Let's just ignore that and have the discussion then.
Here is an excerpt from a scientific magazine- I'm copy and pasting so that people who are link-averse see it:
- Cosmetics
The (Unfounded) Scare: Cosmetics, and more specifically the parabens found in many types, can mimic the hormone estrogen within the body and lead to an increased risk of cancer, especially breast cancer.
Origin of the Scare: Activists have complained that cosmetics are largely under-regulated and require greater federal oversight. Pandering to these activist pleas, over the summer Congress introduced the Safe Cosmetics Act in the House of Representatives. Sponsored largely by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) ? a splinter group borne from the EWG dedicated to scaring the public about the so-called carcinogens they find in cosmetics ? the bill calls for cosmetic companies to supply the FDA with more product information than is currently required. This includes more details about the ingredients used and extra safety data assessments. In addition, CSC is requesting a database that classifies cosmetics into three categories based on ingredients: prohibited, restricted and safe without limits.
Media Coverage: In July, Siobhan O?Connor and Alexandra Sprunt published the book No More Dirty Looks: The Truth About Your Beauty Products and the Ultimate Guide to Safe and Clean Cosmetics, which is chock-full of inaccurate data. The authors frequently cite the notorious EWG for insight even though our research found only one member of the EWG board possesses scientific credentials.
Lawrence Meyers rebukes O?Connor?s and Sprunt?s novel and aptly spots the many gaps in their anti-cosmetic claims in a September op-ed for Big Journalism: ?When it comes to the alleged toxicity of perfumes and fragrances, there?s nothing worse than non-scientists eschewing readily-available scientific research in favor of village idiocy found on the internet, publishing their ?findings? in a book, and metastasizing their contaminated thinking across millions of viewers via a network morning show.?
Soon enough, actress Fran Drescher publicly sponsored the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and launched her own line of beauty products called ?FranBrand.? Ms. Drescher believes her ointments are non-toxic, yet they contain ingredients like retinyl plamitate and phenoxyethanol ? all classified as carcinogens on EWG?s Skin Deep website.
ACSH Perspective: ?If the system is inadequate, why have 80 fragrance ingredients been prohibited from being put into any product, and 83 restricted?? asks Mr. Meyers as he criticizes the need for greater oversight in a system that is already adequate. ??[T]hey insist on their toxicity by saying the system in place, ?doesn?t guarantee your safety.? Of course it doesn?t! No system guarantees our safety! Cars aren?t safe. Neither are planes. Neither is fast food. Nor are open umbrellas waved around in lightning storms,? Mr. Meyers contends in opposing the dubious health claims made by Ms. O?Connor and Ms. Sprunt in their book.
In an October 18 Dispatch, Dr. Ross notes, ?They fail to understand that we are all made of chemicals, and our food is made of chemicals. Further, no one has ever shown any actual risk of harm from the regular use of cosmetics. EWG and their various lists of dangers are meant solely to scare us and gain adherents for their anti-chemical, anti-business agenda.?
In a July op-ed for the Montreal Gazette, Dr. Joseph A. Schwarcz, director of McGill?s Office for Science and Society, debunks one of EWG?s widely promoted myths that retinyl palmitate, a common sunscreen additive, causes cancer. ?EWG does have some expert consultants, but its greatest expertise lies in garnering publicity for its pronouncements about toxins in our environment. The group also has expertise in the construction business, at least when it comes to making mountains out of molehills.?
The Bottom Line: The appropriate level of regulatory supervision has already been instituted to ensure the safety of cosmetics, and greater control in this arena is unnecessary and unwarranted. The trace levels of so called carcinogens found in cosmetics that activist groups attack are not associated with actual adverse health effects in humans.