Comments on: The Chemical Free Cosmetic Myth

By: val

val — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:19:56 +0000

How about “Xeno-Estrogen-Chemical Free” ? or “Carcinogen Free”? Still too “above” the “lower apes”? How about, “Cancer-Causing-Chemical-Free”? People don’t even realize that their skin is an organ, or understand how porous and absorbant it is. I love going to the city and watch people get all uptight about someone smoking a cigarette on the sidewalk, and then proceed to get into their SUV and drive all over the city and freeway with their windows down. HeHe:) We are such ignorant yet judgemental lower apes aren’t we?

By: thebeautybrains

thebeautybrains — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:51:49 +0000

True enough but everyone (in the US anyway) has to take some science in grade school and have been exposed to the concept of a “chemical”.

I’m not sure that your definition of “chemical free” really covers it either. Inorganic compounds are those that do not contain Hydrocarbons. So, by your definition, a product that contains an ingredient like Mineral Oil which contains hydrocarbons and thus organic would be “chemical free”. So would Petrolatum and most other petroleum derived ingredients.

The definition must be something else.

By: Tracy

Tracy — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:51:02 +0000

I think a major piece of information is being over looked and some people should maybe take a step back and realize that sometimes words have different meanings in different contexts. First off, I completely agree chemical free products do not exist. I am not disputing facts or claims. I am in agreement. This issue is very comparable to the debate on the “Theory of Evolution”. A theory to a scientist is very much fact, however a theory to a regular Jane Smith for some reason, just means a crazy hypothesis or some idea that may or may not be true. So chemical free to the scientifically inclined always produces a good chuckle around the room followed by some rolling eyes, but to the lesser apes, chemical free is defined as: free (or near free/less) of inorganic compounds. Now if you were to label a product ‘free of inorganic compounds’ no one would understand, so companies go with what is understood or implied, in general, not verbatim. I whole heartedly believe people should take an active approach in learning about what they do or do not put in their body and how that said body works but I am also very privileged to have gone to university and understand many people do not share the same privilege and many not have the capacity for the scientific end of things. So as irritating as it is to see ridiculous statements everywhere, they are not geared towards the scientific community and as educated people we really should be able to understand that.

By: silkenpaw

silkenpaw — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:58:46 +0000

Many years ago, Calvin Trillin, commenting on the “chemical-free” craze mentioned the concept of “products with no ingredients.”

By: Barbra Noistram

Barbra Noistram — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:15:57 +0000

Hey everyone,

Another great LOCAL organic skincare company that is certififed is MADE FROM EARTH. I have been using their products for the last 6 months – and now stopped!! Because my skin has naturally improved itself and I have seen a real decline in the amount of wrinkles on the side of my eyes. I would recommend the “VITAMIN ENHANCED FACE FIRMING SERUM”. This is the cream I only used for 6 months and now stopped because it naturally has improved my owns skins ability to heal itsefl and become firmer.

As a body lotion, I use the HONEY HONEY cream. Smells like honey. Definitely check them out and they are way better priced than most organic skin care lines. . .the website is madefromearth.com