Skin deep cosmetic data base4/17/2023 ![]() ![]() Teens on average use 17 personal care products a day, according to the group, which tested 20 teens' blood and urine seven years ago to find out which chemicals from these products were ending up in their bodies. Men use fewer products, but still put 85 chemicals on their bodies. The FDA virtually has no power to regulate the products we use everyday."Īccording to the Environmental Working Group, women use an average of 12 products a day, containing 168 different chemicals. I can't overstate how little law is now on the books. "Cosmetics are sort of the last unregulated area of consumer products law. I imagine that they will quickly pick up on this post and remove it, but here it is for now."These are basic tools that should have been granted to the FDA decades ago, but are only now being provided in the Feinstein-Collins bill," said Scott Faber, Environmental Working Group's vice president of government affairs. Thanks again to her for spotting this.Īt the time of writing the entry on Polyparaben was still on the Skin Deep database. Lisa is based in Denmark and has developed her own range of products. Here is the link to Lisa Lise’s original post. If I were the manufacturers I would get onto the Environmental Working Group to ask for a correction. A couple of products are also referenced that are supposed to contain this non-existent material. Presumably as the material doesn’t exist the data gap ought to be infinite.īut the sloppiness doesn’t end with the science. I am not sure how they arrived at a data gap of 94%. Anyone can make a mistake, but this particular mistake would only have been made by someone completely ignorant about basic science. To a scientist the name gives a clue as to what the material actually is – and in this case isn’t even very advanced science either.Ĭlearly the assessments are carried out by somebody with little idea of what they are doing. Ethene is a flammable gas and polythene, well you know what polythene is. Polyparaben would instantly suggest a polymer of a paraben, which would have properties quite different to those of a simple paraben.Ī familiar example is polythene. Propyl and poly may seem similar enough if you aren’t used to chemical names.īut to someone with a technical background you recognise the meaning straight away. You don’t have any feel for its meaning so you don’t see its pattern. It would be like transcribing words in a language you don’t speak. It’s the kind of error a non-scientist is quite likely to make. ![]() ![]() ![]() Lisa Lise suggests that somebody somewhere has misread propylparaben. Polyparaben, which the Environmental Working Group has strong concerns over, including emerging concerns that it is an endocrine disrupter, has never been used in cosmetics.Īs far as I can tell, although it would in principle be possible to polymerise some kind of paraben to produce a material that could be described as polyparaben, nobody has ever actually done so. But even I thought that the materials that they have set up their database to malign do actually exist. Given I that I regard it as highly misleading and often wrong, this is quite an achievement. Reading Lisa Lise’s blog the other day lowered my opinion of the Skin Deep database. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |