<%@ Language=JavaScript %>

Concerns over Chemicals in Cosmetics

Are åplasticizing¼ substances causing health woes?

Francesca Lyman / MSNBC 4oct00

Beauty is only skin deep, but a new study suggests that some common cosmetic products leave traces of „plasticizing¾ chemicals in our bodies that could cause an array of health woes. Such research is adding momentum to a movement calling for better monitoring of environmental toxins and any harm they could be causing to our health.

WHEN CERTAIN chemicals in a class known as phthalates, used to soften vinyl plastic, were found to leach out of baby rattles and teethers several years ago, it touched off a controversy that led to bans and voluntary recalls in the toy industry. Regulators started reassessing the safety of these chemicals, which some investigators suspect of causing cancer and birth defects.

Now, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report in the October issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives that the average American may be exposed to other chemicals in the phthalate family ã substances shown to cause cancer, birth defects and adverse hormonal effects in lab animals.

The researchers detected surprisingly higher levels of these plasticizers than of toxins often tested for, such as lead or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) ã and much higher than the other phthalates that had been most controversial ã in random urine samples taken of the American population. They concluded that it was „critically important¾ to get further exposure data on these chemicals, used in cosmetics, and a wide variety of other consumer products, in order to assess health risks to people, especially „potentially susceptible populations.¾

Phthalates, chemicals that off-gas from plastic (familiarly associated with „new car smell¾) are used in scores of consumer products ã everything from perfumes and hair sprays to artificial leather and garden hoses, hair sprays and lotions to shower curtains and vinyl flooring.

With up to 4 million tons of phthalates produced and widely used throughout the world each year, industry representatives downplay any adverse effects to human health.

NEW RESEARCH

The new study, done by CDC¼s National Center for Environmental Health, represents the first time researchers have measured the presence of phthalates in humans. „It¼s an important study,¾ says Mike Shelby, chief of the toxicology laboratory at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), „because it shows for the first time how much of these compounds people are really being exposed to.¾

The results, he says, show both that people are being exposed on a wide scale and that „those with the highest levels are getting higher doses than we thought.¾

While the highest doses are at levels „much lower than where you¼d see toxic effects in rodents,¾ says Shelby, „it¼s when those two start approaching one another that you start to worry.¾

More research is already underway on a bigger sampling of the population, with more tests needed to better determine what health effects phthalates might cause in people or developing fetuses.

Yet these preliminary findings add to concerns that „background¾ levels of many chemicals in the environment ã long thought to be in small enough concentrations to have negligible effects on human health ã could play a crucial role in human development as well as in causing cancer, neurological, immune system disorders and infertility, says Jim O¼Hara, director of Health Track, a new nonprofit group funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts trying to build support for better „exposure¾ monitoring.

„What this study points to,¾ says O¼Hara, „is that there¼s a significant gap in our knowledge of what levels people have of toxic substances.¾

His views echo those of the Pew Environmental Health Commission, which has charged that the nation faces an „environmental health gap.¾ In September the commission called on Congress to mount a new program to effectively track and monitor the chronic diseases that stem from environmental pollution ã everything from asthma and chronic respiratory diseases to birth defects and developmental disorders to multiple sclerosis and Parkinson¼s. While „overt poisoning from environmental toxins has long been recognized, the environmental links to a broad array of chronic diseases of uncertain cause is unknown,¾ the Commission wrote.

CDC chemist John Brock, the lead researcher on the phthalate study, came upon his discovery by accident. While he was looking for known carcinogens such as PCBs in blood and urine, he discovered phthalates present at levels 1,000 times higher than PCBs.

Metabolites of diethyl phthalate (DEP), used in volatile components of cosmetics like perfumes, nail polishes and hairsprays, were found at levels about 70 times higher than metabolites of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), one of the chemicals banned in soft plastic toys, for example.

„Phthalates are everywhere in the lab, in the vials, the tubing, and the syringes,¾ says NIEHS¼s Shelby. „So we routinely shrugged them off as contaminants.¾ But Brock was compelled by the question: What if they weren¼t just contaminants, but rather residues of chemical exposures in the environment from the widespread use of phthalates from a variety of routes ã through food and drink, skin absorption or inhalation, for example?

„Everyone was looking for the needle in the haystack, when what they should have been looking at was the hay,¾ says Brock. He went on to prove in ongoing studies over the past few years that the „troublingly¾ high levels of phthalates he detected in humans weren¼t coming from soft plastic tubing but from chemicals used in a wide range of products, ranging from nail polishes and perfumes, hand lotions and soaps, to wood finishes.

By tracing the human metabolites of these chemicals ã the breakdown products in the human body ã „we¼ve been able to get really accurate numbers on how average Americans are being exposed,¾ Brock says.

STUDY DETAILS

In the study, researchers measured the levels of seven phthalate metabolites in urine samples taken from 289 people. The researchers are now following up on an additional 1,000 subjects to better ascertain the sources of the phthalates.

At this point, says Brock, it¼s certainly not clear what health effects the phthalates may have on the subjects. However, his biggest concern was that „the highest levels of exposure were in women of child-bearing age.¾

Reproductive biologist Earl Gray of the Environmental Protection Agency, who studied the effects of phthalates on rodents, says that there¼s ample cause for concern as the chemicals are reproductive toxins, with two, DBP and BzBP, particularly anti-androgenic, tending to block male hormones. „The effects on rats were quite profound, creating malformed genitalia, vaginal pouches, absent or undescended testes, and infertility,¾ says Gray.

The industry-sponsored Phthalate Esters Panel, while praising the study for its use of the latest diagnostic chemical techniques, said the phthalate levels uncovered in the CDC study are of „negligible¾ concern.

In a letter to CDC, the Panel¼s toxicologist Raymond M. David suggested using a formula that could take the new urine data and extrapolate „intake¾ levels of the phthalates based on data from human volunteers in Britain.

With this formula, he found the „intake¾ exposures to be „at or below levels that the EPA has determined to be safe for daily exposures.¾

PROTECTING OUR HEALTH

Others, however, took the findings as a sign that the current regulatory regime is not protecting public health. „This study reveals that exposures are real, and that we¼ve neglected the vital work of testing our own bodies for pollutants in the environment,¾ says J. P. Myers, one of the co-authors of the book „Our Stolen Future,¾ which proposed that hormone-disrupting chemicals in the environment might be producing cancers and other ill effects. „For a long time we¼ve been depending on safety limits developed by engineers and based on assumptions that are probably wrong.¾  The CDC will be releasing their new report card on public exposures to 25 selected toxins ã heavy metals, phthalates, neurotoxins, pesticides, and other substances ã sometime before December 2000.

„This will be the first snapshot we¼ll get of Americans¼ real-world exposures ã the kind of information we¼ve been sorely lacking,¾ says O¼Hara, „but that we, frankly, need much more of.¾

Francesca Lyman is an environmental and travel journalist and editor of the American Museum of Natural History book, „Inside the Dzanga-Sangha Rain Forest¾ (Workman, 1998).

EHN's homepage www.ehnca.org

perfume, fragrances, pesticides, schools -- The Environmental Health Network (EHN) [of California] is a 501 (c) (3) non profit agency and offers support and information for the chemically injured. Learn about the toxicity of fragrances from the work of Julia Kendall and Betty Bridges, RN, get The BEST of the Reactor, join EHN and receive The New Reactor. Learn about the adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields and pesticides. See what influence the Chemical Manufacturers have had against those of us with EI. The URL for this page is http://www.ehnca.org