Registration Requirements of the Safe Cosmetics Act

Registration Requirements of the Safe cosmetics Act
Section 612

Registration of cosmetics manufacturers seems reasonable, and I think that anyone who makes cosmetics should be registered with the FDA. By doing so it allows open communication between FDA and cosmetics manufacturers so that information about ingredient toxicity can be openly shared. Its interesting though that this bill exempts small businesses, those that sell less than $2M annually, from registering with the FDA. I am confused about the reason for this. Without registering there is no open communication and no means for small businesses to get up to date information from the FDA. It also brings up the suspicion by consumers and other regulatory organizations that small businesses do not necessarily make safe cosmetics since they are not in contact with FDA. This is anything but leveling the playing field. As a small (micro) business I do not want to feel second rate and am proud to be voluntarily registered with the FDA already.

Cosmetic companies would be required to file a report of all cosmetics they produce and the functions of such cosmetics. The FDA already defines cosmetics as "articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body...for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance" so its unclear if they are wanting more information on the function of the cosmetic or not. Reporting gross sales from cosmetics is required; forcing small privately owned businesses to reveal personal financial information. Yes, I do feel like this violates my rights. Sole proprietorship's and LLCs should not be required to make public their personal finances. I’m curious how FDA will even be able to keep track of this, especially when small businesses are not even required to register. I fear a lot of companies will be trying to ‘fly under the wire’ or go ‘underground’ so to speak, not have the knowledge they need and make unsafe cosmetics because of that.

The part I mainly object to is that companies must supply the name and address of any company that supplies ingredients. This is especially difficult for a small company as suppliers can change frequently. This prevents any last minute changes in formulas. If I happen to run out of olive oil from my supplier I have listed, I cannot go to the grocery store to buy emergency olive oil as I have been known to do. Any errors or inaccuracies in information submitted can lead to cancellation of registration or even

What's an alternative? I think cosmetics companies should all register with the FDA. This allows a path of communication between the FDA and manufacturers that is important. Not only to receive up to date information from the FDA but also for the FDA to receive information from manufacturers and consumers on adverse reactions. Fees can and should be waived for small companies. Suppliers should not have to be reported to the FDA. If olive oil is safe why does the FDA care who I buy it from? As long as safe ingredients are used it doesn't seem like a good use of FDA time to have to keep track of where I buy them from.

But what's worse is that now legislation is being introduced in a number of states to regulate cosmetics at that level as well. This means there is a good chance that you will have to deal with this type of registration in each and every state as well as at the national level.

If you are a small business how do you feel about this part of the bill?

Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011

After spending a good several hours reading the new Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 I see that the changes in this bill compared to 2010 are minimal. Here is my initial take on the bill which may or may not change depending on if some points get clarified or others appear as I reread it.

Again this bill includes in the definition of an ingredient any contaminants that are present at levels above technically feasible detection limits. As we all know, detection limits now are quite minute so any type of contaminant would be included here. This includes contaminants from the container as well. But what contaminants are they referring to here and why don’t they specify?

Ingredient safety can fall under just two categories: ‘Safe Without Limits’ and ‘Prohibited and Restricted’ This is misleading to both the consumer and the manufacturer since there is no such thing as a substance that is safe without limits. Even water can be lethal under certain conditions. It mentions ‘considerations’ in determining toxicity such as “is found to be present in the body through biomonitoring”. Does this mean that something is toxic if found in the body? I’m not sure I understand this. Many things are found in the body through biomonitoring including water. A second consideration is an ingredient that is suspected immunological toxicant. Is this another way of saying “allergen”? If so, does this mean that a substance that causes allergies will be prohibited? Anything can be an allergen and some common allergens are shea butter, almond butter, soy oil, milk, etc. Many herbs are also allergens. All in all, the bill has very poor definitions of toxicity and leaves most of it up to the FDA to determine in one year’s time! Wow, where is the FDA going to find those resources?

Labels must list ingredients in decreasing order of concentration. This is already required by the FDA so is redundant here. Contaminants however must also be listed. Knowing that water alone can contain any number of contaminants this immediately causes problems. Is testing of all our ingredients for contamination required?? Besides water, vegetable oils will contain contaminants, herbs grown in the backyard could contain contaminants. However, it does allow the FDA to determine such possible contaminants within one year’s time as well as determine requirements for testing and detection limits. If it is determined that cosmetic manufacturers are required to test for various contaminants this would add considerably to the cost of cosmetics. I am glad to see that ingredient lists are required on websites that sell cosmetics.

Some of the most dangerous contaminants of cosmetics are fungus and bacteria that can grow on nutrients in the product. Unfortunately, no specific mention of this is made. This is one area where consumers have suffered because of improperly made and improperly preserved products – in fact, this is the only area of documented harm to consumers from cosmetics.

Again, toxic is defined as a 1 in a million risk for adverse health effects. Toxic effects include allergic reactions and I challenge anyone to find any ingredient natural or synthetic that does not cause an allergic reaction in one in a million people.

Many things are not clear for instance “the safety standard results in exposure to the amount or concentration of an ingredient or cosmetic that is shown to produce no adverse health effects, incorporating a margin of safety of at least 1,000 and considering the impact of cumulative exposure from all sources (including environmental sources).” Does anyone know what this means and if so can you tell me? Does it mean 1000^th of the determined toxic dose? If so, who determines this dose?

The bill goes on to require that the FDA issue guidance prescribing Good Manufacturing Practices. This is something that again, the FDA already has issued and so is redundant.

The bill requires manufacturers of cosmetics and ingredients to submit information including toxicological properties of each such ingredient or cosmetic. I’m not sure if this means the manufacturer who is buying ingredients is required to submit data to the FDA on those ingredients or not. Since the source of this data would probably be from the ingredient manufacturer this seems redundant. When this ingredient is purchased at the grocery store such as some small manufacturers do with vegetable oils, where is the toxicological data and contaminant data and how is this reported as an ingredient source? When the ingredient is an herb from the small manufacturer’s back yard where will this toxicological information come from or will this no longer be possible? I am still very concerned about the future of using natural ingredients in cosmetics with this bill. There are many herbs, oils, and natural extracts that have quite a data gap in toxicological studies.

I find it interesting that the ‘authoritative source’ of toxicology information includes the (A) Environmental Protection Agency,

(B) the International Agency for Research on Cancer,

(C) the National Toxicology Program,

(D) the California Environmental Protection Agency and

(E) any other authoritative international, Federal, and State Entity, as determined by the Secretary.

I’m not sure what E means but I know there are pseudo science activists groups who may pose as an authority so that they can determine law. I would rather be sure toxicity was determined by peer reviewed scientific literature.

Some of the considerations in the bill for toxicity are also quite vague, for instance; if it is found in the body through biomonitoring. Does this imply that if something is found in the body it is toxic? I use water in my cosmetic formulas and I know it is found in the body. Another consideration is known or suspected immunological toxicant. Is an immunological toxicant the same thing as an allergen? Anyone can be allergic to anything but some of the more common allergens are shea butter, almond oil, soy oil, wheat and herbs. Will these ingredients be prohibited?

There is no definition of an ingredient manufacture. Many small companies use ingredients from their backyard; herbs and other botanicals. Are these companies required to have these ingredients tested to find what contaminants might be present and in what levels?

The thing that concerns me the most here though is that microbusinesses (those with sales less than $2 million) are not required to register with the FDA. Although I am glad to see that the bill waives a costly registration fee for these small companies (of which I am one) I don’t understand the lack of even registering with the FDA. Registration allows a link with the FDA so that companies can get timely information regarding ingredients and toxicity but just as important is that it allows consumers a way to report adverse effects that may occur due to cosmetic usage. By not registering, these microbusinesses are out of the communications link with the FDA. FDA will have no knowledge of the microbusiness’s existence, their activities, the products they manufacture or the functions and toxicities of those cosmetics. In the initial bill of 2010 small businesses rallied hard to be exempt from paying high registration and testing fees. However, we did not rally against registration.

If small companies are exempt from registering and having communication with the FDA are they exempt from submitting information on toxicological properties of ingredients and cosmetic product; exempt from “cease distribution” orders due to misbranding; exempt from use that causes serious adverse health effects; exempt from using contaminants and testing for these contaminants, exempt from good manufacturing practices issued by the FDA, etc? Having that link to the FDA could be valuable for a small business to learn the laws and requirements necessary especially when it comes to testing. This concerns me because many small cosmetics business owners just starting out do not have the knowledge base to draw from to know how to make safe cosmetics and have the potential to put something out there that is less than safe. And consumers should have a way to report possible adverse effects. It was the costs involved in the first version of this bill that had small business owners concerned, not having to register and be held accountable for their actions.

Should small businesses be just as responsible for their actions? Registration is important to keep open communication with the FDA.

Overall it is still a case of an activist group who knows nothing about the cosmetics business trying to make laws about things they do not understand. The bottom line still is that this bill will not make cosmetics safer.

Top 10 things not to say

Top 10 things NOT to say to those affected by The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010
Adapted from Whimsical Walney

While people may not know what to say to you when you tell them about the Safe Cosmetics Act recently introduced to Congress (HR5786) and how it may affect your business, some people seem to forget to think before they speak.

People unaware of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 may not understand what to say because they don’t know how it affects our business. Here is a list of the top 10 things not to say to small businesses who will affected by this bill if passed.

1. The Safe Cosmetics police will never come after you, you’re too small-fry. (Response: The lawyers may though.)
2. …but we need more laws to protect people.
3. Only Procter & Gamble needs to care about this law since it’s their fault.
4. Oh don’t worry, I’m sure they’ll fix it in time.
5. Don’t worry, it wasn’t intended for you.
6. You’re smart, you’ll figure out how to comply.
7. So sorry to hear you closed (accompanied by a tsk, tsk look that says, ‘then your products must have not been safe.)
8. But it will make our cosmetics safer. Why would you be against a bill that will make cosmetics safer?
9. Why not just do all the paperwork and be done with it.
10. This all the fault of the ______ (enter friend's opposing political party here.

After you regain your composure, politely remind them to educate themselves before speaking and suggest they check out the OpposeSCA site and Personal Care Truth sites for information about the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010.

Those of us in the cosmetics business that already produce safe, non toxic products will continue to talk about the truth behind the Environmental Working Group and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. You can read about the Environmental Working Group and their 'reign of error' here.

Do You Put Chemicals on Your Face? I Hope So.

Recent stories have circulated the web about the average woman using more than 515 chemicals on her face daily implying that this was quite dangerous. This number sounded quite low to me so I thought I'd count what I use.

First thing in the morning I take a shower and wash my face with soap and water. Water is dihydrogen monoxide, the first chemical. My handcrafted vegetable oil soap will include the following oils that have been reacted with lye:
Palm oil
coconut oil
shea butter
olive oil
rice bran oil
These oils are made up of many triglycerides and their fatty acids. Fatty acids in palm oil include laurate, myristate, palmitatte, stearate, oleate, linoleate and linolinate. Coconut oil contains similar ones plus caprylic, capric, caproic and arachidic. Olive oil contains similar fatty acids plus many non fatty acid chemicals including squalene, a variety of sterols, esters of tyrosol and hydroxytyrosol, vitamin E (tocopherols), carotenoids and oleuropein. Besides the similar fatty acids listed above, shea butter also contains quite a few non fatty acid components collectively called unsaponifiables. According to wikipedia shea butter contains at least 10 phenolics including catechins. It also includes vitamins A and E. Rice bran oil again contains many phytoestrogens such as the gamma oryzanols. It also contains a unique fatty acid; behenic.

Typically I use lavender soap which contains lavender buds and lavender essential oil. According to Dr. Duke's Phytochemical database, 76 different chemicals have been identified in lavender including nerol, linalol and limonene.

Adding all those up, I've applied over 107 chemicals to my face before even getting out of the shower.

What I put on my face after that can vary. But lets say I then use my parsley eye serum. The ingredient list is: organic macadamia nut oil, olive oil, meadowfoam oil, parsley extract, seabuckthorn oil and rosemary extract.

According to Dr. Dukes Phytochemical database, 204 chemicals have been identified in parsley including petroselinic acid and a mucilage (which identifies a class of chemicals rather than a specific chemical). Macadamia nut oil has many similar fatty acids as were already counted above but also contains palmitoleic acid as well as unique phenolics. Seabuckthorn oil has a wealth of chemicals including a variety of carotenoids. Some sites boast that sea buckthorn has over 30 different carotenoid types. Sea buckthorn also has vitamin K and a variety of phytosterols including beta sitosterol.

Dr. Duke's database again helped me with rosemary showing that there are 240 identified chemicals in rosemary including cineole, betulin and carbone. Meadowfoam oil has a few fatty acids not found in the previous oils including brassic, erucic and gadoleic acids.

So this simple face treatments includes a conservative count of 581 to make a total of 688 chemicals just in the first 30 minutes of waking. I must so above average! Am I worried about applying these chemicals to my face? No. Some use the word 'chemical' to scare people implying that chemicals are bad. I however, know better. Yes, there are some chemicals that are toxic and should not be used.

You might notice that all of the ingredients I have put on my face are considered all natural by most people. All natural products contain more chemicals than any other products because they are so complex. If fact, the numbers stated above are much lower than they are in reality because all the chemicals found in plants have not been completely identified. Its not bad to use chemicals on your face although it may be bad to use toxic chemicals on your face.

Can you imagine using the precautionary principle and testing all the 240 chemicals found in rosemary? It could not be done. But I will not allow alarmist groups to scare me from using my skin care products and I have suffered no ill effects from this.
I'll continue to take my chances and continue to use these safe and beneficial chemicals on my face. What about you??

Skin Deep - Scratching Below the Surface

I've been part of an ongoing discussion on the Cosmetics and Beauty Network on LinkedIn recently regarding safe cosmetics. We all agree that cosmetics should be safe but their are several groups that are spreading falsehoods on the internet with the intent of scaring the consumer. For instance, you may have read an article recently that women are using 515 chemicals on their body each day in their skin care products. Well, I'm not saying whether they do or not, but what are those 515 chemicals and what does it matter as long as they are safe? I mean water is a chemical as is oleic acid in olive oil. This story is being used by many Arbonne representatives with the implication that their products are safer. Since Arbonne does not put ingredient lists on their products its hard to say. I for one would never buy cosmetics that did not have an ingredient list on them though; not telling the consumer what is in a product does not make it safe. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Environmental Working Group are two other groups working hand in hand to scare consumers by spreading falsehoods not only about ingredients but about the way FDA regulates cosmetics. FDA does have regulations on cosmetics that can be read here http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm074162.htm

These discussions on safety introduced me to Dene Godfrey, President of the Society of Cosmetics Science in the UK. Thanks go to Dene for writing this guest blog addressing some of the problems he sees with the Environmental Working Group and their safety ratings of cosmetics. Myself and many of my colleagues who have small skin care and cosmetics businesses and also produce high quality, safe, natural and organic products feel the need to stand up for the truth so that consumers have an option to read reliable information rather than the hype that is put out there by groups promoting sensationalism rather than truth. Now here's Dene's post:

SKIN DEEP
Scratching Below The Surface
by Dene Godfrey

From the EWG web site:
“The mission of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment. EWG is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles.
In 2002, we founded the EWG Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) organization that advocates on Capitol Hill for health-protective and subsidy-shifting policies.
EWG specializes in providing useful resources (like Skin Deep and the Shoppers' Guide to Pesticides in Produce) to consumers while simultaneously pushing for national policy change.”

From the Skin Deep home page:
“In 2004 we launched Skin Deep, an online safety guide for cosmetics and personal care products. Our aim was to fill in where companies and the government leave off: companies are allowed to use almost any ingredient they wish, and our government doesn't require companies to test products for safety before they're sold. EWG's scientists built Skin Deep to be a one-of-a-kind resource, integrating our in-house collection of personal care product ingredient listings with more than 50 toxicity and regulatory databases.
Now in its fourth year and third major update, our Skin Deep database provides you with easy-to-navigate safety ratings for nearly a quarter of all products on the market — 54,866 products with 8,983 ingredients. At about one million page views per month, Skin Deep is the world's largest and most popular product safety guide”

The aims of both the EWG and their Skin Deep database are laudable – who could disagree that cosmetics should be safe? I doubt that any responsible manufacturer would ever knowingly put their customers at risk by placing products on the market that are not safe for their intended use. EWG insist that there is virtually no regulation of cosmetics in the USA, but this is not the case. The FDA requires that manufacturers do not place products on the market that are unsafe to human health and, whilst there may not be the same level of regulation as in , for example, the European Union, it is not true to say that cosmetics are unregulated. The EWG/Skin Deep promote themselves as the champions of safety (in cosmetics, for the purposes of this paper), but this is not actually what they achieve.

The database uses an impressive array of numbers (of products and data sources) and an impressive-looking amount of detailed explanation as to how their system of classification works, including some complicated-looking formulae. For the fine detail, click on

www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/about.php#3

The mainstays of this system are the following:

“Hazard (concern) rating. We developed a hazard rating that represents a synthesis of known and suspected hazards associated with ingredients and products. Hazard ratings within Skin Deep are shown as low, moderate, or higher concern categories, with numeric rankings spanning those categories that range from 0 (low concern) to 10 (higher concern).

Data gap rating. We developed a data gap rating within Skin Deep, primarily to describe the extent to which low hazard scores associated with some ingredients or products are based on definitive data demonstrating safety or, at the other extreme, on a near absence of data either demonstrating or disproving hazard. Data gap ratings are represented within Skin Deep by a numeric percentage ranging from 100% (complete absence of safety data) to 0% (comprehensive safety data). “

Already, several concerns creep in:

1) It is not possible (at least, not without a high degree of subjectivity) to assign a numerical value to a hazard. A hazard is a hazard. It is not logical to compare something that is highly corrosive to something that is toxic by ingestion – it is the same as comparing apples with pears.
2) On whose authority is the “suspected” hazard determined. Again, this is highly subjective. If there are no data, how is it possible to suspect a hazard?
3) How is it possible to rate a data gap so empirically? The impact of any data gap is wholly dependent upon the nature of the data that are missing.
4) They make the statement – “A hazard rating of "low concern" (shown as a green circle in Skin Deep) might be rated in that category because of definitive data proving its safety, or because of a near absence of any safety studies that would illuminate hazards.” How can absence (or near absence) of data ever be shown to illuminate hazards?
5) They claim to offer “safety ratings” – they do not – they only offer hazard ratings.

On looking more closely into the database and, specifically, at various products and their hazard scores, there are many obvious issues. There is a group of closely-related compounds that are assigned hazard scores entirely the opposite of their true relative hazardous nature. There are examples of the same chemical being listed under two different names with different hazard scores.

One word that has arisen many times in this discussion, and on the Skin Deep database is “hazard”, and therein lies the basic issue with Skin Deep. It is entirely based on hazard, with no attempt whatsoever to evaluate risk. It is not possible to evaluate safety of the basis of hazard alone. If a chemical was in existance that required only a single molecule to kill a human, that would be described as extremely hazardous. However, if only one molecule of that chemical actually existed, then the chance of human exposure is insignificant, and the risk to human health is also insignificant. I use an extreme example to better explain the relationship between hazard and risk, which may be summarised as follows:

RISK = HAZARD x EXPOSURE

Because the database only highlights the hazard of the ingredient, there is no possible way the consumer can know the actual risk involved in its presence in a cosmetic product. In our daily lives we constantly assess risk, albeit mostly subconciously. If we avoided every hazard without ever considering risk, we would never cross a road, and we would never stay in our homes (as the majority of accidents occur in the home, so there is a definite hazard associated with being at home). As it is nonsense to live our lives with assessing risk, it is equally nonsense to avoid any particular chemical without assessing the risk. It may even be the case that high exposure to a product classified by Skin Deep as zero is less safe than low exposure to a product classified as 10 on this database. Therefore, the database offers no useful information on the safety of cosmetic products, and is misleading to consumers.

Regarding hazard, it is possible, given the correct dose and route of administration to establish a hazard for EVERY chemical in existence, be it natural or synthetic. If anyone decided to carry out an inhalation study using any chemical either in vapour, mist or powder form, it would result in death. The only substance that would not have this effect is air (although the individual components of air would cause death), and even inhalation of too much air too quickly can result in dizziness and unconsciousness. Therefore every chemical is hazardous.

For a little light relief, I suggest that you investigate the extreme hazards posed by dihydrogen monoxide by clicking on the link below:

www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp

The treatement of data gaps is of particular concern. This is, again, highly subjective. Some ingredients with 100% data gaps are assigned zero, but others are assigned 3, or higher. How is it possible to assign a hazard rating when there are no data? It is entirely possible that many companies, appreciative of the marketing benefits of being able to claim a zero hazard rating on Skin Deep, are designing products specifically using ingredients with a zero hazard rating. There is certainly at least one company using this tactic. This means that products are being manufactured using ingredients with no safety data! Given that the EWG make great play of their claim that the USA do not regulate cosmetics, is it wise of them to encourage this practise, albeit tacitly?

The use of hazard classification alone enables Skin Deep to provoke concern amongst consumers. Without this concern, they would get little in the way of donations.

Another quote from the EWG site:

"Under federal law, companies can put virtually anything they wish into personal care products, and many of them do. Mercury, lead, and placenta extract — all of these and many other hazardous materials are in products that millions of Americans, including children, use every day," said Jane Houlihan, Vice President of Research at EWG.

This strongly implies that mercury and lead are deliberately added into cosmetic products which (apart from a few mercury-based products used as skin-whiteners) is simply not true. Again, the comment focusses on hazard only. I am not going to comment on placenta extract as I don't know why anyone would want to use that in the first place, and I am not sure of the potential risks involved in its use., but this is more evidence of manipulation of information in order to scare consumers in a misleading manner.

At the 2010 Expo West (which, for the benefit of those not based in the US, is the largest natural products show in the country) the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Safety Review Group's booth reportedly had a banner which read "If you can't pronounce it, it can't be safe"!

Following this logic it must be the case that if you CAN pronounce it, it must be safe. Try pronouncing “hydrogen cyanide”.

Two final quotes from the Skin Deep web site:

“This scoring system does not account for individual sensitivities or differences between the severities of different health endpoints within a particular category.”

And at the head of every product’s hazard rating:

“Given the incomplete information made available by companies and the government, EWG provides additional information on personal care product ingredients from the published scientific literature. The chart below indicates that research studies have found that exposure to one or more ingredients in this product -- not the product itself -- caused the indicated health effect(s) in the studies reviewed by Skin Deep researchers. Actual health risks, if any, will vary based on the level of exposure to the ingredient and individual susceptibility -- information not available in Skin Deep.” (My bold type; not Skin Deep’s)

Does the average consumer looking at the database even read these disclaimers, never mind understand that they are saying that their ratings refer to the individual ingredients and that information on the ACTUAL health risks of the product in question is not available in Skin Deep?

In summary, the Skin Deep database does not offer any insight into the true safety in use of any cosmetic product. Indeed, by encouraging the use of ingredients with no supporting toxicity data, they are risking the health of the very consumers they pupport to be seeking to protect. This database should be radically amended (and corrected) to better reflect it’s true worth, or closed down.

Dene Godfrey, 20 April 2010

Caffeine; friend or foe?

Some of us are quite dependent on our morning caffeine usually in the form of coffee or tea. Caffeine is in a chemical class called alkaloids which was first defined as a natural substance that reacts like a base, or alkali. Although they don’t have a strict definition, most alkaloids are derived from amino acids and because of that they contain a nitrogen group. They are typically described as having a bitter taste that is tasted more at the back of the tongue. Having their atoms arranged in a ring structure as seen in these structural diagrams is also typical. Notice the 4 nitrogens (N) in both xanthine and caffeine.

Caffeine is more descriptively a xanthine as is theophylline (found in tea) and theobromine (found in cocoa).


Caffeine stimulates the central nervous system which results in increased alertness and thought formation. Other sources of caffeine include yerba mate and guarana plants which are sometimes used for weight loss and increased energy as well as cocoa. Caffeine can also act as an antioxidant, protecting the body from free radical damage.

In addition, caffeine appears to have some anti-inflammatory and vasoconstriction effects which has brought it to the attention of those interested in skin care. It has recently been found in many anti-cellulite products. Some short term studies have shown a positive effect with topical use of caffeine, but no long term improvements have been documented. Caffeine is metabolized in the liver to paraxanthine which has an effect on fat to break it down. Green tea w caffeine has been found to inhibit formation of skin tumors in mice. Tea and coffee both make good additions to skin care in my opinion because they are high in antioxidants. Ground coffee is great in soap and can help remove other less desirable smells (fish?).


Caffeine is similar in structure to another naturally occurring alkaloid in the body, adenosine. Adenosine acts in the body to help promote sleep. Now caffeine is not similar enough in shape to act the same way as adenosine, but rather it blocks adenosine from acting. This blocks the promotion of sleep – or wakes us up! Caffeine can also increase levels of the ‘pleasure inducing’ neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin making us ‘feel good’. This may be one reason many people enjoy a caffeine drink after dinner. Of course caffeine can be overused and lead to heart rhythm disorders, anxiety, insomnia and mood changes. Withdrawal can cause headache and irritability. So enjoy your caffeine in small amounts.

Just an fyi; There was recently a bill proposed in Colorado by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Colorado Women's Lobby that would have banned the use of coffee in skin care products because it is a possible carcinogen according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer list 2B. This bill was turned down thankfully as it would have banned a number of other natural ingredients used in cosmetics. Care needs to be taken when organizations who propose to be protecting us get carried away. So for now you can continue to use coffee in your scrubs and soaps, but be vigilant as to what legislation may be around the corner.