Maybe because hundreds of millions are spent to lobby for it:

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=H04&yea...

I 100% agree that the regulatory process in the U.S. is insufficient and deeply flawed but this article is quite the piece of fearmongering. It's not enough to say, "in this one specific case this substance can be harmful, therefore it must be banned." You have to evaluate the conditions under which it is harmful and whether those conditions are like to occur in consumer use.

A lump of coal is a fairly harmless substance. Put it in your garden, on a shelf, sleep with it under your pillow. You'll probably never know a difference. Grind it up and breathe it every day for 10 years and you'll shorten your life by 5-15 years. Burn it and inhale it and you'll shorten it by 30.

This article doesn't concern itself however with how a substance is used. It's merely enough for something to have been harmful for it to be dangerous. Worse yet, there's no evaluation of the quality of the science indicating potential harm. They vaguely hint that a food dye is dangerous because one 2007 study showed it might increase hyperactivity in children? Give me a break. If that's our standard, that one study ever showed a possibility of potential harm we'll have to ban everything.

Again, I totally agree with the sentiment. The FDA should have its funding increased by 10 fold. They should be given the power to regulate supplements. They should be one of the most powerful and effective government agencies. But the standards of evidence are tremendously important. There's no reason to go full California and start serving coffee with a cancer warning.

>dioxins, used as an ingredient in Agent Orange, which the US sprayed during the Vietnam war.

Dioxins were not used as an ingredient. Small quantities of dioxins were unintentionally formed as side-products during synthesis.

This applies to so many other things: cosmetics, food, drugs, guns, etc. And now they’re lobbying to influence other countries too (UK, Brazil, etc). Incredible amount of greed and lack of ethics.

Everyday, women are smearing formaldehyde on their body...story time.

I bought a new construction house a few years back and have been paranoid about formaldehyde. Prior to moving into it, I bought a formaldehyde detector. I had it on at my old house just for kicks. Once in a while, it would reach high values and flash red with a death symbol (no joke). We realized it flashed red whenever my wife was putting on cosmetics.

It contains an ingredient called DMDM hydantoin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMDM_hydantoin) which is basically a slow release formaldehyde, which prevents bacteria growth on the cosmetics.

You can argue it's minute amount...maybe. But certainly enough for a detector to detect it after dispersion from across the room. Shampoo has it too. I've since checked for this ingredient prior to buying anything, and probably substituting for another bad chemical.

And is there a corresponding increased rate of cosmetics-related illnesses in the US compared to Europe?

TL;DR because Europe basically uses a whitelist model and the US basically uses a blacklist model.

My wife is an aesthetician. She's had to put considerable effort into learning which off the shelf cosmetics are harmful to the point of uselessness.

^^ A few years back when in the US for a short while: "Uh, Mountain Dew, we don't have that." Turning the label, "oh, makes sense"... :P Sometimes one wonders if consumers can't read, or don't want to.

Does the EU have a general policy of banning any substance determined to cause problems when taken internally from external use automatically? Lots of the things mentioned in the article make it seem like that might be the case. Formaldehyde in hair straighteners for instance... yes, formaldehyde is a carcinogen.... if you swallow it. If it touches your skin momentarily? Not aware of anything claiming that's dangerous. Same thing with the parabens... they cause problems when taken internally, but used externally there shouldn't be any problem.

It's amazing that all US critical posts are being downvote-bombed...

Also the claim that the US is not lax in its regulation is a bad joke. Half of the parties available literally made de-regulation their damn group mantra...

The answer is always very simple: in the US, money is king.

I'm not going to deny that there are advantages to that, but how truly important those advantages are in the long run is up for debate.

"Europe bans the use of chemicals allowed everywhere else"

There are chemicals banned in US only, like saccharine, I guess.

[flagged]

The Instagram influencers who push these products should be held accountable.

In the US... products can list an ingredient as "Fragrance" at which point, it becomes a Trade Secret which is far less regulated... they could put arsenic in fragrance if they wanted. The US handling of Chemical regulations is a joke.

The very same goes for food: US regulations are extremely lax when compared to other wealthy countries.

>A long list of potentially harmful ingredients banned in the EU are legally allowed in the US due to historically relaxed regulations

Maybe European regulations are overly strict?

US regulations aren't lax.