THERE'S LEAD IN MY LIPSTICK (and yours too)!!!

[sugarbumpkin]

I found this out not long ago but I wanted to get the word out as soon as possible.  33 popular lipstick brands were tested in 2009 by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the results have finally been published.  It is absolutely ASTOUNDING because so many of the popular lipsticks we rant and rave about are on this list.

L'oreal is the producer of the top 10 most lead-contaminated brands of lipsticks.  Brands that are contaminated include:

1. Estee Lauder

2. MAC

3. Clinique

4. Wet n Wild

5. Dior

6. Benefit

7. Maybelline

8. Cover Girl

9. Revlon

10. Mary Kay

11. Bobbi Brown

12. NARS

13. Avon

14. Shiseido

15. Clarins

16. Chanel

17. Rimmel

18. Burt's Bees

19. Elizabeth Arden

20. Almay

16. ...and many many more

With that said, I don't think ALL lipsticks from each of these brands are contaminated with lead.  In this list, you can check for the specific shade(s) that are contaminated.

Just to throw a few out there, some of the lipsticks on the very very extensive list include MAC Angel, Clinique Black Honey, MAC Lady Danger, MAC Red, MAC Viva Glam I, MAC Show Orchid, Maybelline Nearly There.  I'm listing a lot of MAC lippies not because I'm picking on them, but because MAC is probably the most talked about brand in the blogging world.

So what does this all mean?  Research shows that there is no safe level of lead, and yet the FDA claims that there is no concern for the level of lead in lipsticks.  In fact, the FDA does not have a limit on lead in cosmetics and have never been very restrictive on beauty products in general.  At the very least, however, cosmetic companies should be REQUIRED to list ALL their ingredients on he label, which they currently are not.

Here are the lead-contaminated lippies (that I know of) that I dug out of my own personal collection:



Wet n Wild Red Velvet, L'oreal Undeniably Mauve, Maybelline Madison Mauve, and Maybelline Mauve Me.

I haven't decided what to do with these lipsticks yet.  I originally wanted to throw them out immediately, but I wonder what good it would actually do me.  All cosmetics that are not organic and natural are probably bad for us in one way or another, and all the food we eat is also processed and contaminated to some point as well.  With that said, I don't think that this makes it okay for there to be lead in our lipsticks in the first place.  You see how I'm bouncing back and forth here?

In any case, I wanted to put the facts out there and let you all decide for yourself what to do about the lipsticks.  I think one thing we can all agree on is that there should not be lead in our lipsticks to begin with, so we can email or facebook message many of the companies listed about lowering or eliminated the lead in lipsticks.

If you would like to read more about lead in lipsticks and see the extended list of lipsticks tested, please check out these very helpful and informational sites:

http://safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=223

http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/ProductInformation/ucm137224.htm#expanalyses

 

[amygab1126]

I read the article on Yahoo earlier, and honestly thought nothing of it. It's not the first time the issue of lead in cosmetics has come up - I read something similar years ago, and didn't think much of that then, either. I'm 30 years old and have been wearing lipstick daily (with relentless re-application throughout the day) for 17 years, and I'm fine. I'm pretty sure there are tons more things I'm exposed to on a daily basis that are more dangerous than my lipstick. So, unless some groundbreaking report comes out citing lipstick as the cause of lead poisoning in hundreds of women, there's no way I'm throwing out a single piece of my stash.

 

[zadidoll]

I'm not throwing my lipstick out ESPECIALLY my three MAC ones that I paid full price for at MACcosmetics.com or at their store.

19
M.A.C
Estée Lauder
Matte
g
Viva Glam I
A67
0.10

 

[william55623]

If so which brand we can use future?

^S^

 

[Pancua]

It helps to read the entire article however. The meat is in the bones.

Quote: FDA has recently received a number of inquiries from consumers concerned about the amount of lead present in lipstick. FDA's studies have found no lead levels that would pose safety concerns when lipstick is used as intended.  
FDA scientists developed an analytical method, published in 2009, for measuring the amount of lead in lipstick. Our initial findings, as well as our expanded findings posted in December 2011, confirm that the amount of lead found in lipstick is very low and does not pose safety concerns.
The following information is drawn from responses to inquiries we have received, along with information on our latest findings.




Quote: Has FDA set limits for lead in cosmetics? No, FDA has not set limits for lead in cosmetics. FDA has set specifications for lead in color additives used in cosmetics. FDA approval of color additives is based on safety evaluations that consider the color additives’ intended uses and estimated consumer exposure resulting from those uses. FDA-approved color additives are listed in Title 21 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). To learn more about FDA-approved color additives, see Color Additives.



Quote: What are FDA's limits for lead in color additives? FDA limits lead in color additives to maximum specified levels, typically no more than 20 parts per million (ppm) for color additives approved for use in cosmetics. In addition, the color additives listed under regulations in 21 CFR Parts 74 and 82 are required to be batch-certified by FDA, which includes testing each batch for lead, before they may be used in cosmetics.

I'll leave the rest for others to read but all in all, the FDA is regulating cosmetics but at a much baser level. They may not be testing lipstick specifically but they are testing the ingredients that go into lipstick, which for me, is just as good.

 

[myrmillonis]

haha i don't wear any lipstick! It worries me a little that burt's bees has it because it has been a favorite of mine since i was a kid. I wonder if the lead in lipstick is kind of like mercury in fish that we eat, not that i eat fish, i believe they are overfished and they are my favorite kind of animal.

 

[lady41]

Im with amygab....I am a lipstick junkie....and I own most of the brands that are listed with lead in them....my lips are fine...lol

 

[13Bluestar97]

Sure, we all know lead is very poisonous especially if it gets to the brain, but I think it's no big deal if it's in lipsticks. Lead is only poisonous if it gets access to the bloodstream and travels to various parts of the body, but there is a very small chance that something like that will happen (a cut on the lip isn't really a contradiction because most women are smart enough to stay away from lipstick at such a time, and a nonspecific immune response will usually get rid of contaminants). Plus I paid good money for my lipsticks- no way am I throwing them out!!

 

[americanclassic]

Just goes to show you that expensive doesn't always mean better ingredients. I was really surprised wet n wild only have like .49 compared to MAC or Burt's Bees (that one was totally random), or even Benefit.. although most of the lipsticks with high amounts of lead were covergirl/revlon/maybelline

 

[Adrienne]

Like Amy said, I'm not throwing anything out until I read that a lipstick is the source of poisoned individuals.  I love my lipsticks!

 

[ladygrey]

Same here. I paid too much money for my makeup to just throw it out! I don't think the lead in lipsticks is particularly harmful. Well, at least that's what I'll keep telling myself. /emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20" />
 

Originally Posted by Adrienne /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Like Amy said, I'm not throwing anything out until I read that a lipstick is the source of poisoned individuals.  I love my lipsticks!

 

[Dinitchka]

I've know about this since around High School. Since I am not eating my lipsticks and lip products, I will not take any time out of my day to worry about lead nor throwing out any lip products. I do have many of the brands on that list and no matter if it was $0.99 or $100.00 I am keeping it until it goes bad, smells off or I use it up.

Nobody has died or gotten cancer from a lip product (true fact), I don't buy counterfeit beauty products because I don't know what kind of muck those people have put in the product (that's skkkeeerrrryyy). I am more likely to get lead in my system from the air I breath, the water I drink and the food I eat (lead is a naturally occurring metal in the earth ... where our fruits and veggies grow).

Don't get me wrong. I think that being aware of 'bad/nasty' chemicals is important but to go off the deep end is a bit out there IMO.

 

[myrmillonis]

Sorry guys, i take comments about cancer to heart. There is absolutely no way you can say that lip products have never caused cancer because certain bodies react really weird to certain things and I'm sure that someone at some point and time has had a reaction to a lip product that caused cancer. It is very hard to tell what has caused cancer when it isn't something obviously like smoking or taking a bath in a tub full of radiation. There is no way you can make a statement saying lip products have never caused cancer and have that statement be a fact (true fact).

 

[americanclassic]

I agree it's difficult to pinpoint the cause of someone's cancer, especially if they were healthy and had no family history--there are carcinogens all around us, so who knows what contributed more in their lifestyle. but my skepticism towards everything is the reason I don't pay as much attention as I should; every single product I use probably isn't good for me, and the brands that have a non-certified "natural" image probably just paid for some great PR and pretty packaging.

even if you read the ingredients list and it looks ok, think of all the bizarre and unnatural ways those ingredients were acquired in the first place. I just read somewhere that many packaged baked goods like bread contain a specific amino acid made from dissolving human hair..

 

[myrmillonis]

I read an something a while back that said that fruit "caused" cancer in children because of all the stuff they spray on it. Everything seems to cause cancer these days. it's ridiculous!

 

[13Bluestar97]

Cancer isn't exactly "caused" by something, cancer is triggered by something. Sorry I'm gonna be a Bio nerd here - cancer is constantly dividing in everybody, but it isn't harmful because it does not get a constant nutrient supply. It dies out. What "causes" cancer is some kind of chemical that can give cancer enough nutrients to survive long enough to trigger angiogenesis (formation of blood vessels) so the tumor gets its blood supply and can grow, triggers angiogenesis on its own, or mutates tumor cells so they grow faster. That's how cancer is triggered. It's really not genetic. There is no "cancer gene" and family history is not that important- its the chemicals, not family history.

 

Originally Posted by myrmillonis /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I read an something a while back that said that fruit "caused" cancer in children because of all the stuff they spray on it. Everything seems to cause cancer these days. it's ridiculous!

 

[myrmillonis]

If their isn't a cancer gene they are wasting a lot of money studying something that doesn't exist. They did a 10,000+ dollar study on my families breast cancer gene and i know all the technical stuff about cancer it's just most people don't understand so i just explain is simpler. I've read multiple college level books on it after i was diagnosed to understand it better.

 

[myrmillonis]

ooh and $10,000+ is a very very low estimate because I've done scans that cost $5000 for one scan before and they have done lots of test and scan on multiple people in my family

 

[Dinitchka]

I am not a scientist, a biologist or a PHD Dr but BRCA1 & BRCA2 ARE inherited genetic cancers. My people have a very high percentage of carrying the gene but it does not cause cancer in all that do carry the gene and I WILL NOT be tested. I will go for regular women check-ups and deal with it when and IF cancer is found. My father died from complications of a rare form of ALS, which can be an inherited genetic disorder. His neurologist said their is a 40% chance of inheriting his ALS ... I refuse to get tested. His father died from complications of his Alzheimer's, which can be an inherited genetic disorder, and again I refuse to get tested. I have a fairly nice life and I don't need to live the rest of my life thinking ... "OMG, I'm going to die and their is no cure!" I REFUSE to live that way. Sorry for my rant       ...::: steps off soapbox :::...
 

Originally Posted by 13Bluestar97 /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Cancer isn't exactly "caused" by something, cancer is triggered by something. Sorry I'm gonna be a Bio nerd here - cancer is constantly dividing in everybody, but it isn't harmful because it does not get a constant nutrient supply. It dies out. What "causes" cancer is some kind of chemical that can give cancer enough nutrients to survive long enough to trigger angiogenesis (formation of blood vessels) so the tumor gets its blood supply and can grow, triggers angiogenesis on its own, or mutates tumor cells so they grow faster. That's how cancer is triggered. It's really not genetic. There is no "cancer gene" and family history is not that important- its the chemicals, not family history.

 

 

[Evster]

To be honest, do you stop wearing deorderant?  Most have lead too and have been  suspected but not proven to cause cancer.  Same as your shampoos and a whole bunch of other beauty products.  What you eat, can contribute to your risk of certain cancers. Having children too young or too old or not at all can increase your risk of certain cancers. Using artificial sweetners can cause cancer.  Dyeing your hair can cause cancer.  Smoking and being around smoke can cause cancer, not just cigerette but from car exhaust. Everything in your environment has been suspected of causing cancer and this talk is not new but been around for decades.  And if you look at the ingredients of lipstick, eyeliner ect. from 1000s of years ago when ancient women in Eygpt and places like wore it and those products were  far more carcinogenic and deadly than the ingredients used today.  Basically, be cautious and if you have a family history, take note, but if you live your life thinking your going to get cancer, you probably will, not b/c of some beauty product you use but living your life stressed out you were going to get cancer.