Online survey
The report published on October 18 on the website of the David Suzuki Foundation is based mainly on the results of an online survey to which more than 6,200 persons contributed.
The Foundation asked internet users to inspect the ingredient lists of their cosmetic products and to indicate whether they contained one or several substances in a list of twelve sets of chemicals considered as potentially harmful for human health and the environment. The survey provided data about 12,500 personal care products. “Four out of five of the products entered in the survey contained at least one ingredients with suspected links to environmental or health problems - including cancer, reproductive disorders, asthma and severe allergies,” states the Foundation.
“Dirty Dozen”
Actually, the list of the ingredients “to avoid” proposed by the David Suzuki Foundation is quite long and includes such a large variety of substances that anyone clearly has strong chances to find at least one of them in cosmetics or perfumes:
– BHA and BHT
– coal tar dyes (including p-phenylenediamine),
– DEA, cocamide DEA and lauramide DEA
– dibutyl phthalate,
– formaldehyde-releasing preservatives (DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, methenamine, quarternium-15 and sodium hydroxymethylglycinate),
– paraben, methylparaben, butylparaben and propylparaben,
– parfum (any mixture of fragrance ingredients, in particular because to allergy risks),
– PEGs (e.g., PEG-60) because they may be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane,
– petrolatum,
– siloxanes (cyclotetrasiloxane, cyclopentasiloxane, cyclohexasiloxane and cyclomethicone),
– sodium laureth sulfate, because it may be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane,
– triclosan.
For instance, the Foundation notes that the generic term "parfum", which is used on labels to designate the specific fragrance ingredients that manufacturers are not required to disclose, “was the most commonly reported ingredient, identified in more than half of the products entered in the survey.”
More stringent regulations
According to the David Suzuki Foundation, the results of the survey are enough to demonstrate the loopholes of the Canadian regulation. “Clearly, we need more effective regulatory action to keep these potentially harmful chemicals out of consumer products," said Lisa Gue, environmental health policy analyst with the Foundation.
The report identifies several weaknesses in Canada’s cosmetics regulations. For example, the fact that ingredients used in personal care products have never been tested for their effects on human health and the environment, in particular when they were introduced on the market before the availability of modern environmental controls.
Another example is the lack of legal authority of theCosmetic Ingredient Hotlist, published by Health Canada. The list cannot be enforced directly, in contrast to the European Union’s regulation, which explicitly restricts a wide amount of substances, including carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants.
The Foundation also criticizes the complexity of Canadian regulations that leads to apply three different rules to products that seem similar. In theory, a beauty cream can be considered as a mere cosmetic product, or as a natural health product, in the event it would contain natural ingredients with a therapeutic function, or as a drug, when claiming sunprotection.
The Foundation eventually asks Health Canada to control commercial use of the terms "unscented/fragrance-free" and "natural/bio/organic".
“Health Canada monitors cosmetics for their safety and regularly reviews new scientific and regulatory information on cosmetic ingredients as it becomes available,” answered the Canadian regulatory body in letter.
