Claim: Several major brands of lipstick contain dangerous levels of lead.
Status: False.
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.
We're obligated to report that the test is bunk. But then, so is the danger.
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 strictly 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 safe 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.
The notion that rubbing a gold ring across a streak of lipstick will reveal the presence of lead is mistaken. Although in ancient times the purity of gold was determined by drawing a sample of ore across a touchstone (a hard black stone, such as jasper or basalt — the streak left by the sample being tested would be compared against one made by a sample of known quality), it doesn't work in reverse. Those who think they might have seen something darken when they tried the test recommended in the e-mail should reflect upon the optical illusion created when a slash of lipstick is applied to the back of the hand: veins which previously weren't all that noticeable now stand out like dark streaks next to the line made by the lipstick. But because the person attempting the test isn't really looking at her hand before she rubs the streaks with a gold ring, she will fail to note that the reaction which supposedly proves the presence of lead took place long before she swiped anything with a ring.
One further bit of lipstick lore needs be mentioned: the fallacious belief that over the course of her lifetime the average woman ingests 6 pounds of lipstick. We've seen this "statistic" blithely quoted as authoritative fact at various times as 6 pounds, 4 pounds, and even 5.65 pounds, but we have yet to locate the study from whence this startling tidbit of information was drawn.
Don't let the gob-smacking nature of the "statistic" prevent you from questioning it. Consider this: the average tube of lipstick contains about an ounce of the actual cosmetic. If women were swallowing 6 pounds of lipstick, that would amount to their ingesting the equivalent of 96 whole tubes. The average woman isn't even likely to own 96 lipsticks during her lifetime, let alone use them right down to their nubs, with none of her lip rouge ever being kissed off or left on the edge of her coffee mug.
