Dear Paula,

You missed the larger picture with regard to what you call the “hysteria” associated with exposure to the lead in cosmetics. Yes, the exposure may be minimal in comparison to exposure from other environmental contributors, but it is the cumulative effect of this exposure that is the real issue. For the majority of people, this may not be of concern, but your response was insensitive to those who suffer because their bodies cannot complete the metabolic process of “daily removal of toxins.” The public relies on manufacturers to provide a safe, quality product. Lead in a cosmetic, any cosmetic, especially one that is used as frequently as lipstick, is inexcusable.

I use supplements every day because I cannot remove them via natural metabolic methods and I have a son with autism. No, lead in lipstick didn’t cause his autism, but I have spent a good amount of money in my 33 years on lipstick and I never once imagined it would contain such a harmful neurotoxin. This reaction you condemned as “hysteria” is largely driven by the public’s refusal to further let manufacturers profit without accountability to basic health issues. Neurodevelopment disorders affect 1 in approximately 6 children today. Of all the many chemicals we use daily, only a small handful have been tested in combinations or at current cumulative daily exposure rates. To advise us that we should not be concerned about a substance that has been tested and confirmed to be so harmful, I find that personally offensive.

Kristen, via email

Dear Kristen,

Thank you for sharing your opinion with me. Consumers have every right to ask questions and stay informed; you are right, I have built my writing career on this principle. The problem for me is that when groups such as the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics propagate incorrect, incomplete, or unsubstantiated information, it causes consumers to take it as gospel. Word spreads fast, and before you know it incomplete or erroneous information is accepted as the whole truth. The other side is rarely, if ever, presented, and so, in the minds of consumers, it comes down to cosmetics companies taking the cheap way out even though they’re aware of the potential risks and there is another side.

I certainly did not intend to downplay the health risks of lead, nor to be insensitive to those with disorders in which toxins may build up in the body (but whether or not there are supplements can remove them is dubious at best but that’s entirely different topic and not my area of expertise). The issue is whether or not trace lead can ever be eliminated from our environment. Lead is in the ground and therefore in the food chain and, of course, cars add their generous contribution to the air and other sources show up in coloring agents. That is true to an extent in cosmetics regardless of what kind of coloring agents are used.

That may sound troubling, but that’s the reality. Keep in mind even the Lead in Lipstick report from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found trace amounts of lead in lipsticks they deemed acceptable (such as those from Revlon) and the likelihood that it could vary batch to batch. It seems that the only way to avoid “lead” in lipstick is to not wear it and that is certainly a choice consumers can make.