The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Hair Dyes!

it's been it's

b the lie loo it's been funding for this program has been provided by the station and other public television stations and by grants from

exxon corporation allied chemical corporation and the corporation for public broadcasting there has been the case before meaning congress was us today to change federal law to make it mandatory to test cosmetics for safety like food and drug products before they go on the market this week the house investigation subcommittee has been holding hearings on possible cancer hazards in paradise and other cosmetics the national cancer institute recently said the number of hair dye ingredients cause cancer in animals today the environmental defense

fund testified that mice tested with permanent hair dye preparations develop liver tumors the researchers also said evidence was beginning to accumulate that paradise might also pose a risk of birth defects in humans representatives of the cosmetics industry told the committee that cosmetic products were safe and there was no evidence they contributed to human cancer tonight how real of a cancer risks in paradise one of anything should be done to protect the consumer probably most people would die there don't go around talking about it that's the whole point of course nobody supposed the nile was a rather startling statistics on thirty million americans do it regulate one out of every three women use some kind of hair coloring permanent or temporary and it's increasingly become a common thing for men to do as well arab allies constitute a three hundred million dollar a year heart of the seven point five billion dollar cosmetics industry must be understandable interesting contours in this whole business of possible ties between haired eyes and cancer the government laboratory for most of the testing of cancer cause

cancer causing substance is is done all on to the national cancer institute and the director of the national cancer institute dr arthur up the corrupt and it is your studies that i focused a lot of attention on the us exactly what your study show we are looking at a number of compounds that are used in various ways including preparations composite going to hurt our preparations we're feeding these materials to rats and mice following the animals to their lifespans and then just that are now nearing completion we've seen in a rat's and the mice that the higher dose levels and increased incidence of tumors in the thyroid gland and the rats tumors of the skin the results we feel our definitive evidence for the camps are forming the potency of these agents what kind of those judges are you given these mines

and arrest they were engineered compound that i'm referring to is given that point five percent of the diet idols local what it may mean what i'm sorry that any given them a lot of letting him a little bit of a small mountain of the massive amount of point five percent is i have a part for hundred dry way all your opinion and i your professional opinion that these test last fall are indicate that there is a definite problem if not the idea that there should be a bit about whether the problem a definite connection between the substances were in erudite and cancers that correct me feel the results are definitive for the animals why do you think that based on the studies that they can be a calculated into human beings as well that's actually that's the key question how far one can go and extrapolating

results in rats in life the human population we can't say that because they have been shown to cause tremors and animals that they will produce cancer in humans in general is a good correlation between cancer causing effects in various species the agents that we know because jurors in humans few exceptions are also fallen reverend arnold because i think we have to conclude that there's a result of this presumptive risk why do you plan any further tests to to go beyond the presumptive risk into mini possibly a definite risk a conclusion we're looking at other compounds constantly and we are considering other tests that could be done on these particular chemicals as well what about the tests on humans and other words try to get jay hear a sampling of people who'd been exposed to haired i were a long period of

time and then test whether or not they have had at bay they have contracts these kinds of studies are underway to call an epidemiological studies attempting to see whether those who were exposed to hear doesn't manufacture are exposed to repeated use show an increased risk of cancer or a result yet online there are some the preliminary results but they're inconclusive song sung results suggest there are increases in risk other results are negative so i don't think the epidemiological data as yet subtle inner are backing from reports of cancer in rats given doses of hair dye substances hadn't created much of a public stir the industry reports that paradise sales were up more than six percent in nineteen seventy seven and according to recent roper poll that seems about evenly divided on whether they believe cancer warnings of this kind are found that fourteen percent of the public finds the warnings very believable

and thirty five percent find them fairly believable on the other side thirty two percent find them not too believable and sixteen percent not believable at all so it works out about half and half one group that has reason to be concerned about the warnings of course is the cosmetics industry itself john corbett is a chemist with the cosmetic toiletry isn't fragrance association he has studied toxicity and cosmetics for sixteen years that record that your industry testified today in congress that paradise are safe how do you know what would we said that i actually in congress was that as far as we were able to determine we felt that the evidence suggested that now confidence in the safety of their lives is justified what we have here is a situation where the national cancer institute has just completed out what it calls the screening test to see whether a particular compound needs to be examined for its cost and any potential now we have some doubts about the

interpretation of the results i think the results themselves for unusual and there are a number of questions that have to be asked about this in addition we are of the opinion that the sort of testing that should follow the results of the national cancer institute study are exactly those that we have been doing for the past ten years when it was first recognized the anti ingredients have the potential to go through the skin the industry took it upon itself to evaluate their systemic toxicity that is what happens if the material passes through the skin gets into the body yes i know it's a longer can do otherwise so we carried out experiments which follows the one of the tenets of toxicological experimentation which is to expose animals to the material by the same route as animals as people are exposed to the material so we did this by the application of dice toss to the skin of rats and mice we've actually

now completed three series of such tests that are applied once a week for the shaved skin of the animal left on rather than washed off in order to get some exaggeration but those and then at the end of that line in each of these series of tests we find that they have no effect the other area of research which were relying is that of epidemiology and i think that the best studies that have been done of failed to indicate any connection between exposure to all you saw the headlines in other words people used airbags are a longshot time do not end those studies show any higher incidence of cancer than people who do not we've been particularly concerned with addresses and cosmetology astaire exposed on a day by day basis as a result of their profession they're also doing some pilot studies in which cancer patients helping i asked whether or not they have used that dies in an hourlong and by both approaches no connection between the exposure that advise and the development of

cancer has been found do i understand your criticism of the national cancer institute test correctly that it is that it is not proper to feed these substances to rats but that they should be it should be applied in the way here guys applied to human beings not through the mouth that's not quite as sweeping as the what we feel is that while it is proper for the purpose which the national cancer institute original ipad for this series of testing nine lita screen chemicals to decide which one should be studied further it is not a proper test on which to raise any regulatory action will come to conclusions as as to the risk to humans if the national cancer institute which is in this business finds that the substances can cause cancer in animals however it's administered doesn't that actually show that there is a carcinogen a property in the substance in it it does but this does not necessarily mean that there's any hazard for humans or even the animals if they were exposed by a different route where the metabolism might be different and

incidentally the dose level used at the national cancer institute what was i consider i i've been accused by a number of my fellow scientists in recent months of being dramatic by saying that the dose was equivalent to a woman drinking twenty five bottles of hair dye every day of her life and the explanation i have the light in that statement is that half a percent in the diet this is not understandable and i think we've seen that already this evening because the question went back to dr up and is this a lot or isn't that long i think it is very difficult to extrapolate from these high doses enameled to the low doses that are involved in routine use for dyeing my hair the problem however is that we cannot expose enough animals in the laboratory to accurately

simulate the situation that exists and a lot of millions of women are using heritage and even though the risk could be small there's no way to determine whether we're going to produce one cancer in a million women and one cancer hundred thousand women can't use large enough numbers of animals to answer questions like that or just and that was my major question another way if there is a cancer producing substance is it proper for people to be using that substance in a way that is as you said reading through it the national cancer institute to come out with its results and the industry hadn't done any testing then i would ask myself the same question as you know asking but in view of the fact that the industry has been carrying out a large number of tests over the last few

years in view of the fact that there is already available from epidemiological evidence i don't have any problem with that the dose is used in the end see it has produced effects only at the highest level of fading and not at the low level which was not that much different from the high level and i think there's a serious question as to whether that in itself is significant in terms of thresholds one of the big debates and in the chemical cause mcginnis is is whether in fact there materials which produce cancer at very high dose levels can produce them at very low doses levels here we have a situation where even a two relatively high doses the law those did not produce in effect what we're hired those the words for it i think that they the effects of lower doses were not significant

there were there was evidence of some increase in the incidence of tumors of the skin and rats with tumors of them for dishes in the mice results were not significant again i think were the hamburg year by our inability to use large enough numbers available to really disclose whether or not there were risks that the lower doses the food and drug administration is responsible for keeping and safe cosmetics as well as food and drug products off the market foods and drugs must be proved safe and expensive tests by the makers before they can do so in the case in cosmetics the government has to prove the product isn't safe before it can be banned and in the case of paralyze containing called tarp as a special exemption dating back to nineteen thirty eight they cannot be banned if they carry a warning saying that they're used make our skin irritations which was a preoccupation of nineteen thirty eight last fall the fda proposed that paradise now carry a cancer warning as well the director of the fda's cosmetic technology division is fine simon

with her arm in which tests does the fda i tend to believe the nc i test we heard about which show that they die substances can produce cancer in rats and mice already industry tests which showed up to court it's just referred to it is quite obvious that bp believe in the end see it their test results because we get to propose a year by regulation that he had eyes that carry a warning statement with regard to be a likelihood of foley's products costing cancer in their users are we look at the end z i feeding dinner will get skin penetration begun on the bases off of the results of the eye test says wallace's skin penetration test so a week then that's going to draw a conclusion and they're in this case the food and garden that desperation has drawn a conclusion there namely that at risk

exists in the consumer should be warned off that risk what you require warnings on these products by regulation is that all the fda needs to do is to drop a regulation or is legislation needed are we can now we believe we can now require a warning statement by regulation that we propose such a regulation and that we then received comments and then be finalized regulation in other words we make the regulation affected us that we are in the process of receiving comments right now prince's thousand you sing for divorce unless we will receive unforeseen results which it will hurt couldn't institute and art inspiration otherwise serve the regulations will become effective as it is proposed to go on to the larger area of the fda's responsibility mr armand does your administration believe that cosmetic should be rich hired by law as food products and

drug products are to be tested and proven safe before they are marketed the have former commissioner of the food and drug administration has testified on several occasions to the effect that yes sir cosmetics up on to be tested for safety and that of the information be made available to fool drug administration i have no reason to believe that the current commissioner kennedy will not their concur with this viewpoint in another words to britain is very simply the principle would be the drums go into the body and into the bloodstream food goes into the bloodstream and as it's now indicated cosmetics can filter into the body they should be treated in the same way as up the argument essentially though we are very much concerned about the health effects of the long term use of cosmetics in the body and now in the past of course the major concern was really thought to be a topical not with sustained effect of cosmetics but

now we're concentrating more and more on the internal effects of cosmetics as we have of course been to date in in prior testimony what do you say about dr corbin say evidence that they add that i'm a logical studies so far do not show any higher incidence of cancer in those people who'd been exposed to a lot of hair dyed and they're doing people around the ear emitting a lot to go data have shown just what the results have septa said namely that a yeah cause effect relationship to worship could not be established how where war or the head data have not shown in any form a memo that these products are safe it is rotten said it's the house oversight and investigation subcommittee with his role in the current hearings on this issue and that is mandarin wyden democrat new jersey as a member of that committee guardsman first of all is this another one of those cancers care of the week

episodes or is there room for serious concern in europe and in the jail i think the debate we've heard so far on this program is very much like the debates that we have just about every week in the congress it's a very interesting debate with a lot of scientific points made on both sides but finally those of us who set in the united states congress have to make judgments about policy and we won't necessarily have all the answers and every fine scientific point when we must act a couple of things that i think are important here one you had enough information well i think we do in this case this is a typical case where the best indicators that we have namely that kind of testing that has been done at the national cancer institute shell that the substances that are in the hair guys are among those very few that do cause cancer

now in a situation where we find that that is true i think it's important for us to think ahead to the millions of people twenty or thirty years from now who might be alive for enjoying their work and their families and their lives if we do protect the public from cancer causing chemicals now and not served all tangled up and into many of the arguments which are difficult to resolve what about the basics are you have a car full of people of the news in hand after seventy five years and there has yet to be one proven case of somebody dying butters well what we do know that the epidemiological evidence which is the study of human relations was mentioned we do know the cosmetologist that is those who use the the paradise another cosmetics on a regular basis i do tend to get more cancer we also know that the scout is four times more and sort of in the skin on your forearm and we do know that the dyes penetrate the scout we also know that cancer causing substance is from paradise or any number of other

things do collect in the body in ways which we don't fully understand and indeed in a human body there are many more cells exposed an anorak our mouse and then the danger is in in that sense multiplied so i think we need to be safe need of a place that is a show presented are finally cars and what you want is what you think congress should do bad hair done well with the warning on the watch well i think people first of all up to have the right to know what they're using so i command any proposal that we let them know more precisely what in fact they're exposing themselves to and the reason that's important is the scientists now tell us that a very large percentage of cancers caused by one or another pollutant in the environment but the first thing i think we should at the very first thing is to eliminate what can only be called a special interest exclusion which was written into the law literally other every other cosmetic past to be assessed as to his safety

coal tar here guys are specifically excluded from that the law says provided that coal tar hair dye shall be excluded there is no scientific basis for that it is simply reflection of the muscle that was exerted on congress at a certain point and unfortunately the congress to come as it sometimes does i think we need to get rid of that exclusion so that paradise will be subject to exactly the same assessment as to safety as any other crop of years you recorded for speaking for the industry would you go along with that well first i'd like to refer back to two of the things that the movement was that early on his presentation and he said that there were very few chemicals that do cause cancer know if he's talking about the twenty also known compounds that cause cancer in humans than that's correct but the and eyes that are in question do not fall into that category they fall into the

category of some two thousand car compounds which have been shown to be capable of causing cancer in animals and therefore i don't want the misapprehension to spread the second one is he said that we know that cosmetologist get more cancer know that statement is based on a report which in testimony on monday the representative of the national institute of occupational safety and health said was the best data they could call in a non aryan put out that said quote as i can get it for four days later those results are meaningless if you read the whole reports the nih ownership based that statement on the lead authors of the report describing that they demonstrate any connection between had eyes or even things to which cosmetologist are exposed and the development of cancer by virtue of the very small number of people and that sample we have quoted to epidemiologist it is one involving five thousand addresses the wisdom of the american cancer society

and another in which twelve thousand that dresses when compared with twelve thousand teachers in the state of connecticut which was done at yale university against the study of militias which involved only seventy four addresses as mr allen about that come back to the points on on what congress should do and what about the the studies about cosmetology says the fda or does it do you come down on those particular study of the studies i know some ways contradictory my personal opinion is this that it's too early to work and that meaning for leading a logical study simply because the only searching yes i'm really have passed since he otherwise have pecan become very popular and that's too short the time spent to do meaningful he became a large cost that is unique fifteen twenty years of intensive use of hear that in order to really isolate the population growth that you can spend it that these initials nash the studies are not really at all at ihs

study says they want thing as the other studies say something else and all they didn't know just this really disagree with both are so we really don't know at this back to back to court on the question of what the congressman suggest that a lot of the damage congress should do well first of all is to remove the exemption on cold war paradox you agree with that and christmas this is an actual unexpected request but i like to point out that in spite of the existence of this exemption industry did not sit back and in the nineteen sixties in the nineteen sixties when it became evident that materials penetrated the skin but said it is our responsibility to do the best we can to ascertain the safety of our products so i think we behaved responsibly in spite of an apparent protection bible what we say that it is we have behaved responsibly we believe that we have good data to support opposition and if fbi feels that on the basis of the single test

by the national cancer institute that even before it has been evaluated by dnc an expert panel which won't happen until march six that fema should be banning materials and we still think we need this protection i said i don't find it a wide different the last moment or so this question of the public's perception of a rope or a full results of rotten mentioned a moment ago that after the fda said something about saccharin as you recall the inexorable most people would when they could get a job we have always had the cigarette questioner now we're paradise why is there this public skepticism out when told about things causing cancer doctor up in i think one of the main reasons is that cancer takes a longer though it may take ten twenty thirty years after exposure to cancer causing factor for the cancer friday becomes evident last long induction curator latent period

tends to separate cause and effect well in the real world and in the public mind that it's hard for people to let that far ahead which if there were people don't react like another reason is that the amounts of materials that we're talking about are indeed tiny but that doesn't make them any less deadly once a cell has been triggered an activated to form a tumor and that spreads there is really no way of catching up with her as we know therefore prevention is the best strategy but prevention of course is is tougher to understand what we're talking about good exercise your good eating habits when we got to go we get that tomorrow couch at for transcripts send one dollar to kneel their report on this report by

one and they feel their report was produced by wnet double me today they are solely responsible for its content funding for this program has been provided by the station and other public television stations and bike grants from exelon corporation allied chemical corporation and the corporation for public broadcasting stations you're only mahmoud on