Preview Newsletter
talc 5/6
-
Talc-powder lawsuit advertising jumps after back-to-back verdicts
May 5, 2016 | Reuters
By Jessica Dye
Spending on advertising targeting women who may have claims involving Johnson & Johnson's talc-powder products and ovarian cancer has skyrocketed in the wake of two multimillion-dollar plaintiffs' verdicts this year, according to data from X Ante, which tracks mass-tort marketing. -
Johnson & Johnson should warn women of talc danger, Alabama attorney says
May 5, 2016 | AL.com
By Kent Faulk
An Alabama attorney for two women, who won a total of $127 million in jury verdicts this year against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson on claims that its talcum-based products caused their ovarian cancer, on Thursday called for the company to put an end to the ongoing litigation and remove its talcum powder products from store shelves, or at least warn women about the risks. -
Johnson & Johnson Reportedly Pushed Talcum Powder on Black Women After White Women Cease Use Due to Cancer Risk
May 5, 2016 | Atlanta Black Star
By Tanasia Kenney
For most women, it’s a normal part of their hygienic routine to sprinkle a little baby powder on themselves or in their underwear. The self-care practice is a normal one, specifically for women in the African-American community. -
Can baby powder cause cancer?
May 5, 2016 | WHTM (ABC)
By Dave Marcheskie
Concerned moms are wondering if baby powder can cause cancer following Johnson & Johnson shelling out millions in lawsuits. -
Johnson & Johnson Urged To Remove Their Talcum Powder From Store Shelves After Allegedly Causing Ovarian Cancer In Women
May 6, 2016 | Parent Herald
By Samantha Finch
Johnson & Johnson has recently come under fire when news broke out that their talcum-based products are causing ovarian cancer among women. Now, a lawyer in Alabama urged the company to remove its talcum powder products from store shelves or warn women of the risks the merchandises carry. -
Johnson and Johnson Loses Another Lawsuit
May 5, 2016 | New Beauty
By Carolyn Hsu
More bad news for the makers of possibly the world’s most recognized baby powder. In February this year, Johnson and Johnson lost a major lawsuit over claims that using their baby powder for feminine hygiene purposes led to one woman’s death of ovarian cancer. -
Your Beauty Products Are Not Killing You
May 5, 2016 | Racked
By Cheryl Wischover
...So it's not hard to understand why people are suspicious, especially in light of two recent Johnson & Johnson alleged talc cover-up cases, in which two different juries awarded more than $120 million in damages to women who developed ovarian cancer. The decisions solidified the image of the Evil Corporation, even though there is no conclusive medical evidence that talc was responsible for causing the cancer.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Talc-powder lawsuit advertising jumps after back-to-back verdicts
May 5, 2016 | Reuters
By Jessica Dye
Spending on advertising targeting women who may have claims involving Johnson & Johnson's talc-powder products and ovarian cancer has skyrocketed in the wake of two multimillion-dollar plaintiffs' verdicts this year, according to data from X Ante, which tracks mass-tort marketing.
In February, just before jurors in state court in St. Louis, Missouri awarded $72 million to the family of Jacqueline Fox - whose lawsuit claimed J&J failed to warn about the risks that using talc powder for feminine hygiene can cause ovarian cancer - plaintiffs' firms and other mass-tort advertisers spent just $16,000 to air 96 television ads about talc powder and ovarian cancer. The next month, spending had jumped to more than $865,000 for 1,400 ads, according to data about television advertising provided to Reuters by X Ante.
Such increases are typical after a big award involving a particular claim, like the Fox verdict, according to X Ante's founder, Rustin Silverstein. A second plaintiffs' verdict that came down this week in a similar case in the same St. Louis court - $55 million for plaintiff Gloria Ristesund - is likely to spark even more spending, as the issue looms larger on the radars of plaintiffs' firms and other mass-tort advertisers, Silverstein said.
About 1,200 cases have been filed already alleging that J&J knew that women who used its talc-based powders - including the well-known Baby Powder, as well as Shower-to-Shower Powder, now owned by Valeant Pharmaceuticals - on their genitals for feminine hygiene were at an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer.
J&J has denied that it acted improperly with regard to its powder products, and said that the medical community has supported its position that talc is safe. It has said it is planning to appeal both verdicts.
The cases are primarily concentrated in Missouri and New Jersey state courts. The vast majority were filed in the wake of a 2013 verdict involving the first talc case to go to trial, which was in South Dakota federal court. Jurors in that case found that J&J had been negligent but declined to award any damages to the plaintiff, Deane Berg.
While that mixed verdict sparked an interest in the litigation from several other plaintiffs' firms, the back-to-back plaintiff wins in St. Louis have thrust the cases into the national spotlight.
It was not immediately how many new cases have been filed since the Fox verdict. Jere Beasley, whose firm Beasley Allen has played a lead role in the litigation, said on Monday that his firm has received numerous calls since the verdict from individuals interested in the litigation. He said his firm is currently investigating 11,000 potential claims, although not all will ultimately result in filed lawsuits.
Meanwhile, talc powder mass tort ads saw the largest spending increase of any medical drug or device from February to March, Silverstein said - an increase of approximately $848,000, compared to an increase of $603,000 for ads involving inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, which saw the second-highest growth.
While IVC filters and J&J's blood-thinner Xarelto accounted for the first and second-highest amounts of the nearly $13 million spent on drug and device ads in March, talc powder ranked fifth, representing about 7 percent of overall spending, X Ante data showed.
Silverstein said his preliminary analysis of April statistics found that ad spending is poised to rise even further, to about $1.6 million for the month. "Given the recent verdict, I would expect these numbers to climb even higher in May," Silverstein said.
The next talc powder trials are set to take place in September and October, according to plaintiffs' lawyers.
http://www.reuters.com/article/products-talc-advertising-idUSL2N1820AX
-
Johnson & Johnson should warn women of talc danger, Alabama attorney says
May 5, 2016 | AL.com
By Kent Faulk
An Alabama attorney for two women, who won a total of $127 million in jury verdicts this year against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson on claims that its talcum-based products caused their ovarian cancer, on Thursday called for the company to put an end to the ongoing litigation and remove its talcum powder products from store shelves, or at least warn women about the risks.
Johnson & Johnson has denied there is a link between its products and ovarian cancer and has said it will appeal the verdicts.
A jury in a City of St. Louis Circuit Court on Monday awarded $55 million to a 62-year-old South Dakota woman, Gloria Ristesund, after agreeing the company's products, such as Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, contributed to the development of her ovarian cancer. She was represented by attorneys including from Montgomery-based Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C..
Another jury in St. Louis in February had ruled that Johnson & Johnson has to pay the family of Jacqueline Fox, a Tarrant woman, $72 million for her claims that the company's talc powder products she used caused her ovarian cancer. The woman, who died before the verdict, was also represented by Beasley-Allen.
"It is time for Johnson & Johnson to face reality, admit the truth that the company has hidden for decades, and end the litigation by taking care of the thousands of women harmed by its talcum powder products," Jere Beasley, principal and founder of Beasley-Allen. "The message these juries are sending is loud and clear. They are demanding that Johnson & Johnson must warn women of the dangerous link between talcum powder used for feminine hygiene and its well-documented increased risk of ovarian cancer."
"Gloria Ristesund and the family of Jacqueline Fox have made it very clear – they want other women to be warned about this cancer risk," Beasley stated in the press statement. "The juries saw documents that proved Johnson & Johnson has known for decades about these risks, and that they not only didn't do anything to warn consumers, they purposefully refused to warn, and covered up the risks. There are other products on the market that work in a similar way, that use cornstarch instead of talc. But yet Johnson & Johnson still sells talc and insists there is no danger."
A Johnson & Johnson spokesperson had not responded to a request for comment from AL.com prior to the publication of this story.
But Johnson & Johnson has vehemently denied there is any proven link between their talc-based products and ovarian cancer.
After Monday's verdict, the company placed a statement on its website called "4 Important Facts About the Safety of Talc."
The company's statement, without mentioning the verdicts, says that "following decades of studies conducted by medical experts across the globe, it has been demonstrated through science, research and clinical evidence that few ingredients have the same performance, mildness and safety profile as cosmetic talc."
"Today, talc is accepted as safe for use in cosmetic and personal care products by the European Union, Canada and many other countries, including Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Israel, South Africa, Turkey and Indonesia," according to the company statement.
Here are what the company says are the four facts that are important to know about its talc products:Since the 1970s, talc used in consumer products has been required to be asbestos-free, so JOHNSON's talc products do not contain asbestos, a substance classified as cancer-causing. The company's sources for talc are routinely evaluated using a sophisticated battery of tests designed to ensure compliance with all global standards.The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which identifies potential risk factors for many diseases, has not identified talc as a risk factor for ovarian cancer.Two widely accepted studies that followed women over a lengthy period of time—the Nurses' Health Study by the Harvard School of Public Health (published in 2009) and the Women's Health Initiative Observational Cohort by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (published in 2014)—found no association between talc and ovarian cancer.An extensive review of all data on talc safety that was published in 2015 by the independent Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel concluded "talc is safe in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment."
Beasley, however, in the statement says that documents shown to the jury during the trial indicated that Johnson & Johnson's own consultants advised the company that numerous scientific studies supported a link between genital use of talcum powder and an increased risk of ovarian cancer. The statement cites a 1997 letter written by Dr. Alfred Wehner, a paid consultant, that warned Johnson & Johnson executives that anyone who continued to deny the evidence presented by these studies "...will be perceived by the public like it perceives the cigarette industry: denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary."
The Beasley statement says "there are multitude of internal documents revealing that Johnson & Johnson knew of the cancer risk associated with its talc products."
Ovarian cancer is diagnosed in 25,000 women each year and more than 14,000 die each year from the disease.
Expert testimony at trial revealed at least 45,000 women have died as a result of ovarian cancer that could be attributed to talcum powder use on the genitals, and an estimated 2,500 women will die within the next year as a result of talc use, according to the Beasley statement.
Besides calling for an end to the nationwide litigation – dozens of cases are still pending - Beasley called upon Johnson & Johnson to establish a compensation fund "that will be adequate to compensate all of the thousands of victims who have suffered greatly because of Johnson & Johnson's intentional wrongdoing."
"We are also calling on this company to either pull the talc products from the market or at the very least give an adequate warning to women so they can make an informed choice," Beasley stated. "If Johnson & Johnson refuses, our law firm and those other firms working with us are dedicated to continuing our mission, and that is to obtain total and complete justice for all of Johnson & Johnson's victims. The ball is in their court and our hope is Johnson & Johnson will change its corporate culture and do the right thing."
http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/05/alabama_attorney_johnson_johns.html
-
May 5, 2016 | Atlanta Black Star
By Tanasia Kenney
For most women, it’s a normal part of their hygienic routine to sprinkle a little baby powder on themselves or in their underwear. The self-care practice is a normal one, specifically for women in the African-American community.
A St. Louis woman named Jacqueline Fox did so for over 40 years, dusting the lining of her panties with talcum powder each morning. It wasn’t until 2013 that she was diagnosed with advanced stage ovarian cancer and learned that the baby powder she had been using for so long might be to blame, CNN.com reports. Fox lost her battle with the disease in October 2015.
Now, the New Jersey-based company Johnson & Johnson is embroiled in a number of lawsuits claiming their baby powder products, made with talcum powder, cause cancer. According to Rolling Out, about 20 recent medical studies have found a connection between the use of talcum powder and ovarian cancer.
The company lost its second lawsuit on May 2, 2016 for the death of another Black woman named Gloria Ristesund. In that case, the jury awarded $5 million in damages and $50 million in punitive damages, Rolling Out reports. Fox was the first plaintiff to be compensated for damages however, according to CNN.com. Following her death, a St. Louis jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to award her family $72 million.
The company plans to appeal the latest ruling.
“Unfortunately, the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,” Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement.
Thousands of other women have followed suit, suing the company for selling a product that would ultimately cause them to develop cancer. The Washington Post reports that Johnson & Johnson currently faces at least 1,200 pending talcum powder lawsuits, which includes around 1,000 in St. Louis and another 200 in New Jersey.
Goodrich disputes the claims and says that Johnson & Johnson has provided consumers with “a safe choice for cosmetic powder products” for the last 100 years.
Jim Onder, the attorney who represented Ristesund in her lawsuit, disagrees, however. Onder says that researchers first linked talcum powder and ovarian cancer in the 1970s and cites internal documents from Johnson & Johnson that show the company was familiar with those studies.
“The evidence is real clear that Johnson & Johnson has known about the dangers associated with talcum powder for over 30 years,” Onder said. “Instead of giving a warning, what they did was target the groups most at risk for developing ovarian cancer.”
On top of knowingly selling a carcinogenic product, the company is accused of marketing the powder to African-American women, encouraging them to purchase the product after use by their white counterparts dropped due to the risk of developing cancer.
In her article written for Time, Omise’eke Natasha Tinsley suggests that Johnson & Johnson, along with other cosmetic companies, are guilty of profiting from the “myths of the excessive black vagina.”
“They’re willing to capitalize on our internalized misogynoir even if we die in the process,” Tinsley wrote.
Her article also states that African-American women douche and deodorize their genitals twice as much as white women, according to research conducted by Francesca Branch, Tracey J. Woodruff, Susanna D. Mitro and Ami R. Zota. Many of those products also contain human carcinogen and are linked to other health risks not visibly listed on labels.
An Atlanta lawyer is now making efforts to stop the unfortunate trend of Black women dying from cancer caused by the use of baby powder. Mawuli Mel Davis and his firm, Davis-Bozeman, are spearheading the initiative to inform African-American women in Georgia about the risks of using talcum powder and the possible legal action they could take against companies like Johnson & Johnson, Rolling Out reports. Davis calls the company’s plan to target Black women a “Corporate Tuskegee Experiment.”
Davis also revealed that his firm has recently taken up the case of a 34-year-old Georgia woman who died from ovarian cancer in 2015. While his team investigates the case, Davis says he wants to continue making women aware of the dangers of talcum powder.
“We say, ‘Don’t Wait! Stop Now!,’ ” he said. “We are calling on sororities, women’s health organizations and all activists to take part in this health movement. We must get the word out: remove this product from your home!”
http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/05/05/johnson-johnson-reportedly-pushed-talcum-powder-on-black-women-after-white-women-cease-use-due-to-cancer-risk/
-
May 5, 2016 | WHTM (ABC)
By Dave Marcheskie
Concerned moms are wondering if baby powder can cause cancer following Johnson & Johnson shelling out millions in lawsuits.
“Better for baby — Better for you” was the longtime slogan of Johnson and Johnson’s Baby Powder, which was developed in 1893. Company research showed its popularity grew up through the 1970s, in which 70 percent of adults used the product.
In the same decade, health officials discovered that unprocessed talcum powder contains asbestos, which can be linked to cancer when inhaled over a long period of time according to the American Cancer Society [ACS]. J&J subsequently removed asbestos from its products after consumer backlash.
On Tuesday, Johnson and Johnson was ordered by a Missouri jury to pay $55 million to a woman who claims the powder caused her to develop ovarian cancer. In February, J&J was ordered to pay $72 million to an Alabama family after a woman died from a similar claim.
The company faces another 1,200 similar complaint cases; 1,000 in Missouri and 200 in New Jersey.
Many women are expressing concerns about baby powder and its safety.
Yes, the American Cancer Society saw some links between asbestos talcum powder and lung cancer. But, there was little evidence to suggest consumer-grade talcum powder is linked to as such.
Most hospitals have banned baby powder altogether due to its potentially slippery floor byproduct and breathing in particles.
The Food and Drug Administration said it has found no links to asbestos in any of J&J’s current products.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, with the World Health Organization, said longtime usage of talc on women’s genitals is “possibly carcinogenic”, given that it can travel up to the ovaries and cause inflammation over an extended period of time.
The National Toxicology Program in the United States has not done extensive enough research to determine if talc powder can be considered a carcinogen.
J&J’s ‘Shower to Shower’ body powder, the product named in the two losing lawsuits contains both talc and cornstarch.
Some J&J powder products have moved to “pure cornstarch”, which has no current link to cancer according to the ACS. A consumer must look at the label.
There are several USDA-approved organic products that claim to be safer alternatives to talc by using tapioca starch or kaolin clay, both of which have no current links to cancer-causing properties.
http://wric.com/2016/05/05/can-baby-powder-cause-cancer/
-
May 6, 2016 | Parent Herald
By Samantha Finch
Johnson & Johnson has recently come under fire when news broke out that their talcum-based products are causing ovarian cancer among women. Now, a lawyer in Alabama urged the company to remove its talcum powder products from store shelves or warn women of the risks the merchandises carry.
This month, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay a 62-year-old woman named Gloria Ristesund in South Dakota with $55 million for contributing to the development of her ovarian cancer. The products in question are Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.
In February, the company also paid $72 million to the family of Jacqueline Fox from Tarrant, who died from ovarian cancer prior to the verdict. She claimed that Johnson & Johnson's talcum-based products also triggered her fatal disease.
Johnson & Johnson Urged To Own Up To Their Actions
Jere Beasley, principal and founder of the Beasley-Allen Law Firm and the representative of Fox, urged Johnson & Johnson to own up to their actions that they have kept hidden for decades, AL.com reported. Beasley said the company knew about the dangerous consequences of its talcum powder and feminine hygiene products to women but didn't do any measures to warn consumers.
Beasley said other manufacturers use cornstarch in their products that work in the same way. Johnson & Johnson, however, continued to use talc and insisted that it doesn't trigger ovarian cancer.
More Studies Being Done
Talc is a mineral that contains magnesium, silicon and oxygen, theAmerican Cancer Society wrote. When it is made into powder, talc can absorb moisture and decrease friction, which helps the skin stay dry and rash-free. The asbestos involved in talc's natural form, however, is said to cause cancer in and around a person's lungs when inhaled.
There have been some studies that pointed to talcum powder's role in ovarian cancer. According to the American Cancer Society's report, talcum powder particles can travel through the vagina up to the ovaries when applied to women's genital area or on sanitary napkins and condoms.
It should be noted, however, that these studies bore different results. Some women who used talcum powder posed higher risks of developing ovarian cancer, others only have small chances and some don't have increased risk at all.
Johnson & Johnson's Defense
A blog post from Johnson & Johnson defended the company's use of talcum products. In it, Johnson & Johnson cited various reports about how talc isn't causing ovarian cancer in women. The company also insisted that the talc they use in their products is free from asbestos.
http://www.parentherald.com/articles/41669/20160506/johnson-urged-remove-talcum-powder-store-shelves-allegedly-causing-ovarian.htm -
Johnson and Johnson Loses Another Lawsuit
May 5, 2016 | New Beauty
By Carolyn Hsu
More bad news for the makers of possibly the world’s most recognized baby powder.
In February this year, Johnson and Johnson lost a major lawsuit over claims that using their baby powder for feminine hygiene purposes led to one woman’s death of ovarian cancer.
This week, the pharmaceutical giant lost its second lawsuit over the same claims. A jury has awarded Gloria Ristesund, a 62-year-old South Dakota woman, $55 million dollars in damages related to developing ovarian cancer from using the company’s talcum powder. Ristesund said that she also used Johnson & Johnson’s powder for feminine hygiene for decades and developed ovarian cancer as a result in 2011. Although she is now in remission, she had to undergo a hysterectomy and other surgeries.
These cases are just two in more than 1,000 lawsuits out against the company right now for misleading customers and failing to warn them on the potential dangers of using talcum powder as a feminine hygiene product.
“Science has been simple and consistent over the last 40 years: There’s an increased risk of ovarian cancer from genital use of talc,’’ Ristesund’s lawyer told jurers.
According to Bloomberg, Johnson and Johnson had documents that showed the company was aware of potential health concerns as early as the mid-1970's. Another document from 1992 shown to jurors suggested that the company targeting women to boost sales of its talcum powder.
Johnson and Johnson refuted the safety claims, saying in a statement, “Unfortunately, the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the word that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,’’ Goodrich said. “Johnson & Johnson has always taken questions about the safety of our products extremely seriously.” The company plans to appeal this verdict as well.The American Cancer Society recommends using cornstarch-based products instead of talc-based products for feminine hygiene.
https://www.newbeauty.com/blog/dailybeauty/9400-johnson-and-johnson-lawsuit-talc-powder/
-
Your Beauty Products Are Not Killing You
May 5, 2016 | Racked
By Cheryl Wischover
As a person who writes about beauty products for a living, I’m bombarded with dozens of products a week and equally as many questions from friends and family. These days, the one thing that everyone wants to know is: “Are my beauty products going to kill me?”
Thanks to viral articles like this, and terrifying claims like, "No endocrine disruptors!" boldly printed on packaging, people are freaked out. Just last week, Lena Dunham Instagrammed a picture of her makeup on set with the caption: "Hannah's makeup is going clean, mean & green." It's the perfect environment for so-called natural and safe beauty brands to step in and assuage our fears with products that won't disrupt our endocrine systems, whatever that may mean.
Once upon a time, natural beauty products meant soap peppered with brown flakes, or a hunk of shea butter in a glass jar sitting on the dusty shelf of a weird-smelling health food store.
Starting in the late ‘70s, a proliferation of commercial brands like Aveda, Burt's Bees, Neal's Yard and others popped up, marketing to earth moms and hippie types. Fast forward to now: the Clorox Company owns Burt's Bees and Gwyneth Paltrow just released a $140, largely organic night cream. We're in a whole new era of beauty marketing, and you're damn right to be confused.
First of all, there's the labeling. According to the FDA, words like "natural" "non-toxic," "clean," and "safe" have absolutely no official or legal meaning when it comes to cosmetic labeling, yet they're being used more than ever.
Is argan oil the second-to-last ingredient on a label filled with synthetics? Doesn't matter. You can still call your product "naturally derived." There is some oversight for the "organic" designation on cosmetic products, however. It's regulated by the USDA, and requires a certain percentage of organically grown ingredients to be present.
Even if a company does get "organic" labeling, though, that's also fairly meaningless. "An ingredient's source does not determine its safety. For example, many plants, whether or not they are organically grown, contain substances that may be toxic or allergenic," reads a response to a FAQ on the FDA's website on whether organic ingredients are safer than "ingredients from other sources."
Which brings us to that other dirty clean-beauty word: chemicals. Technically, plant-derived substances are still chemicals, and they can be unsafe, which is why you should never put certain essential oils directly on your skin, for example. Natural chemicals can potentially react with your skin and other substances in products to cause reactions, the same way that synthetics can. There are even studies that show that natural things like soy, lavender, and tea tree oil might be -— wait for it -— endocrine disruptors.
And guess what? Chemicals actually can be useful! One example, retinol and its many other vitamin A derivatives, a favorite of dermatologists, can do incredible things for your skin. Same with niacinamide. And peptides. Allergies, which is likely your biggest risk with any topical beauty product, don't discriminate between natural or synthetic — you can have an allergic reaction to anything, from coconut oil to synthetic fragrance.
But despite packaging ambiguity, people are buying into the messaging, which means they're buying natural beauty brands in record numbers. According to Karen Grant, the NPD Group's beauty industry analyst, natural brands account for 21% of overall skincare sales in the US; in 2002 it was only 3%. And while skincare in general has been having lousy sales the past two years, Grant notes that 72% of all growth in skincare is because of the natural market. (The NPD tracks this sector of the industry based on brands that "profile themselves" as natural, which includes brands like Korres, which has been accused of greenwashing, and "a wide berth of other brands.")
The clean beauty mindset started in the wellness and clean eating space, according to Shashi Batra, the founder of natural beauty e-commerce site Credo, which has a store in San Francisco. "What is happening from a cultural sense, in parallel with food, is there's a conscientiousness that's building around everything we buy in our lives," he says.
In keeping with this Goop-y lifestyle, new beauty companies have emerged and marketing has shifted. Brands have started to pivot away from the word "natural," overhauling the stodgy, leaf-adorned image in favor of sleek logos and modern packaging.
Goop, Honest Beauty, Beautycounter, and RMS all market themselves as safe brands and look right at home next to every blogger's Diptyque candle of choice. The message: This is not your hippie aunt's face cream.
This all dovetails with what shoppers want. "We did a study many years ago to ask consumers if they care about things being all organic. What we found, to put it mildly, is that most consumers are light green, not dark green," the NPD's Grant says. "They want to be sort of natural and were most concerned about safety."
The internet is partially responsible for the safety outcry. Emails about aluminum in deodorant causing breast cancer (not true) and the amount of lead in lipstick (not dangerous) reached a fever pitch in the early aughts. "It made consumers much more aware, and when marketers noted that consumers were more aware, you started to see claims like ‘sulfate-free' and ‘no parabens' [on packaging]. That started to snowball in the mid-2000s and has been growing since then," says Perry Romanowski, a cosmetic chemist and a co-founder of The Beauty Brains.
Do most people even understand what sulfates or parabens are? It reminds me ofthat Jimmy Kimmel video in which he asked people who claim to be gluten-free to define "gluten" and they couldn't. I'm not saying this to be condescending. I'm a former oncology nurse practitioner with graduate level training in pharmacology, anatomy, and physiology who had to read medical studies as part of my job and it's very, very difficult for me to weed through all this ingredient information and the associated medical studies to understand them. So I imagine it's difficult for a lot of other people, too.
It doesn't help that the FDA has very little oversight over the cosmetic industry, except for certain products like sunscreen and to mandate that labels cannot misstate benefits. The beauty industry essentially regulates itself, relying on existing ingredient safety data and performing tests on its own; ingredient information can be found at the industry-funded Cosmetic Ingredient Review site. So it's not hard to understand why people are suspicious, especially in light oftwo recent Johnson & Johnson alleged talc cover-up cases, in which two different juries awarded more than $120 million in damages to women who developed ovarian cancer. The decisions solidified the image of the Evil Corporation, even though there is no conclusive medical evidence that talc was responsible for causing the cancer.
No one entity has been more instrumental in convincing shoppers that their beauty products are going to kill them than the Environmental Working Group (EWG), though. The not-for-profit agency introduced its Skin Deep Database 12 years ago as a tool that gives grades to cosmetic ingredients and specific products ostensibly based on studies and safety data.
The database started with 7,500 products and now lists over 60,000 products. The EWG often infuriates cosmetic chemists and scientists because of its confusing ratings methodology and vague results. Seriously, try to understand this explanation.
I've searched dozens of products in the database, and more often than not, I seem to get a four rating out of ten, which means the product in question is deemed a "moderate" hazard; often there is also a notation that data is "limited." A lack of data sometimes seems to be enough for the EWG to give a product a more ominous rating. "In my view they are just fear mongers," says Romanowski.
The EWG doesn't see it that way. "We want to practice the precautionary principle. There are tons of potentially harmful ingredients in cosmetics. We know they're being used, like things being associated with hormone disruption, things that are associated with cancer. We use scientific studies to back up our methodology," says Ashley McCormack, the senior manager for development and marketing at the EWG, when asked how the organization responds to accusations of fear mongering. Those associations are weak at best, though.
While certain ingredients like formaldehyde and phthalates definitely have some damning data against them when used in certain concentrations, a lot don't. The problem is that many scientific studies aren't performed on humans, are inconclusive, or there just aren't enough of them.
This article by the American Cancer Society is one of the best I've read on the limitations of studies and safety testing. Because of the sheer volume of substances you come into contact with every day, it is almost impossible to establish causality except in very obvious cases, like smoking causing lung cancer. Just because parabens were found in breast cancer tissue does not mean they caused the cancer. But that's not an exciting headline to click on.
Most importantly, and a concept that is most overlooked by safe cosmetic proponents, is the dose of the chemical. Toxicity is dose dependent. "It's not just the poison that's the poison, it's the dose that's the poison," explains Romanowski. "At a high enough level, every ingredient that is in a cosmetic can be toxic. What fear marketers ignore is that the level matters, not just the fact that there's an ingredient in there. But consumers don't really think that way. They're like, ‘Well, if there's a chance it can disrupt my endocrine system, don't put it in there.'" The EWG definitely operates under the "better safe than sorry" principle of risk, and this has resonated with shoppers. To me, though, it's the equivalent of being afraid to walk around outside because you might get hit by a car.
In October of last year, the EWG launched a special "EWG Verified" label that brands can apply for. "Consumers were asking us for it," says McCormack. "They always say, ‘When I'm shopping I don't want to go to a database or use an app. Is there any way you could just put things on the product so I will know at the point of purchase what I'm buying and that it meets your standards?'"
The label requires an extensive application process and the EWG verifies by product, not by brand. It can cost from hundreds to several thousands of dollars per year to remain certified, but brand interest has been high. Fifteen brands and 140 products have already been certified, and hundreds more are in the pipeline, according to the organization. McCormack says that some brands have even changed their formulations to meet the EWG's requirements, showing just how desirable this label is.
Because of this mindset, even some brands that don't necessarily identify as natural or non-toxic have started labeling what's not in their products, as certain ingredients become demonized. Misleading labeling is increasingly common, like when cheese is labeled "gluten-free" even though it would never have contained gluten in the first place. Romanowski sees a lot of this sort of abuse. "It happens all the time, especially in hair care. You'll see ‘sulfate-free' but [it will be] on conditioner, which never contains sulfates, so it's a completely worthless claim."
Parabens, which are preservatives that prevent bacteria from growing in products, have become the Ramsay Bolton — a guy everyone tries to stay as far away from as possible lest they get fed to his dogs -— of ingredients. In 2014, Europe banned five different parabens, which generated headlines and caused outrage in the US. The fact that Europe has banned 1,400 cosmetic ingredients compared to only 11 here is an often-cited statistic.
What isn't often reported, though, is that the most common parabens used in cosmetics — methylparaben, ethylparaben, butylparaben, propylparaben — have not been banned in Europe. (The European Commission did set concentration limits on butylparaben and propylparaben and they're banned for products used on babies' diaper areas, but they're not uniformly forbidden.) The report even states: "In addition to Propylparaben and Butylparaben, other parabens, like Methylparaben and Ethylparaben, are safe, as repeatedly confirmed by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). They are also some of the most efficient preservatives."
But who cares about details? The headline was, "EUROPE BANS PARABENS," consumers freaked out, and companies dropped their parabens.
It's enough to make you want to throw away everything in your medicine cabinet. Autumn Whitefield-Madrano, founder of brainy beauty site The Beheld, author of the upcoming book Face Value: The Hidden Ways Beauty Shapes Women's Lives, and self-described "lefty liberal type," did just that, whittling her routine down to nothing but coconut oil. She's since re-embraced Olay.
"In general I do live a healthy life and I think that's part of my beef with natural products overall is that it's this focus on a micro-fix for your health. I'd be surprised if there was a consumer who is falling down because of something in her lotion." She likens it to the now-ubiquitous women's magazine tip to eat one square of dark chocolate everyday — not so effective in the big scheme of things.
I understand the desire to combat the terrifying world of the unknown and feel like you have some control over something. Hell, you can't even eat a comforting Chipotle burrito bowl these days without worrying that it will make you deathly ill. And no one's denying that we are potentially exposed to an insane amount of chemicals everyday in our food, air, and water. So if being able to choose a certain brand of soap makes you feel a bit safer and therefore more in control, that's a great thing. But I think it's misplaced fear and it makes me sad that people are afraid of their face creams.
There is absolutely no convincing evidence that your beauty products are going to make you sick, despite a big chunk of the industry telling you they are. But I also don't necessarily think the EWG or natural beauty brands have Mr. Burns-type figures sitting in back rooms sneering, "Excellent. Today we're going to say bad things about mineral oil and charge people $42 for marula oil instead."
However, you'd do well to remember that beauty is a business; it's not a philanthropy. The EWG is selling their new label to companies, who will surely pass on the cost to consumers. "Safe," "natural," "clean" beauty companies want to sell you stuff the same way Pantene does.
Batra, Credo's founder, was an early Sephora executive, so he clearly knows how to sell things. Ditto Gwyneth Paltrow, whom people perennially want to be like (though please recall that Gwyneth once admitted she loves the occasional cigarette), and Beautycounter's founder Gregg Renfrew, who has a long resume in the retail sector. That they are savvy sellers isn't a bad thing necessarily. I loveBeautycounter's cream cleanser and I've recommended Goop's cleansing balm andeye cream to friends, because they're great products on their own merit. Drunk Elephant's glycolic acid serum is in constant rotation in my regimen. And Credo has amassed an incredible assortment of gorgeous indie brands that anyone sick of mass produced sameness will love, even if they have never heard of parabens.
But I happen to like them in spite of the fact that they call themselves safe, not because of it. I've tried plenty of "safe" and "natural" brands that are terrible, too. Eminence's organic products have given me rashes on more than one occasion, and it's still difficult to get color cosmetics right without using synthetics, an issue exemplified by Gywneth's uneven Juice Beauty makeup collection.
There are bigger issues to tackle here obviously, beyond our own endocrine systems. Whitefield-Madrano points out that the people who are probably most at risk for harm by chemicals in beauty products are workers with high exposures, like the nail salon workers described in that blockbuster New York Times piece and the Brazilian blowout formaldehyde controversy a few years ago.
Then there's cost. While there are exceptions, natural brands tend to be more expensive than drugstore brands. If they are indeed safer, are we excluding a whole at-risk population who can't afford them, much as we did with organic produce? "Natural beauty has become encoded with class," says Whitefield-Madrano. "Consumerism is not the answer."
And let's not forget about environmental issues, which was the concern of the original natural beauty product pioneers. Romanowski points out that we should probably stop using mineral oil and petrolatum, not because they're dangerous, but because they're not environmentally sustainable. But this pertains to natural brands also. With the popularity of argan oil in natural products, there have recently been concerns about overharvesting.
Finally, there's the question of regulation. A safe cosmetics act, which the EWG supports, has been stalling in Congress for years. I'd also like to see it revived with more debate, because it's not clear who would ultimately benefit. Romanowski thinks it might actually hurt smaller brands, who would have to spend more money to jump through more bureaucratic hoops. But I do think there needs to be more regulation around confusing product labeling. If it's confusing to me, a person who reads labels for a living, then it's definitely confusing to casual shoppers.
Awareness and educating yourself is great; paralyzing fear isn't. If some new conclusive evidence appears convincing me to throw away my shampoo, I will dutifully report it and write a mea culpa. Until then, I'm not going to be terrified of toxins.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested