: model after Prop 65, require warning labels on products with harmful chemicals

  23. Cosmetics Industry: • Recommendations for Sustainable Packaging: • source reduced • comply with applicable heavy metal limits • comply with applicable minimization requirements for other noxious and hazardous substances • be recyclable, compostable, and/or yield a certain energy gain when incinerated • Source: Environmental Packaging International; Online: Accessed March 6, 2008 • Buyer BEWARE: • Fragrance • Triethanolamine • BHA • Eugenol • Ceteareth—12 OR 20 • Phenol/ Bisphenol A • any ingredient ending with “paraben”

  24. Best/ Worst Brands: Shampoo Lipstick BEST BEST • Aubrey Organics • Shikai • Tom’s of Maine • Desert Essence • Weleda • Valana Minerals • ColoreScience • bareFaced • CosmicTree Essentials • CARGO&care • Jane Iredale • CITY Lips • Alchemy of Colour • Color Me Beautiful • Canary Cosmetics Dr. Bronner’s Nurture My Body **Burt’s Bees Terressentials Encoura WORST WORST • Willow Lake • L’Oreal Kids • Philosophy • African Pride • **Redken • **Neutrogena • Nexxus • Michael diCesare • Bumble and Bumble • **Matrix • **Revlon • Avon • Skin Alison Raffaele • Dior • Jelly • Vincent Longo • **Lumene • Sue Devitt • Paula Dorf • Passport To name a few…. Search product for ingredient information on

  25. Acknowledgements Caroline Karp Thesis Advisor Catherine Goodall, Amit Sheth, and Sha Sha Environmental Packaging International Dave Murray and Joe Orchardo Spectrometer Analysis in Environmental Chemistry Lab Daniela Quilliam and Bill Dundulis RI Department of Health Family, Friends, Brown University… THANK YOU FOR COMING…