Most of us remember exactly when we first started wearing makeup. (Personally, I was a sixth-grader all about a rosy powdered blush, which my mother confiscated and promptly tossed out the car window.) Getting into your mom’s stash and scrawling lipstick on your face—or, depending on your mood, the wall—is like an early rite of passage, with the only real consequence being mom’s wrath. But the concept of children and tweens wearing makeup is currently drawing unexpected controversy, due to several reports of problematic ingredients lurking in beauty products explicitly geared toward kids—as well as one incident of a severe allergic reaction.

Last year, an investigation by WTVD, a Durham, NC-based news station owned by ABC, discovered asbestos fibers in the Just Shine Shimmer Powder sold by Justice. The tween retailer subsequently ordered its own tests, one of which did find traces of asbestos in the Shimmer Powder. “Justice is not aware of any adverse reactions, injuries or illness caused by the possible presence of asbestos in the recalled products,” the retailer wrote in a statement on its website. “However, inhalation of asbestos over time has been linked to serious adverse health consequences. Justice has removed the product from sale and asks customers who have the product to stop using it.” It also ended up recalling all eight Just Shine products from the same vendor.

Then, beloved mall staple Claire’s, where you probably got your ears pierced, was accused of selling products contaminated with asbestos. The mom who sent the products in for testing happens to be the operations manager of Deaton Law Firm in East Providence, RI, which specializes in cases concerning asbestos and mesothelioma (a kind of cancer that can be affected by asbestos exposure). Claire’s announced in a statement that it pulled the products in question off the shelves as a “precautionary measure”; even so, it later added that it stands by its claim that they don’t contain asbestos. The brand revealed that it conducted its own testing by two “certified independent labs,” which found zero evidence of the chemical; going further, it “dispute[s] the findings and testing methods” of the law firm’s chosen lab. In response, the law firm said that it “absolutely stands by its testing.” It’s become increasingly confusing for customers, as the law firm and Claire’s have (and support) contradictory results from their respective tests. Which is accurate?

Most recently, a toddler in Georgetown, IL was hospitalized after she experienced an allergic reaction to a play-makeup palette designed for children. In what’s now a viral Facebook post, the parents of three-year-old Lydia Cravens shared photos and details of the scare. They noted that six different ingredients in the product had been known to cause an allergic reaction. “Lydia unfortunately was one of those people allergic and for the past week she has been going through a severe allergic reaction,” wrote her mother, Kylie Jo Cravens.

Kylie first realized something was wrong when she noticed her daughter’s eyes were red and swollen. “There are no words to describe what I was feeling, though devastated is close,” she told Glamour. “My husband just cried. I wanted to, but had to keep focus so Lydia wouldn’t get upset.” Before long, the little girl developed a full-body rash and blisters around her mouth, and was admitted to the hospital, says Kylie (who adds that doctors gave her the maximum amount of steroids allowed for a child of her weight). “Lydia is actually still experiencing side effects of taking the steroids,” says Cravens. She and Tony recently took Lydia to an allergy specialist—where she was tested for allergies to a number of different substances—and are waiting find out which ingredient in the palette caused this reaction.

Certain products, such as sunscreen and bath formulas designed for kids and babies, are often free of any questionable ingredients to ensure their safety, but those standards don’t always reach the makeup or toy aisle. You’d think there would be strict regulations surrounding play-makeup—but there aren’t. One voice in this discussion is the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, or CIR, an industry-funded (but independent) panel that works to evaluate ingredient safety. “In their safety assessment process, the CIR Expert Panel takes into consideration the intended use and use-population of an ingredient,” explains CIR Executive Director Bart Heldreth, PhD. (The use-population includes the age range.) Heldreth says the organization offers a guidance document that provides insight on how the group accounts for the safety of ingredients for children up to two years old, but it has no regulatory authority. The CIR will share insights with the FDA from time to time—but unlike the FDA, the CIR isn’t a governmental body.

Allergens pose a particularly vexing issue. The chance of most ingredients causing a legitimate allergic reaction in any one particular person can be difficult to estimate. According to Heldreth, virtually every substance has the potential to elicit an allergy in someone, given the right circumstances. Importantly, the concentration of a substance in a product may make the critical difference. The CIR Panel must take all of this into consideration when recommending safety standards.

In the wake of last year’s charges, a different set of products sold at Claire’s has recently been called into question for containing asbestos by an organization called U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or PIRG. “Claire’s categorically denies that the testing by STAT [Analysis Corporation], relied upon by PIRG, is accurate. The test methods that were used by STAT are obsolete and unreliable, and STAT is not certified to perform the type of testing necessary for talc-based products,” wrote a representative from Claire’s in an email to Glamour. “In contrast, Claire’s has conducted extensive testing and investigation in cooperation with relevant authorities, including the FDA, Health Canada, and a number of EU enforcement agencies, to demonstrate that Claire’s products are asbestos-free and comply with all relevant safety regulations.” In a subsequent response, PIRG stood by its test results, saying: “We know our testing used proper methodology.”

For some parents, these reports and dueling test results have been reason enough to put them off children’s play-makeup completely—or confirmed their concerns. “Every kind of kids’ makeup that I’ve seen is usually falling apart or petroleum-based, a.k.a. slimy, gross, and difficult to get off,” says New Jersey-based mother Megan Weigel-Burghes, 27. “The additional scare of toy makeup potentially having lead or other dangerous chemicals in it would definitely rule it out for me.” (Her six-year-old daughter can only borrow Megan’s lip gloss, blush, and eyeshadow when she’s playing.)

For other moms, the risk of allergic reactions causes some concern, but it’s still not enough for them to swear off makeup completely. “I don’t buy kiddie make up because I’m always worried about allergic reactions—but sometimes we do pick out a lip gloss from the MAC counter for the four of us to share,” says 29-year-old Samantha Blanchard, who lives in Saint Charles, Missouri with her three daughters. “But I try to be careful of letting them wear makeup because I don’t want them to feel they have to wear it.”

But there’s only so much you can do once your children reach a certain age, which is why some moms aren’t letting these few viral instances be cause for alarm. “Don’t they just discover it during play dates? My daughters did, and have since been allowed to buy a couple of Claire’s sets,” says Petra Guglielmetti, 40, a New Jersey-based writer and mom of three. “Unfortunately, I feel like I have bigger things to worry about than them putting on blush once in a blue moon during dress-up.” Brooke Branco, 29, a nurse and mother of two daughters in Saint Louis, echoes that no-harm, no-foul sentiment. “My girls love to play with makeup. I haven’t bought anything specifically directed towards kids but rather just adult makeup on clearance,” she says. “They watch me get ready often, so I think it’s natural for them to want to do what I’m doing. It’s not because they want look ‘pretty,’ but because it’s fun. And I think that’s what makeup should be: fun.”

Even the Cravens family would consider letting Lydia wear makeup in the future. “My husband and I would prefer Lydia not to have makeup at all, but she loves to wear it,” says Kylie. “Honestly, we’re scared beyond belief about it. But we have talked and agreed that if Lydia asks about wearing makeup down the road, we’ll consider it, but not before looking into the product—anything we purchase will definitely have to be organic and hypoallergenic.”

Source link