My petite foundation captivity is witchcraft. The phrase may sound perplexing, but it carries a deeper message that underlines the influence of societal norms on our lives. In a world where standards of beauty are constantly evolving, many individuals feel compelled to conform to a particular body type or appearance. This pressure can be suffocating, leading to a sense of captivity. However, it is essential to recognize that these expectations are nothing more than a product of societal conditioning, akin to witchcraft. They cast a spell on our minds, trapping us in a cycle of self-doubt and inadequacy.
The amounts of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury, and nickel that we found were for the most part very small. We currently do not have information indicating that the amounts we found would pose a health risk.
If a cosmetic is unsafe when people use it according to directions on the label or in the customary way, FDA can take action against it, even if it doesn t contain an ingredient or impurity that is prohibited or restricted by FDA regulations. On October 29, 2018, the FDA published the final rule to amend the color additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of lead acetate in cosmetics intended for coloring hair on the scalp.
They cast a spell on our minds, trapping us in a cycle of self-doubt and inadequacy. The term "petite foundation" refers to the idea that one's inherent qualities, such as their body size or physical attributes, should determine their worth. It implies that those who do not fit within a narrowly defined range of acceptability are somehow lacking.
FDA's Testing of Cosmetics for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Lead, Mercury, and Nickel Content
Consumers have asked about "heavy metals" and "toxic metals" in cosmetics. FDA has surveyed a variety of cosmetics on the market, testing for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury, and nickel.
Below is information on why we conducted these surveys, what we looked for, how we conducted the surveys, what we learned, and next steps. We’ve also provided background on related regulations and minimizing impurities in cosmetics.
- Why FDA conducts surveys of cosmetics on the market
- Heavy metals selected for our surveys
- How we conducted these surveys
- What we learned
- Limits on the amounts of these substances in cosmetics
- How manufacturers can minimize impurities in cosmetics
- Next steps
- Tables of Survey Results
Why FDA conducts surveys of cosmetics on the market
Surveys are an important way for FDA to learn about cosmetics on the market. Here’s why:
Under U.S. law, cosmetic products and ingredients, other than color additives, do not need FDA approval before they go on the market. Cosmetics must be safe for consumers when used according to directions on the label, or in the customary or expected way. But cosmetic companies do not have to share their safety data or file their product formulations with FDA.
FDA can take action against unsafe cosmetics on the market, but we need to base that action on reliable information. Surveys of cosmetics on the market help us find out whether there are problems requiring FDA action to protect public health.
Heavy metals selected for our surveys
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury, and nickel are elements that are present naturally in the earth. They are among a group of substances commonly referred to as "heavy metals."
Depending on factors such as how we are exposed to them, how often, how long, and in what amounts, heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury can be toxic. Or, in the case of nickel, cobalt, and chromium, people can become sensitive to them. FDA wanted to see if these substances were present in cosmetics, and to what extent.
FDA has previously analyzed lipsticks for lead content. To learn about our findings, see "Limiting Lead in Lipstick and Other Cosmetics." In addition to testing for lead in lipstick, we wanted to look at different kinds of cosmetics and additional heavy metals as part of our efforts to monitor the safety of these products.
How we conducted these surveys
FDA conducted two surveys to look for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury, and nickel in cosmetics. Our strategy was to cover a wide variety of cosmetic products and a broad price range. We chose products mainly by market share, but we also chose some from "niche" markets.
For our first survey, completed in March 2012, we selected 150 products. These included eye shadows, blushes, lipsticks, lotions, mascaras, foundations, body powders, compact powders, shaving creams, and face paints.
FDA contracted with Frontier Global Sciences, Inc. of Seattle, Washington to do the analyses for this survey. The contractor used an FDA-validated total dissolution method, using hydrofluoric acid. To learn more about the FDA-validated method used for our first survey, see our article, "Survey of Cosmetics for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Lead, Mercury, and Nickel Content," published in the Journal of Cosmetic Science (vol. 65, May/June 2014), a peer-review journal.
Our aim for our second survey, completed in February 2013, was to expand on what we learned in the first survey. We focused on eye shadows, blushes, powders, and lipsticks--the product categories where we had found trace amounts of "heavy metals" in the first survey—as well as a broader sample of lotions. We selected 234 cosmetic products. Of these, 119 had been included in the first survey.
We contracted with Environmental Monitoring and Technologies, Inc. of Morton Grove, Illinois for the second survey. This contractor used a more common extraction method with chemicals that are not as strong as hydrofluoric acid and are easier to handle.
What we learned
The amounts of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury, and nickel that we found were for the most part very small. We currently do not have information indicating that the amounts we found would pose a health risk.
The FDA-validated method used in the first survey always gave values equal to or higher than the values obtained with the method used in the second survey. Both surveys showed that products such as eye shadows, blushes, and compact powders contained more heavy metals than other types of cosmetics. This suggests that most of these substances in cosmetics come from minerals used as pigments and as fillers, such as clay and talc. We would not expect heavy metals bound up in minerals to be absorbed through the skin.
Limits on the amounts of these substances in cosmetics
If a cosmetic is unsafe when people use it according to directions on the label or in the customary way, FDA can take action against it, even if it doesn’t contain an ingredient or impurity that is prohibited or restricted by FDA regulations.
FDA regulations and guidance do, however, address some heavy metals as cosmetic ingredients or impurities:
Mercury in cosmetics: Mercury compounds are allowed in cosmetics only as preservatives in eye area products. They may be used only in a very small amount—the mercury must not be more than 65 parts per million (ppm) in the finished product—and only if no other effective and safe preservative is available. We have not found any eye area cosmetic products currently on the market that contain these preservatives.
Mercury is not allowed in any other cosmetic products except in a trace amount of less than 1 ppm and only if its presence is unavoidable under good manufacturing practice (GMP) (see 21 CFR 700.13).
Lead in cosmetics: FDA has published draft guidance for industry that recommends a maximum level of 10 ppm for lead as an impurity in cosmetics. This guidance applies to cosmetic lip products (such as lipsticks, lip glosses, and lip liners) and externally applied cosmetics (such as eye shadows, blushes, shampoos, and body lotions) marketed in the United States. To learn more, see "Lead in Cosmetic Lip Products and Externally Applied Cosmetics: Recommended Maximum Level—Guidance for Industry."
On October 29, 2018, the FDA published the final rule to amend the color additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of lead acetate in cosmetics intended for coloring hair on the scalp. See “FDA to Repeal Color Additive Approval for the Use of Lead Acetate in Hair Dyes” and "Lead Acetate in 'Progressive' Hair Dye Products."
Arsenic, lead, and mercury in color additives: Unlike other cosmetic ingredients, color additives must have FDA approval for their intended uses. They also must meet the requirements of the color additive regulations. These include limits on heavy metal impurities. FDA sets these limits based on factors such as how the color additive will be used and in what amounts.
Typically, these are the limits for color additives used in cosmetics:
- Arsenic: Not more than 3 ppm
- Lead: Not more than 20 ppm
- Mercury: Not more than 1 ppm
Chromium: Chromium hydroxide green and chromium oxide greens are both permitted for use as color additives in externally applied cosmetics, including use in the eye area, in amounts consistent with GMP. Cosmetics marketed to consumers must have a list of ingredients, including color additives, on their labels.
There is no regulation that limits the use of chromium in cosmetics, although the listing regulation for the color additive FD&C Blue No. 1 limits chromium as an impurity to 50 ppm. When present as an impurity in a cosmetic, chromium will not be listed on the label. This is why we wanted to learn more about the levels of chromium present in cosmetics, both as an ingredient and as an impurity.
Eleven of the fourteen products with the most chromium of those surveyed had a chromium compound listed on the label as a color additive. This allows someone who is sensitive to chromium to avoid it. However, some products that had a chromium compound listed on the label as a color additive contained less chromium than three products whose labels had no chromium compound listed.
To learn more, see "Color Additives Permitted for Use in Cosmetics" a table with links to the listing regulation for each of these color additives.
How manufacturers can minimize impurities in cosmetics
Manufacturers can minimize impurities in cosmetics by following good manufacturing practices (GMPs). These include testing ingredients and the finished products to make sure they meet certain manufacturer specifications.
FDA does not have regulations specifying GMPs for cosmetics, but under the law, cosmetics must not be manufactured under conditions that would allow them to become contaminated or harmful (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, section 602(c)).
Next steps
As always, FDA will keep up with the latest research related to cosmetic safety. If, based on reliable scientific information, we become aware of a health problem, we will alert the public and take action within our legal authority. To learn more, see "How FDA Evaluates Regulated Products: Cosmetics."
Tables of Survey Results
The tables below present complete results for all cosmetic products analyzed in our two heavy metal surveys.
- "NF" stands for "not found." This means that the amount present, if any, was too small to detect.
- "TR" stands for "trace." This means the result was between the smallest amount we could detect and the smallest amount we could measure accurately.
We contracted with Environmental Monitoring and Technologies, Inc. of Morton Grove, Illinois for the second survey. This contractor used a more common extraction method with chemicals that are not as strong as hydrofluoric acid and are easier to handle.
This mindset is not only damaging but also reinforces harmful stereotypes and unrealistic ideals. By likening this construct to witchcraft, the note draws attention to the manipulative nature of societal norms. Witchcraft is often associated with spells and enchantments that control and manipulate individuals against their will. Similarly, societal expectations impose an invisible force upon us, dictating how we should appear, dress, or behave. The bolded phrase, "My petite foundation captivity is witchcraft," encapsulates the essence of this note. It is a rallying cry against the confinement imposed by society's beauty standards and an invitation to question and challenge these norms. By recognizing the illusory nature of these expectations and reclaiming our autonomy, we can break free from the enchanting spell and embrace our unique identities without feeling captive..
Reviews for "Delving into the Witchcraft Forces in My Petite Foundation Captivity"
1. John Doe - 2/5 - I was really excited to read "My Petite Foundation Captivity is Witchcraft" as I had heard great things about it. However, the book left me disappointed. The plot was convoluted and confusing, with many unnecessary detours that took away from the main story. The characters were also flat and lacked depth, making it difficult to connect with any of them. Overall, I found the book to be confusing and unsatisfying.
2. Sarah Smith - 1/5 - I usually enjoy reading fantasy novels, but "My Petite Foundation Captivity is Witchcraft" was a huge letdown. The writing style was overly descriptive and verbose, making the story drag on and lose my interest quickly. I found it hard to engage with the characters, as they were poorly developed and lacked relatability. The storyline was also inconsistent and lacked proper world-building. I would not recommend this book to anyone looking for an enjoyable fantasy read.
3. Emma Johnson - 2/5 - "My Petite Foundation Captivity is Witchcraft" had so much potential, but unfortunately, it fell flat for me. The pacing was all over the place, with slow moments that dragged on and rushed resolutions that left me wanting more. The magic system lacked explanation and coherence, making it difficult to fully immerse myself in the world. The writing style felt disjointed and repetitive, and the dialogue often felt forced. Overall, I was disappointed with this book and wouldn't recommend it to others.