The Cover Girl Cover-Up

Women are receiving the kiss of death from their cosmetics.

As reported by a recent Associated Press article, beauty has become more than an issue of looking good. According to the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep, few, if any, mainstream products are actually safe. Most designer product lines like MAC, Smashbox and Too Faced, in addition to being pricey, contain ingredients linked to developmental, reproductive and neurological problems, including cancer. This shock can only be eclipsed by the harsh reality that, when it comes to product safety, women’s cosmetics are getting the kiss-off.

Beloved products from independent favorites such as Burt’s Bees, The Body Shop and Kiss My Face have recently been purchased by their non eco-friendly competitors and are likely to begin treading the same path of wrecking poise for profits. Even dime store darling Physician’s Formula has an average scoring of 4 to 5 on Skin Deep, which ranks in the “moderate hazard” area, fairly shameful for a company that attempts to fuse green chic with retro mod.

Part of it, as reported by independent news blog elephantjournal, is that the merging of a small, health-conscientious product (or movement) into a large, industrialized company is that the green product becomes suddenly not so green, especially as production can be moved overseas for cheap labor.

Sadly, as easy as it might be to point polished, manicured finger tips at Procter & Gamble (the company that owns major make-up powerhouses Revlon, Almay and Max Factor) the real accountability rests on the shoulders of the government, who has long allowed the makeup industry to be virtually unregulated, especially when compared to the global market. The European Union, for example, has banned 1,132 known or suspected carcinogens, mutagens and other reproductive toxins from being used to produce cosmetics, compared to the paltry 10 in the United States, according to the Winter 2008 edition of “bitch.” This means that there is still lead in lipsticks, mercury in mascaras and parabens in perfumes, as well as about a thousand other chemicals that should never come in contact with human skin.

It might not even be alarmist to suggest that women are dying to be beautiful—literally. Frustratingly, the industry isn’t likely to have much change on the horizon. While a trip through any cosmetics aisle will likely overwhelm a shopper with splashy advertisements of “natural products,” buyers should beware. Cosmetic products only have to have one percent of certified organic contents to spangle the declarations on their label.

Even worse, some companies are allowed to get away with the chemical definition of organic, which allows for any product that has carbon-based molecules to have organic bragging rights. Even the passage of the California Safe Cosmetic Act of 2005 has failed to establish much of a ripple effect. Three years later, Minnesota is the only other state to follow suit and require more than voluntary regulation. Supplemented by a toothless economy (Revlon in particular is suffering through a 27th consecutive quarter loss) it’s unlikely that sprucing up the unscrupulous cosmetic industry is going to become a top priority for politicians. Especially when green product literally translates to green bank account.

One solution is to lobby for stronger regulation and to avoid supporting the most dangerous of companies. This requires that consumers become informed, which may render traditional beauty news sources useless. Women’s magazines, for example, rarely sandwich an in-depth expose on Estee Lauder between celebrity gossip columns and innovative exercise routines. What little coverage is given to the issues of health in the beauty arena is, at best, a concealer in action. The writers are quick to praise companies for introducing new “eco-friendly” products, but often sidestep writing about the hidden dangers lurking at the cosmetics counter. Many women’s glossies, aware that Ms. magazine was punished with a loss of ad revenue from Clairol for covering Congressional hearings on chemicals in hair products in the 1980’s, are careful to keep the scope of investigative reporting away from the hands that feed them. In the end, it’s the consumer who pays the price.

Price ultimately plays a roll in the supply-and-demand nature of the cosmetics world. Makeup that is the cheapest to buy often proves to be the most unsafe. Skin Deep reveals that of 514 Cover Girl tested products, 195 garner a rating of seven or higher, meaning the products pose a high hazard. So around 38 percent of Cover Girl’s makeup line contains toxic chemicals. When the criteria is widened to include all products with a score of three to six (indicating a moderate hazard) the percentage nearly doubles to 61 percent. Even Bare Escentuals, a product line which has received critical praise as opening up the mineral makeup market, fails to achieve a zero to two ranking at Skin Deep, despite claiming to be a healthier, better alternative to brands like L’Oreal, who countered with their own mineral line that isn’t any less dangerous.

Thankfully, people are taking notice and demanding better quality products, spawning better resources to determine great alternative products. Skin Deep has the option of shifting through a list of the best makeup, hair care and personal care product companies. One company, Coastal Classic Creations, consistently received the no hazard ranking of zero. However, unlike Cover Girl and any number of widely available cosmetics, products from Coastal Classic Creations can only be purchased through the company’s website and are slightly more expensive.

For the informed consumer, becoming aware of the industry’s true downfalls means trading up, a difficult feat in today’s flat-lining economy. However, a dollars and cents analysis may ultimately win over even the most loyal of brand-name consumers. Breast cancer, the pet cause for many cosmetic companies, puts a considerable strain on the economy. The second leading cause of death among American women, breast cancer cost California residents $279 million in 2001, not including the adjusted lost productivity for the 4,226 fatalities. Yet the same companies that primarily foot the bill for breast cancer awareness campaigns such as “Look Good, Feel Better” are paradoxically the very same corporations pumping cancer-causing carcinogens into their products.

The reality is that women are not feeling better. Ideally, we could believe that we’ve come farther than the ages where women were willing to perish to be pretty. Even if we haven’t, let this be a lesson to consumers: beauty is, in fact, only skin deep, and it isn’t worth dying for.

Write to your representative and tell them you want safer products and smarter laws regarding the production of cosmetics. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has an excellent page offering all kinds of ways to get involved, speak out and change lives. Most importantly, stop purchasing cosmetic companies without first doing the research to ensure they are as safe as they’d have you believe.

Share this: