I want to restock with no-nasties toiletries

clairibel

The good stuff does tend to last longer i find, you need to use less, so more cost effective that way...my shea butter is hardly dented and i've had it for a while now

Jacks_xxx

beautyscientist wrote: »

Well I hope nobody is depriving the sharks of their squalane. They need it a lot more than we do. They have to swim around in sea water all the time while maintaining their metabolic systems intact. It really is fascinating to look into how living creatures solve problems like that. In the skin squalane seems to act a bit like a brace would in a brick wall, giving the skin's barrier a bit of rigidity.

I have been working in the cosmetic business for a long time and have lots of contacts, but I wouldn't know where to find shark squalane if I wanted it. I really can't believe it is being used in any mainstream products.

As to the toxins - well there is no data gap in my lab. We have to scan the stuff in and store it on computers because it would take up so much room in paper form. I have never felt any desire to put toxins in any of my products and am always mystified by why people find it so easy to believe I would. What possible motivation would anyone have to include toxins in a skin care product?

If you can name any particular examples I can probably track down the person who formulated the product and ask them about it.

It's really nice of you to offer to help, and I really hope this doesn't come off as rude, but since you believe that nothing in cosmetics can harm us I'm not sure how much help you could be. Your blanket assertion that all mass market cosmetics are safe seems a bit odd given all the evidence to the contrary.

There's a bill progressing through the US Congress at the moment by Jan Schakowsky called the Safe Cosmetics Act 2010 because "when investigators have gone looking, they have turned up toxic chemicals" and "Americans are at risk of being unknowingly exposed to harmful chemicals."

There are also plans to reform the 1976 reform the Toxic Substances Control Act which controls the use of chemicals in commerce and will also cover the cosmetic industry. "In order to protect all Americans from toxic exposures and the adverse effects they cause, Congress must strengthen this failing law."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

The American Chemistry Council and the Environmental Protection Agency are involved in the formulation of this legislation so it seems that they believe that all the toxic chemicals we're exposed to every day may cause us harm.

And sorry to harp back at the sharks but Unilever only removed Shark squalane from Dove and Ponds products about two years ago. L'Oreal, Boots, Clarins, Sisley and La Mer did so at about at the same time. Some companies still haven't.

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/30919

http://truthinaging.com/body/shark-sourced-squalane-takes-a-bite-out-of-your-face-cream

beautyscientist

Unilever would be mad to use shark squalane. Can you imagine the bad publicity they would have got if they had?

And I owe you an apology. I didn't think anybody supplied shark squalane into the cosmetics industry. I have now found out there is one in fact. Its an American company called Tri-K. I don't know much about them I am afraid. They offer vegetable squalane as well. There are around a dozen other companies supplying squalane and they all only supply vegetable derived.

I've been following the Safe Cosmetics Act story in the US quite closely. I am not sure its got much to do with money saving though. We have already completely derailed poor old TomsMoms thread. If I could just say that there is another side to the story and I have done a couple of posts on my blog about it already, and I am working on more. If you are interested in hearing more try http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk/story-of-cosmetics-how-we-can-really-make-cosmetics-safe/ and I'd be very happy if you wanted to leave comments there.

beautyscientist

Kirri wrote: »

Re your previous post, I don't find buying natural ranges that expensive anyway, in fact a lot of them seem cheaper than the typical mass marketed chemical stuff.

That is a good point. Even the more expensive products aren't that bad when you work out how long they last.

I am pretty sure cosmetic formulations are safe enough for their intended purpose. There are simply no cases where they have caused anybody any harm, unless you include people slipping on them when they are spilled. Not one case of cancer has ever been tracked back to a cosmetic product. Maybe a link might be found in the future, but absolutely nothing has been proved yet. There really is nothing to worry about.

Coal tar's carcogenicity was established because people who worked with it developed cancer. As a result it was banned in cosmetics. People like me who work with cosmetic chemicals and so come into much greater contact with them than most people don't have abnormally high cancer rates.

Jacks_xxx

Kirri wrote: »

Doesn't it all come down to what is 'considered safe' for consumers though? It's the same with household cleaning products and food, not just beauty products, it's one of the reasons I try to get as much organic and non chemical products as possible - everything sold is considered safe enough for humans to use but to me most other people's baskets just looks like a cocktail of chemicals and additives, whether it is considered 'safe' by the regulating bodies or not...

Re your previous post, I don't find buying natural ranges that expensive anyway, in fact a lot of them seem cheaper than the typical mass marketed chemical stuff.

I agree with you Kirri. It's a complete fallacy that being more careful about what cocktail of chemicals you put on your body is more expensive.

Before I learned about ingredients I used to use a moisturiser that cost about 12 times the one I'm using now - and this one is a far superior product.

Jacks_xxx

beautyscientist wrote: »

Unilever would be mad to use shark squalane. Can you imagine the bad publicity they would have got if they had?

And I owe you an apology. I didn't think anybody supplied shark squalane into the cosmetics industry. I have now found out there is one in fact. Its an American company called Tri-K. I don't know much about them I am afraid. They offer vegetable squalane as well. There are around a dozen other companies supplying squalane and they all only supply vegetable derived.

I've been following the Safe Cosmetics Act story in the US quite closely. I am not sure its got much to do with money saving though. We have already completely derailed poor old TomsMoms thread. If I could just say that there is another side to the story and I have done a couple of posts on my blog about it already, and I am working on more. If you are interested in hearing more try http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk/story-of-cosmetics-how-we-can-really-make-cosmetics-safe/ and I'd be very happy if you wanted to leave comments there.

No matter how many times you say it aint so it's a matter of public record that Unilever did use shark squalane until very recently, and they only stopped using it because they were forced to because of EU legislation.

I won't be reading your blog because, with all due respect, I think I'm better informed than you are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3323530/Cosmetics-giants-agree-to-stop-using-shark-oil.html

http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Formulation-Science/Soliance-partners-with-Amyris-to-produce-renewable-squalane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squalene

Even Preparation H contains squalane!

*dismounts hobby horse*

LadyGooGoo_2

Jacks and everybody else who is into no nasties products, I wondered where you think Neals Yard are on the no nasties continuum? I'm especially interested in their Powerberry moisturiser because you can pick them up for pennies on eBay.

Bea89

How about no shampoo at all? http://natural-products.suite101.com/article.cfm/break_the_shampoo_habit

i know loooooooads of people that do this, iv been meaning to do it but never got round to it , always realised *after* i washed my hair that i didnt want too

Paulie'sGirl

I'm probably about to wade into very sticky territory here, but, does anyone have any basis in fact that these supposedly "no nasties" products are so?

Simply being free of man-made chemicals does not of itself mean there are "no toxins" or other ingredients which may have adverse effects. Please don't confuse natural with benign. Think deadly nightshade, foxgloves and lilies. Apple pips, nutmeg and uncooked kidney beans.

All of the above is said in a spirit of "we worry too much", but for balance, if you intend to scrutinise the effects of man-made chemicals on your wellbeing, perhaps you ought to consider what the effects of these "natural" products are too?

PGxx (a natural born sceptic)

nutsohazelnuts

Paulie'sGirl wrote: »

I'm probably about to wade into very sticky territory here, but, does anyone have any basis in fact that these supposedly "no nasties" products are so?

Simply being free of man-made chemicals does not of itself mean there are "no toxins" or other ingredients which may have adverse effects. Please don't confuse natural with benign. Think deadly nightshade, foxgloves and lilies. Apple pips, nutmeg and uncooked kidney beans.

All of the above is said in a spirit of "we worry too much", but for balance, if you intend to scrutinise the effects of man-made chemicals on your wellbeing, perhaps you ought to consider what the effects of these "natural" products are too?

PGxx (a natural born sceptic)

This isn't a case of natural versus man made. Nobody on this thread is assuming that natural equals benign. In point of fact, the entire ethos of this thread appears to be not to assume that anything is benign just because somebody with vested interests tells you it is. Large companies and their toadies have always been prepared to claim things are perfectly safe when in fact we don't know anything of the kind.

I found the link to the Cosmetic Database very illuminating. My better half is currently struggling with cancer, and I suspect that as with Big Tobacco, the truth about the cancer causing cocktails of ingredients in cosmetic products will catch up with Big Cosmetics eventually.

Even chemicals which are merely known to cause irritation are detrimental to health. I wish we had known all this years ago, but I sincerely hope that the next generation will arm themselves with information and refuse to lie back and just take their word for it.

I've sent the link to this thread to all my daughters and nieces.