Lipstick hoax smacks inboxes worldwide

Urban myth chain letter warns of 'cancer-causing' cosmetics

A hoax email is circulating with the false warning that certain types of lipstick can cause cancer.
The email, which purports to come from the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre, warns that top-brand lipsticks from Christian Dior, Lancôme and Clinique contain lead that could poison the user.
Cancer Research UK has dismissed the suggestions. "The email appears to be one of the many hoax emails claiming that a variety of everyday products can cause cancer," said the charity.
"We've had deodorant, shampoo, washing up liquid and now lipstick. None of these claims are true and just spread alarm unnecessarily."

The email suggests using a 'test' to determine the lead content of a lipstick. It claims that if a lipstick is rubbed with a gold ring and turns black it contains harmful quantities of lead and could cause cancer.

"If there is a female you care anything about, share this with her," the email warns. "I am also sharing this with the males on my email list, because they need to tell the females they care about as well."

This is one of many hoax emails about the potential side effects of everyday items. Similar hoaxes have been attempted with shampoo, antiperspirant, soy products, plastic containers and even oral sex.

"Chain letters like this are too easily forwarded to friends, family and colleagues without people using their common sense," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos.
"Hoaxes and chain letters like this are not harmless; they waste time and bandwidth, and can be a genuine headache for support departments.

"Users need to be more sceptical, and ask themselves whether everything they are told by email can be believed."

Lead in Lipstick Alert - Cancer Causing Lipstick Hoax

Certain prominent brands of lipstick contain dangerous amounts of lead and can cause cancer in those who use them. Although a 2007 study by The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has found that some lipsticks do have higher than expected levels of lead, this email forward is not related to that study and contains highly misleading and inaccurate information.

Health authorities worldwide have long known the dangers associated with lead exposure. Most have strict guidelines that regulate the level of lead in consumer products, including cosmetics. Regulatory and industry bodies such as the FDA in the US, the CTPA in the UK, the European Commission and similar institutions in other nations control the substances that can be added to cosmetic products.

The current version of the email claims that the information originates from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. However, this claim is highly suspect. There is no mention of such a warning published on the Walter Reed Army Medical Center website. Furthermore, this apparent endorsement and the mention of Dioxin Carcinogens also appear in another email hoax that warns of links between plastic use and cancer. Apparently, the Walter Reed reference was copied verbatim from one hoax email and tacked on to the other in a fruitless attempt to add a measure of credibility.

Another aspect of the email also casts doubt on the authenticity of its claims. While long-term lead exposure can indeed lead to cancer, it is also indicated in other serious health issues such as stroke and kidney disease. Even short-term exposure can have adverse health effects, including impact on blood cell chemistry and developmental issues in children. In spite of this, the "warning" focuses purely on the potential cancer link and ignores other equally serious lead related health issues. It is doubtful that a genuine, medically endorsed warning message would mention only one of the health risks inherent in lead exposure.

The "test" outlined in the message is also highly misleading. According to information available from New Zealand's COSMETIC TOILETRY & FRAGRANCES ASSOCIATION, the "reactions described in the email occur when the test is done with any metal and just using plain wax which is a core component of most lipsticks." My own random testing revealed that dark streaks appear to be left in a variety of substances by a variety of metals, even copper on plain old candle wax. Thus an apparently "positive" result for this test does not effectively indicate the presence of lead. Reliably detecting the presence of lead in a substance generally requires scientific testing or at least the use of specialized lead testing kits. This supposed "test" seems to be a corrupted version of the ancient touchstone method of testing the purity of gold by examining the streak left when gold was scraped against a dark stone. Clearly, instructions for conducting this fake test were only included in the email to trick recipients into believing its claims.

Thus the information in this email is highly misleading and inaccurate and it should not be forwarded to others as is.

That said, a recent study by The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics indicates that some lipsticks do contain small amounts of lead. Although the results of this study are cause for concern, they in no way vindicate the misinformation contained in this email forward. Stacy Malkan, a cofounder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is genuinely concerned about the findings of the study.
However, an article on the issue notes:

Malkan said that lead in lipstick is a valid concern, borne out by the campaign's tests. But she dismissed the cancer scare and a suggestion that consumers can test for lead by scratching lipstick with a gold ring.

In fact, lead is common element in our environment and we are likely to be exposed to it every day from a variety of sources. The potential danger is that the tiny amounts of lead contained in some lipsticks could accumulate along with other lead sources and eventually cause health issues.

References:
FDA/CFSAN Cosmetics - Information for Industry
The CTPA :The Cosmetic Toiletry Perfumery Association :Cosmetic legislation
European Commission: Cosmetics and Medical Devices - Introduction
FDA: General specifications for straight colors
Walter Reed Army Medical Center website
COSMETIC TOILETRY & FRAGRANCES ASSOCIATION:Lead and Cosmetics (PDF FILE AVAILABLE)
WHAT'S THAT STUFF?: Lipstick
Cancer Help: Lead in lipstick causing cancer
Lead Poisoning - NSC
FDA/CFSAN FDA Consumer: Dangers of Lead Still Linger
EPA Consumer Factsheet on: LEAD
Lead tests raise red flag for lipsticks

Easily Lead

This is how to test Lipstick for "Lead", lead is a chemical which causes cancer. Recently a brand called, "Red Earth" decreased their prices from HK$67 to HK$9.90. It contains lead.

Brands which contain Lead
1. Christian Dior 4
2. LANCOME 2
3. CLINIQUE 2
4. Y.S.L 5
5. ESTEE LAUDER 3
6. SHISEIDO 2
7. RED EARTH (Lip Gloss) 2
8. CHANEL (Lip Conditioner) 2
9. Market America-Motives lipstick 0


The higher the number of lead the higher the content which means a greater chance of causing Cancer. After doing this test, we found Y.S.L. lipstick to contain the most lead. It is not easy to "REMOVE" because of the lead. Watch out for those lipsticks which are suppose to stay longer

Here is the test you can do yourself:
1. Put some lipstick on your hand,
2. Use a 24k-14k Gold ring to scratch on the lipstick.
3. If the lipstick color changes to black then you know the lipstick contains lead.

Please send this information to all your girl friends.

Variations: In November 2004 this item was combined with another piece about the purported dangers of microwaving food in plastic containers.

Origins: This terrifying warning about danger lurking in lipstick began frightening the makeup-wearing public in May 2003, even as it apparently offered them a way to protect themselves from dangerous products via a simple test which could supposedly identify a lurking threat to their wellbeing.

Lead may not necessarily cause cancer, but it most assuredly is an element dangerous to humans; one they should make every effort to distance themselves from. Exposure to lead can cause a range of deleterious health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities to seizures and death. Children 6 years old and under are most at risk because their bodies are growing quickly, thus additional care has to be taken to protect them from exposure to this common element. In the past, many house paints were lead-based and the solder commonly used on plumbing joints contained lead, bringing this killer into numerous unsuspecting households. But lead awareness has improved in recent years, as have regulations restricting the use of lead in goods or products average consumers might have contact with. In this respect, our houses today are far safer than those of our parents and grandparents.

But what about the presence of lead in cosmetics? Although many dangerous substances (including lead) have been utilized as ingredients at various times in the history of makeup, and some women of earlier days caused themselves life-long health problems (or even managed to kill themselves) with beautifers that amounted to death in a jar, what goes into cosmetics these days is much more regulated, controlled, and fully understood. While in the past anything and everything got tossed into the paintbox without anyone's knowing what could cause harm and what was safe to use, our modern world at least has safer cosmetics going for it.

We spoke with a compliance officer at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the possibility of lead being present in lipsticks. All dyes used in foodstuffs or cosmetics have to be vetted by the FDA for safety, and although some of the colorants the FDA grants approval to do contain lead, it is present in such miniscule amounts that is has no adverse effects on consumers. Manufacturers who wish to do business in the USA are restricted to the use of FDA-certifiable colors only; otherwise their products will not be allowed in the country or onto the shelves of American stores. Each of these approved dyes has its own rigid set of specifications which must be adhered to. For instance, F&C Red #6 cannot contain more than 20 parts per million of lead (also not more than 3 parts per million of arsenic or 1 part per million of mercury). As for how stringent these requirements are, every time a manufacturer prepares a batch of dye for use in its products, it has to submit a sample from that batch to the FDA for certification. The FDA's certification process is exhaustive and exhausting. And only the FDA can certify colors as safe — no one else has that authority.

The FDA further regulates the selection of dyes manufacturers can incorporate into their products according to the proposed end uses of the items in question. Thus, products intended for use on mucous membranes can contain only certain FDA-approved dyes rather than drawing from the full spectrum of approved dyes. Because the lips are considered mucous membranes, lipstick manufacturers may make their colorant selections only from this reduced pool.

Occasionally, small-scale studies (such as one in 2006 and another in 2007) report detecting amounts of lead that exceed the FDA limits for candy (0.1 PPM) in some brands of lipstick, resulting in news reports with alarming headlines such as "Lipstick Found to Contain Hazardous Levels of Lead!" The comparison with candy is made because the FDA has not yet issued specific standards for lead content in lipstick (and so news or consumer watchdog associations choose sweets as a comparison product), but this match up is not an apt one: people eat whole pieces of candy; they don't merely smear their lips with thin coatings of it. Also, unlike candy, lipstick is rarely eaten by the bagful. It therefore goes without saying that regulatory standards governing the lead content of items we eat (sometimes in great quantity) must be far more restrictive than those governing items that take us years to go through.

Also, the cited FDA limit of 0.1 PPM is for lead in "candy likely to be consumed frequently by small children," but lipstick is rarely used by small children (who are much more susceptible to contaminants such as lead) at all, let alone frequently. Finally, until very recently the FDA limits for lead in candy were five times higher than they are now. This puts the amounts of lead found in that 2007 examination of lipsticks into a bit better perspective: In 2006 the FDA limit on lead in candy meant for children was 0.5 PPM, and the highest amounts of lead in lipstick uncovered by The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in 2007 were 0.65 PPM, followed by 0.58 PPM and 0.56 PPM, with all other lipsticks it examined falling well below the 0.5 PPM mark (4th in line was 0.28 PPM).

As to what the limit on lead in lipstick should be, a 25 July 1990 Cosmetics, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association memo about the use of "carbon black" in cosmetics noted: "CTFA has proposed that residues of lead and arsenic be limited to a maximum of 20 ppm and 2 ppm, respectively," which is 100 to 50 times the level discovered in reports about lead found in lipstick. (Now, granted, that CTFA proposal had to do with a particular component of the cosmetic rather than the whole of the product itself. But even so, it's reasonable to conclude the amount of lead in those lead-bearing lipsticks fell well within the broad range of what the FDA considers innocuous.)

Despite initial inability to see the resultant streaks (my eyesight is not nearly as good as it once was, which may partially explain why I believe my husband gets better looking with each passing year), further tests conducted under strong light by rubbing various metals across lipstick smears made on sheets of white paper produced dark brown marks. Rubs of pewter, copper, silver, and gold across samples drawn from three Revlon Colorstay Lipcolors left dark streaks in their wakes; rubs of stainless steel did not. Even coins produced reactions, with dimes and nickels leaving discernable streaks, although pennies did not. (Which is not all that surprising, given the reaction to copper noted above. Pennies are 2.5% copper and 97.5% zinc; nickels are 75% copper and 25% nickel, and dimes are 91.67% copper and 8.33% nickel.) All reactions were more noticeable against streaks of lighter-colored lipstick.

Yet the interests of science carried me further, especially after a call to Revlon failed to yield anything that would help explain what component of the cosmetic was reacting to those metals. Remembering that lipstick is (at its most basic) oil, wax, and color, I rubbed the four metals across swipes of wax made on white paper, and again saw dark streaks, albeit grey ones. Curiousity then inspired me to make yet another test with the four metals, this time against plain white paper. And once again, the grey streaks were there.

The streaks that supposedly herald the presence of lead in one's lipstick are in reality dark marks produced by the testing agents themselves. Gold, silver, copper, and pewter leave these trails no matter what they're rubbed against, in the same way that pencils make marks on whatever surfaces they are trailed along. That these marks appear more prominent against a lipstick backdrop is attributable to contrast — streaks that look grey against a white background seem brown against a reddish background, and brown is a color more readily picked out by the eye.

The bottom line is that U.S. medical literature has yet to record a single case of anyone's coming down with lead poisoning through lipstick use. (And, in any case, contrary to what is claimed in the alarming e-mail quoted above, contracting cancer is not one of the recorded adverse health effects one is likely to suffer through excessive exposure to lead.)

Of course, all of this information applies to lipstick legally produced and sold in the U.S. When it comes to unauthorized imports and counterfeit cosmetics that evade the scrutiny of government regulatory agencies, all bets are off.


Sources:

Drake, John. "Lead Tests Raise Red Flag for Lipsticks."
The Boston Globe. 11 October 2007 (p. B4).
Mauricio, Tessa. "Hemlines & Punchlines: The Lipstick Scare."
The Manila Times. 12 June 2003.
Paige, Randy. "Dangerous Levels of Lead In Lipstick, Lip Gloss?"
KCAL 9 [CBS, Los Angeles]. 17 May 2006.
Associated Press. "FDA to Examine Group's Claim That Some Lipsticks Contaminated With Lead."
12 October 2007.