Cosmetics: Consumers' Choice; Consumers' Policy

Item

Title

Eng Cosmetics: Consumers' Choice; Consumers' Policy

Date

2018

Creator

Eng Boome, Malena

Subject

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text

Cosmetics: Consumers’ Choice;
Consumers’ Policy

by
Malena Boome

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2018

©2018 by Malena Boome. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Malena Boome

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

________________________
Edward A. Whitesell, Ph. D.
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date

ABSTRACT
Cosmetics: Consumers’ Choice; Consumers’ Policy
Malena Boome
Human exposure to toxins happens in a variety of ways in people’s daily lives. Most of
these toxins are known; however, one source of toxic chemical exposure may be coming from a
lesser-known place, from cosmetics. Cosmetics policy in the United States under the authority of
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is often referred to as much more relaxed than in other
similarly developed countries such as those in the European Union. This thesis researches
whether or not current cosmetics policy in the United States matches the opinions and
perceptions of the consumers the policy is in place to protect. As of now, there is information
coming from professional parties such as politicians, cosmetic companies, and scientists that
inform the current cosmetics policy in the United States. This research concludes that
consumer’s opinions and perceptions do not align with current cosmetics policy in the United
States. Natural cosmetics were seen as a viable alternative to conventional cosmetics in the
United States, and this research explores barriers that may be disconnecting consumers from
purchasing these products. This research conducted an online survey that asked questions
regarding opinions on current policies, as well as natural cosmetics and policy suggestions that
have been made by researchers and cosmetic safety advocacy groups. The survey results showed
that there are several potential barriers preventing consumers from purchasing natural cosmetics
and additionally answered the research question that consumer opinions and perceptions do not
currently align with cosmetics policy in the United States. Based on these findings, consumerinformed natural marketing suggestions and policy change suggestions were included as the
conclusion of this thesis. In an attempt to demonstrate what consumers truly desire from their
cosmetics policy, these suggestions were made by the consumers, for the consumers.

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION TO THESIS ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Research Question ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Significance ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Practical and Theoretical Application ............................................................................................................. 3
Roadmap of Thesis .......................................................................................................................................... 4
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Definitions ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Human Health; Cosmetics and Different Uses Among Different Demographics ......................................... 10
Overview of Current United States Cosmetics Policy ................................................................................... 12
Overview of Cosmetics Policy in Other Countries........................................................................................ 13
RECENT COSMETICS REGULATION ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES .................................................................... 14
H.R. 1385 Safe Cosmetic and Personal Care Products Act of 2013 ............................................................. 14
S. 1014 – Personal Care Safety Act .............................................................................................................. 15
H.R. 575 – Cosmetic Modernization of 2017 ................................................................................................ 16
Individual State Cosmetic Ingredient Policies............................................................................................... 18
COSMETIC INGREDIENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................ 18
Endocrine Disrupting Chemical’s Impact on Wildlife .................................................................................. 18
Microbeads .................................................................................................................................................... 17
CONCLUSION TO INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................................................................. 21
INTRODUCTION TO LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 21
POTENTIALLY TOXIC INGREDIENTS IN COSMETICS .............................................................................................. 22
Parabens ........................................................................................................................................................ 22
Phthalates ...................................................................................................................................................... 24
Mineral Oil .................................................................................................................................................... 26
Lead ............................................................................................................................................................... 27
Overexposure to Potentially Toxic Ingredients ............................................................................................. 28
IN DEPTH COSMETICS POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES AND ELSEWHERE............................................................. 29
Labeling Laws ............................................................................................................................................... 29
Cosmetic Safety Testing Regulations ............................................................................................................ 30
NATURAL COSMETICS IN THE UNITED STATES .................................................................................................... 33
The Price of Natural Cosmetics Products ...................................................................................................... 34
Greenwashing and Corporate Social Responsibility ..................................................................................... 36
Consumer Perceived Inferiority of Natural Products .................................................................................... 39
Unresponsiveness to Racial Diversity Natural Cosmetics Products and Natural Cosmetics Marketing ....... 39
Raising Awareness through Popular Culture ................................................................................................. 41
COSMETICS AND CONSUMERS ............................................................................................................................. 43
Consumers as Policy Decision Makers ......................................................................................................... 43
Consumers in the Marketplace ...................................................................................................................... 44
CONCLUSION TO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................................................... 45
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ............................................................................................ 50
INTRODUCTION TO METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS .............................................................................................. 50
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................... 50
Identification of Methods .............................................................................................................................. 50

iv

Identification of Target Population ............................................................................................................... 51
Conducting the Survey .................................................................................................................................. 52
Identifying Survey Questions ........................................................................................................................ 54
SURVEY QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 54
Questions Identifying Demographics ............................................................................................................ 55
Questions Identifying Use of Cosmetics ....................................................................................................... 55
Questions Identifying Current Knowledge .................................................................................................... 56
Questions Identifying Opinions on Current Cosmetics Policies ................................................................... 56
Questions Identifying Practices Regarding Natural Cosmetics ..................................................................... 57
Questions Identifying Opinions on Suggested Policy Changes ..................................................................... 58
DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................. 59
LIMITATIONS IN THIS STUDY ............................................................................................................................... 59
Breadth of Research ...................................................................................................................................... 59
Potential for Bias ........................................................................................................................................... 59
RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 61
Questions Identifying Demographics Results ............................................................................................... 62
Questions Identifying Use of Cosmetics Results........................................................................................... 66
Questions Identifying Current Knowledge .................................................................................................... 68
Questions Identifying Opinions on Current Cosmetics Policies Results ....................................................... 71
Questions Identifying Practices Regarding Natural Cosmetics Results ........................................................ 73
Questions Regarding Opinions on Suggested Policy Changes ..................................................................... 77
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 82
CHAPTER 4 – DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 83
INTRODUCTION TO DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 83
RESEARCH QUESTION RESTATED ........................................................................................................................ 83
DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................................... 84
Questions Identifying Demographics Discussion .......................................................................................... 84
Questions Identifying Use of Cosmetics Discussion ..................................................................................... 85
Questions Identifying Current Knowledge Discussion ................................................................................. 86
Questions Identifying Opinions on Current Cosmetics Policies Discussion ................................................. 87
Questions Identifying Practices Regarding Natural Cosmetics Discussion .................................................. 88
Questions Identifying Practices Regarding Natural Cosmetics Discussion .................................................. 90
CONCLUSION TO DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 91
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 92
INTRODUCTION TO CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 92
NATURAL COSMETICS MARKETING SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CONSUMER FEEDBACK........................................ 92
UNITED STATES POLICY CHANGE SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CONSUMER OPINIONS ............................................ 94
ADDITIONAL POLICY CHANGE SUGGESTIONS BY THE AUTHOR
CONCLUSION TO THESIS...................................................................................................................................... 98
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 100

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................. 114

v

List of Figures
DEMOGRAPHIC RESPONSE DATA OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS ............................................................ 62
Figure 1.1 – Question 2 .................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 1.2 – Question 3 .................................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 1.3 – Question 4 .................................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 1.4 – Question 5 .................................................................................................................................... 65
USE OF COSMETICS RESPONSE DATA FROM SURVEY PARTICIPANTS .............................................. 66
Figure 2.1 – Question 6 .................................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 2.2 – Question 7 .................................................................................................................................... 67
CURRENT KNOWLEDGE RESPONSE DATA FROM SURVEY PARTICIPANTS ..................................... 68
Figure 3.1 – Question 8 .................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 3.2 – Question 9 .................................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 3.3 – Question 11 .................................................................................................................................. 70
SURVEY PARTICIPANT RESPONSE DATA OPINIONS ON CURRENT COSMETICS POLICIES ........ 71
Figure 4.1 – Question 10 .................................................................................................................................. 71
Figure 4.2 – Question 12 .................................................................................................................................. 72
SURVEY PARTICIPANT RESPONSE DATA OPINIONS ON NATURAL COSMETICS ............................ 73
Figure 5.1 – Question 13 .................................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 5.2 – Question 14 .................................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 5.3 – Question 15 .................................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 5.4 – Question 16 .................................................................................................................................. 76
SURVEY PARTICIPANT RESPONSE DATA OPINIONS ON POLICY CHANGE SUGGESTIONS ......... 77
Figure 6.1 – Question 17 .................................................................................................................................. 77
Figure 6.2 – Question 18 .................................................................................................................................. 78
Figure 6.3 – Question 19 .................................................................................................................................. 79
Figure 6.4 – Question 20 .................................................................................................................................. 80
Figure 6.5 – Question 21 .................................................................................................................................. 81

vi

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the magnificent people who have helped me through this entire
process. A special thank you to Dr. Frances Solomon from my undergraduate career at Evergreen
Tacoma campus. You instilled a passion for toxicology research in the cosmetics field that
ultimately led me to create this thesis and I am forever grateful for you. Thank you to my thesis
reader, Ted Whitesell, you were so very patient and helpful, even while dealing with my difficult
nature. Your honesty and constructive criticism were exactly what I needed to make this work
meaningful and to help me grow as a researcher. Thank you to my siblings Kayla, Araquin and
Thayden, you all keep me sane and silly and I love you all so much. Thank you to my best
friend, Jenny, you reminded me to have fun while writing this thesis and you made good on this
mantra. Thank you to my boyfriend Eli, you have been so supportive and encouraging while
watching me through every stage of this process and I am so lucky to have such an amazing and
loving partner. Thank you to my dad, an MES alumni who I must have gotten my passion for the
environment from. You were so uplifting throughout my entire time here in the MES program
and living proof that I was going to make it out okay. Last but not least, thank you to my mom.
You are as great an editor as you are a mom and friend (amazing), I could not have done this
without you. Thank you for reminding me every step of the way that I am doing great and to just
keep pushing along and I will make it through this. Thank you all so much. You all keep me
grounded and I am the luckiest girl in the world to have such wonderful people by my side.

vii

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION TO THESIS
Human exposure to toxic chemicals occurs on a daily basis around the world. These
pollutants range from those found in food that use pesticides (Nicolopoulou-Stamati, Maipas,
Kotampasi, Stamatis, & Hens, 2016) and even in the water people drink, often containing trace
amounts of lead and added fluoride (Sawan et al., 2010). Pollutants are prevalent in the air
everyone breathes as toxic chemicals are released from manufactured machines, household
products, and everywhere in-between (Cormier, Lomnicki, Backes, & Dellinger, 2006; Smith &
Lourie, 2009). Most of these exposures are known risks; they are understood to impact human
health potentially; and these are generally accepted as compromises. However, some risks may
not be as well known; there is not much thought given to the omnipresent toxic chemicals in
cosmetics (Atkinson & Kim, 2015; Watnick, 2014).
Cosmetics contain many ingredients that are known to negatively impact human health,
yet, there is currently not much regulation in the United States to control the use of these
ingredients in cosmetic products (Watnick, 2014). The result is consumers are subjected to
chemicals in ways that may not be coupled with awareness or even understanding, yet there is an
expectation of trust due to scientific research and the credence of these experts. According to
Hodges (2015), “The main distributors of discourse about chemicals are corporations and
governmental organizations. Thus, [consumers are] receiving health messages that are
economically and politically motivated, not necessarily health-motivated” (p. 630). Based on this
idea of consumer exclusion, this thesis research aims to understand and implement consumer
opinions of cosmetic regulation in the United States. This research ultimately concludes that

1

consumer’s opinions and perceptions do not align with current cosmetics policy in the United
States.
Research question
Do the existing U.S. policies that have been designed to protect consumers from harmful
chemicals in cosmetics match the expectations and perceptions held by cosmetics consumers
about the regulations in place to protect them?
Significance
The current analyses surrounding cosmetics that inform this thesis do not directly
consider consumer opinions or the expectations from these policies. These areas of study include
the analysis of cosmetics policies and regulations and cosmetic industry practices in the United
States including the use of potentially harmful ingredients in cosmetics. The survey conducted
for this thesis informs a proposed policy recommendation based on consumer opinions of current
policy and proposed policies. Policy recommendations considering the opinions based on both
the gaps of knowledge and knowledge of the consumers may help provide a more modern,
inclusive, and appropriate regulation practices and policy of cosmetics in the United States.
This research fills a gap in the literature by providing results from a survey of consumer and
general public opinion then using that to propose policy rather than based off of strict scientist
informed and policymaker opinions. The opinions section of this research is used for discussion
on the significance of consumer and general public opinion and its relation to policy in this
particular survey.

2

Practical and Theoretical Application
Within the current literature about the regulation of cosmetics in the United States, most
of this research concludes that the United States lacks regulation that many other developed
countries have. The existing research focuses mainly on the opinions of scholars, politicians,
regulatory agencies, and cosmetics companies. The gap this research fills is the relation of
consumers and their opinions and perceptions surrounding the policy. This research considers the
significance of public opinion and policy, and how public opinion could inform a more
representative policy in the United States. Furthermore, this research seeks to suggest that
consumers can reach out to companies for what they expect from their products and cosmetics
company practices.
Within the current literature and analysis of policy, the suggestions rely on policy change
to happen based on the findings of scientists who study cosmetic ingredients. The research
suggests to the policymakers that the findings around chemical exposure and health to back it
should be considered when changing policy (Watnick, 2014). The literature also analyzes current
and recent policy proposals brought forward by politicians to the House of Representatives or
various other platforms (H.R. 1385, 2013).
The research in this thesis will be using the perceptions and opinions of consumers and
the average citizen regarding cosmetics policy in the United States. The use of collecting and
analyzing perceptions took place with the intention of involving citizens in decisions that impact
their lives. Studies showing perceptions of consumers about specific products can lead to change
in business practices by expressing favorable or unfavorable opinions on perceived practices
such as green-washing, price, and diversity (Nyilasy, Gangadharbatla, & Paladino, 2014). This
idea will be used in this thesis as perception and opinion of policy and then ultimately a

3

suggestion for better marketing/ manufacturing practices as well as cosmetics policy to match
consumer perception and opinions.
Common methodological approaches in the current literature include case studies, policy
analysis, policy comparison, scientific research, toxicology research, and biological impact
research. While this thesis uses these findings to inform this thesis’s methodology, the research
in this thesis has taken a different approach by involving consumers to measure various aspects
such as opinions on current policy, current knowledge, and opinions on proposed policy changes.
These findings have been used to analyze further whether policy changes are necessary. This
idea differs significantly from current research as, again, the current literature primarily focuses
on the opinions and actions of the professionals and excludes the opinions and ideas of the
average cosmetics consumer.
Roadmap of Thesis
This thesis starts in Chapter 1 – Introduction, by familiarizing the reader of thesis details
in more broad terms. The chapter discusses background information such as the history of
cosmetics policy in the United States as well as the success of the cosmetics industry in the
United States today. The chapter continues, discussing human health concerns from potentially
toxic ingredients in cosmetics, cosmetics policy and regulation in other countries, and recent
cosmetics policy proposals in the United States. This chapter also addresses some environmental
concerns such as the use of microbeads in personal care products, as well as the impact that some
potentially toxic ingredients may have on wildlife. This chapter also includes recent popular
culture events to achieve change for safe cosmetics.
The thesis continues onto Chapter 2 – Review of the Literature, which discusses the
different concerns of researchers and scientific findings of some of the many potentially toxic

4

ingredients often included in cosmetics in the United States such as parabens, phthalates, lead,
and mineral oil. The literature review continues, discussing policy suggestions that researchers
and safe cosmetics advocacy groups would like to see and the opposing ideas on why these
changes are not happening. The literature review will then talk about the current climate of
cosmetics, and cover topics such as natural cosmetics successes and failures, natural product
marketing, and the importance of consumer opinion and the power consumers have to enact
policy change.
Chapter 3 – Methodology and Results, provides the methodology and results of this
thesis. The methodology for this research included a 21-question survey conducted on Survey
Monkey, shared via Facebook. Questions posed were based on current policy change suggestions
by other researchers and scientists that suggest policy change. This survey received 340 complete
responses that were further analyzed using descriptive statistics. For example, in instances where
more than half of the participants chose an answer in any of the questions, it was considered the
decision that those answer choices would be the ones suggested in the policy change suggestions
based on consumer opinion as well as natural cosmetic marketing suggestions for cosmetics
companies.
Chapter 4 – Discussion, discusses the individual question results of the survey. The
discussion includes some possible reasons why answer choices were chosen and what those
choices indicate for consumer opinions and policy change suggestions. The discussion also
indicates expected or surprising findings from the survey. The chapter discusses all significant
findings from the survey.
Chapter 5 – Conclusion, discusses the entire thesis findings from the introduction,
literature review, methodology, results, and discussion. These integral parts of the thesis will be

5

discussed, demonstrating the significance of the research. The conclusion will include natural
cosmetics marketing change suggestions as well as policy change suggestions, all based on the
results of the survey by identifying current consumer knowledge and opinions.

BACKGROUND
According to Forbes, cosmetics are a multibillion-dollar industry, and growing (Sorvino,
2017). Policy around cosmetics is a relatively new development. Up until the early 1900s, there
were no regulations around cosmetics in the United States. Women are the primary consumers in
the United States making up anywhere from 70-80% of all consumer purchases, as such they are
the primary consumers of many cosmetics as well. Due to high consumption of cosmetics,
women may be disproportionally exposed to potentially toxic ingredients in their cosmetics
(Brennan, 2015; Yang, 2016). In the past, many women have experienced adverse effects from
their cosmetics containing toxic ingredients, such as the Lash Lure eyelash dye in 1933 that
caused a woman by the name of Mrs. Brown to lose her eyes, and produced dozens of other
tragedies for numerous women. This disastrous event was not the only situation in which harm to
consumers occurred due to a lack of regulation to prevent it. Around this time, a similarly
devastating incident occurred due to a lack of drug regulation. The use of a popular drug Elixir
Sulfanilamide caused the death of over 100 people in 1937. Elixir Sulfanilamide was used for a
variety of ailments from gonorrhea to a sore throat, and the FDA could not take the product off
shelves. The only regulation at the time was from the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, and this
failed consumers when the Elixir Sulfanilamide event occurred, and there was still no cosmetics
regulation to prevent events like those from the Lash Lure eyelash dye (Akst, 2013; Kawalek,
2005; Tousley, 1941; Watnick, 2014).

6

The people of the United States demanded change to prevent more calamities from toxic
drugs and cosmetics. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was only minimally directive. The act
only had requirements for manufacturers to put a warning label on products if they contained
potentially harmful ingredients such as alcohol and opium. Furthermore, the Act established the
FDA’s duty to pursue and establish proof a product is unsafe before recall takes place (Sobel,
2002; Watnick, 2014). After so many incidents as a result of unregulated cosmetics, and
coincidentally after women gained the right to vote in 1920, the Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act
was enacted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1938 (Watnick, 2014).
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was the first time cosmetics had ever
been under regulation, and their regulation was not as strict as it was for the food and drugs
(Tousley, 1941). The regulation required that all known dangerous cosmetics be banned (e.g.,
Lush Lash eyelash dye) and that those cosmetics containing ingredients that may be harmful
should be labeled as such. This act banned obvious dangerous cosmetics and ingredients and did
not particularly include any specific ingredients of restriction. This act was the long awaited
regulation that ensured the disallowance of obviously poisonous cosmetics or cosmetic
ingredients. Before this, no such laws or regulations existed and these dangerous cosmetics and
ingredients were unregulated and technically allowed for use. Such ingredients included thallium
acetate, which was also used as a rat poison and other cosmetics contained ingredients like
mercury at dangerously high levels, causing horrific effects (Eschner, 2017).
The Federal Food and Cosmetic Act of 1938 further prohibited the misbranding of
products, including falsely advertising a product by stating it would do something it is not
capable of doing. The Act additionally mandated that color additives such as coal-tar colors that
were “harmless and suitable for use in food, drugs, and cosmetics, other than coal-tar hair dyes

7

which had been determined as safe, be listed in cosmetic labeling. Cosmetics companies opposed
these changes as they were fearful of listing their ingredients and acquiring competition, while
consumers felt right about the Act so they could avoid ingredients they may be allergic to
(Tousley, 1941). This new act was a necessary action but one that has not modernized its self
with contemporary cosmetics practices.
Since the time that the FDA took over cosmetics regulation, there have not been many
amendments or changes aside from the Color Additive Amendments of 1960 (Watnick, 2014).
The Color Additive Amendments of 1960 formally defined "color additive" and required that
only color additives listed as "suitable and safe" for their given use could be used in foods, drugs,
cosmetics, and medical devices. Under these amendments, the roughly 200 color additives that
were in commercial use at the time were for the time being listed as “suitable and safe” and
could be used on an temporary basis until they were either permanently listed or terminated due
to safety concerns or lack of commercial interest. Permanently listing a color additive for a
proposed use was prohibited unless scientific data established its safety. The 1960 Amendments
also prohibited the listing of a color additive shown to be a carcinogen. After 1960, FDA
gradually removed color additives from the provisional list either by permanent listing or by
termination of listing. Today about half of the "1960" color additives remain listed (U.S. Food &
Drug Administration, 2017a).
The Color Additive Amendments of 1960 and the list of 11 banned ingredients are
currently the only cosmetic ingredient regulatory practices to which manufacturers must strictly
adhere. If companies do not follow these rules regarding misbranding, adulterating, or containing
color additives that are not listed as “suitable and safe”, they can be taken to court by the FDA,
and if found guilty of being misbranded, a mandatory recall of the products in question will then

8

take place (Daum, 2006; Watnick, 2014). This practice is the only way a mandatory cosmetic
product recall can take place in the United States.
The precautionary principle from the 1990s sparked action in the UK and Canada. The
UK decided to ban over 1300 products that they deemed potentially dangerous. The US banned
only 11 (The European Parliament and the Council of The European Union, 2009; Watnick,
2014). There are an estimated 12,500 ingredients included in cosmetics. Only around 1,400 of
these ingredients have been tested, leaving around 80% untested for potential adverse health
effects (Houlihan, 2018; Watnick, 2014).
Definitions
The law defines cosmetics as: "articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or
sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body...for cleansing, beautifying,
promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance" (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
1938). This definition is utilized when referring to cosmetics in this thesis.
For this study, identifying potential solutions to the proposed issue of consumers using
general cosmetics that typically contain potentially toxic ingredients, it was decided that natural
cosmetics are a practical alternative. When consumers are trying to avoid potentially toxic
ingredients for whatever reason they are choosing, they typically go for the “green” alternative to
the same product (Todd, 2004). “Natural” cosmetics will be used in this paper as a broad term
for any cosmetics claiming to be green, free of harsh or potentially toxic chemicals, or
environmentally friendly, exist as a seemingly ethical and safe alternative to for consumers who
are concerned about potentially toxic ingredients (Todd, 2004).

9

Human Health: Cosmetics and Different Uses among Different Demographics
It is presently inconclusive whether or not skin, the body’s largest organ, can be
substantially impacted by absorbing too much of what is applied or exposed to the skin.
Although the primary job of skin is to act as a barrier to outside forces, it is still unknown exactly
how permeable skin is and how many substances impact skin when skin is exposed, and if
prolonged use of a substance exposes skin to more harm from a buildup in the bloodstream (Zhu
et al., 2016). There have been findings such as research showing that sunscreen UV filters are
absorbed through the skin and excreted through urine, and that sunscreen chemicals have been
found in the skin at above what is considered safe levels. However, sunscreen is still widely
considered safe if applied as instructed. The conclusion of safety is because the skin’s many
layers trap toxic chemicals before they reach the bloodstream so cosmetics may not be as
impactful as some conclude (Montenegro et al., 2018). Despite this consolation, there is still
skepticism about the safety of cosmetics due to skin absorption.
Women are the primary consumers of cosmetics and women have also historically been
subject to a lack of recognition and representation in policy (Darden & Worden, 1994; Daum,
2006). There have been links of many cosmetics to endocrine disruption, breast, and ovarian
cancer, as well as congenital disabilities in offspring (Smith & Lourie, 2009; Daum, 2006;
Watnick, 2014). These chemicals include phthalates, parabens, lead, and mercury, to name a few
(Zota et al., 2017). Additionally, there is a cumulative risk assessment that the EPA has taken
part in when considering environmental risks. The risk is still currently unknown for human
health when considering the many factors that come into play for an individual’s health (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2003).

10

Moreover, the risk for exposure to toxic chemicals is increased for ethnic groups and to
low-income communities (Morrello et al., 2011; Watnick, 2014). These exposures are attributed
to the chemicals from hair relaxers and skin lighteners. The hair relaxers contain chemicals like
parabens, which are endocrine disruptors and increase the risk for various issues such as breast
cancer and ovarian cancer (Watnick, 2014). Many low-income communities, which frequently
include a high ethnic population, live near environmental stressors such as toxic waste sites,
freeways, and manufacturing companies, are additionally exposed to the chemicals in the
products they use. This overexposure can have health implications that impact generations to
come from congenital disabilities or diseases among many other possibilities (Zota et al., 2017;
DeFur et al. 2007).
Further, there is a large global market for male cosmetics that only continues to grow
(Thota et al., 2014). Diagne and Souiden (2009) wrote that L’Oreal surveyed European men on
their use of cosmetics. Initially, in 1990, only 4% of men reported to wear or use cosmetics. By
2001, 21% of men reported wearing cosmetics and projected that by 2015 it would be around
half of the general male population.
This growth is evident in a global survey conducted by Datamonitor in 2015, the survey
asked men a variety of questions pertaining to why they use cosmetics, their attitudes toward
cosmetics, what cosmetics they use, and how often they use them. The results showed that men
primarily use cosmetics as it relates to shaving but there is a growing market for cosmetics that
relate to improving appearance such as covering blemishes and styling hair. The survey showed
that men in North America have nearly identical feedback to men in Europe in that around 50%
of men surveyed believe their looks are important, and around 40% of men are willing and do
purchase cosmetics in order to improve their appearance (Mills, 2015). A 2017 survey stating

11

that almost half of men in the UK report that they use cosmetics products daily (Jones, 2018).
While this demographic is from the UK, it does portray a male population similar to that of the
United States that expresses their use of cosmetics as according to prior data stating their
attitudes and consumption habits are nearly identical in the continents.
Furthermore, famous YouTube stars such as the first male “Cover Girl,” James Charles,
and beauty vlogger, Patrick Starr, have become popular in recent times with James Charles’
historic deal with the cosmetic company Cover Girl and Patrick Starr’s collaboration with the
successful cosmetic brand, Mac Cosmetics. These YouTube stars each have millions of
subscribers on their Beauty Vlog YouTube channels where a reported 11% of the subscribers are
male (Jankowski, 2018). There are a wide variety of cosmetics that males may be using today.
Diagne and Souiden (2009) state many cosmetics companies have created products for men such
as L’Oreal and face creams, anti-wrinkle creams, bronzing products, hair coloring and toning
gels. The same cosmetics companies that market their products primarily to women make many
of these products for men; and these male-intended products still contain much of the same
potentially toxic ingredients that cosmetic products typically designed for women contain
(Nassan et al., 2017).
Overview of Current United States Cosmetics Policy
Currently, under the regulation of the Food and Drug Administration, the cosmetics
industry is not FDA approved, but it is FDA authorized. This means that cosmetic products do
not have to be FDA approved, but the FDA is still the regulatory agency of said products.
Cosmetic manufacturers are not required but are encouraged by the FDA to do safety checks on
their ingredients (Watnick, 2014). The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel (CIR) came to be in
the 1970s and is a panel of scientists and doctors that review the safety of ingredients used in

12

cosmetics. It is estimated that only 13-20% of ingredients in cosmetics have been reviewed by
the panel (Daum, 2006; Houlihan, 2018).
There are many potential reasons for why companies choose to include potentially toxic
ingredients in their products. The main reasons being that they are not restricted and are the
current practice in the cosmetic industry (Watnick, 2014; Thomas, 2014). There is not much
incentive for companies to self-regulate because the risk of finding unsafe ingredients could
cause significant monetary loss and recalls that a company would most likely want to avoid
(Watnick, 2014). Furthermore, cosmetics companies are not required to report any adverse
effects complaints to the FDA that their products may have received. For example, the Wen Hair
Care Company has acquired many complaints of skin irritation and even hair loss. These
products are still allowed on the market despite the fact that it is unknown what is causing the
adverse effects (Edgar, 2018).
Overview of Cosmetics Policy in Other Countries
Policy regarding cosmetics in the United States has not developed much since being
introduced in the 1930s and is primarily reactionary rather than precautionary. Other countries,
like those in the EU, have much stricter guidelines for their products. Regulation for
Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals – REACH is the EU’s
chemical regulation enacted in June 2007 to improve the protection of human health and the
environment. REACH works by requiring companies to register their ingredients and are
encouraged to work with other companies registering the same ingredients. The European
Chemicals Agency, ECHA, receives the registrations and evaluates them individually to ensure
their adherence to the strict rules in place by REACH. The EU member states individually select
questionable substances to clarify initial safety concerns. Authorities and ECHA scientific

13

committees then decide if the substances risks are manageable. If the risks are found
unmanageable, then they could restrict the substances’ use in products (European Chemicals
Agency, 2018; European Commission, 2016).
Japan used to have stricter regulations when it came to cosmetics but it has since cut back
to have regulations similar to the United States for the convenience of not having to preapprove
each individual product, which was the former regulatory practice (Watnick, 2014). In Canada,
the regulation is similar to those in the EU with the ability to bring forward potential concerns
for any ingredient and have the safety of the ingredients tested and made sure they are taken care
of effectively for consumer safety (Watnick, 2014).

RECENT COSMETICS POLICY ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES
H.R. 1385 Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013
Throughout recent years there have been several bills introduced seeking to enact policy
changes in the cosmetics industry from several state representatives. In 2013, Democratic
Representative Janice Schakowsky introduced the bill H.R. 1385, the “Safe Cosmetics and
Personal Care Products Act of 2013,” in the House of Representatives. The bill would have
amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the regulation of cosmetics by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The bill brought forward many ideas for change. It would have required any brand that
brings a cosmetic to the market for use in the United States to register annually and pay a fee for
oversight and enforcement of the Act brought forth. In addition, it would have also required that
the United States establish labeling requirements and safety standards that provide a reasonable
certainty of no harm from exposure to a cosmetic or ingredient in a cosmetic. Further, it would

14

have required the brand owners to submit safety data for the ingredients listed on their product
labels. These ingredients would be published in a proposed database; and it would have required
the FDA to review and evaluate the safety of cosmetics and ingredients of cosmetics that are on
the market including nanotechnology and contaminants of concern (H.R. 1385, 2013).
The bill also required that the FDA establish three lists for ingredients: a prohibited and
restricted list; a safe without limits list which means no matter how much it is used it is safe; and
a priority assessment list. The bill also would allow the FDA to order a recall or cease
distribution for a cosmetic that is misbranded or in any violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act. It would require reporting of any severe adverse event associated with cosmetics;
require the FDA to take action to minimize animal testing of ingredients and cosmetics; establish
an interagency council on cosmetic safety; and require that the Secretary of Labor come up with
occupational safety and health standards relating to cosmetics for professional use. H.R. 1385
was introduced in 2013, and it never went past that stage (H.R. 1385, 2013).
S. 1014 – Personal Care Safety Act
A bill similar to H.R. 1385 was introduced in the Senate by California Democratic
Senator Dianne Feinstein on April 20, 2015, called the “Personal Care Safety Act” (S. 1014).
This bill would have also amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It would have
required cosmetic companies to register their facilities with the FDA and to submit to the FDA
cosmetic ingredient statements that include the amounts of the cosmetics ingredients, as well as
pay a facility registration fee based on their annual gross sale of cosmetics. The collected fees
would only be used for cosmetic safety activities (S.1014, 2015; H.R.1385, 2013).
S. 1014 also determined that if the FDA were to find that a cosmetic has the reasonable
probability of causing serious adverse health consequences that it may ban the cosmetic’s

15

distribution by suspending the cosmetic ingredient statement. Additionally, if other cosmetics
from the same facility were affected, the FDA would be able to prohibit distribution from the
facility by suspending the facility’s registration. Under this bill, the FDA would have to review
the safety of at least five cosmetic ingredients every year and establish conditions for safe use of
an ingredient. This practice would include a limit on the amount of the ingredient or a
requirement of a warning label. A cosmetics product would not be suitable for sale if it contained
an ingredient that is not safe under the recommended conditions of use or in the amount present
in the cosmetic (S.1014 2015).
The cosmetics companies under S. 1014 would have been required to report to the FDA
any severe adverse health event associated with their cosmetics, similar to H.R. 1385. S. 1014
would also require the FDA develop and implement cosmetic manufacturing standards that are
consistent with existing national and international standards. The FDA would have been allowed
to inspect a company’s cosmetic safety records, recall a cosmetic that is likely to cause serious
adverse health consequences and, like H.R. 1385, encourage cosmetic safety testing with
minimal use of animals. This bill was also only ever introduced and no further action was ever
taken before the bill proposal ultimately expired (S. 1014, 2015; H.R. 1385, 2013).
H.R. 575 – Cosmetic Modernization Amendments of 2017
Republican Congressman Pete Sessions from Texas introduced a bill in early 2017 called
H.R. 575 – Cosmetic Modernization Amendments of 2017. This bill is less aggressive than the
bills introduced in 2013 and 2015, but it is still progressive for change in the cosmetics
regulation. This bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to bring forward
governing requirements by the FDA, including requiring the registration of the manufacturing
establishment and the submission of an ingredient statement for each cosmetic. The FDA would

16

also have to publish a list of registered establishments and a list of cosmetics and their
ingredients. The cosmetic manufacturers, packers, and distributors would be required to report to
the FDA any serious and unexpected adverse events likely caused by a cosmetic. There is also a
proposed label requirement with contact information to report a severe adverse event (H.R. 575,
2017).
Furthermore, in H.R. 575, the FDA would be able to establish principles and standards
for good manufacturing practices of cosmetics. For example, if a cosmetic presents a significant
risk of severe adverse health consequences because it was not manufactured with the good
manufacturing practices, its sale would not be approved. The bill also suggests that current
ingredients are deemed safe for use in cosmetics unless restricted by the FDA, and the FDA must
create a program to evaluate the safety of cosmetics and their ingredients.
H.R. 575 proposes the FDA must establish and maintain a National Cosmetic Regulatory
Databank that contains submitted information on cosmetics. Furthermore, H.R. 575 would
establish a system where private business and trade secret information may be disclosed only to
state agencies that request the information for good and reasonable cause. The bill additionally
introduces the FDA ability to establish exemptions to requirements, so that implementation and
compliance are cost effective. Further, the bill proposed that color additives that the FDA has not
listed as suitable and safe, but are generally recognizably safe, are allowed for use in cosmetics.
This bill proposed that state and local governments may not establish or continue specified
requirements relating to cosmetics and that cosmetics importing may only be allowed from
registered establishments that have submitted a cosmetic and ingredient statement. As of May
2018, the bill has not gone further than being introduced. It was passed on to the House Energy

17

and Commerce Committee, where it now has only an estimated 8% chance of becoming enacted
(H.R. 575, 2017; Civic Impulse, 2018).
Individual States Cosmetics Ingredient Policies
Despite the failure on the national level, a few states in the U.S. have taken action to put
more regulation on cosmetics. In 2005, the state of California enacted The California Safe
Cosmetics Act, which requires companies to report any ingredients that are on the state or federal
lists of ingredients that cause cancer or congenital disabilities (S.B. 484, 2015). In 2013, the state
of Minnesota banned formaldehyde in children’s personal care products. The ban on the use of
formaldehyde applies to products intended for children under the age of eight (H.F. 458, 2013).
In 2008, the state of Washington adopted the Children’s Safe Product Act, which requires
manufacturers of children’s products sold in Washington to report to the state if their product
contains a Chemical of High Concern to Children. The Chemicals of High Concern is a list of 85
different chemicals that are believed to be of high concern to children when used in products
such as toys and personal care products (Department of Ecology Washington State; 2018).

COSMETIC INGREDIENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Impacts on Wildlife
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) are currently present in many cosmetics in the
United States. Their impacts on wildlife are unknown as these are hard to detect on an individual
animal and that individual animal's impact on their larger communities such as their offspring
(Jobling & Tyler, 2006). EDCs may impair wildlife in the same ways they can potentially affect
humans, through their endocrine system, potentially impairing reproduction and causing

18

congenital disabilities in offspring. These EDCs find their way into the wildlife through
wastewater and other means when being dispersed through cosmetics.
Microbeads
Microbeads are part of a larger group called microplastics. Microplastics are described as
tiny plastic particles used in everyday products such as facial and body scrubs and cleansers,
toothpaste, and household cleaning products. These microbeads are designed to be washed
directly down the drain where they inevitably find their way into waterways. The MicrobeadFree Waters Act of 2015 commenced the ban of Microbeads in U.S. consumer cosmetic products
(H.R. 1321, 2016). This microbeads ban happened even before the proactive United Kingdom
banned microbeads in their products, which happened in early January 2018 after deciding that
the environmental impacts are too grave (Tunnicliffe, 2018).
Microplastics have been found in abundant amounts in the stomachs of aquatic life
throughout the world’s many bodies of water including lakes and oceans. The average tube of
facial cleanser that contained microbeads was discovered to have 330,000 microbeads, which go
directly to bodies of water when rinsed off in sinks and showers. These microbeads are confused
for aquatic foods, and every level of aquatic life ingests those, even organisms as small as
plankton due to the microplastics small sizes. These microplastics are bioaccumulated as they are
fed through the aquatic food web and eventually reach humans as humans consume fish
(Truslow, 2017; Alternatives Journal, 2015; Sigler, 2014; Cózar et al., 2014; H.R. 1321, 2015).
Opposition to the ban of microbeads assumes the position that current research around
microbeads is still in the early stages and fails to address more pressing, already present pollution
issues (Burton, 2015). A study done by University of Michigan researchers sought to find how
many microplastics were in aquatic life in some lakes in Michigan. They found no microplastics

19

in those fish but, in 11-36% of the fish, they found wool and synthetic fibers, which are also
harmful to aquatic life as these fibers are larger and become entangled in fish’s digestive
systems. Microplastics are typically excreted after consumption by aquatic life while these fibers
are not natural or easy to digest (Burton, 2015; Plastic Particle Counts in the Great Lakes, 2015).
Microbeads are only a small factor in human-caused environmental threats. Several other
threats due to agricultural and urban land use have been ignored while the microbeads ban has
caught on. The Microbeads-Free Waters Act, while progressive, still fails to address the already
massive amount of microbeads currently in the water and fails to find ways to fix to this issue but
instead seeks to prevent further environmental harm (Truslow, 2017).

CONCLUSION TO INTRODUCTION
Human exposure to toxins occurs on a daily basis, and what may be surprising to some is
cosmetics are not highly regulated in the United States to limit consumer exposure to these toxic
chemicals. Cosmetics and their ingredients have many human health implications as well as
environmental health impacts. Cosmetics regulations are conducted thoroughly in other
developed countries such as those in the EU and Canada.
Policy suggestions have been proposed to Congress several times but have not made it
past the point of introduction. Cosmetics regulation in the United States has an extensive history
and impacts consumers from all walks of life. While some are more at risk than others, all
cosmetics consumers are impacted by the cosmetics policy and the ingredients allowed in
products in the United States and this thesis seeks to give these consumers a voice on whether or
not they are okay with these policies in place to protect them.

20

CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION TO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Cosmetics regulation has some significant discrepancies among many groups that are
involved in cosmetics policies in the United States. Much of the literature for and against policy
change in cosmetics vary in their opinions on what is safe, why regulations are in place, if these
regulations are effective, and comparing practices in cosmetics regulation around the world.
There are several opposing ideas on what should or should not be considered safe. The
divergence is primarily in cosmetics manufacturing practices and what ingredients are
considered safe and are allowed in cosmetics sold in the US Other areas of disagreement around
cosmetics policy in the United States concern the current regulatory practices of cosmetics by the
US Food and Drug Administration.
Conventional cosmetics that may contain potentially toxic ingredients have a viable
alternative to their use which is natural cosmetics. Natural cosmetics come with their own
barriers making them potentially unavailable to consumers who may want to use them.
Consumers have valuable opinions and have been considered in policy decision-making in other
realms of consumption but are not formally active in cosmetics policy-decision making in the
United States. When consumers do not have the option for policy change, voting with their
wallets has been said to have a political backing by driving the marketplace to deviate their
practices to match these consumer desires which could be a possibility with natural cosmetics
consumption, but not if there are so many barriers preventing this action from working
effectively.

21

Each of these differing opinions and ideas are implemented into the creation of the thesis
survey that answers the thesis research question on whether or not consumer opinions and
perceptions are met by current cosmetics policy in the United States.

POTENTIALLY TOXIC INGREDIENTS IN COSMETICS IN THE UNITED STATES
Several well-known ingredients are suspected to be dangerous and are currently present
in many cosmetics. Most of the existing research against potentially toxic chemicals include talk
against common cosmetic ingredients such as parabens, phthalates, lead and mineral oil to name
a few. There are still many more concerning ingredients that are used commonly in cosmetics in
the United States.
Parabens
Parabens, which are a class of widely used antimicrobial preservatives in cosmetic and
pharmaceutical products, have been suspected as being potentially toxic due to the preservatives
acting as estrogen-mimickers (El Hussein, Muret, Berard, Makki, & Humbert, 2007; Jagne,
White, & Jefferson et al., 2016). To be an estrogen-mimicker means that parabens metabolize in
the body as estrogen, mimicking the effects of estrogen, triggering specific receptors to actual
estrogen and blocking the action of the natural estrogen hormone (El Hussein et al., 2007; Jagne
et al., 2016; Watnick, 2014).
Parabens are in many cosmetics items such as eyeshadows, eyeliners, mascaras,
foundations, shampoos, conditioners, facial cleansers, and much more (Andersen, 2008).
Parabens are desirable for their antimicrobial preservative properties preventing mold and yeast
from growing when used in products. They are also ideal due to their low production cost,
chemical stability (ability to withstand a wide range of temperatures and acidity levels),

22

supposed low toxicity, and worldwide acceptance (Cashman & Warshaw, 2005; Jagne et al.,
2016).
There is currently no limit on the dosage of any kind of parabens in cosmetics in the
United States. The EU does allow parabens but has restricted five different parabens:
isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben, phenylparaben, benzylparaben, and pentylparaben, all of
which are allowed in cosmetics in the United States (United States Food & Drug Administration,
2018). The EU has concluded that methylparabens and ethylparabens are safe in the amounts
they are used in cosmetics, which is a maximum concentration of 0.4% to 0.8%. The FDA claims
methylparabens and ethylparabens are among the most common parabens used in cosmetics in
addition to propylparaben, butylparaben (Official Journal of the European Union, 2014; US
FDA, 2018b). These EU regulations differ significantly from the United States, as there is no
maximum concentration in the use of parabens in cosmetics products (US FDA, 2018b).
Estrogen mimickers have suspected links to breast cancer, low sperm count, hormonal
changes impacting insulin resistance, and other various congenital disabilities (Daum, 2006; El
Hussein et al., 2007; Jagne et al., 2016, James-Todd, 2012; Watnick, 2014). Parabens have been
found intact at unusually high amounts in breast cancer patients (Darbre et al., 2004; Darbre &
Harvey, 2014). However, the findings of high amounts of parabens in breast cancer patients by
Darbre et al. (2004) fail to undeniably connect parabens to breast cancer.
There are some potential issues with the Darbre et al. 2004 study, which concludes with
the alleged correlation of breast cancer and the use of personal care products containing
parabens. Potential issues of the Barr et al., 2004 study include the fact that the study found high
amounts of parabens in the negative control group, which has been prescribed to contamination.
This finding has been said to cast doubt over the validity of the actual test samples as

23

contamination occurred in the negative test samples which further suggests contamination may
have occurred in the positive test group used to conclude the correlation (Godfrey, 2008).
Since the discussion over the legitimacy of the Barr et al., 2004 study, a more recent
study by Barr et al. (2012) has since confirmed that intact parabens can be measured in higher
than average amounts in human breast tissue as there was no instance of contamination in the
positive test findings. The FDA has acknowledged that parabens are an estrogen mimicker and
that estrogenic activity is a cause of breast cancer (Smith & Lourie, 2009; US FDA, 2018b;
Watnick, 2014).
Phthalates
Phthalates, another ingredient of common concern in cosmetics are also suspected of
being endocrine disruptors and have potential links to congenital disabilities in children. These
abnormalities occur as de-masculinization of men by outcomes such as small male genitalia,
human sperm DNA damage, and type 2 diabetes (Smith & Lourie, 2009; Wang et al., 2016;
James-Todd, 2012). Phthalates are in cosmetics such as color cosmetics, shampoos, nail polishes,
hairspray, and fragranced lotions. They have traditionally been used in products such as nail
polish and hairspray as plasticizers to provide the stiffness of these products when applied.
Phthalates are also often used in these cosmetics to enhance fragrances (Watnick, 2014).
Phthalates are found at varying levels in many different groups of people but are most dangerous
to pregnant women and children. Phthalates are widely considered safe at the doses in cosmetics
presently.
Phthalates have been linked to type II diabetes, especially in women. In a study by
James-Todd et al. (2012), the higher discovery of phthalates in the urine of women closely
correlated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes. This conclusion stems from the idea that

24

phthalates are suspected to be part of a group of EDCs that can alter adiposity and insulin
resistance. Furthermore, women have a higher amount of phthalates found in their bodies. The
higher amounts of phthalates are believed to be from women’s higher use of personal care
products that contain phthalates. The finding is also due to the extent, to which women store fat,
which is more than men do (James-Todd, 2012; Hatch et al. 2008; Latini, 2005; Newbold 2010;
Stahlhut, Wijngaarden, Dye, Cook, & Swan, 2007)
Two different forms of phthalates: dibutyl phthalates (DBP) and bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate (DEHP) have a ban on their use in the EU (Miljøstyrelsen, 2017). There are still
phthalates allowed for use in manufacturing products including cosmetics, however, in 2017,
Denmark successfully convinced the EU that phthalates are hazardous and they have since made
their way on to the REACH list. The EU is planning to remove phthalates from all manufactured
products due to this finding (Miljøstyrelsen, 2017).
Critical analysis of phthalate research has concluded that phthalates may be a cause of
harm and result in the de-masculinization of men and other health impacts but their presence in
cosmetics is so low there is not enough reason to believe that they are dangerous for overall
human health and should be allowed for continued use in cosmetics (Witorsch & Thomas, 2010).
Furthermore, phthalates can still be metabolized and detoxed from the body relatively quickly
after less exposure (Smith & Lourie, 2009). Countering this acceptance, there is still common
concern that phthalates should not be included at all in cosmetics due to their connection as
endocrine disrupting chemicals (Smith & Lourie, 2009; Watnick, 2014; Wang et al., 2016).
Additionally, continued exposure to phthalates through phthalate-containing products may be an
issue over time (Smith & Lourie, 2009; Wang et al., 2016). The body may not have the ability to
detox phthalates, and as a result, lasting damage may occur.

25

Mineral Oil
A typical ingredient in many different varieties of cosmetics such as lipstick and
eyeshadow is mineral oil. Mineral oil is a byproduct of the distillation of gasoline from crude oil.
The 2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service National
Toxicology Program Report (14th edition) states that, “Untreated and mildly treated mineral oils
are known to be human carcinogens based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies
in humans” (p. 1). The type of mineral oil used in cosmetics is the highly refined “white mineral
oil.” This mineral oil is refined to rid the substance of carcinogenic qualities that are in nonrefined mineral oil. Mineral oil that is not refined or lightly treated is typically used in
transmission fluid and gear oils, which is considered carcinogenic at that point. These
carcinogens are removed when mineral oil is further refined for use in cosmetics (Berkeley
Wellness, 2017).
While the refining process is supposed to rid the substance of carcinogens, there is still
concern that the refining process is not sufficiently effective and may introduce carcinogens to
cosmetic wearers. Multiple studies have concluded that there is evidence for an accumulation of
mineral oil saturated hydrocarbons (MOSH) through cosmetics use. Some of the hydrocarbons
are strongly accumulated and form granulomas (small area of inflammation) in human tissues.
There is belief that the bioaccumulation is due to prolonged use of products containing mineral
oil (Concin et al., 2011; Niederer, Stebler, & Grob, 2016). The use of mineral oil in everyday
products is believed to overexpose users to MOSH and thus poses a potential public health
hazard as MOSH may include carcinogenic polycyclic compounds found in mineral oil (Niederer
et al., 2016).

26

Mineral oil is also allowed in cosmetics in other countries such as the EU. Despite the
allowed use of mineral oil, researchers like Niederer et al. (2016) and Concin et al. (2011)
believe the use of mineral oil in everyday products may cause overexposure of users to MOSH.
This overexposure poses a potential public health hazard as MOSH may include carcinogenic
polycyclic compounds found in mineral oil.
Lead
While lead itself is not a common ingredient in cosmetics, amounts of lead are often
found in cosmetics especially in eyeshadows and most commonly in lipsticks. Lead finds its way
into cosmetics through other ingredients; most commonly, it enters from color ingredients that
contain lead naturally (Brown, 2013). Lead exposure is linked to learning, language, and
behavioral problems as well as delayed auditory and visual systems maturation in infants in even
low-level prenatal lead exposure among other health concerns (Needleman & Schell, 1990;
Silver et al., 2016) Lead is traditionally deposited in a person’s bones, and as people age, bones
demineralize and may subject people to lifelong lead exposure (Needleman & Schell, 1990)..
The FDA has concluded and recommended that lead up to 10ppm in cosmetics is a safe
level as it is what they consider to be a minimal amount and not detectable in routine blood
testing. Additionally, because lead is found most commonly in higher amounts in lipsticks than
any other cosmetics product, any other cosmetic containing lead will automatically be less risky
and will also not be detectable in routine blood testing. The recommendation by the FDA is that
cosmetics companies should not include lead in their products at more than 10ppm (United
States Food & Drug Administration, 2018a). Additionally, because lead is found in so many
substances in day to day life it can become very difficult for companies to prevent lead from
being found in their cosmetics. Lead is not a cosmetic ingredient but is sometimes present in

27

cosmetics ingredients themselves as lead is naturally occurring in the environment where much
of the ingredients derive (Brown, 2013; Fioravanti, 2010).
The issue with the 10ppm threshold recommendation is that it is only recommended and
not a requirement. In 2007 and 2008, the Food & Drug Administration (2018a) tested over 400
lipsticks and found that 99% of them contained less than the recommended 10ppm, meaning that
some of the lipsticks they tested contained even more. The FDA also acknowledged that
cosmetics imported from other countries often contain more lead than the recommended amount.
However, the importing of cosmetics from these countries is still allowed as long as they do not
contain any of the 11 banned ingredients, do not contain any outlawed color additives, and have
proper labeling (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2017). While the ingredients in cosmetics
are the culprits causing lead to be present in cosmetics, using different ingredients that do not
contain lead may further minimize lead exposure to prevent any possible damage (Brown, 2013;
Watnick, 2014).
Overexposure to Potentially Toxic Ingredients
The FDA and the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel (CIR) conclude that ingredients like
parabens and phthalates are safe in cosmetics at the certain doses they are used (U.S. Food &
Drug Administration, 2018b). The exposure to these small doses begs the question if there is
bioaccumulation of the chemicals in the human body (Tsz, 2010). The countering opinion is that
the small-scale use of one product a day may not do much harm. The continuation of exposure
and the additional use of other cosmetic products that contain other potentially harmful
ingredients are unaddressed risks in current safety testing (Watnick, 2014). When used as a
standalone, a product may be safe, but with constant daily use combined with similar everyday
cosmetic products, the combination may prove to be harmful over time.

28

IN DEPTH COSMETICS POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES AND ELSEWHERE
Labeling Laws
Misbranding or adulterations of cosmetic products are some of the only actions, which
the FDA can take regulatory action against. A product being “misbranded” means it fails to do
any number of things that it is required to do. An item may be "misbranded" if it’s labeling is
false or misleading. A product may also be "misbranded" if the cosmetics label does not
conspicuously have all the required information, (all ingredients aside from exemptions and
location of manufacturing), or if the product packaging is incorrect. Additional "misbranding"
would include the finding that the product's packaging is dishonest, or the product contains an
illegal color additive. Adulteration of cosmetics products is done mostly by the product
containing ingredients that are illegal or known to cause harm to human health (United States
Food & Drug Administration, 2018). These regulations regarding cosmetic labeling seek to
prevent definitively known toxic ingredients making their way into cosmetics as well as to hold
companies accountable and further inform consumers of their risks.
The FDA does have regulations inhibiting misbranded labeling, but they also can
potentially list their ingredients as proprietary information and label these ingredients under
words such as “fragrance” or “flavor” if that is what their use is in the product (Cosmetic
Labeling, 2018; Watnick, 2014). Additionally, there are no requirements cosmetics companies
have to follow to label their products as “organic” or “natural.” This allowance is because the
FDA has not defined the term “natural,” and has not established a regulatory definition for the
term in cosmetics labeling either; the same goes for “organic” as it is the U.S. Department of
Agriculture who has defined organic and not the FDA. Terms such as “natural” are not to be

29

used in ingredients but are allowed to define the cosmetic product if the manufacturer or seller
deems it as such without being misbranded (Northen, 2011; Perrini, Castaldo, Misani, & Tencati,
2010; U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 2018c). “Natural” and “organic” cosmetics should have
a definition and should be regulated under the FDA to fit this definition so as not to misbrand
them and mislead consumers with false claims (Northen, 2011; Perrini et al., 2011).
Cosmetic Safety Testing Regulations
In response to the question “Who is responsible for substantiating the safety of
cosmetics?” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2018) writes on their website in an article
titled FDA Authority Over Cosmetics: How Cosmetics Are Not FDA-Approved, but Are FDARegulated, “Companies and individuals who manufacture or market cosmetics have a legal
responsibility to ensure the safety of their products. Neither the law nor FDA regulations require
specific tests to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients. The law also does
not require cosmetic companies to share their safety information with FDA”. The FDA
additionally states that a manufacturer may use any ingredient in the formulation of a cosmetic
product provided that it is properly labeled, does not contain restricted ingredients, and the
ingredient does not cause the product to be adulterated or misbranded in any way (U.S. Food &
Drug Administration, 2017c). In response to this regulation practice, Watnick wrote: “To begin
to protect human health, Congress must pass legislation requiring pre-market safety testing of
cosmetics ingredients and products” (2014, p. 624).
Moreover, companies and individuals who manufacture or market cosmetics to ensure
safety do not have much incentive to do so. They are not required to report their findings even if
they find their products to be unsafe, and it would not be in their best interest to do so (Watnick,
2014). Cosmetics companies can freely choose to either test or not test the safety of their

30

products and, even if they do testing, they may choose to keep the findings private so as not to
repel customers or risk having their products being labeled as misbranded or adulterated and
taken off shelves.
The FDA is not subject to perform pre-safety checks before cosmetics products hit the
shelves as they are considered the post-market regulatory agency. With their post-market
authority, the FDA is still not able to recall the items from the shelves if they find items to be
harmful or potentially harmful. They have to go through the court systems to have cosmetic
manufacturers recall a product (Daum, 2006; U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 2018b;
Watnick, 2014). The FDA can recommend cosmetics firms take a product off shelves if they
deem it to be hazardous. The FDA cannot require a cosmetic product to be taken down and can
only do this by taking them through the court system to determine whether or not the product is
“guilty” (Daum, 2006; U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 2018b; Watnick, 2014).
The FDA currently relies heavily on the CIR panel for conclusions on ingredient safety.
The CIR panel does safety testing and has an ambitious schedule to do so but there is some
potential issues with their practices. The CIR panel currently bases their conclusions on acute
reactions such as skin reactions or allergic reactions as opposed to chronic health impacts that
may result from the ingredients (Daum, 2006). The FDA has predicted that there are over 12,500
ingredients used in cosmetics and the CIR has reviewed only about 13-20% of these ingredients
and has only found 11 to be unsafe while other countries chemical safety have determined many
of the same and other ingredients to be unsafe (Cosmetic Ingredient Review, 2018; Daum, 2006;
U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 2017b; Watnick, 2014). Furthermore, while the CIR claims to
act independently from cosmetics industries, the CIR panel is funded by the cosmetics industry

31

itself, which may influence whether or not some ingredients are determined to be safe (Cosmetic
Ingredient Review, 2018).
The FDA does not require cosmetics companies to register with them. The only
registration program the FDA has is the Voluntary Cosmetics Registration Program (VCRP).
VCRP takes note of the cosmetics ingredients, registration of manufacturers, packers, and
distributors. This program is entirely voluntary, and the number of companies who register with
this program vs. the number of companies who do not is currently unknown due to the
registration being optional and not required, the FDA cannot disclose the information. The nondisclosure by the FDA is done so as not to incriminate any companies who choose not to
participate as once again, it is voluntary. The use of the VCRP is in place currently to inform the
FDA of the ingredients of cosmetic products to ensure that they are adhering to FDA regulation
(Mason, 2008; U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 2018c) While this program seeks to do well,
there is concern that the voluntary aspect lets companies with less than desirable ingredients and
practice scathe by without first proving their safety (Mason, 2008; Watnick, 2014).
In the EU, products cannot be put on the shelves until the ingredients are proven safe for
human use. A recent regulation put into effect in July of 2013 ensured that any product must be
taken down from shelves and recalled at any point if there is suspicion of risk. Under the new
regulation, manufacturers, importers, and any other applicable parties must take corrective action
immediately, which includes recalls and reformulation before approval to sell again (United
Kingdom Government, 2013). Comparatively, in the US, products are allowed on shelves
without safety testing and can be labeled saying there are no known risks. The products cannot
be taken off the shelves until they are proven to be harmful, and that requires significant
evidence to pass (Watnick 2014).

32

An example of differing regulatory practices, popular baby product company Johnson &
Johnson announced plans in 2012 to stop using potentially toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde
in their baby shampoo by 2013 and by 2015 in all their other products in the United States. This
discovery surprised many consumers to realize that there were potentially toxic chemicals like
formaldehyde in the shampoo in the first place (CBS News, 2012; Thomas, 2014). These
ingredients had already been removed from the same products and in all consumer products in
the EU after safety testing had classified formaldehyde as a human carcinogen (Campaign for
Safe Cosmetics, 2011; Watnick, 2014).
Within Johnson & Johnson’s PR statement in the US, they announced plans to stop using
potentially toxic chemicals in baby products. However, they also acknowledged that these
changes would not apply to their adult products such as the Aveeno and Neutrogena lines
(Campaign for Safe Cosmetics; 2011). This is much different than the EU banning formaldehyde
for all products vs the individual US company banning the ingredient in their baby products and
not all products overall.

NATURAL COSMETICS IN THE UNITED STATES
For this thesis, natural cosmetics are the viable alternative to conventional cosmetics
while cosmetics policy may not fully protect consumers from potentially toxic ingredients. There
are many barriers to connecting consumers to natural products that have been identified in fields
studying consumer responses to natural products (Cronin, 2011; Ottman, 2006; Ottman & Miller,
1999). There is a growing market for these products in the United States (Raphael, 2017;
Transparency Market Research, 2017).

33

In a 2012 study by Royne, Martinez, Oakley, & Fox, it says that most common
consumers in the United States (about 91%) want to take care of the planet and are
environmentally concerned. They reportedly feel that if they do not take care of the planet, future
generations will suffer. The same report says that about 78% of consumers believe that buying
green is a way to consider their values and ethics in their shopping choices. Additional reasoning
for purchasing natural products is the perceived health benefits in avoiding potentially toxic
ingredients (Eisberg, 2009; Raphael, 2017). While the numbers of consumers who express
concern for the environment and health by buying natural products is considerably high in the
Royne et al., 2012 study, natural products, in general, have been scrutinized for a number of
problems such as their price, greenwashing, lack of corporate social responsibility,
manufacturing practices, and perceived inferiority.
The Price of Natural Cosmetics Products
A 2015 study by the online site intended to save consumers money by providing them
with discount codes, RetailMeNot.com, found that 81% of common consumers in the US who
use the site perceive environmentally friendly products as more expensive than their
counterparts. Despite this, it is apparent that many consumers are still willing to buy these
products for the health and environmental benefits as the natural products industry continues to
grow (Skirboll & Nelson, 2015). The same study indicated that 89% of those surveyed
consumers are willing to buy environmentally friendly products (Skirboll & Nelson, 2015). The
ability to buy natural cosmetics and natural products in general is considered a privilege that
many consumers are not granted as these products often are more expensive due to their
production cost in using expensive, higher quality ingredients (Burton, 2017).

34

While this issue is difficult to address, cosmetics policy change may dissolve the issue if
it is done to exclude the potentially toxic ingredients in cosmetics and implement higher quality
and currently safe ones like those used in the EU. This change would potentially eliminate the
need to choose between safety and economic ability. This would occur as all cosmetic products
would not be allowed to use potentially toxic ingredients and could make the need to use
cosmetics less as skin issues clear up and in turn make products more affordable as consumers
buy less (Ottman, 2006; Moraes et al., 2011).
A 2017 study of 3,000 US women by beauty retailer, SkinStore, has revealed that in the
United States, people spend an average of $8 on their cosmetics through their use of an average
18 products (Johnson, 2017). This is in contrast to a 2018 a study of 1,000 women in the UK by
Fragrance Direct in the UK found that the surveyed consumers spend an average of £2.39 euros
($2.79) a day through their use of an average 12 cosmetic products (Teehan, 2018).
These daily cosmetics price variances reflect a disparity in the use of cosmetics in the two
different countries but when dividing how much a product costs on average for these daily
practices, in the US these products cost $8/18 products = ~$0.44 per product daily, and in the UK
the product costs £2.39 euros ($2.79)/12 products = ~$0.24 daily. These price inequalities in
these countries suggest the prices of cosmetics in the UK and other EU countries are likely not
impacted by their exclusion of over 1,300 different ingredients and their exclusion in the US
would not have to change too drastically if other countries are able to manage and use safe
ingredients without extreme price-hiking.

35

Greenwashing and Corporate Social Responsibility
Many natural product markets—especially natural cosmetics markets—have struggled
with greenwashing, which is defined as “intentionally misleading or deceiving consumers with
false claims about a firm’s environmental practices and impact” (Nyilasy et al., 2014, p. 693).
Greenwashing is a strong possibility among natural cosmetics presumably because there is no
law defining what a natural cosmetics requirements needs to be. Furthermore, according to
Nyilasy et al. (2014), consumers are reportedly becoming increasingly skeptical of corporations
who claim they are protecting the environment but fail to do so with their actions. This may be
an additional barrier to consumers buying and using natural cosmetics.
Perceived greenwashing occurs when consumer reactions to situations where green
advertising messaging, and actual corporate social responsibility interact (Nyilasy et al., 2014).
This refers to a response of disbelief and skepticism by consumers in response to green product
advertising by companies due to the corporations “green” actions or lack thereof. Corporate
social responsibility refers to the concept that companies can incorporate social and
environmental concerns into their business decisions, including both internal operations and
interactions with stakeholders, such as other firms, consumers, and governments (Nyilasy et al.,
2014). Overall, research has found that consumers want transparency from their companies they
buy products from. They want a company that not only says they are going to address human
health, the environment, or any other social concerns, but they want a company whose actions
follow suit (Nyilasy et al., 2014; Perrini et al., 2010).
Furthermore, as stated previously, there are no requirements for natural cosmetics to be
considered as such. While many consumers do not seem aware of this lack of requirement, this
lack in itself does not bode well for natural cosmetics to avoid perceived greenwashing on their

36

own because there truly are no requirements. In order to avoid greenwashing, natural cosmetics
companies should practice CSR’s and perform as promised.
Jessica Alba began her entrepreneurial career with the Honest Company in 2011. In her
words, she “founded The Honest Company because [she] wanted safe, effective products that
perform. After all, [consumers] should [not] have to choose between what works and what's
good for [consumers]” (Honest Company, 2018). The Honest Company boasts a supply of
household products, baby care products, personal care products, and cosmetics. The Honest
Company claims to formulate all their products without the more than 1,300 ingredients banned
in the EU and an overall 3,000 and growing ingredient “NO List™.” The company also safety
tests their ingredients and products and consistently reevaluates their findings based on new
technology and the overall passing of time to evolve with their consumers. They strive to have
label transparency and not contain ingredients labeled as “fragrance,” which is reported to be
often included as an overarching cover up for potentially toxic ingredients (Honest Company,
2018).
While The Honest Company appears to hold itself to high standards of safety, the
company is no stranger to scrutiny. The company has come under fire for perceived
greenwashing for including ingredients that are synthetic or potentially toxic. In 2016, several
products including their sunscreen and laundry detergent were reported to have contained a
copious amount of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), which is a potential skin irritant. Honest
responded back to the reports that they use sodium coco sulfate (SCS), which they believed to be
safe. However, chemists attacked this statement saying that SCS manufacturing cannot happen
without SLS and that neither compound can be considered natural (Ugolik, 2016).

37

After this mishap, the Honest Company was under a class action lawsuit and the
company settled to pay $1.55 million. The Class Members under this Settlement were allowed to
be paid up to $50 reimbursement without proof of purchase of the product and Class Members
with proof of purchase were allowed for reimbursement in excess of the $50. Any unclaimed
settlement money was ordered to be disbursed among the Class Members or to skin research
donation at the Dermatology Foundation. Despite the fact the company still vehemently denied
all allegations of using SLS in their products, they wanted to get past the mishap and have since
vowed to remove SCS from their products and formulate with an advanced sugar based
surfactant technology to improve their products efficacy (Gaul, 2017).
While the route in which the Honest Company took to move forward with what consumes
desired from their product was not without trouble, the company still ultimately showed upright
CSR by listening to consumers, making the mishap right by paying consumers back, and vowing
to formulate without SLS and SCS and additionally donating excess settlement money to skin
research. This step differs significantly from the Johnson & Johnson event in which they
promised to formulate their baby products without formaldehyde but continue use in their adult
product lines (Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, 2018). Through all the pitfalls, it appears that the
Honest Company has recognized the issues and taken action to improve their products while
maintaining their mission statement, which is always to be evolving and growing with new
research. Despite their controversies, the Honest Company continues to do well in the natural
cosmetics market and is currently a billion-dollar company (O’Connor, 2016).
Jessica Alba announced in the end of May 2018 that the Honest Company’s Honest
Beauty cosmetics line is expanding to reach outside the US for the first time and is set to be
available in Western Europe in April 2019 (Caldwell, 2018). This expansion is noteworthy as

38

Western Europe consists of EU countries that are known to be strict on cosmetics safety. The
Honest Company and the company's growing success may indicate great respect and high trust
from consumers due to the company’s social responsibility in incorporating health concerns into
their practices. This sort of integrity in the natural cosmetics market may be important as it sets
standards that other companies may want to follow to achieve similar success even through
difficult times such as the SLS mishap.
Consumer Perceived Inferiority of Natural Products
In a study by Ottman in 1998, the discovery was made that 41% of consumers indicate
they do not buy natural products because of their perceived sense of inferiority, meaning that
these products do not work as well as their classic counterparts (Ottman & Miller, 1999). Ottman
(2006) writes of this that these attitudes may be coming from earlier attitudes toward natural
products that were initially inferior. Natural products have since become not only just as efficient
but may work even better than their conventional counterparts. For example, natural cosmetics
may be easier on the skin and thus require less of the formula to cover up skin impurities that
conventional cosmetics may have caused in the first place (Chen, 2009).
Unresponsiveness to Racial Diversity in Natural Cosmetics Products and Natural
Cosmetics Marketing
Researchers have not paid much attention to the fact that manufacturers of natural
cosmetics products may not cater to all skin colors, in particular darker ones. Recently the
successful self-proclaimed natural cosmetics brand, Tarte, who coined the online hashtag
#rethinknatural released a new foundation product – Shape Tape Foundation. Shape Tape
Foundation was released to pair with the company’s cult favorite – Shape Tape Concealer. The

39

highly anticipated foundation was released in January 2018 with 15 different shade options and
two different formulations for the shades (Barbour, 2018; Bargona, 2018; Komar, 2018).
There was criticism following the release with complaints that Tarte's new 15 shade
foundation line caters only to those of light skin complexions with only three of the shades being
“dark” skin tones and the rest being very “light” skin tones. As a result, Tarte responded to the
criticism with an apology to their customers, stating they are always going to advocate for
diversity and they were still working on the darker skin tones that were pending release for a
later date. The general response to this by dissatisfied consumers on social media was that the
company should have waited to release the foundation so all consumers of every skin tone, light
or dark, could feel included. Many consumers also stated they would be boycotting the brand due
to the unforgivable intolerance and lack of inclusion for people of color (Barbour, 2018;
Baragona, 2018; Komar, 2018) This is a large enough concern for consumers online so much so
that they are willing to boycott the brand for making the mistake.
Tarte is not the only cosmetics company to have faced backlash as a result of perceived
discrimination. Many other cosmetics companies such as the natural cosmetics company,
Physicians Formula, whose website boasts its exclusion of over 150+ known harsh ingredients
found in other personal care items (Physicians Formula, n.d.) and KKW Beauty by Kim
Kardashian West have come under fire for similar reasons of excluding darker skin tones. These
allegations come after Physicians Formula released a highlighter line that caters only to lighter
complexions and KKW Beauty performed similar actions with the highly anticipated liquid
concealer line excluding darker complexions (Bargona, 2018; Marsh, 2018; Ruffo, 2018) These
incidents and further insight from consumers regarding exclusion in cosmetics and more

40

specifically natural cosmetics may be helpful for natural cosmetics companies not to duplicate
the fault.
The Fenty Beauty Company created by singer Rihanna has received high praise by
consumers of all colors after introducing her 40-shade foundation line in September 2017. Fenty
Beauty’s goal was to provide a matching foundation shade for everyone so that all consumers
feel included (Nnadi, 2018; Shatzman, 2017). The company has achieved great success in its
short time on the market with an estimated $100 million in earnings within the first 40 days of
release (Nnadi, 2018; Shatzman, 2018). This success may be due in part to her inclusion of
people of color (Hope, 2016; Nnadi, 2018). While Fenty Beauty is not considered a natural
beauty company, if every natural cosmetics company followed suit and stopped ignoring darker
skin tones in their skin coverage, there would potentially be more room for success with the
inclusion of all consumers.
Raising Awareness through Popular Culture
Another factor that may be deterring consumers from purchasing natural cosmetic
products may be a lack of awareness about the potential hazards of their current cosmetic
products (Eisberg 2009). However, more and more consumers continue to learn about the
potential dangers of harsh chemicals found in their typical products, and many are switching
over to natural cosmetics. Groups like the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Environmental
Working Group (EWG) along with celebrities and health blogs such as celebrity Gwyneth
Paltrow's blog, “goop,” are raising awareness for consumers. These sources are also potentially
paving the way for a shift in the market for the growing natural cosmetics industry (Campaign
for Safe Cosmetics, 2018; The Environmental Working Group, 2018; Goop, 2018; Raphael,
2017).

41

There have been recent attempts to bring cosmetics safety regulation to light among
celebrities. Reality television star Kourtney Kardashian from Keeping up with the Kardashians
went to Congress in Washington D.C. on April 24, 2018, to speak on cosmetics reform alongside
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.). Kourtney addressed Congress in the briefing as she joined up
with the non-profit organization, EWG. The organization and Kardashian have the primary goal
of having modernized cosmetics reform. Their mission, #BeautyMadeBetter seeks to raise
awareness for safer cosmetics and the need to update what they state are 80-year-old regulations.
It appears they have goals such as limiting the number of certain chemicals allowed in a product
(Brufke, 2018; EWG, 2018; Frey, 2018). By engaging in this activity, Kourtney Kardashian is
broadcasting her beliefs of more cosmetics regulation in the US and sharing that view with her
millions of fans.
Kourtney Kardashian stated becoming a mother is what alerted her to be aware of the
ingredients in her products including food, cosmetics, and personal care products. She received
gifts for her children that she assumed were safe because they are for babies (Frey, 2018). She
stated that she learned from other “mom-friends” that the products were not safe. This story is
one that rings a bell with many mothers including actress Jessica Alba who as previously stated
founded the Honest Company. During Alba’s first pregnancy, she had an allergic reaction to
laundry detergent that eventually led her to start the Honest Company, whose purpose is to
provide products free of all potentially harmful ingredients, which can be in every consumer's
home (Richie, 2015) While these were personal beliefs these celebrities, have taken their
platform and acted upon their concerns not only as mothers, but also consumers and influencers
and they done a lot to raise awareness to cosmetics regulation as well as come up with solutions
to the problem.

42

Celebrities have a profound influence on American society as evident by Arnold
Schwarzenegger’s controversial election as Governor of California and the even more divisive
election of Donald Trump as President of the United States (Fuchsman, 2017; McKernan, 2011).
Celebrities may have enough influence to raise consumer awareness and enact policy change.
Gwyneth Paltrow, Kourtney Kardashian, and Jessica Alba, while not only being celebrities, are
also consumers. With their public and influential pedestals, they each have the opportunity to
voice their opinions and potentially raise awareness and influence other consumers. They, along
with other celebrities and others with similar platforms, are in a unique position to have the
ability to potentially enact policy change around cosmetics regulation in the United States as
consumers. While many times celebrity impact on society may not be favorable for everyone, the
policy change for safe cosmetics may be one that is desirable for all consumers.

COSMETICS AND CONSUMERS
Consumers as Policy Decision Makers
The National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) currently includes
consumers as their policy decision makers for their Health Centers. They include a 51%
consumer majority in their board of directors. This practice of consumer inclusion is due to the
belief that consumers are the primary stakeholders in the practices taking place at the health
centers and, thus, their inclusion in decision making is necessary. These policies are believed to
contribute to a more satisfied consumer base (Lohmeier & Saunders, 2016; National Association
of Community Health Centers, 2011). Policies related to cosmetics regulation are in place for
consumer protection, and consumers are the ones who are subject to the policy regulation
outcomes in the form of their cosmetic product use. If consumer opinions become regarded as

43

more important in policy recommendations, as displayed in the NACHC, similar implementation
could occur in cosmetics and, thus, policy change could reflect consumer opinions.
There is concern regarding consumer aptitude in making policy choices for themselves
due to beliefs such as consumers lacking the proper knowledge to interpret scientific findings as
well as their inability to effectively inform as they may not be well versed in either fields (Layne,
2018). Consumers should not have to be experts in a field to be able to make decisions that affect
them (Ferrell & Krugman, 1974; Lohmeier & Saunders, 2016). Consumers could be informed of
scientific findings on cosmetic ingredients and be given the opportunity to interpret the scientific
findings and proceed accordingly with policy choices. Consumers are capable of making
informed decisions regarding policy change just as they vote on other matters within their states
and federally (Ferrell & Krugman, 1974).
Consumers in the Marketplace
Consumption has been said by Michiletti (2003) to be political by nature as it is an
avenue of change through consumer intervention that would not otherwise be possible through
conventional political systems. Consumers have an impact on markets, as they are the ones to
whom these markets cater. Consumer expression of concern through their purchases has been
described as consumer votes. Purchasing natural cosmetics can be seen as a way of “voting” for
natural cosmetics through the choice to purchase the product, no matter the reason (Dickinson &
Carsky, 2005; Dickinson & Hollander 1991; Moraes et al., 2011; Shaw, Newholm & Dickinson,
2006) With this voting power, consumers choosing natural cosmetics and gravitating toward
them due to their use of safer ingredients, the market may be able to shift to cater to those
product idealities.

44

There are many barriers evident when it comes to consumer votes. Many consumers are
aware of their choices as being non-environmentally friendly or useful for their health but often
have other reasons for choosing products such as convenience and product favorability (Atkinson
& Kim, 2015). This idea may very well be evident in the use of conventional cosmetics as
consumers may be aware that their cosmetics are potentially harmful but rely heavily on them for
their performance and likability. This idea indicates the possibility that sometimes consumers
may not want policy change, as they are satisfied with current policies and like their products asis. The following survey in this thesis addresses this question in the use or non-use of natural
cosmetics.

CONCLUSION TO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
When starting the research for this thesis, after a careful reading of the current literature,
it became apparent that there was minimal to no consideration of the consumers’ desires in
changing the policy for safety in cosmetics. Most of the data that policy change suggestions
relied on was either from scientists, scholars, cosmetic companies, or politicians. These
suggestions for change, while helpful, were not inclusive of the greater mass of society outside
of the realms of academia and specialization in policy making or large business. While the input
from these included parties is critical to any policy change with cosmetics, the input from the
consumers who buy, use, and wear these products could be helpful as well.
Within the literature, there was nothing relating to what consumers definitively expect
from their products and from the rules and regulations in place to protect them. There was only
speculation on what consumers desire and no data upon which to gauge what exactly consumers
want from their cosmetics regulation. The speculation comes from both sides of the spectrum,

45

those who believe the regulation is enough, and those who do not believe the regulation is
enough. This gap in the literature led to the idea that policymakers should be creating policies
that address what consumers want by starting with finding what their beliefs and opinions are on
the subject. Then it would make sense to formulate a policy suggestion based on the relevant
information obtained from consumers.
Common methodological approaches in the available literature included policy analysis,
policy comparison, natural cosmetics and conventional cosmetics marketing examination, and
scientific toxicology research. While the findings from these methodologies did inform this
thesis’s methodology, the research has taken a different approach and involved consumers and
their opinions on cosmetics regulation. The research aimed to uncover what consumers knew
about cosmetics regulation in the United States. Further, the research was used to delve deeper
into whether consumers believed that the cosmetics they use are safe and to further analyze
whether a change is necessary. This approach differed significantly from current research
because the literature primarily focused on the opinions and actions of the professionals and
excluded the people who these regulations will be impacting, namely the consumer.
The idea to include consumers in policy decision-making came from some sources such
as NACHC (2011) and Moraes et al. (2011). Their belief that consumers be involved in the
decision-making process for policies that impact them was one that was inspiring and innovative.
Going through the research, it was apparent there was another primary party missing in the
opinions regarding what should happen with cosmetics policy in the United States.
Nyilasy et al. (2014) ultimately paved the way for this research to ask consumers of their
opinions and to make suggestions based on these consumer opinions. They asked opinions on
greenwashing to measure their responses to natural product ads, and then formulate what their

46

opinions mean for the natural product market. This thesis used the idea by Nyilasy et al. (2014)
of asking consumers’ opinions, measuring instead consumer opinions on cosmetics policy and
what these opinions further suggest.
The use of a survey was inspired by the belief that this would be an effective way to
measure opinions and perceptions of consumers. Nyilasy et al. (2014) further inspired the survey
because, while their research focused mainly on consumer opinion, the way they went about
finding the opinions was not applicable to this research. After reviewing many research methods
in the literature, it became apparent that a sample survey using a snowball sample methodology
would be best, as it is a very general approach to finding non-specialized, initial opinions which
is what this thesis sought (Crossman, 2018).
Sources such as Daum (2006) and Watnick (2014) were helpful for this thesis; their
methodologies relied primarily on cosmetics policy analysis in the United States and other
countries. The findings and positions proposed by these papers led this thesis research to ask
survey questions comparating policies in the United States to those of other countries. These
sources advocate for policies similar to those in other countries but do not adequately consider if
consumers are happy with current policies.
Another resource for the methodology of this thesis was from the advocacy group,
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Much of their arguments against the current US FDA regulatory
practices as well as cosmetic manufacturing companies and their ingredients of concern currently
present in cosmetics such as parabens, phthalates, mineral oil, and lead, led this researcher to
seek out scientific findings and formal analysis of these findings and their rebuttals. These
concerns and rebuttals come from sources such as Cashman and Warshaw (2005); Darbre et al.
(2004); Darbre and Harvey (2014); El Hussein et al. (2007); the US FDA; Godrey (2008); Jagne

47

et al. (2016); the Official Journal of European Union (2014); and Smith and Lourie (2014), for
their varying positions on parabens and phthalates in cosmetics.
Sources for their findings and positions on mineral oil and lead in cosmetics came from
Berkeley Wellness (2017); Brown (2013) ; Concin et al. (2011); the US FDA; Fioravanti (2010);
Hatch et al. (2008); James-Todd (2012); Latini (2005); Newbold (2010); Stahlhunt et al. (2007);
Miljøstyrelsen (2017); Needleman and Schell (1990); Niederer et al. (2016); Tsz (2010); Wang
et al. (2016); Wijngaarden et al. (2007); and Witorsch and Thomas (2010). This research for the
literature review further translated into this thesis’s survey questions asking consumers if they
believe potentially toxic ingredients are in cosmetics and asking their opinions on concerns
against these ingredients to establish whether or not consumers feel safe with their current
cosmetic policies.
Multiple sources were used in asking survey questions relating to potential barriers to
buying natural cosmetics. The Tarte, Physicians Formula, and KKW cosmetics scandals relating
to their lack of diversity in their products led to the idea that this may be a common issue
preventing consumers, particularly those of darker skin tones, from being able to buy natural
cosmetics. This idea of exclusion was also influenced by Hope (2016), whose work assisted in
the research by providing information that there is a common exclusion in cosmetics in general.
There are also issues with affordability and efficacy that were informed by Cronin (2011);
Ottman 2006; Ottman & Miller (1999); and Royne et al. (2012). This information further led to
inquiring with consumers on if they use natural cosmetics and their reasons for their use or nonuse.
For the scope of research, the final decision was that this thesis would conclude by
identifying any necessary policy change suggestions for the United States cosmetics regulation.

48

This decision stemmed from the concern that there is not enough regulation of cosmetics in the
United States—a concern expressed by many other sources such as Campaign for Safe
Cosmetics (2018); Dauma (2006); Mason (2008); and Watnick (2014). With consumers being
the primary stakeholders within the cosmetics market in the United States, the outcome of this
thesis would follow that it is crucial that the policy suggestions made be by the consumer, for the
consumer.

49

CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

INTRODUCTION TO METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
This chapter establishes the methodology used for the thesis research in order to answer
the research question about whether or not consumer opinions and perceptions match current
cosmetics policy in the United States that is in place to protect them. A survey was conducted to
answer the research question. The chapter continues and analyzes the results of the survey
questions using descriptive statistics.

METHODOLOGY
Identification of Methods
For conducting the research to answer the research question on whether or not current
cosmetics policy matches the opinions and perceptions of consumers they are in place to protect,
this thesis used a quantitative survey on the online site Survey Monkey.
The use of a quantitative survey was done to quantifiably measure the responses based on
the knowledge or opinions of each participant. The basis of the various question types in the
survey relied heavily on several different methodologies of natural cosmetics marketing, policy
analysis and comparison, as well as toxicology research. These questions measured generalized
consumer opinions on various products.
The questions were primarily formulated to address many concerns brought up in the
current literature such as the allowed use of potentially toxic ingredients in cosmetics, the
voluntary status of FDA registration for cosmetic products and cosmetic companies, as well as
the pre and post-market safety checks of cosmetics. Additionally, the questions posed sought to

50

identify the consumers’ knowledge of current policy, and whether there was a consensus that
specific policies addressed in these questions are insufficient.
Some of the questions posed related more specifically to the use of natural cosmetics.
These questions were added to the survey to assess opinions on natural cosmetics as they are
intended to be the safe alternative to conventional cosmetics. These questions were posed to
identify if any barriers may be present, preventing consumers from using natural cosmetics. The
results of this section were intended to provide information for natural cosmetic companies to
effectively market their products to the general public.
Identification of Target Population
When identifying the responses, it made the most sense to have feedback from the
general United States adult population of consumers who are ages 18+. Cosmetics are prevalent
in everyday life for a significant portion of the population. The author wanted to gauge the
interest of any and all cosmetic consumers. While it was critical to the research to ensure that
each of the participants answered honestly, it was equally as critical that the participants were
comfortable enough to express their knowledge or gaps in knowledge with regards to the
cosmetic industry. To give cosmetics consumers a voice, each of these questions was written
with consideration so as not to tip the participant in any one direction. It was also important to
give enough information that the participant would continue and finish the survey with a sense of
purpose in completing it. Each of the questions built upon the last and added more depth to the
understanding of the general opinion on cosmetics regulation in the United States. In general, the
author intended to reach as many consumers as possible that are impacted by the current policy.
The use of social media was done in order to receive general public feedback of their
opinions on these matters. Facebook is a common social media platform that has millions of

51

users. Because of the availability of feedback from posting on Facebook, the author of this thesis
research introduced and conducted the survey by sharing it on their personal page. At the time
the survey was shared, the author’s Facebook account had over 1,600 friends, most of which
could participate in or share the survey.
Facebook was the chosen space because the survey’s primary goal was to get feedback
from a lot of consumers. This was done using a snowball sample methodology to receive
feedback from as many people as possible because it was exploratory initial research that was
not aiming to hear from any specific group aside from US citizens. Facebook was also desirable
due to the sharing option, meaning people could share the survey with their friends and family
and the survey could get even more responses from people that may not have otherwise gotten to
respond if the survey had been conducted through other means of receiving feedback such as
surveying consumers at cosmetics stores or kiosks. In other words, the survey was not limited to
only the people that were in direct contact with the author and had the potential of expanding
beyond the author’s reach in a short amount of time.
Conducting the Survey
The survey was conducted on the Survey Monkey website after having paid for the
additional subscription to expand the ten-question limitation and provide a better analysis tool.
The survey was advertised via the author’s personal Facebook page using the following
introduction on a public and sharable post.
“Hello everyone, I am conducting a survey for my thesis I am working on in the Master
of Environmental Studies Program at The Evergreen State College. This survey is open to
anyone who is 18+ and is a US citizen, currently lives in the US, or a US citizen abroad.
The topic of this survey is around cosmetics in the United States. If you are in the MES

52

program with me I am going to ask that you abstain from participating in the survey but
please feel free to share with your friends, family, or colleagues. This survey is open to
all the groups listed and everyone is welcomed and encouraged to share. The survey is 21
questions long and based on your current knowledge. This is not a test so please do not
look up answers for the survey as I am trying to gauge what you know now. Feel free to
do your own research on the topic after the survey. If you have any questions please feel
free to message me on here. Thanks!”

The survey was open to the public for fifteen days after the initial post. The preliminary
goal of the survey was to have at least 60 responses before analyzing the results. However, the
survey received over 340 complete responses during that time. The goal to get 60 participants
was in place to ensure a wide range of responses to avoid potential bias and risk not having a
large enough sample size to measure trends accurately. Surpassing the original goal of 60
participants and receiving 340 complete responses was a huge success as this made for a much
larger sample size to not only increase the quality of the feedback but to make it easier to identify
any trends.
After sharing the survey online, over 30 different people shared the original post, and this
had a direct effect on the number of participants. This impact was apparent, as often throughout
the time the survey was available, the participants would comment something along the lines of,
“Done” on the original post or the shared post. Many of the commenters were not on the original
1,600 friends list. The shares were effective at engaging participants and thus increasing the
overall amount of completed responses.

53

Identifying Survey Questions
When identifying the questions to ask consumers, the questions were based on what was
commonly brought up as suggestions for change in the current literature. Most of the literature
based these suggestions on other policies in other first-world countries such as the European
Union countries and Canada. A majority of the literature looked closely at toxicology research
within the cosmetics field, suspected toxic ingredients, and safe amounts of use for these toxic
chemicals. What was particularly interesting about these toxicology sections was that the safe
amount of use was based on what scientists deemed to be safe and at minimal risk to consumers.
One of the main ideas that was essential to the research was establishing whether consumers felt
safe with any or small amounts of toxic chemicals in their cosmetics. This was critical to see if
there is a perception of safety when the government is assumed to be involved in regulation of
cosmetics. This thesis was looking to see if consumers believe in the perceived safety or if there
was even awareness that the products were not strictly regulated.

SURVEY QUESTIONS
The Appendix of this thesis shares the questions that were posted online after being
approved by the Human Subject Review panel at the Evergreen State College. The questions
posed did not ultimately reveal the identities of the survey takers in the thesis, the survey was
completely voluntary, and found to be of minimal risk to any person participating. Below, the
questions are organized by category.

54

Questions Identifying Demographics:
The questions identifying demographics were asked to see the various ethnicities, ages, genders,
or education levels of survey takers.

Questions identifying demographics included:
Question 2: What is your age?
Question 3: What is your education level?
Question 4: What is your gender?
Question 5: What is your ethnicity?

Questions Identifying Use of Cosmetics:
Next, there was a group of questions to identify the people who use cosmetics versus the
people who do not use cosmetics. It was essential to identify any differences in opinions of
people as a baseline of the non-users and the target audience of cosmetic users rather than just
lawmakers and scientists.

Questions to identify the users and non-users included:
Question 6: Do you buy and use cosmetics? (Make up, facial lotions, lotions, face wash, nail
polish, etc.)
Question 7: How often do you wear cosmetics?

55

Questions Identifying Current Knowledge:
These questions were asked to examine where the average person is in their knowledge of
cosmetics regulation in the United States as well as measuring whether or not consumers use
conventional cosmetics products despite being aware of the risks associated with them. These
questions additionally sought to understand if consumers are aware of their cosmetics policies
and regulations. These questions were intended to identify the intentions of consumers as well as
the knowledge gaps and, further, current knowledge of consumers.

Questions used to identify the knowledge of the consumers included:
Question 8: Who do you think is in charge of regulating the cosmetics industry in the United
States? (Upholds laws and regulations applying to cosmetics on the market in the US)
Question 9: Do you think there are potentially toxic chemicals in cosmetics in the United States?
Question 11: Are cosmetics required to be tested for safety before being sold in the United
States and, if not should they be?

Questions Identifying Opinions of Current Cosmetics Policies:
These questions were posed to inform the policy recommendations this thesis proposes.
These questions were based on suggestions posed by scholarly articles that base their suggestions
on regulations from their own opinions or other countries. The reason these are in the
questionnaire is they seek to identify whether or not the general public agrees with these
suggestions rather than scholars making the calls for the general cosmetics consumers.

Questions identifying the opinions of current policies included:

56

Question 10: Do you think a cosmetics product recall should be mandatory if a product is
suspected of being unsafe for use?
Question 12: Do you think that if an ingredient is banned in another country for being
potentially unsafe, it should also be banned in the US?

Questions Identifying Practices Regarding Natural Cosmetics:
The reason for asking questions about natural cosmetic use was to see if the alternative to
conventional cosmetics – natural cosmetics – are being utilized and why or why not. These were
additionally posed to analyze opinions regarding natural cosmetics as many people may have
differing opinions regarding the effectiveness of natural products in general. Often, people feel
natural products do not perform as well as their conventional counterparts so making a
comparison was a helpful insight to see the differences, identify any potential barriers preventing
consumers from wanting to or being able to use natural cosmetics as that is their alternative
option to policy change.

Questions to identify practices regarding natural cosmetics included:
Question 13: Do you go out of your way to buy natural cosmetics?
Question 14: Do you feel represented by natural cosmetics? (Foundation skin color shade
range)
Question 15: Do you find natural products to be more or less affordable than normal products?
Question 16: Do you feel natural cosmetic products perform as well as their top brand
counterparts?

57

Questions Identifying Opinions on Suggested Policy Changes:
These questions were designed to gather consumer opinions about how the cosmetics
industry should be regulated. These suggestions were important to measure to ensure that these
policy suggestions are actually worthwhile not only for the groups involved but for consumers as
well. It is important to understand whether or not consumers want these changes in their policies
or if they are pursued without the interest of consumers.

Questions regarding these opinions included:
Question 17: Do you think extensive, long term testing should be done on cosmetic ingredients
before they are allowed to be used in cosmetics?
Question 18: Do you think cosmetics companies should have to register with their governing
agency before selling their products?
Question 19: Do you think ingredients in cosmetics that are currently on the market should be
tested annually to see if there are different findings about the safety?
Question 20: Do you believe potentially harmful ingredients should be allowed in cosmetics if
the amount of these ingredients is low enough to be safe, according to safety tests?
Question 21: Do you think there should be testing for the health effects of combining multiple,
common cosmetic products at the same time? (For example: foundation, concealer, mascara,
lipstick)

58

DATA ANALYSIS
When analyzing the results of this survey, basic descriptive statistics was used to analyze
the different answers to the various questions. The questions regarding opinion were initially
looked at by complete responses of all respondents and while demographic identification was
asked, the responses were not explicitly categorized into demographics due to the snowball
sampling method of the survey. The analysis of these survey responses focused on determining
whether or not the vast majority of responders chose a particular answer choice. When 50% or
more chose any given answer choice, that choice was considered to be what most of the
responders wanted, and the policy suggestions were then formulated to reflect this.

LIMITATIONS IN THIS STUDY
Breadth of Research
While this survey was available to many people by being introduced and utilized on the
internet, it is essential to acknowledge that the internet is something not every person uses or has
access to. Also, people who have a connection to the author in some way or another were the
primary survey takers. This survey reached many people but was still very limited in that it only
reached people through Facebook and not in every walk of life in the United States that may
have been able to contribute to it.
Potential for Bias
Within conducting this research, it was important to recognize potential bias in the
answers. The author felt that because her Facebook friends list was so extensive that she would
receive a lot of feedback which was the primary goal of the survey. The author additionally was
not Facebook friends with many people from class and, further, she asked her classmates to

59

abstain from taking the survey, she was helping reduce the risk of bias. The author has had her
Facebook account for more than ten years, so many people she has met in various parts of her
life who she has connected with through Facebook had access to answer these questions. She has
people on her Facebook ranging from the various ages, regional location, ethnicities, education,
and gender, so this thesis presumed that the diversity of her friend's group would help reduce the
potential for bias. Due to the feedback of this survey being primarily from Caucasian and Native
American women, those appear to be the groups that the Facebook survey struck a chord with
and may further indicate those groups are the ones who are most engaged on the author’s
Facebook page and portray that the results reflect feedback mainly from those groups, however
this is unnecessary as any and all feedback was helpful. Moreover, there may be an influx of
those groups of people on the author’s page, however this is not possible to examine as there is
no methods the author could access in which Facebook categorizes friends lists into demographic
groups and there are no ethnic identification settings users choose on the platform.
In identifying the author’s own bias, she does feel that there should be a policy change
and that the United States needs to change the way cosmetics are produced to be more
sustainable, and with minimal risk to consumers and furthermore the environment. She feels that
she is not overly political and generally abstains from sharing too much of her personal beliefs
around the topics in the survey on Facebook. Although she does often share her beliefs on caring
for the environment and some stances on politics, the questions were carefully crafted so as not
to show bias, and the questions were posed merely to gauge every sort of responses and opinions
that would be relevant in suggesting new policy for everyone.
The author made it clear in the introduction to the survey that the survey was not a test,
and it was based on current knowledge and that she asked the survey takers to refrain from

60

researching the subject until after they completed the survey so as not to skew the results. This
additional step was taken to address the potential for bias and to ask for the survey takers help in
preventing this.
Self-selection bias is a risk in this situation as this is shared on Facebook and the survey
takers do elect to take the survey, which may cause the results to sway one way or another. This
survey was introduced to the author's entire friends list and many other of the author's friends’
friend’s lists. Many people were able to see the survey and chose not to participate as evident by
340 complete responses when shared with over 1,600 people; not everyone responded, yet, many
elected to participate. While these survey results risk this self-selection bias, the author believed
the research would reach a large audience and all feedback would be helpful for the exploratory
research.

RESULTS
The online survey was open on Survey Monkey for 14 days from February 7th, 2018 until
February 14th, 2018, and received 381 total responses. Of the 381 responses, 340 responses were
complete. In order to be considered complete, each and every question must have been answered.
The skipping of any question in the survey disqualified that survey for analysis. The survey
exceeded all the initial expectations by receiving so many responses. The survey clearly sparked
interest in people as it was introduced to 1,600 friends and received 340 engaged responses.

61

Questions Identifying Demographics Results

18-24

22.65%

25-34

20.00%

35-44

21.76%

44-54

19.12%

55+

16.47%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 1.1
Question 2: What is your age?

Question 2: “What is your age?” had seventy-seven participants between the ages of 1824. Sixty-eight participants were between the ages of 25-34. Seventy-four participants were
between the ages of 35-44. Sixty-five participants were 45-54 years old. Fifty-six participants
were 55 and over. The first three age brackets were fairly evenly distributed in ages of survey
takers and had a slight dip in the bracket between the 18-24 and the 35-44 bracket.

62

High School

26.76%

Associates

19.41%

Bachelors

30.59%

Graduate

18.82%

PhD/ Doc

4.41%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 1.2
Question 3: What is your education level?

Question 3: “What is your education level?” had ninety-one participants with High
School/ GED education. Sixty-six participants reportedly had Associates Degree’s. One hundred
and four participants had bachelor’s Degrees. Sixty-four participants had Graduate Degrees. The
remaining fifteen participants reportedly had PhD/ Doctorate Degrees.

63

Male

7.65%

Female

92.06%

Trans

0.29%

Other

0.00%

Prefer

0.00%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 1.3
Question 4: What is your gender?

Question 4: “What is your gender?” had twenty-six male participants. There were three
hundred and thirteen female participants. There was one transgender participant. The remaining
choices: “Other”, and “Prefer Not to Answer” had no participants.

64

Caucasian

55.59%

Af Amer

3.53%

Hispanic

2.35%

Native

30.29%

Other
Prefer

7.94%
0.29%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 1.4
Question 5: What is your ethnicity?

Question 5: “What is your ethnicity?” One hundred and eighty-nine participants
identified with answer choice: “Caucasian.” Twelve participants identified with answer choice:
“African American.” Eight participants identified with answer choice: “Hispanic.” There were
one hundred and three Native American/ Alaska Native responders. There were twenty-seven
participants who chose answer choice: “Other.” The remaining answer choice: “Prefer Not to
Answer” had one participant.

65

Questions Identifying Use of Cosmetics

Yes

92.94%

No

7.06%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 2.1
Question 6: Do you buy and use cosmetics?

Question 6: “Do you buy and use cosmetics? (Make up, facial lotions, face wash, nail
polish, etc.)”. Three hundred and sixteen participants reportedly buy and use cosmetics, only
twenty-four participants responded that they do not use cosmetics.

66

Everyday

42.94%

Few x week

29.71%

Seldom

20.29%

Never

7.06%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 2.2
Question 7: How often do you wear cosmetics?

Question 7: “How often do you wear cosmetics?” One hundred and forty-six
participants, responded that they use cosmetics “every day.” One hundred and one participants
chose answer choice: “A few times a week.” Sixty-nine participants chose answer choice:
“Seldom.” Twenty-four participants reported back with answer choice: “Never.”

67

Questions Identifying Current Knowledge

Cosmetics

29.12%

FDA

64.12%

Retailers

4.71%

Scientists

2.06%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 3.1
Question 8: Who do you think is in charge of regulating the cosmetics industry
in the United States?

Question 8: “Who do you think is in charge of regulating the cosmetics industry in the
United States? (Upholds laws and regulations applying to cosmetics on the market in the US)”
Two hundred and eighteen participants responded with answer choice: “The Food and Drug
Administration.” Ninety-nine participants responded with answer choice: “Cosmetics
Companies.” Sixteen participants responded with answer choice: “Retailers.” Seven participants
chose answer choice: “Scientists.”

68

Yes

81.76%

Somewhat

16.47%

No

1.76%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 3.2
Question 9: Do you think there are potentially toxic ingredients in cosmetics in
the United States?

Question 9: “Do you think there are potentially toxic chemicals in cosmetics in the
United States?” Two hundred and seventy-eight participants responded with answer choice:
“Yes.” Fifty-six participants responded with answer choice: “Somewhat.” The remaining six
participants responded with answer choice: “No.”

69

Yes

22.06%

No & No

1.18%

No & Yes

26.47%

IDK, Yes

49.12%

IDK, No

1.18%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 3.3
Question 11: Are cosmetics required to be safety tested before being sold in the
United States and, if not should they be?

Question 11: “Are cosmetics required to be tested for safety before being sold in the
United States and, if not should they be?” Seventy five participants chose answer choice: “Yes,
testing is required.” Four participants chose answer choice: “No, testing is not required, and I
believe that is OK.” Ninety participants responded with answer choice: “No, testing is not
required but it should be.” One hundred and sixty-seven participants responded with answer
choice: “I don’t know if testing is required, but I think it should be.” Four participants responded
with answer choice: “I don’t know if testing is required, but I think it is unnecessary.”

70

Questions Regarding Opinions on Current Cosmetics Policies Results

Yes

95%

Somewhat

4.12%

No

0.88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 4.1
Question 10: Do you think a cosmetics product recall should be mandatory if a
product is suspected of being unsafe for use?

Question 10: “Do you think a cosmetics product recall should be mandatory if a product
is suspected of being unsafe for use?” had three hundred and twenty-three participants choosing
answer choice: “Yes.” Fourteen participants chose answer choice: “Somewhat.” The remaining
three participants chose answer choice: “No.”

71

Yes

70.59%

Somewhat

25.88%

No

3.53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 4.2
Question 12: Do you think that if an ingredient is banned in another country
for being potentially unsafe, it should also be banned in the US?

Question 12: “Do you think that if an ingredient is banned in another country for being
potentially unsafe, it should also be banned in the US?” had two hundred and forty participants
choosing answer choice: “Yes.” Eighty-eight participants chose answer choice: “Somewhat.”
The remaining twelve participants chose answer choice: “No.”

72

Questions Identifying Practices Regarding Natural Cosmetics Results

Yes

30.88%

Sometimes

35.29%

No

33.28%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 5.1
Question 13: Do you go out of your way to buy natural cosmetics?

Question 13: “Do you go out of your way to buy natural cosmetics?” One hundred and
five participants reported back with answer choice: “Yes.” One hundred and twenty participants
reported back with answer choice: “Sometimes.” The remaining one hundred and fifteen
participants reported back with answer choice: “No.”

73

Yes

36.47%

Somewhat

23.82%

No

14.71%

I haven't looked

25.00%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 5.2
Question 14: Do you feel represented by natural cosmetics?

Question 14: “Do you feel represented by natural cosmetics? (Foundation skin color
shade range)” One hundred and twenty-four participants chose answer choice: “Yes.” Answer
choice: “Somewhat”, was chosen by eighty-one participants. Answer choice: “No,” was chosen
by fifty participants. Answer choice: “I haven’t looked,” was chosen by eighty-five participants.

74

More expensive

70.29%

The Same

10.88%

Less Expensive

2.65%

Unsure

16.18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 5.3
Question 15: Do you find natural products to be more or less affordable than
normal products?

Question 15: “Do you find natural products to be more or less affordable than normal
products?” was posed. For that question, two hundred and thirty-nine participants chose answer
choice: “More expensive.” Thirty-seven participants chose answer choice: “The same.” Nine
participants chose answer choice: “Less expensive.” The remaining fifty-five participants chose
answer choice: “Unsure.”

75

Yes

31.76%

Somewhat

48.24%

No

20.00%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 5.4
Question 16: Do you feel natural cosmetic products perform as well as their
top brand counterparts?

Question 16: “Do you feel natural cosmetic products perform as well as their top brand
counterparts?” was also asked. One hundred and eight participants chose answer choice: “Yes.”
One hundred and sixty-four participants chose the next answer choice: “Somewhat.” The
remaining sixty-eight participants chose final answer choice: “No.”

76

Questions Identifying Opinions on Suggested Policy Changes Results

Yes

78.24%

Somewhat

19.71%

No

2.06%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 6.1
Question 17: Do you think extensive, long term testing should be done on
cosmetic ingredients before they are allowed to be used in cosmetics?

The remaining questions in the survey were all measuring opinions. The first question of
this type, Question 17 asked: “Do you think extensive, long term testing should be done on
cosmetic ingredients before they are allowed to be used in cosmetics?” Two hundred and sixtysix participants chose first answer choice: “Yes.” Sixty-seven participants chose the next answer
choice: “Somewhat.” The remaining seven participants chose final answer choice: “No.”

77

Yes

84.71%

Somewhat

12.06%

No

3.24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 6.2
Question 18: Do you think cosmetics companies should have to register with
their governing agency before selling their products?

The next question, Question 18: “Do you think cosmetics companies should have to
register with their governing agency before selling their products?” Two hundred and eightyeight participants chose first answer choice: “Yes.” Forty-one participants chose the next answer
choice: “Somewhat.” The remaining eleven participants chose the final answer choice: “No.”

78

Yes

68.24%

Somewhat

21.47%

No

10.29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 6.3
Question 19: Do you think ingredients in cosmetics that are currently on the
market should be tested annually to see if there are different findings about the
safety?

Question 19 asked: “Do you think ingredients in cosmetics that are currently on the
market should be tested annually to see if there are different findings about the safety?” Two
hundred and thirty-two participants chose answer choice: “Yes.” Seventy-three participants
chose next answer choice: “Somewhat.” The remaining thirty-five participants chose the
remaining choice: “No.”

79

Yes

14.71%

Somewhat

24.41%

No

60.88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 6.4
Question 20: Do you believe potentially harmful ingredients should be allowed
in cosmetics if the amount of these ingredients is low enough to be safe,
according to safety tests?

Question 20 was: “Do you believe potentially harmful ingredients should be allowed in
cosmetics if the amount of these ingredients is low enough to be safe, according to safety tests?”
Fifty participants chose answer choice: “Yes.” Eighty-three participants chose answer choice:
“Somewhat.” Two hundred and seven participants chose the remaining answer choice: “No.”

80

Yes

73.24%

Somewhat

18.82%

No

7.94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Responses

Figure 6.5
Question 21: Do you think there should be testing for the health effects of
combining multiple, common cosmetics products at the same time?

The final question, Question 21 asked: “Do you think there should be testing for the
health effects of combining multiple, common cosmetics products at the same time? (For
example: foundation, concealer, mascara, lipstick)”. Two hundred and forty-nine participants
chose answer choice: “Yes.” Sixty-four participants chose answer choice: “Somewhat.” The
remaining twenty-seven participants chose the final answer choice: “No.”

81

Methodology and Results
The methodology for this thesis was a survey informed by many methodologies, created
to measure consumer opinions and knowledge about current cosmetics policy in the United
States, natural cosmetics, and proposed cosmetics policy changes in the United States. These
findings were sought after to answer the question this thesis posed which is whether or not
consumers are satisfied with the current policy in place to protect them. The survey was shared
via Facebook and received 340 complete responses that identified the knowledge and opinions
the survey sought after. The feedback was received from a variety of people, primarily Caucasian
or Native American/ Alaska Native Women. Most of the feedback was from consumers of
cosmetics that wear cosmetics on a regular basis. Consumers gave feedback on current policy,
natural cosmetics, and policy change suggestions from advocacy groups and scholars who have
been aiming for stricter regulation on cosmetics in the United States.

82

CHAPTER 4 – DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION TO DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the survey findings of consumer knowledge and opinions about
cosmetics policy in the United States to answer the question on whether or not consumers are
satisfied with current cosmetics policy in place to protect them. The survey received a lot of
feedback from consumers that indicate where to move with policy suggestions. The feedback
indicated a desire for safer cosmetics despite the known risks of continually using conventional
cosmetics. The feedback indicated that an overall majority of consumers know who is in charge
of regulating cosmetics in the United States, and they do believe there are potentially toxic
ingredients in cosmetics in the United States. The consumers additionally believed there should
be more safety checking for cosmetics at all stages of the marketing process. Consumers
reportedly felt that natural cosmetics are more expensive than their conventional counterparts
and they also may not work as well or be diverse in their shade ranges. Consumers also believed
that United States policy should reflect those in other developed countries that have found
ingredients to be potentially harmful for use in products like cosmetics.

RESEARCH QUESTION RESTATED
Do the existing U.S. policies that have been designed to protect consumers from harmful
chemicals in cosmetics match the expectations and perceptions held by cosmetics consumers
about the regulations in place to protect them?

83

DISCUSSION
Questions Identifying Demographics Discussion
The survey results showed trends in what a majority of people responded in their
opinions, knowledge, and expectations of their cosmetics policy in the United States. The first
set of questions identifying demographics showed a relatively equal ratio of responses from the
varying age groups. The response range from each age group was ranging from the low of
16.47% to the high of 22.65% and the rest somewhere between the two.
The United States Census Bureau (n.d.) with data from 2012-2016 reports that 87% of
people over the age of 25 have a high school diploma or higher which was over reflected in this
survey as every participant had a high school diploma/ GED or higher. This data from the
Census Bureau does only have information for people over the age of 25, and this survey did
have participants between the ages of 18-25, so the Census Bureau data may not be able to depict
demographics for all participants entirely. This thesis would further like to acknowledge that
there was no option for “none of the above” for people who may not have a high school diploma
or GED. This oversight may have been an issue for participants having an accurate response, and
several disqualified responses skipped this question, the exclusion may have been the reason.
The United States Census Bureau (n.d.) with data for 2012-2016 also reports that 30.3% over the
age of 25 have bachelor’s degrees or higher and that was not in alignment with these survey
participants as more than half of the responders had bachelor’s degrees or higher.
The responses of men being 7.65% and women being 92% was not representative of all
U.S. citizens, but it may have been reflective of the regular use of cosmetics. However, this
research did seek answers from men who may use what this thesis considers cosmetics such as

84

lotions or cleansing products, so the number of male participants was not reflective of the greater
United States population of cosmetics consumers as a whole.
The demographic questions showed that survey takers were primarily Caucasian and
Native American with more than half being the former and around 30% of responders being the
latter. The remaining ~15% identified as African American, Hispanic American, or Other. These
results did not correlate much with different ethnic population percentages in the United States
Census Bureau (n.d.) as Caucasian; white Americans make up 75% of the population, and Native
American’s take up only 1.3% of the population. Only ~3.5% of responders identified as African
American whereas according to the United States Census Bureau (n.d.) in 2017, African
American’s made up about 13% of the U.S. population. Around 2.3% of survey responders
identified as Hispanic American whereas they also made up around 17% of the U.S. population
in 2017 (Census Bureau, n.d.). The remaining ~7.9% of survey takers responded as “Other”
which was not surprising as there was no option for Asian American for example which was an
oversight on the author’s part. Furthermore, there are many potential options that survey takers
were not given and may ultimately identify.
Questions Identifying the Use of Cosmetics Discussion
In the questions identifying the use of cosmetics, nearly all of the responders reported
that they do buy and use cosmetics. Less than half (43%) of the participants reported they wear
cosmetics daily, around 30% reported that they wear cosmetics a few days a week, around 20%
reported that they seldom wear cosmetics and around 7% of participants responded that they
never wear cosmetics. Since around 73% of participants use cosmetics on a regular or daily
basis, the feedback received was predominantly from consumers who wear cosmetics very often,
which means the suggestions presented truly do come from cosmetics consumers.

85

Questions Identifying Current Knowledge Discussion
In the questions identifying current knowledge, 64% of participants responded correctly
in Question 8 that the Food and Drug Administration is the regulatory agency of cosmetics in the
United States. This understanding was a positive finding to learn that most participants were
aware of who is in charge of regulating cosmetics in the United States. The additional finding
that ~30%, reported that they believe cosmetics companies are the regulating agency for
cosmetics was notable as it is nearly a third of participants falsely believing that cosmetics
companies have regulatory sovereignty. It is interesting that so many of the participants believed
that cosmetics companies were the regulating agency. Although this may technically be true as
cosmetics companies are seen as a self-regulating market (Watnick, 2014), they are not the
regulatory agency, and that is important to know the difference if consumers wish to enact
change through the regulatory agency. The remaining ~5% of participants responded with
answer choices scientists and retailers, which was not surprising as those are not the regulating
agencies, and most did not believe they were.
Question 9 asking whether or not there are potentially toxic ingredients in cosmetics had
more than 81% of participants responding with answer choice: “Yes.” This acknowledgment by
participants is fascinating to find that a majority of the consumers do believe there are potentially
toxic ingredients in cosmetics, yet nearly ¾ of the participants use cosmetics on a regular or even
daily basis. Furthermore, when considering that question 5 discovered that 92% of participants
reportedly buy and use cosmetics and question 14 found only 30-65% of the same participants go
out of their way to buy natural products, this is noteworthy. This finding aligns with the idea that
sometimes products such as cosmetics are such a necessity for so many that they are still used
despite their known risks (Atkinson & Kim 2015).

86

Question 11, which asked if cosmetics are supposed to go through pre-safety checks, with
a little more than 49% choosing “I don’t know if testing is required, but I believe it should be”.
This response data was a fair indication that, despite the consumer's unawareness of the current
policies regarding their cosmetics, they still have the opinion that cosmetics should go through
pre-market safety checks, which they are currently not obligated to do. Similarly, the second
most popular answer choice, with more than 26% of participants choosing it was “No, testing is
not required, but I believe it should be”. This response also shows that the belief of required premarket safety checks is in high demand by consumers. The two combined answers with the
opinion that pre-market safety checks should be required were around 75% of participant’s
beliefs. The next most popular response chosen by around 22% of participants was, “Yes, safety
testing is required”. This answer choice is incorrect but may indicate a false sense of security by
consumers, which was evident in the Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo situation where
consumers were surprised to learn formaldehyde was allowed in the product (Campaign for Safe
Cosmetics, 2011; CBS News, 2012). The remaining ~2.5% of responses indicated that safety
testing is or is not required, but the responders believed that was okay or that safety testing
should not be required, which did not resonate with a majority of the responders.
Questions Identifying Opinions on Current Policy Discussion
In the questions identifying opinions on current policy, in Question 10, 95% of the
responders believed that safety recalls should be mandatory if a product is suspected of being
unsafe. This belief among so many consumers does not align with current policies as the FDA
does not require cosmetics companies to do this, the FDA must take the cosmetic company with
the suspected unsafe product through the court system which will then decide the further action

87

for a mandatory recall if proven guilty. This finding answers the question on whether or not
consumer opinions and perceptions match current policy. It does not, based on this feedback.
Question 12 asked if an ingredient should be banned in the U.S. if it has been banned in
another country for being potentially unsafe, the majority ~70% responded an affirmative “Yes.”
The remaining 25.88% responded primarily in favor of “somewhat,” and the rest ~5% responded
“No.” This response data shows that a majority of consumers are in favor of banning ingredients
if other countries believe these ingredients are potentially unsafe, further answering the question
and suggesting that consumer opinions do not match the expectations of their cosmetics policy in
the United States.
Questions Identifying Natural Cosmetics Use Discussion
In Question 13 regarding natural cosmetics use, the first question identified whether the
consumers go out of their way to purchase natural cosmetics. The responses were pretty equal
across the board ranging from yes, sometimes, and no. Of the responses, ~30% reported “Yes,”
~35% reported “Somewhat,” and 33% reported “No.” These responses show that around 63% at
least buy natural products sometimes, which is a vast majority of the responders.
The next Question 14 asked whether the participants felt represented in natural cosmetics.
Around 35% of people chose answer choice: “Yes,” which was a lot but not enough to be a
majority, which needed to be more than half of responses. About 23% of participants reported
back with the answer choice: “Somewhat,” which is again still not a majority and indicates
definite room for improvement. The next answer choice: “No” was chosen by ~14% of
participants which is a significant number of people not feeling represented by natural cosmetics.
The remaining 25% responded, “I haven’t looked.” Consumers may or may not feel represented
in natural cosmetics, but for the sake of the lack of response, the information provided, indicating

88

that so many people do not feel entirely represented, is enough to decide that change in natural
cosmetics shade range representation is necessary.
Question 15 measuring consumer perception of natural product prices, a vast majority,
~70% of responders believed that natural products are more expensive than their regular
counterparts. The vast majority of the survey takers reported back that they feel natural products
are more expensive than their regular counterparts, which aligned with what research before has
stated and may indicate why not everyone regularly buys and uses natural cosmetics. Natural
products may need to be more expensive than their regular counterparts due to the ingredients
and manufacturing practices being more expensive due to higher quality ingredients, so it may be
difficult to implement change regarding natural cosmetics prices (Ottman, 2006).
In Question 16, nearly 1/3 of the responders ~31% responded back “Yes” when asked
“Do you feel natural cosmetic products perform as well as their top brand counterparts?” The
most popular answer choice was “Somewhat,” which nearly half of the participants, ~48% chose.
This answer choice while fairly neutral still shows a desire for improvement on natural products
and their effectiveness. The remaining 20% chose: “No,” they do not believe natural products
perform as well as their top brand counterparts. These findings do not fully align with what
previous research has found in the past that 41% of consumers do not buy green products
because of their perceived sense of inferiority (Ottman & Miller, 1999). This response data
implies a significant improvement in discovering that the number has been halved in the last near
20 years. While these results may show improvement in consumer perception of natural
products, natural cosmetics companies should aspire to prove their products’ efficiency to be
more competitive with their conventional counterparts and prove to consumers they are not
missing out on reliability when choosing natural products.

89

Questions Identifying Opinions on Proposed Policies Discussion
The remaining group of question types, questions identifying opinions, were very telling
in what the consumers would like from their cosmetics policy. Each of the questions had a clear
primary choice in support of cosmetics policy change. The first question in this group Question
17: asks “Do you think extensive, long-term testing should be done on cosmetic ingredients
before they are allowed to be used in cosmetics?” Around 78% chose first answer choice: “Yes.”
This majority response shows that most of the consumers believe that extensive, long-term
testing should be done on cosmetics ingredients before they are allowed for use in cosmetics.
This prevailing opinion does not align with current policy, as cosmetics ingredients do not have
to go through long-term extensive testing before use. This misalignment reveals that consumers
do believe extensive long-term testing should be done on cosmetic ingredients before they are
allowed in cosmetics.
Question 18 asked, “Do you think cosmetics companies should have to register with their
governing agency before selling their products?” Around 84%, chose first answer choice: “Yes.”
This response was a vast majority of the participants, and their desires did not align with current
policy and suggests a desire for policy change. Consumers believed cosmetics companies should
be required to register with their governing agency before selling their products.
The next question, Question 19 asked, “Do you think ingredients in cosmetics that are
currently on the market should be tested annually to see if there are different findings about the
safety?” Around 68% chose answer choice: “Yes.” This majority response also reflects a desire
for policy change, considering annual safety testing for cosmetics ingredients currently on the
market is not a current requirement.

90

The next question, Question 20 asked, “Do you believe potentially harmful ingredients
should be allowed in cosmetics if the amount of these ingredients is low enough to be safe,
according to safety tests?” The answer choice that most participants chose was “No,” which
garnered a little more than 60% of the responses. This majority response says that a 60% of
consumers do not want potentially harmful ingredients in their cosmetics, even if they are
considered safe in the amounts used. This is not reflected in currently policy and thus answers
the question that consumer opinion does not match current policy.
The final question, Question 21 asked: “Do you think there should be testing for the
health effects of combining multiple, common cosmetics products at the same time? (For
example: foundation, concealer, mascara, lipstick).” A little more than 73% of participants chose
answer choice: “Yes.” This nearly ¾ majority of participants indicate a desire for change in
current policy as testing for the health effects of combining multiple, everyday cosmetics
products at the same time is not the required practice.

CONCLUSION TO DISCUSSION
Based on consumer feedback to this thesis’s conducted survey, the research question on
whether or not consumer opinions and perceptions are met by current cosmetics policy was
established. This conclusion is that consumer opinions and perceptions do not appear to be met
by their current cosmetics policy. This discovery further leads into what can be done about this
disconnect from consumers to their policies that are in place to protect them.

91

CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION TO CONCLUSION
This thesis sought to understand whether or not consumer’s opinions and perceptions are
met by the cosmetics policies that are in place to protect them. What was concluded by the
results of the survey performed in this thesis is that consumer’s opinions and perceptions are not
met by cosmetics policies. Thanks to the research, an important gap in the knowledge has been
partially addressed so that in part, it can help policy makers and consumers reduce overall
exposure to harmful chemicals from cosmetics.

NATURAL COSMETICS MARKETING SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CONSUMER
OPINIONS
Based on the feedback from consumers, it is concluded that there are several barriers in
place that may be preventing consumers from wanting to or being able to buy or use natural
cosmetics. Most of the surveyed consumers believe natural products are more expensive than
their conventional cosmetic product counterparts. Additionally, not every consumer feels
represented by natural cosmetics regarding foundation shade range, and some believe the natural
cosmetics products do not work as well as their top brand counterparts. For this to change and for
natural cosmetics to potentially get a better reputation and satisfy more customers, there are
several suggestions for marketing and manufacturing practice change.
The first suggestion for a change in natural cosmetics is to market to all skin tones and to
carry a variety of foundation skin tone ranges that reflect every consumer. If brands would like to
see success like that of Fenty Beauty, catering to all consumers is a great way to do as it only

92

expands the potential for success (Hope, 2016; Shatzman, 2017). Consumers want to feel
included in products they want to purchase and this suggestion is an opportunity to do that for
consumers and provide potential success to natural cosmetics companies.
The second suggestion for natural cosmetics change is to show perhaps that these
cosmetics do work as well as their conventional counterparts (Ottman, 2006). For example:
Having a wear test to show how long these products last for consumers as they may typically
wear them. Prove that these products will last throughout the day, and if they do not last
throughout the day, work to make them wear longer to keep the consumer happy. Another
potential way to implement suggestion 2, is to show that these products work as well as their
conventional counterparts. A side-by-side comparisons with their competitors of conventional
cosmetics could establish the natural cosmetics efficacy. This comparison should not be a way to
put down other makeup brands or to shame people for not wearing natural cosmetics but rather
show that these products work just as well and should be a viable option for the conscious
consumer.
The third suggestion for natural cosmetics is for companies aim to make these products
affordable, or at least as affordable as their conventional counterpart products. These products,
while they are often of higher quality, may reflect this in their price (Burton, 2017), but working
to make these products affordable for every consumer should be highly considered and dealt with
accordingly. It is acknowledged that there would likely be monetary loss but if there is room for
the price change then that should be implemented. Being more inclusive includes making
products more affordable for consumers who may be lower income but want safer products or
consumers who do not wish to spend a lot of money on cosmetics products but want high quality
safer products.

93

The fourth and final natural cosmetics marketing suggestion is that Natural Cosmetic
companies should practice high corporate social responsibility by maintaining transparency and
striving for growth when faced with adversity. If a company chooses to be a natural cosmetics
company this should be shown not only in ingredients but also in actions (Nyilasy et. al, 2014).
Companies should strive to be agile and adapt to what consumers want, which is safety and
reliability through company practices.

UNITED STATES POLICY CHANGE SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CONSUMER
OPINIONS
Based on the results of this survey, it has been concluded that the majority of consumers
desire change from their current cosmetics policies. To answer the research question in
accordance with the survey results, the existing U.S. policies that have been designed to protect
consumers from harmful chemicals in cosmetics do not match the expectations and perceptions
held by cosmetics consumers about the regulations in place to protect them. As such, below are
cosmetic policy change suggestions based on the opinions of consumers.
The first suggestion based on consumer feedback in question 10, where 95% majority of
consumer participants indicated that the FDA should require mandatory product recalls if a
product is suspected of being unsafe. In order to do this, the process in which FDA intervention
is currently must be changed from having to go through court systems to the FDA having the
ability to intervene and demand the products be taken off the shelves.
The second policy change suggestion is based on feedback in question 11 and that is presafety testing should be required before products are allowed for sale in the United States.
Question 11 feedback indicated that 49% of consumer participants did not know if safety testing

94

is required but believed it should be. Furthermore the question discovered an additional 26%
knew that safety testing is not required but believed it should be, and another 22% believed
testing is already in place making a combined total of 97%. This consumer participant feedback
indicated that there is a strong belief that pre-safety testing of cosmetics should be a requirement
before becoming available for sale. As of now, the findings of the CIR panel are what the
minimal ingredient restrictions are based on (Watnick, 2014; Cosmetic Ingredient Review,
2018). If this reliance continues then only CIR tested and approved ingredients should be
allowed for inclusion in cosmetics, which is only about 13-20% of ingredients included currently
in cosmetics (Daum, 2006; Houlihan, 2018). Overall, pre-safety testing should be conducted for
all cosmetics and their ingredients before allowing them for sale.
The third policy change suggestion based on consumer opinion is from question 12
feedback where 75% majority of consumers decided if an ingredient is banned in another country
for being suspected as potentially unsafe, then that ingredient should be banned in the United
States as well. The United States should ban ingredients that other countries have determined as
potentially unsafe. This means that the United States should be up to date with other countries
findings and make decisions based on these findings that reflect more of a precautionary
approach rather than the current approach which is more reactionary. If they choose to do safety
testing in order to decide whether or not the ban is necessary should be fine but the testing should
also be conducted in an unbiased manner. This may include testing done through multiple parties
that do not have connections to cosmetics companies like the CIR currently does.
The fourth policy change suggestion after receiving feedback that 78% majority of
consumer participants chose “Yes” is to require extensive, long-term safety testing on
ingredients before being allowed for use in cosmetics products. As of now, this is not a

95

requirement as noted previously that a majority of up to 87% of cosmetics ingredients have not
been safety tested (Daum, 2006; Houlihan, 2018). This testing should be done to ensure safety
and not subject consumers to potentially harmful ingredients because consumers do not want
that. This practice reflects a good CSR which consumers desire from their cosmetic companies
and consequently the FDA, which authorizes these products.
The fifth policy change suggestion based on the overwhelming 84% majority of
consumer participants in Question 18 choosing “Yes” is that cosmetics companies should be
required to register with the FDA before being able to sell their products. This procedure would
make it easier for the FDA to keep track of cosmetics companies that under current regulation is
not always possible to do. This registration should potentially include making the Voluntary
Cosmetic Registration Program mandatory.
The sixth policy change suggestion in response to question 19 receiving a 68% majority
“Yes” response when asked if ingredients in cosmetics currently on the market should be tested
annually to determine if there are different findings about the safety, is that annual safety testing
on cosmetics ingredients be required by the FDA. This suggestion is based by the practices of
companies like the Honest Company (The Honest Company, 2018). It is the suggestion of this
thesis to require the annual testing to take place at least every 5 years as science advances to see
if there are any new findings so not to be overkill but to be practical. If there is an ingredient that
has been suspected of being unsafe before the time period of annual safety testing is due, the
ingredient should take priority and be tested as soon as possible in case there are any safety
issues that previous safety testing did not detect.
The seventh policy change suggestion as suggested by the 60% majority in question 20
choosing “no”, concluding that potentially harmful ingredients should not be allowed in

96

cosmetics even if these ingredients are considered low enough to be safe according to safety
tests. These ingredients should not be allowed until they have been discovered to be definitively
safe for use. For example, this should include determined safety like lead in cosmetics (U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, 2018). Lead and other potentially harmful ingredients considered
safe at low levels should not be allowed in cosmetics because consumers do not want potentially
harmful ingredients in their cosmetics products despite safety testing concluding it is safe.
Consumers do not appear to be content with taking the chances the safety testing expects them
to.
The eighth and final policy change suggestion in accordance with the 73% majority of
participant consumers who chose yes in question 21 is that there should be required testing for
the health effects of combining multiple, everyday cosmetic products at the same time. This
testing should be done to ensure that the cosmetics cocktail that is common among many
cosmetics wearers be safe overall and not in just one single cosmetics product that the consumer
may be wearing over one particular occasion. Current safety testing is conducted with one
product and should instead be conducted with multiple products over an extended period of time
as many consumers wear cosmetics consistently and in combination with other cosmetic
products. This testing is important to ensure that harmful chemical reactions do not occur with
concurrent cosmetic wearing practices (Watnick, 2014).
ADDITIONAL POLICY CHANGE SUGGESTIONS BY THE AUTHOR
Additional policy change suggestions by the author are to include definitions of natural
and organic cosmetics and suit them to what consumers want out of these products which are
safe, high quality, sustainable ingredients. A final policy change suggestion is that companies
should not have the ability to name their ingredients as things like “fragrance” under this

97

regulation as it is not entirely telling of the cosmetic ingredient and could be a potentially toxic
ingredient.

CONCLUSION TO THESIS
Humans are exposed to a variety of toxic chemicals through many means of passage into
the body. Cosmetics are a potential toxin that is often not given thought by consumers and
additionally, there is currently not a lot of regulation by the regulatory agency, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, in place to ensure cosmetics safety for consumers.
There are many different conclusions on the safety of cosmetic ingredients currently
allowed for use in cosmetics. There is opposition on either side, safe or unsafe, that has yet to be
fully concluded for many ingredients. As of now with inconclusive safety, there needs to be
more done to ensure that cosmetics are as safe as possible and should exclude use of potentially
unsafe ingredients in cosmetics as a precautionary measure.
Through the use of a survey, the question on whether or not consumer’s opinions and
perceptions are reflected in current cosmetics policy in the United States in place to protect them
was answered. The answer is clear, consumer’s opinions and perceptions do not align with
current cosmetics policy in the United States. Consumers want exhaustive regulation like those
in other developed countries. Consumers are the primary stakeholders when it comes to
cosmetics regulation yet they do not have a say in the policies that mandate the regulations.
Consumers should be considered in cosmetics policy as policy decision-makers as they are the
ones that these policies are in place to protect.
Overall, this thesis found that consumers have valuable opinions and the ability to enact
change not only through policy, but also through their purchases with their consumer votes.

98

While policy change may not always be entirely possible, consumers do have their consumption
habits and thus market informing opinions and beliefs that could ultimately sway the cosmetics
market into one using only the latest ingredients that are known to be safe. As of now, consumers
have no choice other than to wear natural cosmetics that may not be as affordable or diverse in
their shade ranges, or take the risks that are imposed on them, and it is obvious through
cosmetics policy in other countries that there are safer ways to conduct cosmetics regulation.
Consumers desire similar values through their own cosmetics policies in the United States.
Cosmetics policy in the United States should be adapted to enact these values and to include
consumers as cosmetics policy decision makers.

99

References

Abdel-Fattah, A., & Pingitore Jr., N. E. (2009). Low levels of toxic elements in Dead Sea black
mud and mud-derived cosmetic products. Environmental Geochemistry & Health, 31(4),
487-492. doi:10.1007/s10653-008-9201-x
Akst, J. (2013, June 1). The elixir tragedy, 1937. The Scientist. Retrieved from https://www.thescientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35714/title/The-Elixir-Tragedy--1937/
Alternatives Journal (2015) Plastic Particle Counts in the Great Lakes. Alternatives Journal (AJ)
- Canada's Environmental Voice, 41(2), 11.
Andersen, FA. (2008). Final amended report on the safety assessment of Methylparaben,
Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, Isopropylparaben, Butylparaben, Isobutylparaben, and
Benzylparaben as used in cosmetic products. (2008). International Journal of Toxicology,
27 Suppl 41-82. doi:10.1080/10915810802548359
Atkinson, L., & Kim, Y. (2015). “I Drink It Anyway and I Know I Shouldn't”: understanding
green consumers' positive evaluations of norm-violating non-green products and
misleading green advertising. Environmental Communication, 9(1), 37–57.
doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.932
Baragona, L. (2018, January 18). Fans are furious after Tarte unveiled its new foundations that
cater almost entirely to white people. This Insider. Retrieved from
http://www.thisisinsider.com/tarte-cosmetics-shape-tape-foundation-range-2018-1
Barbour, S. (2018, January 22). Tarte apologizes following controversy over “Shape Tape”
foundations. Cosmopolitan. Retrieved from https://www.cosmopolitan.com/stylebeauty/a15583788/tarte-cosmetics-shape-tape-foundation-shades-apology/
Barr, L., Metaxas, G., Harbach, C. J., Savoy, L. A., & Darbre, P. D. (2012). Measurement of
paraben concentrations in human breast tissue at serial locations across the breast from
axilla to sternum. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 32(3), 219-232. doi:10.1002/jat.1786
Bennett, K. J. (2018, March 29). Silicone in cosmetics - Separating fact from fiction. KJ Bennett
Beauty. Retrieved from https://kjbennett.com/cosmetic-silicone-safety-fact-fiction/
Berkeley Wellness. (2017, September 5). Mineral oil: Facts and myths. Berkeley Wellness.
Retrieved from http://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/over-counterproducts/article/mineral-oil-facts-and-myths

100

Brennan, B. (2015, January 21). Top 10 things everyone should know about women consumers.
Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrennan/2015/01/21/top-10things-everyone-should-know-about-women-consumers/#586c8f0f6a8b
Brown, H. S., Bishop, D. R., & Rowan, C. A. (1984). The role of skin absorption as a route of
exposure for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in drinking water. American Journal
of Public Health, 74(5), 479–484.
Brown, V. J. (2013). Metals in Lip Products. Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(6), A196.
doi:10.1289/ehp.121-a196
Brufke, J. (2018, April 23). Keeping up with the cosmetics: Kourtney Kardashian to urge
makeup reform on Capitol Hill. The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/blogs/in-theknow/in-the-know/384452-keeping-up-with-cosmetics-kourtney-kardashian-to-urgemakeup
Burton, G. A. (2015). Losing sight of science in the regulatory push to ban microbeads from
consumer products and industrial use. Integrated Environmental Assessment &
Management, 11(3), 346–347. doi:10.1002/ieam.1645
Burton, N. (2017, April). Why organic products can be more expensive – but are worth it. SC.
Retrieved from http://stylecaster.com/beauty/why-organic-products-are-expensive/
Caldwell, G. (2018, May 31). Honest Beauty to launch in Western Europe. Global Cosmetics
News. Retrieved from https://globalcosmeticsnews.com/honest-beauty-to-launch-inwestern-europe/
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. (2018). About us. Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Retrieved from
http://www.safecosmetics.org/about-us/
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. (2011, November 16). Johnson & Johnson promises to remove
carcinogens from baby products [Press release]. Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Retrieved
from http://www.safecosmetics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Johnson-and-JohnsonPromises-to-Remove-Carcinogens-from-Baby-Products-press-release.pdf
Cashman, A. L., & Warshaw, E. M. (2005). Parabens: a review of epidemiology, structure,
allergenicity, and hormonal properties. Dermatitis, 16(2), 57–66.
Cavallo, P., Proto, M. C., Patruno, C., Sorbo, A. D., & Bifulco, M. (2008). The first cosmetic
treatise of history. A female point of view. International Journal of Cosmetic
Science, 30(2), 79-86. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2494.2007.00414.x

101

CBS News (2012, August 15). Johnson & Johnson to phase out potentially harmful chemicals by
2015. CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/johnson-johnson-tophase-out-potentially-harmful-chemicals-by-2015/
Chen, Q. (2009). Evaluate the Effectiveness of the Natural Cosmetic Product Compared to
Chemical-Based Products. International Journal of Chemistry, 1(2), 57.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijc.v1n2p57
Civic Impulse. (2018). H.R. 575 — 115th Congress: Cosmetic Modernization Amendments of
2017. GovTrac.us, Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr575
Cosmetic Ingredient Review. (2018). About the Cosmetic Ingredient Review. Cosmetic
Ingredient Review. Retrieved from https://www.cir-safety.org/about
Cosmetic Modernization Amendments of 2017, H.R. 575, 115th Cong. (2017).
Cosmetics: Chronic and Health Effects, S.B. 484, California Cong. (2005).
Concin, N., Hofstetter, G., Plattner, B., Tomovski, C., Fiselier, K., Gerritzen, K., Grob, K.
(2011). Evidence for cosmetics as a source of mineral oil contamination in women.
Journal of Women's Health, 20(11), 1713–1719. doi:10.1089/jwh.2011.2829
Cosmetic Labeling, 21 C.F.R. §701.3 (2018).
Cormier, S. A., Lomnicki, S., Backes, W., & Dellinger, B. (2006). Origin and Health Impacts of
Emissions of Toxic By-Products and Fine Particles from Combustion and Thermal
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes and Materials. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 114(6), 810–817. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8629
Cózar, A., Echevarría, F., González-Gordillo, J., Irigoien, X., Úbeda, B., Hernández-León, S.,
Duarte, C. (2014). Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(28), 10239–10244.
Crossman, A. (2018, March 25). What Is a snowball sample in sociology? ThoughtCo. Retrieved
from https://www.thoughtco.com/snowball-sampling-3026730
Darbre, P. D., Aljarrah, A., Miller, W. R., Coldham, N. G., Sauer, M. J. & Pope, G. S. (2004),
Concentrations of parabens in human breast tumours. Journal of Applied Toxicology,
24(1), 5–13. doi:10.1002/jat.958
Darbre, P. D., & Harvey, P. W. (2014). Parabens can enable hallmarks and characteristics of
cancer in human breast epithelial cells: a review of the literature with reference to new

102

exposure data and regulatory status. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 34(9), 925–938.
doi:10.1002/jat.3027
Darden, D. K., & Worden, S. K. (1994). Using cosmetics: the social construction of a consumer
object. Sociological Spectrum, 14(3), 273–292.
Daum, C. M. (2006, May). Self-regulation in the cosmetic industry: a necessary reality or a
cosmetic illusion? LEDA at Harvard Law School. Retrieved from
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8965615/Daum06.html?sequence=2
DeFur, P. L., Evans, G. W., Hubal, E. C., Kyle, A. D., Morello-Frosch, R. A., & Williams, D. R.
(2007). Vulnerability as a function of individual and group resources in cumulative risk
assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(5), 817–824.
Department of Ecology State of Washington. (2018). Chemicals of high concern to children.
Department of Ecology State of Washington. Retrieved from
https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Reporting-requirements/Reporting-forChildrens-Safe-Products-Act/Chemicals-of-high-concern-to-children
Department of Ecology State of Washington. (2018). Children’s Safe Products Act. Department
of Ecology State of Washington. Retrieved from https://ecology.wa.gov/WasteToxics/Reducing-toxic-chemicals/Childrens-Safe-Products-Act
Diagne, M., & Souiden, N. (2009). Canadian and French men's consumption of cosmetics: a
comparison of their attitudes and motivations. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(2),
97–109.
Dickinson, R.A., & Carsky, M.L. (2005). The consumer as economic voter. R. Harrison, T.
Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical consumer (pp. 25–36). London: Sage.
Dickinson, R., & Hollander, S.C. (1991). Consumer votes. Journal of Business Research, 22,
335–346.
Edgar, J. (2018, February 7). WEN case spurs call for beauty product regs. Web MD. Retrieved
from https://www.webmd.com/beauty/news/20180207/wen-case-spurs-call-for-beautyproduct-regs
Eisberg, N. (2009). To go green or not to go green. Chemistry & Industry, (22), 4.
El Hussein, S., Muret, P., Berard, M., Makki, S., & Humbert, P. (2007). Assessment of principal
parabens used in cosmetics after their passage through human epidermis–dermis layers

103

(ex-vivo study). Experimental Dermatology, 16(10), 830–836. doi:10.1111/j.16000625.2007.00625.x
Environmental Working Group (2018). Cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group.
Retrieved from http://www.ewg.org/key-issues/consumer-products/cosmetics#.WtJxm4vyUk
Eschner, K. (2017, June 26). Three horrifying pre-FDA cosmetics. Smithsonian.com. Retrieved
from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/three-horrifying-pre-fda-cosmetics180963775/
European Commission. (2016, August 24). REACH. European Commission. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm
European Chemicals Agency. (2018). Understanding REACH - ECHA. European Chemicals
Agency. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on cosmetic products. (2009,
November 30). EUR-Lex Access to European Union law. Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R1223
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), U.S.C. § 201(i) (1938).
Ferrell, O.C. & Krugman, D. (1978). The Role of Consumers in the Public Policy Process.
Academy of Marketing Science. 6: 167. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729782
Fioravanti, K. (2010, May 20). The real story on lead in cosmetics. Personal Care Truth.
Retrieved from https://personalcaretruth.com/2010/05/the-real-story-on-lead-incosmetics/
Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. (2015, October 26). Environmental Protection
Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/risk/framework-cumulative-risk-assessment
Frey, K. (2018, April 24). Kourtney Kardashian wears a crop top to address Congress about
cosmetics reform. People. Retrieved from http://people.com/style/kourtney-kardashianaddress-congress-cosmetics-reform/
Fuchsman, K. (2017). The Presidential Campaign That Astounded the World: A Psychohistory
of Donald Trump and the 2016 American Election. Journal of Psychohistory, 44(4), 292–
309.
Gaul, K. (2017, June 8). EXCLUSIVE: Jessica Alba's Honest Company agrees to pay $1.55
million class action settlement after claims of 'dishonest' advertising about a chemical

104

used in cleaning products. Daily Mail. Retrieved from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4578304/Alba-s-Honest-agrees-pay-1-55million-settlement.html#ixzz5HR64xqsh
Godfrey, D. (2008). Re: Assessment of principal parabens used in cosmetics after their passage
through human epidermis–dermis layers (ex vivo study). Experimental
Dermatology, 17(8), 700-701. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0625.2007.00686.x
Goop. (2018). Clean beauty – and why it’s important. goop. Retrieved from
https://goop.com/beauty/personal-care/clean-beauty-and-why-its-important/
Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2014). Finding the right shade of green: the effect of advertising appeal
type on environmentally friendly consumption. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 128–141.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.834805
H.F. 458, An act relating to public health; banning formaldehyde in certain children's products.
Minnesota Legislature (2013).
Hatch, E., Nelson, J., Qureshi, M., Weinberg, J., Moore, L., Singer, M., Webster, T. (2008).
Association of urinary phthalate metabolite concentrations with body mass index and
waist circumference: a cross-sectional study of NHANES data, 1999–2002. Environ
Health 7:27; doi:10.1186/1476-069X-7-27.
Honest Company: Our Story. (n.d.). The Honest Company. Retrieved from
https://www.honest.com/about-us/who-we-are
Hope, C. (2016, August 23). The makeup industry's frustrating cycle of struggle and progress for
women of color. Retrieved from https://jezebel.com/the-makeup-industrys-frustratingcycle-of-struggle-and-1782880385
Houlihan, J. (2018). Why this matters – cosmetics and your health. Environmental Working
Group’s Skin Deep. Retrieved from https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/why-this-matterscosmetics-and-your-health/#.WwzZNhMvxsM
Hsu, C. (2017, August 02). Jessica Alba's Honest Company ordered to pay over $1.5M in lawsuit
over common cosmetics ingredient. Retrieved from
https://www.newbeauty.com/blog/dailybeauty/9304-jessica-alba-honest-companylawsuit/

105

Jagne, J., White, D., & Jefferson, F. (2016). Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: adverse effects of
bisphenol A and parabens to women's health. Water, Air & Soil Pollution, 227(6), 1–10.
doi:10.1007/s11270-016-2785-3
Jankowski, G. (2018, January 15). Why more men are wearing makeup than ever before. The
Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/why-more-men-are-wearingmakeup-than-ever-before-88347
Jobling, S., & Tyler, C. R. (2006). Introduction: The ecological relevance of chemically induced
endocrine disruption in wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114 Suppl, 17–8.
doi:10.1289/ehp.8046
Johnson, S. (2017, March 8). How much is your face worth? American women average at $8 per
day. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-muchis-your-face-worth-american-women-average_us_58befa65e4b06660f479e594
James-Todd, T., Stahlhut, R., Meeker, J. D., Powell, S., Hauser, R., Huang, T., & Rich-Edwards,
J. (2012). Urinary Phthalate Metabolite Concentrations and Diabetes among Women in
the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2001–
2008. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(9), 1307–1313. doi:10.1289/ehp.1104717
Kawalek, E. (2005, November/December). Artfully made-up. Legal Affairs. Retrieved from
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December2005/feature_kawalek_novdec05.msp
Komar, M. (2018, January 15). The internet is disappointed with Tarte's Shape Tape foundation
shade range. Bustle. Retrieved from https://www.bustle.com/p/tarte-shape-tapefoundations-shade-range-isnt-up-to-the-internets-standards-7911888
Latini, G. (2005). Monitoring phthalate exposure in humans. Clinica Chimica Acta;
International Journal of Clinical Chemistry, 361(1–2), 20–29.
Layne, R. (2018, April 19). Why do consumers make bad decisions? Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2018/04/19/why-do-consumersmake-bad-decisions/#2e10977e2f8c
Lohmeier Law, K. l., & Saunders, J. A. (2016). Engaging Consumer Voices in Health Care
Policy: Lessons for Social Work Practice. Health & Social Work, 41(1), 9–16.

106

Marsh, A. (2018, January 19). Tarte is launching a new shape tape foundation, but here's why the
internet isn't happy. Elite Daily. Retrieved from https://www.elitedaily.com/p/tartesshape-tape-foundation-shades-are-being-expanded-but-people-are-still-upset-7941272
Mason, D. E. (2008). Kiss and make-up: a need for consolidation of FDA and cosmetic industry
regulation programs. Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine, 18(1), 181–207.
McKernan, B. (2011). Politics and Celebrity: A Sociological Understanding. Sociology
Compass, 5(3), 190-202. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00359.x
Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism, and collective
action. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave MacMillan.
Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, H.R. 1321, 114th Cong. (2016).
Mills, J. (2015, April). Trends and innovations in male grooming. Datamonitor Consumer.
Retrieved from
http://www.vietbeautyshow.com/Portals/6/Trends%20and%20innovations%20in%20mal
e%20grooming.pdf
Miljøstyrelsen. (2017, February 16). Historical victory: The EU stamps four substances as
hormonal disorder. Danish EPA. Retrieved from
http://mst.dk/service/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2017/feb/historisk-sejr-eu-stempler-firestoffer-som-hormonforstyrrende-for-mennesker/
Montenegro, L., Turnaturi, R., Parenti, C., & Pasquinucci, L. (2018). In Vitro Evaluation of
Sunscreen Safety: Effects of the Vehicle and Repeated Applications on Skin Permeation
from Topical Formulations. Pharmaceutics, 10(1), 1–14.
doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics10010027
Moraes, C., Shaw, D., & Carrigan, M. (2011). Purchase power: An examination of consumption
as voting. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(9–10), 1059–1079.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2011.565726
Nassan, F. L., Coull, B. A., Gaskins, A. J., Williams, M. A., Skakkebaek, N. E., Ford, J. B., & ...
Hauser, R. (2017). Personal Care Product Use in Men and Urinary Concentrations of
Select Phthalate Metabolites and Parabens: Results from the Environment and
Reproductive Health (EARTH) Study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(8),
087012. doi:10.1289/EHP1374

107

National Association of Community Health Centers. (2011). So you want to start a health center
... ? NACHC. Retrieved from http://www.nachc.com/client/
documents/So20you20want20to20StartFinal20July202011.pdf
Needleman, H., Schell, A., Bellinger, D., Leviton, A., & Allred, E. N. (1990). The long-term
effects of exposure to low doses of lead in childhood. New England Journal of
Medicine, 322(2), 83–88.
Newbold, R. (2010). Impact of environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals on the
development of obesity. Hormones (Athens, Greece), 9(3), 206–217.
Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P., Maipas, S., Kotampasi, C., Stamatis, P., & Hens, L. (2016). Chemical
Pesticides and Human Health: The Urgent Need for a New Concept in
Agriculture. Frontiers in Public Health, 4, 148. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00148
Niederer, M., Stebler, T., & Grob, K. (2016). Mineral oil and synthetic hydrocarbons in cosmetic
lip products. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 38(2), 194–200.
doi:10.1111/ics.12276
Nnadi, C. (2018, May 03). Rihanna on body image, turning 30, and staying real-no matter what.
Vogue. Retrieved from https://www.vogue.com/article/rihanna-vogue-cover-june-issue2018?mbid=social_facebook_partner_popsugar
Northen, G. (2011). Greenwashing the organic label: abusive green marketing in an increasingly
eco-friendly marketplace. Journal of Food Law & Policy, 7(1), 101–134.
Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived Greenwashing: The
Interactive Effects of Green Advertising and Corporate Environmental Performance on
Consumer Reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 693–707. doi:10.1007/s10551013-1944-3
Official Journal of the European Union. (2014, April 9). COMMISSION REGULATION (EU)
No 358/2014 of 9 April 2014 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No
1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products. Eur-Lex
Access to European Union Law. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.107.01.0005.01.ENG
Ottman, J., & Miller, D. S. (1999). Green Marketing (Book). Electronic Green Journal, N.PAG

108

Ottman, J. A., Stafford, E. R., & Hartman, C. L. (2006). Avoiding green marketing myopia.
(cover story). Environment, 48(5), 22–36.
O'Connor, C. (2016). Jessica Alba: The Honest Co. wants to be 'in every room in your home' in
2017. Forbes.com, p. 8.
Perrini, F., Castaldo, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2010). The impact of corporate social
responsibility associations on trust in organic products marketed by mainstream retailers:
a study of Italian consumers. Business Strategy & The Environment (John Wiley & Sons,
Inc), 19(8), 512-526. doi:10.1002/bse.660
Personal Care Safety Act of 2015, S. 1014, 114th Cong. (2015).
Raphael, R. (2017, May 26). What’s driving the billion-dollar natural beauty movement? Fast
Company. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3068710/whats-driving-thebillion-dollar-natural-beauty-movement
Richie, B. (2015, March 4). Jessica Alba is a star with her Honest Co. too progress: she vaults
from film to the family care brand. Investors Business Daily. p. A04.
Royne, M. B., Martinez, J., Oakley, J., & Fox, A. K. (2012). The Effectiveness of Benefit Type
and Price Endings in Green Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 85–102.
doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367410406
Ruffo, J. (2018, May 1). Physicians formula faces backlash after modeling new highlighters on a
small range of skin tones. People. Retrieved from http://people.com/style/physiciansformula-highlighter-shade-range-backlash-not-inclusive/
Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013, H.R. 1385, 113th Cong. (2013).
Sawan, R. M., Leite, G. S., Saraiva, M. P., Barbosa, F. J., Tanus-Santos, J. E., & Gerlach, R. F.
(2010). Fluoride increases lead concentrations in whole blood and in calcified tissues
from lead-exposed rats. Toxicology, 271(1–2), 21–26. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2010.02.002
Shatzman, C. (2017, September 08). Rihanna's makeup line, Fenty Beauty, makes its debut.
Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/celiashatzman/2017/09/08/rihannas-makeup-line-fentybeauty-makes-its-debut/#542cb5482113
Shaw, D., Newholm, T., & Dickinson, R. (2006). Consumption as voting: An exploration of
consumer empowerment. European Journal of Marketing, 40, 1049–1067.

109

Sigler, M. (2014). The Effects of Plastic Pollution on Aquatic Wildlife: Current Situations and
Future Solutions. Water, Air & Soil Pollution, 225(11), 1–9. doi:10.1007/s11270-0142184-6
Silver, M. K., Xiaoqing, L., Yuhe, L., Ming, L., Mai, X., Xiaoqin, M., Lozoff, B. (2016). Lowlevel prenatal lead exposure and infant sensory function. Environmental Health: A Global
Access Science Source, 15(1), 65. doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0148-6
Skirboll, S., Nelson, K. (2015) 4 in 5 Consumers think eco-friendly products cost more "green".
PR Newswire. Retrieved from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/4-in-5consumers-think-eco-friendly-products-cost-more-green-300061649.html
Smith, R., Dopp, S., & Lourie, B. (2009). Slow death by rubber duck: How the toxic chemistry of
everyday life affects our health. Toronto: Random House.
Sobel, R. S. (2002). Public health and the placebo: the legacy of the 1906 pure food and drugs
act. CATO Journal, 21(3), 463.
Stahlhut, R. W., van Wijngaarden, E., Dye, T. D., Cook, S., & Swan, S. H. (2007).
Concentrations of urinary phthalate metabolites are associated with increased waist
circumference and insulin resistance in adult U.S. males. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 115(6), 876–882.
Teehan, K. (2018, March 4). Here’s how much we’re spending on beauty products (clue: it’s a
LOT.) Glamour UK. Retrieved from http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/amountwomen-spend-on-beauty-products
Thomas, K. (2014, January 17). The ‘No More Tears’ shampoo, now with no formaldehyde. New
York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/business/johnsonjohnson-takes-first-step-in-removal-of-questionable-chemicals-from-products.html
Thota, S. C., Hermosillo, S. N., Keyhani, N. N., & Walker, J. A. (2014). Male Grooming: An
ethnographic research on perception and choice of male cosmetics. Academy of Business
Research Journal, 4, 24–33.
Todd, A. M. (2004). The aesthetic turn in green marketing: environmental consumer ethics of
natural personal care products. Ethics & The Environment, 9(2), 86-102.
Tousley, R. D. (1941). The federal food, drug, and cosmetic act of 1938. Journal of
Marketing, 5(3), 259–269.

110

Truslow, D. (2017). Microbeads and the toxics use reduction act: preventing pollution at its
source. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 44(1), 149.
Tsz Wah, T. (2010). Hydroquinone for skin lightening: Safety profile, duration of use and when
should we stop?. Journal Of Dermatological Treatment, 21(5), 272-275.
doi:10.3109/09546630903341945
Tunnicliffe, H. (2018, January 12). UK launches 25-year plastic waste plan. The Chemical
Engineer. Retrieved from https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/uk-launches-25year-plastic-waste-plan/
Ugolik, K. (2016). Honest mistakes. Institutional Investor, 50(3), 10–11.
United Kingdom Government (2013). Enforcing the EC regulation on cosmetic products.
Gov.UK. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/enforcing-the-ecregulation-on-cosmetic-products
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States. Retrieved
from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). Report on Carcinogens, Fourteenth
Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program. Retrieved
from https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/introduction_508.pdf
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017a, November 3). Color additives: FDA's regulatory
process and historical perspectives. Retrieved from
https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/ColorAdditives/RegulatoryProcessHistoricalPerspective
s/
U.S. Food & Drug Administration (2017b, November 3) Inspection of cosmetics. FDA.
Retrieved from
https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ComplianceEnforcement/ucm136455.htm
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2017c, November, 3). Prohibited and restricted ingredients.
FDA. Retrieved From
https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceRegulation/LawsRegulations/ucm127406.htm
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2018a, February 22). Products & ingredients - limiting lead
in lipstick and other cosmetics. Retrieved from
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/productsingredients/ucm137224.htm#initial_survey

111

U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2018b, February 22). Ingredients - parabens in cosmetics.
Retrieved from
https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductsIngredients/Ingredients/ucm128042.htm
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2018c, March 7). Industry - small businesses & homemade
cosmetics: fact sheet. Retrieved from
https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ResourcesForYou/Industry/ucm388736.htm
Wang, C., Yang, L., Wang, S., Zhang, Z., Yu, Y., Wang, M.,Wang, S.-L. (2016). The classic
EDCs, phthalate esters and organochlorines, in relation to abnormal sperm quality: a
systematic review with meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 6, 19982.
http://doi.org/10.1038/srep19982
Watnick, V. J. (2014). The Missing Link: U.S. Regulation of Consumer Cosmetic Products to
Protect Human Health and the Environment. Pace Environmental Law Review, 31(3),
595-650.
Witorsch, R. J., & Thomas, J. A. (2010). Personal care products and endocrine disruption: A
critical review of the literature. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 401–30.
doi:10.3109/10408444.2010.515563
Yang, S. (2016, March 7). Teen girls see big drop in chemical exposure with switch in
cosmetics. UC Berkeley News. http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/03/07/cosmetics-chemicals/
Zota, A., & Shamasunder, B. (2017). The environmental injustice of beauty: framing chemical
exposures from beauty products as a health disparities concern. American Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 217(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.020
Zhu, H., Jung, E., Phuong, C., Hui, X., & Maibach, H. (2016). Effects of soap-water wash on
human epidermal penetration. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 36(8), 997–1002.
doi:10.1002/jat.3258

112

Appendix

1.) ELECTRONIC CONSENT: Please select your choice below. Clicking on the "agree" button
below indicates that: • you have read the above information• you voluntarily agree to participate•
you are at least 18 years of age. If you do not wish to participate in the research study, please
decline participation by clicking on the "disagree" button.
-Agree
-Disagree
2.) What is your age?
-18-24
-25-34
-35-44
-45-54
-55 and Over
3.) What is your education level?
-High School/ GED
-Associates Degree
-Bachelor’s Degree
-Graduate Degree
-PhD/ Doctorate Degree
4.) What is your gender?
-Male
-Female
-Transgender
-Other
-Prefer not to answer
5.) What is your ethnicity?
-Caucasian
-African American
-Hispanic American
-Asian American

113

-Native American/ Alaska Native
-Other
-Prefer not to answer
6.) Do you buy and use cosmetics? (Make up, facial lotions, lotions, face wash, nail polish, etc.)
-Yes
-No
7.) How often do you wear cosmetics?
-Everyday
-A few times a week
-Never
-Seldom
8.) Who do you think is in charge of regulating the cosmetics industry in the United States?
(Upholds laws and regulations applying to cosmetics on the market in the US)
-Cosmetic companies
-Food and Drug Administration
-Retailers
-Scientists
9.) Do you think there are potentially toxic chemicals in cosmetics in the United States?
-Yes
-Somewhat
-No
10.) Do you think a cosmetics product recall should be mandatory if a product is suspected of
being unsafe for use?
-Yes
-Somewhat
-No
11.) Are cosmetics required to be tested for safety before being sold in the United States and, if
not should they be?
-Yes, testing is required
-No, testing is not required and I believe that is OK.
-No, testing is not required but it should be

114

-I don’t know if testing is required, but I think it should be.
-I don’t know if testing is required, but I think it is unnecessary.
12.) Do you think that if an ingredient is banned in another country for being potentially unsafe,
it should also be banned in the US?
-Yes
-Somewhat
-No
13.) Do you go out of your way to buy natural cosmetics?
-Yes
-Sometimes
-No
14.) Do you feel represented by natural cosmetics? (Foundation skin color shade range)
-Yes
-Somewhat
-No
-I haven’t looked
15.) Do you find natural products to be more or less affordable than normal products?
-More expensive
-The same
-Less expensive
-Unsure
16.) Do you feel natural cosmetic products perform as well as their top brand counterparts?
-Yes
-Somewhat
-No
17.) Do you think extensive, long term testing should be done on cosmetic ingredients before
they are allowed to be used in cosmetics?
-Yes
-Somewhat
-No

115

18.) Do you think cosmetics companies should have to register with their governing agency
before selling their products?
-Yes
-Somewhat
-No
19.) Do you think ingredients in cosmetics that are currently on the market should be tested
annually to see if there are different findings about the safety?
-Yes
-Somewhat
-No
20.) Do you believe potentially harmful ingredients should be allowed in cosmetics if the amount
of these ingredients is low enough to be safe, according to safety tests?
-Yes
-Somewhat
-No
21.) Do you think there should be testing for the health effects of combining multiple, common
cosmetic products at the same time? (For example: foundation, concealer, mascara, lipstick)
-Yes
-Somewhat
-No

116

Media

Boome_Thesis_2018.pdf