The Chamber of Horrors: When Cosmetics Really Were Dangerous
In 1933, a shocking exhibit toured America, displaying products that had blinded women, caused permanent hair loss, and even killed unsuspecting consumers. The "American Chamber of Horrors," as it came to be known, featured genuinely toxic cosmetic products, that contrast sharply with how remarkably safe modern products actually are.
Yet somehow, in our era cosmetic safety and regulation, we've developed an irrational fear of "chemicals" and "toxins" in beauty products. The irony is striking: we've never been safer from cosmetic harm, yet we've never been more frightened of our makeup bags.
Let's explore how the real horrors of unregulated cosmetics led to the robust safety framework we have today - and why most modern "clean beauty" fears fundamentally misunderstand how cosmetic regulation actually works.
How Did this Happen?
Before we dive into the dangers of 1930s cosmetics, we need to understand the regulatory landscape that allowed these tragedies to occur. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, whilst groundbreaking for its time, had significant limitations. It required truthful labelling and basic purity standards, but it didn't cover cosmetics, had a high burden of proof for false claims (requiring evidence of intent to defraud), and gave regulators limited authority to remove dangerous products from the market.
By the 1930s, these legal loopholes had created a perfect storm! Americans were bombarded with unregulated cosmetics and medicinal products promising miraculous results, many of which delivered horrific consequences instead.
The Horrors Begin: When Beauty Products Actually Killed
Inspector George Larrick and the "American Chamber of Horrors" Exhibit
The products featured in the Chamber of Horrors weren't just fraudulent - they were genuinely dangerous. Here are some of the most shocking examples:
Lash Lure: The Mascara That Blinded
Perhaps the most horrifying product in the exhibit was Lash Lure, an aniline-based eyelash and eyebrow dye that promised to darken lashes permanently. The reality was far more sinister. The toxic aniline caused serious infections, corneal ulcers, and in multiple documented cases, permanent blindness.
One victim, a young woman, suffered such severe chemical burns to her eyes that she eventually went completely blind. When First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was shown photographs of Lash Lure victims during her visit to the exhibit, Time magazine reported her saying: "I cannot bear to look at them."
Even worse, the FDA was powerless to remove Lash Lure from the market under existing law, despite knowing about its dangers.
Koremlu: The Hair Remover That Caused Permanent Baldness
Another featured product was Koremlu, a hair removal treatment that promised smooth, hair-free skin. Instead, it caused severe chemical burns and permanent hair loss - not just where it was applied, but often across the entire scalp. Women who used Koremlu found themselves permanently disfigured, with bald patches and scarred skin.
The product's creator, Cora Lublin, was eventually sued for $2.5 million by victims and closed her beauty salon in 1932. However, the lack of federal regulation meant that similar products could simply be reformulated and remarketed by other companies.
Peralga: The “Slimming” Cure with a Fatal Catch
Peralga was sold as a weight-loss aid but, like many remedies of the era, it hid a risky mix of amidopyrine and barbiturates. In some users - disproportionately women - this cocktail triggered agranulocytosis, a sudden collapse in white blood cells that left them defenceless against infection and, in too many cases, proved fatal.
Radithor: The Radioactive Beauty Treatment
Though not exclusively a cosmetic, Radithor represented the era's dangerous embrace of untested "scientific" ingredients. This radium-based tonic was marketed as a cure-all that would restore vitality and youth. The reality was slow, agonising death from radiation poisoning. We delved deeper into the history of radiation in cosmetic medicine and beauty here.
The most famous victim was Eben Byers, a prominent businessman and athlete, whose jaw literally disintegrated from radium exposure. When he died in 1932, a Wall Street Journal reporter wrote: "The radium water worked fine until his jaw came off."
Ruth de Forest Lamb: The Woman Who Changed Everything
The person responsible for transforming these tragedies into regulatory change was Ruth deForest Lamb, the FDA's first Chief Educational Officer. Born in 1896 and a graduate of Vassar College, Lamb had worked as one of the first women in advertising before joining the FDA in 1933.
Lamb understood the power of public relations and visual storytelling. Working with Chief Inspector George Larrick, she assembled approximately 100 dangerous products that the FDA lacked authority to regulate into a traveling exhibit designed to shock the public into demanding change. This was what would become the infamous “Chamber of Horrors.”
The exhibit included death certificates of diabetics who had died using fake diabetes "cures" instead of insulin, photographs of women blinded by cosmetics, and examples of the deceptive packaging that misled consumers about product contents and quantities.
The Chamber of Horrors Goes Public
"Chamber of horrors." Washington, D.C. By Harris & Ewing, photographer - Library of Congress Catalog
The exhibit made its debut at the 1933 Chicago World's Fair, where it was designed to look deliberately stark and clinical. By today's standards, it resembled "a middle-school student's science project," with foldable panels featuring tacked-on pictures and posters. But its message was undeniable.
The exhibit's impact was amplified when Eleanor Roosevelt toured it with reporters. One journalist dubbed it the "American Chamber of Horrors," and the name stuck. Roosevelt's endorsement gave the exhibit credibility and brought national attention to the regulatory gaps it highlighted.
Paramount Pictures even produced a 2½-minute newsreel about the exhibit, helping spread awareness of cosmetic dangers to cinema audiences across America.
From Exhibit to Legislation
Lamb didn't stop with the exhibit. Taking a leave of absence from the FDA, she wrote "American Chamber of Horrors: The Truth About Food and Drugs" in 1936, adapting the exhibit into book form whilst making clear she was writing as a private citizen rather than an FDA official.
The book was strategically dedicated to women's organisations fighting for regulatory change, recognising that women - as the primary consumers of cosmetics - had both the most to gain from regulation and the political influence to demand it. Lamb specifically targeted Congressional wives and organised women's groups, understanding that they could pressure lawmakers more effectively than government officials alone.
Her strategy worked. The combined impact of the exhibit, book, and targeted advocacy helped build the public pressure necessary to pass the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.
The 1938 Act: A Regulatory Revolution
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was a watershed moment for consumer protection. For the first time, cosmetics were regulated at the federal level. The Act:
Required cosmetics to be safe for their intended use
Banned products that were inherently dangerous
Eliminated the need to prove intent to defraud for misbranding cases
Gave the FDA authority to establish food safety standards
Required pre-market safety testing for new drugs
Regulated medical devices
Under this new framework, products like Lash Lure were immediately removed from the market. The Act wasn't perfect - it didn't require pre-market approval for cosmetics or mandate ingredient disclosure - but it provided the foundation for modern cosmetic safety.
Modern Cosmetic Regulation: What "Clean Beauty" Gets Wrong
Today's cosmetic industry operates under a regulatory framework that has been continuously strengthened since 1938. Yet the "clean beauty" movement often portrays cosmetics as unregulated and dangerous. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern cosmetic safety actually works.
What "Chemical-Free" Actually Means
The "clean beauty" movement's fear of "chemicals" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry itself. Water is a chemical (H2O). So is vitamin C (ascorbic acid). The dose makes the poison, not the name.
Many "natural" ingredients are far more likely to cause allergic reactions than synthetic ones. Poison ivy is natural. So is arsenic. Meanwhile, synthetic ingredients can be designed to be safer, more stable, and more effective than their natural counterparts.
The Irony of Modern Beauty Fears
Ruth de Forest Lamb and the victims of 1930s cosmetics would likely be baffled by today's beauty anxieties. They fought for regulation because cosmetics were genuinely dangerous - causing blindness, permanent disfigurement, and death. Today's consumers fear products that have been tested more thoroughly than cosmetics in human history.
The modern beauty industry isn't perfect. There are legitimate concerns about sustainability, animal testing, and whether certain ingredients are necessary. But the idea that mainstream cosmetics are "toxic" or "dangerous" ignores the robust regulatory framework built on the genuine tragedies of the past.
The True Legacy of the Chamber of Horrors
The Chamber of Horrors exhibit succeeded beyond Ruth de Forest Lamb’s wildest dreams. Not only did it help establish federal cosmetic regulation, but it created a system so effective that we’ve forgotten why it was necessary in the first place.
Today’s cosmetics are safer than ever. We have mandatory safety testing, regulated ingredients, monitored manufacturing processes, and post-market surveillance. The “horrors” that justified federal regulation have been largely eliminated.
Yet there’s a modern twist: while cosmetics are regulated, the wider wellness space is not. Dietary supplements, for example, don’t require FDA pre-market approval under DSHEA; manufacturers are largely responsible for ensuring safety and truthful labelling, and products can reach shelves before any independent review. In other words, much of wellness looks uncomfortably like the 1930s landscape—bold claims first, meaningful oversight later (if at all).
Perhaps the greatest testament to the success of cosmetic regulation is that we now worry about trace, non-hazardous amounts of naturally occurring elements rather than products that actually blind or kill consumers. The next time someone warns you about “chemicals” in your lipstick, remember the women permanently blinded by Lash Lure—and consider, too, that the least scrutinised products today often aren’t cosmetics at all.
Ruth de Forest Lamb fought to give us safe cosmetics. We should honour that legacy by understanding just how safe they’ve become—and by directing our vigilance where regulation is still lagging.
See our summary slides below:
References
Lamb, R. deForest. (1936). American Chamber of Horrors: The Truth About Food and Drugs. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2018). 80 Years of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history-exhibits/80-years-federal-food-drug-and-cosmetic-act
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016). Lead in Cosmetic Lip Products and Externally Applied Cosmetics: Recommended Maximum Level. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/limiting-lead-lipstick-and-other-cosmetics
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The American Chamber of Horrors. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/histories-product-regulation/american-chamber-horrors
Wilcoxson, S. (2024). Ruth deForest Lamb and the FDA's Chamber of Horrors. Retrieved from https://samanthawilcoxson.blogspot.com/2024/03/ruth-deforest-lamb-and-fdas-chamber-of.html
In 1933, a shocking exhibit toured America, displaying products that had blinded women, caused permanent hair loss, and even killed unsuspecting consumers. The "American Chamber of Horrors," as it came to be known, featured genuinely toxic cosmetic products, that contrast sharply with how remarkably safe modern products actually are.
Yet somehow, in our era cosmetic safety and regulation, we've developed an irrational fear of "chemicals" and "toxins" in beauty products. The irony is striking: we've never been safer from cosmetic harm, yet we've never been more frightened of our makeup bags.
Let's explore how the real horrors of unregulated cosmetics led to the robust safety framework we have today - and why most modern "clean beauty" fears fundamentally misunderstand how cosmetic regulation actually works.