Cosmetics in India are tainted with toxic heavy metals, shows a
study by Delhi-based non-profit Centre for Science and Environment. It’s
time regulators pulled up their socks. An analysis by Chandra Bhushan, Amit Khurana, Indu Dhangar and Kundan Pandey
Photo: Ajit BajajPallavi
Saxena, 21, is an aspiring model in Delhi who must look fair and
glamorous all the time. Every day, in the morning and evening, she
gently massages a fairness cream to enhance her complexion. She never
steps out of the house without makeup. “I always carry a lipstick in my
purse for reapplying in between my shows, meetings and dinners,” Pallavi
says. Linda Pannei also swears by cosmetics. She works at a showroom of
leading cosmetic brand, ColorBar, in Delhi. To make sure that the lip
colour does not fade, she applies lipstick three to four times during
the working hours. “It helps convince customers about the company’s
latest products, while making me feel beautiful and confident,” says
Linda. Both Pallavi and Linda use branded products that come with high
price tags. “Branded cosmetics are safe,” says Linda who spends about Rs
5,000 a month on the products. So feel millions of people, both men and
women, who are increasingly relying on cosmetics to look their best.
The cosmetic industry is one of the fastest growing in India. In
2011, the industry registered impressive sales worth Rs 26,410 crore,
according to the latest study by RNCOS, a business consultancy service
in the US. With rising purchasing power and growing fashion
consciousness, RNCOS estimates that the industry would expand at about
17 per cent a year
between 2013 and 2015. Cosmetic giants are leaving no
stone unturned to cash in on this opportunity and are roping in
Bollywood superstars as advocates of their products. In one of the
advertisements of Emami’s Fair and Handsome, Shah Rukh Khan throws the
skin whitening cream towards a young man to use and become fairer. The
implicit message is: whiter the skin, the more attractive and successful
one is (see ‘Outrage over commercials’).
While no one can say for sure that using cosmetics makes one look
beautiful, what is confirmed is that they have adverse health effects.
Neena Khanna, professor of dermatology at the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi, says there has been a sharp increase in
skin problems associated with cosmetics in the past few years. Hema
Jerajani Shukanje, former head of the dermatology department at Sion
Hospital, Mumbai, agrees. “Women complain of change in skin pigmentation
or itching around the lips because of use of lipstick. Even children
report similar skin problems as they also use cosmetics,” she adds.
While skin problems are visible, cosmetics could have other hazardous
impacts on health. Consider this. Last year, California researchers
tested lipsticks of 32 brands available in the US market and found high
levels of heavy metals such as titanium, manganese, aluminium, cadmium
and chromium. Lead was found in 75 per cent of the lipsticks tested.
These heavy metals are known health hazards. While lead is a neurotoxin,
long-term exposure to the others can harm body organs like the liver
and kidneys and cause cancer.
It is estimated that nearly all of the applied lipstick is ingested
by the user and the metals find their way into the body. On an average a
woman applies lipstick about 2.5 times daily and uses 24 milligrams
(mg) of it. Those who slather it on could be using as high as 87 mg of
lipstick a day. The California researchers found that women who use
lipsticks could be ingesting a significant amount of aluminium, cadmium,
chromium and manganese. In case of average use, the estimated intakes
of the metals were more than 20 per cent of their accepted daily intake
(ADI) limits. ADI is the maximum amount of a toxin that a person can be
exposed to without any appreciable health risk. Thirty-one per cent
samples exceeded the ADI for chromium in case of average use (24 mg a
day) and 68 per cent were above the ADI values when high use (87 mg a
day) was considered. “Cosmetics’
safety should be assessed not only by the presence of hazardous
contents, but also by comparing estimated exposures with health-based
standards,” the researchers advised in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspective in June 2013.
Cosmetics
is one of the fastest growing industries in the country. In 2011, it
registered sales worth Rs 26,410 crore (Photos: Chinky Shukla)
The study is not the first one to demonstrate the presence of heavy
metals in cosmetics. In 2007, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a US-based
coalition against unhealthy ingredients used in cosmetics, tested
lipsticks of 33 popular brands and found 61 per cent of them containing
lead in the range of 0.03 to 0.65 parts per million (ppm). One-third of
the lipsticks had more than 0.1 ppm of lead, the standard set by the US
Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) for candies to protect children
from ingesting lead. To corroborate the results USFDA tested lipsticks
available in the market and found lead in almost all the samples. Some
brands contained much more lead than previously reported by Campaign for
Safe Cosmetics. Maybelline Color Sensation by L’Oreal USA had 10 times
more lead than earlier. The findings were published in the July-August
2009 issue of the Journal of Cosmetic Science.
Such high levels of heavy metals in cosmetics have also been reported
elsewhere in the world. In 2012, a research in Nigeria reported heavy
metals, such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury and nickel, in almost
all cosmetics available in the country. This was published in the
African Journal of Biotechnology. That year, Center for Public Health
and Environmental Development (CEPHED), a non-profit in Nepal, tested
lipsticks for heavy metals and found that the average lead content in
the samples was over 900 times the USFDA standard of 0.1 ppm. CEPHED
also tested skin whitening creams available in the country for mercury.
Of the seven samples collected, two contained mercury levels above the
USFDA standard. Garnier Skin Naturals had the highest—0.521 ppm—levels
of mercury. In Sri Lanka, non-profit Centre for Environmental Justice
also found high levels of mercury in 25 of the 46 skin whitening
products available in the country. Pai Mei, a whitening spot cream
imported from China, contained a whopping 30,167 ppm of mercury. In the
absence of any comprehensive studies in India, Delhi non-profit Centre
for Science and Environment (CSE) recently analysed lipsticks and
fairness creams for the presence of heavy metals. It tested 32 fairness
creams (26 for women and six for men) for mercury and 30 lipsticks for
lead, cadmium, chromium and nickel. The samples included Indian and
international cosmetic brands along with a few herbal products. The
results were startling.
What CSE found
Mercury, which is prohibited for use in cosmetics in India, except for
eye care products, was found in 44 per cent of fairness creams. Of the
lipstick samples tested, 50 per cent contained chromium and more than 43
per cent had nickel. While chromium is prohibited for use in cosmetics
in the US, the EU and India with certain exceptions, a few nickel
compounds find mention in the prohibitory list of India, the EU and the
US. Lead and cadmium were not found in the samples tested.
Mercury was present in the fairness creams tested by CSE in the range
of 0.10 ppm to 1.97 ppm. Three creams contained this toxic heavy metal
in excess of 1 ppm—the maximum limit applicable in the US. Aroma Magic
Fair Lotion, a product of Blossom Kochhar Beauty Products Pvt Ltd, had
the highest mercury level at 1.97 ppm, followed by Olay Natural White, a
product of Procter and Gamble, India, and Ponds White Beauty of
Hindustan Unilever Ltd (see ‘Fairness creams with high mercury content’).
The potential harm caused by these creams can be gauged by comparing
their mercury content with the ADI limit for the metal. Since India has
not set limits for ADI, CSE compared the amount of mercury in fairness
creams with the ADI set by the US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). The results show whitening creams may contribute up to 71 per
cent of the ADI for mercury, depending upon the product, amount used and
duration of application (see ‘Proportion of mercury in...’).
This is a very high level of exposure to mercury from just one product.
People are regularly exposed to the heavy metal from natural sources
such as food, water and air. With whitening cream accounting for over 50
per cent of the ADI for mercury, chances are high that a person using
these products may exceed the ADI limit for mercury. Health risks
associated with mercury would increase proportionally.
In
lipsticks, chromium was present in the range of 0.45 to 17.83 ppm.
Hearts & Tarts (080V) shade of ColorBar had the highest
concentration of the metal. Chromium is prohibited in India. Only two of
its compounds—chromium oxide and chromium hydroxide—are permitted in
cosmetic colourants. Though the US allows these colourants in cosmetics,
it prohibits their use in lipsticks. But there is no such exception in
India. There is also no standards to limit its use. The levels of
chromium found in lipsticks by CSE was anything between 10 per cent and
1,550 per cent of the ADI limits (see ‘Lipsticks with high chromium and
nickel content’ on p25). CrVI, one of the forms in which the metal is
present, is known to cause cancer in humans. When inhaled, it can cause
lung cancer. Oral exposure through drinking water has been linked to
increased stomach tumours. Such high levels of chromium in lipsticks
demand urgent attention from regulators and the industry.
Nickel was in the range of 0.57 to 9.18 ppm, with Labsolu Nu-204 of
Lancome containing the highest concentration. India bans some of its
compounds (such as nickel sulphate, nickel carbonate, nickel monoxide)
for use in cosmetics. While it is known what is not allowed, there is no
clarity on what is allowed. Though the amount of nickel found in
lipsticks were quite low compared to its ADI—the contribution of
lipsticks to the ADI for nickel was less than 1 per cent—nickel was
found in 10 of the 15 lipstick samples that had chromium. Such
collective presence of heavy metals in lipstick is worrisome.
People are unknowingly consuming heavy metals from different sources
like drugs, vegetables and water, says K K Das, professor of physiology
at BLDE College in Karnataka who has published study papers on adverse
health effects of nickel. Heavy metals in cosmetics, which can enter the
body either through the skin or mouth, add to the body burden, he adds.
“There is an accumulative health effect of these heavy metals,” says Y K
Gupta, head of the department of pharmacology at AIIMS.
CSE seeks clarification
CSE shared its findings with the respective companies to find out the
reasons for the presence of such high levels of heavy metals in
cosmetics. “We hoped that this would help find ways to limit the
presence of heavy metals in cosmetics,” say CSE researchers. After
several months of correspondence about batch details, testing
methodology and follow-ups, only seven companies responded—The Body Shop
India, Lakme of Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Emami
Ltd, ELCA Cosmetics Pvt Ltd (Estee lauder), Modi Revlon Pvt Ltd and ITC
Ltd.
A few companies responded comprehensively. For instance, Lakme and
Emami backed up their responses through internal and third party safety
assessments and testing. Some also replied briefly addressing only
partial set of queries but few cared to own up their responsibility.
There was something common to almost all the responses: the presence of
heavy metals in the products was not intended.
“We do not add mercury as ingredients into finished cosmetic
products. Our products fully comply with the applicable regulations and
standards,” said the spokesperson of Hindustan Unilever Ltd when asked
about the presence of heavy metals in Ponds and Fair and Lovely creams.
“However, heavy metals like mercury are naturally occurring, present in
the environment and can make their way in trace quantities into raw
materials despite all possible precautions and good manufacturing
practice,” he said. Referring to lipsticks from Estee Lauder, ELCA
Cosmetics Private Limited said, “Governmental authorities in the US,
Asia, and the EU agree that there is no safety or health risk associated
with the presence of trace amounts of such naturally occurring elements
in cosmetic products that meet established regulatory standards.”
Spokesperson of Lakme of Hindustan Unilever, while referring to
lipsticks, said, “Due to the ubiquitous nature of the trace metals,
regulations world over do not prohibit the presence of or lay down any
limits upon the presence of such trace metals in finished products.”
These responses show that cosmetic companies are taking refuge in the
concept of unavoidable “trace” presence of prohibited substances.
A field day for industry
It is clear from the industry’s response that stringent regulations are
the only way to ensure safety of cosmetics. But a look at the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act of India, 1940 shows that cosmetics are one of the most
unregulated products under the law.
Under the law, the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) is
responsible for ensuring that cosmetics sold in the country are safe.
But the assessment is done on the basis of documents provided by the
manufacturer or the company importing the product. A company can import
cosmetics by registering the brand for just US $250 and providing
details of product specification, testing protocols and documents that
establish that the cosmetics do not include toxic products banned in
India. Indian cosmetic manufacturer also need to provide similar
documents for seeking licence from the state drugs authority. Nowhere
during the approval processes do DGCI officials evaluate the safety of
the products as claimed by the companies. The companies are expected to
follow the good manufacturing practice and standards set by the Bureau
of Indian Standards (BIS). While this is voluntary, even BIS has
standards for very few heavy metals present in colour additives.
Pallavi Saxena and Linda Pannei (right) spend about Rs 5,000 a month on branded cosmetics. But they are not necessarily safe
Depending upon the colour and brand, colourants make up 10-15 per
cent of the weight of a lipstick. Colourant is one of the sources of
heavy metals, which are either present as impurities or as part of its
composition. For instance, Blue 1 lake, a permitted organic colourant,
is found to have chromium as an impurity. Ferrous ferrocyanide, an
inorganic colour additive permitted in India and the US, contains nickel
as impurity, while another inorganic colourant, iron oxide, may have
arsenic, lead and mercury as impurities. These colourants were mentioned
on the labels of certain lipsticks CSE tested.
BIS does not have limits for heavy metals in colourants that are
inorganic in nature. Though it allows 100 ppm of heavy metals in organic
colourants and sets aside an additional 20 ppm limit for lead, it does
not specify limits for individual metals, except for arsenic which is
allowed up to 2 ppm. In 40 per cent of the 10 lipstick samples that
contained both chromium and nickel, the two heavy metals ate up the
entire quota of 100 ppm allowed through colourants, shows a calculation
by CSE (see ‘Breaching Indian standards’).
Of these, two had over 3.5 times the allowed limit. In the absence of
heavy metal standards in finished products, this provides a regulatory
loophole that manufacturers can exploit.
One can ingest chromium and nickel through lipstick
Another regulatory loophole results in high quantities of banned
metals like mercury finding their way in cosmetic products.
Manufacturers often get away on the pretext that toxic metals are
present in trace levels. Since Indian regulators do not acknowledge the
concept of “trace”, there is no maximum limit set for the metals in
finished products. Trace presence of heavy metals are recognised by both
the US and the EU. The US and Germany allow a maximum of 1 ppm
mercury, provided it is technically unavoidable in good manufacturing
practice and does not cause damage to human health.
It is important for policy makers to set limits for trace presence.
Since monitoring sourcing of colourants is cumbersome and manufacturers
often put the onus of heavy metal contamination on suppliers of
colourants, setting standards for finished products is a better
alternative, suggest CSE researchers. This would also help account for
trace presence of heavy metals through all possible sources, other than
colourants. The companies also need to ensure that such “trace” presence
is really unavoidable.
Despite heavy metal concerns in ayurvedic formulations, there are no
separate limits for herbal cosmetics. BIS should set standards for
allowed and prohibited raw materials, colourants and preservative used
in herbal cosmetics. While regulators should ensure that companies
adhere to good manufacturing practices more often than not it is assumed
that manufacturers follow BIS standards. “We check samples at various
levels, such as while giving licence and after it is on the shelves,”
says H G Koshia, Gujarat drugs controller. “We send the cosmetic samples
to our laboratory in Baroda. But we usually look for spurious products
and manufacturers falsely using the name of big brands during
inspection,” he adds. In Maharashtra, joint commissioner of Food and
Drugs Administration, O S Sadhavani, says his officials check
ingredients before giving licence by picking up samples from market. But
instead of quality issues, they too end up dealing with cases of
spurious products.
Talking to Down To Earth, Drugs Controller General India G N Singh
assured that he is working towards increasing monitoring of cosmetics in
market. Since April 2013, he has made registration compulsory for
cosmetic products. The government plans to set up a Rs 3,000 crore
laboratory in Chennai for checking samples of cosmetics, medical
equipment and drugs. A significant number of staff will be recruited for
the laboratory. “The authority is serious about monitoring the
ingredients used in cosmetics and forcing manufacturers to abide by the
country’s standards,” Singh says.
Outrage over commercials
The Advertising Standard Council of India regularly receives
complaints against cosmetic companies about false claims. In September
2013, it upheld complaints against 121 products.
One of the complaints was against Hindustan Unilever,
which in its print advertisement of Ponds Age Miracle claimed that one
can look 10 years younger after using the product. Another complaint was
against the company’s advertisement for Vaseline Healthy White Lotion.
It claims that four of five Indian women use the lotion which contains
minerals that can make the skin four times fairer instantly. There were
also complaints against L’Oreal India Pvt Ltd.
Consumers are also up against social discrimination that
manufacturers of cosmetics create while promoting their products. In
2009, Chennai-based Kavitha Emmanual launched the “Dark is Beautiful”
campaign, which targets fairness creams. In an online petition, she
demanded that Shah Rukh Khan must stop endorsing Emami’s fairness cream
meant for men. Till now, the online petition has received support from
25,000 people. Talking to Down To Earth, Emmanual said, “We request
people to read the labels carefully, go through the research papers
published and also talk to their doctors before selecting a product.”
Supporting the campaign, actress Nandita Das on her blog wrote, “Now the
insecurities of men are also surfacing with equal number of fairness
products for them. Such pressure and so little public debate around it!”
In a recent article, Arvind Shenoy, consumer product
researcher and activist in Mumbai, wrote the fascination with fairness
in India was a non-issue in ancient and early medieval India.
“Conditioned by Turk, Moghul and British Colonial influences the
post-Independence Indian still remains conditioned by fixations of
colourism. People fail to realise that melanisation of skin and other
tissues forms an important component of innate immune defence system,”
he wrote.
The controversial advertisement of Emami’s Fair and Handsome
