Oct 26, 20224 min read

PFAS IN COSMETICS AND SAFER ALTERNATIVES

ABSTRACT

Recent studies between 2009 -2017[1] claim to have found PFAS, in altogether 72 cosmetics all across Denmark, Sweden, Japan, and The Republic of Korea. The same was measured using LS-MS/MS and total fluorine by CIC (combustion ion chromatography). These chemicals have been widely used earlier in cookware, carpets, food packaging, firefighting foams, and many others. Further studies revealed to have screened total fluorine concentrations in 231 cosmetic products (fig1) too using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy (PIGE)[2].Out of all analyzed cosmetics containing PFAS, lip and eye products did not indicate any presence of a fluorinated agent in their labelling, which however is worrisome and generated major concerns.

PRODUCTS TESTED	PERCENTAGE OF FLUORINE
Concealers	36
Liquid Lipstick	62
Foundations	63
All Mascara	47
Waterproof Mascara	82
Eye Shadow, liners, primers	58
All Cosmetics	52

KEYWORDS

LS-MS/MS (Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy), CIC (combustion ion chromatography), PIGE (particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy)

INTRODUCTION

PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a highly toxic and persistent group of chemicals, found in cosmetic products take up the focus of attention in this article. Further, this article gives a glimpse of the latest revelations regarding PFAS, their threat to health, and safer alternatives to such chemicals.

WHAT’S IN YOUR MASCARAS?

PFAS, commonly known as 'forever chemicals' since they remain persistent in the environment, are found to be present mainly in the waterproof and long-lasting sets of cosmetics, such as mascaras and lipsticks. The rampant use of PFAS in cosmetics is supported by their properties of durability, increased skin absorption, improved skin texture, and hydrophobicity.

While a recent study by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention[3] claims to have found that approximately 97 percent of Americans contain PFAS in their blood, no such documented data on the use of PFAS in cosmetics exist in North America.

A THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH

The use of PFAS in cosmetics may pose threat to human health, in various direct and indirect ways. Since our eyes, skin, and lips are so sensitive to these toxic chemicals, mucus membranes and tear ducts can readily absorb them. Apart from that, consumers are likely to ingest lipsticks containing PFAS, that directly enter their bloodstream. Environmental accumulation of PFAS through wastewater streams further enhances human subjection to these chemicals.

A recent revelation from CDC[3] (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) says that high subjection to PFAS has been linked with cancer, birth defects, liver diseases, increased cholesterol, decreased vaccine response in children, and poses a greater threat to asthma and thyroid diseases. Higher exposure to some PFAS that deposit in the lungs is linked with more severe COVID-19 cases, a public health study reports[4]. Considering these threats to human health, consumers are left with no choice but to avoid using these chemicals. Having said that, without proper labelling of such cosmetic products, consumers cannot choose to avoid the same. However, it is very unclear whether cosmetic companies are aware of the presence of such toxic chemicals in their products.

TRANSPARENCY IN US AND CANADIAN LABELLING LAWS

Poor disclosure of the use of fluorinated ingredients in cosmetic products leads to the difficulty in estimating the magnitude of such chemicals in cosmetics and considering the threat to human life and the ecosystem, better labelling laws are required.

Luz Claudio, a professor of environmental medicine from the United States said,” Cosmetic products are not closely regulated to guarantee that there are no harmful chemicals present". A study published by the American Chemical Society revealed that 88 of 200 products in the United States and Canada tested, lacked information about the presence of PFAS on their labels[5].

Though the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) regulates cosmetics, it does not regulate the kind of testing needed to check the safety of the ingredients. In response to the studies revealing to have found PFAS in cosmetics, FDA demanded additional research on the extent to which PFAS can be absorbed through the skin and potential threats to human health[6]. However, a glimpse of hope still awaits since a group of senators introduced a bill to ban the use of PFAS in personal care products.

BANNING PFAS IN THE U.S?

Considering the latest revelations on PFAS in the U.S, senators introduced in the House the PFAS in Cosmetics Act [7] that would ban the use of PFAS in cosmetics and the Personal Care Products Safety Act that would require the companies to deposit their ingredients to the FDA. However, it’s unclear as to when these bills will get passed and enacted and until then, safer alternatives can be adopted.

SAFER ALTERNATIVES

Parcells, a guide to beauty and health recommends checking the labels of personal care products that we daily use and casting out any words like "perfluoro” from the list. But, a cosmetic product might not always list the use of PFAS on their product labels which makes it quite difficult for the consumer to determine which product to use.

Avoiding makeup altogether seems quite an absurd suggestion. However, consumers can always look up to brands that have openly banned the use of any such toxic chemicals. GSPI (Green Science Policy Institute) has assembled a few such brands that have done the same.

These include H&M, Credo, Annmarie Skin Care which do not include PFAS in their cosmetics. L'Oréal is the only multinational beauty company that has completely banned the use of PFAS in its products[8].

Some consumer-friendly apps such as Clearya scan cosmetics and notifies of any product having harmful chemicals such as PFAS in them[9].

CONCLUSION

Scientists are yet to learn about the potential health risks but evolving revelations suggest that PFAS may pose greater threats to human health.

A new study[10] led by environmental engineering researchers at UC Riverside reports that adding iodide to a water treatment reactor that uses ultraviolet (UV) light and sulfite to destroy up to 90% of carbon-fluorine atoms in PFAS chemicals in just a few hours. Further, the addition of iodide accelerates the reaction up to four times thereby saving energy and chemicals.

However, more research and data are required to determine the potential effects of PFAS. Until then, shifting to safer alternatives is advised.

The Science Forum