This Week in the Mercury
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Girls Only! Never Try To Look Pretty Again.
Posted by Sarah Mirk on Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:14 AM
The whack psuedo-science of cosmetics has always really irked me. You know, the shampoo commercials that promise to infuse your hair with "strengthening protein" while animated DNA strands swirl into sexy, swishy locks? This is what my shampoo tells me, irritatingly, while I read the back of the bottle in the shower: "I'll fight for your right to smooth hair with my nourishing formula with anti-frizz potion fused with mandarin balm & pearls." And my conditioner says its "fused with pearls and coco mango." Coco mango? Pearls? Potions? WTF? They are not even being discreet about making up ingredients.
And then all of a sudden locally-made feminist mag Bitch this month has an article about how shampoo psuedo-science isn't just bunk, it's downright dangerous. It frames the lack of regulations on cosmetic ingredients as a women's health issue, one that's being ignored by the FDA. Check it out:
Makeup menaces are nothing new: Some Elizabethan enchantresses died for their love of white lead-laced face powder, and Victorian vamps used deadly nightshade to lend their eyes an alluring glow. But today, when a $50-billion cosmetics industry has replaced apothecaries and home brewers, we expect the FDA to protect the public from dangerous beauty aids. Yet while its name might lead us to think otherwise, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gives the FDA far more regulatory power over food additives and drugs than over cosmetics; the agency isn't authorized to approve cosmetic products or ingredients before they hit the shelves.
Which means that shampoo, mascara, deodorant can all contain shit like mercury and carcinogens. In a study done on lipstick last year, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found that one-third of lipsticks they analyzed had more lead in them than is allowed in candy.
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED
Of course, Bitch points out that the cosmetic companies have found a great way to make money off the potentially lethal qualities of some of their products: by making ritzy OrganicNaturalEcoGreenSustainable shampoo, etc, that promises to totally not kill you. But seriously, it's ridiculous that I have to choose between buying either a deodorant that probably gives me cancer or one that's made of basically moss.
Showing 1-12 of 12
Dr. Bronners and Crystal Salt Deodorant will take care of 95% of your problems.
As to the need to look pretty, be like Palin and get your makeup permanently tattooed on your face.
Is that stuff legit? Using "Crystal Deodorant" seems like a total new age scam to me. Just as a rule, I try to never rely on anything that functions via crystal magic.
I've never personally used the stuff, but it would be more fair to call it Salt Deodorant. The "Crystal" part is more just the scientific term for it.
Check this: http://www.bodycrystal.com.au/faq.htm
Not sure why it's any more fair to call it Salt Deoderant. It's made out of crystalline salt, hence crystal. It works well to make odor not happen, but if you tend to sweat a lot it's not gonna help that. I don't know if anyone still sells them in the baseball sized "rocks", but those fucking last forever. Serious value.
Also, a five year old article citing one study doesn't mean indicate that deodorant will "probably give [you] cancer." I know you dislike research, but even a quick peak at wiki will show you that actual research is leaning heavily against the persistent antiperspirant=cancer rumors.
It's astonishing how people care so much about ingredients, yet smoke those American Spirits. Yep, those organic tobacco plants don't foul your lungs...
the crystal salts stuff doesn't help with sweat at all because it isn't an antiperspirant, it's just a deodorant. I think it works ok but only if you shower every day, which I do not. If you want to stop sweating you have to get Botox in your arm pits.
Crystal deodorant is for hippies. HIPPIES!
A Cat,
I linked to the older New Scientist article rather than Wikipedia because a) I like New Scientist and b) that article allows you to click through and read the abstract of the actual study that was done and everywhere else I found just discussed the study without letting you read any of it.
If you're interested in reading up on the research, I thought the American Cancer Website (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factshe…) had a pretty good rundown of a couple studies - but you have to go elsewhere to dig up the journal articles about those studies yourself.
In the meantime, can you please write me a grant for a 2-year investigation of Crystal Salt Deodorant? k, thnx.
Oh, cool. An easy click-through interface is way more important than accurate info. Carry on.
The annoying thing about this is that it's hard to know what's safe and what isn't. Pthalates in fingernail polish are really dangerous to a gal's future offspring. But can you figure out which brands have them and which don't? Nope, because they don't have to include it on the label. I hope an Obama FDA can be persuaded to include ingredients (and downright warnings) on cosmetics.
This opened a can o' worms, as a lot of women I care about have been having miscarriage after devastating miscarriage. I know at least two of them used absolute tons of hairspray and makeup, as they grew up in Texas in the eighties.
With more Googling, I found a database that will tell you how much your shampoo is killing you:
http://www.cosmeticdatabase.com/index.php
beautiful kitty has gone missing from SE 35th & SE Morrison
Keep an eye out for our dear kitty!
Her name is Bramble Rose & she is a torti with long hair and a white face/chest & paws... pink nose..
She is extremely cute & affectionate- please call 503-913-1937
Band of the Week
Point Juncture, WA
About Portland Mercury
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Comments (12) RSS