This is why you shouldn't put make-up on children
An investigation by the Times has found that babies and toddlers are routinely exposed to adult cosmetic products, including fragranced sprays, nail polish and even black henna tattoos.
While these may sound harmless – or even Instagram-friendly – the science tells a more concerning story. Infant skin is biologically different from adult skin: it's thinner, more absorbent and still developing. Exposure to certain products can lead to immediate problems like irritation or allergic reactions, and in some cases, may carry longer term health-risks such as hormone disruption.
This isn't a new concern. A 2019 study found that every two hours in the US, a child was taken to hospital because of accidental exposure to cosmetic products.
Newborn skin has the same number of layers as adult skin but those layers are up to 30% thinner. That thinner barrier makes it easier for substances, including chemicals, to penetrate through to deeper tissues and the bloodstream.
Young skin also has a higher water content and produces less sebum (the natural oil that protects and moisturises the skin). This makes it more prone to water loss, dryness and irritation, particularly when exposed to fragrances or creams not formulated for infants.
The skin's microbiome – its protective layer of beneficial microbes – also takes time to develop. By age three, a child's skin finishes establishing its first microbiome. Before then, products applied to the skin can disrupt this delicate balance. At puberty, the skin's structure and microbiome change again, altering how it responds to products.
The investigation found that bronzers and nail polish were being used on young children. These products often contain harmful or even carcinogenic chemicals, such as formaldehyde, toluene and dibutyl phthalate.
Toluene is a known neurotoxin, and dibutyl phthalate is an endocrine disruptor – a chemical that can interfere with hormone function, potentially affecting growth, development and fertility. Both substances can more easily pass through infants' thinner, more permeable skin.
Even low-level exposure to formaldehyde, such as from furniture or air pollution, has been linked to higher rates of lower respiratory infections in children (that's infections affecting the lungs, airways and windpipe).
Irritating ingredients
In the US, one in three adults experiences skin or respiratory symptoms after exposure to fragranced products. If adults are reacting, it's no surprise that newborns and children with their developing immune systems are at even greater risk.
Perfumes often contain alcohol and volatile compounds that dry out the skin, leading to redness, itching and discomfort.
Certain skincare ingredients have also been studied for their potential to affect hormones, trigger allergies or pose long-term health concerns:
alkylphenols used in detergents and cosmetics may disrupt hormone activity
antimicrobials such as triclosan can interfere with thyroid hormones and contribute to antibiotic resistance
bisphenols, (BPA widely used in packaging are linked to hormone disruption.
cyclosiloxanes (D4 and D5) may accumulate in the body and affect hormonal balance
ethanolamines can react with other ingredients to form nitrosamines, some of which are potential carcinogens
parabens are preservatives that mimic oestrogen, though some studies suggest minimal risk at low doses
phthalates used in fragrances and plastics are linked to reproductive toxicity, especially in early-life exposures
benzophenone is found in many sunscreens and some forms may act as allergens and hormone disruptors.
While many of these ingredients are permitted in regulated concentrations, some researchers warn of a 'cocktail effect': the cumulative impact of daily exposure to multiple chemicals, especially in young, developing bodies.
Temporary tattoos
Temporary tattoos, particularly black henna, are popular on holidays but they aren't always safe. Black henna is a common cause of contact dermatitis in children and may contain para-phenylenediamine (PPD), a chemical approved for use in hair dyes but not for direct application to skin.
PPD exposure can cause severe allergic reactions and, in rare cases, cancer. Children may develop hypopigmentation – pale patches where colour is lost – or, in adults, hyperpigmentation that can last for months or become permanent.
Worryingly, children exposed to PPD may experience more severe reactions later in life if they use hair dyes containing the same compound. This can sometimes lead to hospitalisation or even fatal anaphylaxis. Because of these risks, European legislation prohibits PPD from being applied directly to the skin, eyebrows, or eyelashes.
'Natural' doesn't mean harmless
Products marketed as 'natural' or 'clean' can also cause allergic reactions. Propolis (bee glue), for instance, is found in many natural skincare products but causes contact dermatitis in up to 16% of children.
A study found an average of 4.5 contact allergens per product in 'natural' skincare ranges. Out of 1,651 'natural' personal care products on the US market, only 96 (5.8%) were free from contact allergens. Even claims like 'dermatologically tested' don't guarantee safety; they simply mean the product was tested on skin, not that it's free from allergens.
Babies and young children aren't just miniature adults. Their skin is still developing and is more vulnerable to irritation, chemical absorption and systemic effects: substances that penetrate the skin can enter the bloodstream and potentially affect organs or biological systems throughout the body. Applying adult-targeted products, or even well-meaning 'natural' alternatives, can therefore carry real risks.
Adverse reactions can appear as rashes, scaling or itchiness and, in severe cases, blistering or crusting. Respiratory symptoms like coughing or wheezing should always be investigated by a medical professional.
When in doubt, keep it simple. Limit what goes on your child's skin, especially in the early years.
Adam Taylor is a Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Almost half of NHS England waiting list patients yet to have initial appointment
Around three million people in England have had no further health care since being referred to a hospital waiting list, new data suggests. NHS England figures last month estimated 7.36 million treatments were waiting to be carried out at the end of May, relating to just under 6.23 million patients – with the analysis from MBI Health suggesting almost half of those have been left in limbo. Referring to the issue as a 'frontlog' that contributes to increasing NHS waiting list times, MBI said the problem 'has gone unchallenged for too long', with an estimated 2.99 million people waiting for their first clinical contact. MBI's analysis found that around 70% of referral to treatment pathways fall into the category of being 'unseen' since the patient's GP referred them to a specialist. Delays in making a first assessment can lead to late diagnosis, worsening symptoms and pressure on emergency services. The analysis found that ear, nose and throat (ENT), trauma and orthopaedics, gastroenterology, ophthalmology and gynaecology and obstetrics departments were consistently the specialist departments with the greatest number of patients not seen for the first time. As part of the Government's 10-year health plan, the NHS is expected to meet its target of carrying out 92% per cent of routine operations and appointments within 18 weeks by March 2029 – a target that has not been achieved for almost a decade. The latest figures show how challenging that target will be given an estimated one million of the three million unseen patients have already gone more than 18 weeks without receiving any care. 'If accurate, three million people are trapped in an invisible waiting list crisis, stuck without basic diagnostic tests of first appointments while their conditions worsen,' Rachel Power, the chief executive of the Patients Association, told the Guardian. 'The scale is staggering, as nearly half of all patients on a waiting list haven't been seen by anyone. That's not a healthcare service; that's a breakdown. 'These aren't just statistics. They're people checking their phones daily for hospital calls that never come, unable to plan their lives while their symptoms deteriorate.' Last month it was found people of working age are making up a growing proportion of those on the NHS waiting list for treatment in England. Data tables published for the first time by NHS England also show people in the most deprived parts of the country are more likely to wait more than a year to start hospital treatment than those in the least deprived. The figures, analysed by the PA news agency, showed 56.1% of those on the list at the end of June this year were of working age (defined as age 19 to 64), up from 55.8% a year ago and 55.0% in June 2022. At the same time, the proportion of people on the waiting list under the age of 19 has fallen, standing at 10.8% in June this year, down from 11.2% a year earlier and 11.9% in June 2022. The proportion who are over 65 has remained broadly unchanged at around 33.1%. People of working age are also more likely to have to wait more than a year to start treatment (3.0% of patients in this age group at the end of June) than those over 65 (2.5%). However, the proportion is the same as those under 19 (also 3.0%).
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Pfizer CEO attending $25 million fundraiser at Trump's golf club after president demands drug price cuts, sources say
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is among those expected at a fundraiser President Trump is attending Friday at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, sources told CBS News. The fundraiser for the pro-Trump super political action committee MAGA Inc. aims to raise about $25 million, one of the sources said. One day prior to the event, Mr. Trump sent letters to pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, demanding they lower U.S. drug prices to more evenly match what other countries pay. The White House's letters to 17 drug companies, including AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi, asked for commitments within 60 days to sell drugs for Medicaid patients and all new drugs at "most favored nation" rates. The president posted images of the letters to Truth Social. Mr. Trump signed an executive order in May telling federal officials to draw up "most favored nation" regulations unless pharmaceutical companies made progress toward cutting prices. This week's letters — which were addressed to Bourla and the other CEOs — accused the drugmakers of promising "more of the same" since then. The president said Friday he's "gone to war with the drug companies and, frankly, other countries" on the drug price issue. "I think we're going to be very successful fairly soon. We'll have drug prices coming down by 500, 600 800 even 1,200 percent," Mr. Trump said in an interview with Newsmax on Friday afternoon. The high cost of prescription drugs has vexed both parties for decades. Proposals to tie drug prices for U.S. patients to the typically much-lower rates charged in other developed countries have floated around for years, but the idea has faced some legal pushback. Meanwhile, drugmakers argue price caps could discourage innovation by making it harder to pay for research and development for new drugs. The industry also argues that Americans tend to have access to more groundbreaking drugs than residents of foreign countries with stricter price regulations — and says high drug prices are just one part of a broader trend of higher healthcare spending in the U.S. Bourla has engaged with Mr. Trump in the past. Pfizer was one of the drugmakers that was picked to rapidly develop COVID-19 vaccines in the first Trump administration's "Operation Warp Speed." And two weeks before Mr. Trump's second inauguration, Bourla and other Pfizer executives traveled to Mar-A-Lago for meetings, the Financial Times has previously reported. CBS News has reached out to Pfizer and the White House for comment.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
How one small clinic proves hepatitis C doesn't have to be an epidemic
Although it's been over a decade since game-changing curative drugs for hepatitis C were approved, progress has been slow and treatment remains out of reach for many. But one small clinic in Buffalo, New York, is proving that doesn't have to be the case. Hepatitis C is a silent epidemic in the U.S., affecting up to 4 million people, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many people don't know they have it. Left untreated, the disease can cause cirrhosis and liver cancer. With a model that's faster, more accessible and remarkably effective, La Bodega, a clinic at Erie County Medical Center, is curing patients at a staggering rate. One of those patients is Lindsey Groffenberg, who quit drugs and was cured of Hep C at La Bodega. "When you're coming out of addiction, and you're trying to recover, the last thing you want is to feel small," she told CBS News. "When I entered La Bodega, I asked them, 'So, when's the doctor gonna come in?' And he said, 'I am the doctor.'" That doctor was Dr. Tony Martinez. "One of our mottos is 'come one, come all,'" Martinez told CBS News. "It's a very safe, stigma-free space, you know, I think people feel that when they come here." Groffenberg now helps others navigate recovery. Success stories like hers have made the clinic a model program. La Bodega gets Hep C patients on treatment in a single visit, and has a track record of curing about 98% of its 7,000-plus patients. New FDA-approved testing machines help speed up treatment. The testing machines, Martinez explained, allow them to see a patient and in that same visit confirm their diagnosis and initiate their meds. As drug costs have dropped, access should have improved, yet so far, less than a third of Americans with Hep C have been treated. Success stories like La Bodega's have policymakers seeking a national plan to eliminate Hep C. In Washington, a bipartisan bill backed by Senators Bill Cassidy and Chris Van Hollen would invest federal funds into wiping out the disease. The average patient with Hep C can rack up as much as $46,000 a year in medical costs. Treating patients early could save the government an estimated $7 billion over a decade. "This is a monumental step forward for anybody who has Hep C — they'd get access to medications," Martinez. Arkansas officials reveal new details about Devil's Den murders of husband and wife Reporter's Notebook: Diane Arbus' photography legacy Exhibition of influential photographer Diane Arbus' work opens in New York
