• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About Experts
    • Amanda Foxon-Hill
    • Cindy Jones
    • Colin Sanders
    • Dene Godfrey
    • Doug Schoon
    • Katherine Corkill
    • Paula Begoun
    • Perry Romanowski
    • Robert Tisserand
  • About Us
    • About Kristin
    • About Lisa
    • Mission Statement
  • Contact
    • Submit Article
    • Submit Feedback
  • Press
  • Advertising
  • Resources
    • California Resources
    • Canada Resources
    • EPA Resources
    • European Union Resources
    • FDA Resources
    • Natural and Organic Resources
    • Other Resources
    • US Department of Health Resources
    • We Like
  • Support Us
  • Forum
    • Member Messaging

Personal Care Truth or Scare

cosmetic safety information based on scientific research

  • Ask the Experts
  • Information
  • Ingredients
  • Legislation
  • Personal Care News
  • Regulations
  • Science
You are here: Home / Archives for Information

Information

Cosmetic Terms

September 26, 2013 By Cindy Jones Leave a Comment

by Cindy Jones, Ph. D.

 

spa arrangementIn my 10 years or so of working in cosmetic science I’ve learned a great deal. Having a foundation in biochemistry has been helpful since much of cosmetic science has to do with protein and lipids as well as biochemistry of skin. For those who are new, let me share a few definitions to help you get started.

Moisturizer – A substance or product that adds or restores moisture to the skin. Keep in mind that moisture refers to water so oils alone do not moisturize.

Humectant – A substance that binds to water to help retain moisture. This is important for the product itself to keep from drying out, but also to help keep the skin moistened. The best example is glycerin but humectants also include propylene glycol and sorbitol.

Emollient – A substance that softens and sooths the skin making it more supple. Typically this is an oil. It is thought to fill the crevices between the cells in the stratum corneum or outer layer of the skin to improve appearance.

Lubricant – A substance that reduces friction and often forms a film on the skin. This is important for feel when applying a product to the skin.

Barrier – Something that bars passage. Healthy skin is a barrier in that it bars passage of substances into and out of the body protecting it from the outer environment and holding moisture in. Lotions and creams help support this barrier function of the skin. Damaged skin is less of a barrier making it more prone to infection.

Occlusive – Impenetrable; a film spread on the skin to prevent moisture loss. Petroleum oil is one of the best occlusive agents but vegetable oils also work.

Emulsifier – Binds together substances that could otherwise not be mixed such as oil and water. Emulsifiers are used in any cream or lotion to help hold the oil and water phases together.

Surfactant – Reduces the surface tension of a liquid such as water. I first learned this word referring to a phospholipid that occurs in the lungs. Its function there is to reduce surface tension and help keep the lungs open for air to be there. In cosmetics it means the same thing but examples include detergents, foaming agents, emulsifiers and dispersants.

Antioxidant – A chemical that inhibits oxidation reactions or free radical damage to other molecules. Common antioxidants are vitamin A, C, and E and polyphenols. Antioxidants in skin care products are important both to protect the product itself as well as  to diminish the signs of aging.

Preservative – A compount that inhibits the growth of bacteria and fungus or kills bacteria and fungus. Preservatives are important to protect the product itself as well as to protect the consumer from getting an infection that could be serious. It is absolutely necessary to to make sure products containing water or water based ingredients are properly preserved.

Exfoliant – Something that removes the outer, dead layer of skin cells, the stratum corneum. This can be done physically with an abrasive substance such as salt or ground seeds or chemically such as salicylic acid or alpha hydroxy acid.

Fixed Oils – Non volatile oils which are lipids or fats. They are sometimes used as a carrier for essential oils. These include olive oil, almond oil, etc.

Stratum Corneum – The outermost layer of the epidermis of the skin. It provides the skin with its barrier function.

Cosmeceutical – A combination of the words Cosmetic and Pharmaceutical. It refers to a cosmetic ingredient that has a pharmacetical action on the skin. The term is not recognized by the FDA and a cosmetic that makes a pharmaceutical claim is no longer considered a cosmetic but rather an over the counter drug.

To read more about Sagescript Institute (http://www.sagescript.com) you can see this article in the Examiner or this article in the Examiner.

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: Cindy Jones Ph.D., cosmetic ingredients, cosmetic terms, Personal Care Truth, safe cosmetics

Functional Fragrance

August 16, 2013 By roberttisserand Leave a Comment

by Robert Tisserand

Question: Antioxidant, anti-acne, antiaging, antimutagenic, anti-inflammatory – what do these properties have in common in regard to the skin?

Answer: All of them require transdermal absorption, because they are effects that take place either within the epidermis or dermis. Essential oils such as lavender, coriander and rose demonstrate some of these effects, and there is good research underpinning such claims. Since many essential oil constituents are transdermally absorbed, the concept of cosmeceutical effects is scientifically sound. And, since essential oils also provide benefit through fragrance, a “functional fragrance” adds significant benefit, especially when combined with other types of active ingredient.

To find out more about essential oils in skin care, join me in New York City on August 24/25!

 

 

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: anti-inflammatory, coriander, dermis, lavender, new york city, Personal Care Truth, photoaging, phototoxicity, robert tisserand, rose, safe cosmetics, skin, skin care, transdermal

Three Scientific Studies Agree – UV Nail Lamps Are Safe!

July 29, 2013 By Doug Schoon Leave a Comment

Manicure - Beautiful manicured woman's nails with violet nail poDoug Schoon, M.S. Chemistry
President, Schoon Scientific
Dana Point, CA, USA

 

Three scientific studies have been performed by different laboratories, all reaching the similar conclusions – UV nail lamps are safe as used in nail salons!

Study 1 was performed by an independent laboratory, Lighting Sciences[1] (July, 2010). This study measured the UV output of two widely sold fluorescent-tube style UV nail units (“UV nail lamps”). These results were presented in a paper that I co-authored [2] which  concluded the following concerning UV nail lamps used in salons;

  • UV-B output is less than what occurs in natural sunlight and is equal to what a person could expect from spending an extra 17 to 26 seconds in sunlight each day during the two weeks between nail salon appointments.

 

  • UV-A exposure is equivalent to spending an extra 1.5 to 2.7 minutes in sunlight each day between salon visits, depending on the type of UV nail lamp used.  A UV nail lamp with two UV bulbs corresponds to 1.5 minutes and a nail lamp with four UV bulbs corresponds to about 2.7 minutes each day between salon visits.

 

  • These UV nail lamps emit relatively low levels of UV and these exposure levels are considered well within the safe levels when they are used to perform UV nail services in nail salons.

Study 2 report from Massachusetts General Hospital and the Alpert Medical School at Brown University[3] (December, 2012) confirms the safety of UV nail lamps saying, “Dermatologist and primary care physicians may reassure patients regarding the safety of these devices.”  Also this report states the following about the potential for developing skin cancer, “UV nail lamps do not appear to significantly increase lifetime risks...”   Doctors often use UV medical lamps as a therapeutic skin treatment, and such treatments are considered safe. When this study compared these medical devices to UV nail lamp output the authors stated, “…one would need over 250 years of weekly UV nail sessions to experience the same risk exposure.”

Study 3 is the most comprehensive study of all (May, 2013) – testing six major brands of UV nail units (aka nail lamps), including three UV producing LED nail units using the appropriate International testing standards.[4]  The study was authored by Dr. Dowdy and Dr. Sayre, both world renowned experts in measuring and understanding the effects of UV and skin.[5]  Dr. Robert Sayre is one of the inventors of the SPF rating system for sunscreens. Tested were leading brands of UV nail lamps, both traditional fluorescent and LED type. The goal was to determine if these UV nail lamps: 1) produce excessive amounts of UV  and  2)  significantly increase the risks of skin cancer with normal salon use.  We now know: They Do Not! These results demonstrate the safety of a wide range of top selling UV nail lamps and show exposures are well within safe limits.

  • The study demonstrates that UV nail lamps are safe as used in nail salons and these scientists found they were even safer than expected, “All of the various UV nail lamps submitted for evaluation were found to be significantly less hazardous than might have been anticipated based on the initial concerns raised…”

 

  •  The study demonstrates- UV nail lamps are NOT like tanning beds, “When UV nail lamps evaluated in this report are compared together with these earlier sunlamp computations, we find that the UV nail lamps are vastly less hazardous”.

 

  • The study demonstrates that UV exposure is so low that a worker could put their hand under a UV nail lamp from this study for 25 minutes each day without exceeding established internationally accepted safe limits or “permissible daily exposures”.  Compared to nail salon exposures that are typically less than ten minutes per hand and performed only twice per month, clearly normal levels of exposure expected from salon services are safe.

 

• The study demonstrates the low risk of developing NMSC (non-melanoma skin cancer) from using UV nail lamps, which were determined to be 11-46 times lower in risk than natural noonday sunlight.  This prompted one of the authors to state publically, “UV nail lamps are safer than natural sunlight and sunlamps.”

 

• They concluded it was “highly improbable” that anyone would ever exceed safe levels of UV exposure “…highly improbable that even the most dedicated nail salon client or avid home user would approach this level of exposure.”

 

  • The scientists concluded that any risks presented by UV nail lamps are “comparatively trivial”, but they did express two concerns:

 

1. Ensure potential users are NOT taking medications that increase UV sensitivity, since they have been, “… advised against venturing into natural sunlight without proper protection and should be cautious about using UV nail lamps.”  Of course, that is sensible advice that should be heeded!

 

2. Concern was expressed that the incorrect replacement bulb may be inserted into the UV nail lamp, e.g. those emitting UV-B or UV-C could be very harmful to the skin.  Using the incorrect lamp or bulb can also lead to improper curing of UV gels.  So, it is VERY important to use ONLY the UV nail lamp manufacturer’s recommended original equipment (OEM) bulb replacement.

 

Other Useful Information

  • This study cited research showing the natural nail plate has a natural UV resistance equal to that of a high SPF sunscreen. The nail plate’s natural UV resistance is comparable to the UV resistance provided by an SPF 40 sunscreen.  Also research demonstrated the hand’s backside is 3 1/2 times more resistant than a person’s back, making the hand THE most UV resistant part of the body.

 

  • When sharing his opinions after testing these UV nail lamps, Dr. Sayre said that some “Physicians are grossly exaggerating exposures.”  And of UV nail lamps he says, “…this UV source probably belongs in the least risky of all categories.”

I agree with these statements. These studies demonstrate the safety of UV nail lamps; now this information needs to reach physicians and media news outlets. This comprehensive set of independent evaluations should convince any reasonable person about the safety of UV nail lamps.

Informational Webinar (Free)

Want to learn more about Traditional and LED style UV nail lamps?   I recently provided a free webinar entitled, “UV Gel Nails: Latest Findings & Best Practices”.

You can listen to a recorded version by clicking on the link below. https://vimeo.com/51532960

 



[1] Lighting Sciences Inc., 7826 East Evans Road, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 U.S.A. www.lightingsciences.com

[2] Do UV Nail Lamps Emit Unsafe Levels of Ultraviolet Light?, Three Experts Rebut Claims that UV Nail Lamps are Unsafe for Skin, D. Schoon, P. Bryson, J. McConnell

[3] Risk of Skin Cancer Associated with the Use of UV Nail Lamp, Journal of Investigative Dermatology, Advance Online Publication, 6 December 2012; doi:10.1038/jid.2012.440

[4] Dowdy, J. C. and Sayre, R. M. (2013), Photobiological Safety Evaluation of UV Nail Lamps. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 89: 961–967. doi: 10.1111/php.12075

[5] ANSI/IESNA RP-27.3-96, Recommended Practices for Photobiological Safety for Lamps- Risk Group Classification & Labeling.

 

 

Filed Under: Information, Science Tagged With: cosmetic safety, Doug Schoon, Journal of Investigative Dermatology, Personal Care Truth, photobiology, photochemistry, scientific studies, UV Nail Lamps

Research or Run With It?

July 23, 2013 By LMRodgers 3 Comments

researchThis morning, my daily news channel aired a story on Bill Nye, the Science Guy. What a fabulous way to learn about science. Here is Bill Nye’s YouTube channel. If I had a show like this when I was growing up, maybe I would have been more interested in science as a kid. As an adult, I’m extremely interested in science. The how, when, why, what, where of any and everything, not just cosmetics and personal care products, interest me.

In this day of social media, it seems much easier to run with a story coming across your news feed, as opposed to actually researching it for yourself. I believe in truth, facts and science. Even in politics, I check the sources of a story before regurgitating the information, to the people who will see my feed.

Why do you think some people would rather share a scary story or report? Is it because they don’t want to do the research for themselves? Or, could it be that they don’t know where to look? I know fear sells. Fear seems to be what brings in the TV viewers, the magazine/newspaper subscriptions and the web traffic. Would I love PCT to be the highest ranking blog with the most traffic, in regards to cosmetics and personal care products? You bet I would. Would I want to be there because I provided half-truths, misinformation, hype and fear? Never!

There are a variety of places to go to find credible, science backed information in regards to cosmetic and personal care products. In addition to sites that provide peer-reviewed studies, there are several sites that offer more information on the ingredients themselves. Personal Care Truth has compiled a hefty list, and as always, please let us know if we’ve left anyone out. Here are the tabs for all the sites we’ve included on PCT:

  • California
  • Canada
  • EPA
  • European Union
  • FDA
  • Natural & Organic
  • Other Resources
  • U.S. Department of Health Resources

The Personal Care Truth experts are always here to answer specific questions, so if you have one, please submit it via our contact link. If your question is for a specific expert, please make sure you address your question to him or her.

Personal Care Truth experts come from a wide array of backgrounds in the field of personal care and cosmetics. They are researchers, chemists, writers, formulators, aromatherapists, manufacturers, ingredient suppliers, trade organization leaders and business owners. These different perspectives within the beauty industry provide the best source for truthful information based on scientific fact. Read more about our experts and click through to their bios on our experts page.

Thanks for stopping by! We love feedback; good, bad or indifferent and would love to hear from y’all!

 

 

 

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: cosmetic safety, cosmetic science, Personal Care Truth, research, safe cosmetics

Are Cosmetic or Skincare Products FDA Approved or Certified?

July 16, 2013 By katherinecorkill Leave a Comment

FDA+Approved+Stamp

by Katherine Corkill

 

WOW… Now I Know These Products Are Safe

As I do my ongoing research and participate with scientists in discussions about the industry and all the facets within it, I find these claims all the time, “our products are FDA approved” or “our products are manufactured by an FDA certified lab.”

So naturally, the consumer who may not realize the facts of the situation take it at face value.  I know this because I have had many customers contact me and pose these questions.  Or they will share their stories of past products, stating they knew they were safe because they were supposedly FDA approved.

I can’t even count the websites within my industry that make this claim as well.

 

Let Me Make Things Perfectly Clear And Dispel This Myth

The FDA is solely responsible for protecting the public health by regulating human and animal drugs, biologics, medical devices, food and animal feed, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.

The FDA does NOT approve or certify any cosmetic or skincare products on the market today.  The only ingredients in cosmetics that are FDA approved are the colorants that go into products.  And the FDA has a separate division for this.

They DO NOT approve or certify manufacturing facilities, and they DO NOT approve or certify labs.

 

But They Are FDA Registered

As an FDA registered facility ourselves, this does not mean the FDA endorses, approves or certifies our products are the best or safe or proved promise of efficacy.  We are not manufacturing drugs here.  This is of course a voluntary program and as a cosmetic formulator, I believe this is vital to credibility of the products we provide as complying with all FDA regulations….such as GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices).

The FDA DOES inspect facilities to make sure they (we) are complying with those GMP guidelines because if they do discover violations, it can be grounds for being shut down or penalized.

FDA registration however, is mandatory for owners and operators of domestic or foreign food, drug, and most device facilities are required to register with FDA. Blood and tissue facilities also must register with the agency.


What The FDA Does Approve Or Certify

Mammography facilities must be FDA certified.  Mammography facilities are required to display their FDA certificates where patients can see them.  The certificate indicates that the facilities have met stringent standards and can provide quality mammography.

New drugs and biologics must be proven safe and effective to FDA’s satisfaction before companies can market them.  In fact this is where some of the confusion occurs and the truth gets stretched.  Since the FDA does not develop or test products, they rely only on FDA experts which review the results of the private laboratory, animal, and human clinical testing done by manufacturers, and if FDA grants an approval, it means the agency has determined that the benefits of the product outweigh the risks for the intended use.

So even though a manufacturer gets a product approved under these stringent regs, it does not make their facility an FDA certified lab.  So I guess if one were looking for a lab to produce a product for them, then a track record of sorts on the labs products gaining approval from the FDA is beneficial as showing a standard of producing exceptional quality using GMP…. but that is as far as it goes.

 

Colorants for purposes of cosmetics……..

As I stated earlier about colorants, the FDA does approve these and they are found in food, dietary supplements, drugs, cosmetics, and some medical devices.  These color additives (except coal-tar hair dyes) are subject by law to approval by the agency, and each must be used only in compliance with its approved uses, specifications, and restrictions.

In the approval process, FDA evaluates safety data to ensure that a color additive is safe for its intended purposes.  This is why some of our colorants used are clearly noted that they are not safe for lips, such as Ultra Marines, so these should never be found in a lip color.  If they are found in a lip color for sale then these would be determined as a violation and deemed unsafe for use.

False+FDA+Approved+LabelAs a whole FDA does not, nor ever has approved cosmetics such as perfumes, makeup, moisturizers, shampoos, hair dyes, face and body cleansers, and shaving preparations.

FDA field investigators inspect cosmetic companies, examine imports, and collect samples for analysis.  FDA may take action against non-compliant products, or against firms or individuals who violate the law.  This can also be said for making medical or anti-aging claims since then this would put the product into the DRUG category whereby requiring compliance with the approval process, anything short of this is a violation of FDA regulations.

Side Note: Some may think Sunscreens are approved by the FDA since they are considered OTC drugs.  However, the FDA does not approve the sunscreen per se, but only the ingredients used to create sun protection are approved.  It is still up to the company to validate their SPF levels as proof of efficacy, followed by submission of their testing to the FDA for approval, and then comply with all drug monograph labeling practices.

So always be suspicious of labels that try to claim FDA Approval.  False and misleading statements are a violation and should be reported to the FDA when located, whether at the point of sale, such as websites, or on the product packaging itself.

 

This Is My Favorite Most Of All

“Our products are certified organic by the FDA and ECOCERT.”

FDA does not define or regulate terms such as “organic” and “natural.”  However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does regulate the use of the term “organic” when used in terms of agricultural ingredient marketing.  There are also private organizations that certify “natural” and other claims; however, these organizations are in no way affiliated with FDA.  ECOCERT and NOP (National Organic Program) would be an example of these organizations, however separate and apart from the FDA.

Also, remember that all cosmetics are required to be safe, regardless of the sources of their ingredients.  An ingredient’s source does not determine its safety.  Even natural ingredients can cause potential harm to a person if they should be allergic to it… in science and chemistry, nothing is perfect absolutely.

However, even products that are created under these organic certifications are still regulated by FDA, and are subject to their jurisdiction under the law.  The USDA requirements for the use of the term “organic” are separate from the laws and regulations that FDA enforces for cosmetics.  Cosmetic products labeled with organic claims must comply with both USDA regulations for the organic claim and FDA regulations for labeling and safety requirements for cosmetics.

 

In A Nutshell

So there you have it, the facts surrounding the bogus claims of “FDA Approved” or “FDA Certified” made by many cosmetic and skincare companies….and I have seen them on doctors websites turned skincare entrepreneur, making the offense worse since one would think they should know better.  Unfortunately, this just doesn’t exist in reality…..and of course one more thing that those within our industry stoop to just to try and compete in the beauty products market.

Hopefully, a time will come when this practice of deceiving customers will stop and all of us will be on a level playing field helping customers make educated decisions based on the true science and benefits that any one product may provide.

 

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: beauty industry tales, FDA, katherine corkill, Personal Care Truth, product labeling, safe cosmetics

Independence Day

July 4, 2013 By LMRodgers Leave a Comment

American flag background

Personal Care Truth wishes you and yours a

safe and happy Fourth of July!

 

 

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: Fourth of July, Independence Day

Top Causes of Skin Allergies

June 28, 2013 By PerryRomanowski 3 Comments

by Perry Romanowskiskin-allergy-cosmetic

Many people complain of being sensitive to chemicals or even having allergic reactions. So as a formulator you’ll want to avoid using ingredients that might cause a problem in a significant number of people.

So what are those ingredients?

Fortunately, most of them are not things that you would put in cosmetic formulas (although there are a couple).

Here is a list of the top 10 allergens as compiled by the International Academy of Cosmetic Dermatology.

1. Nickel sulfate – Not used in cosmetics
2. Neomycin Sulfate – This is an antibiotic used in creams. Not a concern in cosmetics.
3. Balsam of Peru – Natural is not always safer and this natural ingredient is proof. Avoid using it in your cosmetic formulas.
4. Fragrance ingredients – These are used in cosmetics. There is a list of 26 allergens that most commonly cause problems. It’s hard to formulate without them but it can be done.
5. Thiomerosal – Preservative not used in cosmetics
6. Sodium gold thiosulfate – not used in cosmetics
7. Quaternium-15 – This is a preservative which you should avoid. If you want an ingredient that works as well without the problems try DMDM Hydantoin.
8. Formaldehyde – Cosmetic chemists avoid this ingredient anyway.
9. Bacitracin – Antibiotic. Not used in cosmetics
10. Cobalt Chloride – not used in cosmetics

So, there you have it. One other ingredient that might cause some concern is Oxybenzone (used in sunscreens). To minimize your chances of causing a reaction in one of your consumers, avoid using any of the ingredients above that might cause an allergic reaction.

And if you are marketing to a consumer group that is particularly sensitive, you’ll have to really limit the type of fragrances you use. You can still use them, you just can’t use any of the 26 common fragrance allergens.

 

 

Filed Under: Information, Ingredients Tagged With: allergens, cosmetic ingredients, cosmetic safety, cosmetics, Perry Romanowski, Personal Care Truth, skin allergies

Period After Opening Symbol

June 5, 2013 By Colin Sanders Leave a Comment

Period-After-Opening-Symbol-247x300Do you know what this symbol means?  Have you even noticed it before?  You will find it on most, but not all, of the personal care products in your bathroom.

In the EU, it is a legal requirement that all cosmetic products carry a symbol telling the purchaser how long it will last after it has been opened.

Europe is a multinational place and so the rules mandate a symbol rather than text.  To be fair, in a straw poll I did of people who happened to come into contact with me for a few days, more than half understood the meaning of the symbol.  That is 4 did and 3 didn’t.  I stopped polling after that because it didn’t seem to be something people wanted to talk about.  It is fairly obvious when you think about it, but equally not something you probably want to think about.

Agreeing on a symbol is the easy bit of course. How exactly do you decide how long something is going to last when it has been opened? You will look in vain for any help on this in the official publications of the European union.

So how do the people in the business who have to implement these rules come up with a figure? I suppose it would be possible to come up with an experimental protocol to test it out in the lab. You could take some products and open them. You would then submit them to some kind of typical use routine, and assess how they looked. You could then come up with some kind of specification for what you regard as acceptable, and there you have you period after opening.

I suppose some of the larger companies may have done this. But although it might sound reasonable at first sight, the practical difficulties are quite large. It would involve a lot of time and effort. And given the number of assumptions you would have to make, it wouldn’t be much more than guess work. How long does the average face cream last in a bathroom for instance? Well some disappear pretty quickly, but others hang around for a considerable length of time. Indeed, particularly medicated ones, take on the status of treasured family heirlooms passed from one generation to the next.

So most chemists simply look at their stability data and search their brain’s memory banks. Then they guess. It is an informed guess to be sure, but a guess nonetheless. And frankly, I think that is probably a better way to do it than to try and come up with an objective measure. The EU regulations only talk about safety, and most cosmetic formulations are really really harmless from the get go and are not going to get any worse as a result of use.

One consequence of the way the technical folk come up with the period after opening declaration is that there is a tendency for round numbers to be selected. So you will see 6M, 12M and 24M appearing most often. I would love to see one with an odd number – let me know if you come across one.

Incidentally, there is a get out clause for products that obviously don’t need it. So you won’t see it on single use sachets or hair sprays for example. There are a few grey areas, for example soap bars. I doubt there are too many people around who need help with the decision about whether or not they want to use a particularly old bar of soap.  Some soap manufacturers put the symbol on, others don’t.  I guess we’ll have to wait for a court case to decide the issue.  I don’t imagine that Hollywood will be fighting over the film rights to that one.

In any case, to fully benefit from this piece of legislation consumers would need to either write the date they opened a particular product on it when they do so or make a note in their diary. This might be easier now we have smart phones and the like that can be set up to give an alarm on a particular day. But even so, I imagine that people with this level of attention to detail are not common.

The EU is going through a bit of a rough patch in terms of public opinion at the moment. This isn’t a political blog, but I do wonder if regulations like this aren’t part of the problem.

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: Colin Sanders, cosmetic legislation, EU regulations, period after opening, Personal Care Truth, safe cosmetics

EWG – The Great Contradiction

June 3, 2013 By denegodfrey 3 Comments

Contradictory SignThis post was inspired by a discussion initiated on the LinkedIn “Safe Personal Care Products – The Right Way” group:

“EWG Rates NYR Organic as NOT TOXIC!

I send lot’s [sic] of clients and prospects to the EWG SkinDeep database as almost ALL of the NYR Organic (Neal’s Yard Remedies) products are shown to have a lovely GREEN ZERO, meaning, not toxic! NYR has been at this for 31 years, and is growing internationally. Check it out.”

I have written before about the fundamental (and fatal) flaw associated with the Skin Deep database only being based on hazard, and not on exposure (http://enormous-pavement.flywheelsites.com/2010/05/skin-deep-scratching-below-the-surface/), so I won’t repeat myself here. Instead, I would like to focus on the major contradiction that this LinkedIn posting brings to light, and I should explain that I am not directly criticising NYR per se in this piece.  Much is made of the overall product rating of zero and, on the face of it, this is great – who doesn’t want products that are completely safe. Leaving aside the insinuation that, as NYR products, specifically, are  “NOT TOXIC”, then other products must be toxic, it is worth checking on the link to Skin Deep that was helpfully provided in the above posting.  What this shows is that every “zero-rated” NYR product is rated so on the basis of “limited data” (as quoted on the database).  I have touched on this in the previously-mentioned article, in terms of the difficulty of justifying a hazard rating (especially a zero rating) on the basis of such limited data, but the real issue of the contradiction this introduces has only just occurred to me.

One of the EWG’s favourite complaints about the cosmetics industry is that between 70 and 90% (depending on the source) of all ingredients have not been fully tested for safety. This is probably their single major issue in cosmetics. This, however, does not stop them from providing a rating on many ingredients, despite there being only limited data available. How can they possibly justify making a public performance about their claimed lack of data, then go on to provide zero ratings on both ingredients, and products that  contain such ingredients? In effect, they promote products containing the very ingredients against which they campaign! If the data are not available then, surely, there is room for doubt over the safety of the ingredient, according to their own standards. There are other ingredients with a similar lack of data for which the “rating” is high (i.e. “not safe”). Again, how is a distinction made when there are insufficient data?

Part of the issue here is that there is a naive assumption that “natural is safe; synthetic is dangerous”. This is something that, again, I have covered previously (http://enormous-pavement.flywheelsites.com/2010/05/natural-is-safe-and-synthetic-is-dangerous-truth-is-safe-and-myths-are-dangerous/), so I won’t dwell further on this here. What I WILL reiterate from a previous article is the fact that some companies actively formulate with “zero-rated” ingredients in order to achieve a low Skin Deep score. This means that these companies are specifically using ingredients with very little safety data available (in most cases).  From a safety point of view, this is counter-intuitive. Consumers should be concerned.

If the EWG were honest and consistent about safety, they would refuse to rate any ingredient for which there were insufficient data (or give it a high “default” rating). They don’t. They can’t (or shouldn’t) be taken seriously.

(Post script – I am aware that PCT has been criticised in the past for disproportionate focussing on EWG issues, but this is an illusion! In its 3 years of existence, PCT has posted 496  articles; fewer than 10 have been specific to the EWG.)

 

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: cosmetic safety, Dene Godfrey, EWG, Personal Care Truth, skin deep database

Happy Belated Birthday to Us

May 20, 2013 By LMRodgers 1 Comment

Birthday cupcakeFirst, a big shout out to Dene Godfrey for wishing us a belated 3rd birthday!! How on earth did I miss this? Personal Care Truth launched May 17, 2010.

The time has flown by like the wind. In that time, we’ve seen several drafts/attempts at changing cosmetic legislation, truthful and science backed posts from our wonderful experts and contributors and lively discussions from our readers.

Kristin and I would like to thank you for your support of our efforts to bringing truth to the cosmetic industry. All the credit goes to our fabulous experts, contributors and readers. Without y’all, PCT would have been “just another blog”. Our experts/contributors brought facts, science and truth to the cosmetic industry! Many thanks, y’all!

Kristin and I continue to fund PCT with personal money and greatly appreciate donations from people who support our efforts.

We look forward to what the future brings and hope you will continue to support and contribute to the dialogue. We are still over the moon excited at the response we continue to receive.

Thank you bunches!!

Lisa and Kristin

 

 

Filed Under: Information Tagged With: Kristin Fraser Cotte, Lisa M. Rodgers, Personal Care Truth, safe cosmetics, truth about cosmetics, truthful information

  • « Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • …
  • Page 39
  • Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Sign Up For Updates Via Your Inbox

Support Personal Care Truth

Recent Comments

  • Dene Godfrey on A Closer Look at Sodium Hydroxide
  • Gilles Bkk on A Closer Look at Sodium Hydroxide
  • bold on Activated Charcoal – Particle Sizes
  • michael on The Impermeable Facts of Skin Penetration and Absorption

Archives

Copyright © 2019 Personal Care Truth • Design By Eco-Office Gals

Disclaimer • Privacy Policy • Legal and Terms of Use