not so sexy: hidden chemicals in perfume and cologne

8/9/2019 Not So Sexy: Hidden Chemicals in Perfume and Cologne

1/44

Not So Sexy

The Health Risks of

Secret Chemicals

in Fragrance


2/44

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and Environmental Working Group NOT SO SEXY

2

THIS REPORT IS STRICTLY EMBARGOED UNTIL MAY 12, 2010. PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD OR COPY.

Not So Sexy:

The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrance

byHeather Sarantis, MS, Commonweal; Olga V. Naidenko, PhD, Sean Gray, MS, and Jane Houlihan, MSCE,

Environmental Working Group; and Stacy Malkan, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

Additional contributors: Lisa Archer, Breast Cancer Fund; Alexandra Gorman Scranton, Womens Voices for the

Earth; Janet Nudelman, Breast Cancer Fund; Mia Davis, Clean Water Action.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics would like to thank the following people for their review of sections of

this report: Janet Gray, PhD, Vassar College; Russ Hauser, MD, ScD, MPH, Frederick Lee Hisaw Professor of

Reproductive Physiology, Professor of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public

Health and Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology Harvard Medical School;

Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health Network; and Anne C. Steinemann, PhD,

Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Professor of Public Affairs, University of Washington.

Any errors or omissions in this report are the responsibility of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

Support for this project was provided by The As You Sow Foundation, The Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Fund,

Johnson Family Foundation and The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund. Canadian product testing funding

provided by Environmental Defence Canada.

May 2010 by the Breast Cancer Fund, Commonweal and Environmental Working Group.

Visit www.SafeCosmetics.org and www.CosmeticsDatabase.com for more information.

About the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is a national coalition

of nonprot womens, environmental, public health, faith

and worker safety organizations. Our mission is to protect

the health of consumers and workers by securing the

corporate, regulatory and legislative reforms necessary

to eliminate dangerous chemicals from cosmetics and

personal care products.

Coalition members include the Alliance for a Healthy

Tomorrow (represented by Clean Water Action and

Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition), the Breast Cancer

Fund, Commonweal, Environmental Working Group,

Friends of the Earth and Womens Voices for the Earth.

The Breast Cancer Fund, a national 501(c)(3) organization

focused on preventing breast cancer by identifying and

eliminating the environmental links to the disease, serves

as the national coordinator for the Campaign.

About the Environmental Working Group

Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprot

research and advocacy organization based in Washington

DC and founded in 1993. Our mission is to use the

power of public information to protect public health andthe environment. EWG specializes in providing useful

resources (like Skin Deep and the Shoppers Guide to

Pesticides in Produce) to consumers while simultane-

ously pushing for national policy change.


3/44


3

Makers o popular perumes, colognes and body sprays mar-ket their scents with terms like foral, exotic or musky,but they dont disclose that many scents are actually a com-plex cocktail o natural essences and synthetic chemicals oten petrochemicals. Laboratory tests commissioned by theCampaign or Sae Cosmetics and analyzed by EnvironmentalWorking Group revealed 38 secret chemicals in 17 name-brand ragrance products, topped by American Eagle SeventySeven with 24, Chanel Coco with 18, and Britney Spears

Curious and Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio with 17.

The average ragrance product tested contained 14 secretchemicals not listed on the label. Among them are chemicals

associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions,and many substances that have not been assessed or saety inpersonal care products.

Also in the ranks o undisclosed ingredients are chemicalswith troubling hazardous properties or with a propensity toaccumulate in human tissues. These include diethyl phthalatea chemical ound in 97 percent o Americans (Silva 2004) andlinked to sperm damage in human epidemiological studies

(Swan 2008), and musk ketone, a synthetic ragrance ingre-dient that concentrates in human at tissue and breast milk(Hutter 2009; Reiner 2007).

Executive Summary

A

rose may be a rose. But that rose-like ragrance in your perume may be something else entirely,

concocted rom any number o the ragrance industrys 3,100 stock chemical ingredients, the blend

o which is almost always kept hidden rom the consumer.

7

9

10

11

11

13

13

13

14

14

15

16

16

17

17

18

24

Dolce & Gabbana Light Blue

Clinique Happy Perfume Spray

AXE Body Spray For Men - Shock

Jennifer Lopez J. Lo Glow

Abercrombie & Fitch Fierce (for men)

Victoria's Secret Dream Angels Wish

Hannah Montana Secret Celebrity

Halle by Halle Berry

Calvin Klein Eternity (for women)

Bath & Body Works Japanese Cherry Blossom

Calvin Klein Eternity for Men

Quicksilver (for men)

Old Spice After Hours Body Spray (for men)

Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio (for men)

Britney Spears Curious

Chanel Coco

American Eagle Seventy Seven

Source: Environmental Working Group analysis of product labels and tests commissioned by the Campaign for Safe Cosmecs.

Health risks from secret chemicals depend on the mixture in each product, the chemicals hazards, that amounts that absorb into

the body, and individual vulnerability to health problems.

Popular fragrances contain 14 secret chemicals on averageChemicals found in lab tests but not listed on product labels


4/44


4

This complex mix o clandestine compounds in popularcolognes and perumes makes it impossible or consumers tomake inormed decisions about the products they considerbuying.

The ederal government is equally uninormed. A reviewo government records shows that the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration has not assessed the vast majority o these secretragrance chemicals or saety when used in spray-on personalcare products such as ragrances. Nor have most been evalu-ated by the saety review panel o the International FragranceAssociation or any other publicly accountable institution.

Fragrance secrecy is legal due to a giant loophole in theFederal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act o 1973, which re-quires companies to list cosmetics ingredients on the productlabels but explicitly exempts ragrance. By taking advantageo this loophole, the cosmetics industry has kept the public inthe dark about the ingredients in ragrance, even those thatpresent potential health risks or build up in peoples bodies.

Ingredients not in a products hidden ragrance mixture mustbe listed on the label. As a result, manuacturers disclosesome chemical constituents on ingredient lists but lump oth-ers together in the generic category o ragrance. In act,ragrances are typically mixtures o many dierent secretchemicals, like those uncovered in this study. On average,

the 17 name-brand ragrances tested in thisstudy contained nearly equal numbers o secretand labeled ingredients, with 14 chemicalskept secret but ound through testing, and 15disclosed on labels.

Widespread exposure and a long-standingculture o secrecy within the ragrance indus-try continue to put countless people at risk ocontact sensitization to ragrances with poorly-tested and intentionally unlabeled ingredients(Schnuch 2007).

According to EWG analysis, the ragranceindustry has published saety assessments oronly 34% o the unlabeled ingredients (ordetails o the analysis, see Methods section).

The unassessed chemicals range rom ood ad-ditives whose saety in perumes has not beenassessed to chemicals with limited public saetydata such as synthetic musk ragrances, whichaccumulate in the human body and may belinked to hormone disruption.

Some chemicals that are disclosed on the labels o the prod-ucts in this report also raise saety concerns. They includesunscreen and ultraviolet-protector chemicals associatedwith hormone disruption (Schlump 2004) and 24 chemi-cal sensitizers that can trigger allergic reactions (European

Commission Scientic Committee on Cosmetic Products andNon-Food Products (EC) 1999).

To make matters worse, FDA lacks the authority to requiremanuacturers to test cosmetics or saety, including ra-granced products, beore they are sold to consumers. As aresult, people using perume, cologne, body spray and otherscented cosmetics like lotion and atershave are unknowinglyexposed to chemicals that may increase their risk or certainhealth problems.

Product tests initiated by the Campaign or Sae Cosmeticsand subsequent analyses, detailed in this report, reveal thatwidely recognized brand-name perumes and colognes containsecret chemicals, sensitizers, potential hormone disruptors andchemicals not assessed or saety:

Secretchemicals:Laboratory tests revealed 38secretchemicalsin17name-brandproducts, with an averageo14secretchemicalsperproduct.AmericanEagleSeventySevencontained 24 secret chemicals, nearlytwice the average ound in other products tested.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Most secret chemicals revealed in fragrance tesng

have not been assessed for safety

66% have not been

assessed for safety

19% have not been

assessed for safety

Secret chemicals found in product tests Chemicals listed on labels

Percentage of chemicals not assessed for safety by fragrance industry.

Source: EWG analysis of product labels, tests commissioned by the Campaign for Safe

Cosmecs, and industry reports of safety assessments by the Personal Care Products Council

and Internaonal Fragrance Associaon in the past 25 years.


5/44


5

Multiplesensitizers:The products tested contained anaverageof10chemicals that are known to be sensitizersand can trigger allergic reactions such as asthma, wheez-ing, headaches and contact dermatitis. All o these werelisted on product labels. GiorgioArmaniAcquaDiGiocontained 19 dierent sensitizing chemicals that can trig-ger allergic reactions, more than any other product tested.

Multiplehormonedisruptors:A total o 12 dierenthormone-disrupting chemicals were ound in the testedproducts, with an average o our in each product. Threeproductseachcontainedsevendifferentchemicalswiththepotentialtodisruptthehormonesystem:HallebyHalleBerry,QuicksilverandJenniferLopezJ.LoGlow. In each product, six o these chemicalsmimic the hormone estrogen, and the seventh is associat-

ed with thyroid eects. Some o these potential hormonedisruptors were listed on labels; others were undisclosedand were uncovered in product testing.

Widespreaduseofchemicalsthathavenotbeenas-sessedforsafety:A review o government records showsthat the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)has not assessed the vast majority o ragrance ingredi-ents in personal care products or saety. TheCosmeticIngredientReview(CIR),anindustry-fundedandself-policingbody,hasassessedonly19ofthe91ingredi-

entslisted on labels or ound in testing or the 17 prod-ucts assessed in this study. TheInternationalFragranceAssociation(IFRA)andtheResearchInstituteforFragranceMaterials(RIFM),whichdevelopandsetvoluntarystandardsforchemicalsinthefragrancecomponentofproducts,haveassessedonly27ofthe91ingredients listed on labels or ound in testing or the17 products assessed in this study, based on a review oassessments published in the past 25 years.

Results at a glance for all fragrance ingredients combined (disclosed on label or revealed in product tests)

Average for all

17 fragrancesExtreme product (highest number)

Chemical ingredients(tested + labeled) 29 40 - Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio

Secret chemicals(found in testing, not on label)

14 24 - American Eagle Seventy Seven

Sensitizing chemicals(can trigger allergic reactions)

10 19 - Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio

Hormone disruptors(can disrupt natural hormones)

4 7 - Halle by Halle Berry, Quicksilver, Jennifer Lopez J. Lo Glow

Chemicals not assessed for safety(by government or industry)

12 16 - Chanel Coco, Halle by Halle Berry, American Eagle Seventy Seven

Source: EWG analysis of 91 chemicals in 17 products including 51 chemicals listed on product labels, and 38 unlabeled chemicals found in tests commissioned by the Campaign for

Safe Cosmetics combined with analysis of chemical hazard and toxicity data from government and industry assessments and the published scientic literature.

Fragrance, perfume & cologne

whats the difference?

Perfumes, colognes and body sprays are often called

fragrances. But under U.S. law, the term fragrance

is dened as a combination of chemicals that gives

each perfume or cologne its distinct scent. Fragrance

ingredients may be produced by chemical synthesis

or derived from petroleum or natural raw materials.

Companies that manufacture perfume or cologne

purchase fragrance mixtures from fragrance houses

(companies that specialize in developing fragrances)

to develop their own proprietary blends. In addition to

scent chemicals that we actually smell, perfumes

and colognes also contain solvents, stabilizers, UV-

absorbers, preservatives and dyes. These additives are

frequently, but not always, listed on product labels. In

contrast, the chemical components in fragrance itself

are protected as trade secrets and described on the

label only as fragrance.


6/44


6

Products were tested by Analytical Sciences, an independentlaboratory in Petaluma, Caliornia. The lab ound, in all, 40chemicals in the tested ragrance products. Thirty-eight othese were secret, or unlabeled, or at least one o the productscontaining them, while the other two were listed on all rele-vant product labels. Ingredient labels disclosed the presence o

another 51 chemical ingredients, giving a total o 91 chemicalingredients altogether in the tested products, including hid-den and disclosed ingredients combined. O the 17 productstested, 13 were purchased in the U.S. and our in Canada.

When sprayed or applied on the skin, many chemicals romperumes, cosmetics and personal care products are inhaled.Others are absorbed through the skin. Either way, many othese chemicals can accumulate in the body. As a result, thebodies o most Americans are polluted with multiple cos-metics ingredients. This pollution begins in the womb and

continues through lie.

A recent EWG study ound Galaxolide and Tonalide, twosynthetic musks, in the cord blood o newborn babies (EWG2009). Both musks contaminate people and the environ-ment worldwide, have been associated with toxicity to theendocrine system (van der Burg 2008) and were identiedin the majority o products tested or this study. Similarly, apregnant womans use o some ragrances and other cosmeticsrequently may expose her growing etus to diethyl phthal-ate (DEP), a common perume solvent linked to abnormaldevelopment o reproductive organs in baby boys and sperm

damage in adult men (Washington Toxics Coalition 2009).New research also links prenatal exposure o DEP to clini-cally diagnosed Attention Decit Disorder in children (Engel2010). This analysis ound DEP in 12 o 17 products tested,at levels ranging rom 30 parts per million (ppm) to 32,000ppm in Eternity or Women.

Numerous other products used daily, such as shampoos,lotions, bath products, cleaning sprays, air resheners andlaundry and dishwashing detergents, also contain stronglyscented, volatile ingredients that are hidden behind the wordragrance. Some o these ingredients react with ozone inthe indoor air, generating many potentially harmul second-

ary air pollutants such as ormaldehyde and ultrane particles(Nazaro 2004).

People have the right to know which chemicals they are beingexposed to. They have the right to expect the government toprotect people, especially vulnerable populations, rom haz-ardous chemicals. In addition to required saety assessments oingredients in cosmetics, the laws must be changed to requirethe chemicals in ragrance to be ully disclosed and publiclyaccessible on ingredient labels.

As our test results show, short o sending your avorite perume

to a lab or testing, shoppers have no way o knowing exactlywhich o the 3,100 ragrance ingredients may be hiding in theirbeauty products or even in their childs baby shampoo. Thisstudy ocused on several categories o chemicals specicallyvolatile compounds, semi-volatile compounds and syntheticmusks. The laboratory analyses, while thorough, were notexhaustive, which means that additional chemicals o concernmay also be present in the tested products.

Everyone is impacted by fragrance.

The Campaign commissioned a laboratory analysis of

mens and womens fragrances as well as scented prod-

ucts marketed to teens of both genders; all products

tested contained a range of ingredients associated with

health concerns, such as allergic sensitization, and

potential effects on the endocrine system or reproduc-

tive toxicity.


7/44


7

Sensitizing chemicals that can trigger allergic reactions werecommon in the 17 name-brand ragrances assessed in thisstudy:

Perumes, colognes and body sprays contained an averageo 10 sensitizing ingredients each.

Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio contained 19 dierentsensitizing chemicals, more than any other productassessed.

Altogether, the 17 products assessed contained 24 chemicalsclassied as sensitizers or chemicals with sensitizing potentialaccording to the International Fragrance Association, theEuropean Union or the peer-reviewed scientic literature (Api2008; EC 1999).

A clinical review o ragrance ingredients ound that at least100 are known to cause contact allergy (Johansen 2003), apotentially debilitating condition that can result in itchy,scaly, painul skin. Fragrance-induced dermatitis (eczema) candevelop anywhere on the body, but the hands, ace and axillae(underarm, rom use o deodorants) are most oten aected.Hand eczema impairs quality o lie and is also o economic

consequence or society, due to allergy suerers missedworkdays and need or medical treatment.

Companies using these compounds can choose to complywith concentration limits recommended by the InternationalFragrance Association to help prevent users rom developingallergies or contact dermatitis. But these limits are based onthe assumption that people are exposed to just one sensitizerat a time. The average product tested in this report contains10 sensitizers.

The prevalenceo ragranceallergies suggeststhat the ragranceindustryssel-imposedconcentrationlimits are either not ollowed or not suciently protective.

Unlike companies selling in the U.S., those marketingragrances in Europe are required to ully disclose commonallergens. In 1999, the European Commissions Scientic

Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products(SCCNFP) published a list o well-known allergenic sub-stances comprised o 24 chemicals and two botanical prepara-tions. These ingredients are all used as scents, are recognizedto be allergens or to orm allergenic oxidation products uponstorage, and must be listed on the labels o any personal careproduct containing them (EC 1999; van Oosten 2009);22 othe 26 EU-recognized sensitizers were ound in the productstested in this study.

The EUs SCCNFP committee decided these allergenic sub-stances must be listed on the label whenever their concentra-tion in a leave-on product exceeds 0.001 percent (10 parts permillion or ppm).

Many o the sensitizing chemicals in perumes and colognesare also ound in a wide range o other products, increasinga consumers total exposures and overall risk or developingallergies. For example, limonene, ound in 16 o the productsassessed, is a ragrance chemical that is commonly used as asolvent in cleaning products and degreasers where it may belisted as citrus oil. While on the shel or in the warehouse,

Section 1: Allergic Sensitivity to

Fragrances: A Growing Health Concern

During the last 20 years, ragrance contact allergy has become a major global health problem(Scheinman 2002). Many scientists attribute this phenomenon to a steady increase in the use o ra-

grance in cosmetics and household products (Johansen 2000; Karlberg 2008). Fragrance is now considered

among the top ve allergens in North America and European countries (de Groot 1997; Jansson 2001)

and is associated with a wide range o skin, eye and respiratory reactions. Repeated, cumulative exposure

to chemical sensitizers like allergenic ragrance ingredients increases the chance that a person will develop

allergic symptoms later in lie (Buckley 2003).

Dubious honor

In 2007, the American Contact

Dermatitis Society named fragrance

Allergen of the Year. (American

Contact Dermatitis Society 2010).


8/44


8

limonene breaks down to orm potent sensitizers (Karlberg1997; Topham 2003). O additional concern, limonene canreact readily with ozone, both indoors and outdoors, to gener-ate a range o hazardous pollutants such as ormaldehyde,acetaldehyde and ultrane particles. (Nazaro 2004; Singer2006). Some o these secondary pollutants are carcinogensand pose a variety o other health concerns such as asthma(USEPA 2005; USEPA 2007a).

Another common sensitizer is the lavender oil componentlinalool (ound in 14 tested products) and its derivativeslinalyl acetate and linalyl anthranilate, which orm contact

allergens when exposed to air (Hagvall, 2008; Skold, 2008).Similarly, geraniol, a rose oil component ound in 12 products

tested, becomes more allergenic upon storage and oxidation(Hagvall, 2007).

Perume exposure oten leads to asthma and other respira-tory problems (Eberling 2009). Scientists have not deter-mined precisely how inhaling perume chemicals can cause

respiratory distress (Eberling 2004; Schnuch 2010) or howexposures to traces o a ragrance can trigger contact allergy(EC 1999). They are trying to establish whether reactions aretriggered by scent chemicals themselves (Lastbom 2003), theiroxidation products (Christensson 2009) or other ingredientssuch as phthalates, which are strongly associated with asthmaand other reactive airway symptoms (Bornehag 2010; Mendel2007).

Fragrance allergies most oten aect the wearer, but a growingnumber o people report adverse reactions to scented products

in general, whether worn by others, displayed on store shelvesor added to air resheners and other household products(Caress and Steinemann 2009).

The ragrance industry may claim it is impossible to elimi-nate all chemicals in ragrance that could potentially causeallergies. Short o that, ully labeling ragrance ingredients inproducts would allow people to avoid specic ingredients thatthey know trigger their allergic reactions.

Unortunately, many consumers do not know which specicchemical ingredient may trigger their ragrance sensitivity and

contact allergy. Their saest choice is to avoid ragranced products altogether.

Allergic effects associated with exposure to

fragranced products

Headaches

Chest tightness and wheezing

Infant diarrhea and vomitingMucosal irritation

Reduced pulmonary function

Asthma and asthmatic exacerbation

Rhinitis and airway irritation

Sense organ irritation

Contact dermatitis

Table adapted from Caress and Steinemann 2009.


9/44


9

Table 1: Chemical sensitizers in popular perfumes, colognes and body sprays

Totalsensitizingchemica

ls

ALPHA-I

SOMETHYLION

ONE

AMYLCINNAMALDEHYD

E

BENZYLALCOHOL

BENZYLBENZOATE

BENZYLCINNAMATE

BENZYLSALICYLATE

CINNAMAL

CINNAMYLALCOHOL

CITRAL

CITRONELLOL

COUMARIN

EUGENOL

EVERNIAFURFURACEA

EXTRACT

FARNESOL

GERANIOL

HEXYLCINNAMAL

HYDROXYCITRONELLAL

ISOEUGENOL

LILIAL

LIMONENE

LINALOOL

LYRAL

LINALYLACETATE

LINALYLANTHRANILATE

Giorgio ArmaniAcqua Di Gio

19 n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Jennifer LopezJ. Lo Glow

16 n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Calvin KleinEternity (for women)

15 n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Bath & Body WorksJapanese Cherry Blossom

13 n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Britney Spears Curious 13 n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Calvin KleinEternity for Men


Quicksilver (for men) 13 n n n n n n n n n n n n n

Victorias SecretDream Angels Wish


Chanel Coco 12 n n n n n n n n n n n n

Clinique Happy 10 n n n n n n n n n n

Halle by Halle Berry 9 n n n n n n n n n

Abercrombie & FitchFierce

8 n n n n n n n n

American EagleSeventy Seven

7 n n n n n n n

Hannah MontanaSecret Celebrity

5 n n n n n

Dolce & Gabbana

Light Blue

4 n n n n

Old Spice After HoursBody Spray

4 n n n n

AXE Bodyspray For Men- Shock

3 n n n

n Sensitizing chemical listed on ingredient label or found in product testing. Some of these chemicals such as eugenol, lilialor limonene, were listed on some but not all product labels, while others, such as linalool derivatives linalyl acetate and linalylanthranilate, were not listed on any product label.Source: EWG analysis of product labels and tests commissioned by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.


10/44


10

Ingredients with the potential to act as hormone disruptorswere common in the 17 name-brand ragrances assessed inthis study:

Perumes, colognes and body sprays contained an averageo our potential hormone-disrupting ingredients each.

A total o 12 such ingredients were ound in the testedproducts.

Halle by Halle Berry, Quicksilver and Jennier LopezJ. Lo Glow each contained seven dierent potentiallyhormone-disrupting ingredients, the highest numberamong tested products.

Altogether, the 12 ingredients may mimic or intererewith estrogen, male hormones (androgens) and thyroidhormones. Many o the chemicals ound can impact morethan one o these systems, but 11 o 12 mimic estrogen ordisplay estrogen-like activity in laboratory studies.

Scientists are still trying to understand the human health im-plication o lielong, cumulative exposure to mixtures o hor-monally active chemicals. The greatest concern is that thesechemicals, through their ability to mimic or disrupt naturalestrogen, testosterone and thyroid pathways, may impair basicbody unctions like tissue growth and repair that are normallyregulated by natural hormone signaling (Soto 2009).

The evidence available to-date is dominated by laboratorystudies known as in vitro assays, which ocus on interactionbetween chemicals and hormone receptors in cells grown inlaboratory cultures. A smaller number o in vivo studiesinvolving laboratory animals have investigated the eects othese potential hormone disruptors on living creatures. Even

ewer analyses explore the possible impact o these chemicalson the human hormone system and hormone-responsive or-gans at current levels o exposure. Recent research has clearlydemonstrated that even at low doses, exposure to hormonaldisruptors during susceptible periods can have drastic con-sequences or health later in lie. Scientists are especiallyconcerned about the impact o hormone-disrupting chemicalsduring critical windows o development, such as etal develop-ment (Breast Cancer Fund 2008).

AXE: Beyond hormone disruptors

Tests found fewer hormone disruptors in AXE Body Spray

for Men than in all but one other product. But that

doesnt mean the product is safe. On February 10, 2010

the California Air Resources Board announced that it was

issuing a $1.3 million ne to Conopco Inc. (operating

under the Unilever name) for contaminating California

air with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) each time a

young man sprays himself with AXE. Between 2006 and

2008 the company sold 2.8 million products that failed

to meet Californias clean air standards (Environmental

News Service 2010).

Section 2: Hormone-Disrupting

Chemicals in Fragrance

Asignicant number o industrial chemicals, including some in ragrances, can act as hormone disrup-tors by interering with the production, release, transport, metabolism and binding o hormones to

their targets in the body (Gray 2009; Rudel 2007). Some hormone disruptors can prevent the action o

naturally occurring hormones and interere with the endocrine system. Some can also as hormone mimics

that simulate the activity o hormones such as estrogen and send a hormone-like signal at the wrong time

and to the wrong tissues. Depending on the dose and timing, exposure to hormone disruptors has been

linked to a wide range o health problems (Heindel 2009), including an increased risk o cancer, especially

breast (Breast Cancer Fund 2008) and prostate (Prins 2008) cancers; reproductive toxicity and eects on

the developing etus; and predisposition to metabolic disease such as thyroid problems (Jugan 2010) or

obesity (Hotchkiss 2008).


11/44


11

The potential repercussions o hormone disruption range rombirth deects to impaired ertility (Diamani-Kandarakis 2009).

Thyroid hormone disruptors could impact the optimumthyroid levels crucial to normal brain developmentand growth in the etus, inants and young children(Schmutzler 2007).

Chemicals that mimic estrogen may be contributing ac-tors or breast cancer, early puberty and other commonreproductive problems (Caserta 2008). These conditionsare o great concern currently. One in 8 women will bediagnosed with breast cancer in her lietime; cumula-tive, lietime exposure to estrogen is a known risk actor

(Breast Cancer Fund 2008).Studies indicate that girlsenter puberty one to two years earlier than they did 40years ago; exposures to synthetic estrogenic chemicals,

particularly during critical windows o development, havebeen proposed as a possible cause (Roy 2009).

Chemicals that aect male hormones may be a actor ininertility (Guidice 2006), which increased by 20 percentin American couples between 1995 and 2002 (CDC2009). Endocrine disruptors have also been implicatedin birth deects o the male reproductive system, such asundescended testicles and a penile deormity called hy-pospadias. Incidence o both conditions appears to haverisen in recent decades (Wang 2008).

Table 2: Hormone-disrupting chemicals in popular perfumes, colognes and body sprays

Totalhormonedisrupting

chemicals

BENZOPHEN

ONE-1

BENZOPHEN

ONE-2

BENZYLBEN

ZOATE

BENZYLSALICYLATE

BHT

DIETHYLPHTHALATE

GALAXOLIDE

LILIAL

MUSK

KETONE

OCTINOXATE

OXYBENZONE

TONALIDE

Halle by Halle Berry 7 n n n n n n n

Quicksilver 7 n n n n n n n

Jennifer Lopez J. Lo Glow 7 n n n n n n n

American Eagle Seventy Seven 6 n n n n n n

Bath & Body Works Japanese

Cherry Blossom6 n n n n n n

Calvin Klein Eternity (for women) 6 n n n n n n

Calvin Klein Eternity for Men 5 n n n n n

Chanel Coco 5 n n n n n

Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio 5 n n n n n n

Victorias Secret Dream Angels Wish 4 n n n n

Britney Spears Curious 4 n n n n

Clinique Happy 3 n n n

Hannah Montana Secret Celebrity 3 n n n

Dolce & Gabbana Light Blue 3 n n n

Old Spice After Hours Body Spray 2 n n

Abercrombie & Fitch Fierce 1 n

AXE Bodyspray For Men - Shock 1 n

n Detected in product testing or listed on ingredient label

Source: EWG analysis of product labels and tests commissioned by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and results of hormone system studies in the open scientic literature.


12/44


12

Some ragrance ingredients have beentested only in laboratory cell cultures.Further research is needed to investi-gate the connections between endo-crine disruptors and adverse healtheects (Charles 2009).

Importantly, or many ingredients inthe tested products, there is almostno saety inormation in the publicdomain. For example, PubMed, theederal governments database o peer-reviewed scientic research, containsno toxicity studies or the sunscreeningredient diethylamino hydroxyben-zoyl hexyl benzoate, known undera trade name Uvinul A Plus, or the

preservative tetradibutyl pentaerithri-tyl hydroxyhydrocinnamate, knownunder the trade name Irganox1010.The complete list o ingredients withpotential endocrine-disrupting proper-ties may, in act, be much larger thanthe 12 discussed above.

In order to increase the stability and shel lie o perumesand colognes, manuacturers add sunscreen chemicals (UVabsorbers, the active ingredients in commercial sunscreenproducts) to ragrance ormulations (Cosmetics and Toiletries2006). Thirteen o 17 ragrances assessed contained at leastone UV-absorbing chemical. Eight dierent UV absorberswere ound in these products altogether. O note, ve o thesechemicals have been associated with endocrine-disruptingproperties, demonstrating that the saety o sunscreen ingredi-ents themselves remains an unresolved question.

Studiesofhormone-disruptionpotentialforfragranceingredients

A growing body o laboratory and epidemiology studies oragrance chemicals indicates a wide-ranging spectrum o risk,rom immune toxicity to eects on the endocrine system.Since the majority o cosmetics ingredients have not under-gone a comprehensive panel o toxicity tests, scientists otenneed to do the detective work in piecing together ndingsrom dierent experimental systems, making connectionsamong cellular, animal, human and environmental toxicitystudies and weighing out the evidence that is currently avail-able. The analysis below reviews in detail available studies on

Twelve fragrance chemicals that may affect sex hormones and the thyroid

Chemical found in fragrance

Hormone system affected

EstrogenAndrogens

(male hormones)Thyroid

Octinoxate (octyl methoxycinnamate) * *

Oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) *

Benzophenone-1 *

Benzophenone-2 * *

Diethyl phthalate

Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) *

Galaxolide

Tonalide

Musk ketone

Benzyl salicylate

Benzyl benzoate

Lilial (butylphenyl methylpropional)

Potenal to disrupt the indicated hormone system based on ndings from published cell culture studies

* Potenal to disrupt the indicated hormone system based on ndings from published animal studies

Source: EWG analysis of product labels and tests commissioned by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and results ofhormone system studies in the open scientic literature.

Sunscreen chemicals in perfumes

Many of the scent chemicals used in fragrance for-mulations are unstable and tend to oxidize and break

down when exposed to sunlight and air, during storage

or when applied to human skin (Shibamoto 1983ab).

Oxidized fragrance ingredients can act as potent sensi-

tizers and phototoxic agents (Dubertret 1990). Recent

in-vitro studies have suggested that exposure of com-

mon fragrance compounds to UV light can cause direct

cell damage and cell death (Placzek 2007; Dijoux

2006).]

Sunscreen chemicalNumber of tested

fragrances that contain

chemical (of 17)

Oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) 1

Benzyl salicylate 9

Octinoxate (octyl methoxycinnamate) 8

Benzophenone-1 1

Octisalate 6

Benzophenone-2 1

Avobenzone 8

Diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexylbenzoate

1


13/44


13

hormone disruption conducted or chemicals ound in the 17products tested in this study:

Octinoxate(octylmethoxycinnamate) is a sunscreeningredient and UV absorber that has been linked withestrogenic activity in vitro and in vivo. In laboratory stud-

ies with cultured cells, octinoxate binds to and stimulatesthe human estrogen receptor (Gomez 2005). Estrogeniceects o octinoxate on sh have also been reported (Inui2003). In studies with laboratory animals, exposure tooctinoxate increases the weight o the uterus, a hall-mark o estrogenic response and an indicator o possibleadverse long-term health eects in humans and wildlie(Schlumph 2001; 2003). Octinoxate has been also shownto disrupt the unction o hypothalamo-pituitary-thyroidendocrine pathway and to suppress the levels o thyroidhormones in laboratory animals (Schmutzler 2004),

indicating that it is likely to be a thyroid toxicant as well(Klammer 2007).

Octinoxate was found in 7 products tested for thisreport.

Oxybenzone(benzophenone-3) is a sunscreen ingredi-ent that has been reported to act as an endocrine disrup-tor based on studies with cultured cells and with labora-tory animals (Kunz 2006; Nakagawa 2002; NTP 1992).Oxybenzone stimulates estrogen receptors and increasesthe weight o the uterus in exposed rodents (Schlump2004). It has also been shown to antagonize androgen(male hormone) receptor unction in human cancer cells(Ma 2003). A study with cultured cells also ound thatoxybenzone increased production o the stress hormonecorticosterone rom adrenal gland cells (Ziolkowska2006). In people, higher maternal exposures to oxyben-zone have been linked to decreased birth weight in babygirls (Wol 2008).

Oxybenzone was found in one product tested for thisreport.

Benzophenone-1 is a sunscreen ingredient that has been

shown to have both estrogenic and androgenic properties,as demonstrated by its ability to bind and stimulate thehuman estrogen receptor and to increase uterine weightin laboratory animals (Suzuki 2005; Schlump 2004).

Benzophenone-1 was found in one product tested forthis report.

Benzophenone-2 is a sunscreen ingredient that interereswith thyroid unction in laboratory animals (Schmutzler2007; Schlecht 2006). It also demonstrates estrogenicactivity in studies with laboratory animals and in studieso cultured cells (Schlump 2004; Schlecht 2004).

Benzophenone-2 was found in one product tested forthis report.

Diethylphthalate is a ragrance solvent that has beenassociated with adverse eects on the development o thereproductive system in epidemiological studies. Althoughresearch is not yet denitive on the mechanism o DEPtoxicity, ndings rom human studies raise strong con-cerns about the saety o DEP exposures (Swan 2008).(See Appendix B)

Diethyl phthalate was found in 12 products tested for

this report.

Butylatedhydroxytoluene(BHT) is a preservative andstabilizer. Two studies have linked BHT with adverseeects on the thyroid (Sondergaard 1982) and possiblethyroid carcinogenesis (Ito 1985).

Butylated hydroxytoluene was found in six productstested for this report.

SyntheticmusksGalaxolide,Tonalideandmuskketone have not yet been tested in long-term studies thatcould specically address eects on the endocrine system

(van der Berg 2008). Signicant data gaps and lack oadequate animal or human studies makes denitive char-acterization o endocrine toxicity a challenge. However, asubstantial body o data rom laboratory studies with cellculture models indicates that these chemicals can aectthe unction o the human estrogen receptor as well asreceptors or other hormones such as androgen and pro-gesterone and stimulate the growth o hormone-sensitivecancer cells in vitro (Schreurs 2005). (See Appendix C)

Galaxolide was found in 15 products, Tonalide in veproducts and musk ketone in one product tested for

this report.

Benzylsalicylate,benzylbenzoateandscentchemicallilial(butylphenylmethylpropional)have been demon-strated estrogenic activity in a recent study with humanbreast cancer cells (Charles 2009).

Benzyl salicylate was found in eight products, benzylbenzoate in six products and lilial in ve productstested for this report.


14/44

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics NOT SO SEXY

14

Section 3: Secret Chemicals, Hidden

Health Risks

Laboratory tests commissioned by the Campaign or Sae Cosmetics revealed 38 secret chemicals in 17name-brand ragrance products, compounds detected in tests but not listed on labels. American Eagle

Seventy Seven contained the greatest number, with 24, ollowed by Chanel Coco with 18, and Britney

Spears Curious and Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio with 17. On average, the ragrance products tested con-

tained 14 secret chemicals not disclosed on labels.

The Environmental Working Group assessed these com-pounds against the published scientic literature, uncover-ing a wide range o troubling evidence pointing to potentialhealth hazards and the likelihood or some o these com-pounds to accumulate in human tissues or cross the placentawhen pregnant women are exposed. For many o the secretchemicals, no saety studies are publicly available in the openscientic literature.

When it comes to their use in ragrance, the saety o manyo the secret compounds identied in this study cannot beassessed rom the scant records o toxicity data in the publicscientic literature.

O 38 undisclosed chemicals in the 17 ragrance productsassessed:

Ten undisclosed chemicals lack any public toxicityinormation whatsoever in published scientic literature,according to EWGs survey o the ederal governmentscomprehensive PubMed online scientic library.

At least six other undisclosed compounds have three orewer published toxicity studies, or have been deemed bya government agency to be completely lacking toxicitydata or critical health risks o concern, such as cancer orbirth deects. One notable example is the jasmine-scentedchemical called hedione (methyl dihydrojasmonate), one

o the most commonly used ragrances in perumes andcolognes. PubMed contains only one published toxicitystudy on hedione (Politano 2008), even though morethan 1,000 metric tons o the ragrance compound areused every year worldwide.

Nine undisclosed chemicals are potential sensitizers orcontact allergens, based on laboratory studies or investiga-tions o human volunteers, including our compoundsthat companies must explicitly list on product labels inthe EU so consumers can avoid them i they choose.

Six undisclosed chemicals are potential hormone dis-ruptors based on published laboratory or epidemiologystudies, including diethyl phthalate, a chemical oundin 97 percent o Americans (Silva 2004) and linked tosperm damage in human epidemiological studies (Swan2008); musk ketone, a synthetic ragrance ingredient thatconcentrates in human at tissue and breast milk (Reiner2007); octinoxate, a sunscreen chemical that may aectestrogen and thyroid hormones (Schlump 2004); andTonalide, a synthetic musk that may interere with estro-gen and androgens (male hormones) (Schreurs 2005).

12 undisclosed chemicals pose other potential healthrisks. For example, in a recently published, two-year studyo laboratory animals, the National Toxicology Programound evidence o carcinogenicity or the ragrance

compound myrcene (NTP 2009), an ingredient in 16o 17 ragrance products assessed in this study. Anotherstudy indicates that inhalation exposure to the ragrancecompound p-cymene is associated with neurotoxicity(reduced density and number o synapses) in laboratoryanimals (Lam 1996). This compound was ound in 11 o17 products.

Some undisclosed ingredients are considered to be GenerallyRecognized As Sae, or GRAS, by FDA (FDA 2004). Othersare added to ood or ood packaging (FDA 2009). But evenor these compounds, in many cases studies are not available

to show that inhaling the compounds rom ragrance sprayswould be sae. For most undisclosed ingredients, very ewtoxicity studies are available. Much o the data that is avail-able, including studies highlighted above and in Appendix D,indicate cause or concern and the need or urther study.

Appendix D provides more details on the uses and hazards oall 38 secret chemicals. Appendix E provides inormation onwhich tested products contain each undisclosed chemical.


15/44


15

Whats behind the label?

Avoiding questionable fragrance ingredients in personal care products, under current laws, is nearly impossible.

Fragrance is found in a wide variety of consumer products including cosmetics and personal care products, cleaning

products, air fresheners, candles, toys and more. Increasingly, personal care products bear claims like natural fra-

grance, pure fragrance or organic fragrance. None of these terms has an enforceable legal denition. All can be

misleading. One study found that 82 percent of perfumes based on natural ingredients contained synthetic fra-

grances (Rastogi 1996). Moreover, just because a fragrance ingredient is derived from a plant or an animal source does

not mean it is safe for everyone, since many all-natural and herbal products contain fragrance allergens (Scheinman

2001). Also, an unscented or fragrance-free personal care product may contain a masking fragrance, a mixture

of chemicals meant to cover up the odor of other ingredients (Scheinman 2000; Steinemann 2009).


16/44


16

Instead, two industry trade associations administer programsthat set voluntary standards, which cosmetic companiesand ragrance houses can choose to ollow or not. TheInternational Fragrance Association (IFRA) sets standardsor chemicals in the ragrance component o products, andthe Personal Care Product Associations (PCPC) CosmeticIngredient Review (CIR) suggests voluntary standards orother cosmetics ingredients in the United States.

CIR:In the absence o government authority, an industry-unded and sel-policing body called the Cosmetic IngredientReview (CIR) Panel vouches or the saety o cosmeticingredients. In the 30 years since its creation, this panel hasonly evaluated 11% o the ingredients used in cosmetics(EWG 2005).The CIR sets voluntary guidelines and does notactively monitor products or compliance.

Even or the ew chemicals it does evaluate, the CIR rarelyevaluates cumulative eect o exposures to toxic cosmeticingredients over a lietime; the aggregate exposure o cosmetic

ingredients in combination with other toxic chemical expo-sures; the timing o exposure which can magniy the harm,particularly or inants and young children; or worker expo-sures in beauty salons and manuacturing plants.

The CIR has assessed only 19 of the 91 ingredients listed onlabels or found in testing, for the 17 products assessed inthis study.

IFRA:IFRA sets voluntary standards or ragrance housesand the manuacturers o ragrance ingredients. The compli-ance program, initiated in 2007, tests ragrance samples or

prohibited ingredients (the program historically has onlylooked at prohibited ingredients and is now beginning to lookat restricted ingredients as well). I there are violations, thesuppliers name is posted on IFRAs website as not complyingwith the IFRA Code o Practice. IFRA has banned or re-stricted approximately 150 ingredients rom ragrance (IFRA2010).

IFRAs recommendations are based on research conducted bythe Research Institute or Fragrance Materials (RIFM). IFRAmembers are given access to a database generated by RIFM that

houses saety inormation and testing gaps on the morethan 3,100 ragrance ingredients used by IFRA members.

IFRA has assessed only 22 of the 91 ingredients listed onlabels or found in testing, for the 17 products assessed inthis study.

Cumulative,lifetimeexposuretocombinationsofchemicals

One-time use o ragrances highlighted in this report maynot cause harm. But cosmetics and personal care productsare used repeatedly and in combination with other consumerproducts that can also contain hazardous chemicals. We are alregularly exposed to various toxic chemicals rom our air, wa-ter, ood and household products. People can also be exposedto the same chemical rom multiple sources.

Regulatory and standard-setting agencies do not oten con-sider the risk to human health o cumulative exposures to thesame chemical rom multiple sources, nor do they considerthe exposures to multiple chemicals rom multiple sources.Research by government agencies, academia and independentorganizations nds widespread human exposure to multiplechemicals (CDC 2009). Yet the health impacts o these expo-sures are largely unstudied and have never been regulated.

Themarketismoving

Some companies agree that it is prudent to restrict or elimi-nate certain hazardous chemicals rom ragrances, such asmusks and phthalates. For example, The Body Shop and

Boots have agreed not to use articial musks and phthalatesin their products (Boots 2005; Body Shop 2008). While theseare only two o many chemicals o concern used in ragrance,this is a step in the right direction that the whole industryshould ollow.

More than 200 companies are also ully disclosing all the in-gredients including ragrance on their ingredient labels, aspart o their commitment to the Compact or Sae Cosmetics,a pledge o saety and transparency. (See Appendix F or a listo these companies.)

Section 4. The Self-Policing Fragrance

Industry

United States cosmetics law does not provide the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the au-thority to require saety testing or ragrances or to approve ragrances prior to their sale. Nor does the

FDA itsel systematically review the saety o cosmetic and ragrance ingredients.


17/44


17

Most people assume the government, in this case the U.S.Food and Drug Administration, regulates cosmetics the sameway it does ood and drugs to ensure they are sae. In reality,cosmetics are one o the least-regulated consumer products on

the market today.

According to the FDAs website (FDA 2009a):

FDAs legal authority over cosmetics is different from otherproducts regulated by the agency, such as drugs, biologics,and medical devices. Cosmetic products and ingredients arenot subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with theexception of color additives.

The FDA urther explains that manuacturers are not re-

quired to register their cosmetic establishments, le data oningredients, or report cosmetic-related injuries to FDA. Tokeep abreast o such inormation, FDA maintains a voluntarydata collection program and depends on voluntary recalls i itis determined that a cosmetic product presents a health hazardor is somehow deective (FDA 2009a).

The lack o ull disclosure regarding the ingredients that makeup ragrance is only one o the problems associated with a $50billion cosmetics industry that is virtually unregulated by theederal government.

The ederal law that governs this enormous industry is a meretwo and a hal pages long and has not been amended signi-cantly since it was enacted 82 years ago. Most o the ragranceand cosmetic ingredients in use today didnt even exist at thetime the law was written.

The United States is ar behind other industrialized coun-tries when it comes to cosmetic saety. To date, the FDA hasbanned or restricted 11 chemicals or use in cosmetics (FDA2009b), in contrast to 1,100 chemicals banned or restricted

rom cosmetics sold in the European Union (EuropeanParliament 2003).

Cosmetic labeling is regulated by a 1973 rule issued underthe Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. The rule requires that acosmetic label bear a declaration o ingredients except favor,ragrance and trade secret ingredients in descending ordero predominance (FDA 1991). This loophole in the FDAcosmetics labeling law not only means that many productscontain hidden hazardous chemicals in ragrance that are notlisted on labels but also that ingredients in proessional salon

products arent required to be labeled at all.

As our test results show, short o sending your avorite perumeto a lab or testing, shoppers have no way o knowing exactlywhich o the 3,100 ragrance ingredients may be hiding in theirbeauty products or even in their childs baby shampoo. Thisstudy ocused on several categories o chemicals specicallyvolatile compounds, semi-volatile compounds and syntheticmusks. The laboratory analyses, while thorough, were notexhaustive, which means that additional chemicals o concernmay also be present in the tested products.

The presence o harmul chemicals in ragrance is just oneexample o why strengthened ederal regulation and oversighto the $50 billion cosmetics industry is so urgently needed.The Campaign or Sae Cosmetics has documented numerousother products that contain harmul ingredients and contami-nants, including lipsticks, nail polish, baby shampoo, sun-screen and others (Campaign or Sae Cosmetics 2010).

Section 5: The Need for Full Disclosure of

Fragrance Ingredients and Strengthened

Regulation of the Cosmetics Industry

Products we put on our bodies should not contain chemicals that could damage our health. Yet due togaping holes in ederal law, it is perectly legal or perumes, colognes, body lotions, shampoos andother cosmetics and personal care products to contain sensitizers, hormone disruptors, reproductive toxi-

cants, carcinogens and other toxic chemicals linked to harmul health eects.


18/44


18

Weneedsaferproductsandsmarterlaws

Comprehensive ederal sae cosmetics legislation is necessaryto give the FDA the authority and resources it needs to ensurecosmetics are ree o toxic chemicals. New health-protectivepolicies are needed to protect the saety and health o the

American people rom toxic, untested and unregulated chemi-cals in the cosmetics and personal care products we buy everyday and should include:

Ingredients linked to cancer and birth deects must bephased out o cosmetics

All ingredients in cosmetics must meet a health-basedsaety standard that includes protections or children andother vulnerable populations.

Pre-market saety assessment o cosmetics ingredients that

includes protections or children and other vulnerablepopulations.

Required listing on product labels o all chemical con-stituent ingredients in personal care products, includingragrances and contaminants.

Health and saety data-sharing to avoid duplicative test-ing and encourage transparency and alternatives to animaltesting.

Access to inormation about hazardous chemicals in cos-metic products and manuacturing practices by workers.

Federal support or the creation o innovative solutionsand sae alternatives to toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

Federal support or small businesses to help them meetederal regulations or saer products.

Adequate unding and support o the FDA Oce oCosmetics and Colors to provide eective oversight o thecosmetics industry.

Helpgivethebeautyindustryamakeover

Heres what you can do to protect yoursel, your loved onesand uture generations rom unnecessary exposure to toxicchemicals in personal care products.

1. ChooseproductswithnoaddedfragranceBy choosing products without ragrance, you can reducetoxic chemical exposures or yoursel and your amily. It isimportant to read ingredient labels, because even prod-ucts advertised as ragrance ree may contain a maskingragrance. Visit our website or tips and resources to helpyou nd saer products, and to link to EWGs Skin Deep:www.saecosmetics.org.

2. LessisbetterI you are very attached to your ragrance, consider elimi-nating other ragranced products rom your routine, andusing ragrance less oten.

3. Helppasssmarter,health-protectivelawsBuying saer, ragrance-ree products is a great start, butwe cant just shop our way out o this problem. In orderor saer products to be widely available and aordable oreveryone, we must pass laws that shit the entire indus-try to non-toxic ingredients and saer production. AskCongress to give the FDA the authority and resources itneeds to ensure the saety o cosmetics and ensure ull dis-closure o ingredients so consumers can make inormedchoices: www.saecosmetics.org/takeaction.

4. Demandthatcosmeticscompaniesfullydisclosein-gredientsandsupportthosethatdoTell cosmetics companies that you want them to ullydisclose the ingredients in the products they make including the chemicals that are hiding under the termragrance. You can nd companies toll-ree customerhotlines on product packages and online, and callingthem only takes only a moment. Weve provided somehelpul talking points on our ragrance report act sheet,which you can nd online at www.saecosmetics.org/not-

sosexy. Companies need to hear rom you, the potentialcustomer you have the power to vote with your dollars!In the meantime, support companies that ully discloseingredients see Appendix F.


19/44


19

The Campaign or Sae Cosmetics commissioned tests o 17brand-name ragrance products targeting a range o chemi-

cals, including volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds.In the United States, 13 scent products were purchased: 10through Amazon.com, two at Longs Drugs/CVS in Berkeley,Caliornia and one through Abercrombie & Fitchs website. Fourproducts were purchased in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: one atAmerican Eagle Outtters, two at Sephora and one at Sears.

Unopened products were sent to Analytical Sciences, an inde-pendent laboratory in Petaluma, Caliornia, or analysis. Thetesting methodology is described below.

Methodologyforlaboratoryanalysis

The laboratory applied slight modications to standardUnited States Environmental Protection Agency methodsEPA 8260 (volatiles) and EPA 8270 (semi-volatiles) or lowerand higher boiling point chemical target compounds. Forsynthetic musks the ollowing paper was used as a guide todevelop a specic sensitive gas chromatography mass spectros-copy method: A.M. Peck, K.C. Hornbuckle, Environ. Sci.Technol., 38, p367-372, 2004.

Volatileandsemi-volatileorganiccompounds:Fragrance

GC/MSmethods:A measured amount o the commercial product was dilutedinto a specic amount o solvent and mixed well. One tove microliters o the solvent was introduced into the gaschromatography mass spectrometer by either a purge and traptechnique or by direct injection. The gas chromatographswere programmed to separate and identiy either volatileorganic compounds (boiling point less than 150 degrees C) orsemi-volatile organic compounds (boiling point greater than150 degrees C).

The mass spectrometers were programmed and optimized to

identiy priority pollutant compounds listed by the UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency. Over 150 chemicalcompounds were investigated. Commonly recognized com-mercial standards were used to optimize the gas chromato-graph and mass spectrometer. The compounds investigatedare listed in EPA method 8260 and 8270.

Signicant chromatographic peaks that were not on thespecic target list were identied by a computerized searcho the National Bureau o Standards (NBS) Mass Spectral

Database containing over 100,000 compounds, by comparingsignicant peaks identied in testing to the NBS database.

Chemicals identied by the NBS library search are consideredto be tentatively identied compared to other identica-tions rom this test program that are conrmed with a specicstandard matching the exact mass spectral pattern and thechromatographic retention time or a compound.

Syntheticmusks:500 milligrams o each sample were weighed to the nearestmilligram and diluted into exactly 5 milliliters o hexane.The diluted samples were mixed well and then injectedinto a very sensitive gas chromatograph mass spectrometer(Agilent 7890 / 5975C) optimized to detect six musk target

compounds using selective ion monitoring to achieve thelowest detection limits possible. Standards or the ollowingsix target musks were utilized to optimize and calibrate theGC/MS instrument: Cashmeran (DPMI), Traseolide (ATII),Galaxolide (HHCB), Tonalide (AHTN), Musk Xylene, MuskKetone. Results or detected musks were reported in units oparts per million (ug/gm or ppm). When necessary, dilutionsand reruns were made to move detected compounds into thelinear calibration range o the instrument. When dilutionswere used or quantitation, detection limits were increased bythe dilution actor.

Methodologyfordataanalysis

The Environmental Working Group analyzed 91 ingredientsin 17 tested products by (1) assessing the ingredients againstdenitive government, academic and industry datasets onchemical toxicity and regulation; and (2) reviewing publicscientic literature available rom the ragrance and cosmeticindustry or contained in the ederal governments PubMedscientic library.

Denitive toxicity and regulatory databases had been previ-

ously compiled by EWG researchers in EWGs Skin Deepcosmetic saety database (www.cosmeticsdatabase.com).These databases summarize scientic inormation on knownand probable carcinogens; reproductive and developmentaltoxicants; substances harmul to the nervous, immune and en-docrine systems; bioaccumulative chemicals that persist in thehuman body; substances toxic to the environment; chemicalsrestricted or use in cosmetics and personal care products;and chemicals regulated by various government agencies.Chemical hazard inormation compiled rom these databases

Appendix A: Research Methodology


20/44


20

serves as the basis or product and ingredient scoring as de-scribed on the Skin Deep About page(http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/about.php).

EWG imported data on all ingredients in the tested ragranceproducts (listed on the label and identied through test-

ing) into EWGs Skin Deep database, and then individuallyreviewed the resulting toxicity proles produced by linkingSkin Deeps toxicity and regulatory databases to the productingredients.

EWG relied on three primary sources to identiy the range osensitizers in tested products: (1) inormation published on thewebsite o the International Fragrance Association, (2) peer-reviewed scientic literature and (3) the European CommissionsScientic Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-FoodProducts (SCCNFP) list o common allergenic substances (publi-

cation SCCNFP/0017/98). The EU list includes 24 chemicalsand two botanical preparations that are allergens or that ormallergenic oxidation products upon storage.Twenty-two o theseEU-recognized 26 sensitizers were ound in the products testedin this study. EWG identied two additional ingredients aspotential sensitizers, linalyl acetate and linalyl anthranilate, whichare derivatives o the known sensitizer linalool (also ound in theproducts tested). In total, EWG identied 24 dierent sensitizersin the tested products.

For identication o potential hormonal disruptors in testedproducts, EWG relied on peer-reviewed scientic publica-

tions. EWG identied an initial list o relevant reerencesrom the Registry o Toxic Eects o Chemical Substances(RTECS) databases and rom PubMed searches. For the 12ingredients identied as having a potential to act as hormonaldisruptors, EWG selected 20 publications rom the openscientic literature as oering the best evidence currentlyavailable on endocrine toxicity or ragrance ingredients.

To determine the number o ingredients in the tested prod-ucts that are associated with voluntary industry standards inthe U.S., EWG analyzed the list o ingredients in ragranceproducts included in this study against the list o cosmet-ics and personal care product chemicals assessed by three

industry organizations: the Cosmetic Ingredient Review(CIR) panel; the International Fragrance Association (IFRA)and the Research Institute or Fragrance Materials (RIFM).Analysis o CIR-reviewed ingredients was based on the ocialCIR publication on its website (http://www.cir-saety.org).Analysis o IFRA-reviewed ingredients was based on the list o

174 substances that have been banned or restricted by IFRAor use in ragrance products by IFRA-member companies,as listed on its website (http://www.iraorg.org/). The list ostudies conducted by the RIFM is not available on its website(http://www.rim.org/) so EWG conducted a PubMed searchor the query Research Institute or Fragrance Materials todetermine which ragrance ingredients RIFM has assessed.For the purposes o this analysis, when an ingredient was notlisted on the IFRA website, but had a corresponding assess-ment rom the RIFM Expert Panel published in the open sci-entic literature, we considered this ingredient in our database

to have been assessed by IFRA. Assessments considered in thisanalysis were those published in the past 25 years.

Following this analysis, EWG identied a total o 35 ingre-dients in the tested products that have not been assessed byCIR, IFRA or RIFM. Eleven o these ingredients are listedon the label, including ve sunscreen chemicals whose saetywhen inhaled rom perume and cologne sprays has not beenassessed. Twenty-ve unassessed ingredients were ound inlaboratory tests but were not disclosed on the label o at leastone product assessed in this study.

EWG conducted a thorough search or saety inormationon unassessed ingredients, including review o governmentdatabases and peer-reviewed publications indexed in PubMedO the 25 ingredients not disclosed on the label, two ingre-dients are listed by FDA in the list o substances GenerallyRecognized As Sae (GRAS) in ood or human consump-tion, while an additional 13 ingredients are listed by FDA assynthetic favoring substances and adjuvants permitted ordirect addition to ood. Many o these have not been assessedor saety in cosmetics. O note, many o the ingredients hadminimal toxicity inormation in the publicly available litera-ture, even or bioaccumulative and potentially endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as synthetic musks.


21/44


21

Diethyl phthalate (DEP), a synthetic solvent common in ra-grance and other personal care products (Hubinger 2006), is aubiquitous pollutant o the human body, ound in 97 percento Americans tested by the U.S. Centers or Disease Controland Prevention (Silva 2004). A series o recent epidemiologi-cal studies has associated DEP with a range o health prob-lems, including sperm damage in men (Hauser 2008).

Testing by the Campaign or Sae Cosmetics ound DEPin 12 o 17 ragrance products tested, in widely rangingconcentrations.

Tests detected higher levels o DEP in the Calvin Kleinbrand than any other brand assessed, with Eternity orWomen and Eternity or Men containing 32,000 and19,000 parts per million (ppm) o DEP, ar above thenext highest level (Victorias Secret Dream Angels Wish,at 15,000 ppm).

Four o ve products or men contained DEP, at levelsranging between 130 ppm (Old Spice Body Spray) and19,000 ppm (Calvin Klein Eternity or Men). O prod-ucts or men, only AXE Deodorant Body Spray (Shock)contained no detectable residues o DEP.

No detectable amounts o DEP were ound in ragrancessold under ve brand names: AXE, Bath & Body Works,Clinique, Dolce & Gabbana and Giorgio Armani.

HealthconcernsrelatedtoDEP

In human epidemiological studies, DEP exposure has beenlinked to adverse eects on the reproductive system:

In a study o 168 men recruited rom the generalpopulation, exposure to DEP was associated with

DNA damage in human sperm (Duty 2003). Findings rom the multi-center Study or Future

Families established a strong correlation between amothers exposure to DEP and other phthalates dur-ing her pregnancy and changes to the development oher baby boys genitals (Swan 2005).

In a study o 130 Danish and Finish inants, scientistsnoted an association between the levels o DEP metabo-lite in the mothers breast milk and alterations in levels omale sex hormones in the baby boys (Main 2006).

In a group o 379 men seeking care at an inertility clinic,exposure to two phthalates, DEP and DEHP, was corre-lated to DNA damage in sperm (Hauser 2007).

A recent study in Mexico associated high levels ourinary DEP and an elevated risk o breast cancer(Lopez-Carrillo 2010).

A study o children ages 4 to 9 years linked childrensbehavior problems to higher maternal exposure to lowmolecular weight phthalates such as DEP (Engel 2010).

Although the human health studies summarized above are

small-scale, pilot investigations that need to be conrmed byollow-up research, their results suggest that exposure to DEPmay be linked to adverse human health eects. In all o thesestudies, scientists compare the risk or the incidence o cer-tain health problems with the levels o phthalate metabolitesdetected in study subjects urine (Silva 2003). This type ostudy design does not allow scientists to establish denitivelyi DEP is the cause o the health problems, but it does providea highly suggestive correlation.

Unlike other phthalates such as di(2-ethylhexyl) phthal-ate (DEHP) and di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), DEP has not

shown signicant toxicity in any animal model, despiteextensive testing (Api 2001). Studies with laboratory animalswhere mice and rats have been ed DEP in their diets did notdetect anatomical changes in the male reproductive system, asestablished or other phthalates (Howdeshell 2008). However,at the highest levels o exposure, DEP has been linked to liverabnormalities, elevated cholesterol (Sonde 2000) and birthdeects (ATSDR 1995). A study published in 2009 reportedthat a metabolite o DEP, monoethyl phthalate, lowered thesperm counts and sperm motility in exposed animals (Kwack2009).

Scientists have not as yet determined the reason or the di-erence between DEP eects in humans and in laboratoryanimals. Importantly, human exposure is primarily dermal(through the skin), while animal testing is oral (in the diet).These dierences in exposure route may have a signicant e-ect on toxicity and genetic interspecies variations may also bea contributing actor (Swan 2008).

Appendix B: Diethyl phthalate (DEP)

Science Review


22/44


22

DEPisfoundinpeoplesbodies

Numerous studies have detected the metabolite o DEP(known as MEP) in peoples urine in males and emales oall ages (Silva 2004). Researchers have also detected DEPin human amniotic luid samples collected during the

second trimester o pregnancy, indicating that the e-tus is exposed to phthalates during critical windows ohormone-driven development (Silva 2004).

HowpeopleareexposedtoDEP

DEP can enter the body through skin contact, inhalation oringestion (Adibi 2003).A survey o 406 men ound thatthose who had used cologne or atershave in the previous48 hours had higher urinary levels o breakdown productso DEP than those who did not (Duty 2005). More than

90 percent o 163 babies studied had breakdown productso DEP and other phthalates in their urine. The inantsphthalate levels correlated with their mothers reported use obaby lotion, powder and shampoo (Sathyanarayaya 2008).

ReviewsofDEPsafety

Some phthalates, but not DEP, are banned in the EuropeanUnion and rom toys in the United States. The InternationalFragrance Association and the Cosmetic Ingredient Reviewpanel take the position that DEP is sae or use in ragrance

and cosmetics (CIR 2009a; CIR 2009b; IFRA 2009). Theseorganizations assessment o DEP saety has not as yet takeninto consideration the recent ndings rom human epide-miological studies that suggest increased risk or reproductivedamage at current levels o exposure.

The Environmental Protection Agency lists DEP as a prior-ity pollutant under the Clean Water Act (USEPA 2002) andDEP toxicity to aquatic species has been reported (Ghorpade2002; Liu 2002). In late 2009, EPA identied phthalates asone o six chemical groups to be considered or regulation as

potentially dangerous substances (USEPA 2009b).

IsDEPinfragrancesafe?

The verdict is still out on the saety o DEP. However, thegrowing body o evidence rom human studies suggests thatmanuacturers should consider using alternative ingredientsuntil urther research proves DEP sae. Importantly, ouranalysis shows that it is possible to make ragrance productswithout DEP.


23/44


23

Synthetic musks are a large, poorly-studied class o chemicalsadded as scents to cosmetics, including perumes, lotions andmany other personal care products. The ew available stud-ies suggest some o these compounds may disrupt hormonesystems or trigger skin sensitization when exposed to UV light(photosensitization) (Parker 1986).

Product tests initiated by the Campaign or Sae Cosmeticsrevealed the widespread use o synthetic musks in perume,cologne and body sprays. Some o the same musks identi-ed in ragrances have also been ound in the cord blood onewborn babies, as well as in blood, breast milk and body at

(EWG 2009).

Testing by the Campaign ound synthetic musks in all 17ragrance products tested.

Five dierent synthetic musk chemicals were detected inthe 17 products altogether, including three that have beendetected in umbilical cord blood rom newborn babies:musk ketone, Galaxolide and Tonalide (TNO 2005;EWG 2009).

Twelve products contained more than one synthetic

musk. Two products each contained our dierent syn-thetic musks: Quicksilver and American Eagle SeventySeven (both purchased in Canada).

Galaxolide, in 15 o 17 products, was the most common oall the musks detected. Ethylene brassylate was next, oundin 10 products. Studies show that Galaxolide contaminatescord blood rom U.S. newborns and may interere withestrogen in the body. The toxicity o ethylene brassylateand its potential to contaminate the human body is largelyunknown. Only three studies in the open scientic litera-ture (PubMed library) mention the chemical.

Two types o musks have been historically used in ragrances,cosmetics and personal care products: nitromusks and poly-cyclic musks. Nitromusks, such as musk ketone, are syntheticscent chemicals whose structure contains nitrogen. Polycyclicmusks such as Galaxolide and Tonalide contain more thanone carbon ring (cycle) in their structure. New types osynthetic musks are developed requently and substitutedor older nitromusks that are being banned or phased out ongrounds o toxicity (USEPA 2007; Hutter 2009). Almost no

studies exist or some musks now commonly used in ra-grance, including ethylene brassylate.

Musk ragrances are produced in high volumes. Industryreported manuacturing or importing between 1 and 10 mil-lion pounds o Galaxolide in 2006 alone (USEPA 2009a).For Tonalide, industry reports indicate that between 1 and10 million pounds were imported or manuactured in 1998,the last year or which reports are available (USEPA 2009a).Due to the ubiquity o these chemicals, environmental studiesrom areas as diverse as the Great Lakes, Germany and Chinadocument widespread Galaxolide and Tonalide contamination

o both resh and marine water samples, air, wastewater andsludge (Chen 2007; Rudel 2006).

Studies report Galaxolide and Tonalide contamination inmany species o wildlie: harbor seals, Caliornia sea lions,river otters, bottlenose dolphins, striped dolphins, pygmysperm whales, Atlantic sharpnose shark, mink, common mer-ganser, greater and lesser scaup, mallard and Atlantic salmon(Kannan 2005).

Typesofmusksfoundinthetestedproducts

All 17 ragrances included at least one o the polycyclic musks Galaxolide, Tonalide and Cashmeran as well as the mac-rocyclic musk ethylene brassylate. Musk ketone, a nitromusk,was detected in one ragrance purchased in Canada. Studiesshow musk ketone may disrupt the endocrine system (Bitsch2002); it has been phased out o many consumer products.

Humanandenvironmentalhealthconcernsrelatedtomusks

Little toxicological inormation is available about musks cur-

rently in commerce. One report links Tonalide to liver toxic-ity (Steenberg 1999). But other reports say Galaxolide andTonalide have low acute toxicity. For lack o currently avail-able adverse evidence, in 2008, the European Union allowedcontinued use o both musks in consumer products (SummaryRisk Assessment 2008). However, a number o in vitro stud-ies with cultured cells suggest that these musks may aect theendocrine system by interering with estrogen, androgen and/orprogesterone hormone receptors (Seinen 1999; Schreurs 2005).Tonalide has been identied as a photosensitizer, a chemical

Appendix C: Science Review for Musk

Fragrances Identified in Tested Products


24/44


24

that becomes more toxic when exposed to sunlight on the skin(EU 2008). A number o studies have ound musks toxic toaquatic lie (Luckenbach 2005; Snell 2009).

Whatdoesthismeanforpeoplewhousefragrancedproducts?

Synthetic musk compounds are persistent environmentalpollutants in aquatic environments. Both nitromusks andpolycyclic musks such as Galaxolide and Tonalide can accu-mulate in the ood chain (Dietrich 2004). The combinationo widespread human exposure, environmental contaminationand persistence raises questions about the saety o their wide-spread use in ragranced products. Reducing the volume oragranced products in daily use could make a signicant di-erence to pollution in people and the environment (Roosens2007).

Several studies have linked personal care products andelevated body levels o dierent musks. A 1996 study oundGalaxolide and Tonalide in body at and breast milk ater useo cosmetics and detergents (Rimkus 1996). Another studydetected Galaxolide in the blood o 91 percent o Austrianstudents. A survey on routes o exposure linked body lotion tohigher Galaxolide concentrations (Hutter 2005; 2009). A sur-vey o 101 women ound that requent use o perume duringpregnancy resulted in elevated concentrations o Galaxolide inbreast milk (Lignell 2008).

Blood tests conducted in Austria detected Galaxolide in89 percent o 53 women over the age o 50 and associatedGalaxolide concentration with requent use o perumes,

deodorants and shampoos. In their publication, the Austrianresearchers posit: These ndings could be due to the higheruse o lotions and crmes on ace and hands and a morerequent use o skin care products because older personsreported more requently dry skin. In addition, physiologicalaging related changes might be responsible or higher dermal

absorption o synthetic musks. (Hutter 2010)

Studies on toxicity o synthetic musks Galaxolide andTonalide:

Endocrinedisruptionpotential

Galaxolide and Tonalide can bind to and stimulate hu-man estrogen receptor when tested by in vitro methods(Seinen 1999). Both musks were also shown to aect theandrogen and progesterone receptors in reporter gene

bioassays (Schreurs 2005). Tonalide has been reported to increase the prolieration

o estrogen-responsive human breast cancer cells (Bitsch2002).

In an assay with genetically modied sh, Galaxolideand Tonalide were shown to exert antiestrogenic eects(Schreurs 2004).

Environmentaltoxicity

Musks have been shown to have high acute toxicity tosh, especially in the early lie stages (Yamauchi 2008).Musks also interere with important detoxication en-zymes in sh (Schnell 2009).

Low concentrations o Tonalide, Galaxolide and othermusks strongly inhibited larval development in commonspecies o crustaceans (Wollenberger 2003).

Exposure o marine mussels to musks reduced the mus-sels ability to protect itsel rom pollutants (Luckenbach2005) and suppressed the growth rate in the larvae and

juveniles (Gooding 2006).

Musks have been found in peoples bodies,including newborns

EWG tests of umbilical cord blood found 7 out of 10

babies had been born with Tonalide and/or Galaxolide

in their blood. Six of 10 samples contained Galaxolide,

four of 10 contained Tonalide and three contained both

musks (EWG 2009).


25/44


25

Ingredient How many

products

contain it?

What is this chemical? Is public safety data available?

Hedione 16 Synthetic fragrance ingredient,one of the most commonly usedin perfumes and colognes, with ajasmine smell. More than 1,000metric tons of hedione is used everyyear worldwide.

Only one published toxicity study is found in the online sci-ence library PubMed, a developmental toxicity study conductedby the New Jersey-based Research Institute for FragranceMaterials, which reported no gross malformations of rat pupsexposed to high doses in utero (Politano 2008).

Myrcene 16 A naturally occurring and syntheti-cally produced scent and avoringchemical, used extensively as anintermediate for production of manyfragrance ingredients.

Ingredient listed in the FDAs Food additives permitted fordirect addition to food for human consumption (21CFR172.515). Myrcene, especially when oxidized upon air expo-sure, can be an irritant and a weak sensitizer. Recently com-pleted 2-year study by the National Toxicology Panel foundthat myrcene had carcinogenic activity in laboratory animals(Kohicheskia 2007; Matura 2005; NTP 2009).

Galaxolide 15 A synthetic polycyclic musk, alsoknown by its chemical name abbre-viation, HHCB.

Studies of Galaxolide are limited to laboratory hormone assaysand tests for the presence of the chemical in the environmentand people. Galaxolide has been reported to interfere withestrogen and androgen (male) hormones. Galaxolide is bioac-cumulative (builds up in the adipose tissue) and has been foundin the bodies of humans, in breast milk and in wildlife (van derBurg 2008).

3,7-dimethyl-1,3,7-octatriene

14 A variant (isomer) of the fragranceand avoring ingredient ocimene, anaturally-occurring scent chemicalfound in essential oils and producedby industrial chemical synthesis.

No public safety data identied. Ingredient listed in the FDAslist of Food additives permitted for direct addition to food forhuman consumption (21CFR 172.515).

Linalylanthranilate

13 An ester of the common fragranceingredient and known sensitizerlinalool.

Ingredient listed in the FDAs Food additives permitted fordirect addition to food for human consumption (21CFR172.515). Public safety data limited to sensitization studies.Oxidation of linalool esters upon storage and air exposure leadsto formation of allergenic oxidation products (Hagvall 2008).

Diethylphthalate

12 A fragrance solvent commonly usedat high concentrations in perfumesand colognes.

Diethyl phthalate has been tested for reproductive systemimpacts and estrogenic activity. The chemical is associated witheffects on the reproductive system in human epidemiological

studies, including sperm damage (Hubinger 2008).

Linalyl acetate 11 An ester of the common fragranceingredient and known sensitizerlinalool.

Ingredient listed in the FDAs list of substances GenerallyRecognized As Safe (21CFR 186.20). Public safety datalimited to sensitization studies. Oxidation of linalool esters uponstorage and air exposure leads to formation of allergenic oxida-tion products (Hagvall 2008).

Gamma-terpinene

11 A naturally occurring and syntheti-cally produced scent and avoringchemical, found in many essentialoils (Chizzzola 2008).

Ingredient listed in the FDAs Food additives permitted fordirect addition to food for human consumption (21CFR172.515).

Appendix D: Secret Chemicals Detected in

Product Testing

Secret ingredients (ound in product testing; not listed on labels)

Source: Environmental Working Group analysis of product labels, product tests commissioned by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the open scientic literature.


26/44


26

Ingredient How many

products

contain it?

What is this chemical? Is public safety data available?

p-cymene(paracymene)

11 A naturally occurring and syntheti-cally produced scent and avoringchemical; used in manufacture of

musks. Known under the names p-cymene and p-isopropyl-toluene.

Ingredient listed in the FDAs Food additives permitted fordirect addition to food for human consumption (21CFR172.515). Inhalation exposure associated with neurotoxicity

(reduced density and number of synapses) in laboratory animals(Bohl 1999).

2,6-dimethyl-7-octen-2-ol

10 A synthetic solvent and a mask-ing ingredient that does not occurin nature; commonly included incleaning and deodorizing (ai

not so sexy: hidden chemicals in perfume and cologne

Documents