A Danger at Your Fingertips? : Consumer Protection: The toxic solvent toluene is a common ingredient in nail polishes, but how much is dangerous? The debate is heating up.
Can painting your fingernails be hazardous to your health? And if so, should the product label warn you about it?
Those issues are the focus of settlement talks continuing today in San Francisco between an environmental watchdog group and attorneys for nearly two dozen nail polish manufacturers.
The group, San Francisco-based As You Sow, sued 43 polish manufacturers in April for failing to warn consumers of the hazards associated with the toxic chemical toluene. The remaining defendants say the substance is harmless in tiny amounts and does not warrant a warning label.
“The levels of toluene in nail polish are enough to make it flow smoothly and that’s it,” said Jim Mattesich, attorney with the Washington-based Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Assn., the industry trade group.
But As You Sow president Thomas Van Dyck said, “If you have a toxic substance in your product, just put a warning label and let the consumer decide.”
As You Sow’s primary goal in the confidential settlement discussions, according to attorney Clifford Chanler, is to “encourage if not enforce reformulation of nail polishes that contain toluene.”
Used to keep paint and nail polish fluid, toluene was rated the 37th most toxic chemical by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in 1992. State and federal agencies say that at certain levels, exposure to toluene can cause birth defects.
Manicurists are probably most at risk from exposure to hazardous levels of toluene in nail polish, according to As You Sow. The group estimates that exposure levels for manicurists are up to 40 times the level set by California’s Proposition 65.
Already, Wal-Mart, Target, Thrifty, Kmart, Payless and Walgreen’s have pledged to refuse shipment of any nail polish containing toluene after Oct. 1 without a clear warning. And 22 manufacturers--including Maybelline, Fashion Fair, Chesebrough-Pond’s Cutex and Christian Dior--have agreed to reformulate their products without toluene.
Under Prop. 65, manufacturers must label any product containing a substance that may cause birth defects or cancer--or risk being fined $2,500 per violation per day. A warning label is required on products that expose consumers to more than 7,000 micrograms of toluene.
The remaining defendants in the suit have resisted the idea. They include some of the biggest companies in the industry--Cosmair (Lancome and L’Oreal); Procter & Gamble (Max Factor and Cover Girl); OPI (salon nail polish); Del Laboratories (Sally Hansen); Mavala; and Princess Borghese.
The companies that have settled out of court did so, Mattesich said, “out of an abundance of caution. They were concerned that they would get sued by someone who disputed the science.”
Determining the nail-polishing technique favored by what both sides agree is “the average woman” has been no simple feat.
In the industry association’s trials, the average woman took 15 minutes to apply four coats of polish “to her satisfaction,” according to Mattesich. During that time, her exposure was “well below” the 7,000-microgram maximum allowed under Prop. 65, he added.
But in studies funded by As You Sow, women spent an average of 47 minutes to polish fingernails and toenails, exposing them to five times the 7,000-microgram limit.
Having the subjects polish both fingernails and toenails better approximated what real women do in natural settings, said As You Sow attorney Suzanne Bevash. The watchdog group’s testing was augmented by videotapes showing that women who paint their toenails typically hold the open bottle of polish in the left hand--putting it just inches from their nose as they bend over to reach their toes.
Mattesich argued that As You Sow subjects were encouraged to dawdle, and that the newspaper ads the group ran offered to pay subjects for one hour of their time.
“We stand by our tests,” Van Dyck countered.
At one Beverly Hills store, where bottles of YSL, Lancome and Stendahl that contain toluene are displayed like tiny pieces of sculpture, none of the salespeople questioned had heard of the chemical.
Manicurists in two L.A. shops also were unfamiliar with the ingredient, which generally is listed second on a polish’s list of ingredients. “I never read any of the labels,” said one.
And at a beauty supply store on Pico Boulevard, where a dozen shelves contained row upon row of polish with toluene, a clerk just sighed at the mention of it. “Women have been using it for years and nothing’s happened,” she said.
“The beauty industry is notorious for being an area where the FDA has been slow to use its authority,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Edward Weil.
Weil, who prosecutes Prop. 65 cases, is acting as an unofficial mediator in the San Francisco discussions. The California statute, he said, “has put pressure on the FDA to adopt standards, not only in the beauty industry but in all areas of product manufacturing.”
Revlon had been working on a toluene- and formaldehyde-free nail polish “long before any legal issues arose,” said Tracey Riese, senior vice president of corporate communications. “Our lab came up with a patented formula to replace both ingredients and we began removing them a year ago.”
If ongoing discussions between As You Sow and the remaining defendants in the suit are unsuccessful, a preliminary injunction hearing is set for Sept. 10. The case would go to trial early next year, Chanler said, but “no company in their right mind is going to defend using toluene.”
In the meantime, Weil cautions consumers about unnecessary worrying. “They shouldn’t think, ‘I used this product, therefore my baby’s going to be born with birth defects,’ ” he said.
