Skin is the largest organ-but that doesn’t make it invincible. The products we slather onto our anatomies (and the chemicals that include them) can get into their way into the bloodstream, and some of them have been associated with serious conditions such as malignancy, hormone disruption and severe allergy symptoms. 50 billion well worth of products each year, it’s essentially lifeless last among major sectors in the U.S. There now finally may be a new regulation that changes that.
California Senator Dianne Feinstein along with industry leaders are traveling a bipartisan effort to give the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) more power to ensure pores and skin and beauty products are safe to use. Beneath the proposed regulation, the FDA would be able to test if chemicals in makeup products are formulated at safe levels-and if not, a recall can be forced by them.
Currently, cosmetic companies don’t have to share basic safety information with the FDA nor does the FDA require lab tests to show the basic safety of ingredients. This legislation has support from some big players, such as the Personal Care Product Council, the industry’s leading trade association, who told CBS News they’ve recently been working with Congress for increased legislation. But this certainly doesn’t mean the industry “Davids” haven’t also been fighting.
Take Gregg Renfrew, cEO and founder of Beautycounter, a high-performance skincare and makeup line that implements self-imposed safety guidelines for their products. On Tuesday, a stand was taken by her in Congress to urge key senators for aesthetic reform. “We have not passed a federal law regulating cosmetics since 1938. The statutory laws that does can be found is a one-and-a-half page rules. It is flawed, they have many loopholes. It does not require companies to expose the substances they placed into fragrance, and it doesn’t allow the FDA having the ability to take action,” Renfrew tells LivingHealthy.
In the last 50 to 60 years, over 85,000 chemicals have been launched into commerce, and 80 to 90 percent of these never have been examined for protection on human health, regarding to Renfrew. And an email to the “green skeptics”: These laws will not attempt to ban all chemicals and leave us only with elements made from plant life.
- The lashes are not as soft as the two 2 designs above. It feels a little like “plastic”
- Towels, washcloths, damp wipes
- Rachel Fox, The Beauty & Blow Dry Company
- High percentage of pigment, perfect color purity (around 36%)
- Post market security with compliance monitoring
- 9 years back from Indonesia
- Visibly Pore Blurring Smooth Skin
“Natural doesn’t necessarily mean safe and chemicals don’t necessarily mean that they’re harmful to you,” says Renfrew. So it’s not about natural versus chemical-it’s about safety. Why has it taken so long to bring this matter to the front steps of federal government? The answer is complex. Consumers have simply received accustomed to using mainstream beauty products because they succeed. Then there will be the industry titans, including those who prioritize margins.
’s directing to the fact that many of the chemicals are harmful to your wellbeing,” says Renfrew, who adds that not all big business is ignoring basic safety completely. In 2014, Johnson & Johnson removed two controversial ingredients, formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, using their baby products after many years of consumer pressure. The juggernaut company stated they would continue steadily to reevaluate and reformulate their products, including their popular lines like Neutrogena.
But still, that wasn’t enough impetus to result in health-protective laws. And since regulation has far been virtually nonexistent thus, companies have been taking it onto themselves to offer more consumer education. One particular group is the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit, non-partisan research company that rates consumer products predicated on protection. EWG is one of many resources Renfrew utilizes to research the ingredients that she includes in-and bans from-Beautycounter products.
Senator Feinstein says she needs the costs to pass due to the massive bipartisan and industry support. If it does, that might be a major success for the wonder industry-but moreover, for customers. “I just wish that my children don’t have to read labels on the merchandise. I’m really hoping another generation won’t be impacted the real way that people are,” says Renfrew. Right now, it looks like that might be possible quite.