.......interesting things about fitness, strength, diet and performance.
Thank you for posting this. Your timing couldn't be more perfect. I was just telling my wife about some of this info regarding deodorants being a possible cause for breast cancer, today in fact. I'll be sure to pass this on.
The studies and research came out in the early 90's about deodorants...mainly aluminum being very bad and being absorbed right into the glands near the armpits..Everyone was in an uproar...manufacturers took notice...then the fire storm subsided...then it was back to business as usual. No one even talks about anymore today much.Sad and a bit scary how complacent most people really are.Thanks for sharing Chris, the numbers are quite staggering.Marc
If you are afraid of cosmetics, you shouldn't use them. They are not necessary to live a healthy life.However, if you believe in getting the benefits of cosmetics while exposing yourself to minuscule risk to health, then use away.Using cosmetics without these ingredients are not ANY safer than ones with the ingredients. The safest thing to do is to avoid cosmetics.
This is incorrect and deceptive! Even the definition of cosmetics is incorrect. This is clearly a distortion of the facts. The FDA has jurisdiction over all cosmetics and says they are among the safest products consumers can purchase. Health Canada says the same. Cosmetics are safer than roller skates and bicycles. Don't be fooled by misinformation like this. It is designed to frighten, not inform.
What ill-informed nonsense. Most of the claims made here are a mindless repetition of tired old internet myths spread by people who have little or no idea what they are talking about. You can find the truth behind virtually every item of misinformation in this post by going to www.personalcaretruth.com
Sorry but it doesn't take too much common sense that putting a cocktail of chemicals on skin daily could have some adverse effects. This is not "internet myth".. this information was out before the internet by the way.
You don't have to be sorry. Common sense isn't the issue. The operative word in your response is "could". Present proper evidence that it DOES, then you have an argument. It doesn't make the remotest bit of difference whether you put a "cocktail" (what constitutes a cocktail, btw?) or a single substance on your skin - the number of different substances is toxicologically irrelevant - what IS important is the safety of the substances AS APPLIED, and not what is mentioned in the MSDS. Whether or not the information was first published prior to the existance of the internet is also irrelevant - the point I am making is that it is misinformation made more available (and more readily believed) by its viral spreading across the internet. The main point is that it all varies between distorted and just plain wrong. You will be able to find a scientifically-based rebuttal on every aspect of this piece on www.personalcaretruth.com
Dene62http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/jat.1786/asset/jat1786.pdf;jsessionid=D609B7DB3B93B9A51CEF0E57F558EE3D.d04t04?v=1&t=gy99hk1c&s=722f87bb41e8a48a488343df7cad6b18fed6dfb5Studies by Darbe 2004 et al available and easy to access.
And lastly.....Do you put your trust in the FDA???Commercial interest lobbies have hurt their credibility just a "tad".
Darbre's 2004 study is possibly the least credible published "scientific" study of modern times. The credibility of the FDA is not the issue - the science is! Check out an assessment of Darbre's skills: http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/11/parabens-in-perspective-part-ii/
The link to the Wiley online library doesn't appear to work, but let mne suggest that you follow these specific links for better information on one of the claims you've made in your article: http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/03/the-eu-has-banned-over-1000-chemicals-the-fda-has-only-banned-9/And a bit of a reality check for the group behind the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics (the EWG):http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/07/who-is-the-environmental-working-group-ewg/Plus exposes about the CFSC's Skin Deep database@http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/05/skin-deep-scratching-below-the-surface/ http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/03/if-you-take-the-skin-deep-database-seriously-read-this/
And finally (for now) - trust in the FDA is irrelevant if, as you say, they don't even regulate cosmetics! You can't have it both ways!
@Dene62It is not my article. I just posted the infographic that I saw somewhere.Thanks for the links so that people can see your side. How objective are "Personal Care Truth" by the way? They describe themselves as "a group of independent cosmetic business owners who represent the interests of the cosmetics industry". It is like reading a defence of sugar written by sugar producers. They may be correct or might not be, but they certainly have a vested interest in this.
Dene62,The FDA only regulates the artificial colors used in cosmetics.....thanks to the 1983 act from the FD&C ..... The cosmetics lobbyists made a smart commercial move.In any event, after looking more closely at your site I understand why your adamant about your position,I go by a pretty simple mantra in life"would you rather be right, or rather be happy"I always choose happy..Good luck with your business. Looks like you're on top of it! Marc
Post a Comment