High cost of beauty
For almost as long as they have been able to glimpse their reflections on surfaces of bodies of water, or in early and crude mirrors, women (and men) have sought to “improve on their looks.” Egyptians are first recorded to have used burnt matches to darken their eyes, berries to stain their lips, and even “young boys’ urine” to fade freckles.
And for almost as long as human beings have been relying on makeup to enhance their natural features, they have also been shown to—knowingly or unknowingly—risk their health and even their looks in the long run to achieve the desired, temporary effect.
It is said that during the Renaissance, when pale skin was all the rage, women and men employed a whitening agent composed of “carbonate, hydroxide, lead oxide” mixed into a paste to achieve “porcelain-like” complexion. Cumulatively stored in the body, the mixture, says an article on “a brief history of makeup,” eventually caused various physical problems, “including muscle paralysis.”
One Signora Toffana was even known to peddle a face powder made with arsenic, urging her female customers to use it “whenever their husbands were around.” The fatal facial powder was linked to the deaths of some 600 men (and an equal number of wealthy widows) and resulted in the execution of Signora Toffana.
In Elizabethan England, cosmetics were seen as a health threat “because many thought they would block vapors and energy from circulating properly.”
Still, human fascination with cosmetics and their desired effects continued, so that today cosmetics and perfumes and related products (skin lotions, shampoos and conditioners, beauty soap) have grown into a global industry making billions of dollars in profit.
* * *
And yet consumers of cosmetic products also continue to put their health at risk, at least according to a visiting expert in “toxic reduction strategies in cosmetics and other consumer products.”
Dr. Ann Blake, a member of the Green Ribbon Science Panel of California’s Environmental Protection Agency with 18 years’ experience studying toxic ingredients in cosmetics, called for “stringent regulation” of “ingredients known or suspected of causing cancer and other serious harm to human health.”
Speaking at a lecture-forum jointly organized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the EcoWaste Coalition, Blake spoke about “Women, Cosmetics and Toxic Chemicals” and the need for increased awareness on the health costs of “beauty.”
The US FDA reported last December the presence of lead in 400 types of lipstick, while the local FDA banned last August 50 brands of skin whitening creams that contained “dangerous amounts of mercury,” including products tested by the EcoWaste Coalition using X-ray Fluorescence spectrometer.
In her presentation, Blake drew attention to major chemicals of concern in cosmetics—for example, heavy metals such as lead in lipstick, mercury and hydroquinone in skin whiteners, coal tar derivatives in dark hair dyes, hormone disruptors in fragranced products, and formaldehyde and paraben preservatives in numerous personal care items.
* * *
While women are more exposed to the chemicals in consumer products, including cosmetics containing ingredients that are acutely toxic (lead, mercury) and chronic hormone disruptors (phthalates in fragrances), everyone, men included, is affected by environmental exposure to chemicals, particularly those from products applied daily to the body, Blake said.
“While men are exposed on average to six products a day versus 12 products for women, they are still exposed to some 80 unique chemicals from personal care products such as soap, shampoo, shaving cream, fragranced aftershave, etc.,” Blake said. “Some male-specific health effects include exposure to Di-Ethyl Phthalate, a hormone disruptor, that impact on sperm quality and motility,” she said.
Environmental exposure to chemicals in consumer products are linked to major public health issues such as cancers, cardiovascular diseases, autoimmune and neurological diseases, obesity and type II diabetes, pediatric asthma, reproductive and developmental disorders, she added.
The question we must ask ourselves, then, is how much we are willing to risk in terms of our long-term health (and even those of our children) in exchange for the short-term and temporary enhancement of our facial features, skin and hair. And should not government regulate, if not ban outright, the use of toxic substances in cosmetics and other consumer products? Perhaps the first step should be to promote greater consumer awareness, with customers buying the products not because of the attractive packaging, but because they have studied the ingredients and educated themselves on their health effects.
* * *
On a related issue, some have raised concerns about the presence of bacteria found in some brands of herbal medicines at levels allegedly beyond the safety standards set by the Philippine FDA.
Ingestion of high levels of aerobic bacteria can cause a number of potential adverse effects, ranging from an upset stomach to more serious symptoms such as fever and gastrointestinal symptoms including vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea. Some groups of people, like children, pregnant women and their fetuses, seniors, cancer patients and people living with HIV, are also at greater risk from bacterial infections given their age and unhealthy immune system.
Just like with makeup and cosmetic products, then, consumers should also exercise vigilance in their choice of medicines, particularly of herbal drugs. Government regulators should likewise look into the practices of these companies, since safety and health should be our primary concern.
