October 15, 2007
Industry Dismisses Report About Lead in Lipstick
John Bailey, executive vice president for science with the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, said the recent report that a number of leading lipsticks include lead is creating concern where there needn’t be any.
Mr. Bailey was responding to a report by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which said tests conducted by the group found a third of lipsticks contain lead levels in excess of limits set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set daily safe levels for lead exposure for adults, children and pregnant women. The agency also has set strict limits for lead levels allowed in the colors used in lipsticks, and actually analyze most of these to ensure they are followed,” said Mr. Bailey. “The products identified in the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) report meet these standards. In fact, all the products tested in the CSC report meet the California standards for safety established under their Prop 65 process.”
Mark Mitchell, M.D., MPH, president, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice, is among those who don’t believe the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics’ findings should simply be dismissed. “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,” he said. “The latest studies show there is no safe level of lead exposure.”
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has promised an investigation into the allegations made by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. The agency said it has investigated similar charges in the past.
Stephanie Kwisnek, a spokesperson at the FDA, told The Associated Press, “These concerns have not generally been supported by FDA’s own analysis of products on the market. In the present case, we are looking into the specific details of the issues raised. We will need to confirm the factual basis of these reports independently in order to determine what action, if any, may be needed to protect public health.”
Discussion Questions: Will lipstick sales be affected by the accusations made by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics? What steps, if any, should retailers that sell lipstick be taking to counteract the negative publicity brought up by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics announcement? What do you think of the response made by the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
It seems you could almost substitute the word toy for lipstick and we’d have a repeat of an earlier story. And just like the recent toy stories about lead in their products, one company’s bad publicity is another company’s opportunity.
Natural cosmetic companies and others who don’t use lead will be able to promote the healthy aspects of their products. Those with lead will need to explain why their products contain lead or what they’re going to do to eliminate it.
The key for either group is to get their story and facts down to where it really matters, on the retail floor. I don’t think what Mr. John Bailey of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association says to the press is nearly as important as what the cosmetic salesperson says to the consumer.
I agree with the other panelists that the CFTA shouldn’t dismiss concerns about lead content so readily. Product safety is a hot-button issue, from cars to toys, and deservedly so. Marketers of mass-appeal brands, whether Mattel or Cover Girl, owe it to themselves and their customers to take action with urgency.
There is a push toward lead-free jewelry (for both kids and adults) because the product is in contact with the skin. Especially in a category like cosmetics, everyone can figure out how to make the product safer if some industry players have already done so.
It boils down to caring about the customers. If any accusations are made they should be addressed with some sort of investigation and not just denied outright. Especially since lead is such a hot topic now. I think sales will suffer as consumers pick up on the information.
The fact that only 39% of lipsticks were found to be without lead is outrageous, it I cannot make up my mind as to where I think this is going to take the market.
On the one hand, short term, I don’t see a lot of people doing much about it. I think those who wear it are probably concerned, yet really haven’t moved en masse to go without it. The FDA itself doesn’t seem to be all that worried (which may be for political, let’s not scare the world reasons), and I don’t see this as a burning issue before society.
On the long term, however, I think this is a competitive advantage waiting to happen. The formula for these products needs to be changed, and when it is, you will see “Lead-Free” built into labels and marketing campaigns. Consumers will follow.
From a business point of view, lipstick manufacturers need not panic. But, they better fix this, quick. I wouldn’t put anything in or on me that contains lead, and I suspect there are lots of people who feel the way I do.
Lead is a ‘hot button’ topic of food, cosmetics, and environmental safety lately. Many cosmetic companies have used environmental, wellness, or health claims as foundations for their missions and products. Given the high-pressure topic of lead in retail lately, cosmetic firms need to address this issue directly. Consumers are becoming more conscious of this topic daily and if it’s not addressed, they will address it themselves with their wallet.
While there are still a lot of people who believe “it can’t happen to me” until it’s too late as well as a lot of people who just don’t know who or what to believe (manufacturers, retailers, official bodies), it seems to me to be common sense not to use lipstick or anything else containing lead. How quickly do women chew off and therefore ingest their lipstick? I agree wholeheartedly with those who are wondering why it is used. If some manufacturers don’t need it, why do some think they do need it? As for the reaction, it strikes me as being arrogant and patronising in the extreme.
The recent scare will not deter the purchase of lipsticks in general, although sales on the 1/3 of lipsticks found with lead may be deterred. Women have known for years that the chemicals that are used in hair dye are toxic and not good for you but manufactures of these products still sell millions of dollars worth a year. Should the Fragrance Association respond? Absolutely. To my mind, they have a responsibility to the membership and consumer to respond in a positive and prudent manner. To say a little lead isn’t bad for you, is not prudent. With technologies today, a healthy alternative is out there, so manufacturers should go find it!
This reminds me of the scare on artificial sweeteners and the demand (remember the pink kind!) printed on the package was “this product has been known to cause cancer in laboratory rats.” Was there a dropoff in sales causing this product to be removed from the market? No. This particular incident is a symptom of an overall disease of American consumers who are finding out too late in life (after being diagnosed) the harmful affects of toxic chemicals and ingredients of products they are and have used.
I agree that no level of lead exposure is safe. There is not enough historical data of the impact of 50-60 years of applying a product containing any level of lead to one’s lips. Of course, one can say that lead is pretty much everywhere, but there is a reason why the FDA tries to control the amount of lead in products we ingest and given a choice I would rather keep lead out of my body than in it. That said, will lipstick sales suffer? Most probably not, since I don’t see people stopping lipstick use because of that. Just the same, it’s a little discouraging to see the response of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association; it’s a far cry from the spontaneous response of Tylenol in 1982, when they pulled 31 million bottles off the shelf (although Cyanide and lead are not the same thing!). I would at the very least like to know why lead needs to be in lipsticks?
Cosmetic sales could be affected dramatically by any hint of impropriety. We’re already seeing that in the trend toward natural and organic high end cosmetics.
You can’t blame China for everything that happens. I was speaking this morning with Rajiv Lal at Harvard Business School about the impact of tainted goods on retail. As he put it: “Manufacturers have to recalibrate their own quality control systems.”
39% of the lipsticks tested had no lead. Any brand with lead, no matter how little, should reformulate immediately. Cosmetics brands need publicity to grow. This is awful news for L’Oreal, Cover Girl and Christian Dior. If Revlon, a fairly inexpensive brand, can eliminate lead, then anyone can do it. The brands without lead should emphasize “lead free” on their labels.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
It seems you could almost substitute the word toy for lipstick and we’d have a repeat of an earlier story. And just like the recent toy stories about lead in their products, one company’s bad publicity is another company’s opportunity.
Natural cosmetic companies and others who don’t use lead will be able to promote the healthy aspects of their products. Those with lead will need to explain why their products contain lead or what they’re going to do to eliminate it.
The key for either group is to get their story and facts down to where it really matters, on the retail floor. I don’t think what Mr. John Bailey of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association says to the press is nearly as important as what the cosmetic salesperson says to the consumer.
I agree with the other panelists that the CFTA shouldn’t dismiss concerns about lead content so readily. Product safety is a hot-button issue, from cars to toys, and deservedly so. Marketers of mass-appeal brands, whether Mattel or Cover Girl, owe it to themselves and their customers to take action with urgency.
There is a push toward lead-free jewelry (for both kids and adults) because the product is in contact with the skin. Especially in a category like cosmetics, everyone can figure out how to make the product safer if some industry players have already done so.
It boils down to caring about the customers. If any accusations are made they should be addressed with some sort of investigation and not just denied outright. Especially since lead is such a hot topic now. I think sales will suffer as consumers pick up on the information.
The fact that only 39% of lipsticks were found to be without lead is outrageous, it I cannot make up my mind as to where I think this is going to take the market.
On the one hand, short term, I don’t see a lot of people doing much about it. I think those who wear it are probably concerned, yet really haven’t moved en masse to go without it. The FDA itself doesn’t seem to be all that worried (which may be for political, let’s not scare the world reasons), and I don’t see this as a burning issue before society.
On the long term, however, I think this is a competitive advantage waiting to happen. The formula for these products needs to be changed, and when it is, you will see “Lead-Free” built into labels and marketing campaigns. Consumers will follow.
From a business point of view, lipstick manufacturers need not panic. But, they better fix this, quick. I wouldn’t put anything in or on me that contains lead, and I suspect there are lots of people who feel the way I do.
Lead is a ‘hot button’ topic of food, cosmetics, and environmental safety lately. Many cosmetic companies have used environmental, wellness, or health claims as foundations for their missions and products. Given the high-pressure topic of lead in retail lately, cosmetic firms need to address this issue directly. Consumers are becoming more conscious of this topic daily and if it’s not addressed, they will address it themselves with their wallet.
While there are still a lot of people who believe “it can’t happen to me” until it’s too late as well as a lot of people who just don’t know who or what to believe (manufacturers, retailers, official bodies), it seems to me to be common sense not to use lipstick or anything else containing lead. How quickly do women chew off and therefore ingest their lipstick? I agree wholeheartedly with those who are wondering why it is used. If some manufacturers don’t need it, why do some think they do need it? As for the reaction, it strikes me as being arrogant and patronising in the extreme.
The recent scare will not deter the purchase of lipsticks in general, although sales on the 1/3 of lipsticks found with lead may be deterred. Women have known for years that the chemicals that are used in hair dye are toxic and not good for you but manufactures of these products still sell millions of dollars worth a year. Should the Fragrance Association respond? Absolutely. To my mind, they have a responsibility to the membership and consumer to respond in a positive and prudent manner. To say a little lead isn’t bad for you, is not prudent. With technologies today, a healthy alternative is out there, so manufacturers should go find it!
This reminds me of the scare on artificial sweeteners and the demand (remember the pink kind!) printed on the package was “this product has been known to cause cancer in laboratory rats.” Was there a dropoff in sales causing this product to be removed from the market? No. This particular incident is a symptom of an overall disease of American consumers who are finding out too late in life (after being diagnosed) the harmful affects of toxic chemicals and ingredients of products they are and have used.
I agree that no level of lead exposure is safe. There is not enough historical data of the impact of 50-60 years of applying a product containing any level of lead to one’s lips. Of course, one can say that lead is pretty much everywhere, but there is a reason why the FDA tries to control the amount of lead in products we ingest and given a choice I would rather keep lead out of my body than in it. That said, will lipstick sales suffer? Most probably not, since I don’t see people stopping lipstick use because of that. Just the same, it’s a little discouraging to see the response of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association; it’s a far cry from the spontaneous response of Tylenol in 1982, when they pulled 31 million bottles off the shelf (although Cyanide and lead are not the same thing!). I would at the very least like to know why lead needs to be in lipsticks?
Cosmetic sales could be affected dramatically by any hint of impropriety. We’re already seeing that in the trend toward natural and organic high end cosmetics.
You can’t blame China for everything that happens. I was speaking this morning with Rajiv Lal at Harvard Business School about the impact of tainted goods on retail. As he put it: “Manufacturers have to recalibrate their own quality control systems.”
39% of the lipsticks tested had no lead. Any brand with lead, no matter how little, should reformulate immediately. Cosmetics brands need publicity to grow. This is awful news for L’Oreal, Cover Girl and Christian Dior. If Revlon, a fairly inexpensive brand, can eliminate lead, then anyone can do it. The brands without lead should emphasize “lead free” on their labels.