»

Another toxic cosmetic ingredient bites the dust

In the last week Cosmetics Europe – the body that represents the interests of cosmetics manufacturers in the EU – issued an urgent warning to its members and the media.

Following discussions with the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD), a statement was issued that the use of methylisothiazolinone (MIT) in leave-on skin products such as deodorants, suncreams, hand lotions and wet wipes be immediately discontinued.

According to the statement: “This action is recommended in the interests of consumer safety in relation to adverse skin reactions. It is recommended that companies do not wait for regulatory intervention under the Cosmetics Regulation but implement this recommendation as soon as feasible.”

Wow.

Methylisothiazolinone (MIT), along with a related compound methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI), is a cosmetic preservative.

After parabens, these are the most commonly used cosmetic preservatives. Often used in combination (where they are listed as Kathon CG) they are commonly found in both leave-on and wash-off cosmetic products as well as household products like washing-up liquids. They also have multiple industrial uses.

Earlier this year British researchers said that allergies to these substances had reached “epidemic proportions”. The British Society of Cutaneous Allergy (BSCA) called for an ‘immediate’ action to protect consumers against these substances noting that:

“Across the large patch test centres in the UK, data suggest that rates of allergy to these two preservatives are now nearing 10% – and in some cases higher – this is clearly far too high and is an unacceptable situation. The last time a preservative had this type of effect it was banned by the EU.”

And so it has come to pass – kind of. The removal of MIT from leave-on skin products – providing manufacturers actually get on with what is a voluntary action – could decrease the incidence of cosmetic contact allergy. But MCI (which can still be used) is also a contact allergen. Also, while taking MIT out of leave-on products is helpful, you can still have an allergic reaction to wash-off products with these substances in.

For years campaigners and organic companies (like ours) have said that preservatives like this are harmful.

Like parabens they have long been known to be contact allergens. But the potential problems with them don’t end there.

Although the use of MIT became more widespread in the mid-2000s, it had been in use as a cosmetic preservative before that time. As far back as 1996, not long after this combination began to be used in cosmetics in the US, a study from the University of Texas Health Science Centre found that Kathon CG was also mutagenic, in other words capable of causing genetic mutations.

This year the American Contact Dermatitis Society named MIT “contact allergen of the year” for 2013, and right up to this summer’s research, concern over this substance was met with a stone wall from cosmetics manufacturers as well as their trade associations and lobbying groups. The usual line was that it was approved by the EU and therefore used in accordance with regulations and that people who experienced adverse reactions were in the minority.

Six months later we have an urgent problem on our hands.

We have seen this scenario time and again, with hair dyes, with talc, with antibacterials like triclosan, to name but a few. So-called beauty companies often do very ugly things behind the scenes, hidden by obtuse labelling and powerful and well-funded trade associations. It’s only when we get a combination of a few brave souls speaking out, and evidence of widespread harm, that things begin to change.

Wouldn’t be lovely – in fact shouldn’t it be a requirement – that cosmetic companies should be held to the Precautionary Principle: when in doubt leave it out.

Until then consumers are left to practice precaution of their own. As anyone who knows me knows, where I find doubt I always err on the side of caution. That means buying fewer, but better quality certified organic personal care products for myself and my family. In a toxic world it’s a completely rational investment in good health.

Pat Thomas, Editor