Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cosmetics - The New Battleground
Truth or Scare ^ | October 6, 2010 | JunkScienceMom

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 wouldn’t 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 they’re 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, they’re pulling the same old trick with siloxanes and going after some of my favorite things. The problem is, there’s 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.

Caruba writes:

"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.

"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."

The repercussions of banning this perfectly safe chemical extend far beyond not being able to wear your favorite mascara. Caruba explains:
"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 you’re 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 there’s a lot more we moms can do besides taking pride in the way we look and refusing to buy-in to this junk science. I’ve 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! There’s a lot at stake here that affects our daily lives and happiness.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: blogpimp; cosmetics; health; makeup; siloxanes; vanity

1 posted on 10/07/2010 8:14:35 PM PDT by JunkScienceMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom

How many jobs would be lost if the new regulations destroy the cosmetics industry?


2 posted on 10/07/2010 8:21:08 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com <--- My Fiction/ Science Fiction Board)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom
Uh, that would be silicon chips that are used in computers.
3 posted on 10/07/2010 8:21:42 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom

Welcome to Free Republic!

Please note, these need to be posted in the Bloggers/Personal area in the future.


4 posted on 10/07/2010 8:21:46 PM PDT by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom
It seems to me that I had read some where that they were using embryonic cells in some youth creams is that true?
5 posted on 10/07/2010 8:22:28 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to GOD! Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom

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.


6 posted on 10/07/2010 8:22:54 PM PDT by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom

I’ll give you my cosmetics when you take them from my cold, dead hands


7 posted on 10/07/2010 8:25:26 PM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom
Cosmetics: The New Battleground (See invention #3)
8 posted on 10/07/2010 8:29:46 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom

Thanks for the thread JSM. Just an FYI, promoting a blog on FR is frowned upon here.


9 posted on 10/07/2010 8:35:22 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom
"But there are radical groups out there that want us all to believe that wearing cosmetics will kill us."

And all of those radical groups have BO and look like hell warmed over.

10 posted on 10/07/2010 8:35:27 PM PDT by davisfh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom

There is some excellent information to be found on scare tactic legislation at “Support Small Businesses That Make Cosmetics”

http://www.opposesca.com/what-sca-really-means-for-cosmetics-companies-part-i/

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.


11 posted on 10/07/2010 8:44:42 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom
If you want campaign against siloxanes you are going to be effecting a lot more that cosmetics. Siloxanes help make a lot of industrial productions like paper mills more efficient and make the difference in the cost of operation that would keep them active or shut them down.

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".

12 posted on 10/07/2010 8:50:52 PM PDT by oyez (The difference in genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

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!


13 posted on 10/07/2010 8:54:35 PM PDT by Island Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom
What are your politics?

14 posted on 10/07/2010 8:57:37 PM PDT by I see my hands (Unintentionally not left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Island Girl

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.


15 posted on 10/07/2010 9:00:24 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: I see my hands

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.


16 posted on 10/07/2010 9:01:56 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
nasty chemical preservatives keep products from being contaminated by natural fungus and bacteria.

"Nasty" chemical preservatives prevent a lot of liquid and simi-liquid products from becoming really nasty slop.

17 posted on 10/07/2010 9:03:45 PM PDT by oyez (The difference in genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom

Oh for the love of pete
LEAVE MY MAKEUP, LIPGLOSS, POWDER, BLUSH, MASCARA AND EYESHADOW ALONE.............


18 posted on 10/07/2010 9:06:13 PM PDT by proudCArepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oyez

I think we can safely assume that EPA officials are indeed chemical free then.


19 posted on 10/07/2010 9:09:20 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HollyB
Thanks for the thread JSM. Just an FYI, promoting a blog on FR is frowned upon here.

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 ;)

20 posted on 10/07/2010 9:11:56 PM PDT by libertarian27 (Ingsoc: Department of Life, Department of Liberty, Department of Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom

Ancient Egyptians wore make-up and now they are all dead.


21 posted on 10/07/2010 9:20:36 PM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom

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.


22 posted on 10/07/2010 10:22:58 PM PDT by sockmonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom

Pass the spraypaint!

23 posted on 10/08/2010 3:44:40 AM PDT by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth; JunkScienceMom
Silicon and silicone are not the same.

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.

24 posted on 10/08/2010 6:14:59 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom; All

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.


25 posted on 10/08/2010 8:44:07 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JunkScienceMom

The EPA has gone too far many times.

Get this group out of the American political scene!!


26 posted on 10/08/2010 9:31:55 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tiki
Ancient Egyptians wore make-up and now they are all dead.

Dang, it's hard to argue with that logic.

27 posted on 10/08/2010 2:20:24 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

thank you! :)


28 posted on 10/12/2010 2:34:38 PM PDT by JunkScienceMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

thank you for letting me know! my apologies and i will be sure to post in the correct section from now on.


29 posted on 10/12/2010 2:35:15 PM PDT by JunkScienceMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson