Mercury In Skin Lightening Cream





Some skin whitening creams contain toxic mercury, testing finds
High levels found as products gain popularity worldwide
May 18, 2010|By Ellen Gabler and Sam Roe, Tribune reporters

Some creams promising to lighten skin, eliminate age spots and zap freckles contain high levels of mercury, a toxic metal that can cause severe health problems, a Tribune investigation has found.

The newspaper sent 50 skin-lightening creams to a certified lab for testing, most of them bought in Chicago stores and a few ordered online. Six were found to contain amounts of mercury banned by federal law.

Of those, five had more than 6,000 parts per million — enough to potentially cause kidney damage over time, according to a medical expert.

 The Food and Drug Administration banned mercury in skin-bleaching or lightening products in 1990, but the agency rarely tests the products to see if consumers are at risk. The Tribune’s tests — among only a handful ever conducted — show that tainted products are still readily available.

“I’m shocked and speechless,” said Dr. Jonith Breadon, a Chicago dermatologist who said she sees patients weekly who ask about lightening their skin. “I just assumed since (mercury) was banned in the U.S., it never got in. But clearly that isn’t true.”

FDA spokesman Ira Allen said that with fewer than 500 inspectors reviewing imports, the agency cannot check all food, drug and cosmetic products under its jurisdiction. “It is likely that things get past us,” he said.

When notified of the Tribune’s test results, the retailers said they would pull the products from shelves, and two distributors said they would stop selling them.

The market for skin lighteners is booming in the U.S. and abroad. Some people of Asian, Hispanic and African heritage use the creams because lighter skin is often considered a status symbol in their cultures. Many consumers, including Caucasians, use the creams to diminish age spots or to even out skin tone, while others want to lighten their entire face or bodies.

Sales of lightening products in the U.S. are expected to increase nearly 18 percent by 2015, reaching $76 million annually, according to market researcher Global Industry Analysts.

Consumers can’t know for sure which creams are tainted. Stores across the city sell dozens of brands, many of them made overseas. The six creams that tested high in the Tribune tests were manufactured in Lebanon, China, India, Pakistan and Taiwan.

FDA: Looks At Mercury In Dental Fillings





The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is taking another look at the risks of mercury in dental fillings, raising hopes among local activists that more stringent regulations will be put in place.

The FDA said Thursday that an advisory panel would hold hearings from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Dec. 14-15 at a Holiday Inn in Gaithersburg, Md., focusing specifically “on the potential risk to vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, fetuses and young children.”

“I’m thrilled by this,” said Amanda Just of Waterford, one of several Connecticut residents who have written the FDA to urge a ban on amalgam fillings, which contain mercury. “I’m trying not to get my hopes up, though, because … (dental-industry advocates) always get around it somehow.”

The agency previously had issued a temporary warning on amalgam fillings for pregnant women and young children, but rescinded the action in July 2009 as it issued labeling requirements slightly more stringent than previously in place.

At least four subsequent petitions to the FDA protested the agency’s decision.

One of the petitions, signed by the International Academy of Oral Medicine, among other groups and individuals, called the decision “a denial of consumers’ fundamental right to know that a neurotoxin is being placed in their bodies.”

It added that “Only inappropriate industry influence can explain a rule that is so inconsistent with not only FDA’s mission, but our national policies and values. … Such callous gambling with the next generation’s health inexplicably defies the anti-mercury public record and campaign promises of the President of the United States.”

The petition charged that FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, who recused herself from the amalgam ruling, “was believed to have (an) intertwining relationship with dental products colossus Henry Schein Inc.” The document, available on the FDA’s website, stated that Hamburg served on the company’s board of directors, receiving more than $500,000 from Schein during the two years prior to her appointment as commissioner and continuing to hold stock options up to a day before the final amalgam decision.

“Hamburg’s evasiveness about her role in the amalgam rule indates that the rule is tainted,” according to the petition.

The FDA in its 2009 ruling left it up to dentists to decide whether to tell patients about the presence of mercury in amalgam, despite studies showing that most people don’t know fillings contain the toxic agent.

“While elemental mercury has been associated with adverse health effects at high exposures, the levels released by dental amalgam fillings are not high enough to cause harm in patients,” the FDA ruled at the time.

Just, who had all her fillings removed after suffering from mercury poisoning, continues to wonder how the United States can deem mercury as safe while Norway, Denmark and Sweden ban the substance in fillings.

“It’s a know neurotoxin; why not just admit it?” she asked in a telephone interview Thursday.

The FDA now classifies amalgam fillings as devices carrying a moderate risk. The agency warns against their use in patients with mercury poisoning.

But since the 2009 ruling, the FDA said public concerns have been raised about the adequacy of the agency’s method of assessing mercury risks, as well as concerns over the exposure of young children to mercury vapor, the accumulative effect of mercury on people with many fillings and the adequacy of studies cited in the decision.

In calling for an advisory-panel meeting on amalgam, the FDA also cited a new National Academy of Sciences study on risk assessments, which, among other things, calls for “greater understanding of the biological processes underlying the production of toxicity or other types of adverse health effects.”

/end article: reposted from http://www.theday.com/article/20100611/BIZ02/306119859/-1/BIZ