Hi

In respect to my earlier post: My granddads both smoked, now everyone knows this increases the risk of cancer, but back in their day the tobacco and cigarette companies were assuring everybody their products were safe too.

This is what this whole thread reminds me of, the same kind of smoke screen the tobacco industry used when they had scientists on breakfast TV claiming stress was a bigger risk than smoking, and that smoking was actually beneficial as it helped people relax!

So far I have seen arguments on the meaning of words, and unsubstantiated ‘counter propaganda’, but I’m still waiting to hear what preservatives SammyK6 uses!

quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:
There weren't the amount of chemicals around when your grandparents were younger, so I don't think you can prove that their cancer was due to chemicals. The fact that your sister developed it too suggests it is due to genetic reasons. There are plenty of reasons why cancers develop, some due to chemicals yes.

My preservative has been deemed acceptable in certified organic skincare products and is used in both human and mammalian pharmaceuticals. This means it has been through extensive testing prior to being accepted for use in these products.

No-one can say for certain which ingredients will be found to be unsafe in the future but I prefer not to take the risk of using a poorly or unpreserved product. Bacterial infections develop a lot sooner than some chemical reactions and can rapidly spread throughout the body if not treated quickly.

The fact that your family haven't had skin or eye infections means nothing. How do you know for certain that the products you use don't have some hidden ingredients that the manufacturers prefer not to mention?

The fact that you get your products certified as ‘organic’ when they contain ingredients you admit are not ‘organic’ is a sad reflection on the value of that certification.

When I buy an organic carrot I do not expect to find it has been treated with a tiny dose of something non-organic and nasty!

quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:
Use of a big clever word. Have we seen any evidence to back up the claims that natural products with 'natural' preservatives are safe?

I strive for accuracy and disingenuous is what you're being.

Anyway I can't prove a negative. These products are used fairly widely however you haven't been able to come up with any proof that they are unsafe. At the moment your claims are unsubstantiated.

quote:

The fact that you get your products certified as ‘organic’ when they contain ingredients you admit are not ‘organic’ is a sad reflection on the value of that certification. Frown

I didn't say my products are certified as organic, just that organically certified products use the same preservative. The Soil Association and similar organisations don't take preservatives lightly.

Mr Teezyweezy, I still haven't seen any evidence forthcoming from your side of the argument. It's all very well demanding evidence from 'the scientists' but we haven't seen any from the 'all natural' brigade yet.

All we've seen is Debbie having to 'seek clarification' on subjects that should be second nature to a stockist of 'natural' skincare products.

We're at a bit of an impasse then Sammy aren't we? You claim that "natural" products are unsafe because they don't use preservatives you approve of, however you don't actually have any evidence to back your claim up.

I don't think you've actually provided any evidence for your argument whatsoever, unlike the TV programme which found parabens and triclosan in the subjects' urine.

Like I said, I think it's about time we got some evidence from the 'all natural' brigade.
I'm waiting.....

Heh, you make claims that you can't back up with evidence.

Aren't you supposed to be a scientist?

Mr TeezyWeezy,
Nope, no connection with any kind of industry. You could try reading the posts in this thread and you wouldn't need to ask the question. I'm only interested in balanced reporting of science and evaluation of available evidence. Continued quoting on both sides of the argument of references found on websites isn't evidence (even sometimes when they're in peer reviewed journals).
The distinction between synthetic and natural IS spurious because the enzyme systems we have evolved attack functional groups within the molecule, not the whole molecule itself. For example, the sythentic insecticide Malathion is broken down by a certain type of carboxylesterase with equal efficiency to its natural substrate. Also interestingly many compounds thought to be man made crop up in nature as more phyto and zoo chemistry is researched.
As I've said before all of this to-ing and fro-ing is largely irrelevant to me;my original concern remains the inaccuracy and dangerous hype contained in the programme, and no doubt to be repeated in the second installment tonight.

HealthyGirl & everyone else,

The main problem with the TV programme is that it did an extremely poor job of explaining anything it was talking about properly. As a result, any sensible argument it was trying to make was lost in poor and misleading science. I am not from the cosmetics industry, although I am a scientist, so I can recognise what good scientific process is - and this was not. Science is (supposed to be) a precise discipline and so the definition of a word does become important. If we use blanket terms that don't really mean anything, then the argument you are trying to make becomes completely lost in nonsense. Sarah Beeny was trying to provide a 'scientific argument', so why wasn't she going about it in a scientific manner? Why did she sensationalise everything without clarifying anything?

For example her 'shocking' statement that this chemical found in shampoo is also found in antifreeze. Now, I can't rememeber what the chemical was, but I do know I don't know what that chemical is put in antifreeze for. Do you? Does most of the public? By not saying what it's purpose is, she has been misleading. For all we know, the chemical may well be in antifreeze to make it smell nicer or to thin it, neither of which are especially terrible things and I would not object to having my shampoo smelling nice or being a nice consistency. The shampoo will have gone through rigorous testing before being allowed to be put on the shelves of our shops. Why did she not explain all this?

I am not saying we shouldn't be careful about what we put in our bodies, because we should think about it. But I am saying that this programme did an absolutely terrible job of helping us to decide what is best. I don't think the people who have come out against this programme are trying to build a smoke screen around cosmetics, I think they are simply angry that the scientific process has been walked all over by an unqualified TV presenter. (None of our work would ever be allowed to be published if we took the attitiude towards science that Sarah Beeny did.)

Daffodils,
"I don't think the people who have come out against this programme are trying to build a smoke screen around cosmetics, I think they are simply angry that the scientific process has been walked all over by an unqualified TV presenter."

Exactly; thanks for this succinct statement. I did think I'd made it clear that this was my stance on a number of occasions but from some of the responses, obviously not.

Hello. I'm another person who has been so incensed by this programme to join the forum.

I love channel4 - I barely watch any other channel - but really channel4...shame on you.

I'm not a chemist. I trained as a civil engineer - which I guess makes me as entitled to comment on this subject as Sarah Beeny. Although I do hold a PhD and work in education so I guess I can speak with some knowledge of science communication.

From what I can see from the posts so far it is pretty clear that the people who have been critical of the programme have concerns about the way the programme mislead, misrepresented, hyped, scare mongered and generally rode roughshod over the "science facts". This was quite obvious from the tv techniques used never mind the actual evidence behind it all.

Getting people to change their behaviour by lying or misleading is plain wrong - which ever side of the fence is doing it. Not least because it is immoral, but also because it damages the public's ability to be informed consumers. And from what I have seen from this show I would imagine that many people who have been moved to change their behaviour may well end up, in their naivety, doing the one thing they wanted to avoid...putting their health at risk or damaging the environment.

I remember, many years back, watching a documentary about poisons. There was an interview with a couple who had once made a pie from the berries of Atropa belladonna (deadly nightshade). Needless to say it didn't do them an awful lot of good and they spent the night rolling around naked (but not in a good way). Thankfully they survived but what they said was telling: "you wouldn’t think that something natural could be that bad for you".

It would be nice if life were as simple as this – that we could become better people by following one-line dogmas that 'just feel right'. Sadly it isn't. Wishing the complexity away will do us no good...any more than it has done in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Daffodils:
HealthyGirl & everyone else,

The main problem with the TV programme is that it did an extremely poor job of explaining anything it was talking about properly. As a result, any sensible argument it was trying to make was lost in poor and misleading science....

Hear hear! A very important topic presented by someone who was clearly uncomfortable with the subject at hand and exceedingly light on facts.

In last night's "How Toxic Are Your Kids" for example, what were the other before and after results from the girl who was mainly featured; where were any of the results from the other 9 children tested; did the young girl from the Afro-Caribbean family have significantly less chemicals in her body or not; what are the main chemicals where there's been circumstantial evidence of health-related issues (like phalates); why weren't there more interviews with very direct questions to those responsible for the regulation of such products... the list of unasked and unanswered questions goes on.

A shameful waste of two programmes which could have been so much more help to the average person in the street, and which could have had a far greater impact on the public's awareness of this important issue.

Hi Dan RE & Sargasso!

Thanks for your comments!

Have you thought about complaning to Channel 4 through their complaints system? (I posted my letter yesterday!)

I'm just a bit worried that we can all rant here, but ultimately no-one will take a blind bit of notice. I would like Channel 4 to have to take some notice of us! (Of course they may just ignore our letters, but here's hoping they don't... )

Thank you to the new members who at least saw what we were trying to get across.

Also, Daffodils I think you have a point but will it really make a difference complaining to Ch4? If there are enough letters then maybe. There must be some moderators on this forum, as an earlier post was deleted soon after it was posted - I bet this thread has been mentioned to Ch4 and they're just enjoying following it!
Hopefully they may be learning from it too! A few letters to follow up may make them see reason but what will they do about it? Perhaps some of us ought to suggest making a follow-up series!!

Coming at this from a slightly different perspective, and having taken on board a number of the very well argued points earlier in this thread, what does concern me far more that 'man-made' chemicals in our products per se, is the fact that those who regulate what chemicals are both safe and allowable would appear (to have) to work to the strict legal-type guidelines of "we'll allow it as long as it's not been proved harmful beyond reasonable doubt". I will admit I'm saying this from the point of view of some ignorance as far as such regulation goes, however it seems to be a typical official stance.

Would it not be better and potentially far safer for everyone if such regulation worked along the much broader lines of "we'll allow it as long as it's not suspected of being harmful on the balance of probability"? Whilst I'm certainly not in favour of even more regulation, there's enough around us already, such a change would immediately remove many of the more contentious chemicals from our daily products, those where there's even reasonable suspicion they might be harmful.

A reasonable suggestion or one fraught with as many potential problems as we have at the moment?

quote:

Originally posted by Sargasso:
Coming at this from a slightly different perspective, and having taken on board a number of the very well argued points earlier in this thread, what does concern me far more that 'man-made' chemicals in our products per se, is the fact that those who regulate what chemicals are both safe and allowable would appear (to have) to work to the strict legal-type guidelines of "we'll allow it as long as it's not been proved harmful beyond reasonable doubt". I will admit I'm saying this from the point of view of some ignorance as far as such regulation goes, however it seems to be a typical official stance.

Would it not be better and potentially far safer for everyone if such regulation worked along the much broader lines of "we'll allow it as long as it's not suspected of being harmful on the balance of probability"? Whilst I'm certainly not in favour of even more regulation, there's enough around us already, such a change would immediately remove many of the more contentious chemicals from our daily products, those where there's even reasonable suspicion they might be harmful.

A reasonable suggestion or one fraught with as many potential problems as we have at the moment?

I think that is a good point Sargrasso, but it does not take into account what was said by Alastair Hay, Professor of Environmental Toxicology, at Leeds University, who says
'We can probably look at individual chemicals and say that they're only there in very low amounts. But there are hundreds if not thousands of these chemicals in very low amounts that we're exposed to, and we have little idea about the effects that this mixture is having on us,’

I think we should be considering the impact on the environment too.

I know profnick think Professor Hays is talking rubbish, but it is not entirely impossible that things have moved forward since profnick retired. After all Alastair Hays is still working and has not been made to resign over this statement.

Sammy, glad you back, can you tell us the preservative you use and think is safe?

Sargasso I totally see where you're coming from but 'proven' and 'suspected' are 2 very broad terms which can be used by unscrupulous companies (and yes I'm also talking about the big boys) to their advantage.
I'm all for tighter regulations if it means 'chemicals' are kept to a minimum, within reason.

Healthy Girl, I also 'retired' from this thread as I couldn't see it getting anywhere and I'm not going to start going round in circles again.

For 2 new posters to see the points being made in the previous discussions means that the points were there for all to see, but some people chose to ignore them.

quote:

Originally posted by HealthyGirl:
I know profnick think Professor Hays is talking rubbish, but it is not entirely impossible that things have moved forward since profnick retired. After all Alastair Hays is still working and has not been made to resign over this statement.

HealthyGirl: Universities don't tend to fire people for doing their job...so I don't think you can draw any conclusion on the accuracy of the statement on that basis. You'd need to look to the outcomes of peer review process for that...i.e. to follow the debate of the experts in the literature.

Sargasso: There are an awful lot of things we don't know. If we never made any moves without full knowledge we'd never get anywhere. After all, we don't even fully understand the impact of man made water on the environment.

We have to take informed and calculated risks...not just in this but in everything we do. ...and it is false logic to say that "this cocktail of naturally sourced chemicals" is automatically better than "this cocktail of synthetic chemicals". Both warrant the same levels of suspicion and trust.

quote:

Originally posted by sammyk6:
Sargasso I totally see where you're coming from but 'proven' and 'suspected' are 2 very broad terms which can be used by unscrupulous companies (and yes I'm also talking about the big boys) to their advantage.

I quite realise that; my main point is that where there's any risk at all to public safety or health, those who govern should automatically regulate to a standard which takes account of the suspected, not simply the proven. Given that there's a great deal of misinformation and commercial interest involved in matters such as these there'll always be grey areas, however from the public's perspective, better to err on the side of caution rather than be too prescriptive about it, even though it might mean some commercial interests are affected.

quote:

Originally posted by Dan RE:
Sargasso: There are an awful lot of things we don't know. If we never made any moves without full knowledge we'd never get anywhere. After all, we don't even fully understand the impact of man made water on the environment.

You're absolutely right of course, and the whole business of chemical cocktails in particular is really only beginning to be understood, and as you go on to point out, this isn't simply confined to synthetic chemicals. I know from my own personal experience in industrial chemistry, albeit many years ago, that there can be some quite unexpected reactions between materials when it's least expected. I also know that it's totally unreasonable to expect even an army of technicians to test every possible, even every likely, combination of both natural and the 30,000 or so man-made chemicals in use. This is why I'm convinced that regulating to the broader guideline of "on the balance of probability" is far safer than the current "beyond reasonable doubt", even though it might mean upsetting a few people. After all, it's our lives that are being played with.

Quote "I quite realise that; my main point is that where there's any risk at all to public safety or health, those who govern should automatically regulate to a standard which takes account of the suspected, not simply the proven. Given that there's a great deal of misinformation and commercial interest involved in matters such as these there'll always be grey areas, however from the public's perspective, better to err on the side of caution rather than be too prescriptive about it, even though it might mean some commercial interests are affected."

I totally agree and I think it should encompass all realms of possibility, including the 'natural' side of things.

Nice to see the conversation debating both sides sensibly.

quote:

I know profnick think Professor Hays is talking rubbish, but it is not entirely impossible that things have moved forward since profnick retired.

Not true. I didn't say that Alastair Hay was talking rubbish, I have a lot of respect for him and his group. I said I was surprised he got involved, but may be as often happens he didn't see the final cut. Since I only retired 4 years ago and continue to provide independent consultancy, I have to keep my knowledge up to date.

could i ask any one here who knows something about certified organic skincare and cosmetics, if the Soil Association label is on a product, does that mean that the product contains no artificial preservatives ?

i am confused !

do CERTIFIED organic products contain the same kind of preservatives as "mainstream" cosmetics ?

if the answer is yes, is that a bad thing ? are all artificial preservatives used in skin care and cosmetics harmful ? which preservatives are harmful and which are not ?

what i am trying to get at is this: if a produc