How everyday beauty products could pose a toxic health threat
Advertisement
Some women used multiple products containing the preservatives, while others used products such as lotions and hand soaps multiple times a day. And more than 70 percent of the formaldehyde-releasing products were used at least twice over the study period.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Robin Dodson, the associate director of research operations at the Silent Spring Institute and the study's lead author, said that while a lot of necessary attention has been paid to products that are used occasionally, there needs to be a greater focus on everyday products.
'I'm really concerned that we have a carcinogen that is basically intentionally being released into these products,' Dodson said. 'These chemicals are in products we use all the time, all over our bodies. Repeated exposures like these can add up and cause serious harm.'
Advertisement
Tesia Williams, a spokesperson for the Personal Care Products Council, a national trade association representing cosmetics and personal care products companies, said that formaldehyde-releasing agents are not equivalent to formaldehyde and do not present the concerns associated with breathing formaldehyde.
She added that the agents have been used for decades and 'are widely considered safe and effective in protecting consumer personal care products against a broad spectrum of microbial contamination.'
Researchers found formaldehyde-releasing preservatives in dozens of everyday items, including 20 body lotions, six body soaps, and three shampoos. The preservatives were found in hair products such as gels, edge controls, oils, and curl creams that are routinely used by Black women, as well as in eyeliners and eyelash glues. One eyelash glue specifically listed formaldehyde as an ingredient.
Dodson's study is the latest entry in a growing body of research on hair straightening chemicals and other personal care products marketed to women of color. Many of these products contain hazardous chemicals that are linked to a range of serious health issues, including breast cancer, ovarian and uterine cancers, fibroids, and other reproductive harms. In 2022, a groundbreaking study showed a link between the use of hair relaxers and the increased risk of developing uterine cancer among Black women.
David Andrews, the acting chief science officer at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization, said that 'formaldehyde and chemicals that release formaldehyde both pose significant health concerns' and have been 'linked to higher rates of skin allergies and sensitivities.'
The European Union banned the use of formaldehyde in cosmetics in 2009, though formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are permitted with restrictions and labeling requirements.
In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration proposed banning the use of formaldehyde as an ingredient in hair relaxers, but failed to meet an April 2024 deadline.
Advertisement
The FDA did not respond to a request for comment.
In the absence of federal regulations, some states have moved to ban formaldehyde in cosmetic products. California's ban went into effect Jan. 1, and Washington state has proposed restrictions that could be adopted this year.
Researchers say that the study points to critical gaps in how personal care products are regulated in the United States and their disproportionate health impacts on women of color.
Kizzy Charles-Guzman, the chief executive of Center for Environmental Health, an advocacy group, said that without stronger protections, the health and well-being of women of color will continue to be compromised.
'Women, and particularly women of color, are impacted not just by what's on the shelves, but by how these products are marketed to us - and by the glaring lack of federal regulation that allows toxic ingredients to be used without meaningful oversight or clear labeling,' Charles-Guzman said.
Dodson said warning labels could help steer people away from personal items containing formaldehyde. She also encouraged consumers to look at the ingredients label, but acknowledged that many formaldehyde-releasing preservatives have obscure names that could be challenging for shoppers to avoid.
'We need some regulatory steps to really make sure that we can protect ourselves, because we should not be putting the burden on consumers to figure out these long, complicated names whenever they're standing in the aisle of a store,' Dodson said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
3 days ago
- Fox News
Banned chemicals found in American shampoo, sunscreen and tampons across major brands
From shampoo and sunscreen to tampons, many personal care products on American shelves contain chemicals linked to cancer, infertility, and hormone disruption—ingredients that are banned or restricted in the European Union and other countries. Despite these alarming associations, no federal law in the U.S. requires companies to disclose potentially harmful ingredients. Only California mandates limited transparency, leaving most Americans in the dark about what they're putting on—and absorbing into—their bodies. For Tiah Tomlin-Harris, a two-time survivor of triple-negative breast cancer, that lack of transparency was a wake-up call. Diagnosed before age 40 with no genetic predisposition, Tomlin-Harris began asking hard questions: Where is this coming from? Genetic testing came back negative, placing her among the 80–90% of breast cancer patients whose illness isn't linked to family history. Her background as a chemist in the pharmaceutical industry gave her a unique perspective—and a critical eye for labels. "I started to dig into the causations," she told FOX. "The first thing I did was remove every single product in my house—from hair care to dish detergent. I went back to grandma's remedies—baking soda, vinegar—because I didn't know what was safe anymore." As she researched, she realized just how many widely used beauty and hygiene products are packed with potentially harmful chemicals. While Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has pushed for the removal of toxic additives in processed foods, he has yet to tackle the personal care industry. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary admits the agency is in a "deregulatory mindset," saying, "[We've] been regulating too much." That mindset has led to an explosion of consumer-driven tools like Yuka and Clearya, apps that scan barcodes and analyze ingredient safety using AI. "Most people are shocked," said Julie Chapon, Yuka's co-founder. "They assume green packaging means safety." Tomlin-Harris emphasized the disproportionate impact on women of color, particularly Black women. "We spend nine times more on beauty products than any other demographic, yet these products often contain the most harmful ingredients—parabens, phthalates, formaldehyde, benzene. These aren't just linked to cancer. They're weakening chemotherapy drugs. They're disrupting hormones. They're impacting fertility—for men and women." A Consumer Reports investigation found carcinogens in 10 of the top braiding hair brands, many of which are marketed to Black women and girls. Janet Nudelman, Director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, agrees that consumers are often left choosing "between protecting against skin cancer versus increasing their risk of breast cancer" because of harmful ingredients. Dr. Leonardo Trasande, whose studies highlight the health hazards of common chemicals, called the current system "rigged to produce chemical exposures that are toxic to our hormones." The consequences, he warns, are societal: higher healthcare costs and lifelong reproductive and developmental health problems. The federal government is slowly responding. The Safer Beauty Bill package, reintroduced in Congress, seeks to ban toxic ingredients, increase ingredient disclosure and protect vulnerable populations like hairstylists, nail technicians, and women of color. But for now, consumers are largely left to protect themselves. FDA Commissioner Makary insists change is coming: "We're doing an inventory of all chemicals in the food supply to see how we can make it safer." Still, advocacy groups say the U.S. is far behind the EU in regulating cosmetic safety. Industry representatives push back. The Personal Care Products Council asserts: "PCPC and our member companies are fully committed to upholding the highest standards of safety, quality and transparency." But for advocates like Tomlin-Harris, promises aren't enough. "This isn't just a women's issue," she said. "It's a people's issue. Men are affected. Children are affected. Our entire population is being exposed to chemicals we didn't consent to, and we're paying the price." Her message is clear: "We need transparency. We need regulation. And we need accountability from the companies creating these products. It's time to detox our routines, demand safer alternatives and prioritize our health."
UPI
3 days ago
- UPI
Your heart could be aging faster than you are
The research team theorizes that telling folks their heart age might help spur them to healthier lifestyles and treatment. Photo by Adobe Stock/HealthDay July 31 (UPI) -- Researchers who have developed a new "heart age" calculator say many Americans have unhealthy hearts that are physiologically older than their chronological age, with men faring worse than women. The research team theorizes that telling folks their heart age might help spur them to healthier lifestyles and treatment. "Many people who should be on medicine to lower their risk for heart attack, stroke or heart failure are not on these medications," explained study senior author Dr. Sadiya Khan in a news release. "We hope this new heart age calculator will help support discussions about prevention and ultimately improve health for all people." The new heart age calculator, which is free to the public, is available online. Study findings were published Wednesday in JAMA Cardiology. Khan, a professor of cardiovascular epidemiology, and her colleagues at Northwestern University in Chicago, note that the calculator is based on the American Heart Association's PREVENT equations, which talk about a patient's heart risk in terms of percentages. For example, a doctor might use the equation to tell a patient, "8 out 10 people with your [cardiovascular] profile may have a heart event in the next 10 years." Khan's group hoped that expressing the heart's condition as an age might be easier for folks to grasp. To test the new heart age tool, they applied it to data on 14,000 nationally representative U.S. adults, ages 30 to 79, who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020. None of the participants had any prior history heart disease at the time of the analysis. In most cases, people's heart age was older than the number of candles on their birthday cake. For example, over the whole cohort, women had an average heart age of 55.4 years, compared to an average chronological age of 51.3, the study found. The news was worse for men: Their average heart age was 56.7, compared to an average chronological age of 49.7. Certain demographic factors were in play, Khan's group noted. Among men, for example, nearly a third of those who had achieved a high school education or less had a heart age that was 10 years or more older than their chronological age, the study found. For men and women alike, being Black or Hispanic also tended to widen the gap between heart age and chronological age. "Black men had a heart age 8.5 years older than their actual age, compared to 7.9 years for Hispanic men, 6.7 years for Asian men and 6.4 years for white men," a Northwestern University news release said. "The gaps were 6.2 years for Black women, 4.8 years for Hispanic women, 3.7 years for white women and 2.8 years for Asian women." The key to shrinking these health gaps is prevention, Khan said. She hopes the new tool can help motivate people. "We hope this tool helps doctors and patients discuss risk for heart disease more effectively so we can better inform what therapies can prevent heart attacks, stroke or heart failure events from ever happening," Khan said in the news release. "The important thing is that we have very good options available in our toolbox to help slow that aging down if we can identify it," she added. "This may be even more important in younger people who don't often think about their risk for heart disease." More information Find out more about keeping your heart healthy at the American Heart Association. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Boston Globe
Canceled HIV research in R.I. is reinstated, but fears persist about DEI crackdown
The order from US District Judge William Young in Massachusetts was narrow, reinstating nearly 900 grants awarded to the plaintiffs, not all of the thousands of grants canceled by NIH so far this year. Young called DEI an 'undefined enemy‚" and said the Trump administration's 'blacklisting' of certain topics 'has absolutely nothing to do with the promotion of science or research.' Get Rhode Island News Alerts Sign up to get breaking news and interesting stories from Rhode Island in your inbox each weekday. Enter Email Sign Up The Trump administration is appealing the ruling, and Advertisement 'We feel like we're tippy-toeing around,' said Nunn, who leads the Rhode Island Public Health Institute. 'The backbone of the field is steadfast pursuit of the truth. People are trying to find workarounds where they don't have to compromise the integrity of their science.' Advertisement Nunn said she renewed her membership to the American Public Health Association in order to ensure she'd be included in the lawsuit. Despite DEI concerns, she plans to continue enrolling gay Black and Hispanic men in her study, which will include 300 patients in Rhode Island, Mississippi, and Washington, D.C. Black and Hispanic men who have sex with other men contract HIV at The study was just getting underway, with 20 patients enrolled, when the work was shut down by the NIH in March. While Nunn's clinic in Providence did not do any layoffs, the clinic in Mississippi — Express Personal Health — shut down, and the D.C. clinic laid off staff. The four-month funding flip-flop could delay the results of the study by two years, Nunn said, depending on how quickly the researchers can rehire and train new staff. The researchers will also need to find a new clinic in Mississippi. The patients — 100 each in Rhode Island, Mississippi, and D.C. — will then be followed for a year as they take Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis, or PrEP, to The protocol that's being studied is the use of a patient navigator for 'aggressive case management.' That person will help the patient navigate costs, insurance, transportation to the clinic, dealing with homophobia and other barriers to staying on PrEP, which can be taken as a pill or a shot. The study's delay means 'the science is aging on the vine,' Nunn said, as new HIV prevention drugs are rolled out. 'The very thing that we're studying might very well be obsolete by the time we're able to reenroll all of this.' Advertisement Dr. Amy Nunn, executive director of the Rhode Island Public Health Institute, in a patient room at Open Door Health, an HIV clinic in Providence, R.I. Patients will be seen here for her HIV study that has been reinstated following a lawsuit against the Trump administration. Jonathan Wiggs/Globe Staff The hundreds of reinstated grants include titles that reference race and gender, such as a study of cervical cancer screening rates in Latina women, alcohol use among transgender youth, aggressive breast cancer rates in Black and Latina women, and multiple HIV/AIDs studies involving LGBTQ patients. 'Many of these grants got swept up almost incidentally by the particular language that they used,' said Peter Lurie, the president of the Center of Science in the Public Interest, which joined the lawsuit. 'There was an arbitrary quality to the whole thing.' Lurie said blocking scientists from studying racial disparities in public health outcomes will hurt all Americans, not just the people in the affected groups. 'A very high question for American public health is why these racial disparities continue to exist,' Lurie said. 'We all lose in terms of questions not asked, answers not generated, and opportunities for saving lives not implemented.' The Trump administration is not backing down from its stance on DEI, even as it restores the funding. The reinstatement letters from the NIH sent to scientists this month include a condition that they must comply with Trump's executive order on 'biological truth,' which rescinded federal recognition of transgender identity, along with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color and national origin. Kenneth Parreno, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he was told by Trump administration lawyers that new letters would be sent out without those terms. But Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, said Wednesday the administration 'stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people.' Advertisement 'HHS is committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars support programs rooted in evidence-based practices and gold standard science — not driven by divisive DEI mandates or gender ideology," Nixon said in any email to the Globe. The Trump administration's appeal is pending before the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. A motion for a stay of Young's decision was denied, and the Trump administration is appealing that ruling to the US Supreme Court. The ongoing push to remove DEI from science has created fear in the scientific community, which relies on federal funding to conduct its research and make payroll. 'Scientific morale has taken a big hit,' Nunn said. 'People are apprehensive.' Indeed, major research institutions have faced mass funding cuts from the federal government since Trump took office. Brown University, the largest research institution in Rhode Island, had more than $500 million frozen until it In exchange for the research dollars to be released, Brown agreed not to engage in racial discrimination in admissions or university programming, and will provide access to admissions data to the federal government so it can assess compliance. The university also agreed not to perform any gender-affirming surgeries and to adopt Trump's definitions of a male and female in the 'biological truth' executive order. While some have avoided speaking out, fearing further funding cuts, Nunn said she felt a 'moral and ethical duty' to do so. Advertisement 'We have to dissent,' Nunn said. 'Scientific discovery around the world hangs in the balance.' Steph Machado can be reached at
