The use of natural ingredients in cosmetics has the potential for a negative impact on the environment, and there is no difference in the potential for negative interactions between natural and synthetic substances.

The workers who are employed in the manufacture of synthetic chemicals have never been more protected against exposure that they are in modern times, in the most developed countries.

If you have such concerns about human and environmental safety, the best option for you is to stop using ANY cosmetics, beyond those required for basic cleansing – they are not necessary. The risks posed by cosmetics to human health and the environment are miniscule compared with many other industries and it seems to me that there is a totally disproportionate level of concern. Very few synthetic chemicals are produced from trees (and they would be considered to be better than synthetics produced from oil by most people), so forest devastation is not an issue connected with chemical manufacture to any significant degree.

This discussion is conerned with the cosmetics industry and, in global terms, the volumes of chemicals, natural or synthetic, used in this industry comprise a tiny percentage of the overall chemical production – I would estimate it to be far less than 1%. There are far more important and relevant concerns in terms of environmental and human health than the ingredients used in cosmetics.

And as I said before, there is of course the manufacturing and forest devastation to take into account, when one produce man made chemicals, which I think make some footprints on earth. And how about the production process? How do the workers react on the emission from those processes?I don’t think that it’s only about how toxic a chemical is. It’s about how the chemical behave in nature/our bodies when it’s mixed up with other chemicals.Regards Carina

To clarify the point I was making - I was saying that there IS a safe level of exposure for EVERY substance. In some cases, it may be extremely low, but there IS a safe level – hence my example of formaldehyde.

Smoking itself is not a carcinogen, but the process of burning tobacco releases carcinogens – this is a high exposure, and massively greater than any perceived exposure to carcinogens in cosmetics.

Your application of the Precautionary Principle exclusively to synthetic chemicals is misguided as there is no scientific reason to distinguish between natural and synthetic chemicals on a toxicological basis. The mere fact that a natural chemical has existed on the planet does not make it any more (or less) safe (in general terms) than any synthetic chemical. This is far too simplistic an approach. The origin of any particular chemical has no bearing whatsoever on its toxicity.

In theory, the Precautionary Principle sounds great, but it doesn’t mean that we should avoid everything that has any remote risk involved – and, unfortunately, that is mostly how it is interpreted. That is nonsense, as it is both impractical and unneccesary. Advocates of the PP are rarely consistant in their interpretation. To be consistant, alcohol (a known carcinogen) would have to be banned, and I don’t see those who rail against cosmetics being advocates of prohibition. It is used as a tool to scaremonger by convenience, but without any real science or logic.

The report you referenced is a good example of the EU at government level doing exactly that.  My point was simply that so far cross reactions have not been shown to be a problem.  It is a good idea to look out for them and take actions in the light of what is found, if anything.  In the meantime there are real environmental problems that certainly do require our attention.

I haven’t heard of that book you reference but it sounds interesting so I’ll have a look at it.

Why take a chance when we don’t need it, in regards to Tim Jacksons Prosperity without growth.

Regards Carina

I saw that report when it came out.  The risk of chemicals combining in unexpected ways in the environment has been talked about for a very long time.  Rachel Carson mentions it in Silent Spring as a possibility.  As the report makes clear, it is something that needs to be considered.  On the other hand, I don’t think there is any evidence that it is a big problem.  The only examples I can think of are photochemical smogs in places with the right geography like Los Angeles, and the antagonistic effect of particulates and sulphur dioxide in the London smogs of the Fifties.  In both cases it is a combination of a chemical and a physical agent, so probably not what Rachel and other environmental campaigners were thinking of.  

If you read the report they point the direction of enquiry towards things like endocrine disruption where effects can be achieved with very small doses.  This recognises that industrial pollution has been around for a long time and so far there has not been any wide scale problems of man made chemicals in the environment reacting with each other to make more potent molecules, or potentiating the harmful effects.

I think Bjorn Lomborg has written about this specific issue, if you can read Danish.  I can’t so I can’t give you any references.

Regards Carina from Sweden

By your logic, the articles that I have contributed suggest that I am the funding behind this site. If you enjoy “following the money”, you would have much more fun tracking the machinations behind the EWG (or did THEY pay you to make your comments!). Right back at ya! Not nice is it!