As consumers we place an overwhelming reliance on our regulatory bodies to protect us from products that pose potential harm to both the environment and us consumers. How much of this trust is being reciprocated with a genuine concern for our safety and a legitimate action towards creating a market that has consumer and environmental health at the heart of its interest?
It is clear to those who have not taken the ignorance is bliss stance on this topic, that there is a significant gap in the consumer knowledge of what ingredients constitute our everyday products and the negative human and environmental effects they possess. When it comes to personal care products we liberally lather, scrub, rinse, spray, spritz, smooth, exfoliate and so on, in order to get our desired effect. After the fact we feel clean, the reality is this outward cleanliness has a rather toxic effect on us internally. Our products are laden with chemical upon chemical, many of which we cannot pronounce and have no idea why they are present in our products, but for some reason we simply turn a blind eye. To make matters worse not every harmful chemical present in our products is on the label. Companies are not required to disclose the consumer with unintentional contaminants, which not surprisingly will often do more harm than the actual chemical that introduces them. Some of these chemicals have become repeat offenders, gracing us with their presence in a wide range of product types and brands. Scientific research about these chemicals and their long-term chronic exposure effects is amassing, however public awareness is at a standstill.
There seems to be a communication break down when it comes to consumers knowing the effects of the chemicals in their products and this can be attributed to the fact that the labeling on packages is so scientifically complex that it could in fact be considered another language. The average consumer is so far removed from understanding what is on these labels that they develop a comfortable apathy to the actual components of these products. Thus it could be said that the harm these products possess is lost in translation, something that is most likely intentional on the part of the industry. Consumers might be a little more conscious and proactive if companies used the chemical effects on the ingredients label as opposed to the scientific name of the chemical. Most individuals might be a little more cautious about the product they use if the ingredients label read: carcinogen, neurotoxin, endocrine disruptor, contact dermatitis and so forth as opposed to the typical scientific jargon that we see on the labels on these products.
We have taken this opportunity to enlighten ourselves as to what it is we are actually exposing ourselves to on a daily basis. The following report has been compiled to: 1.) A literature overview the current research and knowledge present on fourteen of the chemicals we encounter most frequently from our personal care products by the means of a literature review. 2.) A case study that sheds light on the awareness of the average consumer about the products they use and what exactly is in them, by means of a case study. 3.) The government regulations of personal care products in Canada, the United States and Europe and the differences between them. 4.) Suggestions for alternative products and what exists in the market to curtail this industrial progression of chemical use in personal care products.

Chemical Translation
The following section takes a look at those products that most people use on a regular basis and the chemicals they contain. We focused on fourteen chemicals we found to be particularly harmful, including: phthalates, petroleum based chemicals, sodium laureth sulfate, parabens, DEA, aluminum, siloxanes, heavy metals and formaldehyde releasing agents. It is estimated that at least one (if not more) of the chemicals mention will be present in 80% of personal care products. (David Suzuki)
These chemicals have advantages from the industry’s perspective as they impart favorable characteristics on the product (such as facilitating physical properties or increasing shelf life) and are inexpensive as they are mass-produced by chemical companies.
Phthalates, Phthalates Everywhere
Current research indicates that 100% of the population is exposed to some mixture of phthalates. This was established from analysis of the major metabolic products of phthalates in urine. In fact in certain cohort studies 1 out of every 5 children are exposed to greater than 100% of the determined tolerable daily intake levels of phthalates.
1 One of the reasons for the high exposure rates to phthalates is because there are many different types of phthalates which are all used for different industrial based processes. The variety of phthalates have similar but different effects on humans, however it is difficult to study the effects of individual phthalates as we are simultaneously exposed to more than one phthalate at any given time.
2 Examples of common phthalates: benzyl butyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, diisobutyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, glycerine phthalate, phthalic acid and potassium hydrogen phthalate to name a few. Of the many different types of phthalates, the most notably detrimental are DEP (diethylphthalate) and DEHP
(diethylhexylphthalate). While many other phthalates show quantifiable effects on humans the aforementioned have a significantly higher potency than other members of the phthalate family.
3 Industrial phthalates are used to enhance the plasticity of polymers, therefore high rates of exposure are due to our use of phthalates in a variety of PVC based products on top of our exposure from personal care products.
Phthalates are found in nearly three quarters of all personal care products 2 . They are used as a solvent often found in fragrances of products such as shampoos, lotions, and body washes, as well as plasticizer in products such as nail polishes. Because of their use in fragrance, phthalates will often not be included in the label due to a intellectual property loophole in the regulations, where products will commonly be labe led with “fragrance” or “parfume” instead of the actual chemical constituents.
2
Phthalates are not chemically bound to the polymers they are used with, and as a result show high rates of leaching out of the product and into the environment. Of the many different types of phthalates, the most notably detrimental being DEP (diethylphthalate) and DEHP (diethylhexylphthalate). While many other phthalates show quantifiable

effects on humans the aforementioned often significantly “outperform” the other members of the phthalate family.
3
Endocrine disrupting is the defining and most impactful feature of these chemicals; these effects are predominantly seen in males. They increase the incidence of reproductive malformations in males by suppressing testicular androgen synthesis.
Tolerable daily intakes are determined by levels of testicular toxicity (implying this is the organ which is most susceptible to phthalate toxicity). One of the main reasons for the impact on the male reproductive system is their anti-androgenic effect, meaning that phthalates bind to the androgenic receptors in the body, which mediate the development and activity of the male reproductive organs. When they bind they block the endogenous androgens from binding and producing natural effects. The antiandrogenic activity as critical developmental stages shows significant effects on the male reproductive system. Some of these include: testicular atrophy, undescended testicles, ectopic testes, absent testes, absent prostate gland, reduced sperm count, malformed or absent epididymis, testicular dygenesis.
1,3
Despite testicular development and function being the most sensitive organ to phthalates there are many other systems which are affected. Phthalates target biosynthesis resulting in greater rates of E
2
(estrogen) production.
4 Their presence also shows significant elevation in androgen receptor expression, elevated receptor expression is usually the result of antagonism of that receptor or a deficiency of its ligand. The “up” regulation is a homeostatic mechanism that allows the receptor to become activated more easily. In this case the “up” regulation of the androgen receptor is because the blocking the receptor blocking its activation and its effects, as a result the body tries to compensate by producing more receptors.
4
On the molecular level, phthalates indiscriminately induce oxidative stress on cells which eventually leads to cell apoptosis. Oxidative stress can be identified by the increased transcription of elements within the cell which defend against oxidative stress.
1 Altered gene expression can be particularly influential at significant or critical stages of fetal and embryo development. In more recent research phthalates are thought to be implicated in the higher rates of obesity. They interact with peroxisome proliferator activated receptors (PPARs), which is a receptor that affects cortico- and sex steroid metabolism. In the liver, PPARs are critical in the pathways for lipid and glucose metabolism as well as promoting adipogenesis and lipid accumulation.
3
Phthalates are generally not considered for bioaccumulation, however recently it has been suggested that due to there excessive use and rate of production, that the levels of these phthalates that are being introduced to the environment will exceed the naturally occurring rate of removal. The situation that is developing shows potential for bioaccumulation, and those phthalates with lower molecular weights have greater potential for bioaccumulation.
Nitrosamine based chemicals

These chemical agents are used to confer texture and foaming action, they also used to stabilize pH of product they are found in a wide variety of products including shampoo, lotions, body wash, hair products.
5 This larger group of chemicals can be differentiated by the addition of different fatty acid chains to the same core structure of the molecule. Nitrosamine based chemicals can take on a variety of different forms and can be found under a variety of names: DEA (diethanolamine), TEA (triethanolamine),
MEA (monoethanolamine), cocamide DEA/MEA, Linoleamide MEA, Myristamide DEA,
DEA-cetyl phosphate, DEA-oleth-3-phosphate, lauramide DEA, Oleamide DEA,
Steramide MEA, TEA-lauryl sulfate (list not inclusive).
6 They have long been known to be cancer causing. DEA is generally the most commonly used of the above listed.
5
Exposure to DEA and related chemicals shows symptoms similar to those of chronic choline deficiency. Choline is an essential nutrient that functions to maintain the integrity of the body’s cell structure, cell signaling and neurotransmission
(communication between cells in the brain). It serves as an important methyl donor
(doesn’t sound exciting but is very important in the body).
5 These chemicals will competitively replace choline in the cells biochemical pathways, but will not result in usable end product. This creates a situation that is similar to not having choline in the cell. Within the cells choline has one of two fates, it can be used in the cell membranes or it is converted into a methyl donor group that serves to produce S-adenosyl methionine. Sadenosyl methionine functions as a methyl donor many of the body’s biochemical pathways, methyl groups are required for DNA to be expressed properly and without this DNA expression, cells becomes aberrant and the most common outcome is cancer. This is an epigenetic mechanism for carcinogenesis.
5 Effects of choline deficiency are seen predominantly in the liver, but also shown to have some correlation with neurological disorders due to the role of choline in neurotransmission.
Chronic choline deficiency is associated with hepatocarcinogenesis and similarly long term exposure to nitrosamine based chemicals suggests a carcinogenic potential most notably hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cell cancerous tumor formation), hepatoblastoma (malignant cancer cell formation) and renal tube adenomas (tumor formation in the tubules of the kidneys).
5
Contaminants
, wouldn’t it be nice if these made the label as well?
Some highly prevalent chemicals are not nearly as harmful as the chemical components they are contaminated with. This has proved to be a problem with many petroleum based products, most of which are ethyoxylated at the industrial level using the solvents 1,4-dioxane or ethylene oxide. These are often not completely purified from the final chemical which is distributed from the chemical company. Both 1,4-dioxane and ethylene oxide are very common in industrial processes, and are known to be significantly more harmful than the products in which they are used to produce. Both of these chemicals are banned from use in personal care products by the Canadian government, however if they appear unintentionally as an impurity they are permitted to be present in the products. As a result we are often exposed to low levels of these chemicals on a chronic basis. Two products that are commonly used and known to be

contaminated with 1,4-dioxane and ethylene oxide are sodium laureth sulfate (and other lauryl based salts) and polyethylene glycols (PEGs).
Sodium laureth sulfate (and other lauryl salts)
Sodium laureth sulfate is generally used as a surfactant/detergent or as a foaming agent in personal care products. Sodium laureth sulfate is part of a larger group of chemicals known as anionic surfactants known for their cleansing and emulsifying properties.
7,8 The active portion of the chemical is anionic and therefore must be neutralized with a cation, such as sodium, to create the salt. This form or another similar form is found in most shampoos, face washes, body washes, hand soaps along with many other product.
7 The surfactants themselves have low levels of bioaccumulation, however there is evidence of them being eco-toxic to varying species of fish, plants, invertebrates, microorganisms and other forms of aquatic life.
8 However the major concern is contamination of the surfactants with 1,4-dioxane and ethylene oxide, which can be residual from the industrial process used to produce them. There has been extensive environment evaluation of alkyl sulfates surfactants (the sodium laureth sulfate type), as they are used in many products usually at concentrations of 3-
5% and the predominant route of disposal is via the water system.
7
PEGs
PEGs are petroleum-based compounds widely used in cosmetics as softeners, solvents and moisture carriers. On a specific note they are also used commonly as cream bases.
1 PEGs themselves have a low toxicity, and are used for their lubricating properties. PEGs are often difficult to pin point on labels as there are numerous synonymous chemical names; polyethylene oxide (PEO) or polyoxyethylene (POE) which depends on the molecular weight.
9 All of the above refer to a polymer (repeating structure) of ethylene oxide, because the number of repeats of the structure is highly variable the chemical properties can be very different between PEGs, POEs and PEOs despite the structural similarities. On ingredient labels the name is also usually followed by a number, which simply indicates the number of ethylene oxide structure repeats, which may even further confound their identification. Regardless they are all synthesized in a similar manner by a polymerization reaction between ethylene glycol and water, hence the high prevalence of ethylene oxide contamination.
9
This has been stated by manufacturers and industry panels who review cosmetic safety and ingredients that PEGs are not safe for use on damaged skin. There is also a concern with PEGs contributing to enhanced permeability of the skin, which allows greater absorption of the product. This can mean a greater absorption of harmful chemicals and ingredients.
10
What is the harm in these contaminants?

Both ethylene oxide and 1,4-dioxane are known carcinogens, which is always a cause for concern.
1,4-dioxane is a solvent often used in industrial level chemical production. The contamination comes from incomplete purification of the product. It does not bind strongly to organic matter and is likely to leach into water; as a result many studies have been done with respect to the presence of 1,4-dioxane in drinking water.
11 There seems to be a strong correlation between 1,4-dioxane and hepatocellular adenomas, carcinomas in mice, tumors of the nasal cavity, liver subcutaneous tissues, mammary gland and peritoneal mesotheliomas in rats and tumors of the liver and gallbladder.
12,13
While the exact mechanism by which 1,4-dioxane induces carcinogenesis it is most likely an epigenetic mode of action, which involves cytotoxicity followed by cell proliferation. One of the major factors involved in this toxicity is the non-linear pharmacokinetic action of 1,4-dioxane within the body, which follows the rule that when concentrations of 1,4-dioxane are introduced to the body the rate of elimination slows once it reaches a maximum concentration, and the levels beyond that are additive without any elimination of the toxin.
13,14 Once in the environment 1,4-dioxane does not degrade readily, d ue to it’s likeliness to be washed down the drain there has been significant focus on 1,4 dioxane in water systems.
Ethylene oxide is frequently used as a sterilizing agent because of its antimicrobial activity.
15 Ethylene oxide’s antimicrobial activity results from the fact it is an alkylating agent that doesn’t require metabolic activation. This methylating activity results in the methylation of various cellular components rendering them inactive. This methylation includes vital nucleic acids changing the genetic composition which is often a carcinogenic event, as well as methylation of functional proteins such as enzymes usually resulting in denaturation of the protein which makes them inactive. This methylation is random and indiscriminate within the body and as a result shows potential for mutations and carcinogenesis in many biological systems.
16 Ethylene oxide in known to degrade readily within the environment, as it is a highly reactive molecule.
As a result there is only moderate concern with toxicity to aquatic life.
15
From an environmental perspective high level of contamination of either of these chemicals is associated with death of animals, which includes birds, fish and death and stunted growth problems of plants.
Parabens
Parabens are used to inhibit microbial growth and extend the shelf life of products.
They are essential preservatives and are found in 99% of leave on products and 77% of wash away products such as skin care products, conditioners, shampoos, and antiperspirants. Up to 1% of a product may be composed of total parabens, while 0.4% of a single type of paraben maybe used.
17 Numerous types of parabens are used in personal care products and the varying types are the result of different alkyl chain lengths. A few common parabens include; methylparaben, ethylparaben, heptylparaben, propylparaben, butylparaben, and isopropylparaen, that all have similar effects with

slightly different efficacies. All of these parabens are lipophilic, which means they migrate into the skin easily, making dermal absorption a viable route to enter the body.
Parabens are broken down by esterases in the body to p-hydroxybenzoic acid; 18 however, this process is likely to be incomplete during dermal absorption. Furthermore the presence of alcohol (a common ingredient in many cosmetic and personal care products) can enhance the rate of dermal absorption, but inhibit the action of the esterases and inhibit breakdown of parabens, often making them significantly more persistent within the body when dermal absorption is the route of entrance.
18
The main concern with parabens and human health is their estrogen mimicking properties. As a group they show similar activity to 17-estradiol. In the body the chemical will interfere with the normal hypothalamo-pituitary-gonadal axis, mimicking endogenous hormones. This will block normal hormonal action and trigger inappropriate hormone activity in the body. Maternal exposure to parabens during gestation and lactation is known to result in reproductive disorders in the male offspring, especially when the exposure occurs during critical periods of development such as sex differentiation in the embryo.
19 This is partly due to the fact that parabens also bind to human androgen receptor, a receptor that usually binds testosterone and initiates masculinizing effects within the body. Parabens will antagonize this receptor and inhibit these masculinizing effects including; decreased epididymis and seminal vesicle weights, decrease epididymal sperm reserves, decreased sperm concentration, decreased efficiency of sperm production, and a decrease in testosterone. This mechanism is similar to the one associated with phthalates and both are known as endocrine disruptors.
19
Higher rates of melanoma observed in young people has been shown to be inversely linked to economic deprivation, the type of deprivation that limits their access to common personal care products. This observation could correlate cancer with greater use of paraben containing products along with more frequent application of these products.
18 The MCF7 human breast cancer cell line has been shown to increase with paraben activity, notably, the longer the paraben linear alkyl chain, the greater its activity. Parabens are considered to be estrogenic agonists, which involves the binding of a paraben (the ligand) to eit her the ERa or the ERß receptor. Binding of the estrogen receptor leads to a subsequent binding to the estrogen response element in the DNA, leading to an alteration of transcription and gene expres sion. ERß is present more ubiquitously in the body than ERa and is now thought to be a determining factor in breast cancer development. While the varying types of parabens differ in their affinity for binding ERa and ERß, most have greater binding to ERß, which links them to melanocytic pathophysiology.
18
More recent research indicates that parabens may be the cause of mitochondrial toxicity in certain cell types, one being testicular cells. Mitochondrial toxicity causes something known as a mitochondrial permeability transition, which increases the permeability of the mitochondrial membrane to molecules less then 1500 daltons. This causes swelling and cell death 20 because the mitochondria are essential for energy production within the cell. Also, newly divulged metabolic assays have shown parabens to be geneotoxic through cytochrome P450 mediated metabolic activation which produces geneotoxic metabolites. These metabolites are the cause of DNA damage and induction of chromosome aberrations.
20

Formaldehyde: Simple, Prevalent and Dangerous
There are numerous sources of endogenous formaldehyde present in nature. Present in the body at natural levels, this common metabolite serves an essential function in biological pathways. However, like most substances, too much exposure can cause adverse effects. Formaldehyde exposure and pollution occurs through many everyday activities such as burning of fossil fuels.
21, 22, 23, 24 As a result, much research has been done regarding the various routes of exposure to formaldehyde. Used in many industrial processes, the role of formaldehyde in cosmetics is a preservative, however in light of current attention this practice is being reduced. Most often, formaldehyde-releasing agents are used in products, and therefore the ingredient “formaldehyde” will not appear on the label. In the presence of water, these releasing agents will slowly release formaldehyde into the product. This reaction occurs at equilibrium such that formaldehyde can be dispersed into the product over an extended period of time.
22
There is a variety formaldehyde-releasing agents with varying mechanisms of formaldehyde release. Some of the most common ones found in cosmetics and personal care products include: DMDM hydantoin, quaternium-15, imidazolidinyl urea, diazolidnyl urea, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol), tris(hydroxymethyl) nitromethane (Tris NItro), and hydroxymethylglycinate (Suttocide A).
Formaldehyde essentially forms adducts with a variety of functional molecules within human cells, proteins (amino acids), DNA nucleotides, RNA nucleotides, oligomers amongst others.
23,24 When formaldehyde adducts with functional proteins such as enzymes, this methylation can often result in denaturation and loss of function. On the other hand, when this formaldehyde induced methylation occurs within genetic molecules such as DNA or RNA, it starts to affect transcription and translation within the cell. Altered genomic expression exacerbates potential for mutagenicity, which will often result in carcinogenesis.
23,24 As well, varying other forms of cell damage that can occur due to formaldehyde exposure include increased levels of cell proliferation, which can contribute to mutations and carcinogenesis.
21 Unintentionally, some of the formaldehyde-releasing molecules themselves will act to adduct with these biological molecules directly instead of releasing the free formaldehyde, defeating the purpose of having them in the product and causing harm to the user.
22
Studies indicate the presence of nasopharyngeal cancers associated with formaldehyde exposure, which is likely due to chronic inhalation as the route of exposure. It was these correlations that lead to further research on the mechanism of action of exogenous formaldehyde in the human body. One of the common acute effects of formaldehyde exposure is increased sensitivity. This is thought to be due to the adduction with amino acids resulting in antigenic structures (proteins that the human body will develop an immune response to).
23 Long-term exposure has been linked to hematolymphopoietic cancers, leukemias, and varying levels of neurotoxicity ranging from headaches to neurological disorders.
21
As a result of its natural ubiquity, formaldehyde shows little potential for bioaccumulation or bioconcentration unless anthropogenic methods are imparting excess in a particular area.

Aluminum and antiperspirants: A case all their own
Aluminum is a natural element we are exposed to at environmental levels on a daily basis. There is no know need for aluminum in the human body, in fact due to its atomic size and cationic charge it can often inhibit other essential cations such as calcium or magnesium. Aluminum is present in many of the foods we eat, including nuts, seeds, cereal products, fruits and vegetables among many others, however these environmental levels are not sufficient to show physiological problems. The use of aluminum in personal care products, namely antiperspirant, increases the levels of exposure, causing problems that wouldn’t occur at natural levels.
Aluminium acts to plug the sweat ducts at the skin surface, preventing the release of sweat from the particular area. In recent decades, the rates of breast cancer and gross breast cysts have been progressively increasing, especially in the upper outer quadrant of the breast. While the exact reason for the significantly local increase in prognosis is undetermined, most research suggests there is likely an environmental component.
25,26,27 Studies have shown that those who use antiperspirants for a prolonged time are more likely to get breast cancer earlier in life, but the lifetime prevalence of breast cancer remains consistent as with those who do not wear antiperspirants.
25 These correlations have led to substantial headway in research on exposure to aluminium, which according to an Environment Canada study, is present at levels ranging from 171 to 529,300 mg/kg in antiperspirant. These levels are higher than in any other personal care product. It is the daily, repetitive, localized application of antiperspirants that results in an increased absorption of aluminium salts in to the areas in and around the breast tissue.
25,26 Aluminium is a metalloestrogen (meaning it is an inorganic metal with an affinity for estrogen receptors within the body), and as we have already mentioned in the section on parabens, there is significant positive correlation between estrogen levels and breast cancer. Aluminium also produces genotoxic properties and can damage the integrity of the DNA structure, bringing about epigenetic changes.
25 Also, when aluminum blocks the sweat ducts, it can contribute to the most common breast disease, gross cystic breast disease which is thought to be partially caused by the accumulation of toxins in the breast tissue. Although the cysts are treatable and benign, gross cystic breast disease is thought to be a precursor to breast cancer. 27
While there is much research that insinuates the correlation of high levels of aluminum to breast cancer, there is still much work to be done to prove it is a causative agent. One of the difficulties in determining this link is simultaneous exposure with other chemicals, like parabens, that are also present in antiperspirants and are similarly linked to breast cancer. 26
Siloxanes
Cyclic volatile methylsiloxanes (cVMS) or siloxanes, are hydrophobic silicone based liquids often used in personal care products as either solvents or a fragrance carriers. 28
Siloxanes are recognized as a persistent organic pollutant with large potential for long-

range transport. While there has been no direct link to human health hazards the most common and pertinent concerns of cVMS’s are environmental.
30
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxan (D4), decamethycyclopentasiloxane (D5) and dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6) are the most prevalent siloxanes and are all classified as persistent organic pollutants. Regulatory bodies are becoming more conscious and strict about their regulations around persistent organic pollutants because of their potential for bioaccumulation in the various environmental sectors.
When released into the environment, the main method of degradation in the air involves demethylation by hydroxyl radicals and is via hydrolysis when in soil and water.
Because of the high rates of hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere the rate of degradation in the air is significantly faster than in the soil or water. Half-lives of cVMS (D5 in particular) in the air is approximately 1-2 weeks however it is approximately 10 years in the soil. Because of their hydrophobic nature and their incredibly long half-life in soil and water, cVMSs have great potential for bioaccumlation, especially in aquatic organisms.
However, these levels have proven difficult to calculate due to the high volatility of the molecules, and it is difficult to control the exposure of an organism in the aquatic environment. The best calculated bioconcentration factors indicate that D4 and D5 are
12 400 and 7060 units, respectively, above the regulatory limits for bioaccumulation. In a research comparison between D5 and polychlorinated biphenyl 180 (PCB 180), a well established POP, concentrations in water were calculated to be approximately 27 times greater and sediment levels approximately 200 times greater for D5.
31
While much work has been done on the environmental factors associated with the varying siloxanes, research still needs to be done considering the health effects of chronic siloxane exposure.
Heavy Metal Hazards: When we are exposed to more than the environment intended
According to the Canadian government there is no acceptable level of heavy metals in cosmetics and they are banned from use as an ingredient. However, many products on the shelves still have some level of one, if not more, heavy metals present in them as contaminants. As a result, heavy metals will not be found on the labels, leaving even those label-reading consumers in the dark about the heavy metal content in their products.
Arsenic
Arsenic is widely distributed as a natural metalloid in air, water, soil and rock, and also occurs in the organic form in fish. This means there is variable amount of human exposure depending on exposure to the natural environment.
32,33 Due to the utility of arsenic in industrial processes such as pesticide production, textile production, glass production or as a wood preservative, there are many anthropogenic sources that invoke increased elemental levels near the source.
34,35 Arsenic can be ingested through water or other food sources, inhaled or absorbed into the skin where it distributes relatively ubiquitously throughout the body.
33 As a result of this indiscriminate

distribution, elevated levels of arsenic have been associated with harmful effects in many different systems within the body including; gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and central nervous system depression, hepatomegaly, melanosis, polyneuropathy, bone marrow depression and encephalopathy.
32,34,36
Arsenic is also highly genotoxic on a few levels, making it a known carcinogen at high or chronic exposure levels. Arsenic promotes genomic instability by inducing DNA damage at an abnormally high rates as well as impairing cell DNA repair machinery.
37
Long term exposure is known to disrupt the regulation of cell cycle check points, meaning incorrect genetic information can be continually replicated. Arsenic also induces gross structural changes to genetic material during the cell replication processes, abnormal sister chromatid separation, chromosomal breakdown, aneuploidy, activation of oncogenes and tumour suppressor gene activation.
37 The above actions are indiscriminate with respect to location in the body and resultantly arsenic exposure is associated with several types of cancer including skin, lung, liver, urinary bladder and kidney. 35 Exposure is also associated with hypertension, cerebrovascular disease and cardiovascular disease.
36
Beryllium
Beryllium occurs naturally in the environment as an essential constituent of about 40 minerals, some of which are mined commercially for industrial use in many everyday products such as alloys, electronics, construction materials, glassware and sports equipment.
38,39 Like other natural occurring metals, human exposure results via food, air and water where the most potent method of exposure is through inhalation. Routes such as ingestion and dermal absorption are minimally effective routes for entering the bloodstream.
32 Chronic exposure to excess beryllium increases the risk of developing chronic beryllium disease (CBD) a disorder that affects the innate and acquired immune systems of the affected individual.
40 The exact mechanism of beryllium in inducing this disease is not know but the disease is characterized by lymphocytic inflammation in the upper and lower respiratory tract, nasopharyngitis (inflamed nasal and pharyngeal tissue), tracheobronchitis (inflamed tracheal and bronchiole tissue) and acute inhalation injury.
40 Essentially CBD is a debilitating respiratory disorder. While beryllium is not as environmentally prevalent or as well publicized as elements such as lead or arsenic, when a recent survey was done analysing cosmetic products for trace elements, beryllium was present in 100% of the products.
32
Cadmium
Cadmium occurs naturally in the form of different ores including lead, zinc and copper, and our exposure as human is mostly due to mining and industrial usage of the element.
34,41 Such anthropogenic products and activities that increase our cadmium exposure include; PVC products, color pigments (including cosmetics), rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries, industrial emission, fertilizers and smoking. The most significant source of exposure is through food and water, though it is absorbed readily through dermal contact. Once within the body, the half-life of cadmium is 10-12 years. It

is considered toxic by the Canadian government and banned from use in cosmetic ingredients.
32,36
Many organs are affected by cadmium, and it is known to be linked to cancers of the kidney, endometrial, lung, breast, gastric and prostate. The most affected organ is the kidneys. Renal lesions, tubular dysfunction and increased excretion of low molecular weight proteins are usually identifiable symptoms of cadmium exposure. Long term exposure is know to cause increased levels of skeletal damage including osteomalacia and osteoporosis.
34,35
Lead
Lead is ubiquitous in the environment and continues to be used extensively in industry. Lead exposure effects everyone since trace amounts exist in the air, soil, household dust, food, drinking water and various consumer products. Until recently, lead was frequently used as a pigment in many paints, in plumbing, for pesticide purposes and in gasoline amongst other uses that greatly increased the level of human exposure. Since the early 1970’s it has gradually been phased out of use due to the knowledge of its toxicity. 32,36,42 However, it is still used for many industrial and construction based purposes due to its high melting point and low density and is also used in lead acid batteries because of it’s oxidative potential.
Shockingly, even in some products today, lead provides the pigment in colored lipsticks, which is quite worrisome since 75% of lipsticks end up being ingested. While manufacturers in Canada, the United States and the European Union (EU) are subject to strict regulations about lead in lipsticks, other areas of the world are not nearly as stringent. For instance lipstick samples collected from the local markets of Saudi Arabia, contain lead concentrations higher than the safety limits established in Canada. In 2005, lead was detected in all tested lipstick samples in the range of 0.27
–3760 PPM wet weight in Saudi Arabia. Four brands of lipsticks had lead content around or above 20
PPM which is over safety limits.
44 In 2007, in North America, 30 lipsticks sampled from four different North American cities were sent to an analytical lab for lead testing. Onethird of the tested lipsticks exceeded the FDA limit for lead in candy —a standard established to protect children from directly ingesting lead. At the same time, media began to alert the public of the problems with lead in lipsticks.
Similarly in the EU in
2010, 223 lip articles, representing 55 brands and 3 different price ranges were purchased from 15 European Union States and analyzed for lead content. 88% of the samples were produced in European territory, 6% in the USA and less than 1% in
Canada or Japan. Among all of the 223 tested specimens, 49 (22%), belonging to 27 diverse brands, contained more than 1 mg/kg of lead. 58% of samples showed a lead concentration lower than 0.5 mg/kg, 21% between 0.5 and 1 mg/kg, 18% between 1 and 2 mg/kg, and 4% between 2 and 3 mg/kg.
43
Lead toxicity is a well-known consequence of short term and long term exposure.
Much resear ch has been conducted on lead toxicity due to it’s prevalence in the industrial sector prior to the implementation of appropriate safety standards. Lead enters the blood stream and then proceeds to localize within bone or the Central
Nervous System, among other places. When in the blood, lead has a relatively short half-life of one month, however when in bone the half life increases significantly to upwards of 30 years. 35 In children this uptake is significantly more detrimental as both

the gastric and blood brain barriers are not nearly as well developed and resultantly greater levels of absorption occur. Lead is a known neurotoxin, and these effects are more noticeable in younger children as lead has a greater effect on neuron development and growth than it has on preexisting neurons. However, there are still noticeable effects in adults.
45 It has been noted that low dose exposure of lead gives rise to non-specific disorders of the brain such as reduced perception, impaired cognition, and disorders in neurobehavioral functioning. Blood levels of lead are inversely proportional with IQ (intelligence quotient) scores of younger children. In adults the symptoms of low level exposure are not as severe, but still similarly present.
In other areas of the body lead exposure can cause anemia, high blood pressure, damaged blood cells, brain damage, decreased fertility, premature births/miscarriages, sexual dysfunction and damage to the kidneys and liver.
32, 34, 35, 36
Mercury
Mercury exists in both inorganic and organic forms in the environment. Generally inorganic mercury is used in industrial processes where the waste is released into the environment and converted by bacteria and plankton into its organic form, most commonly methylmercury. 46, 47 It is this form that bioaccumulates in fish and eventually works it ’s way up the food chain to humans. Inorganic mercury has an absorption of maximum 38% of total maximum exposure, whereas organic mercury is absorbed anywhere from 80-100%. 34 Mercury is currently used in many industrial processes, however it’s usage has gradually been diminished since the 1970’s in light of the discovery of it’s toxic properties. As late as the 1970’s it was used for things such as dental fillings and fungicides of grains. 46
Following absorption into the blood mercury is transported to all areas of the body but has a propensity for accumulating in the central nervous system (CNS). It is this accumulation that classifies mercury as a strong neurotoxin because within the CNS it alters enzyme and cell membrane function, it affects neurotransmission between neurons disrupting the messages in the brain, disrupts cellular growth and migration in the brain and causes oxidative stress, lipid peroxidation and mitochondrial dysfunction.
These cell level alterations can manifest themselves in a variety of ways and symptoms including; headaches, memory and concentration impairment, vision problems, gross motor skill difficulties such as ataxia, and speech issues such as apraxia.
32, 34 In children the neurological affects are significantly worse as the presence of mercury alters the growth and development of the brain and neural tube in the case of foetal development. Mercury has also been implicated in various reproductive pathologies such as genetic anomalies in both male and female gonads, testicular atrophy and reduced number of sperm in males and reduced size of infants at birth.
32,34 Finally there are cardiovascular effects linked to mercury due to its affinity for sulphur containing groups in the body. Through induction of lipid peroxidation it promotes platelet aggregation, blood coagulation and sclerotic formation in the arteries, all events which raise blood pressure and increase the risk of myocardial infarction.
34, 46
Thallium

Thallium is only recently becoming a concern of human environmental exposure, as it is often undetected by classical analytical techniques. It exists in the environment in relatively low proportions, 0.49 ppm in soil and rock and 0.013 ppm in most water systems unless they are near anthropogenic activity emitting the element. Due to the chemical properties of thallium it usually exists in a salt form, and many thallium sulfide bearing minerals have been found. The most common anthropogenic activity releasing thallium is solid waste and coal combustion, various smelting practices.
32 Recent research indicates the thallium levels in the Great Lakes are higher than the cadmium levels and even exceed lead levels in some areas, this is all due to anthropogenic activity. In these areas there is notable bioconcentration in aquatic organisms such as phytoplankton, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton and even larger fish such as trout.
Many cases of both acute and chronic thallium poisoning have been reported, by all the routes of exposure; inhalation, gastrointestinal absorption or dermal absorption.
Thallium is highly permeable to at routes of exposure and as a result humans are highly susceptible to low levels, it is acutely more toxic than any other the other heavy metals.
32,48 Thallium salts are often used as pigments in cosmetic products further increasing our exposure. Within recent history there have been many uses for thallium salts one of the most common being rodenticides. Exposure results in many symptoms some of which including vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, polyneuritis (inflammation of numerous of the body’s nerves), vagal nerve generation, anorexia, generalized body pain and hypotension subsequently followed by brachycardia. 32,48 As is the case with many other heavy metals thallium has an affinity for sulfhydril groups in the body, meaning it inhibits functioning of the mitochondria and various other enzymes, compromising the overall function of the body. Thallium interferes with is the sodium/potassium ATPase pumps, this is due to the physical but not functional replacement of the potassium ion with thallium.
48 Recently methods are being developed and implicated to facilitate the removal of thallium from water systems that with potential for high levels thallium.
Government Policy’s and Regulations
How Cosmetics are Regulated in Canada:
In Cananda, These regulations are in place to ensure that cosmetics are safe and health risks kept to a minimum. They are also subject to the provisions of the Consumer
Packaging and Labeling Act and Regulations, which are regarding bilingual labeling, deceptive packaging and net quantity declaration in metric units [52]. These help to ensure that the components of the product are disclosed as much as possible to the consumer. Personal care product ingredients are used in the same way as food label ingredients; to ensure the consumer knows what they are putting in their body.
In light of this notion section 10 and 30 of the Cosmetic Regulations of the Food and Drugs Act requires that a Cosmetic Notification form be submitted form the company/manufacturer to Health Canada such that Health Canada can monitor what is being put on the market [52]. This will allow Health Canada to prohibit and identify if an ingredient in cosmetics is a hazard to the safety and health of Canadian. When submitted to Health Canada the ingredients, which are listed on the cosmetics, must

use names which are recognized in the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic
Ingredients system found in the International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary [52]. All cosmetics must have intentional ingredients listed on a label. This rule allows consumers to know what is in the product and lets them avoid any cosmetics that may contain ingredients they wish to avoid. However this has created some controversy as contaminated products do not have to be listed, and it is often the contaminants which cause more harm than the chemical which introduces it. To further mitigate the risks all cosmetics sold in Canada, must be manufactured, prepared, preserved, packed and stored in sanitary conditions [51]. Manufacturers are not allowed to sell cosmetics that may contain ingredients that may cause any injury when used normally, according to the directions on the label [51].
Regulations exist to help protect Canadians but they cannot prevent the misuse and abuse of cosmetics. Section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act states that no person shall sell a cosmetic product that has in it any substance which may injure the health of the user if used in its customary method [52]. If it seems that such precautionary measures are being violated then Health Canada has the right to investigate the products and the manufacturer. If a health or safety problem occurs because of a product being on the market than Health Canada will investigate and take steps towards enforcement [51]. All cosmetic ingredients are subject to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is concerned with protecting both human and environment health, making steps towards pollution prevention, and promoting sustainable development [51].
There are three significant features of the Canadian cosmetic regulatory system. For
Manufacturers and Companies
1. Mandatory Notification
2. Safety of ingredients and products
3. Product Labeling
According to section 30 of the cosmetic regulations, notification is a mandatory requirement for sale of cosmetics in Canada [51]. Companies must submit a cosmetic notification form within the first 10 days that a cosmetic will be available for sale [51]. The form asks questions regarding address and contact of company, purpose of the cosmetic, form of the cosmetic, ingredients of the cosmetics and lastly the concentrations of the ingredients. If this form is not filled out a product will be refused entry into Canada.
To make sure that ingredients are safe, Health Canada has a Cosmetic
Ingredient Hotlist, which companies must use to ensure safety. The hotlist defines restricted and prohibited cosmetic ingredients [50].
A cosmetic label will contain information that will help consumers make informed choices about the products they are using, how to use the product, and also how to properly contact that manufacturer if any questions arise. To comply with these

labeling requirements the label must include; the ingredient list, the identity of the product in both English and French, statement of net quantity, name and address of the manufacturer, and the usage directions, warnings and cautions regarding the product in English and French [52].
Hotlist Information:
The chemical Hot list for cosmetics is a list of ingredients that are banned or subject limitations in cosmetics available in Canada. The compilation of this list is based on an ever accumulating amount scientific research about the chemicals that are being used in frequently in cosmetic and personal care products. This list is reviewed and updated a few times a year depending on new research is discovered [50]. It also makes sure that not only those ingredients that are harmful to us are not present in the product but also those ingredients that do not have a significant purpose in cosmetics are not present. If at any point if the government feels a product has surpassed it’s limits with any one or multiples of these products it has the ability to enforce a recall of the product.
The Canadian government has a section on the website which has recalls, advisories and warnings regarding cosmetic safety issues.
No cosmetic can be sold which can harm or injure a user if the product is used normally.
Cosmetic products, which present an avoidable hazard, must include directions for safe use on their label. [50]
Problems with Canada’s cosmetic regulations (According to the David Suzuki foundation)
There are several problems with Canada’s cosmetic regulations as stated below.
First, companies are required to notify the Minister of Health about cosmetic ingredients and concentrations within10 days of the product hitting the market. This means that these products are available to the consumer prior to the government being able to properly asses the composition of the product. Many cosmetic ingredients have never been tested for human and environment effects. Health Canada and Environment
Canada are slowly assessing 4000 existing chemicals that are used in cosmetics today.
With the rate at which new chemicals are being introduced into products, it is difficult to evaluate all the new chemicals when much work is being done on establishing scientific evidence on the older, more prevalent chemicals.
Secondly, the aforementioned Hot List has no legal authority and thus cannot be enforced.
Thirdly, impurities are not included on the labels. The Canadian government requires that only the intentional ingredients be labeled, so products containing polyethylene glycols (PEGs) or laureth sulfate salts need not label 1,4 dioxane even though it is most likely present as an impurity in the product.

Fourthly, some personal care products are not regulated as cosmetics and do not have to follow the same labeling regulations, if a product is labeled for some sort of pharmaceutical use, the only contituents required for the label are those which are the
“active ingredients”. For instance, antiperspirants usually only the aluminum salts with be found on the label however parabens and phthalates are frequently occurring in this product. Some products are classified as natural health products, at which point they also fall under a different class of labeling regulations. With the necessary loopholes it often stands that “some times a cosmetic is not a cosmetic” due to the definition restrictions.
Fifth, a loophole exists for chemicals used to impart scent in cosmetics, when the words fragrance and parfum are allowed to be used instead the specific breakdown of the scent in order to maintain the patent trademark scents present in the product. This mixture of chemicals, which often contains phthalates and other toxic chemicals, is not disclosed because they are considered trade secrets.
Europe vs Canada Cosmetic Regulations and Policies
The EU has based their regulations on the precautionary principle which implies that if a chemical has the potential to cause harm on someone, the EU decides it is not best to use it [53]. This is duly noted in the number of chemicals that are restricted in the EU compared to Canada where the EU has 1,715 ingredients that are prohibited or restricted, compared to Canada’s 573 ingredients that warrant a red flag [53].
While the Canadian hotlist serves as an identifying point for those chemicals which are concerns in personal care products, there is minimal governing presence which enforces their presence in products. In contrast the EU has a state member, which has authority for enforcing regulations [53]. The EU has two committees through which a product must be evaluated the first being the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, this is a group that takes on the responsibility on the scientific analysis of the product in question making sure all of the chemicals are consistent with the approved and prohibited stipulations [53]. The second system is individual or group that is representative on behalf of the cosmetic company who is responsible for evaluation of the ingredients based on the EU standards. The EU hot list is broken down into two list; restricted ingredients and prohibited ingredients [53]. There is another groups of lists of approved ingredient for the controversial categories of colorants, preservatives and ultraviolet filters. All of the chemicals serving one of the previously mentioned purposes in a product must be on the approved list, this prevents the introduction of untested new chemicals to serve these functions [53]. The chemicals on the approved have been scientifically evaluated for adverse effects. Like Canada, the word parfum or fragrance can still be used as legal loophole, however there is stricter regulation on the labeling of allergens that make be present within these chemical mixtures, catering the market to those individuals which are fragrance sensitive [53]. Finally products in the EU must be labeled with any impurities present along with their concentrations. When cosmetic companies acquire chemicals from their distributors, it is the responsibility of the distributor to make certain that the ingredients sold it does not have concentrations of the impurity higher than those which are labeled on the product when marketed [53].

Overall Europe has the strongest and most restricting cosmetic regulations in the world.
Canada could use their approach to strengthen their own.
References
1.Wittassek M. and Angerer J. Phthalates: Metabolism and exposure. International
Journal of Andrology. 31 (2008) 131-138.
2. Houlihan J., Brody C., Schwan B. Not too pretty: Phthalates, beauty products and the
FDA. July 8, 2002.
3. Mankidy R., Wiseman S., Ma H., Giesy J.P. Biological impact of phthalates.
Toxicology Letters 217 (2013) 50-58
4. Waring R. H. and Harris R. M. Endocrine disrupters- A threat to women’s health?
Maturitas 68 (2011) 111-115.
5. Leung H., Kamendulis L. M. and Stott W. T. Review of the carcinogenic activity of diethanolamine and evidence of choline deficiency as a plausible mode of action.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 43 (2005) 260-271.
6. Libralato G., Ghirardini A. V., Avezzu F. Seawater ecotoxicity of monoethanolamine, diethanolamine and triethanolamine. Journal of Hazardous Materials . 176 (2010) 535-
539.
7. Liwarska-Bizukojc E., Miksch K., Malachowska-Jutsz A. and Kalka J. Acute toxicity and genotoxicity of five selected anionic and nonionic surfactants. Chemosphere 58
(2005)
8. Könnecker G., Regelmann J., Belanger S., Gamon K. and Sedlak R. Environmental properties and aquatic hazard assessment of anionic surfactants: Physico-chemical, environmental fate and ecotoxicity properties. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
74 (2011) 1445-1460
9. Suzuki, David. "PEG Compounds and their contaminants." David Suziki Foundation.
N.p.. Web. 20 Feb 2013. < http://davidsuzuki.org/issues/health/science/toxics/chemicalsin-your-cosmetics---peg-compounds-and-their-contaminants/ >.
10. "Dangers of PEG Compounds in Cosmetics Women at Increased Breast Cancer
Risk?." PHEND. N.p.. Web. 20 Feb 2013.
< http://www.phend.co.za/health/Chemical5.htm
>.
11. Black RE, Hurley FJ, and Havery DC. "Occurrence of 1,4-dioxane in cosmetic raw materials and finished cosmetic products." Int J PharJ AOAC Int . 84, 3 (May-Jun
2001):666-70.

12.Environment Canada and Health Canada. Screening Assessment for the Challenge:
1,4-Dioxane . March 2010. http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch7/batch7_123-91-1.cfm
13. Kano H., Umeda Y., Kasai T., Sasaki T., Matsumoto M., Yamazaki., Nagano K.,
Arito H., Fukushima S. Carcinogenicity studies of the 1,4-dioxane administered in drinking-water to rats and mice for 2 years. Food and Chemical Toxicology 47 (2009)
2776-2784
14. Sweeney L. M., Thrall K. D., Toet T. S., Corley R. A., Weber T. J., Locey B. J.,
Clarkson J., Sager S. and Gargas M. L. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of 1,4-dioxane in rats, mice and humans. Toxicological Sciences 10(1) (2008)
32-50.
15. Brashear, A. et al. "Ethylene oxide neurotoxicity: a cluster of 12 nurses with peripheral and central nervous system toxicity." Neurology 46, 4 (Apr 1996):992-8
16.Swenberg J. A., Lu K., Moeller B. C., Gao L., Upton P. B., Nakamura J. and Starr T.
B. Endogenous versus exogenous DNA adducts: Their role in carcinogenesis, epidemiology and risk assessment. Toxicological Sciences. 120(S1)(2011) S130-S145
17. Soni M.G., Burdock G. A., Taylor S. L., Greenberg N. A.Safety assessment of propyl paraben: A review of the published literature. Food and Chemical Toxicology 39 (2001)
513-532
18. Darbre P. D., Harvey P. W. Paraben esters: review of recent studies of endocrine toxicity, absorption, esterase and human exposure and discussion of potential human health risks. Journal of Applied Toxicology (2008): 28: 561-578
19.
Oishi S. Effects of propyl paraben on the male reproductive system. Food and
Chemical Toxicology 40 (2002) 1807-1813.
20.
Tavares R. S., Martins F. C., Oliverira P. J., Ramalho-Santos J., Peixoto F. P.
Parabens in male infertility - Is there a mitochondrial connection? Reproductive
Toxicology 27 (2009) 1-7
21. Swenberg J. A., Moeller B. C., Lu K., Rager J. E., Fry R. C. and Starr T. B.
Formaldehyde carcinogenicity research: 30 years and counting for mode of action, epidemiology and cancer risk assessment. Toxicologic Pathology. 00 (2012) 1-9.
22. Doi T., Takeda A., Asada A. and Kajimura K. Characterization of the decomposition of compounds derived from imidazolidinyl urea in cosmetics and patch test materials.
Contact Dermatitis 67 (2012) 284-292
23. Kireche M., Gimenex-Arnau E. and Lepoittevin J. P. Preservatives in cosmetics; reactivity of allergenic formaldehyde-releasers towards amino acids through breakdown products other than formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis 63 (2010) 192-202

24. de Graaf B., Clore A., McCullough A. K. Cellular pathways for DNA repair and damage tolerance of formaldehyde-induced DNA-protein crosslinks. DNA Repair
8(2009) 1207-1214.
25. Darbre, P.D., Pugazhendhi, D., Mannelo, F. (2011). Aluminum and human breast diseases. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 105, 1484-1488.
26.Darbre, P. D. (2009). Underarm antiperspirants/ deodorants and breast cancer.
Breast Cancer Research. 11 (5). p. 1-5
27. Mannello F., Tonti, G. A., Darbre, P.D. (2008). Concentration of aluminium in breast cyst fluids collected from women affected by gross cystic breast disease. Journal of
Applied Toxicology. 29, 1-6.
28. Norwood W.P, Alaee M., Sverko E., Wang D., Brown M., Galicia M.
Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) spiked sediment: Bioaccumulation and toxicity to the benthic invertebrate Hyalella azteca . Chemosphere (2012). http://dx.doi.org/org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.10.052
29. Parrott J. L., Alaee M. and Sverko W. E. Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) embryo to adult exposure to decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) Chemosphere (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.10.053
30. Xu S., Wania F. Chemical fate latitudinal distribution and long-range transport of cycylic volatile methylsiloxanes in the global environment: A modeling assessment.
Chemosphere (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016.j.chemosphere.2012.10.1056
31.Kierkgaard A., van Egmond R., McLachlan M. S., Cyclic volatile methylsiloxane bioaccumulation in flounder and ragworm in the Humber Estuary. Environmental
Science and Techonology (2011) 45, 5936-5942.
32. Environmental Defense (2011). Heavy metal hazard – the health risks of hidden heavy metals in face makeup. http://www.environmentaldefense.ca
33. Bennett, B.G. (1981). Exposure of man to environmental arsenic – an exposure commitment assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 20(2) , 99-107.
34. Järup L. Hazards of heavy metal contamination. British Medical Bulletin. 68 (2003)
167-182
35.Kossowska B., Dudka I., Gancarz R., Antonowicz-Juchniewicz J. Application of classic epidemiological studies and proteomics in research of occupational and environmental exposure to lead, cadmium and arsenic. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health.
216 (2013) 1-7.

36. Alissa, E.M. & Ferns, G.A. (2011). Heavy metal poisoning and cardiovascular disease . Journal of Toxicology . doi:10.1155/2011/870125
37.Bhattachargee P., Banerjee M. and Giri A. K. Role of genomic instability in arsenicinduced carcinogeicity. A review. Environment International. 53 (2013) 29-40.
38. Taylor, T.P., Ding, M., Ehler, D.S., Foreman, T.M., Kaszuba, J.P., & Sauer, N.N.
(2003). Beryllium in the environment . Journal of Environmental Science and Health,
Part A, 38(2), 439-469.
39. Bhat, P.N., Ghosh, D.D., & Desai, M.V.M. (2002). Beryllium: an easily scavenged metal ion in the environment. Science of the Environment, 297(1-3), 119-125.
40. Sawyer R. T. and Maier L. A. Chronic beryllium disease: an updeated model interaction between innate and acquired immunity. Biometals. 24 (2011) 1-17.
41. Illinois Department of Public Health – Environment Health Fact Sheet. http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/cadmium.htm
42. Witkowski, J. A., & Parish, L. C. ( 2001). You’ve come a long way baby: a history of
cosmetics lead toxicity. Clinics in Dermatology , 19.4, 367-370.
43. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Learn about lead. http://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead.html
44. Al-Saleh, I., Al-Enazi, S. & Shinwari, N. (2009). Assessment of lead in cosmetic products. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 54(2), 105-113.
45. Baranowska-Bosiacka I., Gutowska I., Rybicka M., Nowaki P. and Chlubek D.
Neurotoxicity of lead. Hypothetical molecular mechanisms of synaptic function disorders. Neurologia i Neurochirugia. 46 (2012) 6: 569-578
46. Hong Y., Kim Y. and Lee K. Methylmercury exposure and health effects. Journal of
Preventive Medicine & Public Health. 45 (2012) 353-363
47.Health Canada (2007). Mercury – Your health and the environment: a resource tool. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/contaminants/mercur/q35-q42-eng.php
48. John Peter A. L. and Viraraghavan T. Thallium: a review of public health and environmental concerns. Environment International. 31 (2005) 493-50
49. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/cosmet-person/index-eng.php
50. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/cosmet-person/indust/hot-list-critique/index-eng.php

51.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/cosmet-person/indust/require-exige/index-eng.php
52. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/cosmet-person/cons/reg_cosmet-eng.php
53. http://www.bcam.qc.ca/content/comparison-cosmetics-regulations-canada-andeuropean-union-0