A new report from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control scolds nail polish manufacturers for including toluene, dibutyl phthalate and formaldehyde in product formulations while promoting them as being free of the so-called “toxic trio.”

The DTSC, a division of the state’s Environmental Protection Agency, tested 12 nail products that bore labeling claiming to be free from one to three of the ingredients and determined that 10 of them in fact contained those ingredients. Exposure to the ingredients has been associated with birth defects, asthma and “other chronic health conditions,” according to DTSC.

“Our study shows there is a failure of some manufacturers to know what is in their products, and a failure to accurately state what is in them,” DTSC Director Debbie Raphael says in an April 10 release.

A DTSC rep said it would be “premature” to say if nail products would be included as priority products under the Safer Consumer Products Regulations being developed under California’s Green Chemistry initiative.

The Professional Beauty Association’s Nail Manufacturers Council does not dispute or disagree with the testing results, but “strongly objects to the report’s lack of perspective and balance,” according to an April 10 release.

NMC takes particular issue with the report’s suggestion, based on available literature, that a link may exist between exposure to toxic ingredients in beauty products and reported health issues among nail salon workers. The industry group maintains that ingredient levels identified by DTSC are low and do not present a significant health or safety risk.

Catalyst For Regulation?

Raphael said in media briefing remarks that she hopes the report’s findings “will serve as a catalyst for the important conversation that needs to take place between industry, government regulators and consumers.”

California has been proactive in its regulation of cosmetics of late, taking its first actions under the state’s 2005 Safe Cosmetics Act in January by fining Brazilian Blowout parent company [GIB LLC] and requiring it to adequately warn salon workers and consumers about the hazards associated with formaldehyde exposure resulting from use of its heated hair-smoothing products Also see "California AG Slaps Brazilian Blowout With Fees, “CAUTION” Labels" - HBW Insight, 6 February, 2012..

DTSC could use the study results as justification for new regulations governing the cosmetics industry.

The department is in the process of developing the Safer Consumer Products Regulations, mandated by the state’s Green Chemistry initiative. The latest draft of the regulation no longer specifies personal-care products as one of the first consumer product categories for toxic chemical review, but increased scrutiny on the industry is likely Also see "California DTSC No Longer Singles Out Personal Care, But Increased Scrutiny Likely" - HBW Insight, 21 November, 2011..

During an April 10 media briefing, Karl Palmer, DTSC’s pollution prevention performance manager, said it would be “premature” to say if nail products would be included as priority products under that regulation.

“We have not determined what those products are yet. … This is an example of one that might be selected but we haven’t made that decision yet,” he said, noting he expects the next draft regulation to come out for public comment “very soon.”

One of the goals of the Safer Consumer Product Regulations is to have firms analyze alternatives to potentially toxic chemicals and reformulate products with “safer” chemical alternatives, according to Raphael.

Pressure from consumers could force reformulations, regulations or not.

“Consumer demand for safer nail products may ultimately stimulate the industry to innovate and reformulate using safer chemical ingredients,” the director said.

Study Gives CSC Fuel For Legislative Plan

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics responded to the nail polish report with a call to action for cosmetics legislation.

“Consumers have had it with the current system that tolerates cosmetics companies outright lying to consumers, putting dangerous chemicals in our products and getting away with it,” CSC Director Lisa Archer says in an April 11 release. “It’s clearer than ever that we need to overhaul our country’s outdated and broken cosmetics laws to protect workers and all of us.”

During the media briefing, Archer explained that California is doing “very important” work in informing the public about hazardous chemicals in cosmetics and prompting manufacturers to do better.

The group pointed to its own campaign launched in 2006, which successfully pressured OPI and other companies to reformulate nail polishes without formaldehyde, toluene and DBP.

CSC notes that consumers must rely on voluntary action from industry, as the removal of such ingredients “is not backed by any kind of enforcement” at this time.

The group also voiced its support for a framework that allows states to preserve their own cosmetics regulations.

“It is crucial that states like California have the ability and the authority to protect consumers from harmful cosmetics,” Archer asserted. “It’s clear that a central issue at stake is whether states will continue to have the right to pass stronger regulations on consumer safety … and the cosmetics industry and certain legislators are pushing very hard to preempt states’ rights. It’s critical that we stand strong against that effort.”

At a March 27 Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., argued that states should retain the right to expand upon or tighten federal mandates in their own regulations Also see "House Hearing Probes FDA’s Cosmetics Role" - HBW Insight, 2 April, 2012..

Uncovering The “Toxic Trio”

For its study, DTSC tested products for toluene, used in nail products as a solvent, DBP, which functions as a plasticizer or solvent, and formaldehyde, a preservative. According to the Personal Care Products Council’s CosmeticsInfo.org, DBP’s use in cosmetics “has been discontinued by most manufacturers.”

All three ingredients appear on the state’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

According to the report, DTSC’s objectives in sampling products were to verify if “toxic-trio” claims were valid, determine baseline levels “of some chemicals of current public interests” and explore ingredient substitution trends.

DTSC also delved into research on the effects of exposure to the three ingredients in nail salons. One study found that 62% of salon workers in Alameda County complained about work-related health problems, and 47% reported symptoms that could be attributed to the ingredients. The study also found levels of volatile organic compounds in the air that may cause “headaches and irritations of the eyes, nose and throat.”

For its testing, DTSC selected 25 nail-care products “basically at random” and purchased them from six retail and distribution locations in the state’s Bay Area in May 2011, according to Palmer.

Twelve of the products tested were marketed as being “free” of at least one of the three targeted ingredients, while 13 made no such claims on product labels. Some of the 13, including polishes from OPI and essie, carry such claims online but not on packaging.

Of the 12 with “free of” claims, testing found that 10 contained toluene and four contained DBP, some at levels higher than concentrations detected in products not making such claims.

Of the seven products claiming to be free of all three ingredients of concern, just two proved legitimate.

The majority of brands tested were brands sold directly to salons, not available at traditional consumer retail locations.

While acknowledging the nail polish report examined only a “simple snapshot” of products on the market, DTSC Director Raphael emphasized the need for industry to address the issue of false claims.

“It’s not just consumers who are hurt when some manufacturers mislabel their products,” she said. “Other manufacturers must also contend with reputational damage.”

The report recommends that manufacturers disclose all ingredients in nail polish formulations, and urges “increased collaboration” among all stakeholders.

The Nail Manufacturers Council objected to health studies cited in the report, characterizing them as “non-scientific surveys” conducted by NGOs that ask leading questions of survey participants.

“Such self-directed or self-reported studies are notoriously unreliable,” NMC says.

The group also maintains that ingredient levels identified by DTSC are low and do not present a significant health or safety risk.

NMC points to a Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel assessment that toluene in nail polish is safe up to 500,000 ppm, and an FDA conclusion that DBP is safe in nail polish up to 50,000 ppm, noting that the vast majority of DTSC’s reported findings are significantly below those levels.

Moreover, three companies that had not labeled toluene but had levels above 700 ppm “are not major manufacturers,” but instead are “outliers in an otherwise responsible and progressive industry.”

NMC also disagrees with the report’s criticism of solvents in nail polish, and the report’s suggestion that nail polish manufacturers should progress toward water-based polishes.

While water-based polishes would be beneficial to manufacturers because they are cheaper to make and ship, “there are very significant technical barriers that have yet to be overcome. … Unless polishes can wear, look well and are safe, they will not be used by nail technicians nor favored by consumers,” the group says.

NMC recommends DTSC focus its efforts on salon ventilation, sanitation, work practices, training and education instead of on product chemicals.

Mislabeled Nail Polishes Warrant Increased Regulation – California DTSC

More from United States

More from North America