When you got ready this morning, chances are you used at least one cosmetic. Figures suggest that’s it’s more likely that you used at least five (if you’re a man), or maybe even 12 (if you’re a woman). A quick poll around the office reveals it’s likely even higher still. But before using those cosmetics, did you stop to examine the ingredients list? Do those products even have ingredients lists?

Certainly, cosmetics products released onto the market are subject to strict controls issued by controlling bodies (the EU Cosmetics Directive, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, etc), and prolific internet myths – like the story that lipstick contains deadly amounts of lead – are exactly that: myths. However, consumer groups, environmentalists and scientists alike are growing increasingly concerned about the cumulative effects of chemicals like endocrine disruptors and toxic substances like phthalates, which are prevalent in cosmetics.

Phthalates are plasticisers, used to add texture and lustre to cosmetics (but are also prolific in things like adhesives, toys and medical products), and are a big source of controversy. In 2002, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in partnership with Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) published a comprehensive report entitled ‘Not Too Pretty: Phthalates, Beauty Products & the FDA’. The report revealed that women of childbearing age receive far greater exposure to dibutyl phtlatae (DBP), in some cases up to 20 times that of the population average. The highest exposures were well above the federal safety standard.

Dr Lynne Frostick, Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Hull, gave a talk about these concerns at the Society of Cosmetic Scientists’ Inaugural Lecture. “The important thing to realise”, she says, “is that each individual product on its own is not going to do anything critical. But it’s about diffuse pollution; how these products are used by individuals is not controllable, and it’s the cumulative effect – how the chemicals build up, how they work together – that is the worry. We just don’t know enough about the effects.”

Indeed, what is known does not paint an attractive picture. ‘Not Too Pretty’ illustrates the potential damage phthalates can have on reproductive organs, with animal tests indicating testicular atrophy, ectopic testes and reduced sperm count. There have even been links noted between phthalates and cancer. This is by no means indicative of a causal relationship, of course, but research of this nature was enough to cause the Danish government to ban toys containing phthalates in 1998, and following an EWG report in 2000, make up company Urban Decay reformulated its entire nail polish range, removing DBP and publically calling on other companies to also “eliminate this dangerous chemical from their formulas”.

But it’s not just our bodies that are affected by this potential pollutant; the environment is also under threat. Phthalates have been found in jellyfish as deep as 3,000 feet below sea level, and traces of personal care products have been found in fish in US waterways: ‘We found the highest concentrations and frequencies of compounds in the fish livers’, states research by Baylor University, before noting that both fish and human livers metabolise xenobiotics in the same manner. Furthermore, research conducted by Tobias Porsbring of the Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, has demonstrated that chemicals assumed to be non-toxic in isolation can pose an environmental risk when combined with other chemicals, affecting algae along coasts and the balance of the ocean’s delicate ecosystem. Similarly, nanotechnology – the science used to shrink chemical particles to 100 nanometers wide (roughly 1/100,000 the thickness of a sheet of paper) – has caused a stir. Nanoparticles are able to penetrate the skin faster and more deeply than regular chemicals, but campaigners claim that the environmental and health impacts of these ‘penetration enhancers’ are unknown, which is grounds for caution.

The presence of these chemicals in fish only serves to exacerbate the problem, says Frostick: “In addition to these chemicals being used in cosmetic form, they’re in the water, and there’s a danger that – because they accumulate in fats – they’re building up in the food chain too, and we’re just not aware of the critical potential problems this will incur.”

However, many scientists are quick to discredit the theories, claiming that these chemicals in fish and indeed humans are present only in trace amounts – parts per billion akin to one grain of sugar in an Olympic-sized swimming pool – and that just because we know little about the matter, we don’t necessarily have cause for concern. “‘The cocktail effect’ is a phrase used by the media”, says Independent Toxicologist Dr John Hoskins. “But when you ignore the scare stories and get to the science, you’ll find that the reality of ‘the cocktail effect’ is that it’s terribly difficult to prove, and there are so few examples that it probably doesn’t actually occur. There are occasions when it’s an issue, but what they are, we don’t know.”

As demonstrated by the ‘Not Too Pretty’ report, many cosmetics companies manufacture and market similar products under different branding, some with, some without chemicals like phthalates. Maybelline Ultimate Wear Nail Enamel, for example, was found to contain phthalates, whereas Maybelline Shades of Your Nail Color, did not. The same was true of many brands of shampoo, hand and body lotion, cleanser and hairspray.

“They’re not really necessary”, says Dr Frostick, “but they do improve the performance of the product. Therefore people think that they’re getting a better look, and don’t really consider the products’ ingredients. Until there’s concrete research in place to personalise the effects of these products, people won’t change their behaviour. And there hasn’t been any concrete research undertaken yet because we’re not at a critical point. Yes, there are problems, but nobody has stepped up and said ‘This is vital and it needs addressing now’.”

And until it is addressed, what’s the alternative? Natural and organic cosmetic companies would have you believe they have the answer, but this, too, is a minefield of controversy. Despite stringent controls in place for the certification of organic food, organic and natural cosmetics need contain only one per cent of natural ingredients (in some cases alongside the very chemicals people are seeking to avoid) to be able to brandish the buzzwords on their packaging.

Organic cosmetics can also have a negative environmental impact in that they don’t last as long as ‘regular’ products (so are more likely to end up in the bin), and their ingredients may not always come from sustainable sources. Paul Crawford, Head of Regulator Services at the Cosmetics, Toiletry & Perfumery Association (CTPA) says that a cradle-to-grave approach is needed when assessing the validity of organic and natural cosmetics: “You have to consider the factors in growing, transporting, disposing – it doesn’t always make it better for the environment. Take rose oil, for example. The number of petals needed to make a concentrate is large. You need thousands of petals for a very small amount. Are those roses sustainably sourced?” This, he says, is where the science involved in ‘regular’ cosmetics actually works in favour of the environment. “In the lab we’re able to recreate rose oil without the environmental expense of harvesting thousands of roses.”

So what’s the solution? Consumers are faced with a choice between potentially harmful cosmetics, or organic and natural products that may well be anything but. “What is needed is a bit of group thought”, says Dr Frostick. “Companies need to realise that while their part might not do anything harmful, the cumulative effects of the industry will. However, the industry is pretty much entirely demand-driven, and so unless legislation is put in place governing the use of the term ‘organic’, or phthalates are eradicated from cosmetics entirely, it’s down to the consumer.”

But while some controversial ingredients are specifically advertised on the product – aluminium, for example, which breast cancer patients should avoid – it seems consumers have little option but to trust in the cosmetics industry, and hope that adequate research is undertaken before any potentially damaging long-term effects of these chemicals are felt. “We need more knowledge”, says Dr Frostick. “Information needs to be freely available, but we just don’t have it.”