Evaluating Neighborhood-Level Differences in Hair Product Safety by Environmental Working Group Ratings among Retailers in Boston, Massachusetts.
Journal
Environmental health perspectives
ISSN: 1552-9924
Titre abrégé: Environ Health Perspect
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0330411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2023
09 2023
Historique:
medline:
14
9
2023
pubmed:
13
9
2023
entrez:
13
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Personal care products are a notable source of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Racial/ethnic differences in the use of hair products containing EDCs are reported, with women and children of color more commonly using hair products that are hormonally active and contain EDCs than other racial/ethnic groups. There is limited research examining the neighborhood-level social and economic factors that may contribute to these reported disparities. We aimed to examine the safety of hair products across sociodemographically diverse neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts. Eight neighborhoods were identified based on indicators of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES). We randomly selected 50 stores and collected data on the hair products for sale and their corresponding Environmental Working Group (EWG) Skin Deep hazard score. The association between neighborhood and EWG hazard category (low, moderate, high) was examined using a multinomial logistic regression. A total of 14,019 hair products were identified in the eight neighborhoods. When considering products with EWG hazard scores, Roxbury, a lower income community of color, and Mission Hill, a lower income community, were reported to have a higher percentage of high-hazard hair products in comparison with Beacon Hill [12.2% (163/1,332), 11.4% (65/571) vs. 7.9% (30/382), respectively]. Differences between the safety of hair products were observed, with Roxbury and Mission Hill reporting more than a 2-fold higher risk ratio (RR) of finding hair products with high vs. low EWG scores in comparison with that of Beacon Hill [RR for Roxbury: 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1, 4.6; RR for Mission Hill: 2.3, 95% CI: 1.0, 5.4]. Other neighborhoods were also observed to have an increased RR in comparison with Beacon Hill, however, with 95% CIs that extended beyond the null. Retail stores in neighborhoods with a higher percentage of residents of color and lower SES were found to be more likely to sell products with high hazard scores than stores in a higher SES and predominately non-Hispanic White neighborhood. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10653.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Personal care products are a notable source of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Racial/ethnic differences in the use of hair products containing EDCs are reported, with women and children of color more commonly using hair products that are hormonally active and contain EDCs than other racial/ethnic groups. There is limited research examining the neighborhood-level social and economic factors that may contribute to these reported disparities.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to examine the safety of hair products across sociodemographically diverse neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts.
METHODS
Eight neighborhoods were identified based on indicators of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES). We randomly selected 50 stores and collected data on the hair products for sale and their corresponding Environmental Working Group (EWG) Skin Deep hazard score. The association between neighborhood and EWG hazard category (low, moderate, high) was examined using a multinomial logistic regression.
RESULTS
A total of 14,019 hair products were identified in the eight neighborhoods. When considering products with EWG hazard scores, Roxbury, a lower income community of color, and Mission Hill, a lower income community, were reported to have a higher percentage of high-hazard hair products in comparison with Beacon Hill [12.2% (163/1,332), 11.4% (65/571) vs. 7.9% (30/382), respectively]. Differences between the safety of hair products were observed, with Roxbury and Mission Hill reporting more than a 2-fold higher risk ratio (RR) of finding hair products with high vs. low EWG scores in comparison with that of Beacon Hill [RR for Roxbury: 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1, 4.6; RR for Mission Hill: 2.3, 95% CI: 1.0, 5.4]. Other neighborhoods were also observed to have an increased RR in comparison with Beacon Hill, however, with 95% CIs that extended beyond the null.
DISCUSSION
Retail stores in neighborhoods with a higher percentage of residents of color and lower SES were found to be more likely to sell products with high hazard scores than stores in a higher SES and predominately non-Hispanic White neighborhood. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10653.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37702490
doi: 10.1289/EHP10653
pmc: PMC10498863
doi:
Substances chimiques
Endocrine Disruptors
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
97002Subventions
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : P30 ES000002
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIOSH CDC HHS
ID : T42 OH008416
Pays : United States
Références
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002 Jan;156(1):85-6
pubmed: 11772198
Int J Cosmet Sci. 2022 Aug;44(4):403-413
pubmed: 35396729
Curr Environ Health Rep. 2021 Jun;8(2):98-112
pubmed: 34046860
Environ Int. 2019 Jun;127:473-486
pubmed: 30981018
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2020 Jan;30(1):97-106
pubmed: 31548624
Environ Health Perspect. 2010 May;118(5):679-85
pubmed: 20056562
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 10;17(24):
pubmed: 33322020
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2017 Mar;27(2):160-166
pubmed: 26860587
Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2016 Jun;3(2):161-180
pubmed: 28497013
Environ Health. 2014 Feb 05;13(1):6
pubmed: 24499162
Environ Health Perspect. 2015 May;123(5):A120-7
pubmed: 25933009
J Immigr Minor Health. 2012 Jun;14(3):506-11
pubmed: 21626298
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Jan 06;13(1):
pubmed: 26751460
Am J Epidemiol. 2022 Nov 19;191(12):1981-1989
pubmed: 35916384
Environ Int. 2018 Dec;121(Pt 1):990-1002
pubmed: 30316544
Sci Total Environ. 2019 Dec 10;695:133855
pubmed: 31421341
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2020 Jan;30(1):86-96
pubmed: 31641276
Am J Prev Med. 2004 Oct;27(3):211-7
pubmed: 15450633
J Appl Microbiol. 2015 Nov;119(5):1245-52
pubmed: 26274937
Environ Int. 2016 Nov;96:118-126
pubmed: 27649471
Curr Environ Health Rep. 2017 Mar;4(1):61-67
pubmed: 28101730
Ann Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;21(6):461-5
pubmed: 21421329
Dermatol Pract Concept. 2020 Oct 26;10(4):e2020089
pubmed: 33150030
Mil Med. 1997 Apr;162(4):252-6
pubmed: 9110549
Environ Health Perspect. 2017 Aug 18;125(8):087012
pubmed: 28886595
Carcinogenesis. 2017 Sep 1;38(9):883-892
pubmed: 28605409
Environ Res. 2012 May;115:11-7
pubmed: 22472009
Med Hypotheses. 2007;68(4):756-66
pubmed: 17127015
Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Jul;120(7):935-43
pubmed: 22398195
Am J Public Health. 2006 Feb;96(2):325-31
pubmed: 16380567
Sci Total Environ. 2019 Jan 15;648:135-143
pubmed: 30114584
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2021 May;31(3):487-502
pubmed: 33958707
Environ Sci Technol. 2013 Dec 17;47(24):14442-9
pubmed: 24261694
Environ Health Perspect. 2018 Feb 21;126(2):027011
pubmed: 29467107
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Oct;217(4):418.e1-418.e6
pubmed: 28822238
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007 Nov;18(4 Suppl):10-38
pubmed: 18065850
Environ Res. 2018 Aug;165:448-458
pubmed: 29705122
Environ Res. 2021 Jul;198:111212
pubmed: 33957140
Dermatol Ther. 2014 Nov-Dec;27(6):317-22
pubmed: 25052592
Food Chem Toxicol. 2010 Nov;48(11):3109-19
pubmed: 20696198
Occup Environ Med. 2005 Nov;62(11):806-18
pubmed: 16234408
Environ Int. 2019 Nov;132:105099
pubmed: 31430608
J Urban Health. 2013 Aug;90(4):632-52
pubmed: 22777683
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1998 Dec;37(12):733-9
pubmed: 9864648
Environ Int. 2020 Apr;137:105496
pubmed: 32113086