Toxins to Avoid

1. BHA and BHT

Where it’s Found

BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) and BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene) are closely related synthetic antioxidants used as preservatives in lipsticks and moisturizers, among other cosmetics. They are also widely used as food preservatives.

Why It’s Toxic

BHA and BHT can induce allergic reactions in the skin.(1) The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies BHA as a possible human carcinogen.(2)The European Commission on Endocrine Disruption has also listed BHA as a Category 1 priority substance, based on evidence that it interferes with hormone function.(3) Long-term exposure to high doses of BHT is toxic in mice and rats, causing liver, thyroid and kidney problems and affecting lung function and blood coagulation.4 BHT can act as a tumor promoter in certain situations.(5) Limited evidence suggests that high doses of BHT may mimic estrogen,6 the primary female sex hormone, and prevent expression of male sex hormones,(7) resulting in adverse reproductive affects. Under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, BHA is listed as a chemical of potential concern, noting its toxicity to aquatic organisms and potential to bioaccumulate.(8) Likewise, a United Nations Environment Program assessment noted that BHT had a moderate to high potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic species (though the assessment deemed BHT safe for humans).(9)

Regulation Status

The use of BHA and BHT in cosmetics is unrestricted in Canada, although Health Canada has categorized BHA as a “high human health priority” on the basis of carcinogenicity and BHT as a “moderate human health priority”. Both chemicals have been flagged for future assessment under the government’s Chemicals Management Plan. International regulations are stronger. The European Union prohibits the use of BHA as fragrance ingredient in cosmetics. The State of California requires warning labels on products containing BHA, notifying consumers that this ingredient may cause cancer.

 

2. Coal Tar Dyes: p-phenylenediamine and colors listed as “CI” followed by a five digit number

Where it’s Found

Coal tar-derived colors are used extensively in cosmetics, generally identified by a five-digit Color Index (CI) number. The U.S. color name may also be listed (e.g., “FD&C Blue No. 1” or “Blue 1”).  In addition to coal tar dyes, natural and inorganic pigments used in cosmetics are also assigned Color Index numbers (in the 75000 and 77000 series, respectively).  Pphenylenediamine is a particular coal tar dye used in many hair dyes. Darker hair dyes tend to contain more phenylenediamine than lighter colors.

Why It’s Toxic

Coal tar is a mixture of many chemicals, derived from petroleum. Coal tar is recognized as a human carcinogen and the main concern with individual coal tar colors (whether produced from coal tar or synthetically) is their potential to cause cancer.(10) As well, these colors may be contaminated with low levels of heavy metals and some are combined with aluminum substrate. Aluminum compounds and many heavy metals are toxic to the brain.(11) Some colors are not approved as food additives, yet they are used in cosmetics that may be ingested, like lipstick. (In the U.S. color  naming system, “FD&C” indicates colors approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in foods, drugs and cosmetics. “D&C” colors are not approved for use in food.) P-phenylenediamine has been found to be carcinogenic in laboratory tests conducted by the U.S. National Cancer Institute and National Toxicology Program.(12) A review of the epidemiologic literature confirmed statistically significant associations between hair dye use and development of several types of cancer although the authors concluded that the evidence was insufficient to determine that the hair dyes had caused the cancers.(13) A separate study found that women who used hair dyes – especially over extended periods – had an increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (cancer of the lymph system).(14),There is conflicting evidence, however, with other research suggesting no strong association between cancer and hair dye use.(15) The International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that personal use of hair dyes is currently “not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.”(16) The European Union classifies p-phenylenediamine as toxic (in contact with skin, by inhalation, or if swallowed) and as very toxic to aquatic organisms, noting that it may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.(17)

Regulation Status

Several coal tar dyes are prohibited on Health Canada’s Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist and Canada’s Cosmetic Regulation prohibits all but seven of these colors in eye makeup and other products used in the area of the eye. However, dozens of coal tar-derived colors are still widely used in other cosmetics. Some have been flagged for future assessment under the government’s Chemicals Management Plan. P-phenylenediamine is permitted only in hair dyes and must be accompanied by a warning that the product “contains ingredients that may cause skin irritation on certain individuals” and if used near the eyes “may cause blindness.”(18)

 

3. DEA, cocamide DEA and lauramide DEA

Where it’s Found

DEA (diethanolamine) related ingredients are used to make cosmetics creamy or sudsy, or as a pH adjuster to counteract the acidity of other ingredients. They are mainly found in soaps, cleansers and shampoos.

Why It’s Toxic

DEA-related ingredients may contain low residual levels of DEA,(19) which the European Union classifies as harmful on the basis of danger of serious damage to health from prolonged exposure.(20) DEA can also react with nitrites in cosmetics to form nitrosamines, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies as a possible human carcinogen.(21) Nitrites are sometimes added to products as anti-corrosive agents or can be present as contaminants. The degradation of some chemicals used as preservatives in cosmetics can release nitrites when the product is exposed to air.(22) In laboratory experiments, exposure to high doses of DEA-related ingredients has been shown to cause liver cancers and precancerous changes in skin and thyroid.(23) These chemicals can also cause mild to moderate skin and eye irritation.(24) The Danish Environmental Protection Agency classifies cocamide DEA as hazardous to the environment because of its acute toxicity to aquatic organisms and potential for bioaccumulation.(25)

Regulation Status

DEA itself is prohibited on Health Canada’s Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist,(26) but the use of DEA-related ingredients is unrestricted in Canada. Nitrosamines are also on the Hotlist. However, the Hotlist restriction does not necessarily address so-called unintentional ingredients – e.g., residual levels of DEA and nitrosamine formation in products containing DEA-related ingredients. International regulations are stronger. The European Union Cosmetics Directive restricts the concentration and use of cocamide and lauramide DEA in cosmetics, and limits the maximum nitrosamine concentration in products containing these ingredients.(27)

Similar Ingredients to Avoid

MEA (monoethanolamide) and TEA (triethanolamine) are related chemicals. Like DEA, they can react with other chemicals in cosmetics to form carcinogenic nitrosamines.

 

4. Dibutyl phthalate

Where it’s Found

Dibutyl phthalate (prounced thal-ate), or DBP, is used mainly in nail products as a solvent for dyes and as a plasticizer that prevents nail polishes from becoming brittle.

Why It’s Toxic

DBP is absorbed through the skin.(28) It can enhance the capacity of other chemicals to cause genetic mutations, although it has not been shown to be a mutagen itself.(29) In laboratory experiments, it has been shown to cause developmental defects, changes in the testes and prostate and reduced sperm counts.(30) The European Union classifies DBP as a suspected endocrine disruptor on the basis of evidence that it interferes with hormone function,(31) and as toxic to reproduction on the basis that it may cause harm to the unborn child and impair fertility.(32) As well, Health Canada notes evidence suggesting that exposure to phthalates may cause health effects such as liver and kidney failure in young children when products containing phthalates are sucked or chewed for extended periods.(33) The European Union classifies DBP as very toxic to aquatic organisms. (34) Under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, DBP is listed as a Chemical for Priority Action.(35)

Regulation Status

Health Canada recently announced regulations banning six phthalates (including DBP) in soft vinyl children’s toys and child care articles, but its Use in cosmetics is not restricted. International regulations are stronger. The European Union bans DBP in cosmetics, as well as in childcare articles and toys.

Similar Ingredients to Avoid

Other phthalates are widely used as fragrance ingredients in cosmetics – in particular diethyl phthalate (DEP). DEP is suspected of interfering with hormone function (endocrine disruption), causing reproductive and developmental problems among other health effects.(36) Fragrance recipes are considered trade secrets, so manufacturers are not required to disclose specific fragrance chemicals. The best bet to avoid phthalates in cosmetics is to opt for products that do not list “parfum” or “fragrance” (see below) as an ingredient.

 

5. Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives: DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, methenamine, quaternium-15 and sodium hydroxymethylglycinate(37)

Where it’s Found

These ingredients slowly and continuously release small amounts of formaldehyde, which functions as a preservative.(38) Formaldehyde-releasers are used in a wide range of cosmetics. Other industrial applications of formaldehyde include production of resins used in wood products, vinyl flooring and other plastics, permanent-press fabric and toilet bowl cleaners. While formaldehyde occurs naturally in the environment at low levels, worldwide industrial production tops 21 million tons per year.(39)

Why It’s Toxic

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen.(40) Most of the cancer research on formaldehyde has focused on risks from inhalation. Small amounts of formaldehyde may off-gas from cosmetics. Off-gassing of formaldehyde from building products is already a concern for indoor air quality and Health Canada recommends the reduction or elimination of as many sources of formaldehyde as possible.(41) Some formaldehyde releasers can also irritate skin and eyes and trigger allergies at low doses.(42) Health Canada and Environment Canada categorized menthenamine and quaternium-15 as “moderate human health priorities” and possibly persistent in the environment. They have been flagged for future assessment under the government’s Chemicals Management Plan.

Regulation Status

Formaldehyde is a restricted ingredient in cosmetics in Canada. It cannot be added in concentrations greater than 0.2 per cent in most products.(43) However, there is no restriction on the low-levels of formaldehyde released by DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, methenamine, quarternium-15 and sodium hydroxymethylglycinate, nor on the use of these ingredients themselves. International regulations are stronger. In the European Union formaldehyde-releasing preservatives in cosmetics must be identified on the product label with the notice, “contains formaldehyde” if the concentration of formaldehyde in the product exceeds 0.05 per cent. (44)

Similar Ingredients to Avoid

Formaldehyde is an ingredient in some nail hardeners. Health Canada allows concentrations up to 5 per cent in these products.  Tosylamide/formaldehyde resin, used in nail polishes, may contain residual formaldehyde concentrations up to 0.5 per cent.(45)

 

6. Paraben, methylparaben, butylparaben and propylparaben

Where it’s Found

Parabens are the most widely used preservative in cosmetics. An estimated 75 to 90 per cent of cosmetics contain parabens (typically at very low levels).(46)

Why It’s Toxic

Parabens easily penetrate the skin(47) and are suspected of interfering with hormone function (endocrine disruption).(48) Parabens can mimic estrogen, the primary female sex hormone. In one study, parabens were detected in human breast cancer tissues, raising questions about a possible association between parabens in cosmetics and cancer.(49) Parabens may also interfere with male reproductive functions.(50) In addition, studies indicate that methylparaben applied on the skin reacts with UVB leading to increased skin aging and DNA damage.(51) Parabens occur naturally at low levels in certain foods, such as barley, strawberries, currents, vanilla, carrots and onions, although a synthetic preparation derived from petrochemicals is used in cosmetics. Parabens in foods are metabolized when eaten, making them less strongly estrogenic.(52) In contrast, when applied to the skin and absorbed into the body, parabens in cosmetics bypass the metabolic process and enter the blood stream and body organs intact. It has been estimated that women are exposed to 50 mg per day of parabens from cosmetics.(53) More research is needed concerning the resulting levels of parabens in people. Studies conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did find four different parabens in human urine samples, indicating exposure despite the very low levels in products.(54)

Regulation Status

There are no restrictions on the use of parabens in cosmetics in Canada. International regulations are stronger. The European Union restricts the concentration of parabens in cosmetics.

Similar Ingredients to Avoid

Methylparaben, butylparaben and propylparaben are some of the most common parabens in cosmetics. Other chemicals in this class generally have “paraben” in their names (e.g., isobutylparaben, ethylparaben, etc.).

 

7. Parfum (Fragrance)

Where it’s Found

The term parfum (or fragrance) on a cosmetic ingredients list usually represents a complex mixture of dozens of chemicals. Some 3,000 chemicals are used as fragrances.(55) Fragrance is an obvious ingredient in perfumes, colognes and deodorants, but it’s used in nearly every type of personal care product. Even products marketed as “fragrance-free” or “unscented” may in fact contain fragrance ingredients, in the form of masking agents(56) that prevent the brain from perceiving odor. In addition to their use in cosmetics, fragrances are found in numerous other consumer products, notably laundry detergents and softeners and cleaning products.

Why It’s Toxic

Many of unlisted fragrance ingredients are irritants and can trigger allergies, (57) migraines(58) and asthma symptoms.(59) A survey of asthmatics found that perfume and/or colognes triggered attacks in nearly three out of four individuals.(60) There is also evidence suggesting that exposure to perfume can exacerbate asthma and perhaps even contribute to its development in children.(61) U.K. researchers have reported that “perfume” is the second most common cause of allergy in patients at dermatology clinics.(62) People with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) or environment-related illnesses are particularly vulnerable, with fragrances implicated both in development of the condition and triggering symptoms.(63) In addition, in laboratory experiments, individual fragrance ingredients have been associated with cancer(64) and neurotoxicity(65) among other adverse health effects. Synthetic musks used in fragrances are of particular concern from an ecological perspective. Environment Canada has categorized several synthetic musks as persistent, bio-accumulative and/or toxic, and others as human health priorities. Measureable levels of synthetic musks are found in fish in the Great Lakes and the levels in sediment are increasing.(66) Laboratory tests of human umbilical cord blood commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Working Group detected common synthetic musks (Galaxolide and/or Tonalide) in seven out of 10 newborns sampled.(67) Some fragrance ingredients are not perfuming agents themselves but enhance the performance of perfuming agents. For example, diethyl phthalate (prounced tha-late), or DEP, is widely used in cosmetic fragrances to make the scent linger. The European Commission on Endocrine Disruption has listed DEP as a Category 1 priority substance, based on evidence that it interferes with hormone function.(68) Phthalates have been linked to reduced sperm count in men and reproductive defects in the developing male fetus (when the mother is exposed during pregnancy), among other health effects.(69) Phthalate metabolites are also associated with obesity and insulin resistance in men.(70) As well, Health Canada notes evidence suggesting that exposure to phthalates may cause liver and kidney failure in young children when products containing phthalates are sucked or chewed for extended periods.(71) DEP is listed as a Priority and Toxic Pollutant under the U.S. Clean Water Act, based on evidence that it can be toxic to wildlife and the environment.(72)  Laboratory analysis of top-selling colognes and perfumes identified an average of 14 chemicals per product not listed on the label, including multiple chemicals that can trigger allergic reactions or interfere with hormone function.973)

Regulation Status

Fragrance recipes are considered trade secrets so manufacturers are not required to disclose fragrance chemicals in the list of ingredients. Environment Canada is currently assessing one synthetic musk (moskene) under the government’s Chemicals Management Plan and has flagged several others for future assessment. Health Canada recently announced regulations banning six phthalates in children’s toys (including DEP), but the use of DEP in cosmetics is unrestricted. International regulations are stronger. The European Union restricts the use of many fragrance ingredients, including two common musks (nitromusks) and requires warning labels on products if they contain any of 26 allergens commonly used as cosmetic fragrances.(74)

 

8. PEGs 

Where it’s Found

PEGs (polyethylene glycols) are petroleum-based compounds that are widely used in cream bases for cosmetics as thickeners, solvents, softeners and moisture-carriers.

Why It’s Toxic

Depending on manufacturing processes, PEGs may be contaminated with measurable amounts of 1,4-dioxane.75 The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies 1,4-dioxane as a possible human carcinogen,(76) and it is also persistent.(77) In other words, it doesn’t easily degrade and can remain in the environment long after it is rinsed down the shower drain. 1,4-dioxane can be removed from cosmetics during the manufacturing process by vacuum stripping, but there is no easy way for consumers to know whether products containing PEGs have undergone this process.(78) In a study of personal care products marketed as “natural” or “organic” (uncertified), U.S. researchers found 1,4-dioxane as a contaminant in 46 of 100 products analyzed.(79) While carcinogenic contaminants are the primary concern, PEGs themselves show some evidence of genotoxicity (80)  and if used on broken skin can cause irritation and systemic toxicity.(81) The industry panel that reviews the safety of cosmetics ingredients concluded that some PEGs are not safe for use on damaged skin (although the assessment generally approved of the use of these chemicals in cosmetics).(82)  Also, PEGs function as “penetration enhancers,” increasing the permeability of the skin to allow greater absorption of the product - including potentially harmful ingredients.(83)

Regulation Status

There are no restrictions on the use of PEGs in cosmetics in Canada. 1,4-dioxane is prohibited on Health Canada’s Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist. However, the Hotlist restriction does not necessarily address so called unintentional ingredients – e.g., 1,4-dioxane as a contaminant in eythoxylates. 1,4-dioxane was recently assessed under the government’s Chemicals Management Plan, but Health Canada and Environment Canada concluded that the chemical did not meet the legal definition of “toxic” because estimated exposure levels were considered to be lower than those that might constitute a danger to human health. The assessment noted uncertainty in the exposure estimates, “due to the limited information on the presence or concentrations of the substance in consumer products available in Canada.”(84)

Similar Ingredients to Avoid

Propylene glycol is a related chemical that, like PEGs, functions as a penetration enhancer and can allow harmful ingredients to be absorbed more readily through the skin. It can also cause allergic reactions. Health Canada categorized propylene glycol as a “moderate human health priority” and flagged it future assessment under the government’s Chemicals Management Plan. Other ethoxylates may be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. These ingredients usually have chemical names including the letters “eth” (e.g., polyethylene glycol).

 

9. Petrolatum

Where it’s Found

Also known as mineral oil jelly, petrolatum is used as a barrier to lock moisture in the skin in a variety of moisturizers. It is also used in hair care products to make hair shine.

Why It’s Toxic

A petroleum product, petrolatum can be contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Studies suggest that exposure to PAHs – including skin contact over extended periods of time – is associated with cancer.(85) On this basis, the European Union classifies petrolatum a carcinogen(86) and restricts its use in cosmetics. PAHs in petrolatum can also cause skin irritation and allergies.(87)

Regulation Status

In the European Union, petrolatum can only be used in cosmetics “if the full refining history is known and it can be shown that the substance from which it is produced is not a carcinogen.”(88) There is no parallel restriction in Canada. Petrolatum is being assessed under the government’s Chemicals Management Plan.

Similar Ingredients to Avoid

Mineral oil and petroleum distillates are related petroleum by-products used in cosmetics. Like petrolatum, these ingredients may be contaminated with PAHs.

 

10. Siloxanes: cyclotetrasiloxane, cyclopentasiloxane, cyclohexasiloxane and cyclomethicone

Where it’s Found

These silicone-based compounds are used in cosmetics to soften, smooth and moisten. They make hair products dry more quickly and deodorant creams slide on more easily. They are also used extensively in moisturizers and facial treatments.

Why It’s Toxic

Environment Canada assessments concluded that cyclotetrasiloxane and cylcopentasiloxane – also known as D4 and D5 – are toxic, persistent and have the potential to bio-accumulate in aquatic organisms.(89)(90)  Also, the European Union classifies D4 as a endocrine disruptor, based on evidence that it interferes with human hormone function,(91) and a possible reproductive toxin that may impair human fertility.(92)  In laboratory experiments, exposure to high doses of D5 has been shown to cause uterine tumors and harm to the reproductive and immune systems. D5 can also influence neurotransmitters in the nervous system.(93)  Structurally similar to D4 and D5, cyclohexasiloxane (or D6) is also persistent and has the potential to bio-accumulate. Environment Canada’s assessment of D6 concluded that this third siloxane is not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration that endangers human health or the environment, but noted significant data gaps concerning its toxicity.(94) Cyclomethicone is a mixture of D4, D5 and D6 siloxanes.

Regulation Status

January 2009, Environment Canada and Health Canada proposed to add D4 and D5 siloxanes to the List of Toxic Substances pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) and to develop regulations “to limit the quantity or concentration of D4 and D5 in certain personal care products.”(95) In addition, under CEPA, anyone proposing a “significant new activity” involving siloxanes must notify the Minister of the Environment. However, there are currently no restrictions on these ingredients in cosmetics.

Similar Ingredients to Avoid

Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) silicone polymers are produced from D4 and contain residual amounts of D4 and D5. Dimethicone is a common PDMS ingredient in cosmetics. Other siloxanes have chemical names ending in “–siloxane” or “–cone.”

 

11. Sodium laureth sulfate

Where it’s Found

Sodium laureth sulfate (sometimes referred to as SLES) is used in cosmetics as a cleansing agent and also to make products bubble and foam. It is common in shampoos, shower gels and facial cleansers. It is also found in household cleaning products, like dish soap.

Why It’s Toxic

Sodium laureth sulfate is another "ethoxylated" ingredient. Like PEGs, it may be contaminated with measurable amounts of 1,4-dioxane, depending on manufacturing processes. (96) The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies 1,4-dioxane as a possible human carcinogen,(97) and it is also persistent.(98)  In other words, it doesn’t easily degrade and can remain in the environment long after it is rinsed down the shower drain. 1,4-dioxane can be removed from cosmetics during the manufacturing process by vacuum stripping, but there is no easy way for consumers to know whether products containing sodium laureth sulfate have undergone this process. (99) In a study of personal care products marketed as “natural” or “organic” (un-certified), U.S. researchers found 1,4-dioxane as a contaminant in 46 of 100 products analyzed.(100)  The industry panel that reviews the safety of cosmetics ingredients notes that sodium laureth sulfate can irritate the skin and eyes (though approving of its use in cosmetics).(101)

Regulation Status

There are no restrictions on the use of sodium laureth sulfate in cosmetics in Canada. 1,4-dioxane is prohibited on Health Canada’s Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist. However, the Hotlist restriction does not necessarily address so-called unintentional ingredients – e.g., 1,4-dioxane as a contaminant in ethoxylates. 1,4-dioxane was recently assessed under the government’s Chemicals Management Plan but Health Canada and Environment Canada concluded that the chemical did not meet the legal definition of “toxic” because estimated exposure levels were considered to be lower than those that might constitute a danger to human health. The assessment noted uncertainty in the exposure estimates “due to the limited information on the presence or concentrations of the substance in consumer products available in Canada.” (102)  Health Canada has categorized sodium laureth sulfate as a “moderate human health priority” and flagged it for future assessment under the government’s Chemicals Management Plan.

Similar Ingredients to Avoid

Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), a related cleansing agent, is a skin, eye and respiratory tract irritant and toxic to aquatic organisms.(103)  Other ethoxylates may be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. These ingredients usually have chemical names including the letters “eth” (e.g., sodium laureth sulfate).

12 .Triclosan

Where it’s Found

Triclosan is used mainly in antiperspirants, cleansers and hand-sanitizers as a preservative and an antibacterial agent. This chemical can be found in a wide range of household products, including garage bags, toys, linens, mattresses, toilet fixtures, clothing, furniture fabric, paints, laundry detergent and facial tissues, as well as cosmetics.

Why It’s Toxic

Triclosan can pass through skin(104) and is suspected of interfering with hormone function (endocrine disruption).(105) U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientists detected triclosan in the urine of nearly 75 per cent of those tested (2,517 people ages six years and older). (106) The European Union classifies triclosan as irritating to the skin and eyes, and as very toxic to aquatic organisms, noting that it may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment.(107) Environment Canada has categorized it as inherently toxic to aquatic organisms and persistent.(108) In other words, it doesn’t easily degrade and can build up in the environment after it has been rinsed down the shower drain. In the environment, triclosan can also react to form dioxins, which bio-accumulate and are toxic.(109)  The extensive use of triclosan in consumer products may contribute to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The Canadian Medical Association has called for a ban on antibacterial consumer products, such as those containing triclosan.(110)

Regulation Status

Health Canada’s Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist limits the concentration of triclosan to 0.03 per cent in mouthwashes and 0.3 per cent in other cosmetics. The problem is that triclosan is used in so many products that the small amounts found in each product add up – particularly since the chemical does not readily degrade. Moreover, some anti-bacterial hand sanitizers containing triclosan may not classify as “cosmetics” as per the Food and Drug Act. Products classified as “drugs” on the basis of a therapeutic claim or function are not subject to the Cosmetic Regulations or the Hotlist restriction. Environment Canada has flagged triclosan for future assessment under the government’s Chemicals Management Plan.

 

RESOURCES

(1) U.S. National Library of Medicine, in Haz-Map: Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Agents, 2010, http://hazmap.nlm.nih.gov.

(2) IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans vol. 17 (Paris: International Agency for Research on Cancer), vol. 40 (1986).

(3) Study on Enhancing the Endocrine Disrupter Priority List with a Focus on Low Production Volume Chemicals, Revised Report to DG Environment (Hersholm, Denmark: DHI Water and Environment, 2007), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/endocrine/documents/final_report_2007.pdf.

(4) UNEP and OECD, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-p-cresol (BHT) Screening Information Data Set: Initial Assessment Report (Paris:OECD, 2002), http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/128370.pdf.

(5) Baur, A.K. et al., “The lung tumor promoter, butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), causes chronic inflammation in promotion-sensitive BALB/cByJ mice but not in promotion-resistant CXB4 mice,” Toxicology 169, no. 1 (December 2001): 1-15.

(6) Wada, H. et al., “In vitro estrogenicity of resin composites,” Journal of Dental Research 83, no. 3 (March 2004):222-6.

(7) Schrader, TJ and GM Cooke, “Examination of selected food additives and organochlorine food contaminants forandrogenic activity in vitro,” Toxicological Sciences 53, no. 2 (February 2000): 278-88.

(8) “OSPAR List of Substances of Possible Concern. Fact sheet for Butylhydroxyanisol.” (OSPAR, April 15, 2002), http://www.ospar.org.

(9) UNEP and OECD, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-p-cresol (BHT) Screening Information Data Set: Initial Assessment Report.

(10) Winter, Ruth, A Consumer’s Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients, 7th ed. (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2009), 166.

(11) Grandjean P and PJ Landrigan, “Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals,” Lancet 368, no. 9553 (December 16, 2006): 2167-8.

(12) G. Reznik and J. M. Ward, “Carcinogenicity of the hair-dye component 2-nitro-p-phenylenediamine: Induction of eosinophilic hepatocellular neoplasms in female B6C3F1 mice,” Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 17, no. 5 (October 1979): 493-500.

(13) Rollison DE, KJ Helzlsouer and SM Pinney, “Personal hair dye use and cancer: a systematic literature review and evaluation of exposure assessment in studies published since 1992,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Critical Reviews 9, no. 5 (October 2006): 493-500.

(14) Zhang, Y. et al., “Personal use of hair dye and the risk of certain sub-types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” American Journal of Epidemiology 167, no. 11 (June 1, 2008): 1321-31.

(15) Takkouche B, M. Etminan and A. Montes-Martínez, “Personal use of hair dyes and risk of cancer: a meta-analysis,” Journal of the American Medical Association 293, no. 20 (May 25, 2005): 2516-25.

(16) IARC Monographs, vol. 16 (1978).

(17) European Commission, Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation, Annex VI, Table 3.2 (Sep 2009), Reg.1272/2008, http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/classification-labelling/.

(18) “Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist” (Health Canada, June 2010), http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/alt_formats/hecssesc/pdf/person/cosmet/info-ind-prof/_hot-list-critique/hotlist-liste_2010-eng.pdf.

(19) U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Diethanolamine,” Cosmetics > Product and Ingredient Safety, October 27, 2006, http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/SelectedCosmeticIngredients/ucm109655.htm.

(20) European Commission, CLP Reg, Annex VI, Table 3.2.

(21) IARC Monographs, vol. 17 (1978).

(22) Epstein, Samuel S, Toxic Beauty (Dallas: BenBella Books, 2009), 30.

(23) NTP toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of lauric acid diethanolamine condensate (CAS NO. 120-40-1) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (dermal studies), National Toxicology Program Technical Report Series (U.S. National Toxicology Program, July 1999), 480; NTP toxicology and carcinogensis studies of 2,4-hexadienal (89% trans,trans isomer, CAS No. 142-83-6; 11% cis,trans isomer) (Gavage Studies), National Toxicology Program Technical Report Series (U.S. National Toxicology Program, October 2003), 509.

(24) Turkoglu M. and Sakr A., “Evaulation of irritation potential of surfactant mixtures,” International Journal of Cosmetic Science 21, no. 6 (December 1999): 371-82.

(25) Survey of liquid hand soaps, including health and environmental assessments, Survey of chemical substances in consumer products (Danish EPA, 2006), no. 69, http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2006/87-7052-062-3/html/kap08_eng.htm#8.2.3.

(26) The Hotlist prohibits dialkanolamines, including DEA.

(27) European Commission, Cosmetic Directive, Annex III, Part 1 ref. 60.

(28) Janjua NR, “Systemic uptake of diethyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, and butyl paraben following whole-body topical application and reproductive and thyroid hormone levels in humans,” Environmental Science & Technology 4, no. 15 (2007): 5564-70.

(29) Kim MY, Kim YC, Cho MH, “Combined treatment with 4-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1- (3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and dibutyl phthalate enhances ozone-induced genotoxicity in B6C3F1 mice,” Mutagenics 17, no. 4 (July 2002): 331-6.

(30) Henley DV, Korach KS, “Endocrine-disrupting chemicals use distinct mechanisms of action to modulate endocrine system function,” Endocrinology 147, no. 6 Suppl (June 2006): S25-32; Barlow NJ, McIntyre BS, Foster PM, “Male reproductive tract lesions at 6, 12, and 18 months of age following in utero exposure to di(n-butyl) phthalate,” Toxicologic Pathology 32, no. 1 (February 2004): 79-90.

(31) Towards the establishment of a priority list of substances for further evaluation of their role in endocrine disruption, Final Report to European Commission, DG Environment (Delft, Netherlands: RPS BKH Consulting Engineers, 2002), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/endocrine/documents/bkh_report.pdf.

(32) European Commission, CLP Reg, Annex VI, Table 3.2.

(33) Health Canada, “Government of Canada Acts to Help Ensure Soft Vinyl Toys, Child-Care Articles and OtherConsumer Products Are Safer (News Release),” June 2009, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nrcp/_2009/2009_96bk1-eng.php.

(34) European Commission, CLP Reg, Annex VI, Table 3.2.

(35) “OSPAR List of Substances for Priority Action (Update 2007)” (OSPAR Commission, 2007), http://www.ospar.org.

(36) Study on Gathering Information on 435 Substances with Insufficient Data, Final Report to European Commission, DG Environment (Delft, Netherlands: RPS BKH Consulting Engineers, 2000), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/docum/pdf/bkh_annex_13.pdf.

(37) Environmental Working Group, “Ingredients potentially containing the impurity FORMALDEHYDE,” Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Database, http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/browse.php?impurity=702500.

(38) Personal Care Products Council, “Formaldehyde Information,” COSMETICSINFO.ORG, http://www.cosmeticsinfo.org/HBI/18.

(39) IARC Monographs, vol. 88 (2006).

(40) Ibid.

(41) Health Canada, “Formaldehyde,” Pollutants from Household Products and Building Materials - Indoor Air Pollutants, 2009, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/air/in/poll/construction/formaldehyde-eng.php.

(42) De Groot, A et al., “Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics: Relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy,” Contact Dermatitis 62, no. 1 (January 2010): 2-17.

(43) “Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist.”

(44) European Parliament and Council, Regulation on Cosmetic Products of 30 November 2009, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:342:0059:0209:en:PDF.

(45) Personal Care Products Council, “Tosylamide/formaldehyde resin,” COSMETICSINFO.ORG, http://www.cosmeticsinfo.org/ingredient_more_details.php?ingredient_id=1205.

(46) Winter, Ruth, Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients.

(47) U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Parabens,” Cosmetics > Product and Ingredient Safety, October 31, 2007, http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/SelectedCosmeticIngredients/ucm128042.htm.

(48) Enhancing the Endocrine Disrupter Priority List.

(49) Darbre, P.D. et al., “Concentrations of parabens in human breast tumors,” Journal of Applied Toxicology 24, no. 1 (February 2004): 5-13.

(50) Darbre PD and PW Harvey, “Paraben esters: review of recent studies of endocrine toxicity, absorption, esterase and human exposure, and discussion of potential human health risks,” Journal of Applied Toxicology 28, no. 5 (July 2008): 561-78.

(51) Handa, O. et al., “Methylparaben potentiates UV-induced damage of skin keratinocytes,” Toxicology 227, no. 1-2 (October 3, 2006): 62-72; Okamoto, Y. et al., “Combined activation of methyl paraben by light irradiation and esterase metabolism toward oxidative DNA damage,” Chemical Research in Toxicology 21, no. 8 (July 26, 2008):1594-99.

(52) Vince, G., “Cosmetic chemicals found in breast tumors,” New Scientist, January 12, 2004, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4555-cosmetic-chemicals-found-in-breast-tumours.html.

(53) Epstein, Samuel S, Toxic Beauty.

(54) Ye, X. et al., “Environmental Health Perspectives: Parabens as Urinary Biomarkers of Exposure in Humans,” Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (August 29, 2006): 1843-6; Ye, X. et al., “Temporal stability of the conjugated species of bisphenol A, parabens, and other environmental phenols in human urine,” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 17 (September 2007): 567-572.

(55) Fragranced Products Information Network, “Self-Regulation,” Fragrance Materials and Composition, http://www.fpinva.org/text/1a5d908-96.html.

(56) “Cosmetics: Frequently Asked Questions,” Health Canada - Consumer Product Safety, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cpsspc/person/cosmet/faq-eng.php#terms.

(57) Thyssen, JP et al., “Contact sensitization to fragrances in the general population: a Koch's approach may reveal the burden of disease,” British Journal of Dermatology 460, no. 4 (April 2009): 729-35.

(58) Kelman, L., “The triggers or precipitants of the acute migraine attack,” Cephalalgia 27, no. 5 (May 2007): 394-402.

(59) Millqvist E. and O. Löwhagen, “Placebo-controlled challenges with perfume in patients with asthma-like symptoms,” Allergy 51, no. 6 (June 1996): 434-9.

(60) Shim, C and MH Williams Jr., “Effect of odors in asthma,” American Journal of Medicine 80, no. 1: 18-22; cited in B.Bridges, “Fragrace: Emerging health and environmental concerns,” Flavour and Gragrance Journal 17 (2002): 361-71.

(61) B. Bridges, “Fragrace: Emerging health and environmental concerns.”

(62) Betton, C., “7th Amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive,” Cosmetic Science Technology (2005): 234-36.

(63) Sears, ME, Medical Perspective on Environmental Sensitivities. (Canadian Human Rights Commission, May 2007),http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/envsensitivity_en.pdf; Ashford, Nicholas A. and Claudia S. Miller, Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998).

(64) NTP toxicology and carcinogensis studies of 2,4-hexadienal (89% trans,trans isomer, CAS No. 142-83-6; 11%cis,trans isomer) (Gavage Studies); NTP toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of methyleugenol (CAS NO. 93-15-2)in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (Gavage Studies), National Toxicology Program Technical Report Series (U.S.National Toxicology Program, July 2000).

(65) Anderson RC and Anderson JH, “Acute toxic effects of fragrance products,” Archives of Environmental Health 53,no. 2 (April 1998): 138-46.

(66) The Challenge of Substances of Emerging Concern in the Great Lakes Basin: A Review of Chemicals Policies andPrograms in Canada and the United States (Toronto and Lowell, MA: Canadian Environmental Law Association and Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, 2009), http://www.cela.ca/sites/cela.ca/files/667IJC.pdf.

(67) Pollution in People: Cord Blood Contaminants in Minority Newborns (Washingtron, DC: Environmental Working Group, 2009), http://www.ewg.org/files/2009-Minority-Cord-Blood-Report.pdf.

(68) Study on Gathering Information on 435 Substances with Insufficient Data.

(69) Griffin, S, CancerSmart 3.0: The Consumer Guide (Vancouver: Labour Environmental Alliance Society, 2007).

(70) Stahlhut, RW et al., “Concentrations of urinary phthalate metabolites are associated with increased waste circumference and insulin resistence in adult U.S. males,” Environmental Health Perspectives 115, no. 6 (June 2007).

(71) Health Canada, “Government of Canada Acts to Help Ensure Soft Vinyl Toys, Child-Care Articles and Other Consumer Products Are Safer (News Release).”

(72) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Toxic and Priority Pollutants,” http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/methods/pollutants-background.cfm#pp.

(73) Sarantis, Heather et al., Not So Sexy: The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrance, Cdn. ed. (Environmental Defence, May 2010), http://toxicnation.ca/files/pdf/FragranceReport.pdf.

(74) European Parliament and Council, 7th Amendment to Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, 2003, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ20/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:342:0059:0209:en:PDF.

(75) Black RE, FJ Hurley, and DC Havery, “Occurrence of 1,4-dioxane in cosmetic raw materials and finished cosmetic products,” Journal of AOAC INTERNATIONAL 84, no. 3 (June 2001): 666-70.

(76) IARC Monographs, vol. 71 (1999).

(77) Screening Assessment for the Challenge: 1,4-Dioxane (Environment Canada and Health Canada, March 2010), http://www.ec.gc.ca/ese-ees/default.asp?lang=En&xml=2051DAE2-3883-F0F6-D5A9-E46DBD26BA33.

(78) Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia, Guide to Less Toxic Products (EHANS, 2004), http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=personal#commo.

(79) “Carcinogenic 1,4-dioxane found in leading "organic"bBrand personal care products [news release]” (Organic Consumer Association, March 14, 2008), http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/DioxaneRelease08.cfm.

(80) Wangenheim J and G. Bolcsfoldi, “Mouse lymphoma L5178Y thymidine kinase locus assay of 50 compounds,” Mutagenics 3, no. 3 (May 1988): 193-205; Biondi O., S. Motta and P. Mosesso, “Low molecular weight polyethylene glycol induces chromosome aberrations in Chinese hamster cells cultured in vitro,” Mutagenics 17, 3 (May 2002): 261-4.

(81) Lanigan, RS (CIR Expert Panel), “Final report on the safety assessment of PPG-11 and PPG-15 stearyl ethers,” International Journal of Toxicology 20 Suppl. 4 (2001): 13-26.

(82) “Quick Reference Table (summarizing publications through Dec 2009)” (Cosmetic Ingredient Review), http://www.cir-safety.org/staff_files/PublicationsListDec2009.pdf.

(83) Epstein, Samuel S, Toxic Beauty, 158-9.

(84) Screening Assessment for the Challenge: 1,4-Dioxane.

(85) U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, “Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs),” ToxFAQs™, September 1996, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=121&tid=25.

(86) European Commission, CLP Reg, Annex VI, Table 3.2.

(87) Ulrich, G. et al., “Sensitaization to petrolatum: an unusual cause of false-positive drug patch-tests,” Allergy 59, no.9 (2004): 1006-9.

(88) European Commission, Cosmetic Directive, Annex II, ref. 904.

(89) Environment Canada and Health Canada. Screening Assessment for the Challenge Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4). November 2008. http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2_556-67-2.cfm

(90) Environment Canada and Health Canada. Screening Assessment for the Challenge: Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5). November 2008. http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2_541-02-6.cfm

(91) DHI Water and Environment. Study on Enhancing the Endocrine Disrupter Priority List with a Focus on Low Production Volume Chemicals. Revised Report to DG Environment. Hersholm, Denmark: DHI, 2007. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/endocrine/documents/final_report_2007.pdf

(92) European Commission. Regulation (EC) 1272/2008 , Annex VI, Table 3.2. Sep 2009. http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/classification-labelling/

(93) California. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Cyloxanes. Matrials for the December 4-5, 2008, Meeting of the California Environemtnal Contaminant Biomonitoring Program Scientific Guidance Panel. http://oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/biomon/pdf/1208cyclosiloxanes.pdf

(94) Environment Canada and Health Canada. Screening Assessment for the Challenge: Dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6). November 2008. http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2_540-97-6.cfm

(95) Environment Canada and Health Canada. Proposed Risk Management Approach for Cyclotetrasiloxane, cotamethyl- (D4) and Cyclopentasiloxane, decamethyl- (D5). Jan 2009. http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2_541-02-6_rm.cfm

(96) Black RE, FJ Hurley, and DC Havery, “Occurrence of 1,4-dioxane in cosmetic raw materials and finished cosmetic products.”

(97) IARC Monographs, vol. 71 (1999).

(98) Screening Assessment for the Challenge: 1,4-Dioxane.

(99) Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia, Guide to Less Toxic Products.

(100) “Carcinogenic 1,4-dioxane found in leading "organic"bBrand personal care products [news release].”

(101) Cosmetic Ingredient Reivew, “Alert for Sodium Laureth Sulfide and Sodium Lauryl Sulfide,” n.d , http://www.cirsafety.org/staff_files/alerts.pdf.

(102) Screening Assessment for the Challenge: 1,4-Dioxane.

(103) International Programme on Chemical Safety and European Commission, “Sodium lauryl sulfate,” International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre, August 1997,  http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/protection/safework/cis/products/icsc/dtasht/_icsc05/icsc0502.htm.

(104) Calafat, A., “Urinary Concentrations of Triclosan in the U.S. Population: 2003-2004,” Environmental Health Perspectives 116, no. 3 (March 2008): 303-307.

(105) Gee, RH et al., “Oestrogenic and androgenic activity of triclosan in breast cancer cells,” Journal of Applied Toxicology 28, no. 1 (January 2008): 78-91.

(106) Calafat, A., “Urinary Concentrations of Triclosan in the U.S. Population: 2003-2004.”

(107) European Commission, CLP Reg, Annex VI, Table 3.2.

(108) Environment Canada, “List of substances on the DSL that are Persistent and Inherently Toxic to the Environment,” CEPA Environmental Registry, http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpecepa/eng/subs_list/DSL20/DSLsearch.cfm?critSearch=PI (see CAS #3380-34-5).

(109) Canosa, P. et al., “Aquatic degradation of triclosan and formation of toxic chlorophenols in presence of low concentrations of free chlorine,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 383, no. 7-8 (December 2005): 119-1126.

(110) Yang, J., “Experts concerned about dangers of antibacterial products,” The Globe and Mail, August 21, 2009, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/experts-concerned-about-dangers-of-antibacterialproducts/article1259471/.