Skip to comments.Cosmetics - The New Battleground
Posted on 10/07/2010 8:14:29 PM PDT by JunkScienceMom
If my house were on fire and I had to take one thing (aside from my kids, dog and photographs, of course), I would have to say it would definitely be my cosmetics bag. I love all things fashion and beauty and just purchased the brand new lipstick and eyeliner I'm wearing in this photo. But there are radical groups out there that want us all to believe that wearing cosmetics will kill us.
The anti-cosmetics movement is the latest cause du jour for junk science activists, and just like other scare campaigns before it, it's based on greed, profit and fear. The public is slowly becoming aware of the deceit involved in anti-BPA and global warming campaigns, so the junk science mongers out there need a new target to focus on.
Their newest target is a type of silicone called siloxanes. Silicone is positively indispensable. Were it not for silicone and the silicone chips that are made from it, we wouldnt have computers and a lot of other things we totally rely on every single day. Siloxanes themselves are vital to everyday life too. We use them to make the tires for our cars safer; to make the sunscreen we put on our kids go on evenly and safely; to make baby shampoo non-stinging and, yes, to produce the perfect makeup we love because of the way it makes us feel.
But theyre made with SILOXANES! Sounds scary, right? It's a... gasp ...chemical! Despite the fact that the world has always been made up of chemicals that are perfectly safe and harmless, activists have successfully made the public believe all chemicals are bad and harmful. Now, theyre pulling the same old trick with siloxanes and going after some of my favorite things. The problem is, theres no science out there showing that siloxanes are harmful to humans.
I recently ran a guest post on the issue of "safe cosmetics" and decided to delve further into the issue myself. Reading that anti-cosmetics fringe groups openly proclaim to "not have the science," as stated in the guest post, I knew I would probably find the typical junk science scare tactics at play: faulty "scientific" studies by researchers looking to land grant money from taxpayers like you and me, a media that feasts on fear and hype, trial lawyers and politicians hoping to capitalize on a new cause, non-profits set up to actually profit on the fear, and finally, businesses hocking products that are supposed to protect you from the big, scary boogieman that appears in the form of "hidden" chemicals in your favorite lip gloss or conditioner. Puh-LEESE!
This all made me angry enough to discover the scam behind the anti-bisphenol A (BPA) campaign after buying into the hype and spending a fortune on BPA-free water bottles. That phony campaign was bad enough but mess with my makeup? Let's just say that no one comes between me and my MAC.
I'm sure the tens of millions of women who would be affected by such a ban will be just as angry as I am to learn that the cosmetics they've come to know and love could needlessly be taken from them. If you're a woman who uses cosmetics on a daily basis as do I, you know how hard it is to find the perfect brand, color, and style of makeup that fits your own needs. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to have to start all over at square one just because a few junk science activists ran out of issues to cry wolf over and now want to target my personal care products.
In researching this issue further, I came across an excellent piece by author Alan Caruba that exposes these chemical scare campaigns and enlightens the public as to the real, scientific evidence on cosmetics and siloxanes. Caruba then goes on to show how the Environmental Protection Agency is set to further abuse this junk science and write half-baked regulations with almost zero transparency.
"Much of the EPA's abuse of power comes in the form of chemical action plans, which involve little oversight, even less transparency and little-to-no public accountability. However their power to over-regulate, remove valuable products from the market, and hobble commerce is almost unparalleled.The repercussions of banning this perfectly safe chemical extend far beyond not being able to wear your favorite mascara. Caruba explains:
"Currently in the EPA's chemical action plan cross hairs are siloxanes, a type of silicone which, in turn, comes mostly from sand. Siloxanes are inert, non-allergenic, odorless and colorless. They've been safely used for decades in thousands of consumer and industrial products everything from medical cream and sunscreen to automobile tires, high-efficiency insulation and spacecraft.
"There are a wide variety of siloxanes, but the EPA isn't saying which ones have been targeted making it almost impossible for outside parties to provide any sort of meaningful input to the process. If you wanted to stack the deck against something, that would be a great way to do it."
"An unduly harsh chemical action plan for siloxanes could have devastating effects on our limping economic recovery. There is no single substitute for siloxanes that performs as well so industry would be faced with costly reformulations for their products and their manufacturing processes. If a particular business found this too expensive, they'd have to shut down, throwing more Americans out of work. If they can afford it, those costs would undoubtedly be passed along to consumers. And for what? No amount of research has shown any environmental benefit to banning siloxanes."The ramifications of this kind of action by the EPA are far reaching and give us more than enough reason to fight back against the scare campaigns behind them. Junk science is a danger to our overall health and well being and our economy because it undermines legitimate information, studies and findings.
The time has finally come for us ladies to do our part to uphold scientific standards. We need to stand up and refuse to buy into this latest scare campaign against siloxanes.
Wear your lipstick proudly, ladies! And while youre at it, confidently flip your hair and show off that fabulous shine and body you get from your favorite shampoo and conditioner. I know I will.
But theres a lot more we moms can do besides taking pride in the way we look and refusing to buy-in to this junk science. Ive started a petition which you can sign right here. By signing this petition, you can let the federal government know that you do NOT want them messing with your makeup! This is a brand new petition and the goal is to obtain 1,000 signatures. So sign it today and spread the word! Theres a lot at stake here that affects our daily lives and happiness.
How many jobs would be lost if the new regulations destroy the cosmetics industry?
Welcome to Free Republic!
Please note, these need to be posted in the Bloggers/Personal area in the future.
I was frozen into a pillar of salt as I walked by a local MAC store and locked eyes with a women in the demo chair.
I’ll give you my cosmetics when you take them from my cold, dead hands
Thanks for the thread JSM. Just an FYI, promoting a blog on FR is frowned upon here.
And all of those radical groups have BO and look like hell warmed over.
There is some excellent information to be found on scare tactic legislation at “Support Small Businesses That Make Cosmetics”
Not to mention that dihydrogen monoxide that lethally creeps its way into the homes of the unsuspecting. But I disgress simple logic tells us that chemicals, all chemicals, even with innocent sounding names such as SALT are dangerous. And need to be heavily regulated or banned. How do I know this simple.
Chemicals include the class Petro Chemicals.
Petroleum as in well Petroleum, like oil and crude and gasoline.
Petroleum can be extracted from different sources but we know that originally it came from the rotting carcasses of dinosaurs.
the T Rex was a dinosaur. The T Rex in the movie Jurassic Park ate people.
This proves that dinosaurs are deadly.
Dinosaurs are in petro chemicals. Petro Chemicals are Chemicals. Therefore Chemicals are deadly.
Sure you might end up with a brontosaurus chemical but why take any chances?
I belong to a soap and cosmetic making forum where this is often discussed. Many times it is very patiently explained to people that nasty, nasty chemical preservatives keep products from being contaminated by natural fungus and bacteria.
The battle is not about "looks" but some thing more than skin deep.
If you ban things like siloxanes you will may not be able to buy soft toilet tissue, strong absorbent paper towels, disposable baby diapers, plastic milk bottles, dry wall for house construction and that's just the beginning of list of products that will disappear, which we in the past we have always taken for granted.
They are not after our "looks" they are after our "hearts".
Would that be Soap Dish Forum? I’m a member there. I’ve learned so much as I’ve been formulating my own (personal use) products. We had a cosmetic chemist graciously giving so much information and answering questions. Miss you, Lab Rat!
The amount of disinformation out there is staggering. Makes me crazy. My own fire Go Bag is already packed with a full cosmetics kit. My house may be in ashes, but damn it I’ll still look good!
I think it must be one and the same. I see you mention Lab Rat so yep that is the one. I have Lab Rat’s posts bookmarked. They are an excellent source of information.
Hee, hee another conservative soaper.
She debunks junk science and posts something scathing about the EPA. I’ll go out on a limb here and see she is not a Liberal. Sides her blog shows a very attractive well put together lady. Nuff said.
"Nasty" chemical preservatives prevent a lot of liquid and simi-liquid products from becoming really nasty slop.
Oh for the love of pete
LEAVE MY MAKEUP, LIPGLOSS, POWDER, BLUSH, MASCARA AND EYESHADOW ALONE.............
I think we can safely assume that EPA officials are indeed chemical free then.
Up to a point, she did a great job of posting the whole article instead of a couple of sentences - now that's frowned upon ;)