Insights from Academia

Background and Incoming Perspective 

To begin our interview I asked Dr. Le Goff to expand upon how her research and background intersect with the Cost of Beauty focus on intergenerational effects and the disproportionate negative impacts experienced by minority groups in reference to harm done by the beauty industry. She began by discussing her collaborative research at UCLA: 

"My previous project was on transgenerational epigenetics, so the health effects that would be transmitted from one generation to the next through epigenetic mechanisms. I did this work in collaboration with the lab of Dr. Patrick Allard, so it's a wet lab involving genetics and they looked at the toxic effects that can be transmitted by epigenetic mechanisms. I was interested in the social network complications of this research. What's really interesting about the research we and other people in this field do is showing, is that even an individual who has not been exposed themselves as an independent organism can be affected by exposures that happen to and their father, their mother, or their grandparents so long as the germ cells have been exposed. Some of these exposures can be carried on and have intergenerational health implications and some could also have no effect, but what's been found is that overall, they do have effects on health and disease."

Next Dr. Le Goff connected these findings and current discussions to our specific focus within the personal care product and beauty industry:

"One other aspect that’s interesting and that I think is relevant to the case of the beauty industry is that it's not just one substance or one chemical that's going to have an effect, but it is the combination. People excuse two different things when separate, but if used at the same time then these products may have a synergistic effect or cocktail effects of which the true impact on health very little known. This is because toxic chemicals are mostly looked at one at a time and the dimension of reproductive effects examined is small. There is probably a majority of women who are having reproductive effects but are not perhaps young women, but instead who have not had children yet or may have children, then that's concerning this whole work about transgenerational aspects as it goes beyond one generation."

Possible Interventions

Next we discussed the possible interventions to help lessen the burden of harmful chemicals, starting with the possibility of governmental intervention and product regulation. 

"So I think it's probably the only way to do that is regulation because the industries are looking for profit, they don't have an economic interest into being very protective of the workers that use or are exposed to these chemicals.  Of course some companies will have an ethical input and try to make products that are less toxic, but if we're talking about the market as a whole, the market is not going to do that. Especially in this case because we're talking poisons, or I shouldn't say that maybe the word applies but we're not talking about something that will have an effect that is visible immediately, we're talking about effects that may impact the next generation if it's reproductive or fertility and perhaps in two generations. So those things they're very hard to prove and there's no incentive for companies who need results in the short term or present to do that so you need an external. You need an institution that will put those rules in place, otherwise no actor is going to do it on their own, even if they are well-intentioned and even less so if they're not well-intentioned." 

"The second aspect of why it's really important and why I think only regulation from the outside can happen is because of this synergistic effect that I mentioned earlier, the fact that it builds up basically, so that maybe there's not an effect or there is one that's really small with one product. That might be OK if it was just this one product, but then in combination with other chemicals that have a toxic effects or other conditions then they will have an effect. You cannot count on just the one actor to follow some rules when actually you need the big picture in order to make sense of it, so I think there's also of course a problem of power dynamics since you the people who are impacted and the workers at the lower level will have much less power than other people in the industry or the companies themselves, so their interests need to be defended by an institution, otherwise it's not just not going to happen."

Following this response I inquired about Dr. Le Goff's use of "institution" and asked what or who do she meant by this label, as well as who she thinks has the power to create change. In response she said: 

"Yes, so you're right institution is a broad category. I was thinking about agencies and the FDA, EPA, but it not just these alone. There is a matter of democracy, to work, to change that through legislation, so lawmakers, voting to elect these lawmakers, and people being unionized, and then having their voice heard at this level. The agencies are supposed to do this work, but they cannot work unless they are given a mandate to do that work."

Issues with Lack of Regulation

To further investigate the impact within cosmetics we began discussing phthalates, an endocrine disrupting chemical included in many cosmetics that are currently not regulated by the FDA because they have been determined to not be in high enough concentrations to cause harm. When asked if she had any background knowledge on these or similar chemicals and if she believed this ruling to be fair or a source of harm, Dr. Le Goff responded: 

"So I think that's a really interesting aspect that also comes up with epigenetics and endocrine disruptors because I mean the big question with the big issue with the endocrine disruptors is that they can be impactful even at low doses. Epigenetics really contributed to demonstrating that when you have low doses that can have an impact depending on the timing more than more than the dose. That's really important when you think about intergenerational and transgenerational aspects because in a germ cell or a fetus the epigenome might be damaged by a low level of the toxic chemical that would not create any damage for an organism that's already built. If we're talking about the germ cells that would still be viable and then fertilized to become a zygote, and then a person, they would still be viable, but they would have had change in their cellular components that could lead to disease." 

"This question of low dose is really a change of paradigm in the way toxicants are being approach that's something that scientists working in this area. This dogma of the dose makes the poison is being upended and so it really requires a different approach." 

"My colleague and I we wrote a paper on how epigenetics was used in risk assessment and how whether it is, or more commonly is not used. It was really interesting to see the complicated process of risk assessment change because it's been the result of an agreement and compromise between many different parties, between government and industry science. It's very different, it evolves on it its own way but there's no direct relation from the science that's being. It’s a complex process of incorporation and that’s what’s been fun in the science about epigenetics is it hasn't been incorporated yet." 

"As far as how that applies to the industry, all the containers and applicators for cosmetics come into play because it's hard plastic bottles." 

Following this I inquired if Dr. Le Goff could reflect on any other historic examples of when public policy influenced social perceptions with a negative impact on minorities:

"There is a long history in bioethics of minorities being used for research but that’s not directly policy. There are also the cases of urban landscape, so in that case it's really a policy that's dividing the urban landscape and creating different environments specifically for different minorities with a strong health impact and also social impact. What people can access and policies on food most impact diseases like diabetes or other related disease. That's mostly people who have a lower income and who are not able to eat or access more nutritional food that is better health wise. It is interesting to see how all those policies that may not be explicitly racist are structurally racist and then they create different possibilities and different environments for depending on what your racial or ethnic identity is."

Practical Issues with Intervention 

Given the severity of possible impact these exposures can have, Dr. Le Goff and I next explored what possible interventional methods to lessen the burden of these chemicals she would recommend:

"I think maybe there's a difference between what should be done and what pragmatically will bring results. I think it's a matter for regulation and so it should definitely be regulated by agencies, but not solely that because the power that agencies have in the US is highly dependent on politics. It's very uncertain so maybe the publicizing of those issues in a way that forces companies to be more responsible can have it bring some results with the caveat that as you said, there is a minority bias, so the people who might suffer most might be the ones who are the less able to gather support. I think maybe it's interesting you know because there's so much emphasis on organic for food and for beauty products or personal care products but that's very limited to well off people in the population. Those people are not those who are affected by dangerous beauty products either, for their own use or because maybe they go to the nail salon but they’re not exposed in the same way as workers. It would those people who have a lot of social capital that could make change so you would need them to care more."

"There's a big difficulty in the US to the way it works for the regulation of toxic chemicals. As long as it's not proven that it's toxic it's presumed to be non-toxic. In Europe it's the opposite in that they have industry that has to prove that it's non-toxic in order to be released. It’s not quite as beneficial or perfect as it sounds though, in the sense that the industry standards are lower than what they should be, so it's not like it's going to protect the people entirely, but it's a totally different approach compared to here [the United States]. Here the threshold is really high, like if FDA is to prove that this substance is harmful in order to forbid it, then they don't have the resources to do that so it's a really hard in order to change the status of what's expected for products." 

"I think awareness is definitely helpful. If people could tap into the same resources as organic, as the social movement that exists or that they could come together then that would make a difference. It makes me think about feminism, the second wave of feminism. The criticism that was made of feminism that occurred as it developed in the 70s was that it was a white wealthy women movement and minority black women didn't have the same issues. They have some of these issues, but they had additional issues or different issues and in a way of expressing, that was the concept of intersectionality. It's a little bit the same thing, there are a lot of wealthy white people who try to charge food better or health condition better but they're not necessarily helping people who are have intersectional issues, so we would have to have an alliance between both. It is not in a way it's self-evident like you should they should they definitely be fighting for the same thing but in another way socially the movements they belong to are very different."

Exploring the Importance of Informed and Ethical Research

To conclude our interview we reflected on concerns brought up by other scholars. In an opinion piece by Michelle Murphy, the queer environmental justice scholar says it is better sometimes not to discuss or study these topics because it only serves to further other vulnerable populations. Considering this is a consideration frequently discussed in genetic testing, an area of focus for Dr. Le Goff, I asked to express her thoughts on this idea:

"I think it all boils down to how research is done. If you come in as a researcher, you study people in their environment from the outside. If you're just using them to produce knowledge, but it doesn't help the people, then it might hurt them. For example, if you come and show that they have been exposed to toxicants so they're unhealthy, or that they have an intergenerational issue, then that might be harming them in some way. By just bringing this to light about them but not helping them finding ways of acting on it you can be harming them. If you do research in a community engaged way that's different because then you might define the question around what the community is comfortable with and in a way that can aid them how they need it." 

"For example, in the case of Murphy's work and the native people in Canada that have been highly exposed to industrial toxicants, we're going to follow up and listen to what is important to them to know or important to be studied. Maybe there's a risk for reproduction or a risk for the children like that should they not be breastfeeding their kids or this kind of things and they probably want to know, then you're working with them and you're producing knowledge about the way it impacts their health, but you're not just using them as subjects, you're really working with them. Their involvement and inclusion can give them weapons or arms to try to get something changed to lobby for themselves at the level of their local government or national government. This is something that most researchers don't know how to do because we're not trained for that. We're trained to take a step back and do critical thinking. Involving the communities seems very hard to do and it also takes a lot of time which is not necessarily well acknowledged in academia. In academia the focus is not on this because you need to produce papers in order to be promoted, so there's also a matter of influence at the level of institutions. Universities encourage journal publications and value this kind of work that can be recognized rather than really helps, so I think it's not a matter of whether or not to do research but how to do research and how you can help people who have very real question. It may not really be a question of life or death but it's a question of life."