Beauty

[Icegoddess]

The only way you are really going to know is to check the ingredient deck on the product in question. Of course you will have to research each ingredient since the warning doesn't tell you which one is the offending chemical. Think I'm crazy? No. I do it with most of my skincare products. Haven't ventured out to all my cosmetics, but if I got a warning label on one I certainly would check it out instead of relying on the company or QVC to tell me.

[suzyQ3]

On 1/20/2014 Icegoddess said:

The only way you are really going to know is to check the ingredient deck on the product in question. Of course you will have to research each ingredient since the warning doesn't tell you which one is the offending chemical. Think I'm crazy? No. I do it with most of my skincare products. Haven't ventured out to all my cosmetics, but if I got a warning label on one I certainly would check it out instead of relying on the company or QVC to tell me.

If lead is the culprit, which is so often the case, you won't find it in the ingredient deck.

[Icegoddess]

On 1/20/2014 suzyQ3 said:

On 1/20/2014 Icegoddess said:

The only way you are really going to know is to check the ingredient deck on the product in question. Of course you will have to research each ingredient since the warning doesn't tell you which one is the offending chemical. Think I'm crazy? No. I do it with most of my skincare products. Haven't ventured out to all my cosmetics, but if I got a warning label on one I certainly would check it out instead of relying on the company or QVC to tell me.

If lead is the culprit, which is so often the case, you won't find it in the ingredient deck.

The warning label didn't specifically say lead, but, if you research the ingredients you will probably find it if it is in there. Just as some preservatives release formaldehyde. You won't find formaldehyde in the ingredient deck either.

[maziegirl]

I used to live in California and once got a letter warning that drinking the local water could cause cancer IF you drink over 200 gallons per day!!! How ridiculous is that?

[suzyQ3]

On 1/20/2014 maziegirl said:

I used to live in California and once got a letter warning that drinking the local water could cause cancer IF you drink over 200 gallons per day!!! How ridiculous is that?

Government can be pretty wonky. I'm guessing that you might have received a notice that may have been sent out to assure people know that drinking water was safe below a certain level of ingestion. When they set these regs for potentially harmful substances, they do often have minimum and maximum levels.

[shoekitty]

I am pretty particular about what I eat (organic) and what I use. It is my opinion that the warning might be because of the strict Prop 65 laws in California. I live in california, and they require anything that comes into this state to be labled as such, if anything in the product contains a chemical or ingredient that has been known to cause cancer or disease.. I think the plastic that is used to make the tubes may be the culprit as well as MAYBE the wire that holds the little brushes. Maybe the wire contains a little lead?? Most mascara by virtue of what it is, and what it does is probably not good for us. I am 66, and remember the hard waxy mascara that came in a little red box. We licked or wet the brush, rubbed it in the mascara cake and applied. How healthy is that? The bacteria alone should have killed us! LOL!, Now that was KNOWN to contain lead, and tar by products.

I use Sisley mascara and it does not carry a warning, but it is imported from France.

I would call Mally's company, ask exactly WHAT it is in her mascara that was awarded this warning. It could be the paint on the box, the plastic, we don't know. IPersonally I wish all companies would state exactly what it is that is giving them Prop65 warnings.

[shoekitty]

I meant to say in my above post, it most likely is nothing, or could have been sent in error. California as i said requires these postings everywhere. It releases many business and such from liability. It falls upon the consumer to do the foot work. You can write the Consumers Board of California and ask why Mally's products received this flag, if indeed it wasn't sent in error

[suzyQ3]

On 1/20/2014 shoekitty said:

I meant to say in my above post, it most likely is nothing, or could have been sent in error. California as i said requires these postings everywhere. It releases many business and such from liability. It falls upon the consumer to do the foot work. You can write the Consumers Board of California and ask why Mally's products received this flag, if indeed it wasn't sent in error

According to Prop 65, it is up to the manufacturer to supply that information, so your earlier advice to contact Mally cosmetics was correct, unless of course it was QVC's error in attaching the label.

I think you're also right that it could be something in the packaging and not in the product itself, but it's impossible to know for sure.

[shoekitty]

On 1/20/2014 suzyQ3 said:

On 1/20/2014 shoekitty said:

I meant to say in my above post, it most likely is nothing, or could have been sent in error. California as i said requires these postings everywhere. It releases many business and such from liability. It falls upon the consumer to do the foot work. You can write the Consumers Board of California and ask why Mally's products received this flag, if indeed it wasn't sent in error

According to Prop 65, it is up to the manufacturer to supply that information, so your earlier advice to contact Mally cosmetics was correct, unless of course it was QVC's error in attaching the label.

I think you're also right that it could be something in the packaging and not in the product itself, but it's impossible to know for sure.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. Mally is the first place to go of course. But I have to be frank, (as I deal with this often) many of the reps at companies don't know squat..to put it bluntley. They give the standard answer about , "they have to warn everyone in California", but they are often ill informed and vague. But I copied the address of the exact site for prop65, and anyone can peruse the site, look at the list and get a better understanding of this proposition. I have emailed them many times about a specific chemical or question, and they have been very quick and informative. You can take the ingredient list of your product, and see if it is on the prop 65 list of chemicals. I have found more often that not, it is the packaging, or something as simple as that. For instance notice the warnings on candles? It is usually the wick, or the glass. Also, it includes some candles that have ingredients that might be "polluting" when burned. Most glasses and dinnerware have this warning, even though they are lead free, because there is a whisper of chemical that MIGHT be in the glaze or in the organic clay. Who knows.

I usually go to the company first, then go to the website and check around myself. If they reply at least I am informed enough to question them further if I need to. Sometimes it is the off gassing of a product as well that warrants the labeling. I am curious as to Mally's product. I do not have any of her products so I can't check. I bet it is a mistake. Hmmm. If anyone finds out, please post here and let me know..

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html

[Krissie62]

Mally said in the presentation that the mascara is the same as her volumizing - the one in the white tube that she's been selling for years - just with a different tube and the 2 applicators. That mascara never came with a warning, so not sure what could be different with this one.