Vitargent published safe to buy list of lip balms rated “Green Fish”
(Hong Kong, 17 October 2017) Vitargent (International) Biotechnology Limited (“Vitargent”) is known for the earlier published safety examination of cooking oil, BB cream, instant coffee, sun cream and ice-cream on Test-itTM platform (www.fishqc.com), and Vitargent is now extending the investigation to lip alm products with the world-exclusive “transgenic medaka” and “zebrafish” embryo toxicity testing technology that was developed by Hong Kong scientists. Test result of 31 popular lip balm product samples have been published, and the safety test rated 16 samples as Green Fish (excellent), 4 samples as Yellow Fish (basic), and 11 samples as Red Fish (sub-optimal). Among the 8 sunscreen lip balm samples, 7 of them failed to comply with the Medaka embryo testing for chronic toxicants (xenoestrogens), and the level of estrogenic endocrine disruptors (EEDs) in lip balms of several international brands has severely exceeded Vitargent’s standard by 11 times. In Zebrafish embryo testing for acute toxicants, some samples have exceeded the safety standard by 24 times, and the poison effect is suspected to be the consequence of ingredients such as Retinyl Palmitate, Benzophenone-3, Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) etc., exhibited biological toxicity alone or in the form of mixture. Consumers are recommended to pay special attention on choosing lip balms, and should consider products with less extra ingredients and functions.
Vitargent detected toxic chemicals in lip balm with innovative bio-testing technology Testing 2.0
Autumn is around the corner and it’s time to protect lips from drying out with lip balm. However, some packaging of lip balms claims extra functions such as pharmaceutical sunscreen, water resistant, rectifying lip wrinkles and dull colors, recovering pressured skin cells and more. Consumers might overlook that the extra functions come with chemical substances which potentially raises health risk under excessive intake. With that in mind, Vitargent has collected 31 lip balm samples during April and May among 30 brands from beauty halls, Watson’s and online shopping platforms such as Kaola.com, Jingdong and Tmall and put them to the fish embryo toxicity test. Its samples came from world famous brands like NIVEA, Innisfree, CUREL, KIEHL’s, MAYBELLINE, Mentholatum and more.
Vitargent performed tests on lip balm samples by adopting the Testing 2.0 technology, which is a patented fish embryo bio-testing technology. Under which, samples are categorised as Green Fish, Yellow Fish and Red Fish according to product safety. The test result was published on the online consumer product safety information platform, Test-it™, for consumers to recognise safe products sold by retailers. Test-it™ also benchmarks against the national and regional product safety standards, including those imposed by the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Union (EU)[1], the USA[2], China[3] and Japan[4], as well as the list of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC)[5] prepared by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Horizontal analysis against similar products was also conducted to establish safety standards:
- Green Fish means “Excellence” in terms of safety, indicating good performance in the screening of acute toxicity, chronic toxicity and banned ingredients. Consumers can rest assured that the products are safe for purchase;
- Yellow Fish means “Basic” in terms of safety, meaning a product meets the safety baselines in the screening of acute toxicity, chronic toxicity and banned ingredients. Consumers are recommended to purchase with caution;
- Red Fish means “Sub-Optimal” in terms of safety, indicating a product is below standard in one or more criteria in the screening of acute toxicity, chronic toxicity and banned ingredients. Consumers are recommended to purchase with extra caution.
Lower priced lip balms are safer than mid, higher priced lip balms; Most Asian brands are rated as Green Fish
Among the 31 lip balm samples, Test-itTM rated 16 samples as Green Fish (excellent), 4 samples as Yellow fish (basic) and 11 samples as Red Fish (sub-optimal).
In terms of price, among the 31 samples collected, the average price is 15.3HKD/gram. The cheapest one costs 2.2HKD/gram, which is around 26 times cheaper than the most expensive one which costs 56.9HKD/gram.
Among the 10 samples that cost lower than 7.5HKD/gram, 6 samples were rated Green Fish (60%), 2 were rated Yellow Fish (20%), and 2 were rated Red Fish (20%).
Among the 11 samples that cost between 7.5HKD/gram and 15HKD/gram, 5 samples were rated Green Fish (45.5%), 1 was rated Yellow Fish (9%), and 5 were rated as Red Fish (45.5%).
Among the 10 samples that cost more than 15HKD/gram, 5 were rated Green Fish (50%), 1 was rated Yellow Fish (10%), and 4 were rated Red Fish (40%).
All in all, lower priced lip balms are safer than mid, higher priced lip balms, with 60% of them passing the safety test and rated as Green Fish; whereas a 40% Red Fish rating is observed among mid, higher priced lip balms, consumers are recommended to purchase with extra caution.
In terms of brand origins, Vitargent selected products from Asia, Europe, America and Oceania region.
Among the 6 samples of Asia brand (Mainland China, Japan, Korea), 4 samples were rated Green Fish (66.7%), 1 was rated Yellow Fish (16.7%), and 1 was rated Red Fish (16.7%). Among the 7 samples of Europe brand (France, Germany), 4 were rated Green Fish (57%), 1 was rated as Yellow Fish (14%), and 2 were rated as Red Fish (29%). Among the 16 samples of America brand (the USA), 7 samples were rated Green Fish (44%), 2 were rated Yellow Fish (12%), and 7 were rated as Red Fish (44%). Among the 2 samples of Oceania brand (New Zealand, Australia), 1 was rated as Green Fish (50%), and 1 was rated as Red Fish (50%).
For the place of manufacture, samples selected were manufactured from China, Korea, Japan, France, Germany, the USA and Australia.
Among the 31 samples, all 5 samples from Mainland China were rated as Green Fish (100%), 2 samples from Korea were rated as Red Fish (100%). Out of the 2 samples from Japan, 1 was rated as Green Fish (50%), and 1 was rated as Yellow Fish (50%). Out of the 6 samples from France, 3 samples were rated as Green Fish (50%), 1 was rated as Yellow Fish (17%), and 2 were rated as Red Fish (33%). Out of the 2 samples from Germany, 1 was rated as Green Fish (50%), and 1 was rated as Red Fish (50%). Out of the 13 samples from the USA, 6 samples were rated as Green Fish (46%), 2 were rated Yellow Fish (15%), and 5 were rated Red Fish (39%). 1 sample was from Australia and it was rated as Red Fish (100%).
To wrap up, in terms of brand origins Asia has the best performance when compared to Europe, America and Oceania region, with more than 60% of the samples rated as Green Fish. Place of manufacture wise results are similar with brand origins comparison with Asia performing better, Mainland China in particular.
Close to 90% of the selected sunscreen lip balms failed Medaka embryo testing for chronic toxicants; containing xenoestrogens which affects endocrine system
Vitargent’s Chief Executive Officer Jimmy Tao said,” In this test we have selected 31 lip balm samples in total, among them 8 comes with a sunscreen function. Our bio-toxicity test identified 7 out of the 8 samples with sunscreen function failed Medaka embryo testing for chronic toxicants, estrogenic endocrine disrupting chemicals will trigger green fluorescence in our fish liver and were rated as Red Fish. Our team identified various sunscreen chemical components among the Red Fish list such as Benzophenone-3 (found in 6 samples), Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate (found in 8 samples), Octocrylene (found in 2 samples), HymamateDimethyl PABA ethylhexyl ester, Ethylhexyl salicylate and Butylmethoxy dibenzylmethane.All the above belong to the xenoestrogens family and may potentially create a poison effect on living species. According to the WHO and United Nations, EEDs may cause cancer, reduce reproductive success, lead to immune disorder, precocious puberty and diabetes, among other health effects[6].”
Jimmy Tao also pointed out,” The test also revealed lip balms of several world class brands has an 11 times EED level over Vitargent’s safety standard, the highest EED level amount the samples were found to contain 10,919 ng of EEDs per gram (a lip balm weighs around 3.5-15 grams). According to European Commission SCCS Notes of Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic SCCS/1564/15, average daily consumption of lip care products should be 0.057 ng, and this already represent an over consumption of EED.”
As for the Zebrafish embryo testing for acute toxicants, there are 8 samples failing the safety test. Among which the sample with the highest acute toxicants is 24 times higher than Vitargent’s safety standard. The team found toxicants such as Benzophenone-3, Retinyl Palmitate, Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT), Citral etc., which may exhibit biological toxicity alone or in the form of mixture. In the presence of toxic substances, the embryo development will be affected, and adverse effects such as tumor, heart edema; severe malform, or even death directly.
Vitargent’s Chief Technology Officer and UK and EU Registered Toxicologist Dr. Xueping, Chen gave us an illustration,” Benzophenone-3 screens UVB and part of UVA. It can penetrate the skin and create skin allergies[7]. In particular the chemical will interfere with the body's endocrine system, change estrogen levels and affect normal puberty development[8]. EWG (Environmental Working Group) strongly recommends that you do not choose cosmetics that contain this ingredient[9]; Retinyl Palmitate is a derivative of vitamin A, with antioxidant, which can be preservative. However, it has been clinically proven that excessive intake of vitamin A has the opportunity to affect fat metabolism, leading to increased liver toxicity, middle-aged women with decreased bone density and easy to fracture, and even fetal malformations[10]. The Norwegian health department warned pregnant women and breastfeeding women to avoid the use of vitamin A-containing products in 2012[11]; Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) is a preservative that can cause dermatitis and allergies[12] and have the opportunity to accelerate lung cancer[13]. In addition, 15 samples were found to add paraffin components such as Petroleum jelly, petrolatum, mineral oil and so on. Paraffin wax is a cheap and widely used moisturizing substance, but because of its poor moisturizing function, it fails to lock the water, while creating a chance to get an allergy. When eaten and accumulate in the body, paraffin may also cause genetic toxicity and result to cancer risk [14]. Last but not the least, there are as many as 21 samples with known allergic fragrance ingredients such as citral, geraniol, citronellol, linalool, rosin alcohol, and more, they have the opportunity to lead to skin allergies, itching and even pigmented cosmetic dermatitis.[15]”
Dr. Xueping, Chen recommends,” In the purchase of lip balm, you can pay more attention to the composition of labels, production origin, use precautions, and other information. For example, some of which even limits the use for infants under the age of two. In addition, if the skin itself is more sensitive or infected with rash, especially for infants, children and pregnant women, one should choose lip balms that do not contain irritating ingredients such as spices, color, preservatives or chemical sunscreen and other additives. When trying a new lip balm, one can apply it to the back of the hand or the skin inside forearm, let it stay for about 30 Minutes, and if there is no sensitive reaction or rash, one can be assured to use it. “
Jimmy Tao said,” "Biology testing is one of the newest technologies in the world in recent years. We hope to be able to complement traditional chemical testing to identify the toxic chemicals that cannot be tested in the product, avoiding human direct consumption. For Yellow Fish and Red Fish products that did not meet our Green Fish safety standard, we will actively contact the respective brands and manufacturers to promote the overall industry to enhancing product safety. At the same time, consumers can visit the website of the Test-itTM (www.fishqc.com) online consumer goods safety information platform, and find out the Green Fish products that qualified our testing for chronic toxicants and acute toxicants and also ingredient check for more peace of mind purchase options."
END
[1] Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. Official Journal of the European Union. L 342/59. 22.12.2009.
[2] USFDA Summary of colour additives for use in the United States in foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices; Prohibited & Restricted Ingredients.
[3] 化妝品安全技術規範. 2015版.
[4] Standards for Cosmetics. Ministry of Health and Welfare Notification No. 331 of 2000.
[5] European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Candidate list of substances of very high concern for authorization. https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table[5]
[6] WHO & UNEP. State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals-2012. Available at http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/endocrine/en/
[7] SCCP (Scientific Committee on Consumer Products), Opinion on benzophenone-3, 16 December 2008.
[8] Ghazipura et al. Exposure to benzophenone-3 and reproductive toxicity: a systematic review of human and animal studies. Reproductive Toxicology. 73, 175-183. 2017.
[9] https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/704372/OXYBENZONE/#.WdHihGiCyUk
[10] SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on Vitamin A (Retinol, Retinyl Acetate, Retinyl Palmitate), SCCS/1576/16, 20 April 2016, final version of 6 October 2016, CORRIGENDUM on 23 December 2016
[11] Norwegian SCFS, Risk Profile: Retinaldehyde. Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (Vitenskapskomiteen for Mattrygghet), 2012.
[12] EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS); Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of Butylated hydroxytoluene BHT (E 321) as a food additive. EFSA Journal 2012;10(3):2588.
[13] Bauer et al., The lung tumor promoter butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) causes chronic inflammation in promotion-sensitive BALB/cByJ mice but not in promotionresistant CXB4 mice, Toxicology 169 (2001) 1–15.
[14] EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM); Scientific Opinion on Mineral Oil Hydrocarbons in Food. EFSA Journal. 2012;10(6):2704.
[15] SCCS/1459/11. Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products. European Union. 2011.
" target="_blank">30% of lip balm samples failed bio-toxicity tests Excessive EEDs and acute toxic substances identified potentially leading to allergy and rashes or induce cancer |
Vitargent published safe to buy list of sunscreens rated “Green Fish”
(Hong Kong, 17 August 2017) Vitargent (International) Biotechnology Limited (“Vitargent”) published the test results of 51 popular sunscreen products on the Test-it™ platform (www.fishqc.com). Known for its safety examination of cooking oil, BB cream and instant coffee, Vitargent investigated sun cream samples with the world-exclusive “transgenic medaka” and “zebrafish” embryo toxicity testing technology that was developed by Hong Kong scientists. The safety test rated 16 samples as Green Fish (excellent), eight samples as Yellow Fish (basic) and 27 samples as Red Fish (sub-optimal), while identified over 20 types of estrogenic endocrine disruptors (EEDs) in the sunscreen samples. The study discovered that the level of EEDs in 18 samples exceeds Vitargent’s safety standards. Meanwhile, four samples with particularly high EED concentration were found to contain as much EEDs per gram as contraceptive pills. The test also concluded that sunscreen products with active physical ingredients are safer than those with active chemical and hybrid ingredients. In view of this, Vitargent advised consumers to pay attention when making decisions.
Vitargent screens out harmful chemicals in sun creams with innovative bio-testing technology “Testing 2.0”
To block UV radiation on a scorching summer day, people put on sunscreen no matter they are indoor or outdoor. With overwhelming choices of sun cream products in the market, consumers not only consider their brand preference, skin type and complexion, but also pay attention to the products’ SPF and their ability to meet different needs, such as whitening, protection against skin darkening, moisturising, repairing, concealing and waterproof qualities. As a result, they may overlook the extra features and chemicals contained in the products. Vitargent purchased 51 sun cream products from beauty halls, Watson’s and online shopping platforms such as Kaola.com, Jingdong and Tmall and put them to the fish embryo toxicity test. Its samples came from 37 world-famous brands like Biotherm, Innisfree, Sunplay and Anessa.
Vitargent’s Chief Executive Officer Jimmy Tao said, “The UV index in Hong Kong is generally “high” and even “very high” on some days, but what people don’t know is that UV radiation can do harm even on cloudy days, in autumns and winters or in indoor. UV radiation can damage skin over time, so even if you don’t appear to have sunburn, long term exposure from outdoor and indoor activities can also be bad for you. That’s why it’s necessary to put on sun screen. Many people are so busy that they prefer all-in-one sun cream products to save time. Since sunscreen should be applied extensively on the skin, consumers should be aware of the safety and potential risks when making purchases, as studies have shown that chemicals in sunscreen products can penetrate the skin.”
In the past few months, Vitargent performed tests on sunscreen samples by adopting the Testing 2.0 technology, which is a patented fish embryo bio-testing technology. Under which, samples are categorised as Green Fish, Yellow Fish and Red Fish according to product safety. The test result is also published on the online consumer product safety information platform, Test-it™, for consumers to identify safe products sold by retailers. Unlike traditional chemical testing methods, Vitargent’s biological testing technology enables the screening of “cocktail effect” caused by mixing over 1,000 toxicants and chemicals within 48 hours. The technology covers chemicals that are not included in the routine test. The zebrafish embryos used in acute toxicity testing of sunscreen have analogues of 84% of genes associated with human diseases[1], hence substances that are toxic to zebrafish embryos are likely to be toxic to human. For the testing of chronic toxicants (EEDs) in sunscreen, as the livers of medaka embryos used in the test emit green fluorescent light in the presence of harmful substances, the intensity of the fluorescence can be used to quantify the toxic chemicals.
Test-it™ benchmarks against the national and regional safety standards for cosmetic products, which include standards in the European Union, the United States of America, China and Japan. Horizontal analysis against similar products is also conducted to establish safety standards:
- Green Fish means “Excellence” in terms of safety, indicating good performance in the screening of acute toxicity, chronic toxicity and banned ingredients. Consumers can rest assured that the products are safe for purchase;
- Yellow Fish means “Basic” in terms of safety, meaning a product meets the safety baselines in the screening of acute toxicity, chronic toxicity and banned ingredients. Consumers are recommended to purchase with caution;
- Red Fish means “Sub-Optimal” in terms of safety, indicating a product is below standard in one or more criteria in the screening of acute toxicity, chronic toxicity and banned ingredients. Consumers are recommended to purchase with extra caution.
Over 50% of sun cream failed safety test, Asian brands outperformed European, US and Australian brands in general
Test-it™ rated 16 out of 51 sunscreen samples as Green Fish (Excellent), eight as Yellow Fish (Basic) and 27 as Red Fish (Sub-Optimal).
The average price of the 51 samples purchased is 5HKD/ml. The most expensive sample costs 20.6HKD/ml, which is 52 times of the cheapest one which costs 0.4HKD/ml.
Among the samples that cost less than 1.7HKD/ml, five samples (29%) were rated Green Fish, two (12%) were rated Yellow Fish and ten (59%) were rated Red Fish;
Among the samples that cost between 1.7HKD/ml and 4HKD/ml, eight samples (57%) were rated Green Fish, two (14%) were rated Yellow Fish and four (29%) were rated Red Fish;
Among the samples that cost more than 4HKD/ml, only three samples (15%) were rated Green Fish and four (20%) were rated Yellow Fish, while 13 (65%) were rated Red Fish.
All in all, most of the low-priced and high-priced sunscreens were not safe, with over half of the samples rated Red Fish. Therefore, consumers are advised to choose carefully. On the contrary, mid-priced samples had the best safety performance.
In terms of product origin, Asian brands (from China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea) performed better than European and US brands (from France, Germany and the US) and Australian brands. More than 60% of the samples from Asia were rated Green Fish. (13 Green Fish (62%), four Yellow Fish (19%) and four Red Fish (19%)). Of which, 82% of the samples from Japanese brands were rated Green Fish. On the other hand, European and US brands and Australian brands had disappointing performance in general. Over 70% of samples from Europe and the US were rated Red Fish (three Green Fish (11%), four Yellow Fish (15%) and 20 Red Fish (74%)), while all three samples from Australia were rated Red Fish (100%).
Sunscreen products with SPF 30 or above are less safe; physical sunblock performed better than chemical and hybrid sun cream
Jimmy Tao said, “We analyzed the safety test results from the perspectives of SPF and types of sun protection. All samples with SPF value between 15 and 29 were rated Green Fish (three samples (100%)). For those with SPF value ranging from 30 to 50, seven samples were rated Green Fish (21%), six were rated Yellow Fish (18%) and 20 were rated Red Fish (61%). For samples with SPF 50 or above, six were rated Green Fish (40%), two were rated Yellow Fish (13%) and seven were rated Red Fish (47%). In other words, for our test of sun cream products, higher SPF doesn’t necessarily mean higher toxicity. However, the data also shows that sun cream products with SPF 30 or below have outstanding safety quality. Based on the guidelines of the US Environmental Protection Agency[2], sun cream products with SPF 15 can block 93% of UVB radiation, those with SPF 30 can block 97% and those with SPF 45 can block 98%. Thus, products with SPF 30 or above have similar sun blocking ability. It is advisable for consumers to buy sunscreen with SPF 30 or below from brands that are rated Green Fish.”
There are three main types of sun protection: through physical means, chemical means and a combination of both. Physical sunscreens work by forming a thin protective layer on the skin that blocks or reflects UV radiation, whereas chemical sunscreens absorb UV radiation with chemicals to neutralise and mitigate the direct damage to the skin, thereby achieving the desired effects. “Most of the sun cream products available in the market contain chemical ingredients that are colourless and odourless. As they leave no white cast on skin, the skin tone looks more natural. Nonetheless, our tests found that physical sun cream products are safer than chemical and hybrid ones, with four samples of physical sunscreen rated Green Fish (80%) and one rated Yellow Fish (20%), as compared to chemical sun cream of which two samples were rated Green Fish (11%) and 17 were rated Red Fish (89%), as well as hybrid sunscreen of which five samples were rated Green Fish (28%), four were rated Yellow Fish (22%) and nine were rated Red Fish (50%). Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in physical sunblock are inorganic chemicals that are mild in nature and unlikely to cause irritation, hence suitable for sensitive skins and kids with delicate skins,” said Jimmy Tao.
More than 20 types of EEDs identified, potentially causing cancer and affecting fertility
Jimmy Tao also pointed out, “The EED level in 18 out of 51 samples exceeded Vitargent’s safety standards. In particular, four samples were found to contain 12,000-17,000 ng of EEDs per gram, which is even higher than a contraceptive pill (containing 10,000 ng of EEDs). We also identified over 20 types of EEDs in our samples, including the extensively used octocrylene found in 21 samples, octinoxate in 20 samples and Parsol 1789 (avobenzone) in 18 samples. According to the WHO and United Nations, EEDs may cause cancer, reduce reproductive success, lead to immune disorder, precocious puberty and diabetes[3], among other health effects.”
Family physician Dr. Chow Chong Kwan said, “the chemicals in sunscreen products can be readily absorbed through skins and transported to different body parts via the bloodstream. Scientific studies have proved that chemicals in sun cream can enter breast milk[4], breast tissue[5], placenta[6] and even in the baby[7]. EEDs such as the commonly found chemical sunscreen and widely used paraben preservatives can disrupt our endocrine system, upset metabolism and affect fertility.[8]”
Dr. Chow reminded parents that some sunscreen for adults contains fragrances and preservatives that may lead to skin allergy and eczema. Therefore, parents should avoid putting such products on their kids, as they have delicate skin. Instead, they should select products with simple formulas that are specially designed for children. Besides, infants aged under six months shouldn’t use sun cream and should avoid direct sunlight. Dr. Chow also recommended applying sunscreen 30 minutes before going outdoor. Because Hong Kong is so humid, sun cream products can be washed away easily by sweat. Thus, people who are sweaty or participating in water sports should re-apply more frequently. However, they should not use sun cream excessively as this will clog pores. Sunscreen, no matter the SPF value, can only stay effective for two hours, so users should reapply to uncovered body parts every now and then. It is also recommended to drink more water after prolonged sun exposure to rehydrate, and use lotion to moisturise skin.
END
[1] Howe et al. The zebrafish reference genome sequence and its relationship to the human genome. Nature. (496-7446):498-503.
[2] The burning Facts. available at https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/0B1_f96X6Yt9ARnJRZjBkZGs5SE0.
[3] WHO & UNEP. State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals-2012. Available at http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/endocrine/en/
[4] Chimia 2008, 62: 345-351.
[5] Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2012, 32(3):219-232.
[6] Talanta. 2011, 84, 702-709.
[7] Science of Total Environment. 2013, 461-462, 214-221.
[8] International Journal of Andrology. 2012, 35, 424-436." target="_blank">Over 50% of sunscreen samples failed bio-toxicity tests More than 20 types of estrogenic endocrine disruptors identified, potentially causing cancer and affecting fertility |
