All the ingredients of a beauty product have a purpose, a function. Of course, they wouldn't be in there otherwise. Some make the product smell good, some make the product look good, some make the product feel good but others have a more basic function. In fact those with a more basic function are almost a necessity.
Most of these chemicals are widely used across the beauty industry because they are known to be good at their job. Let's take preservatives for example. Parabens are the most commonly used preservatives because they are considered the most effective. In fact, Avon say they see no alternative to parabens. If manufacturers want their products to have a decent shelf-life (most cosmetics can usually be kept in your bathroom cabinet for around 2 years) then they have to include preservatives.
If the suggestions that parabens are harmful are proved then what will manufacturers do? Plus the banning of parabens might not only upset manufacturers ... many consumers may be rather irritated that they have to use up their products so quickly.
Another example is PPD - a chemical used in hair dyes. The amount of this chemical allowed for use in hair-dyes has just been reduced because it is now considered harmful when used above a certain concentration. However, it has not been banned completely. Surely if a chemical is considered harmful at all then it really shouldn't be allowed in our (everyday - for some) beauty products.
Manufacturers claim that there is no alternative to PPD - it is the best chemical available to dye hair permanently. So could this be a clue to why it hasn't been banned completely - industry pressure?
These potentially harmful chemicals, over which there is considerable debate, seem to cause a bit of a problem: most of them are a necessity to make our beauty products do what they are supposed to do but concern is growing about their effect on human health. It seems ... we can't live with them, we can't live without them.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Interview with Clare Dimmer
Breast Cancer UK chair Clare Dimmer told me how she lobbies the government with work by researchers that show some chemicals in cosmetics can increase breast cancer risk. She also told me how she suffered from breast cancer herself. Some of my conversation with her is included on my website. However, if you are interested in hearing more of what Clare said then you can listen to the rest of the interview here:
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Interview with Elizabeth Salter-Green
Chem Trust Director Elizabeth Salter-Green made some really interesting points during my interview with her. Some of these are included on my website. However, if you are interested in hearing more of what Elizabeth said then you can watch the rest of the interview here:
Sunday, 20 June 2010
How natural is natural?
Today I asked people on the high street if they were more inclined to buy beauty products that had the statement 'natural ingredients' on the front of them. The vast majority of them said yes. Reasons provided where "I assume it's better for me", "I don't like the thought of putting anything that's not natural on my skin" and "I think natural is safer". Three ways of saying the same thing - most people believe that natural ingredients are less harmful than synthetic ones.
And who can blame them? The UK beauty industry spends £600 million a year marketing its products as natural, pure and simple. 'Natural' is advertised as something to pay extra for. However, some of the researchers/scientists that I've spoken to say that natural chemicals can be just as harmful as some of the nasty synthetic ones. Not too hard to believe when you think about it I suppose as some of the deadliest chemicals/toxins I can think of are natural - snake venom? Of course, I'm yet to find a beauty product that contains snake venom.
Another issue which has cropped up time and time again in my research into the natural vs synthetic argument is the lack of legislation covering this area. If a cosmetic or toiletry contains just one natural ingredient the manufacturer can still advertise the product as natural. So, even if natural is better for us, how much of it are we actually getting when we fork out for a product with 'natural ingredients'?
Director of Lush Karl Bygrave reckons Lush use more natural ingredients than any other manufacturer of beauty products. He described his favourite Lush product to me and recited a long list of fruits saying "you don't get more natural than that."
However, Lush do use some parabens in their ingredients ... my investigation into beauty safety continues.
And who can blame them? The UK beauty industry spends £600 million a year marketing its products as natural, pure and simple. 'Natural' is advertised as something to pay extra for. However, some of the researchers/scientists that I've spoken to say that natural chemicals can be just as harmful as some of the nasty synthetic ones. Not too hard to believe when you think about it I suppose as some of the deadliest chemicals/toxins I can think of are natural - snake venom? Of course, I'm yet to find a beauty product that contains snake venom.
Another issue which has cropped up time and time again in my research into the natural vs synthetic argument is the lack of legislation covering this area. If a cosmetic or toiletry contains just one natural ingredient the manufacturer can still advertise the product as natural. So, even if natural is better for us, how much of it are we actually getting when we fork out for a product with 'natural ingredients'?
Director of Lush Karl Bygrave reckons Lush use more natural ingredients than any other manufacturer of beauty products. He described his favourite Lush product to me and recited a long list of fruits saying "you don't get more natural than that."
However, Lush do use some parabens in their ingredients ... my investigation into beauty safety continues.
Thursday, 17 June 2010
How Absorbing?
Many of the researchers/ scientists/ toxicologists that I have been interviewing over the past few weeks have talked about absorption. They have described how various chemicals in our beauty products affect our bodies. Surely the only way they can affect us is if they are absorbed, right? As I've already discussed, nanotechnology reduces substances into tiny particles to allow them to penetrate our skin but how many of the regular sized chemicals are absorbed?
The skin is the body's largest organ. In the average adult, it covers about two square metres whilst being less than 2mm think in most places. It is made up of several layers and most doctors and scientists describe it as an impressive physical barrier designed to protect us from the world around us. So are our insides really under threat from the ingredients of our cosmetics?
Well, apparently, the surface layer of our skin, the epidermis, which completely renews itself in 45-75 days, is made up of about 15 layers of flat dead cells. This can be penetrated quite well by some oils and alcohols which are often used in skin products to help carry the active ingredients into the deeper layers. So, most of our exposure to the chemicals in cosmetics is via the skin.
Absorption begins once the cosmetic product has been applied. Of course, we are only briefly exposed to the chemicals in products which we wash straight off like soaps but we have a far greater exposure to products that are designed to be left on such as moisturisers. In an experiment conducted with hairdye under actual-use conditions, 43 micrograms of para-phenylenediamine aka PPD (see my article on PPD on my website) was detected in the user's urine after only 30 minutes!
The skin is the body's largest organ. In the average adult, it covers about two square metres whilst being less than 2mm think in most places. It is made up of several layers and most doctors and scientists describe it as an impressive physical barrier designed to protect us from the world around us. So are our insides really under threat from the ingredients of our cosmetics?
Well, apparently, the surface layer of our skin, the epidermis, which completely renews itself in 45-75 days, is made up of about 15 layers of flat dead cells. This can be penetrated quite well by some oils and alcohols which are often used in skin products to help carry the active ingredients into the deeper layers. So, most of our exposure to the chemicals in cosmetics is via the skin.
Absorption begins once the cosmetic product has been applied. Of course, we are only briefly exposed to the chemicals in products which we wash straight off like soaps but we have a far greater exposure to products that are designed to be left on such as moisturisers. In an experiment conducted with hairdye under actual-use conditions, 43 micrograms of para-phenylenediamine aka PPD (see my article on PPD on my website) was detected in the user's urine after only 30 minutes!
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology has been used by the beauty industry in the production of cosmetics and toiletries for the last ten years. It is used to reduce ingredients into ‘nanoparticles’ defined as up to 100 nano meters. It is used in products such as anti-ageing creams and moisturisers to help the product penetrate the skin. It is also used in sun creams as a result of consumer demand for ‘invisible’ sun screen.
Fair enough, I guess, as no one wants that white and greasy look of being smothered in suncream whilst tryng to look good on the beach. However, I can’t help but wonder if nanotechnology is a good thing. Of course I’m no scientist, but the idea of chemicals penetrating the skin concerns me. How deep do they go? What do they do when they're in there? The UV filters in sun creams penetrate deep into our skin and take many of the other ingreidnets in sun cream with them. Dr Chris Exley, a lecturer in natural sciences at Keele University, has published some very interesting (and I think rather alarming) articles on this topic. He says that UV filters actually penetrate far deeper than is necessary for their filter function. Here, according to Dr Exley ,they can actually promote the formation of free radicals and hence potentially cause oxidative damage. Most sun creams also contain aluminiumand some even add aluminium as an ingredient into their lotions. Dr Exley says that since aluminium is a potent pro-oxidant and potentially cancer causing its additional presence in these skin layers could make the oxidative damage significantly worse! So now I ask the question could sun creams - the lotions we use to help prevent skin cancer - actually cause skin cancer?!
When asked the reason for including aluminium in their products, most sun cream manufacturers were not forthcoming about the role it played. However, Simple Sun Protection Cream did provide a reason saying that aluminium hydroxide was added to their product to coat the surface and thereby prevent the agglomeration of another ingredient, titanium dioxide particles. Doesn't anyone think that alumiuim should be removed from sun creams? If it's not actually needed - why is it in there in the first place? Plus shouldn't it be banned in these sorts of products at least until it's proved safe?!
Anyway - back to nanotechnology. As well as playing a part in causing sun creams to be potentially cancer causing by allowing aluminium into our skin, nanotechnology could pose other serious health implications. Independent health consultant Helen Lynn has done huge amounts of research into chemicals and told me that substances act differently when reduced to these tiny sizes. When skin is sunburnt or damaged from eczema or acne nanoparticles can pass through the skin into the blood stream. Helen said: "the particles then have access to all our organs and tissues where they can disrupt normal cell activity, damage brain cells and cause pre-cancerous lesions."
Fair enough, I guess, as no one wants that white and greasy look of being smothered in suncream whilst tryng to look good on the beach. However, I can’t help but wonder if nanotechnology is a good thing. Of course I’m no scientist, but the idea of chemicals penetrating the skin concerns me. How deep do they go? What do they do when they're in there? The UV filters in sun creams penetrate deep into our skin and take many of the other ingreidnets in sun cream with them. Dr Chris Exley, a lecturer in natural sciences at Keele University, has published some very interesting (and I think rather alarming) articles on this topic. He says that UV filters actually penetrate far deeper than is necessary for their filter function. Here, according to Dr Exley ,they can actually promote the formation of free radicals and hence potentially cause oxidative damage. Most sun creams also contain aluminiumand some even add aluminium as an ingredient into their lotions. Dr Exley says that since aluminium is a potent pro-oxidant and potentially cancer causing its additional presence in these skin layers could make the oxidative damage significantly worse! So now I ask the question could sun creams - the lotions we use to help prevent skin cancer - actually cause skin cancer?!
When asked the reason for including aluminium in their products, most sun cream manufacturers were not forthcoming about the role it played. However, Simple Sun Protection Cream did provide a reason saying that aluminium hydroxide was added to their product to coat the surface and thereby prevent the agglomeration of another ingredient, titanium dioxide particles. Doesn't anyone think that alumiuim should be removed from sun creams? If it's not actually needed - why is it in there in the first place? Plus shouldn't it be banned in these sorts of products at least until it's proved safe?!
Anyway - back to nanotechnology. As well as playing a part in causing sun creams to be potentially cancer causing by allowing aluminium into our skin, nanotechnology could pose other serious health implications. Independent health consultant Helen Lynn has done huge amounts of research into chemicals and told me that substances act differently when reduced to these tiny sizes. When skin is sunburnt or damaged from eczema or acne nanoparticles can pass through the skin into the blood stream. Helen said: "the particles then have access to all our organs and tissues where they can disrupt normal cell activity, damage brain cells and cause pre-cancerous lesions."
Sunday, 13 June 2010
"Toxic-Free" Moisturisers
I made the (very long) journey to York this week to visit writer and author Kate Lock. After doing research for her book Confessions of an Eco Shopper, and finding some facts that she found alarming, Kate decided to start making her own beauty products. She makes everything from skin toners and perfumes to moisturisers and foot balms. She showed me how to make a few things. It all seemed pretty easy once you know how. However, I did wonder how many people would have the time (it took just under 40 minutes). It seems to me that not enough people care what is in their products anyway. Or at least they believe that they can trust chemicals that are safe according to EU regulations. However, even if they did care and wanted to change what they use, how many people have the time to make their own?
It also struck me that whilst there were no preservatives or synthetic chemicals in any of Kate's products, it isn't only these that are harmful. Really, a lot of what people might consider 'harmful' depends on the person using the product. Everyone is different and reacts differently to different chemicals. Kate uses essential oils in her products, calling them 'totally natural and harmless'. However, I know a few people who have allergic reactions to some essential oils.
This made me think ... how do we define 'harmful'?
It also struck me that whilst there were no preservatives or synthetic chemicals in any of Kate's products, it isn't only these that are harmful. Really, a lot of what people might consider 'harmful' depends on the person using the product. Everyone is different and reacts differently to different chemicals. Kate uses essential oils in her products, calling them 'totally natural and harmless'. However, I know a few people who have allergic reactions to some essential oils.
This made me think ... how do we define 'harmful'?
Intentions
This blog runs alongside my website dedicated to investigating what's really in your beauty products. I recently became interested in this after reading numerous press reports and scientific studies concerning the safety of cosmetics. I've heard various claims that products contain whale blubber, brake fluid, bull's sperm and a whole load of other extraordinary ingredients but it's not so much this that I'm interested in. Rather, I want to explore the usual chemicals that are included in the majority of the products we buy and use.
How much research has been done into the safety of the chemicals that we apply to our skin on a regular basis? Quite a lot it turns out, but how much has the research been used? Many scientists, toxicologists and environmentalists have not only voiced their concerns over chemicals such as parabens and phthalates but have backed them up with scientific tests. Yet, because other research has proved the opposite, no changes have developed. Should more research be being done? Should these chemicals be banned at least until their safety can be ensured?
Follow my investigation on this blog and at http://journalism.bournemouth.ac.uk/2010/hmullins
How much research has been done into the safety of the chemicals that we apply to our skin on a regular basis? Quite a lot it turns out, but how much has the research been used? Many scientists, toxicologists and environmentalists have not only voiced their concerns over chemicals such as parabens and phthalates but have backed them up with scientific tests. Yet, because other research has proved the opposite, no changes have developed. Should more research be being done? Should these chemicals be banned at least until their safety can be ensured?
Follow my investigation on this blog and at http://journalism.bournemouth.ac.uk/2010/hmullins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)