amystodghill

3 Responses to “Tip o’ the Day: Color Me Phthalate Free”

1. Green Talk Says:
   May 10th, 2007 at 4:40 am

   I personally would not reccomend Sante Kosmetics. This is a solvent based nail polish. They list their ingredients which includes a long list of chemicals. Honey Bee on the other hand is water based. It is kind of like comparing wood finishes–solvent vs water based. I give both of these companies credit for listing their ingredients so you can make an informed decision. The last choice says nothing except that it is vegan and DPH free. It does say it is a lacquer which although I could be wrong but it may be solvent too.

   As for the water based, does anyone know if it stays on? It is worth a try. anna hackman, http://www.green-talk.com

2. Andyfts Says:
   May 10th, 2007 at 2:31 pm

   I have been incredibly long winded here, I am sorry!

   In their long history of use in consumer products, there has never been any reliable evidence that the phthalates found in nail polish, or in any other cosmetics, have ever caused anyone any harm. Using estimates of the average amounts of DBP found in nail polish, if a person were to absorb all the DBP in almost five bottles of nail polish every day, the resultant exposure would still be a level at which no effect is seen in laboratory animals.

   Thanks to Phthalates’ varying characteristics, this entire family of ingredients (there are several kinds)makes a wide range of consumer and industrial products “work better” for us. Dozens of phthalates have been developed over the years, and some have been in use for nearly a century. The dozen or so types in general use today have some traits in common - they are clear liquids resembling common vegetable oil, have little or no smell, and do not readily evaporate. They all break down rapidly in the environment and in living organisms.

   But the similarities end when it comes to the diverse jobs they do. The larger-molecule phthalates are used primarily to make vinyl plastic flexible, in everything from toys to your kitchen floor. They make possible the color-fast, durable, low-maintenance qualities that make vinyl so appealing to manufacturers and so widely used in building materials, autos, toys, and medical devices. The smaller-molecule phthalates do many different jobs. Some act as fixatives for perfume, slowing down evaporation and making the scent linger longer. Consumer and industrial applications include the issue addressed here, making nail polish flexible and others like making screwdriver handles less brittle. In addition, phthalates help make lubricants, adhesives, weather stripping, and safety glass. The list of products or materials containing phthalates is long, so to avoid them completely would be VERY difficult!

   Right now phthalates are some of the most heavily studied chemicals in existence. Thorough reviews of the health effects of phthalates support their safe use. These include risk assessments by the European Union (EU) and exhaustive reviews by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), which can be found at http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/reports/index.html. Phthalates have established a very strong safety profile over the 50 years in which they have been in general use. There is no reliable evidence that any phthalate has ever caused a health problem for a human from its intended use.

   Since we are talking nail polish in particular, we can narrow the entire field of phthalates down to just two - Diethyl Phthalate, and Dibutyl Phthalate. These are used in cosmetics and personal care products because they deliver benefits that are difficult to otherwise achieve. For example, the addition of a small amount of DBP (dibutyl phthalate) provides just enough “give” to make the nail polish “chip-resistant”. When perfume fragrances are dissolved in DEP (diethyl phthalate), they evaporate more slowly, making the scent linger longer. They also find other niche applications in cosmetics products such as adhesives and as solvents.

   There has been the issue raised in recent years, in the US and elsewherre, about the use of certain phthalates in cosmetics. In late 2000, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the results of its study on the presence of a number of compounds, including phthalates in 289 human urine samples (the CDC actually measured the breakdown products of phthalates, called metabolites). Publicity surrounding this report indicated that the phthalate levels were “higher than expected” and that the levels of one phthalate, DBP, were higher in women of childbearing age than in other women.

   Despite a cautionary note from the study authors that the size of the sample set was small and not representative of the general population, special interest groups used it to anchor a campaign attacking the use of DBP in cosmetics and personal care products. Alarmist statements in the campaign alleged that fetuses of pregnant women could be in danger from concentrations that “may be” greater than the average exposures of the general population. This supposition seemed to be based on separate research showing that male laboratory rats fed very high doses of DBP over a period of time experienced effects in their reproductive systems, but the campaign produced no evidence that human exposures are even remotely close to those levels.

   Since this initial small study in 2000, the CDC has issued more extensive reports on the presence of natural or man-made substances in the blood or urine of representatve samples from the U.S. population. The most recent report was issued in 2003 and reported on the presence of 116 substances in samples from approximately 2,500 people, including the original 289. Phthalate exposure levels of all 2,500 study participants derived from the CDC data undermined the anti-cosmetics campaign’s initial interpretation. They showed that the levels of exposure to each phthalate were not only within predicted levels but also well within the safety levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency — levels that already incorporate a number of conservative safety margins. In fact, the data showed that average exposure levels for DBP remained more than 100 times below government safety levels. In addition, the exposure levels indicated for DBP (dibutyl phthalate) and DEP (diethyl phthalate) were about half of what had been indicated in the smaller sample from the initial study in 2000.

   So what about the assertions in regard to exposures to women of childbearing age? It turns out that toward the end of 2003, CDC researchers separated out and published the data on all women aged 20 to 39 in the entire sample of 2,500 people. The data indicated that their levels of exposure to DBP were slightly lower than for other women, not higher! (found in a Health Perspectives Article)

   The Food and Drug Administration, which has regulatory authority over cosmetics, studied the CDC’s biomonitoring data in 2001 and said it found “no reason for consumers to be alarmed at the use of cosmetics containing phthalates.” It continues to evaluate available data. (I found this at the FDA website)

   In addition, in 2002, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel, an independent body of toxicologists and dermatologists that regularly reviews compounds used in cosmetics and personal care products, completed an extensive review of all the literature on DEP and DBP and found them to be “safe as used” in cosmetics. (CIR Phthalate Review)

   The recent European Union ban on the use of DBP in cosmetics results from a two-part regulatory framework. The EU permits substances in products to be banned even if no actual risk to users of the product has been demonstrated; just showing that high doses of a substance have caused health problems in rodents can be enough to support a ban of that substance. DBP has been banned for that reason alone - there has never been any actual risk shown from the DBP in cosmetics. (In the European regulation that created this ban, the CDC data, as well as what other assessments of risk show, is irrelevant).

   A second part of the EU system does evaluate risk - and in fact a draft risk assessment recently completed for DBP states that there is “no concern” for consumers from DBP as it is currently used. This inconsistent regulatory framework is being challenged, but some major cosmetics companies have chosen to change their formulations on a global basis rather than endure the inefficiencies of needing different formulations for different parts of the world. In a news report, a P&G spokesperson was quoted as saying that our company’s decision to stop using DBP “was not based on any concern about the safety of the chemical. We and other outside groups have done numerous risk assessments on phthalates. There are no health hazards associated with their use in cosmetics.”

   In their long history of use in consumer products, there has never been any reliable evidence that the phthalates found in nail polish, or in any other cosmetics, have ever caused anyone any harm. Using estimates of the average amounts of DBP found in nail polish, if a person were to absorb all the DBP in almost five bottles of nail polish every day, the resultant exposure would still be a level at which no effect is seen in laboratory animals.

3. DLR Says:
   November 25th, 2008 at 8:38 am

   I read a recent news article in the Globe & Mail (dated October 7, 2008) that reported the results of a study that indicated exposure of expectant mothers to phthalates, a common ingredient in many plastics, has been linked to smaller penis size and incomplete descent of testicles in their baby boys, according to a new research paper that found the chemical also appears to make the overall genital tracts of boys slightly more feminine. I think even the most miniscule amount of phthalates is a risk, especially for pregnant women. So despite Andyfts’ view we shouldn’t be worried, I think we should. The evidence has been piling up over the year with regaard to Bisphenol-A and Phthalates, and I think we need to take heed that what we once thought was okay might actually not be, and take measures to limit our exposure and that of our children and/or future children as much as we can.

Post new comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Advertisement