The real WMDs are… in your armpits!

Ever wondered where the real weapons of mass destruction are? You play Russian roulette with them every time you reach for the antiperspirant - or any other conventional personal care product for that matter.


Four and a half years ago the still ongoing Iraq war was started on the pretence that the Iraqi regime harboured an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), which needed to be secured in order to protect millions of people from potential harm and death. As we all know now, the ensuing search for this threat turned out a wild goose chase because the threat wasn’t real and there simply weren’t any WMDs to be found. As subsequent inquests have corroborated, this was a well-known fact in the responsible political circles prior to the war, which suggests that the motivation for this conflict was never the protection of human life but more likely of an economic and “petroliferous” nature. The same motivational force is at work when it comes to the very real WMDs which you take home with every toiletries purchase and apply to your body on a daily basis.

Similar to Trojan horses, virtually all mainstream cosmetic and personal care products (from toothpaste, shampoo and body lotion to deodorants, shower gel and perfumes) conceal a number of suspect chemicals, which can present serious health risks – either because there is scientific evidence of their toxicity or because they have never been sufficiently tested for their effects on human health in the first place. They all contain so-called petrochemicals – synthetic chemicals derived from petroleum, including preservatives, colours and fragrances. Of the tens of thousands of officially registered chemicals, only a fraction has undergone comprehensive testing, whilst the majority of the over 2,000 chemicals that enter the market each year hardly undergo the most basic tests to determine their toxicity, let alone their reaction with each other or with the human body. Many mass-produced and mass-used chemicals have been scientifically associated with a range of adverse effects from irritation to skin, eyes and mucous membranes, eczema, asthma or other respiratory problems to headaches, nausea, malfunctions of the nervous system, endocrine disruption (i.e. an alteration of the body’s hormone levels and functions) and, worst of all, cancer.

Mainstream toiletries such as shampoo and shower gel often contain aggressive “lauryl” or “laureth” cleansing agents, most commonly Sodium Lauryl or Laureth Sulfate or Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate, which may be contaminated with the known endocrine disrupter and carcinogen 1,4-dioxane, which happened to be one of the main ingredients of the chemical defoliant Agent Orange used in the Vietnam war.
Other omnipresent suspect chemicals are Propylene Glycol and Polyethylene Glycol (also known as PEG). These petroleum-based substances, which are used in virtually every imaginable cosmetic product, increase the permeability of the skin and allow chemicals (both the beneficial as well as the harmful ones) to penetrate it more easily. Moreover, some of the most common synthetic preservatives in personal care products may contain, release or break down into formaldehyde, which is a proven carcinogen. Amongst these are 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, Bronopol, Quaternium 15 and 5-bromo-5-nitro-dioxane.
And then there are the various Parabens, which are not only potential allergens but have also been associated with breast cancer in women. They are endocrine disrupters, which mimic or interfere with the body’s natural hormones, especially oestrogen. They can alter the hormone level and stop or stimulate hormone production, thereby affecting hormone-controlled functions. Potentially harmful are also DEA (diethanolamine) and TEA (triethanolamine). Though harmless in themselves, they can react with nitrites, often used as preservatives, to form carcinogenic nitrosamines. Fluoride-containing toothpastes are also to be treated with caution as there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity. The use of fluoride, especially Sodium Fluoride, is so controversial that the Canadians and Belgians have put it on their “hotlist” and do not permit it in oral care products at all.

The list of potentially harmful ingredients in mainstream cosmetics is much longer than this; in fact, it is shockingly long. Yet, regulatory authorities allow these synthetic chemicals into our daily lives because suggestive scientific evidence of toxicity or even carcinogenicity is currently not considered reason enough to ban the use of such substances. At present it usually takes large-scale or high-profile incidents such as mass contaminations, backed up by scientific proof “beyond doubt” (as if that was ever possible!), before officials finally take action and impose bans or restrictions. If their main concern was indeed “the safeguarding of public health”, as the European Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the Approximation of the Laws of the Member States relating to Cosmetic Products claims, the currently applied principle of “acting after the harm is done” should be replaced by a precautionary principle: Safeguarding measures should be taken when a product raises the slightest concern or threat to human or environmental health, even if some cause-and-effect links are not fully established.

That these chemical time bombs are readily available on the shelves of our shops might have to do with the fact that the petrochemical industry, as the provider of most ingredients for cosmetics and personal care products, is too big an economic force to be curtailed. Petroleum is not just big business in oil-producing countries in the Middle East but also in the EU, with Germany being the largest chemical producer, followed by France, and the UK in fourth place. According to the European Chemical Industry Council CEFIC, cosmetics and perfumes accounted for 10% of the total EU chemical sales in 2005, racking up a staggering € 61 billion (about £ 41 billion). EU statistics provider Eurostat confirms the industry’s clout:
In 2003 the miscellaneous chemical products manufacturing sector in the EU generated € 42 billion of added value, the largest proportion of which came from soaps, detergents and toiletries (over 40%). The sector employed a total of 266,600 people, with the production of perfumes and toiletries accounting for the majority of employment and added value (55.3% and 55% respectively). Production of soap, detergents and toiletries in the EU increased steadily from 1995 to 2005, with an average growth rate of 2% per year.

Impressive economic figures like these are political arm-twisters, which obviously persuade governments and regulatory bodies to focus more on the proviso than the main objective of Directive76/768/EEC: “the main objective of these laws is the safeguarding of public health and […], however, this objective must be attained by means which also take account of economic and technological requirements”.

The Directive and its countless amendments list a number of substances which must not form part of cosmetic products, including oestrogen, nitrosamines and formaldehyde (except in nail hardeners). Paradoxically though, oestrogen-mimicking parabens, potential nitrosamine-forming chemicals such as DEA and TEA or formaldehyde releasers like 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (which is even used in “gentle” products for babies and sensitive skin) are still permitted in mainstream toiletries.
Given the lack of protection through current regulations, the buck has (yet again) been passed to the consumers, who are forced to exercise their “right of choice” to avoid these clearly avoidable health risks. The supply and demand cycle for mainstream products using suspect petrochemicals and toxic substances can only be broken by a drop in demand for such goods. Personal care products can be made without the use of harmful chemicals, as the wealth of natural and organic alternatives proves, so consumers can vote with their feet and buy healthier options. This requires a little research about what substances to avoid, but considering the countless publications and organisations which provide information on suspect and dangerous cosmetic ingredients (see below), wising up couldn’t be easier.

Most mainstream cosmetics and toiletries are potential chemical WMDs that can cause long-term health problems – a fact that manufacturers most likely know but can legitimately ignore. In their adverts they emphasise the positive and omit the negative. Don’t let them fool you – because you‘re worth it!


Some useful sources of information:

Weblinks:
http://www.preventcancer.com/ – The Prevent Cancer Coalition
http://www.safecosmetics.org/ – The Campaign for Safe Cosmeticshttp://www.cosmeticdatabase.com/ – Skindeep
http://www.mindfully.org/
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/ – see Toxics, The Problems, Hazardous Chemicals
http://www.theecologist.org/ – a monthly periodical (also available in print)
http://livelearnchange.blogspot.com/ – author’s own health info blog

Publications:
A Consumer's Dictionary of Cosmetics Ingredients, Ruth Winter
Beauty to Die For, Judi Vance
Don’t Go to the Counter without Me, Paula Begoun
Dying to Look Good: The Disturbing Truth About What’s Really in Your Cosmetics, Toiletries and Personal Care Products, Christine Hoza Farlow
The Safe Shopper's Bible, A Consumer's Guide to Nontoxic Household Products, Cosmetics and Food, David Steinman & Samuel S. Epstein
Skin Care and Cosmetic Ingredients Dictionary, Natalia Michalun

© Manuela Hübner, 2007