Sealed with a (heavy metal) kiss: The FDA analyzes lead in lipstick; hundreds of stories follow

Last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a report, after much prompting by consumer advocates, revealing trace amounts of the toxic metal lead in 400 lipstick brands.  The report resulted (according to my unscientific Google search) in more than 400 stories and a few hilarious headlines, my favorite being a Vancouver Sun take on a holiday-themed Reuters wire story by Mitch Lipka:  Could Your Valentine’s Day Kiss Give You Lead Poisoning?

As the FDA rather crankily notes on its website, the subject of lead in lipstick is not a new one. The metal is not a chosen ingredient but rather a contaminant of some of the coloring agents.   This week’s report follows up on a smaller 2007 analysis by the agency, which also found lead in commercially sold lipstick. The average lead concentration in this year’s report was slightly higher – 1.11 parts per million as opposed to 1.07 parts per million. The 2007 range was from .09 ppm to 3.06 ppm; this year found .026 ppm to 7.19 ppm.

The question, obviously, is what that really means in terms of health risk. It’s worth noting that the FDA’s work in this area has been prompted – not to say pushed –  by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which brought the issue to light by hiring an independent laboratory to do lipstick analysis. The organization  advocates a zero-tolerance level for lipstick, pointing out that women do swallow it and that the EPA sets a much lower 15 part-per-billion limit for lead in drinking water. The FDA – and the cosmetic companies – counter that expose from lipstick cannot be compared to drinking water and that the current levels pose no safety risk. In fact, the FDA sets no official standard for lead in lipstick although it is reportedly considering one of 10 parts per million, the same number under discussion in Canada.

Part of the issue, of course, is that metallic elements like lead do bioaccumulate, meaning that a chronic, low-level exposure can eventually add up to something dangerous. But estimates as to what lipstick exposure might be, how much women actually swallow, have varied to some a hilarious degree that even the myth-buster website Snopes felt compelled to step in and debunk some of the calculations.

So how to make sense of this uncertainty as a journalist covering the story? Most leaned toward the stay calm, regulatory perspective.  At The Boston Globe, Deborah Kotz advised readers not to panic –  putting the risk in context with more dangerous exposures such as old lead paint. Men’s Health writer Cassie Shortsleeve consulted a cosmetic chemist (curiously unaffiliated) to conclude that readers would need to eat thousands of lipsticks before approaching an actual hazard.

The other approach was to frame the risk question as a debate between consumer advocates and regulators.  The Washington Post‘s Dina ElBoghdady did a terrific job of exploring the length and depth of this particular argument.  NPR’s Scott Henley also took this approach in a piece titled, “Consumer Groups Want the Lead Out of Lipstick.”

And this latter approach, I think, gets closest to the real issue in toxic exposures not only in lipstick but in many other products. We live in a complex chemical world, one that we are still learning to navigate with intelligence. An issue such as lead in lipstick is a reminder of what we know – we’ve gotten very good at trace detection – and what we don’t know about the consequences of those trace elements. A healthy debate between regulators and advocates should – or at least, so I hope –  encourage us to find better answers.

Other stories:

Poisonous Puckers, CBS News: An image-heavy focus on the ten lipsticks with the highest level levels.

Lead in Lipstick: What’s the Real Risk to Your Health, WKYC.com offers a nice review by Maureen Kyle that includes interviews with toxicologists and an acknowledgment that just the word “lead” scares people.

Is Lipstick Really Hazardous to Your Health?, Allure Magazine‘s senior health editor Patrick Rodgers provides a short brisk review of the debate and urges readers to use their own commonsense.

 

—Deborah Blum