Is your makeup harmful? Testing big brands for 'forever chemicals' (Marketplace)

Everyday products full of potential harm. It is an artificial chemical that we inflict on ourselves. Chemicals that do not break down. I would say that exposure is almost inevitable. And it could be here

forever

. What are we doing as a society putting our children at risk? So we're here to reveal what you need to know. I don't know if I'll use it again. Are you satisfied that everything possible is being done to reduce levels? Nobody is ever satisfied. You continue working towards the goal. This is

your

Market. We go shopping, trying to find products that contain artificial

chemicals

that are alarming the scientific world.

Okay, so it's waterproof. We've heard that PFAS could be found in some waterproof jackets, non-stick pans, microwave popcorn bags, fast food wrappers, cosmetics, dental floss, menstrual products and much, much more. Anything marketed as rain, stain, or grease resistant. PFAS are everywhere. But trying to figure out which specific product the potentially toxic chemical is actually in is nearly impossible. That's why we're on the case. PFAS are a huge group of

chemicals

, actually up to 12,000 different types of chemicals. What they have in common is that they are all persistent, very persistent. They can last for decades, if not centuries.

Miriam Diamond is a professor at the University of Toronto. She has become an advocate for the dangers of so-called "permanent chemicals." The PFAS found in our products today will actually be in drinking water seven generations later. That's not a good thing. A Canadian proposal to regulate so-called "permanent chemicals." Carcinogenic chemicals... Harmful to the environment and to you. There is evidence that chemical companies have known about their danger for decades. A new article reviewed the tactics used by two of the largest manufacturers of so-called "permanent chemicals." They knew the harm of their chemical and didn't tell anyone.

Almost all of us already have some PFAS in our bodies. And some of these chemicals have been linked to an increased risk of certain diseases, lower fertility or birth weight, a compromised immune system, and a reduced response to vaccines in children. Do we know which

brands

in Canada use PFAS in their products? I don't know what

brands

in Canada use PFAS. Because it's not on the label. Exactly. Experts are concerned about its widespread use in everyday products such as

makeup

. Why are there PFAS in cosmetics? Helps spread cosmetics. Helps with water repellency and durability. So if you have mascara on, for example, prevent it from running. -Good.

How do I even know how to avoid, what to avoid? Because no one tells me where it is. That's why we do tests. That's why we are forced to do tests. That's why we're also going to do tests. Exactly. So we choose foundation, mascara, eyeliner and eye shadow. Prepare the samples. Send them for evaluation to the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. One of the few laboratories worldwide that routinely measures fluoride, a possible marker of PFAS. While we wait for those results, we wonder what cosmetics do you use? Foundation, concealer, blush. - Do you use it all? -Yeah.

Everything you can think of. I prefer these brands, which are basically popular. What do you think about PFAS being in

makeup

? I don't like the idea of ​​that getting on the skin. I wonder how bad it could be. Our projection points to fluoride in some of the makeup from these four brands, Mac, Marcelle, Quo and Burt's Bees. That's why we'll send cosmetics from each company to a Carleton University lab for specific PFAS

testing

. So I'm just going to label four of these. It is where environmental chemistry and toxicology researcher Amy Rand will conduct an in-depth analysis.

So the next step is to add our methanol and our sodium hydroxide. Testing eight products, three samples each. So shake for five minutes. Amy's team extracts both liquid and gas from cosmetics while searching for 32 of the most common types of PFAS. Well, this is called N-EVAP. It's going to evaporate our sample. The tests are complicated. It takes all this just to find out. It's not just makeup. All types of consumer products that are thrown away contain PFAS. Extremely persistent chemicals that leach into our soil and water. There are also other surprising sources of pollution. Including this pristine looking lake in Hamilton, Ontario.

This lake is Lake Niapenco. Local activist Joe Minor knows all about the chemical contamination of the lake due to the high levels of PFAS used nearby. How long have you been concerned about the PFAS issue in this area? Well, since I first found out about it in 2011. That's when a federal scientist took a close look at the lake's turtles and made a shocking discovery. It turns out that the turtles he caught here had the highest levels of PFAS in their blood, well, in the world at the time. It is not recommended to consume anything in this fishermen's paradise.

Yes, it's biting again. Well ok. Now very slowly. He's definitely hooked. It doesn't come out. And you have to pick that up... - There it is. - Here it comes. Wow, okay, here's our fish. - And now what is that? - This is a blue gill. This is a lovely fish that people would like to keep and eat. But these fish in this lake are so high in PFAS levels that they really shouldn't be eaten. When fish, or humans, ingest PFAS, it takes years for them to be expelled. A toxic substance that continues to accumulate. Incredibly, the PFAS traveled from more than ten kilometers away.

Firefighting foam similar to this used during training exercises decades ago. "Forever chemicals", in fact. The danger forces Joe to warn the community about him with his own signs. As it stands, only two types of PFAS and their related groups are restricted in Canada, although thousands more exist in the same family of chemicals. It is an artificial chemical that we inflict on ourselves. Finally, our makeup lab

testing

is complete. It's time to reveal the results. Take a look at this table. -Tell me... -I use this. Do you use that one? We start with the Quo eyeliner. - Guess what? -Yeah?

No PFAS. - Well. - Well. A relief for this buyer. None of the PFAS we tested. But I can't say the same for those who use this Quo eyeshadow. Our testing finds that all samples of that product contain PFAS. How do you feel as someone who uses Quo when I tell you that this product has PFAS? I don't know if I'll use it again. I'm going to have to find an alternative. So what's up with this Marcelle foundation and eyeliner? This pencil? We found PFAS. Pencils too? -Yeah. -Well, damn. - Marcelle Foundation? -Yeah? We found PFAS when we did our testing.

Wow. Next up, Burt's bees. I actually use Burt's Bees for my lips. Turns out their mascara and foundation don't have any of the 32 PFAS we tested for. Previous tests pointed to Burt's bees, probably because two ingredients, a mineral and a clay, may contain fluoride. Next is Mac. Did you buy it recently? Yes, I literally bought it yesterday. - Actually? -Yeah. This Mac product contains PFAS. In fact, our tests show PFAS in all three basic Mac samples we tested. So what are you thinking now that I tell you this? I'm afraid. Lastly, that Mac mascara. This Mac waterproof mascara... -Yes. -...has PFAS.

Hey. This non-waterproof Mac mascara is PFAS-free. That is very shocking. I just didn't know anything about this chemical. That's really wild. According to our results, of the eight cosmetics we tested, five contained PFAS. - -That's crazy. We took the results to Cosmetic Alliance. It represents the interests of many makeup manufacturers in Canada. Darren Praznik is the CEO. What do you think of those results? At those levels, they weren't added to those products for any functionality, to get... So they weren't an ingredient? They were not an ingredient. They were not added. What does that mean? Well, that means that you can find something that comes in through the manufacturing process.

These are not background levels. This is not just something found in drinking water. That... there has to be something else in the process that allows these levels to enter. Pollution sources can include all of those things. Water, pipes, materials that you have used in other ingredients. They could also be in the packaging you are using. And if it is, for example, something that is a coating, etc., which begs the question, how can I remove it from my supply chain? Are you pleased when we see PFAS in these cosmetics and everything is being done to reduce the levels?

Uh, I... listen, no one is ever satisfied. You continue working towards the goal. And the more we learn about this, the more we identify potential sources, the more we find out technically how we can reduce it, the better. Mac, Marcelle and Quo tell us that they do not add PFAS as an ingredient to any of their makeup and that they follow industry standards. Quo tells us that PFAS could be incidental. Federal regulations do not require manufacturers to test for PFAS, but they do prohibit two specific chemical precursors that our testing discovered in some of the makeup.

In fact, we found a couple of PFAS banned in products and cosmetics in Canada. A company, any company, is breaking the rules. I'm not going to defend them. We found banned PFAS in at least one sample of each of these brands. But he points out that it is only prohibited if it is added as an ingredient, not if it is introduced during the manufacturing process. Its presence does not necessarily mean that it is in violation. Would you use any of these products? I would say that exposure is almost inevitable. If you put on, for example, mascara, there is a high probability that some of the flakes will enter the eye or through the tear duct.

Same with eyeliner. Bases, bases that... PFAS can be transferred through the skin to

your

... to your body. Lipstick is a great example of being inevitably exposed. So when you put on lipstick, it's inevitable that you'll eat some. Science tends to decide that we shouldn't use these things at all. Do you think the industry has an urgency to go as low as possible? Well, everyone has an urgency, not just our industry, but everyone has to work towards it. In most cases, they are no longer there. They are not being used. Alternatives have been found. Calls on the feds to declare a maximum acceptable level of PFAS in makeup and other products.

This appears to be an acknowledgment that we now know that PFAS can be dangerous in some ways. -Yeah. How do you know what to use if you want to avoid them? It's so hard to know. So what I do, I use a track. And that clue is that the cosmetic is not marketed as waterproof. Use it

forever

, durable. "Put it on and it will last 24 hours." So those are some indications that... -That could be a sign. -Exactly. Some places are clamping down on "permanent chemicals." In Canada, you should look for this. And say that we have to catch up.

This is a wake up call. Get more market. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter at cbc.ca/

marketplace

. This is your Market. PFAS are everywhere. Now a man-made chemical is being discovered in our water and land. Including this dairy farm. Part of the long-term legacy of "forever chemicals." How old is she again? Meghan Flanagan is a state veterinarian visiting Stoneridge Farms in Arundel, Maine. We're collecting blood to monitor PFAS levels in these guys. In 2017, government officials deemed cow's milk to be contaminated with PFAS and no longer safe to drink. They had grazed these fields, which years earlier had been fertilized with sludge containing high levels of PFAS.

How long has this farm been in her family? Since 1914 it has belonged to the family. For more than a century. Fred Stone has been a farmer all his life. I failed them. They depended on me. But keeping the flock fed cost Fred about $18,000 a month. With little income, it was an amount he could no longer afford. There you have it, Binkster. Forcing him to kill many cows. They look you straight in the eyes, knowing that they had done nothing wrong. And you are killing them. You didn't make PFAS. No, I did not do it. So this... all of this would be flat if it weren't for that thing.

So that roll from there to here, all that roll is all those hundred or so cows. Are these hills tombs? Yes Yes. More or less, yes. To give you an idea of ​​what it's like... ...a grave for 100 cows. Where do you get your food from? My wife and I qualify for state aid, Medicare and all that other stuff, food stamps and all that. -You have worked all your life. -Yeah. No... no, like your adult life, you've worked your whole life on this farm. Yes. Yes. And now, because of what happened to him, he depends on food stamps and state aid.

Aidstate. Yes. Yes. It only hurts for a while. It only hurts for a while. Almost 200 kilometers north of Fred's farm, we passed through the town of Unity to meet Johanna Davis and Adam Nordell. Two organic farmers. Well, for us as organic farmers, it was devastating news. What did it mean for your business? Oh, turn it off. -It's over? -It's over. Yes. Almost immediately. They discovered that the same PFAS-contaminated fertilizer was being used on their fields long before they arrived. By farming that land, they inhaled PFAS from the soil. Do you really have the feeling that there are a lot of PFAS inside your bodies?

Yes. So, average Americans, that's... two to five parts per billion. And where are you? We're... we're, um... my levels are, um... they're 3600 parts per billion. -You are very out of the ordinary. -I am very out of the ordinary. I'm afraid for my health. I fear for the health of my family. You also have a five-year-old son. And I think one thing we know about chemicals in general is that the earlier you're exposed during those developmental years, it can be particularly

harmful

. That has to be a concern for both of us. That's terrifying. Yes, no...no parent wants to live with this type of medical risk for their child.

What are we doing as a society putting our children at risk... by mixing everyday products with toxic chemicals and then using our waste stream... to fertilize our food? That fertilizer was actually processed human sewage and industrial waste known as sludge. From municipal wastewater treatment plants and paper mills in the state. It ended up being a toxic bomb on earth. In most of Canada, sludge is regulated, but not when it comes to PFAS. It could be one of the ways it ends up in our environment. In Maine, Attorney General Aaron Frey is going after PFAS manufacturers. 3M, Dupont, these chemical corporations that for decades not only created these highly toxic chemicals, they knew they were toxic, they knew they didn't biodegrade.

In a statement, 3M says it is committed to remediating PFAS where appropriate and will stop producing the chemicals in two years. Dupont tells us it does not operate any manufacturing plants in Maine and never has. But Maine's Attorney General says his lawsuits are not about production, but about impact. Because of the way they migrate through ecosystems, fish, birds, and now humans have PFAS chemicals building up in their systems. So, they are highly toxic. They have destroyed farmers' ability to grow crops and remove fish from the water. Maine leads other US states. By 2030, PFAS will be banned in all consumer products.

Do you think other jurisdictions should be as proactive as yours? Canada, for example? Well, my hope is that this is a wake-up call for anyone who hasn't been paying attention to how important this type of pollution can be. It's a call that many members of Canada's scientific community are also making. Including U of T's Miriam Diamond, who wants to see an end to PFAS. Non-voluntary measures. Find legislation that says, "We're going to get rid of PFAS. We're going to start with the easy things and then work toward the harder-to-remove applications." I think that's the government's job.

The government is moving in that direction. I hope they move quickly. Should we wait for more studies? You know, I've been in this business for over 30 years, and if I could tell you the number of times I've heard, "We just need more evidence." That's muddying the waters. That's just a delaying tactic. And the chemical industry has used it time and time again. Health Canada tells us it is working to reduce exposure to PFAS in drinking water and possibly sludge. But when it comes to consumer products, they say they are still deciding whether to classify all PFAS as

harmful

to human health.

We can't afford to wait for more studies because what we do know is that all those PFAS are so persistent that they will remain in the environment for decades, if not generations. So there is no reason to wait. There is no reason to wait for more evidence. I find it very concerning that we are conducting a real-time experiment on the health effects of PFAS exposure. About you and me and our families. Almost all over the world in Canada. And you know what? Almost everyone around the world. Get more market. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter at cbc.ca/

marketplace

.

And do you have a story you think Marketplace should investigate? Send us an email. [email protected].