Why Some Cosmetic Articles Are Crap

Posted by on Jul 28, 2018 in Myths and Misinformation |

There’s no shortage of crap cosmetic articles.   Some of these writers apparently don’t use a lick of science or logic. I’ve come to expect it, especially when you see it was written by a “LIFESTYLE REPORTER” or “staff”.  Here’s one I ran across that has mixed messages. But what really made me shake my head is this snippet:

“The demand for natural ingredients is increasing rapidly. This is because people have become very aware of the harmful effects synthetic chemicals can have on their skin”.

“People are becoming aware and believing synthetics are harmful” because of crap like this being published all over the internet. Instead of asking a chemist or toxicologist if this is true, and educating their readers, they repeat falsehoods. Why don’t they question the fact that there are no synthetic ingredient victims?  No bodies, no evidence of harm, no epidemiological evidence of disease. The most toxic things on earth are made by Mother Nature. The beauty industry can be proud of decades of safe products on the market enjoyed by billions world-wide, as compared to other industries.

In terms of finding new and innovative ways to advance skincare, the article says:  “…using traditional age-old ingredients with the help of the latest science and technology in cosmetology, can do just that”.  

What do they mean by age-old? For the past 30 years traditional ingredients (to name a few) include preservatives, emulsifiers, quats, emollients, and silicones.  A great many of them are synthetic or semi-synthetic- the stuff that makes stable, microbe-free cosmetics. If you reach back too far in time, you’ll be in the era of blood-letting, plagues, and drilling demons from people’s skulls. Science uses hazard, risk, and dose to determine the probability of harmful adverse reactions, not the naturalistic fallacy, world-view, or what some blogger believes.

girl with 2 heads

Which way should I think?


Soooo, which is it?  If someone believes synthetic ingredients are harmful (they’re not), they’re rejecting science.   And herein lies the great divide.

The purists make products from ingredients that they deem come only from nature although those ingredients generally come from a lab packaged in plastic. Keep in mind, ultimately everything comes from Mother Earth as the starting material of synthetic ingredients (feed stock). We can’t order raw materials that are the building blocks of synthetic ingredients from outer space!

On the other hand, you have the makers who embrace the high-tech synthetics that vastly improve aesthetics, demonstrate clinical efficacy, and have a history of safe use.  The irony of this polarizing topic is that the skin cannot tell the origin of what is put on it.  Skin doesn’t know or care if it’s “natural”, synthetic, or made in Japan!

I’ve found that using a combination of ingredients accepted by “natural lovers” AND “synthetic users” make the best beauty products. But like many other emotional hot topics, there’s more than 50 shades of opinion in-between. It shouldn’t be an emotional topic because the ORIGIN of an ingredient has no bearing on it’s safety.  And safety should come first.

Read More

The Blue Bottle, or the Red? Which Will You Choose?

Posted by on Jul 14, 2018 in All Posts, Odds & Ends |

Which will you choose? 

One bottle is made by professional chemists.  It’s safety tested to industry standards; RIPT, microbial load, stability, efficacy, with proven performance claims.  The other bottle is made by a hobbyist in her kitchen, formulated by the world view of the naturalistic fallacy, and claims to have no chemicals, artificial colors or fragrances, no preservatives, synthetics, petroleum, or animal products.

Leather or man-made materials?
I wonder why some people enjoy all that modern technology has to offer, except when it comes to skin care?

image of blue and red bottle

blue or red bottle?

Read More

CVS to phase out chemicals of concern in store brand beauty and personal care

Posted by on Jun 8, 2017 in All Posts, Industry News |

The retail pharmacy chain announced plans this week to remove select ingredients from four of its own cosmetics and personal care brands, calling the move “a natural step in the evolution of our comprehensive approach to chemical safety.”

Source: CVS to phase out chemicals of concern in store brand beauty and personal care

I’ve lost all respect for CVS.  Following in the footsteps of NGO activist groups, the decision to phase out “Chemicals of Concern” shows the stupidity of someone in their decision tree.  I doubt that it involved their pharmacists, who are well-read in science, chemistry, and toxicology.  It appears the corporate powers that be have been listening to NGO activist groups who demonize just about every personal care chemical over two syllables long.  I think the motive is positioning in the marketplace.  A target market of new-age hippies and crunchies.  They’re caving into the anti-scientific movement and profiting off people’s ignorance of chemistry, when they should be educating the public.

Phthalates are on the no-no list.  Chemophobes tend to group them together, but the ones used in cosmetics are DBP (nail polish) and these days you’d be hard pressed to find any fragrance oils that are made with phthalates.  As expert Chemist David C. Steinburg said in Cosmetics & Toiletries, October 2005, Volume 120, No 10,

“Alcohol causes more reproductive toxicity than DBP; why not ban that?

And Yes, CVS sells liquor.

Here is the FDA’s position on phthalates in personal care products.  At the present time, FDA does not have evidence that phthalates as used in cosmetics pose a safety risk.”

I won’t even get started on formaldehyde donors and parabens.  Both are safe as used.  The irony is they’ll ban ingredients deemed safe by most of the scientific regulatory bodies all over the world, but refuse to quit selling homeopathic remedies.  Worthless crap.  Homeopathy has been studied to death and doesn’t work under any controlled conditions.  At best it’s an expensive placebo…. unless it’s made wrong and poisoning babies.

(Click to read) FDA: Toxic Belladonna In Homeopathic Teething Product

It looks like CVS just can’t resist the $$$ from duping gullible consumers.  Profit up, credibility down.

Read More