Roses Are Red, Lipstick (Still) Has Lead
By Stacy Malkan, AlterNet

http://tinyurl.com/d6kgmv

More than a year after health groups reported that top-selling lipsticks contain lead, the FDA is just sitting on the results of the research.

Any day now, President Obama will name the head of the Food and Drug Administration, and the question is: Will the new FDA revive its passion for the public interest, or continue giving consumers the toxic kiss off? 

It's good to see at least three of us read at alternet, Brielle! Lead doesn't seem like something to laugh off as "meeting all requirements of the FDA" when the FDA doesn't regulate lead levels in cosmetics.

Is there any research results on the effects of lead in lipstick? I haven't seen/heard anything that has linked any strange illness to this problem?
Sure lead in lipstick sounds bad but what are the effects of it? *curious*.

QuoteRecent findings: Adverse outcomes, such as reduced intelligence quotient and academic deficits, occur at levels below 10 μg/dl. Some studies suggest that the rate of decline in performance is greater at levels below 10 μg/dl than above 10 μg/dl, although a plausible mechanism has not been identified. Increased exposure is also associated with neuropsychiatric disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and antisocial behavior. Functional imaging studies are beginning to provide insight into the neural substrate of lead's neurodevelopmental effects. Current protocols for chelation therapy appear ineffective in preventing such effects, although environmental enrichment might do so.

Summary: No level of lead exposure appears to be 'safe' and even the current 'low' levels of exposure in children are associated with neurodevelopmental deficits. Primary prevention of exposure provides the best hope of mitigating the impact of this preventable disease

The article is misleading. It does not tell the amount of lead in Lipstick. It uses the standards for children as a guide.  There is lead in almost everything, drinking water including bottle water, the air, before lead free gas it was in the air and on the sidewalk and still is. It is in plumbing, house paint, crystal, fish, food, jewelry,etc. Just as arsenic is in many things as wood preservatives plated metals like jewelry etc.

We have those things in our bodies too along with many other chemicals from man made things like plastics  nano products etc.

The question is how much causes dangerous effects? If they are going to write a story then they need to do better research and not just scare people. Again a media skewing things for entertainment.

misLEADing.
tehe.

@lisagurl
The article was highly informative to me - I disagree that it was fear mongering.  Articles such as you describe are more likely to be found in trash tabloids, printing only a few paragraphs, and contain generalized and threatening language.  This article was published in alternet.org, which is reputable. The article is two full pages containg a lot of good information - I can't see your point at all.

Further, by your indicating that the amount of lead in lipstick is likely innocuous, causes me to respond because I believe that as researchers indicate in general, lead has no safe level.

More research:

http://safecosmetics.live.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=223
http://www.toxicsinfo.org/TIPS_personal.htm

"Lead builds up in the body over time and lead-containing lipstick applied several times a day, every day, can add up to significant exposure levels. The latest studies show there is no safe level of lead exposure," according to Mark Mitchell, M.D., MPH, president of the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice.

QuoteFrom 20-30 μg/dL, regular exposure is occurring. There is some evidence of potential physiologic problems.
From 1-20 μg/dL, lead is building up in the body and some exposure is occurring.

Some exposure is normal with little evidence to prove it is harmful.

The article needs to tell the whole truth.

Quote6 micrograms is the typical level for U.S. adults. Some exposure is occurring.

I agree the lipstick and makeup controversy over toxin levels needs to be set straight.  There is also a component of that which lies on the FDA and Health Canada's shoulders.  Health Canada has exhonerated the cosmetics industry to a large degree, which I think is overzealous and the FDA sets acceptable levels that have no real evidence to prove that lead is harmless.  Personally I feel lead is bad, bad, bad period.  The basics tell us that the body doesn't readily detox or eliminate lead, and that it tends to find it's way into our bones and accumulate there.  If I were using lipstick that had lead in it and regularly, like a few times a day - I would look for a new brand.  It's pretty simple really - in terms of toxins, I say, "The less, the merrier." 

There are lots of other sources where we take lead in - can anyone say 'fill it up' - with leaded gasoline.  So, over the years we have been exposed to lead from various sources and it does accumulate - so putting it on your lips in any amount seems rediculous to me. 

The article also covers a number of different points and has some interesting links - it is a bit long and if I were editor I would def have said to tighten it up and add a bit more recent science. 

Anyway, thanks for your views.  B.

I just read the article. I also heard this topic discussed on the radio a few days ago. The cosmetic industry is not beholden to the FDA. I have heard about the lead issues for a number of years now.

Gennee

Lead is a heavy metal and heavy metal poisoning is accumulative. It stays in the body so any amount is bad. It can cause CRS (can't remember s##) or CRAFT (can't remember a F***ing thing). In other words memory loss and other mental disorders. Some shiny lipstick actually contains fish scales. I don't think that will hurt anyone. Lead is added to gas to make it combust differently. Now they charge more for NOT adding lead. Consumer, Bend over, this just ain't your day!