October 2007
Dear Paula,
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics released independent lab results demonstrating that lead can be found in top brands of lipstick. Should I be concerned about lead in lipstick?

Kate, via email

Dear Kate,

Lethal Lipsticks?

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (a coalition of consumer advocacy groups spun from the Environmental Working Group) recently released a report about lead in several well-known brands of lipstick. Lipsticks from 33 cosmetic lines were tested by international company Bodycote Testing Group and the conclusion was that just over half of the samples contained lead. Interestingly, the tests were only done on red shades of lipsticks (so who knows if the red dyes may be the source of lead, meaning other shades of lipstick from every cosmetics company are lead-free). Of course, this common sense mode of thinking didn't strike anyone at the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and they were swift in crafting a press release that is the very definition of fear mongering.

The report incorrectly states that lipstick is ingested like candy. It mentions the FDA's 0.01 parts per million limit for lead in candy, and that no such safety limits exist for lipstick. (Of course, one wonders why the Campaign isn't calling for candy recalls to protect the health of children, but that's another story.)

What's missing is that women aren't eating lipsticks in the same manner they do candy (or food). In fact, the amount of lipstick that's actually ingested is minuscule compared to what comes off on coffee cups and other objects.

The iota of truth in this misleading, scare-tactic report is that a minute amount of lead may be present in some dyes used in cosmetics. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) there are trace amounts of lead in certain FD&C coloring agents. FDA separates color additives into two categories. These are colors that the agency certifies (derived primarily from petroleum and known as coal-tar dyes) and colors that are exempted from certification (obtained largely from mineral, plant, or animal sources). Only approved substances may be used to color foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices.

The FDA requires coal-tar dye manufacturers to submit test samples from each batch of color produced. These are then tested to confirm that each batch of the color is within established specifications. These certified colors are listed on labels as FD&C, D&C or external D&C. Using the uncertified versions of color additives that require certification is illegal in foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices. To assure consumer safety only certain dyes can be used around the mouth and around the eyes.

Interestingly, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics' report on lead in lipsticks does not provide a single reference demonstrating minute amounts of lead in lipsticks are a problem. All of their sources have to do with occupational and/or environmental exposure to heavy metals (lead included), not cosmetics usage. Without question, lead is a harmful substance; however, there is simply no proof that the tiny amount that may be in some lipsticks is causing harm. Actually, quantifying this would be difficult given the amount of lead we're exposed to on a daily basis. According to the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA), "The average amount of lead a woman would be exposed to when using cosmetics is 1,000 times less than the amount she would get from eating, breathing and drinking water that meets Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water standards,"). The European Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (COLIPA) agree with CTFA's comment.

Why is the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics blitzing the media with their report on lead in lipsticks when the average person gets more lead exposure simply standing on a busy street corner in a major city or drinking tap water? Granted, this group's concern is cosmetics, but rallying for lipsticks with trace amounts of lead to be recalled and immediately reformulated is making a mountain out of a molehill. What might have been more convincing (though still not unequivocally damning of lipsticks) is if the group had consulted a medical team to take blood samples from women who wear lipstick and those who do not. They could then test both groups' blood for lead, and any differences would be reported. I suspect the reason such a test was not done is because the results wouldn't show a statistically significant difference between the two groups, and thus the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics wouldn't have a story.

The whole issue of not just lead in lipsticks but the litany of so-called "toxic chemicals" in our personal care products drew the ire of Dr. Gary Moss. England-based Moss is the Professional Lead for Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery at the University of Hertfordshire. Dr. Moss's area of expertise is how drugs and other chemicals penetrate the skin barrier and their safety profiles in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. His summation of the whole hysteria involving "toxic" cosmetics is as follows:

"...in the case of cosmetics, which are normally supposedly applied to intact, healthy skin, it is unlikely that the components will penetrate it. (This is mainly, but not exclusively, due to three things; their physicochemical properties, how long the skin is exposed to them, and the nature of the formulation). These products are usually washed off in the morning and then replaced. Simply put, these molecules do not cross the skin barrier in significant amounts. Very few chemicals actually do-one of the reasons for the lack of success of transdermal drug delivery. Regular removal by the body keeps these levels well below toxic thresholds."

If you're concerned about lead exposure, you'd be much better off having your home's paint, soil, and water supply tested than opening your makeup bag in fear that adding color to lips will spell certain doom.