Recent research on hair extensions identified dozens of toxic chemicals in more than 90% of samples. Photo by Giorgio Trovato via Unsplash
There’s an unsettling paradox at the heart of reporting on toxic chemicals in consumer products and food in the United States: Scientists and public health advocates increasingly document links between everyday chemical exposures and serious health outcomes, yet, in many cases, those chemicals remain legal and widely used.
As health journalists, we have to grapple not with the science and the social, regulatory, and political realities that allow hazardous chemicals to persist on shelves and in the food supply long after data suggest they might harm people. Covering toxic chemicals is about examining the systems and choices that shape what’s in Americans’ bodies, why scientific knowledge doesn’t always translate into regulation, and who is disproportionately affected by the risks.
Recent research on hair extensions identified dozens of substances flagged on California’s Proposition 65 list – linked to cancer, hormone disruption, reproductive harm and other health concerns—in more than 90 % of samples. Among them were phthalates, styrene, naphthalene and organotin compounds, endocrine-disrupting “forever chemicals” and other toxicants that European regulators have already restricted or banned in consumer products. Salons and consumers may unknowingly expose themselves to these substances because there is no requirement for manufacturers to test hair extension chemicals for safety before they’re sold, and there’s scant labeling or transparency about what the products contain.
Understand the regulatory philosophy
The United States has historically regulated chemicals under a framework that functions more like “innocent until proven guilty” than “prove it’s safe.” Unless there is clear evidence of harm at specific exposure levels, chemicals are generally allowed to remain on the market. That approach is very different from the precautionary principle used in the European Union, where regulators often require manufacturers to demonstrate safety before approval and may restrict or ban substances amid scientific uncertainty. When reporting, make this philosophical divide explicit. It helps audiences understand why thousands of chemicals restricted or banned in Europe remain legal in US cosmetics, food additives and pesticides.
Examine the structure and limits of US law
The cornerstone of US chemical regulation is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), passed in 1976, which was long criticized for not requiring premarket safety testing or meaningful postmarket surveillance. For decades, critics argued it did not require robust premarket testing or give regulators strong authority to demand safety data. Even after reform, concerns remain about limited agency resources, slow risk evaluations, and the high evidentiary bar required to restrict chemicals already in commerce. When covering a specific substance, ask: Was it reviewed under the updated law? Which data were required? Who generated the safety studies?
Follow the data trail
In many cases, chemicals enter commerce with limited independent safety testing. Researchers, academic labs, and nonprofit groups often uncover harmful exposures years later. When new studies raise concerns, regulatory action can take years and may require sustained public pressure, litigation or state-level intervention. As a reporter, map the timeline. When did concerns first surface? What did regulators know, and when? Has industry contested the findings?
Connect science to policy decisions
When peer-reviewed research links a chemical to hormone disruption, cancer, neurodevelopmental harm, or reproductive toxicity, don’t stop at the hazard. Ask why it is still permitted in products marketed to children, pregnant people, or communities already facing disproportionate exposures. Compare US standards with those in other high-income countries. Explain what risk assessment assumptions regulators are using and whether those assumptions reflect current science.
Interrogate exposure disparities
Chemical exposure is rarely evenly distributed. Certain beauty products, hair products, pesticides, and processed foods are marketed more heavily to specific racial, ethnic, or low-income communities. For example, Black women are more likely to use certain beauty products and therefore bear disproportionate risk from unregulated chemicals, as one body of research shows.
Avoid alarmism by emphasizing evidence and context
Narratives about “harmful chemicals” can easily veer into alarmism, so grounding your coverage in rigorous data, context about regulatory standards, and voices from affected communities is essential. When possible, link to open-access research or summarize its methods and limitations in plain language.
Translate findings into real-world implications
Readers want to know what science means for daily life. Spell out the implications for a pregnant person evaluating personal care products, a parent worried about pesticide residues on produce or a policymaker considering reform. Make regulatory terms accessible without oversimplifying them.
Highlight solutions and accountability pathways
Highlight solutions too, such as states enacting their own labeling and restrictions to advocacy for FDA and EPA modernization.. Reporting that includes possible reforms avoids fatalism and shows audiences where change is occurring, or stalled.