Here’s What Burt’s Bees E-Mailed My Wife About Lead in Lipstick

When it comes to lead in our home, we’ve had a few near misses with lead-laden toys. The Dora toys had me most worried because those were the ones I saw Lael repeatedly put in her mouth.

But I never guessed that there was a threat from Anne’s purse: Burt’s Bees lipstick, which Lael is drawn to much as the proverbial fly to honey. While I didn’t like Lael playing with the lipsticks, it was mostly because of the mess she made, not fear of metal poisoning.

I bought my wife a half dozen Burt’s Bees lipsticks a few months ago because the company espouses the same principles we try to live by: healthy, natural living. (Which, by the way, is darn near impossible in the city when you are financially strapped all the time and your kids have a zillion toys.)

Here’s what Burt’s Bees has to say on its website:

Our Values: Helping Ensure The Greater Good for All

To us, achieving The Greater Good means creating a world where people have the information and tools they need to make the highest ethical choices and do the best for themselves, their family and the environment. That’s no short order, but it is attainable. We’ve started with a strong and on-going commitment to a set (of) values and activities that support the well-being of people and our planet.

The site also says:

Your skin is a sponge.

 

Plain and simple, your skin is your largest organ, and what you put on it gets absorbed into your body. In fact, studies show that 60% of the ingredients get absorbed into your body. Synthetic chemical ingredients are not always easily metabolized in the skin, which can have potentially harmful effects. It’s enough to make you think twice about letting your skin and hair soak up these synthetic ingredients.

So why would a company so aware of body and health tolerate even one nanospec of lead in their products? My wife decided to ask them in an e-mail:

I’ve used your products for several years now, going so far as to throw away all other lipsticks but your lip shimmers. I have every shade! Now I find out that Merlot – which has become one of my favorites for its luscious shade of bright red – contains traces of lead. I’m doubly upset because I’ve let my two-year-old daughter play  “dress up” with Mommy’s lipsticks believing them perfectly safe because they’re “natural.”

The report I read can be found at this site:

http://www.safecosmetics.org/your_health/poisonkiss.cfm

I threw away an unopened Merlot this a.m. and am thinking of tossing out the rest. Further, I have lost my confidence in your product line. I would appreciate knowing if your firm intends to test all its lip shimmers and announce the results, which I think is the least you can do.

And here is their response:

Dear Anne:

Thank you for taking the time to contact Burt’s Bees, Inc. We take all comments, concerns and suggestions very seriously.

A recent report from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found trace elements of lead in Burt’s Bees Merlot Lip Shimmer. The levels found are deemed safe by the FDA (for Food and Oral Drugs). However, we are acting immediately to learn more about the findings and to respond appropriately.

In our initial investigation we have learned that because the minerals we use in our formulas to impart color come from the earth, these natural elements may contain small traces of lead. Traces of lead can be found broadly in the environment, including in some tap and well waters.

At Burt’s Bees, our consumers’ well-being and safety is of the utmost importance to us and we are addressing these findings with the following course of action:

1. Working directly with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to better understand these findings and possible solutions.

2. While our products are deemed safe and suppliers currently test to ensure FDA guidelines are met, we are meeting directly with our suppliers to find ways to identify and eliminate even trace elements of lead from our natural mineral sources.

Burt’s Bees commends the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics for their work in search of safe alternatives to potentially harmful health and beauty products. As a long-time supporter of the organization, whose work along with ours is always in line with consumers’ best interest, we not only applaud, but support their efforts.

Burt’s Bees remains committed to being ‘seriously natural’ and to you, our consumer. We will continue to provide you with safe and effective earth-friendly natural personal care products.

Thank you for inquiring!

Best Regards,
(name removed)
Consumer Care Burt’s Bees Inc.

Well, you can tell Burt’s Bees sent us a form letter, so obviously we were not the first family to express concern. And to be completely fair, they’re right: Lead does exist naturally, and the amount of metal found in their lipstick was pretty darned small.

I have a few problems, though:

1. They never answered Anne’s question: Are they going to test the rest of their line?

2. While we like to use natural products, that doesn’t mean we want to use toxic ones. After all, uranium is natural, but I don’t put rocks of the stuff in my sleeping bag to stay warm.

3. Lead is cumulative in the body and more so for children, who have no mechanism to get rid of the heavy metal. And it turns out even the smallest amounts can impact IQ, writes Slate:

Unfortunately, recent medical evidence shows even trace amount of lead — at amounts now considered acceptable by the CDC — can damage a child’s IQ. Why regulators refuse to believe the data continues a decades-old exercise in willful ignorance. And it’s children who are still paying the price.

But the bad news about lead keeps coming. In 2003, Bruce Lanphear and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that kids with lead levels less than 10 mcg/dl lost roughly 7 IQ points. (Though the average IQ is 100, a population-wide average loss of 7 points makes tens of thousands of children fall below 70, the general threshold for mental retardation.)

The story goes on to say:

Serious damage happens at levels now considered safe for millions of American kids. The data should have galvanized public-health authorities to pursue zero-tolerance lead policies, which would mean nationwide de-leading of unsafe homes. After all, the New England Journal of Medicine reported in 2001 that medicines can’t recover lost IQ points from lead poisoning. Once gone, they’re gone forever.

The truth is, the worst lead exposure does not come from toys or even lipstick. It comes from old paint, especially when it’s pulverized into dust during remodels. Also, lead has a sweet taste, which is why kids were eating paint chips in the bad old days.

But as the Slate article states, there should be ZERO TOLERANCE for lead in products that can or may be used by kids. (Adults should stay away from the stuff too.) And when there is lead in a product – like electronics and batteries – it should be clearly disclosed.

4. Now you know why I put that Burt’s Bees quote about the skin being a sponge. The company claims to hold itself to a higher standard when it comes to beauty products.

But the letter from Burt’s Bees instead takes a defensive stance, claiming the FDA deems the lead levels in their products okay. Technically that is true. But only by 0.01 parts per million. The lipstick was awfully close to that threshold.

My intent here is not to hurt Burt’s Bees. In fact, L’Oreal, Maybelline and Cover Girl had lipsticks with even higher levels of lead. But we don’t use those products in this home. We didn’t trust those companies to begin with. But if we can’t trust Burt’s Bees, than who can we trust?

Reference:
Here is my original piece on lead in lipsticks: Lead Is Found in Numerous Brands of Women’s Lipstick

Comments

[Summer]

I don't know that BB's was being defensive. Now, I don't think they're right to use the FDA as a shield, saying "but they said it's okay." However, I believe that it's likely they didn't know, and in the hopes that they don't lose customers in a panic over this issue, they are pointing out that it was below FDA required levels.

I'm curious as to why reds have more lead... as clearly this is an issue for Burt's as well as everyone else.

I think to their point is valid that make up uses minerals, which may contain lead. Women, or least I hope, know this and should be aware that they're putting chemicals and minerals on their skin. The awareness that make up is bad for us, and our skin, has been a part of my awareness for a long time. I find it hard to believe I'm the only one. (That said, yes, I wear make up, at least lipstick, most days. I live with the risk my desire to be pretty could slowly kill me - just like I live with the knowledge that the heels I adore and make me look "sexy" could permanently damage my legs.)

We have to "pay" for beauty, my momma always told me. There's a lot of ways we pay... I'm glad that at least Burt's is working to address the problem, and at least has a form response ready.

I bet if you respond to that email, reiterating your questions and pointing out that they didn't answer them, you might get a personal response.

[brettdl]

Summer: When I wrote this, I tried to not beat up on Burt's Bees too much. I think they were following industry practices -- though based on what I've read so far, some of the make up companies were fully aware that there was lead in some of their products. I take BB to task because they should be more aware of what's in their products, not less.

Actually, Anne was using a much more expensive brand prior to BB. It guaranteed all the pigments were from plant sources, but she switched to BB because of availability, color choices and price.