Thanks for this explanation - I follow a couple of those insta accounts that are critical of clean beauty and they are sometimes helpful but the tone of "Come ON guys, this is REGULATED, wake UP!" really annoys me. What you say about cumulative exposure makes so much sense.
I followed the FDA link and am confused. They write that they tested "hundreds" of lip products and found lead levels from below detectable to 7 ppm (and up to 14 ppm in applied cosmetics generally). They also say "Our data show that over 99% of the cosmetic lip products and externally applied cosmetics on the U.S. market contain lead at levels below 10 ppm" and "We have issued guidance to industry on limiting lead as an impurity in cosmetic lip products and externally applied cosmetics to a maximum of 10 ppm." I read this as saying not that 99% have lead, but that possibly they ALL have lead (??) but 99% are under the recommended "maximum" level. Does what you point out about cumulative exposure mean that even those levels are not acceptable? Can we believe the FDA that 99% are below at least that level even though they don't actually regulate it? The anti clean beauty influencers often say something along the lines of "EVERYTHING has tiny trace amounts of potentially harmful things, it's all about levels" - so is it a matter of researching every contaminate and understanding your own possible risk level?
Great questions! With this piece, I was more pointing out the absurdity of the FDA literally saying, verbatim, that there is "harmful" lead in lip gloss and instructing consumers to not lick their lips, not investigating the specific ppm of lead in the lipsticks they tested and what that means for our bodies. For more about cumulative exposure to heavy metals like this, check out Lara Adler (@environmentaltoxinsnerd) — she has great information and insights available, and this is her area of expertise! Sadly, yes, it does kind of come down to knowing your own possible risk levels for things like this. For the large, large majority of people, trace amounts of lead in lipstick aren't going to contribute to a major health problem. I do take issue with the "Everything is harmful, beauty doesn't matter" argument, though. Just because everything sucks doesn't mean we have to accept it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be better, doesn't mean we can't demand better in our specific industries. Biotech company Evolved By Nature had a great post about this a while ago. They pointed out that some of these potentially harmful ingredients (PFAS in particular) are so widespread *because* they're rampant in personal care products — we wash them off our faces and down the drain and they end up in the water supply, in the soil, in the air, etc. (https://www.instagram.com/p/CQhStnDA1Pa/v). And while, yes, trace amounts of lead and other ingredients are also in tap water, etc, and the health effects do, to a degree, come down to "levels" — beauty offers an easy area to create change!!! Regulation/removing these ingredients from cosmetics is so much more doable than purifying the world's water supply or tackling air pollution. It's an easy win. There's no good excuse to not regulate & test beauty products when we can. Any excuse to contrary is preserving the status quo.
Thank you, this is so helpful!! I do absolutely get that the point was about the absurdity of the tweet and how the discourse does not sufficiently take into account how marginalized groups are disproportionately affected by even small degrees of contamination - and also that my response was a bit "but what about ME, what do I DO" - so I really appreciate your response and the links! It's tempting to either totally freak out or listen to the people who are saying "don't worry about it" - but this level of nuance seems correct.
Thanks for this explanation - I follow a couple of those insta accounts that are critical of clean beauty and they are sometimes helpful but the tone of "Come ON guys, this is REGULATED, wake UP!" really annoys me. What you say about cumulative exposure makes so much sense.
I followed the FDA link and am confused. They write that they tested "hundreds" of lip products and found lead levels from below detectable to 7 ppm (and up to 14 ppm in applied cosmetics generally). They also say "Our data show that over 99% of the cosmetic lip products and externally applied cosmetics on the U.S. market contain lead at levels below 10 ppm" and "We have issued guidance to industry on limiting lead as an impurity in cosmetic lip products and externally applied cosmetics to a maximum of 10 ppm." I read this as saying not that 99% have lead, but that possibly they ALL have lead (??) but 99% are under the recommended "maximum" level. Does what you point out about cumulative exposure mean that even those levels are not acceptable? Can we believe the FDA that 99% are below at least that level even though they don't actually regulate it? The anti clean beauty influencers often say something along the lines of "EVERYTHING has tiny trace amounts of potentially harmful things, it's all about levels" - so is it a matter of researching every contaminate and understanding your own possible risk level?
Thanks so much for your work!
Great questions! With this piece, I was more pointing out the absurdity of the FDA literally saying, verbatim, that there is "harmful" lead in lip gloss and instructing consumers to not lick their lips, not investigating the specific ppm of lead in the lipsticks they tested and what that means for our bodies. For more about cumulative exposure to heavy metals like this, check out Lara Adler (@environmentaltoxinsnerd) — she has great information and insights available, and this is her area of expertise! Sadly, yes, it does kind of come down to knowing your own possible risk levels for things like this. For the large, large majority of people, trace amounts of lead in lipstick aren't going to contribute to a major health problem. I do take issue with the "Everything is harmful, beauty doesn't matter" argument, though. Just because everything sucks doesn't mean we have to accept it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be better, doesn't mean we can't demand better in our specific industries. Biotech company Evolved By Nature had a great post about this a while ago. They pointed out that some of these potentially harmful ingredients (PFAS in particular) are so widespread *because* they're rampant in personal care products — we wash them off our faces and down the drain and they end up in the water supply, in the soil, in the air, etc. (https://www.instagram.com/p/CQhStnDA1Pa/v). And while, yes, trace amounts of lead and other ingredients are also in tap water, etc, and the health effects do, to a degree, come down to "levels" — beauty offers an easy area to create change!!! Regulation/removing these ingredients from cosmetics is so much more doable than purifying the world's water supply or tackling air pollution. It's an easy win. There's no good excuse to not regulate & test beauty products when we can. Any excuse to contrary is preserving the status quo.
Thank you, this is so helpful!! I do absolutely get that the point was about the absurdity of the tweet and how the discourse does not sufficiently take into account how marginalized groups are disproportionately affected by even small degrees of contamination - and also that my response was a bit "but what about ME, what do I DO" - so I really appreciate your response and the links! It's tempting to either totally freak out or listen to the people who are saying "don't worry about it" - but this level of nuance seems correct.