Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,600
Registered: ‎05-22-2016

Some people say that they don't trust our gov when it comes to the safety of cosmetics, amongst other things. I base my decision, of whether or not to use an ingredient, on what I read in credible literature about any one particular ingredient and dot gov sites are very credible.. I don't base my judgements based on hearsay or from literature that has little or no credibility.  For me finding scientifically-backed evidence is most important when it comes to my safety. I cannot rely on someone's opinion when it comes to staying safe or not. When you learn, you get control and that's empowering.

 

So here's my question...if you say you don't trust the gov when it comes to our safety, then where do you go to gather information to base your decision on whether or not to use an ingredient? I would like to know, seriously.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 11,921
Registered: ‎03-19-2010

@Porcelain, I don't really see the comparison to immunizations the same.  Someone's decision to not use a beauty product because it contains a particular ingredient does no harm whatsoever to anybody.  A personal decision not to vaccinate your child can have far-reaching implications.  With the measles, it's especially troubling due to our very transient society becasue the time between when you contract the disease and become contagious and when you actually get the symptoms is quite long and the virus can live on surfaces and even in the air for up to 2 hours. The state I live in recently had someone pass through the state that afterwards discovered they had measles and had stopped in a Chick-Fil-A for a meal.  Imagine how many people could've been exposed.  Luckily, our state has a high vaccination rate.  But, also remember, children under 4 years can't get the vaccine.  I also have a friend who had cancer and went through a stem cell transplant, and he is susceptible because he has to go through all the vaccinations again and it's too soon for him to get the measles one.  

 

As far as my personal decision to avoid PEG's, tha't just it, personal.  I'm not out lobbying the industry to eliminate them or even telling other people they should avoid them.  In fact, I'm sure they are probably in many of the products I do use, just not my hair care and body wash products because I often have broken skin after working in the yard, which I do on a regular basis and because my scalp tends to itch a lot when I sweat.  And I just do not trust the cosmetics industry to assure there are not contaminants in those products.  

 

I do find it interesting how the beauty care industry has jumped on the no parabens  and even no sulfates bandwagon with so little data just because they know they can use it as a selling point.  I don't use silicones or sulfates in my hair, but I have no problem using them on my skin, nor do I fear prabens.

Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,356
Registered: ‎06-01-2017

@Porcelain wrote:

This rhetoric reminds me of the anti vaccination arguments. And look where that has gotten us. Childhood diseases are back and life expectancy, which had been going up up up, is going down.

 

So now we want exotic skin diseases and tropical fungi to make a comeback too?

 

The idea that contaminants make different chemicals toxic is a recurring theme. Well sure. And if there are contaminants in the ingredients in your diet coke, they could kill you too. And if there are contaminants in your water or your toothpaste--all can doom you.

 

We have regulations for that purpose. To ensure our supply chains are safe.

 

We need to restore trust with the ingredient manufacturers. We need to be reassured that they are producing clean products without contaminants.

 

We don't need a wild west atmosphere where nothing is true and you can't trust anyone and only the person who yells the loudest about the most alarming rumor is the one who is heard and believed.


 

 

Fabulous! Thank you! 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 11,921
Registered: ‎03-19-2010

@SilleeMee wrote:

Somewhat technical reading but this publication contains a lot of info about PEGs. Basically stating PEGs are safe, depending on the type of PEG.

 

"Safety Evaluation of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Compounds for Cosmetic Use"

 

 


@SilleeMee, thanks.  As much as I don't like reading long technical documents, I did peruse it.  The things that stuck out to me was:

1.  It only actually addressed and did testing on, like, 4 PEGs.  I currently have a list of 92 in my database of cosmetic/hair care ingredients.  Thus, I find this paragraph to be an important disclaimer 

 

"However, all PEG compounds were not covered in the previous studies due to their wide variety, and the introduction of new entities currently used in cosmetics suggests supplementary evaluation. Thus, it is essential to continuously monitor the safety and risks of PEG-derived products being exposed to consumers using cosmetic products to ensure that no potential health threats will arise, especially when used extensively and chronically."

 

As well as this sentence under PEG/PPG-17/6 Copolymer: " As much as we would like to know the specific effects of PEG/PPG-17/6 copolymer both in animal and human studies, we suggest that further evaluation should be needed if safety issues are found in its analogue mixtures."

 

2. The Conclusions did not completely exonerated: "PEG's:  Unfortunately, no reliable safety or toxicity studies could be found for other PEG derivatives being evaluated in this review. Nevertheless, PEGs and PEG derivatives were generally regulated as safe for use in cosmetics, with the conditions that impurities and by-products, such as ethylene oxides and 1,4-dioxane, which are known carcinogenic materials, should be removed before they are mixed in cosmetic formulations. Ultimately, specific assessment studies for each chemical mixture are prompted for the exact evaluation of their safety in cosmetic use."

 

3. Because I don't enjoy reading such long, technical documents, one place I often go to for information is a site called Truth in Aging.  Looking at their assessment of PEG's they basically regurgitate the same info given in this document, but in a more concise and readable form.  But, they also do include a warning about using on broken skin.  As you can see in my response to Porcelain above, the broken skin aspect is the reason I avoid them in my hair care products and body washes.  Along with that, I don't trust the cosmetic manufacturers to ascertain that the impurities and by-products, mentioned in "2." above, have been removed.  There is no mention of any regulation concerning that.  

Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,600
Registered: ‎05-22-2016

@Icegoddess 

Thank you for mentioning the Truth in Aging website. That is one I visit often. Another one is Livingstrong dot com. Both are great sites and full of valuable info. I like Dr.Weil's site, too, for info about nutrition.

 

Many times the various websites will make references to dot gov publications. They use dot gov as basis for some of their literature.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 8,736
Registered: ‎02-19-2014

Everyone should absolutely do whatever they want. As long as they aren't hurting anybody and aren't promoting lies or half truths.

 

This is a public forum so promoting half truths and alarming plus incomplete information is not cool with me.

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
"Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
Honored Contributor
Posts: 11,921
Registered: ‎03-19-2010

@SilleeMee wrote:

@Icegoddess 

Thank you for mentioning the Truth in Aging website. That is one I visit often. Another one is Livingstrong dot com. Both are great sites and full of valuable info. I like Dr.Weil's site, too, for info about nutrition.

 

Many times the various websites will make references to dot gov publications. They use dot gov as basis for some of their literature.


@SilleeMee, as to your other question about trusting the government, I often do not depending on the issue.  Nutrition is one area I think the government guidelines are very lacking.  I think it might've been a Dr. Weil article that opened my eyes to the fact that dairy fat is not the evil the government makes it out to be and doesn't affect cholesterol the way the evil trans fats do.  I have gone back to eating full fat dairy products and my doctor couldn't be happier with my test results.  A1C (I'm not diabetic), Cholesterol, and Triglycerides, and Inflammation markers all down.  I also don't like the way the government tries to hide things regarding our food.  Whether I do or don't fear GMO's and other things, I think I should have the right to know and make my own decision. 

 

And then there's all this trying to tax or even do away with "unhealthy" foods that may not actually be unheathy depending on your medical situation or the latest studies (or possibly future studies).  I have a friend who has Cystic Fibrosis.  She is super skinny even though she eats just like anyone else.  Except she eats a lot of high fat and fried foods.  That's the only way she can keep the weight on.  How many foods have been bad for you and then later good for you?  Let me count the ways.

 

And don't even get me started on BMI.

Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,356
Registered: ‎06-01-2017

@Porcelain wrote:

 

 

This is a public forum so promoting half truths and alarming plus incomplete information is not cool with me.


 

 

Agree. 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 11,921
Registered: ‎03-19-2010

@Porcelain wrote:

 

This is a public forum so promoting half truths and alarming plus incomplete information is not cool with me.


Being that is IS a public forum, that is exactly what I would expect to find here.