The great chemical debate...
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:35 pm

yeah, don't ban something just because it's "artificial." many many "chemicals" are found in nature and synthetically reproduced. This is very common in food products. You may avoid things that are artificially flavored, but many artificial flavors are chemically identical to their natural equivalent (banana, for example). And because they can be produced more efficiently artificially, sometimes the use of synthetic chemicals leaves a smaller ecological footprint.

moral of story: Don't just dump a product because there's a word in it you don't understand. If you're against a certain type of chemical for its environmental impact or something, that's one thing. But give it a chance on your skin otherwise. Chemicals are chemicals, whether artificially produced or made in nature.

free skin care · Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:08 pm

Over the past several years, I've become a pretty passionate label reader, and I'm quite strict about learning about the source, purpose, and possible effects of the ingredients of the products that I use.

Also, I do think it's import to understand that the FDA's role with regard to regulating cosmetics is more limited than many people assume. The following is from the FDA website and briefly explains the agency's cosmetics oversight functions.

"The regulatory requirements governing the sale of cosmetics are not as stringent as those that apply to other FDA-regulated products. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, cosmetics and their ingredients are not required to undergo approval before they are sold to the public. Generally, FDA regulates these products after they have been released to the marketplace. This means that manufacturers may use any ingredient or raw material, except for color additives and a few prohibited substances, to market a product without a government review or approval."

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:50 pm

Quote:

Why This Matters — Cosmetics and Your Health

Have you ever counted how many cosmetics or personal care products you use in a day? Chances are it's nearly 10. And chances are good that they include shampoo, toothpaste, soap, deodorant, hair conditioner, lip balm, sunscreen, body lotion, shaving products if you're a man, and cosmetics if you are a woman. And what about your children? On any given day you might rub, spray, or pour some combination of sunscreen, diaper cream, shampoo, lotion, and maybe even insect repellant on their skin.

Most people use these products without a second thought, and believe that the government must certainly be policing the safety of the mixtures in these myriad containers. But they are wrong about this. The government does not require health studies or pre-market testing for these products before they are sold. And as people apply an average of 126 unique ingredients on their skin daily, these chemicals, whether they seep through the skin, rinse down the drain, or flush down the toilet in human excretions, are causing concerns for human health, and for the impacts they may have to wildlife, rivers and streams.

The fact is the majority of people rarely question the chemical composition of their favorite cosmetics and toiletries, any more than they question a bottle of aspirin. Most people unconsciously assume that if the product is on the shelf in a reputable store, it's safe. And why wouldn’t we all think this way – we have the FDA to watch-dog chemical ingredients used by manufacturers for us, right? Well not exactly, the rules can become blurred thanks to cosmetic marketing. Take a look at this interesting website where you might be surprised to discover how the FDA approves cosmetics and their ingredients for the marketplace.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep2/findings/index.php

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:06 pm

Ah yes, the "Skin Deep" website....

...I'd rather read a Marvel Comics Superhero comic book than waste my time reading doom and gloom information spewed out by Skin Deep. There's probably more scientific fact in the Marvel Comic.

John

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:46 pm

Great thread!

Interesting and very informative discussion... Someone mentioned the DIY formulations but I didn't catch whether the ingredients within had any inherent preservatives?

List of ingredients for DIY Decleor Ylang Ylang oil - if none of these are preservatives, at what point do I need to discard?

jojoba oil
Lavender oil
ylang ylang oil
bay oil
rosemary oil

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:57 pm

Okay, I have a "Why" question that may provoke some of you, but it is a valid one!
Some background: I've worked in the skincare industry on and off for the last sixteen years, starting off at Fred Segal Melrose, where Osea, Peter Thomas Roth, Kiehls, and Arcona all had there US starts, and most recently for an agency that represents make up artists,where every line imaginable has sent the office free products that I've been lucky enough to try when there has been overflow. I became an avid label reader, and being fifteen back then, started using Osea since it was "all natural," with minimal preservatives, no harsh surfectants, and chock full of trace minerals and marine algae and essential oils, etc. You get the picture. I've used Osea consistently, sometimes veering to other product lines just for fun, such as living nature, desert essence, pure skin formulations, and most recently, epicuren and sanoflore. These are the products that I've stuck with the most, but I must say that EVERY single time I've put a commercial product on my skin, be it L'oreal, Clinique, Neutrogena, Clarins, Olay, Astara, RoC, Estee Lauder, just to name a FEW--my skin clogs up and I look terrible. I even tried dove's new light tanning cream and felt like my entire body was suffocating, it smelled so bad and made my skin itch.
Now, I know that most commercial lines are extremely successful and totally unharmful, but I've been a devoted label-reader and natural product-oriented person for the better part of my life.
I know that I'm sensitive to the staple cocktail of chemicals that most commercial lines contain in their products, which, whenever I read a label, I recognize as virtually the same from brand to brand. and I can pretty much assert that ranges with minimalistic, natural-based formulations agree better with my skin in general. So why is this?
Does this mean that our skin can get accustomed to chemicals in certain formulations, and that if we are not accustomed to them, they will disagree with us?
I'm no expert, but I really think that the wave of the future in cosmetics will be to learn how to glean the most out of both natural and chemical ingredients, so as to come up with an effective yet minimalist product. IS Clinical and Skinceuticals are representative of this trend, I think.
I think we need to stay away from cocktails comprised of concatenations of chemicals, which I'm CONVINCED are not beneficial for the skin, and orient ourselves to ranges that promote targeted, active ingredients in simple formulations--and if a chemical is the most effective choice for targeting a specific problem, we shouldn't shy away from it for that reason alone.

--avalange

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:38 pm

Avalange, your post is very interesting. I agree that simple is better when it comes to ingredients in products for the skin. I also think there's a lot of alarmist, inaccurate information out there about "chemicals."

I recently read an article in an alternative medicine magazine about ingredients that are supposedly "junk food" for the skin. The author did *no* research using primary sources, quoted someone else's book (who happens to sell products under his own name) and others who have a financial interest in saying that sulfates, mineral oil, etc. are bad for us. That was it. What a joke.

(I also think it's ridiculous for companies like those under the Estee Lauder umbrella to put 50-some ingredients into a cream and say that it contains any significant quantity of anything (like vitamins, peptides, whatever) other than water, water-binding ingredients and thickeners. But that may be a different thread.)

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:20 pm

John C. Hill wrote:

Ah yes, the "Skin Deep" website....

...I'd rather read a Marvel Comics Superhero comic book than waste my time reading doom and gloom information spewed out by Skin Deep. There's probably more scientific fact in the Marvel Comic.

John

LOL!!! - Thought you'd have thicker skin than that, John! I understand though...it must hurt a wee bit that this website exists and that it is exposing brand name cosmetics and toiletries that contain specific harmful chemicals. Oh, and that it grades how concerned you should be using the cosmetics containing the bad chemicals on a level from 0-5. Well now, I can see why you'd be feeling sore about this. But golly gee whiz - you'd think all this free publicity would be MARVELous for the cosmetic industry, wouldn't you? And that if there WAS something substantially incorrect with the information contained on the Skin Deep website, that all the *scientific* big-wigs would be jumping out of their seats with documented evidence that say's otherwise! Of course if the chemical geeks were too busy concocting up a new batch of cream-de-la-nasty, you know the big mean lawyers that work for these cosmetic conglomerates would be jumping out THEIR seats and serving papers of their own!

We live in a world where defamation is not tolerated - especially when brand credibility and revenue dollars are jeopardized. If you have scientific evidence that disputes the claims at Skin Deep, by all means please share it. I'm certain we'd all like proof that parabens are harmless afterall... Laughing

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:33 pm

I may be the minority, but I don't pay much attention to the ingredients. I go by word of mouth (like EDS) or by my dermatologist.

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:41 pm

ScotsLass, the reason all the scientific "big wigs" aren't jumping out of their chairs over this site is because we are too busy picking ourselves up off the floor from laughing at it!

Seriously, virtually all the formulators, consultants, scientists, lecturers, and businessmen that I talk with in the industry literally have a good hearty laugh over the misinformation listed in sites like Skin Deep. What is the point of going after a site like this? We have our test methods, we have the safety testing data, we have our testing labs, we have the FDA to answer to. They have nobody to answer to on the world wide rumor mill know as the internet.

It has become harder and harder to work in the cosmetic industry. Everyone is going on to become (or is) ISO 9000 or higher certified. In the very near future everyone will need to be cGMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) certified. In order to get these certifications you have to PROVE, beyond a doubt that all of the materials that you use have passed all clinical safety testing (Geez, I'll probably get the PETA people mad now). In addition, it is getting so regulated and tightly controlled that most of the big houses such as Estee, Coty, L'Oreal, Johnson and Johnson ect. require a known lineage on all raw materials. In other words, if you use a certain ingredient in a product that ingredient and every ingredient must be traced back to its ORIGINAL source! That means we will have to trace things like mineral oil all the way back to the actual mine or mineral dig site that the product was taken from, and have all the safety data with every step of the process. In natural products it will have to be traced back all the way to the exact farm that it came from. I don't know about you, but I can't think of another industry on the planet that has become so safety regulated as the Cosmetic Industry.

Feel free to say otherwise, but knowing what I know, I would not hesitate to put any chemical listed in the INCI dictionary on my skin, or hair at any time.

John

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:25 pm

Ummm...going back to the first post in this thread:

Quote:

If you're going to avoid any ingredient, make it propylene glycol, another name for mineral oil.

Since when is propylene glycol another name for mineral oil? It is not! (Is it?) I mean, I've used both products and they're not the same at all! Nobody else has commented on this so I'm wondering why not. Question

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:26 pm

I like to read labels and keep an eye on the science data, but mostly in an attempt to get the most bang for my buck on products, and not so much to protect myself from evil ingredients.

I believe that the scientists are constantly working to dial in on the safety as well as the efficacy of the chemicals and compounds that they work with. (I'm more leary of the FDA, and many of the cosmetic companies).

No matter what, though, what is deemed safe today may very well be on the sh*tlist tomorrow, and vice versa. And then there is all of that 'conflicting data' that nobody can decide on. . .it's how science works; trial and error -- and sometimes we're the guinea pigs Razz

. I try to keep up with the data to help find the best products, but then I just try to find products that work for my skin and hair, and hope for the best. I mean, you never know -- in thirty years they may find out that all that great Hyaluronic Acid that we've been slathering all over ourselves causes premature ageing and ten different cancers over the long term.

Well, I'm now going to go eat some chocolate, drink some wine, and take a quick nap in the sun while all of these things are still good for me. Laughing

-- Bee

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:38 pm

I try to avoid parabens and aluminum in products. Sulfates and silicones are next. Propylene gycol is on the radar, but not a very big concern at this point for me.

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:15 pm

The only reason I read the ingredient label is to see roughly how much of the active ingredient is included. eg if it is a Vit C product and has 1% then I give it a miss. If the percentages aren't listed then the order of the ingredients gives some indication.
Apart from that, if the product has no ill effects on my skin and my skin looks good when I have used it for a few days then I will be happy with the product. Many people don't like the "chemicals" in Valmont and the silicones in Remergent but my skin has never looked so good.

free skin care · Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:35 pm

PocoLoco wrote:

Ummm...going back to the first post in this thread:

Quote:

If you're going to avoid any ingredient, make it propylene glycol, another name for mineral oil.

Since when is propylene glycol another name for mineral oil? It is not! (Is it?) I mean, I've used both products and they're not the same at all! Nobody else has commented on this so I'm wondering why not. Question

Wow, I cannot believe that this post is still going strong.

PocoLoco, when I read the article, I also kind of went "huh?" about the mineral oil comparison.. especially when his next comment was "It has no calmative, soothing benefits or ideal hydrative benefits, but it's an inexpensive filler" I alway thought that mineral oil was at least hydrating, so figured maybe the reporter got it wrong or else he was just going off on a tangent. Laughing

Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:47 am

Bee, I really agree with you. I don't know what to think these days. I just want to know what is true but there are so many conflicting opinions. When the antibacterial hand wash came out, it was meant for a great cause but now we find it damaging. How do we know that some of these great ingredients won't be in that same situation in a few years?

I read some online information on parabens (my mom is terrified of them) and they do seem to be "mostly" safe. I guess I am a little more comfortable when they aren't in EVERY product I use each day.

I don't think anyone in the skincare industry should be laughing at information consumers turn to in order to make sure they are taking excellent care of themselves. Instead they should welcome this challenge and the interest we are taking in our products. Those who understand the ingredients and the science behind them should give us detailed, but easy to understand, data that we can use to make an informed decision. We all just want to be educated and understand our skin care products so that we have beautiful skin without causing damage...because we want to be around to enjoy our beautiful skin!

free skin care · Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:30 pm

chemical?or botanical?I prefer the botanical cosmetics ,but they usually do work is slowly,so maybe chemial cosmetics can work quickly ?I think the C serum is "chemial "cosmetics and i want to try it .

free skin care · Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:57 pm

SO much for the FDA looking out for your safety:http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html

Does FDA approve cosmetics before they go on the market?

FDA's legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency, such as drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives. However, FDA may pursue enforcement action against violative products, or against firms or individuals who violate the law.

Who is responsible for substantiating the safety of cosmetics?

Cosmetic firms are responsible for substantiating the safety of their products and ingredients before marketing. Failure to adequately substantiate the safety of a cosmetic product or its ingredients prior to marketing causes the product to be misbranded unless the following warning statement appears conspicuously on the principal display panel of the product's label:

"Warning--The safety of this product has not been determined." (21 CFR 740.10)

In addition, regulations prohibit or restrict the use of several ingredients in cosmetic products and require warning statements on the labels of certain types of cosmetics.

In general, except for color additives and those ingredients which are prohibited or restricted from use in cosmetics by regulation, a manufacturer may use any ingredient in the formulation of a cosmetic provided that the ingredient and the finished cosmetic are safe, the product is properly labeled, and the use of the ingredient does not otherwise cause the cosmetic to be adulterated or misbranded under the laws that FDA enforces.

free skin care · Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:09 pm

PocoLoco wrote:

Ummm...going back to the first post in this thread:

Quote:

If you're going to avoid any ingredient, make it propylene glycol, another name for mineral oil.

Since when is propylene glycol another name for mineral oil? It is not! (Is it?) I mean, I've used both products and they're not the same at all! Nobody else has commented on this so I'm wondering why not. Question

Pocoloco I think someone cleared that up on the previous page Very Happy

They are different!

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.