Global News

The 6 kinds of GKS's LC products do not contain the ingredient "PFAS"!

The 6 kinds of GKS's LC products do not contain "per-and-polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS for short".
(As of 2023, the United States and Europe began to regulate that ingredient.)

There is related foreign news below.

The global market for cosmetics—makeup, skincare, perfumes, deodorants, hair products, shampoos, conditioners and more—continues to boom, growing to 16.2 percent in 2022, up by 4.6 percentage points from the previous year, according to a report by Statista. The increase in these products means more widespread exposure to so-called “forever-chemicals”—per-and-polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS for short—that have been linked to a plethora of different diseases, including cancer, hormonal disruptions, weakened immune systems, and reproductive issues. A 2021 study led by researchers at Notre Dame ran tests on 231 cosmetic products, and found PFAS in nearly half of them.

The presence of dangerous chemicals in consumer products isn’t exactly news, but “forever chemicals” live up to their nickname. “PFAS are called ‘forever chemicals’ for a reason,” Brian Moore, a dermatologist based in Cleveland and an adviser for supplements company Illuminate Labs, told The Daily Beast. “They take extremely long to naturally degrade, and for that reason can damage natural ecosystems and can even affect non-consumers exposed through environmental contamination.”

How has this been allowed to happen? The cosmetics and beauty industry is, notoriously, unregulated by the FDA, allowing companies free rein to create products at their discretion, hiding weird chemicals under the broad umbrella of “fragrance,” given that a brand’s fragrance involves its “trade secret.”

The FDA is aware of PFAS, why they are used in cosmetics, and the potential harm posed by these chemicals. Yet the agency only cites one study from 2018 on its website, noting that “studies are limited.” That’s in spite of the fact that a quick search on Google Scholar for “PFAS studies” since 2019 yields about 17,000 results.

Right now, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act “​​does not require that cosmetic manufacturers or marketers test their products for safety,” and does allow ingredients “accepted by the FDA” to be exempt from public disclosure and stated as “and other ingredients” on cosmetics labeling and packaging.

“PFAS can give skin a glossy sheen, so they're intentionally added to cosmetics for that effect.” — Brian Moore, Illuminate Labs

Makeup products marketed as “waterproof,” “long-lasting,” or “wear-resistant” are especially likely to contain fluorine, a main component and indicator of any PFAS, as found by researchers in 2021. The same study found high levels of fluorine in 63 percent of foundations, 55 percent of lip products, and 82 percent of waterproof mascaras.

“PFAS can give skin a glossy sheen, so they’re intentionally added to cosmetics for that effect,” explained Moore. The popularity of durable makeup that can outlast the day’s sweat and the city’s grime means there is more demand for all-day wear, fueling the increase of PFAS in these products.

With the FDA’s promise to “monitor” PFAS in cosmetics, it seems, at this moment, that the onus is on the consumer to decide what might be safest for their skin.

But this Wild West of PFAS isn’t likely to last. Just last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed new, first-of-their-kind regulations that would ban six of the most researched PFAS from drinking water. The European Chemical Agency, an agency of the European Union responsible for regulating chemicals, was first to publish a PFAS restriction proposal earlier this year. Both of these moves signal a growing pressure to protect consumers from PFAS.

Morales explained that there are two main pathways forward in reducing the public health harms caused by PFAS: one focused on filtering out already existing PFAS from the environment, and one focused on replacing the PFAS in products with alternatives.

Last year in a public briefing, Morales and his team identified three PFAS alternatives to give consumers and companies a specific idea of how products could be made without them. These included organic and vegan cosmetics; strollers and car seats made without waterproof, PFAS-carrying materials (instead, made with cork and recyclable PET); and running industrial applications without using PFAS-contaminated parts.

original article : https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-quest-to-purge-cosmetics-of-cancer-causing-pfas-or-forever-chemicals