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.
Ancient Egyptians wore make-up and now they are all dead.
I use Temptu air brush makeup & it’s loaded with siloxanes.
If siloxanes is what makes Temptu last about 18 hrs or more, well I better go stock up on the pods now because I love Temptu.
The guy at Sephora did say, it’s best to not breathe it in while you are applying the microfine mist. Heck it sprays on so fast, you are ready to go in less than 2 minutes.
Pass the spraypaint!
Silicone is commonly used as a water repellent and siloxanes are used as water repellents. Apply it your your wooden deck to repel water. Or concrete. Or clothing.
So the use of siloxane in cosmetics makes it last longer after application. Probably much longer than a vegetable oil. And the siloxane is probably much cheaper than the vegetable oil.
The ane suffix in siloxane means that is a hydrocarbon, like paint thinner or gasoline. It is a volatile organic compound.
Since siloxanes are a class of compounds and there are variations within the class, you really have to look at the particular siloxane compound you are using. Once you know that, you can look at the Material Safety Data Sheet, MSDS, to determine action taken upon exposure. I would expect the MSDS to say that, in the event of Siloxane exposure, the compound should be removed using soap and water.
You also have to recognize that since make-up is applied on regular intervals, then the exposure to the siloxane in the make-up would be considered to be chronic exposure.
I have no opinion on this current controversy.....it sounds like junk science to me.
However, in the days before the FDA (late 19th and early 20th century), many women were blinded, etc. by things placed in cosmetics. So, a prudent amount of caution is usually warranted. That is why animal testing is done....which the PETA crowd yells so much about.
The EPA has gone too far many times.
Get this group out of the American political scene!!
Dang, it's hard to argue with that logic.
thank you! :)
thank you for letting me know! my apologies and i will be sure to post in the correct section from now on.