Beauty

[Icegoddess]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Icegoddess wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Icegoddess wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Icegoddess wrote:

---

@SilleeMee wrote:

I'm concerned about paraben alternatives. Those can be worse than what they are replacing and they are not as effective at preventing microbial growth plus many alternatives cause sensitivities and allergies. All because of a small study done on mice w/parabens in Europe....so blown out of proportion then twisted by the fear mongering  health freaks.

---

@SilleeMee i don't fear parabens either.  And I don't like CA deciding for the rest of the country what may or may not be in our cosmetics. 

---

@Icegoddess, the legislation bans only the more suspect parabens, not all of them. And the legislation is for only the cosmetics sold in California.

---

@suzyQ3 the net effect is that it will affect the entire country since the cosmetics companies don't want to lose such a large customer base.  They will just change their formulas to reflect the more restrictive legislation and that is what will be sold across the entire country.  They won't be making two different formulas, one to be sold only in CA and another to be sold throughout the country.  And I'm sure CA lawmakers are well aware of it.

---

I don't know that be true, @Icegoddess. I do know that companies still sell tons of products despite having to put a warning label when shipping to California if the product contains an ingredient on banned in the state by Prop 65.

Regardless, if you were correct, I would be pleased. People have been grumbling about the lack of oversight for years, on this board all the time.

---

@suzyQ3 that label gets slapped on all the products, not just the ones sold in CA.  Labels can be ignored.  CA is doing an end-run around the FDA.  That's their job. 

---

Apparently, then, they are not doing their job, @Icegoddess 

---

@suzyQ3 so you say.  I think they're doing just fine.  But, regardless, it's still their job, not CA's.

[suzyQ3]

---

@Icegoddess wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Icegoddess wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Icegoddess wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Icegoddess wrote:

---

@SilleeMee wrote:

I'm concerned about paraben alternatives. Those can be worse than what they are replacing and they are not as effective at preventing microbial growth plus many alternatives cause sensitivities and allergies. All because of a small study done on mice w/parabens in Europe....so blown out of proportion then twisted by the fear mongering  health freaks.

---

@SilleeMee i don't fear parabens either.  And I don't like CA deciding for the rest of the country what may or may not be in our cosmetics. 

---

@Icegoddess, the legislation bans only the more suspect parabens, not all of them. And the legislation is for only the cosmetics sold in California.

---

@suzyQ3 the net effect is that it will affect the entire country since the cosmetics companies don't want to lose such a large customer base.  They will just change their formulas to reflect the more restrictive legislation and that is what will be sold across the entire country.  They won't be making two different formulas, one to be sold only in CA and another to be sold throughout the country.  And I'm sure CA lawmakers are well aware of it.

---

I don't know that be true, @Icegoddess. I do know that companies still sell tons of products despite having to put a warning label when shipping to California if the product contains an ingredient on banned in the state by Prop 65.

Regardless, if you were correct, I would be pleased. People have been grumbling about the lack of oversight for years, on this board all the time.

---

@suzyQ3 that label gets slapped on all the products, not just the ones sold in CA.  Labels can be ignored.  CA is doing an end-run around the FDA.  That's their job. 

---

Apparently, then, they are not doing their job, @Icegoddess 

---

@suzyQ3 so you say.  I think they're doing just fine.  But, regardless, it's still their job, not CA's.

---

But @Icegoddess, as far as I understand, California and any other state have the right to pass such legislation. So it is their job. Again, it relates only to California; whatever companies feel that must is on them.

ETA: I thought many here are more for leaving stuff up to individual states rather than to the federal government. Personally, I think they both have their functions.

[wig4usc]

I’m so happy, as a breast cancer survivor, I’ve been writing to companies and changing my buying choices to support those that proactively chose to make their products cleaner! What was so frustrating was to see those companies who were trying to trick consumers with confusing terms like “clean” and “non-comedogenic”.

[wig4usc]

I’ve been watching products and ingredients for close to 20 years. I’m curious how many of you know that genetic breast cancer is a low number, 10% is the HIGHEST number I’ve seen. So what we’re exposing ourselves to is pretty important. Those that are downplaying things like parabens...research what they originally formulated for. Anyone think formaldehyde is OK for our personal care products?? I guess there are more than I figured, that’s prominently in the ingredient list for a QVC beauty award winner. You’ll have to forgive my passion for this, I was diagnosed w stage 2 breast cancer, a newlywed and with a baby a little over a year old. I was 36 and no family history. There’s a lot more out there about parabens and other endocrine disrupters than one European study. What the FDA doesn’t do is insane. Canada and the EU are light years ahead of us on the matter.

[chessylady]

@wig4usc Thank you for your post, I hope you are doing well. Makeup should be an enhancement not a potential health risk. Someone said " When we know better we do better." So now we know about these harmful ingredients and should be proactive in making beauty products for women safe.

[Icegoddess]

---

@wig4usc wrote:
I’ve been watching products and ingredients for close to 20 years. I’m curious how many of you know that genetic breast cancer is a low number, 10% is the HIGHEST number I’ve seen. So what we’re exposing ourselves to is pretty important. Those that are downplaying things like parabens...research what they originally formulated for. Anyone think formaldehyde is OK for our personal care products?? I guess there are more than I figured, that’s prominently in the ingredient list for a QVC beauty award winner. You’ll have to forgive my passion for this, I was diagnosed w stage 2 breast cancer, a newlywed and with a baby a little over a year old. I was 36 and no family history. There’s a lot more out there about parabens and other endocrine disrupters than one European study. What the FDA doesn’t do is insane. Canada and the EU are light years ahead of us on the matter.

---

@wig4usc if parabens scare you, look into PEG's.  I find them much more concerning.

[SilleeMee]

Another paraben alternative, sodium benzoate, is concerning to me also. SB is not harmful by itself but when it comes in contact with ascorbic acid (vit C) and some other skin care acids then it converts to benzene, a well-known carcinogen. 

Even if a person is found to have parabens in their body, there is no definitive method to prove how or from where it got there. Maybe it came from skin care products or maybe it came from the environment around them. Parabens are everywhere in our environment and eliminating them from skin care products won't change a thing, other than cause more skin care problems. If parabens cause problems then we'd all be in trouble and that is clearly not the case.

[Icegoddess]

---

@SilleeMee wrote:

Another paraben alternative, sodium benzoate, is concerning to me also. SB is not harmful by itself but when it comes in contact with ascorbic acid (vit C) and some other skin care acids then it converts to benzene, a well-known carcinogen. 

Even if a person is found to have parabens in their body, there is no definitive method to prove how or from where it got there. Maybe it came from skin care products or maybe it came from the environment around them. Parabens are everywhere in our environment and eliminating them from skin care products won't change a thing, other than cause more skin care problems. If parabens cause problems then we'd all be in trouble and that is clearly not the case.

---

@SilleeMee that reminds me of the Aluminum cookware/alzheimers relationship.  While aluminum cookware might not be the best cookware, the scientists have said there is no data to indicate using aluminum cookeware caused alzheimers. They didn't even know if the aluminum found in the brains of alzheimers patients was caused by anything external or if it might actually be a result of having alzheimers.  Yet, aluminum cookware quickly disappeared from the market.  I haven't kept up with it over the years, so I could be wrong, but that is the last I heard.  In fact, after the initial findings and the cookware disappearing from the market, I really haven't heard anything in the news about aluminum being in the brains of alzheimers patients.

[Jacie]

Oh Cali. it's pointless.

Yup, pass a cosmetics law, but you can't seem to pass a law/enforce a law that bans people pooping on the street in San Fran. 

So much for that healthy lifestyle there!