Networks stoke made up makeup fears

Environment Commissioner and TV news dangle scary ‘ hazards’ before consumers

Our second Rubber Duckie of 2016 is a precedent-setting grand slam, awarded jointly and severally to four recipients who combined l ast month to warn consumers that cosmetics on the market may be harmful and possibly lethal. The four winners, for lazy and misleading stoking of consumer fears, are: Federal Environment Commissioner Judy Gelfand, CBC’s The National, CTV’s National News and Environmental Defence Canada

On May 31 Gelfand released the commission’s annual report on Chemicals in Consumer Products and Cosmetics, which contained the alarmist conclusion that “consumers may be exposed to dangerous products for prolonged periods.”

The report became national TV news. At CTV, the headline warned of “The Ugly Side of Cosmetics Industry.”

CTV Anchor: “A revealing new report says cosmetics sold in this country are not tested by Health Canada and could contain harmful chemicals …”

CTV Reporter: “When it comes to lipsticks and other cosmetics many Canadians might assume they’re government tested, but today, a federal watchdog is pointing out that’s often not the case.”

Julie Gelfand ( Environment Commissioner): “It’s really important for consumers to be aware that products are not tested by Health Canada prior to being put on the shelves.”

Tim Gray (Environmental Defence): “Health Canada’s job is to protect Canadian citizens, and this report makes it look to me like their main job is protecting the cosmetics industry.”

The same themes with slightly different twists were reported on CBC’s The National, which managed to find another Environmental Defence operative, Maggie MacDonald, who said that it is “really alarming” that Health Canada doesn’t know what’s in fragrances “because some of these ingredients can be carcinogenic.”

Most TV viewers, and most consumers, are likely immune to such scary news reports, and with good reason. In this case, the Environment Commissioner’s report contained nothing to suggest that Health Canada was failing in its job, or that any cosmetic on the market posed any risk, carcinogenic or otherwise, to consumers.

Commissioner Gelfand should have said as much. Instead, she dangled scary statements in front of reporters. Health Canada, she said, does not regularly test cosmetics for prohibited substances used to produce fragrances, aroma and flavour which “can conceal a range of potentially hazardous chemicals, and this information is not readily available to consumers.”

The networks, i nstead of tapping old reliable purveyors of junk science and chemophobia at Environmental Defence to hype the story up to carcinogenic proportions, could have turned to scores of other assessments, including the fact that hazardous chemicals only become health risks in massive quantities. But that quickly becomes a deadly non- story t hat would have to inform consumers that the hundreds of ingredients and chemicals that may be used in any fragrance- enhancing compound pose no known risk when used normally. The commissioner’s report also painted what was portrayed as an alarming instance of lax Health Canada monitoring of notices from cosmetic companies regarding “prohibited substances.” Health Canada, the report said, had received 50 notices from companies of cosmetic products containing prohibited substances between April 2013 and June 2015. In 48 per cent of the cases examined, Gelfand’s commission said, there was “insufficient evidence” to confirm that the products had been removed from the market. Sounds alarming. But. First, I asked the Environment Commissioner’s office via email how many cosmetic notifications Health Canada had received during the period. Answer: 56,712, which means that the 50 containing notices of prohibited substances amounted to 0.08816 per cent of total notifications received. Of those, 27 were sampled by the commission. Of the 27 sampled, in only 13 cases was there a lack of evidence that the products had been removed or prevented from entering Canada. The commission’s email said it also had no idea which of 580 prohibited chemicals were listed in the 13 notifications.

The Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association — which represents the industry — says it is likely none of the notifications were from manufacturers of major brand cosmetics. Most l i kely the products were from small manufacturers or importers and in fact never made it to market. Even if they had, the actual risk to consumers would have been next to zero.

A chemical may be hazardous, but it only creates a health risk to humans in massive quantities. Back in 2011, Health Canada noted that low concentrations of chemicals in products “are not considered harmful.” For example, lipstick containing trace amounts of lead would be dangerous — if consumers ate more than five tubes on a daily basis. In the case of shampoo, a person would have to apply a shampoo containing trace amounts of a prohibited chemical 620 times a day every day before reaching “potential levels of concern.”

The main part of this Rubber Duckie award goes to the Environment Commissioner for failing to clearly separate the hazard vs. dose issue, and for using language that prompted alarming reports on CTV and the CBC. As for Environmental Defence Canada, it was its usual awardwinning performance.

CHEMICALS ONLY RISK TO HEALTH IN MASSIVE QUANTITIES.