-
The “No PFAS in Cosmetics Act” - looks like there’s a new villain
I came across this ‘sensation’ multiple times today: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/15/health/makeup-toxic-chemicals-wellness/index.html
similar articles posted by Fox, Washington Post and even British Guardian. Checked FDA website, nothing specific, ‘more research needed’. I have got curious what are PFAS and what are your thoughts? Are those impurities like 1,4 dioxane? -
10 Replies
-
I saw there’s a post on reddit after seeing this thread, so here’s the study that the CNN article mentioned based on what the reddit commenters mentioned i guess?
-
They quoted EWG in the CNN article. Can’t take them seriously.
-
@emma1985 EWG had listed the 13 ingredients CNN mentioned in article since 2018, so i won’t be surprised if they took the list from them and gotten a quote.
-
There are many red flags, EWG, saying that cosmetic companies add those compounds and ‘don’t disclose’, not specifying who exactly does it, using word ‘chemical’ multiple times in a negative way, etc. So I am guessing those could be impurities as result of manufacturing (thus not disclosing) that are present at negligible amounts not presenting health hazards. Or they completely pulled it out of .. blue sky.
-
Cosmetics and Toiletries: Furthermore, the ingredient lists of most products tested did not disclose the presence of these fluorinated compounds. While this may be due to their being byproducts from manufacturing or degradation products, given that consumers are directly exposed to these materials, the authors expressed better regulations are necessary to limit the widespread use of PFAS in cosmetics.
Yeah, looks like a new boogie man. It would be great to hear opinion of professional chemists.
Guys, I hope you don’t mind unsolicited tagging:)
@Perry, @PhilGeis, @Pharma, @Microformulation
-
ngarayeva001 said:There are many red flags, EWG, saying that cosmetic companies add those compounds and ‘don’t disclose’, not specifying who exactly does it, using word ‘chemical’ multiple times in a negative way, etc. So I am guessing those could be impurities as result of manufacturing (thus not disclosing) that are present at negligible amounts not presenting health hazards. Or they completely pulled it out of .. blue sky.Already have people talking about how they’re going to throw out all of their skincare, mascara, etc.
And SCA is not chemophobic AT ALL, so I can only imagine how the “natural” skincare consumers are reacting.
[Research] Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ widespread in top makeup brands, study finds
by inSkincareAddiction -
“According to EWG..” is certain to preceed total BS. CNN - same thing.
It is absolutely absurd to claim companies add PFAS. I’m sure P&G et al. are testing their products and will respond as an industry with risk assessment.Thanks for the article, jemolian. ppb to low ppm levels.
Sen Collins - sponsor of the bill and the former Collins/Feinstein bill to update regulation of cosmetics went nowhere is apparently posturing. I spoke to her COS re. that bill - asking why. She offered the Wen non-controversy. Politicians need drama.
-
PhilGeis said:“Politicians need drama.”‘Nuff said
-
PFAS are super persistant in nature, used on a large scale, and hence are in some areas found in traces everywhere. This, and the possibility of safer alternatives, lead to the ban of the most prevalent PFAS in the EU some years back. Check out THIS and THAT.Are all dangerous? We don’t know. Many are niche products and will not be banned for some time. However, it’s typical for cosmetics to use something which is useless but just because it’s great for marketing (meaning some scientific background and fancy sounding whatsoever). Like breathable liquids… never really made it, too expensive, too environmentally concerning, not recyclable, not enough data regarding their effects on health. ‘But lots of money, time, and effort had been invested into these, what a pity couldn’t we sell it! So lets make cosmetics out of it
!‘ THAT‘s the product. A perfect reflection of complete and utter human stupidity. In defense of perfluorated molecules: breathable air seems to be only possible whith these. Most other applications have alternatives (not having one may allow companies to use concernable stuff for longer as would be good and healthy for our planet including it’s little inhabitants called humans). Maybe the alternatives aren’t as cheap, easy to work with, and efficient but do we humans really have to go the way of least resistance every time althoug we know that it usually is the most problematic on the long run?
Log in to reply.