Printable View
ok I found out about this site through my Body+soul mag. It shocked me. Products I thought were good aren't!
http://cosmeticsdatabase.com/index.php
I am throwing out a lot of my lip balm keeping the badgers pass though. That is a good one at least! And Dr bronner's! Knottedyet already knew this!
I'm one of those strange women who rarely uses lotion or other things on my skin. It makes not one bit of difference for very long on my dry winter skin, so I stopped wasting my money long ago.
I have occasionally wondered when they would find stuff like that can be bad for you, too.
Karen
I'm partial to lead based Mexican lip balm.
Best remedy for super dry skin: olive oil. When you get out of the shower, put it on your still wet skin and then towel off. It works wonders. Best deodorant: Thai Deodorant stone. I think it's some salt, but a million times better than aluminum whatever they use in conventional antiperspirants.
on a side note, heard a rumor that Nalgenes make you sterile....
You are to funny!Quote:
Originally Posted by zencentury
http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/114/nalgeneQuote:
Originally Posted by pinkychique
A workmate's friend makes the following hand stuff down in Margaret River here in Western Australia...mmmm it smells mmmmm
http://www.margaretriversavi.com/soc...txtcategory=30
Love my Dr. Bronner's! Wash my bod, my hair, my clothes, my dishes, my dog, all with the same bottle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandi
The lip balm (Dr. Bronner's/Sun Dog Magic) is my favorite lip balm of all time. (much better on my lips than Burt's Bees, which is now owned by Chlorox anyway)
I like the Dr. Bronner's/Sun Dog Magic lotion, but not as much as I like my plain grape seed oil (face and body) or plain olive oil (hands and feet)
Interesting. This site requests users to petition Congress to require manufacturers to prove the safety of their products before they are allowed to sell them.
One of the items in the petition is:
All chemicals used in cosmetics and personal care products must pass a strict safety test that protects the most vulnerable in the population, before products are allowed to be sold.
So campers, what do you suppose a "strict safety test" would involve?
Could it be ... animal testing ????? :eek:
yup.
Most likely. I'd rather have educated consumers than stricter testing laws. Whichever is done, though, it's always an uphill battle. I remember reading about what a battle it was over listing ingredients... whew!
Well, hell's bells, already two of my four cosmetics are tested on animals it seems. I am not a fan of that practice. How cruel!! Test on humans if you are so unsure; I need to make an extra buck or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by jobob
On another note, better start hoarding the bunnies so labs can't find them.
Unlike a lot of environmental additives (paints, fabric treatments, plastics etc.), the artificial chemicals in personal care products already are tested on animals. That's where the EWG data comes from. They're tested on animals, found to be dangerous, and passed for human use anyhow. Companies that use chemicals that someone else has tested can claim that their finished products aren't tested on animals. Completely natural products like Dr. Bronner's or pure coconut oil get waived because they're grandmothered in as Generally Recognized as Safe. (Although on a side note, the pharmaceutical companies are now testing natural foods on animals so that they can make health claims. :mad:)Quote:
Originally Posted by jobob
Some people (i.e. for-profit corporations) have instilled the idea that "progress" means abandoning ancient ingredients and traditions, and that anyone opposed to that abandonment is a "Luddite" (which the history and reality of Luddism is actually another discussion...). In reality, it's more about selling people Vytorin because their patent on Zocor is about to expire. The lotion in the colorful plastic package at Wal-Mart (or the natural food store) doesn't necessarily work any better than the ugly weed growing in your backyard, or the nondescript jar of oil in the baking aisle.
Occasionally there is room for improvement, and for products that really do show some practical value, there's been a lot of advances recently in in vitro testing on human tissue. Yes, those advances do unfortunately involve comparisons with animal testing. But IMO the discussion about animal testing for pharmaceuticals and surgical techniques - whatever your position on that - is a completely different discussion from the question of animal testing for cr*p that they just want to sell you for around the house.
I have super coarse hair. Would the bronner's make it really frizzy? Do you use conditioner?Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
That's pretty interesting. Looks like the Cetaphil sunscreen/moisturizer that I use may actually cause cancer AND is tested on animals...
I'm somewhat skeptical about the real danger. And as far as animal testing is concerned, I hate it, but honestly, if you've ever used a prescription or OTC drug or taken a supplement, somehow, you've benefited from animal testing.
True, very true. In some ways i guess animal testing is a necessary evil in a lot of ways. You would not want your child to be the first one to use a new thing and have it kill them or perm damage them. Still don't like the cosmetic side of testing for stuff we really do not need. Meds I understand. Perfum,lotions etc....I don't. Besides there are enough out there now can we stop the testing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrea
I have thick curly hair. This sounds nasty and I was super skeptical, but I tried it and it really works. Only shampoo your hair once or twice a week... It took a lot of will power and I cut down slowly going to every other day... every 3rd day. Now I just wash it when it looks dirty, which is usually only once or twice a week, or less depending on how much time it spends in a helmet. I still shower every day of course and my hair gets rinsed and conditioned every day as well, just no shampoo. I find this also means its much less important to be careful about what I wash it with, because it doesn't frizz as easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandi
I looked up two products on that site and noticed that the ingredients listed on the site are very different from the ingredients listed on the package. I don't mean just one or two things different, but completely different. I had always assumed that in Canada we had basically the same stuff (except for Mountain Dew of course) just with bilingual packaging. I'm surprised to find out that the contents are so different.
Doesn't suprise me - different cultures aquire different tastes, stuff like chicken bullion/stock can be very different depending on who its packaged for. I've heard Coca-Cola made for Mexico has real sugar in it, rather than corn syrup and that it tastes a whole lot better. Companies really do tailor their products to different markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by kat_h
Different taste in chicken stock isn't the same concept as different ingredients in Blistex. I wonder if some of the ingredients in the US version of Blistex are banned in Canada, or vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
I would tend to agree with KateH in Calgary, there might be certain substances (food additives) that are banned. I kinda doubt the culture of mainstream U.S. is so different from Canada..
However....keep in mind that it is to the manufacturer's advantage for the Canadian market, to have some bilingual (English and French) on the label. So perhaps they might take an opportunity to modify product abit anyway if a separate label must be stuck on. Just a thought.
Responding to original topic...in a way this is why I don't want to go the hair colouring route at all and be on that path for many years. Hard to believe the chemicals to dye hair, which might touch scalp are all safe products.
It's amazing to look at bottle of shampoo these days to see its ingredients.. not that I've gone "organic" yet... since so-called "organic" shampoos are expensive.
My use of makeup has reduced over the past few years. In my present job, I only wear makeup (meaning foundation and lipstick), um..every 3-4 months.
And it's a predominantly male workplace. 25% women vs. 80%.
I think cycling has made me care about being fit instead of how polished I look on the job. Not sure that's the objective here. :p
Banned in Canada...Quote:
Originally Posted by kat_h
Or another alternative is that the website is just wrong.
Out of date....
Incorrect formula labelled...
etc....
Could be. Did you compare any products you own to what's listed on the website? Were the ingredients the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by Regina
We deffinatly have different ing then you guys. You guys are not as loose with it as we are. Our fda is not runned that well.Quote:
Originally Posted by kat_h
I have checked the labels on some of my stuff and it was the same.
Both cosmetics and "dietary supplements" are regulated differently than drugs by the FDA. While FDA requires fairly rigorous pre-market testing for drugs (though maybe not rigorous enough, given some of the recent problems with Vioxx, etc), the FDA has no authority to regulate supplements and cosmetics pre-market unless they make medical claims. They can only pull things off the shelf if they make unproven medical claims, are contaminated/don't follow labeling requirements, or are connected to a large incidence of adverse events (like ephedra was) and therefore can be construed to present a public health risk. Unfortunately this can't be proven until these events are reported in sufficient number to the FDA...
This is a huge loophole that Congress needs to fix in my opinion.
However, I also think we need to take "science" we find on the internet with a grain of salt. I am not a scientist, and some of these claims are pretty extreme, and I can't really evaluate them. History has certainly shown that we sometimes approve dangerous chemicals for public consumption, but there are lots of quacks out there I can't evaluate too...
I don't know what it'd do for your hair. Lucy Liu also uses it, and her hair looks pretty darn good!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandi
I don't use conditioner. (my hair is very thin and fine)
Interesting...you're making me want to experiment--I picked up some soap recently that's not Dr. Bronner's but seems similar (Trader Joe's brand) and plan to try it once I finish the stuff I currently have in the shower. Not sure I could get away with washing only once or twice a week though--on about day 3 my hair definitely starts looking dirty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
Definitely! There's a lot of good info out there but a lot of garbage too. That said, I've come to the conclusion that as far as all these chemicals go, it's probably a good idea to go by the precautionary principle (i. e. if you're not sure whether they're safe stay away from them where possible). A lot of the stuff (cosmetics etc.) is really rather unnecessary anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by liza
So, what if I'm the aminal?Quote:
Originally Posted by jobob
Horseman's Dream Veterinary Cream* (for use on horse and dogs) is the cat's PJs for healing bloody fissured heels and cracked fishing hands. I don't leave home without it.
*NOW WITH LANOLIN!
When I first started my hair would get dirty faster, but now it seems to have reached a better equilbrium - now that I'm not stripping the natural oil out of it so often it doesn't produce as much and it stays clean much longer. I *do* rinse it out and use conditioner every day and that helps a lot. If I weren't doing that I probably couldn't go more than 2 days at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
I just compared the ingredients list on that website vs. what my package says. It's for Olay Complete SPF-15 Sensitive Skin. They are not the same - a few things added (on the website) or re-arranged.Quote:
Originally Posted by kat_h
That's true in general, but EWG is a very reputable organization, and they give abbreviated citations for all their summaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by liza