Read what Dr. Bailey actually did tell the Associated Press. 

The interview was in response to a ban on mercury in mascara and eye liners by the state of Minnesota.  Minnesota's cosmetics provision was part of a larger ban focused on more significant sources of mercury including; fluorescent lights, thermostats, barometers and medical devices. Although mercury hasn't been used in mascara or other eye products for many years, it was originally used as a preservative at a time when few alternative preservatives were available.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognized the critical importance of protecting the integrity of products used around the eye area and established safe mercury levels for use in mascara and other eye products to protect them from microbial contamination.  FDA banned mercury from all other cosmetic products more than 30 years ago.  Mercury has since been significantly reduced, if not eliminated, by companies and replaced with safer alternatives that are now available. 

Ms. Malkan is entitled to her opinion, but she is not entitled to distort the facts on important public health issues and disparage a respected member of the scientific community in the process.   

Cosmetic Safety:  Every cosmetic and personal care product is a combination of ingredients that are carefully selected and rigorously tested for safety.  The FDA maintains strict safety standards that must be met before a product is put on the market. See http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html to understand FDA's authority over cosmetics.  See www.cosmeticsinfo.org and click on the video to see the safety assessment processes companies go through to ensure product safety.   

Lead Levels in Lipstick: Lead is found naturally in the air, water, and soil and is never an intentionally added ingredient in lipsticks.  Based on scientifically established use levels, the amount of lead a consumer is exposed to from lipstick is at least 1,000 times below the limit established by the EPA for drinking water and more than 30 times below the safe limit set by California under Proposition 65. California's Attorney General has concluded that the levels of lead in lipstick identified by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics do not support a claim of a Proposition 65 violation.

Boric Acid/Sodium Borate:  Boric acid is not used in baby products.  The safety of boric acid (and borate salts) has been assessed by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review and the conditions of safe use set (see http://www.cir-safety.org/staff_files/safewithqualifications.pdf).
 
Phthalates:  The safety of the phthalates that are used in cosmetics and personal care products is supported by an extensive body of international scientific research and safety assessments.  Also lost in the one-sided statements made by Mr. Hollender is the fact that the phthalates used in cosmetics are very limited and have been assessed by experts.  For example, both FDA (see http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-phth.html) and the U.S. Cosmetic Ingredient Review (see http://www.cir-safety.org/staff_files/safeasused.pdf) have discussed the safety of the phthalates used in cosmetics.  The European Union has found that Diethylphthalate used in fragrances is safe (see http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/sccp/documents/out168_en.pdf).  Government data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that human exposure levels to phthalates are far below the safety levels set by regulatory agencies.  Click here http://stats.org/stories/a_health_scare_stinks_jun27_05.htm to read an interesting article from STATS.org, a non-profit research center affiliated with George Mason University, which examines statistical and scientific misinformation in the media.

 
Mercury: Mercury is not used in cosmetics products.  Even Mr. Hollender admits that manufacturers have phased out the use of mercury...enough said.

1,4 Dioxane:  In the February 2007 study mentioned, groups erroneously claimed that the FDA asked the cosmetic industry to voluntarily limit dioxane to 10 ppm.  This is simply not true and is reported in error.  FDA has set no limits for 1,4-Dioxane in cosmetics and personal care products, and the levels of 1,4-Dioxane reported in these products present no risk to consumers.  Dioxane is a trace level material found in some raw materials and products reported to contain 1,4-Dioxane are safe.  See http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cosdiox.html for more information from FDA.  Also, for a more balanced discussion, go to www.cosmeticsinfo.org.

"There seems to be a perception that chemicals are something man-made and 'dangerous' and that natural ingredients are chemical-free and 'safe.'  In reality, all substances are made up of chemicals, whether natural or synthetic, and all carry their own benefits and risks," said Chris Flower, director-general of CTPA.  CTPA said the site, http://www.thefactsabout.co.uk, aims to give consumers science-based information about cosmetic ingredients and the safety assessments that are performed before products are marketed. 

Another U.K.-based group, Sense About Science, took a deep dive on the issue two years ago with a report titled, "Making Sense of Chemical Stories," in which it addressed what it calls five misconceptions about chemicals:  1) you can lead a chemical-free life; 2) man-made chemicals are inherently dangerous; 3) synthetic chemicals are causing many cancers and other diseases; 4) our exposure to a cocktail of chemicals is a ticking time-bomb; 5) it is beneficial to avoid man-made chemicals; and 6) we are subjects in an unregulated, uncontrolled experiment.

In the beginning of the report, Tracey Brown, director of Sense About Science, explains the rationale for the document:  "Scientists are worried about the growing disconnection between the lifestyle view of chemicals and the chemical realities of the world.  They are worried not just because people are likely to misunderstand what chemicals are and do, but because of the consequences for decisions about lifestyle choices, family health and social policies.  In lifestyle commentary, chemicals are presented as something that can be avoided, or eliminated using special socks, soaps or diets, and that cause only harm to health and damage to the environment.  The chemical realities of the world, by contrast, are that everything is made of chemicals, that synthetic chemicals are often much safer for human health than so-called 'natural' ones, and that unfounded anxiety about chemicals is encouraging people to buy into ideas and 'remedies' that make little scientific or medical sense...."

The full report is available here.

The Personal Care Products Council is not affiliated with CTPA or Sense About Science.

Although the bill lacks scientific accurracy, it did pass the committee, but has a long way to go.  The bill also contradicts the independent opinion of the California Attorney General who concluded that the levels of lead in lipstick identified by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics do not raise a reasonable claim of a Prop 65 violation.

For more information on ingredient safety, and to get an inside look at the cosmetic industry, visit www.cosmeticsinfo.org.

They're all sporting a slender new periwinkle-hued Women's Empowerment Bracelet with a silver-toned infinity accent to symbolize a violence-free future of infinite possibilities for women.

Avon's first ever global fundraising product, the bracelet was created to raise awareness about violence against women around the globe and unveiled on International Women's Day last month at the United Nations. Proceeds from sales of the bracelet will launch a new endowment, the Avon Empowerment Fund, that will contribute to the UNIFEM-managed UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women. The first $500,000 from bracelet sales will be matched in 2008 by the Avon Foundation for a total donation of $1 million in new grants, representing the single largest one-year corporate contribution to date.

The bracelet, sold exclusively through the five million Avon representatives worldwide and through the Avon Web site, is priced at $3 in the U.S., and 100 percent of the net profits (that's $2.25 in the U.S.) will be donated to the Avon Empowerment Fund.

But do not depair.  CBS News reported last month that sales at makeup counters are on the rise.  And if history is any indicator, cosmetic companies should be seeing green in the coming months.  During the recession of 2001, makeup sales jumped 23%, and during the recession of 1990, sales climbed 10% http://www.tampabays10.com/news/watercooler/article.aspx?storyid=74605.

Women historically have turned to their cosmetics to serve as a substitute for more expensive items like clothing, jewelry or cars.  Selling for as little as 99 cents, lipstick, for example, serves as a pick-me-up that won't break the bank, but it still makes us feel good about ourselves.

So you may not have enough money to refill your family SUV this week, but at least you'll look good walking to the bus stop.

The panel included Seventeen Magazine publisher and cancer survivor Jayne Jamison, cosmetologist and volunteer Eivind Bjerke, hotel industry executive and cancer survivor Eli Martinez-Cedrez, and makeup artist and volunteer Rick DiCecca.  They each shared their personal experiences as patients and volunteers with Look Good...Feel Better, a program started 20 years ago by cosmetic and personal care products companies to help women cope with appearance-related side effects of cancer treatment.  The program began with the idea that an improved physical appearance can lead to increased self-esteem and help patients approach their disease and treatment with greater confidence.

Look Good...Feel Better is offered in 19 countries and has served more than 825,000 cancer patients since it began. 

For more information for you or someone you know battling cancer, visit http://www.lookgoodfeelbetter.org