Nelly,

quote:

n all things moderation
and moderation in all things.

is attributed to the Roman comic dramatist Andria, (185 BC - 159 BC).
Not only appropriate but should be ingrained in all of us.You have struck the nail precisely on the head.

quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:
Antybugsy, Janeleg's point is that chemical-free doesn't always mean micro-organism free and these can cause just as dangerous reactions as chemicals.
It's good to try and limit our exposure to chemicals but not to the detriment of our health in other ways.

But is there actually any documented cases of people becoming infected from the risks you describe? Even an unbiased anecdotal one published on the net somewhere?

I seriously doubt there are any proven cases of people developing tumours, brain or reproductive problems from synthetic chemicals in cosmetics (yet), but the fact remains that nobody has tested or can test the effects of being exposed to thousands of small doses of carcinogens and neurological and reproductive toxins.

I think attack is in excellent form of defence and this an example where manufacture’s create smoke screens about micro-organism build up to prevent the discussion being around the real issue ie many of their products contain ingredients proven to damage human life in larger doses.


Debbie

Precisely Debbie... you have hit the nail on the head... there is no real scientific proof of these synthetic chemicals causing any illness as yet... but bacteria do cause illness, people get sick all the time from exposure to bacteria... the bacteria is there before you even see mould growing so to my way of thinking the danger is more immediate and more certain.

But I know that you are looking for documented cases of face cream causing illness... cant give you any I'm afraid... (can anyone else?) so both sides of the argument are 'perceived' dangers which may... or may not happen. So I guess everyone has to approach this in a common sense way and decide where they draw their own line.

Mine is to use as few synthetic ingredients as possible but to always make sure that a water based product is protected with a preservative that I am happy about... not Parabens or Formaldehyde. I think I can make a sensible decision because I have examined both sides of the argument. I really feel that the programme did not look at both sides fairly.

quote:

Originally posted by Janeleg:
there is no real scientific proof of these synthetic chemicals causing any illness as yet

What I should have said is that there is no proof of ‘products’ using these synthetic chemicals causing illness.

There is plenty of proof that many of the chemicals themselves will cause tumours and brain and reproductive problems.


Debbie

Well, if nothing else, the programme has given people food for thought and they can hopefully now make more informed decisions.

Debbie, I think some of us are going to have to agree to disagree - we're not going to change each others' minds, no matter how long we go round and round the same topic.

Thank goodness we're all different, otherwise the world would be a boring place.

This programme infuriated me. Fair enough, report about chemicals and their effects but to blame 'man made chemicals' for the birth defect, hypospadias is a downright disgrace.

My son was born with hypospadias and if I hadn't researched this condition, I no doubt would have blamed myself.

Also, I breastfeed my son and if my milk is full of toxins, then so be it! I bet if they'd tested a bottle of formula milk, the toxins would have been immeasurable.

So, all I've got to say to Sarah Beeny is "stick to property developing, dear".

I meant to say in my last post that this topic has given people food for thought, not the programme. I feel the programme mis-informed, annoyed and downright scared some people.

quote:

Originally posted by toongirl:
Also, I breastfeed my son and if my milk is full of toxins, then so be it! I bet if they'd tested a bottle of formula milk, the toxins would have been immeasurable.

But wouldn’t you have preferred to your breast milk to be free of toxins?

This comes back to my original post re Elizabeth Salter-Green, she found her body was full of toxins, stopped using products containing the contaminates that were building up in her body, and then breast fed her child with breast milk that did not have high levels of toxins.


Debbie

Debbie,
What, in your view is a toxin?

quote:

Originally posted by profnick:
Debbie,
What, in your view is a toxin?

Hi Profnick
My definition of a toxin does not really matter.

I just do not understand why Sarah Beeny is being called irresponsible or being blamed for causing scare. All she is doing is highlighting the concern of many independent scientists who are reporting and publishing potential links between the synthetic chemicals in many everyday products and birth abnormalities.

For example

quote:

Our data on reproductive hormone profiles and phthalate exposures in newborn boys are in accordance with rodent data and suggest that human Leydig cell development and function may also be vulnerable to perinatal exposure to some phthalates. Our findings are also in line with other recent human data showing incomplete virilization in infant boys exposed to phthalates prenatally.

Environ Health Perspect. 2006 Feb;114(2):270-6.
Human breast milk contamination with phthalates and alterations of endogenous reproductive hormones in infants three months of age.
Main KM, Mortensen GK, Kaleva MM, Boisen KA, Damgaard IN, Chellakooty M, Schmidt
IM, Suomi AM, Virtanen HE, Petersen DV, Andersson AM, Toppari J, Skakkebaek NE.
University Department of Growth and Reproduction, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen,
Denmark.

As that report says:

quote:

Because phthalates are present ubiquitously in the environment (e.g., polyvinyl chloride flooring, children’s toys, detergents, personal care products) and in diet through food production processes and packaging, humans are continuously exposed.

And

quote:

Individuals will often be exposed to a mixture of endocrine-disrupting chemicals—for example, phthalates in cosmetics usually coexist with parabens, which also act as endocrine disruptors. In situations where mixtures of agents even in minute concentrations contribute to the adverse effects

So while scientists working for the companies using synthetic chemicals say the doses are too small to have any toxic effect. Other independent scientists are saying:

quote:

We conclude that estrogenic agents are able to act together to produce significant effects when combined at concentrations below their NOECs. Our results highlight the limitations of the traditional focus on the effects of single agents.

Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Apr 15;36(8):1751-6. Something from "nothing"--eight weak estrogenic chemicals combined at
concentrations below NOECs produce significant mixture effects.
Silva E, Rajapakse N, Kortenkamp A.
Centre for Toxicology, Department of Pharmacology, The School of Pharmacy,
University of London.


Sarah Beeny was clearly saying we do not have to be so exposed to these chemicals, we can choose cleaning products and personal care products that are free from these potentially damaging chemicals. Why is that irresponsible?


Debbie

Debbie,
The programme was irresponsible because it was inaccurate. It is perhaps a little naive to believe that programmes such as this are an attempt to "highlight concerns" rather than be sensationalist. This is because in most of the situations described in the programme the implication (or even stronger) was that natural is good and man made is bad. This just simply isn't true, and exposure to any chemical, natural or man made,deliberate or accidental is a balance of risk against benefit and one has to be clear of what the risks are. For exaample, the paper you quote from Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Apr 15;36(8):1751-6, was an epidemiological study and could not possibly implicate exposure to phthalates in causing endocrine dispruption. Indeed the authors state "This does not prove that phthalates caused a decrease in anogenital distance". Indeed the most recent meta-analysis of all available data concludes " In view of the high Margin of Safety (MoS) determined for these three phthalates, the SCCP
is of the opinion that traces of up to 100 ppm total or per substance do not indicate a risk to
the health of the consumer. (EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, Opinion on Phthalates in Cosmetic Products, March 2007). The reference to 3 phthalates relates to the fact that using the precautionary principle some phthalates have already been restricted.
My point is not that such things might not occur and need investigation,but that THEY ARE NOT FACTS, and regrettably presenting them as such on TV does more harm than good.

quote:

Originally posted by profnick:
The reference to 3 phthalates relates to the fact that using the precautionary principle some phthalates have already been restricted.

This is part of the problem, we have some scientists (some of whom work for the cosmetics industry) telling us every ingredient is safe, telling us not to worry about the accumulation of these synthetic ingredients. However, at one time these scientists would have also told us the currently banned phthalates would have been safe too, otherwise they would never have been used. They probably would have vouched for the safety of some of the other 450 synthetic chemicals banned from cosmetics too.

This is why many people are sceptical when a scientist working for a company making a profit from a product, claim the ingredients of that product are safe. Time and research by other scientists can prove their opinions incorrect.

The study you cite says nothing regarding the accumulation of these synthetic chemicals in the user’s body. Neither does it say anything regarding the combined effect of phthalates and other similar chemicals.

This is nothing to do with the original debate as to why the programme was irresponsible and misleading.

However, since you bring it up:neither I nor any of the scientists on the SCCP have any connection with the industry.
Because it is not possible to do the studies directly on humans (or animals for that matter) all the studies make compromises. Either they use a surrogate end point (ie not the effect that may be of concern but some related biochemical or physiological effect that's easier to measure), or they use an epidemiological approach (which is an association of one observation with another and cannot determine cause). My ONLY point is that statements of fact which are not actually fact may be harmful. This might be to state that something is completely safe or that it is dangerous;either way it is irresponsible and likely to mislead. I believe, this programme misled the public.

My ONLY point is that statements of fact which are not actually fact may be harmful. This might be to state that something is completely safe or that it is dangerous;either way it is irresponsible and likely to mislead. I believe, this programme misled the public.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree. People have a right to know the facts either side of the argument and this programme didn't point them out.

Hear hear, the ecological impact of formula feeding is phenomenal. The polluting effect of methane from all those cows, the energy consumption involved in manufacturing, packaging and transport, the land clearance and contamination of water, the land fills filled with unrecyclable materials not to mention toxins , inc dioxins generated as a byproducts of all this process

Andrew Radford, former United Kingdom Coordinator of Baby Milk Action (BMA, now director UNICEF UK Baby friendly Initiative siad back in 1992,"It's a tragic irony, that mothers who give up breastfeeding in reaction to scares about dioxin in the breastmilk are actually contributing to the amount of dioxin in the environment as a whole."

see his article:
http://www.reducepackaging.com/article.html

I cannot believe that the debate about breastfeeding is still going on!!! this programme was not telling people not to breastfeed it was just informing us of the different chemicals we come into contact with on are daily basis.
It seems to me that the breastfeeders among us have not watched the programme as they were far too busy getting wound up about the presnter saying chemicals can be passed on through breastfeeding. There are good & bad reasons to breastfeed or use formula milk so please breastfeeders let people decide without being made to feel guilty.

FORMULA 1 FEEDER

quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:
That's fine Debbie but my concern is when a company (and you stock their products) tells me that they use Vitamin E as a preservative and that it can keep the product fresh for 1 year. See my previous post - vitamin E is an anti-oxidant not a preservative. They haven't come back to me as to whether they use any other preservatives.
I'm worried that potentially hazardous 'all-natural' brands are being promoted on prime-time TV.

At the time I thought that the programme was brilliant and was going to ditch my existing skin care products for natural ones - prob the ones with a few ingredients you are referring to! However, after reading the posts I can see that the preservative issue is important. I would like to use more natural paraben free products but don't have a clue about safe preservatives - are there any skin care ranges anyone can recommend or info where I can find out. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by misschatterbox101:

quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:
That's fine Debbie but my concern is when a company (and you stock their products) tells me that they use Vitamin E as a preservative and that it can keep the product fresh for 1 year. See my previous post - vitamin E is an anti-oxidant not a preservative. They haven't come back to me as to whether they use any other preservatives.
I'm worried that potentially hazardous 'all-natural' brands are being promoted on prime-time TV.

At the time I thought that the programme was brilliant and was going to ditch my existing skin care products for natural ones - prob the ones with a few ingredients you are referring to! However, after reading the posts I can see that the preservative issue is important. I would like to use more natural paraben free products but don't have a clue about safe preservatives - are there any skin care ranges anyone can recommend or info where I can find out. Thanks.

Please remember that the comments made on here regarding the ineffectiveness of natural preservatives were made by anonymous people representing companies that use synthetic ingredients. Their opinions are thus biased.

There are many products that use natural preservatives, for example Aubrey Organics has been making natural products for around 40 years and is stocked in over 4000 outlets in the USA. Suki is successful enough to have been included in the ‘goody bag’ for Oscar nominees. Spiezia Organics was originally founded in 1988 by Dr Mariano Spiezia. Dr Bronner has been around in one form or another since around 1930.
These are just some of the brands with a ‘long’ track record of customer satisfaction, but there are many more.


Debbie

quote:

Please remember that the comments made on here regarding the ineffectiveness of natural preservatives were made by anonymous people representing companies that use synthetic ingredients. Their opinions are thus biased

And just to point out that you sell cosmetics at the "Natural" end of the spectrum , so yes you have an interest as well

quote:

Originally posted by Nelly Da Heffalump:

quote:

Please remember that the comments made on here regarding the ineffectiveness of natural preservatives were made by anonymous people representing companies that use synthetic ingredients. Their opinions are thus biased

And just to point out that you sell cosmetics at the "Natural" end of the spectrum , so yes you have an interest as well

I have never denied that I had an interest. As I clearly started in my original post I
I started Pure Skin Care after reading many anecdotal reports suggesting that synthetic chemicals aggravated chronic fatigue syndrome.

Debbie

Hi,

I feel I need I can't just sit and read this discussion anymore - I'd like to say something! Before I start I will declare my 'self-interests' I am scientist, but a physicist, so have no direct interest in the cosmetic industry, just a very big interest in the correct communication of science to the public.

I thought the program was absolutely awful. It was incredibly misleading and was definately a case of presenting bad science as if it constituted fact.

Something I felt summed up the program was at the end when the two women who had changed to 'natural' products stated that they felt much better in themsleves now that they weren't using any chemicals. After having been wound up by the program immensly at this point I shreiked at the screen "you are still using chemicals!! they are just different ones!!" The fact the no-one within the program picked up on this point really made me feel that no scientific thought had gone into it.

I admit I missed the start of the program, so maybe Sarah Beany did state what she defined as a 'natural chemical' and a 'man-made chemical' and what she defined as a 'toxin', but I am worried that she did not. As has been pointed out on here some of her 'man-made chemicals' occur naturally, so is it chemicals synthesised in a lab that she is refering to? Because those chemicals will be exactly the same as the ones that occur naturally - the chemical has no memory of how it was made.

Debbie - After your advertising yesterday, I took a look at your website. I think that your definition of what a toxin is is very important for your business as you claim to be selling 'non toxic' products. I would be interested to know what it is? Also, I find it hard to take you seriously when you are selling q-link pendents as a health item. Have your truely looked into the 'science' behind these?

misschatterbox101 - I am glad that you have noticed the program was not presenting the science of these products correctly. I can't really help you with finding a skin care range that you would like, as I'm not an expert in this area. I would just say that you should be careful of not simply following the line natural=good, 'man-made'/artificial=bad.

I do intend to complain officially to channel 4 about this programme. As I said before I think communicating good science to the public is incredibly important and this was an extremely high profile programme riddled with very poor science.

What needs to be understood is that there is a difference between the scientific definition of these words and the definition of the words as used by the majority of consumers who are not scientists.

All scientists will agree that natural ingredients as well as synthetic ingredients are chemicals in the scientific meaning of the word, but for the average non scientist the word ‘chemical’ refers to synthetic substances.

In the same way the word ‘toxin’ could be used by a scientists to describe water, as if we drink enough water in one go it could kill us. However, to the average consumer without a scientific background the word is used to describe those ingredients that have studies linking them to cancer, or toxicity of the developmental, reproductive, immune and neural systems etc.

So before stocking a range we check the ingredients with sites such as:
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com
and books such as:
Cosmetics Unmasked: Your Family Guide to Safe Cosmetics and Toiletries (Paperback)
by Dr Stephen Antczak (Author), Gina Antczak (Author)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cosmetics-Unmasked-Family-Guide...id=1192535146&sr=1-1

A Consumer's Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients: Complete Information about the Harmful and Desirable Ingredients in Cosmeticsand Cosmeceuticals (Consumer's Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients) (Paperback)
by Ruth Winter (Author)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Consumers-Dictionary-Cosmetic-I...id=1192535206&sr=1-1

Beauty to Die for: The Cosmetic Consequence by Judi Vance and Rowan Hamilton
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beauty-Die-Consequence-Judi-Van...id=1192535297&sr=1-1

Milady's Skin Care and Cosmetic Ingredients Dictionary (Skin Care & Cosmetic Ingredients Dictionary) (Paperback)
by Natalie Michalun (Author)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Miladys-Skin-Cosmetic-Ingredien...id=1192535297&sr=1-1

What's in This Stuff?: The Essential Guide to What's Really in the Products You Buy in the Supermarket (Paperback)
by Pat Thomas (Author)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-This-Stuff-Essential-Supermarket/dp/1405095490

to ensure they are no studies suggesting the ingredients may be linked with cancer, or toxicity of the developmental, reproductive, immune and neural systems etc. Any ‘grey’ areas will be investigated with suppliers and only if we are entirely happy with their responses will we stock their products.

We also subscribe to the Ecologist http://www.theecologist.org to ensure we stay up to date with general ecological issues such as the use of Palm Oil.

Debbie