Foodconsumer.org

 
USCards.com Bookmark Us
All Food, Diet and Health News 
 
 Misc. News
 Must-Read News
 Letter to Editor
 Featured Products
 Recalls & Alerts
 Consumer Affair
 Non-food Things
 Health Tips
 Interesting Sites
 
 Diet & Health
 Heart & Blood
 Cancer
 Body Weight
 Children & Women
 General Health
 Nutrition
 
 Food & Health
 Food Chemicals
 Biological Agents
 Cooking & Packing
 Technologies
 Agri. & Environ.
 Laws & Politics
 
 General Health
 Drug News
 Diseases
 Mental Health
 Infectious Disease
 Environment
 Lifestyle
 Government
 Other News
 
 Food Consumer
 FC News & Others
Search





Search Foodconsumer & Others


Add to Google
Add to My Yahoo
Newsfeed

foodconsumer.org news feed
Su bmit news[release]



More than 100 credit cards available at uscards.com from uscards.com, you can pick more than 100 credit cards


Misc. News : Letter to Editor Last Updated: Apr 20, 2011 - 9:38:09 AM


One third of lipsticks on the market contain high lead
By Sue Mueller
Oct 13, 2007 - 9:09:51 AM

E.mail t.his a.rticle
 P.rinter f.riendly p.age
Get n.ewsletter
 
   

SATURDAY October 13, 2007 (Foodconsumer.org) -- One third of lipsticks manufactured in the United States and used by millions of American women contain lead at a level that exceeds the limit of the metal allowed in food, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) reported October 11.

 

The CDC commissioned the lead tests, which found half of 33 brand-name red lipsticks bought in Boston, Hartford, Conn., San Francisco and Minneapolis contained detectable levels of lead, ranging between 0.03 and 0.65 parts per million (ppm).

 

Lead is not an ingredient and it gets into lipsticks as a contaminant.

 

One third of the tested lipsticks contained lead at a level higher than the 0.1 ppm limit the FDA allows in candy, according to the report.    Lipstick products can be ingested like candy, but the FDA has not set a limit for lead in these products, the organization said in its press release.

 

High levels of lead were detected in expensive brands like Dior Addict bran which is sold for $24.50 each while some cheap brands like Revlon, which is sold for $7.49 each, did not contain a detectable level of lead.

 

Some top brands that contain high levels of lead include L’Oreal Colour Riche “True Red” (0.65 ppm), L’Oreal Colour Riche “Classic Wine” (0.58 ppm), Cover Girl Incredifull Lipcolor “Maximum Red” (0.56 ppm) and Dior Addict “Positive Red” (0.21 ppm).

 

Lead can cause irreversible damage to neurons and one's capability of learning and language skills.   It can lower one's IQ and cause behavioral problems.   Pregnant women and young children are particularly vulnerable to lead poisoning, which can also cause infertility and miscarriage.

 

“Lead builds up in the body over time and lead-containing lipstick applied several times a day, every day, can add up to significant exposure levels. The latest studies show there is no safe level of lead exposure,” said Mark Mitchell, M.D., MPH, president, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice.

 

“The cosmetics industry needs to clean up its act and remove lead and other toxic ingredients from their products,” said Stacy Malkan, author of the just-released book, “Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry.”

 

The CSC is calling on the manufacturers to reformulate their products to make them lead-free and also asking the FDA to regulate the personal care products.

For more information on lead and lipsticks, read here.





© 2004-2008 by foodconsumer.org unless otherwise specified

Top of Page




Google
 
Web foodconsumer.org

Search Consumer-friendly Health Sites












We have moved to Food Consumer . Org



disclaimer | advertising | jobs | privacy | about us | newsletter | Submit news/articles
link partners: | Buy Viagra | MarketAmerica.com |
Buy a home | Auto Insurance | Mortgage refinancing | DaytonaCPA.com | Take Your Blog to a Higher Level
© Copyright 2004 - 2008 foodconsumer.org All rights reserved

Disclaimer: What's published on this website should be considered opinions of respective writers only and foodconsumer.org which has no political agenda nor commercial ambition may or may not endorse any opinion of any writer. No accuracy is guaranteed although writers are doing their best to provide accurate information only. The information on this website should not be construed as medical advice and should not be used to replace professional services provided by qualified or licensed health care workers. The site serves only as a platform for writers and readers to share knowledge, experience, and information from the scientific community, organizations, government agencies and individuals. Foodconsumer.org encourages readers who have had medical conditions to consult with licensed health care providers - conventional and or alternative medical practitioners.