The Ugly Side of Beauty

An interview with Stacy Malkan, author of Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry

In the late 1990s, Stacy Malkan was working as a journalist for a community newspaper. A controversy erupted in the community she was working in when the county started implementing a plan to spray weeds along bike paths with pesticides. “It was a relatively small community, but 200 people showed up for a meeting. There were high tensions around this topic, and it ended up a melee of screaming and tears. People were very upset about the public use of these toxic chemicals on the parks where their kids run and play, and their pets run around.”

     Stacy started interviewing locals and experts to better understand the story, and quickly saw that the government officials knew a lot about the weeds, but not much about the chemicals they were planning to use. Her research, bolstered by a nagging recognition that she and many of her friends from high school were experiencing weird health problems for their age, sent her off in a new career direction: in 2001 she became the communications director for Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), an international coalition of hospitals and health care systems, medical professionals, community groups, and others, "dedicated to transforming the health care sector worldwide, without compromising patient safety or care, so that it is ecologically sustainable and no longer a source of harm to public health and the environment." In 2002, staff and supporters of HCWH launched the nascent Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and Stacy took on communications efforts for the Campaign.

    In November (2007) Stacy’s first book, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry came out. Stacy starts the book with a confession: “I’ve always been obsessed with cosmetics. When I was a Seventeen–magazine reading high school cheerleader desperate to fit in, the Osco Drug cosmetics aisle was my comfort zone. With each measured purchase—cobalt blue eyeliner, soft rose blush—I was one step closer to that girl I dreamed of: the confident, lovable version of me.”

    What woman can’t identify with Stacy’s confession? We all have looked at beauty products as something to bring out our best. But the truth is, the beauty industry is bringing out something far uglier than it is giving us in return.

    I chatted with Stacy the other day, and here’s what she had to say.

Carol: What was the most surprising thing to you, personally, when you began getting involved with this issue, and as you wrote the book?

Stacy: A couple of things took me by surprise. I would say the most disturbing is the resistance of industry to making obvious changes. So many companies are entrenched, they have a ‘we have to keep doing things this way because it’s how we have always done it,’ attitude that flies in the face of the growing and obvious understanding that we need to do things differently. Many things—global warming, peak oil, the ubiquitous toxic exposures in the environment— have clear links to health problems that so many of us are experiencing. So this needs to be a time of great change.

     I also find it surprising, and hopeful, that there are such positive and powerful models of successful organizing. We’ve seen some major changes happening, especially with the cosmetics work. The organizing that is happening with teenage girls is particularly uplifting. They show a real interest in asking deep questions about the products they are using. They are learning about science, organizing, lobbying—none of which I thought much about when I was in high school—and that makes me feel very hopeful about the younger generation. I think they are a more sophisticated bunch than we were. I think of myself as a pathological idealist, so in that context it is fun to do this work.

Carol: You talk about Pinkwashing in Not Just a Pretty Face. What is pinkwashing, and what can people do to avoid being pinkwashed by unscrupulous marketers?

Stacy: Basically, pinkwashing is companies marketing themselves as being very concerned about women's health, but not stepping up to do the right things. I think it’s outrageous that beauty companies market themselves as friends of breast-cancer awareness if they are not willing to question their own use of carcinogenic chemicals. To look into the details of that is very disturbing, and that was actually the hardest chapter for me to write, because it was the most personally upsetting. My grandmother had breast cancer and I have friends who have had breast cancer. It is a huge epidemic, and these industries that are purchasing chemicals that are linked to cancer—and especially the beauty companies—should be at the front of the line, working to end the epidemic, rather than making excuses that it’s OK to keep using hazardous chemicals.

    There is no need for carcinogens to be in personal care products. Companies are using the pink ribbon as a marketing device, but they are unwilling to really do what’s needed to protect women’s health. The science [linking toxic chemicals to] breast cancer is very compelling and very important: we know that the longer a woman is exposed to estrogen during her lifetime, the higher her risk of breast cancer, and the evidence is strong on that. So what can we do to reduce these exposures? It is not just one thing, it is not just beauty products. We are exposed by so many things, but beauty products is an obvious first place to do something about it.

    These products are so intimate and we use so many of them. The average American uses ten personal care products per day. Carcinogens shouldn’t be in them. The beauty industry really could do a service for women’s health, for all people’s health, by making a public commitment to eliminate their use of carcinogens and endocrine disrupting chemicals from their products, and to demand that the chemical industry that supplies them innovate safer alternatives. These companies can do better. They should do better. There is no reason why beauty products have to be toxic.

Carol: If you could shout one message from the rooftops, what would it be?

Stacy: Question everything! We can change things and we have to; we really don’t have a choice, but the important thing is that we have the power to make the change. I think it is the most exciting time to be alive. We know the consequences of our actions in a way we have been able to ignore in the past. This is not just one problem, chemicals in cosmetics, but all of these problems—global warming, global poisoning—are interconnected. They have the same roots and the same history: After World War II, we learned how to rapidly process petroleum and use the byproducts to make petro-chemicals, and these chemicals became the building blocks of our entire material ecomony. Now they have became ubiquitous in our environment, in our homes, and also in our bodies. Every baby born on Earth is contaminated with man-made petro-chemicals.

    Global poisoning and global warming have the same solution. We need to reinvent our economy and the way we do business. The focus has to be on human health and societal impacts, and go beyond the focus on the bottom line.

Carol: Can you talk about your Keep It Simple advice? What can we as individuals due to protect ourselves and our families?

Stacy: My best advice is “keep it simple”—fewer synthetic chemicals, the fewer ingredients, and fewer products overall. Personally, I am avoiding synthetic fragrances as much as possible (that can be hard), and I’m avoiding known estrogenic-substances, such as parabens and phthalates. I am eliminating some product categories altogether. For example, I don't use bubble bath any more. Many mainstream bath products contain heavy fragrances and multiple toxins, and you’re sitting in these chemicals for long periods of time. I gave up hair color, which I admit was really difficult. Now people actually ask if I’m dying my hair darker [she says with a laugh]—that’s how expected it’s become in our culture to color hair.

    How are the companies I am supporting with my money contributing to the world? I can’t support the mainstream beauty companies—the L’Oreals, the Revlons, the Cover Girls, and other products that I grew up with, and that frankly, I loved. They are not allowed in my house, because I am outraged that these companies won’t take women’s health seriously. Unfortunately, many of the multinational corporations are under pressure to keep costs low, so they use cheap petrochemicals and spend their money finding ways to sell us the same old products, with the same ingredients they have been using for 20 years. It’s time for change.

Stacy’s book is excellent, and I think it should be required for all women, but particularly young women. I am giving copies to some of the young women in my life. I want them to know about the ugly side of beauty.

101 Solutions

A book review of Cancer: 101 Solutions to a Preventable Epidemic, by Liz Armstrong, Guy Dauncey, Anne Wordsworth.

This book is a good choice for the activist on your Christmas shopping list, and with our deteriorating health, our imploding health-care system, rocketing insurance costs, and economic hardship even among the insured (68% of personal bankruptcies are due to health care costs, and 75% of those people had insurance when diagnosed) more or us should become activists.

All three authors are Canadians who have been actively engaged in environmental health issues for years. They joined forces to create a book that says we can do something positive, we can join together to improve life for everyone. Cancer and other debilitating illnesses affect each and every one of us, directly and indirectly. At the beginning of the book, Dauncey says, “To work for a cure is clearly important—but it is equally important to prevent cancer before it starts.”

The book begins with a section that outlines the scope of the cancer epidemic and its impacts on individuals and society. It provides a fact-rich skeleton upon which the authors build the need for action, just in case anyone was still in doubt, including:

Body burden studies have shown that every one of us, including newborn babies, have hundreds of industrial chemicals in our bodies, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens.

Only about 5 to 10 percent of cancers result from damaged genes inherited from our parents. The other 90+ percent are from damage incurred during our lives.

There is also a cancer epidemic in wildlife (who don’t drink, smoke, or get obese). One in beluga whales in the St. Lawrence river is dying from cancer.

Cancer is also on the rise among companion animals. In a study that analyzed data from veterinary teaching hospitals around the country, there was a six-fold increase in bladder cancer in dogs between 1975 and 1995.

The second section of the book is dedicated to the 101 solutions, with ideas for individuals, parents, youth, action groups, the health-care system, cities, labor, business, governments, and global initiatives. The final solution, number 101, is “Don’t sit this one out.” Their message is to get involved. To make changes in your own life, and to say “enough.”

“Speak up,” they say. “Use your voice and vision of a healthy world to create the changes we need.”

Good advice!

Learn more about the book at Earth Future.

Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer

A new report by the Cancer Working Group of the Collaborative on Health and Environment reviews the state of our knowledge about the causes of cancer.

First, a bit of history: Sir Richard Doll was a famous British epidemiologist. In 1954 he was one of the first scientists to warn of the link between asbestos and cancer. Through the 1950s and 1960s, he continued to warn about the link between various exposures and cancer, but then in the 1970s and beyond, he seemed to back away from making such connections. By the 1980s, he was publishing oft-cited scientific papers suggesting that over 90% of all cancers were linked to lifestyle, and that fewer than 4% had any environmental or occupational connection. His numbers were widely used to justify a status-quo approach to cancer research, and to support the pursuit of new treatment options rather than implementing prevention strategies.

Doll passed away in 2005. His papers were donated to the Wellcome Library, a British medical library. Researchers reviewing the collection discovered that Doll had been on the dole: he received regular payments as a "consultant" from Monsanto, DOW Chemical, Turner & Newell (an asbestos company) and the Chemical Manufacturers Association, beginning by 1979 and continuing almost to his death. He never disclosed his relationship with these special interests, even when testifying before government entities around the world about the safety of the chemical products they made.

Blame smoking. Blame bad eating habits. But don't blame the chemicals we're exposed to. Hmmm. You can read more on the Doll story, here, at Our Stolen Future.

Over the years, people in environmental health questioned Doll's numbers, yet he was considered the pillar of respectability, and his results and opinion were bandied about with great authority by anyone wanting to downplay environmental links to our health. Three environmental health researchers decided to do some digging to see if Doll's numbers stood up to scrutiny. Richard Clapp, Molly Jacobs, and Genevieve Howe plunged into a literature survey, reading all the published studies and reports they could find. Their 2005 conclusion: "Environmental and occupational contributions to cancer in the U.S. are substantial and justify continued efforts to prevent these types of exposures."

This year, Clapp, Jacobs, and researcher Edward Loechler, revisited the earlier report, Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer, A Review of Recent Scientific Literature, studying over one hundred papers and reports that have seen print since their first review. What did they find? Unfortunately, nothing unexpected: The evidence is stronger than ever for a link between many exposures we face with some regularity and cancer, such as:

breast cancer to DDT exposure, particularly before puberty;

brain cancer from nonionizing radiation, particularly from radiofrequency fields emitted by mobile telephones;

non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from exposure to pesticides and solvents;

lung cancer from bad air days (pollution);

and, prostate cancer from exposure to pesticides, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metal working fluids or mineral oils.

In this year's report, the authors come out forcefully. Perhaps, surprisingly so. Remember, scientists are trained to avoid opinionated conclusions, to remain comfortable in the sanctuary of their numbers and their peer-reviewed publications. Yet Clapp, Jacobs, and Loechler concluded this year's report with this:

We consider the scientific literature linking environmental and occupational exposures to cancer to be substantial and getting stronger as time goes on. One of us (R.Clapp) has been reviewing this literature for over thirty years. In the 1970s there were approximately a dozen substances or exposures that were considered “established” human carcinogens by international agencies. That number now approaches 100, with many more considered “likely” to cause cancer in humans. As we noted in our previous review, incidence rates for many types of cancer in the U.S. continue to rise, although we welcome the apparent decline in lung cancer in males and soon in females. The cancer burden, defined as the number of people living with cancer, with the attendant economic and human costs, will inevitably continue to grow.

This justifies urgent action to limit exposures to avoidable environmental and occupational carcinogens and to find safer alternatives to present chemical and physical risks. To repeat the call of ecologist Sandra Steingraber, “From the right to know and the duty to inquire flows the obligation to act.”

The report can be downloaded here.

What's that buzz?

I first became aware of electro-magnetic fields (ELF) when Ken and I ran a dairy farm in Minnesota. At that time, there was very little information outside of the dairy industry about this topic, but a number of dairy farmers were complaining that ELFs in their barns (caused by stray voltage traveling through the ground from transformer stations) were responsible for herd health problems and reduced milk production. Not surprisingly, they were initially told by the electric utilities that they were crackpots. But over a decade or so, a strong body of evidence came along to suggest that they weren't crackpots, and now indications are mounting that ELFs are a concern not only for cows, but also for people. A new report, A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields, discusses the evidence and suggests public-health policies that should be implemented.

According to the report's introduction, "You cannot see it, taste it or smell it, but it is one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in industrialized countries today."

The report's authors — respected scientists and physicians — say, "In today’s world, everyone is exposed to two types of ELFs: (1) extremely low frequency ELFs from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines and (2) radiofrequency radiation (RF) from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast transmission towers.

Here are just a handful of their findings:

• There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia.


• There is some evidence that other childhood cancers may be related to ELF
  exposure but not enough studies have been done.


• People who have used a cell phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cell phone has been used primarily on one side of the head.


• People who have used a cordless phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas.


• The current standard for exposure to the emissions of cell phones and cordless phones is not safe considering studies reporting long-term brain tumor and acoustic neuroma risks.


• Studies of human breast cancer cells and some animal studies show that ELF is likely to be a risk factor for breast cancer.


• Alzheimer’s disease is a disease of the nervous system. There is strong evidence that long-term exposure to ELF is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.


• There is little doubt that electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and cell phone use affect electrical activity of the brain.


• The consequence of prolonged exposures to children, whose nervous systems continue to develop until late adolescence, is unknown at this time. This could have serious implications to adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both ELF and RF result in diminished capacity for thinking, judgment, memory, learning, and control over behavior.


• The effects of long-term exposure to wireless technologies including emissions from cell phones and other personal devices, and from whole-body exposure to RF transmissions from cell towers and antennas is simply not known yet with certainty. However, the body of evidence at hand suggests that bioeffects and health impacts can and do occur at exquisitely low exposure levels: levels that can be thousands of times below public safety limits.


• There is substantial evidence that ELF and RF can cause inflammatory reactions, allergy reactions and change normal immune function at levels allowed by current public safety standards.


• Medical conditions are successfully treated using EMFs at levels below current public safety standards, proving another way that the body recognizes and responds to low-intensity EMF signals. Otherwise, these medical treatments could not work. The FDA has approved EMFs medical treatment devices, so is clearly aware of this paradox. No one would recommend that drugs used in medical treatments and prevention of disease be randomly given to the public, especially to children. Yet, random and involuntary exposures to EMFs occur all the time in daily life.


• There are many credible anecdotal reports of unwellness and illness in the vicinity of wireless transmitters (wireless voice and data communication antennas) at lower levels. Effects include sleep disruption, impairment of memory and concentration, fatigue, headache, skin disorders, visual symptoms (floaters), nausea, loss of appetite, tinnitus, and cardiac problems (racing heartbeat), There are some credible articles from researchers reporting that cell tower -level RF
  exposures (estimated to be between 0.01 and 0.5 μW/cm2) produce ill-effects in populations living up to several hundred meters from wireless antenna sites.

What steps can you take to protect yourself? First, go back to an old-fashioned corded phone for regular use, and use a corded earplug for your cell phone. Disconnect in-home wireless transmitters for routine use (hook your computer to the internet via a wire), and if you have kids in school, encourage your school board to use wired alternatives also.

Edwards' Cancer Strategy

Yesterday, presidential candidate John Edwards announced his National Strategy on Cancer Survivorship. At this juncture I admit that I am not following campaigns closely, but one point that I really like about Edwards' strategy is that he wants more research into the causes of cancer — including more work on the environmental contributors. I hope more of our politicians start looking at the connections between environmental factors and health.