Free Herbal Essences Sample (first 5,000 only!)

NorthernLass

Received this morning - thanks OP

davester

got mine yesterday, didn't even think I signed up for it

heggied

Ashropshirelady wrote: »

I really cannot understand why people use products that have been tested on animals, despite the obvious health risk personally. These commercial shampoos contain some really nasty chemicals, as do a lot of baby products. Here are just a sample.......
[followed by a load of FUD re. very common cosmetics ingredients]

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the unneccesary use of animal testing in cosmetics. There's no need for cosmetic testing on animals, and it's completely unnacceptable. I don't know if and to what extent these products are tested on animals, so I can't comment on that.

However, as a chemist, there's an awful lot I don't agree with you about, and there's a lot more in your two posts in this thread that are little more than ill-informed FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

I'm not going to go through each and every one of your points, as there are far too many to deal with here, which isn't really the place for it. They mostly fall into the same type of argument anyway, which is probably best illustrated with this:

Ashropshirelady wrote: »

It is used as an industrial-grade detergent and degreaser in car wash cleaners, garage floor cleaners and engine degreasers. It is used in cosmetics because it is a cheap foaming agent. This alone should be enough to make you wonder what it is doing in your cosmetics. There is absolutely no difference between the detergents in your household cleaning products and those you use on your skin. It's simply a matter of concentration.

Yes, surfactants are used to clean your car, your drains and your windows. Why this alone should be enough to worry you, I don't know. You'd be hard-pressed to find something that worked as an effective cleaner (whether it's cleaning your hair or your floor) that wasn't a soap or a surfactant. That's what they do. They make non-water soluble things (like oil, dirt particles etc) more amenable to being washed away. That's all.

The long, scary list of properties of one specific surfactant that you list would give lots of people nightmares. Fortunately, I wouldn't worry about it.

Firstly your "research has shown ... certain other chemicals ... carcinogens" is so vague and unspecific that I'm inclined to dismiss it out of hand. Usually the "research" is one or two poorly performed studies that show little of pratical consequence.

Yes, sodium lauryl sulphate is an irritant. Which is why you keep shampoo and the like out of your eyes. And which is why it's in very low concentrations in common cosmetic products. Yes, it'll cause nausea or diahrrea but only if you ingest fairly large quantities of it. And if you go around eating large amounts of shampoo, you probably have bigger problems.

It doesn't cause cancer though. This is an old scare story that goes way back to the 1970s when a known carcinogen was found to have contaminated some shampoos. This was traced to ethanolamine lauryl sulphates used in these shampoos which had been contaminated with nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic. That's it. In the mists of time this has been twisted into the "shampoo causes cancer" story that so many people still trot out. It's complete bunk.

Likewise the "study that showed it's a mutagen" is a similar load of old tosh. You can show pretty much anything's a mutagen if you want. Creating completely unrealistic conditions in a lab (*huge* concentrations of the product, very specifically chosen tissue samples, lengthy exposures etc) will show anything. Completely meaningless.

The scientific-sounding mention of MSDS data sheets in the "horrors of Propylene Glycol" section of the post is particularly disingenuous. MSDS sheets are intended to point out to workers and emergency personnel proper procedures for handling and working with substances. They are not for consumers. They represent the possible hazards associated with dealing with a substance in an occupational setting. If you read the MSDS sheets for products that you use regularly, you'd probably be so scared you'd go and live in a cave.

When I wash my hair, I'm careful not to get it in my eyes (just like I keep most things out of them) or to drink it. If I find it dries my hair or irritates my skin, I'll use less of it, or try a different brand. That's it.

Sorry for the length of this post, but this type of conspiracy theory-come-scaremongering nonsense *really* annoys me.

alexandrite

Thanks OP - Received mine samples yesterday.:beer:

sweetnskint

love my samples they came today!- so pleased with them! smell lovely! thanks op!

Ashropshirelady

heggied wrote: »

Firstly your "research has shown ... certain other chemicals ... carcinogens" is so vague and unspecific that I'm inclined to dismiss it out of hand. Usually the "research" is one or two poorly performed studies that show little of pratical consequence.

Sorry for the length of this post, but this type of conspiracy theory-come-scaremongering nonsense *really* annoys me.

Being a chemist a expect it does REALLY annoy you.........after all without chemicals you would be out of work.

Its all very well saying that you are careful when applying these chemicals that they don't go into your eyes but anything you smell, put on your skin etc is going directly into your bloodstream.

Skindeep cosmetic safety database
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/browse.php?maincat=haircare