Click here to visit the Beauty Brains blog.
Welcome to the new Forum. Please feel free to start a new discussion.
Products banned by the FDA
-
Just thinking this over while reading the comments on the Jan Marini product banned by the FDA.
How many of you patronize Asian shops for your nails and other services? (this is mainly the Vietnamese shops)
How many of you know that the liquid they use on the nails is BANNED by the FDA? The liquid is MMA and almost ALL of those places use it.
Check out MMA online. Methyl Methracrylate. Only the liquid.
Go to my site and read
What is on your Nails?
http://salon29.tripod.com
Will give you an insight on what is on your nails. -
Lynnette--your salon is about an hour from where I live! I'm always looking for a great nail place and am also willing to drive. Maybe I'll make an appointment in the near future!
-
Good information, Lynette. The link to the one website was excellent!
-
I got that once for a school dance my freshman (or was it sophomore) year, and oh, never ever again. But then can it go in my defense that at age 14, I wasn't quite into beauty, and also lacking a brain?
It's so hard to find decent nail salons where you feel safe, and don't have to worry about getting some fungus infection in your toes, or all the baddies that comes with nail salons.
That and you know, I do live in LA, where a lot of Asians live. Many of them are really here with nothing, and they just have a friend or relative that works at a nail salon, and they join them. It's something they can learn relatively quick, and don't need to learn a brand new language to do. And these immigrant techs may not even be aware of these bans, because they are just following the owner's orders.
I am however, desperately wanting to go to a real salon to get a mani and pedi. I like how my hands and feet are massaged. Oooooh~ -
I know that the scare about toxic cosmetics is in overdrive these days but I did hear an NPR discussion last week about the fact that the standards for banned toxins is far stricter in the EU than by our own FDA. What caught my attention was that the multi-national cosmetic companies DO abide by EU standards in Europe but don't bother in the US. The guest was the author of the book "Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products" Here is the Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Exposed-Chemistry-Everyday-Products-American/dp/1933392150/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196688515&sr=1-1
The author of this book is a member of the Environmental Working Group whose web site entitled Skin Deep might be of interest to forum members because it rates the toxicity of cosmetics. It is:
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/splash.php?URI=%2Findex.php
I also just read of another book specifically taking on the cosmetic industry It is "Not Just A Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Business". Here is its Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Just-Pretty-Face-Industry/dp/0865715742/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1
I apologize in advance if the Skin Deep website has already been pointed out in another forum discussion. We often have duplication of topics from time to time. -
This is the problem with people from the Environmental Working Group, they have no problem spreading partially correct and false information. Unfortunately, they are run by a bunch of biased lawyers instead of objective scientists. The difference? Lawyers create their conclusions first and then collect data to support it. Scientists collect data first and then create their conclusions. But enough of that. Let's look at this specific case.It is rarely true that "...multi-national cosmetic companies DO abide by EU standards in Europe but don't bother in the US." The fact is multi-national cosmetic companies try to create formulas that can be used on a global scale. This saves them money. So, at least for multi-national companies the formulas you get in Europe will be the same as the ones you get in the US. The scientists are required to formulate "globally". This means we are restricted to using ingredients that are acceptable in both the US and the EU. The times when it is not true is when a formula isn't being sold in both places.As far as Skin Deep goes, it does provide some interesting information. However, you have to pick and choose what to believe. The EWG does no research themselves but they take reports from any source and compile them into the database. This means the quality of some data is suspect.For example, they have one listing for Fragrance and the rating is 8. This implies that all fragrances are the same. This is completely false. In fact, the fragrance used in nearly every product is different! Instead of doing more research they just put the scariest number they can and imply that they are all the same. This is shoddy science.
-
"Lawyers create their conclusions first and then collect data to support it. Scientists collect data first and then create their conclusions."
Love it, Left Brain! Can I quote you on that sometime? -
A while ago, someone was insisting that the EU had banned mineral oil. Has anyone determined conclusively if that's true?
-
It's not true.You can take my word for it or feel free to go through the complete European Annex II. This is a list of all 1243 banned ingredients by the EU. Mineral oil is not on the list.To make it more convenient, the list of banned ingredients starts on page 17 and goes through to page 56.Interestingly, Petrolatum IS banned unless it's refining history can be proven. Here's the quote "Petrolatum (Cas No 8009-03-8), except if the full refining history is known and it can be shown that the substance from which it is produced is not a carcinogen" Of course, for cosmetic grade petrolatum they always have the full refining history.
-
WOW...I hit a nerve with my mention of the Environmental Working Group! I didn't realize that they were that controversial a watchdog group.
I'm still curious, however, as to why the EU is so stringent and the US is more lenient in this arena? Because Europeans are willing to accept more government regulation than we are? -
I think that might be a part of it, Judy. They sure do pay for all that government regulation. I read somewhere that 70% of the price of a gallon of gas in Germany is strictly taxes. No thank you!
-
I'm not so certain that it's fair to say the EU is so stringent while the US isn't. For example, the regulations for products in California are much more stringent than even those in Europe.
Some of it may be because they accept more governmental regulation but some may be that it's because they are made up of Countries and not States. In the US, the states pretty much have to follow what the central government says. California is an anomaly in that they set higher standards than the EPA. In Europe, the central "government" has to listen to what every member country says and therefore have to try to appease the most radical of members.
This regulatory business is never so simple. Canada bans saccharine because they are convinced there are safety concerns. They allow cyclomates however. In the US, saccharine is ok to use but we've banned cylcomates. Both countries have access to the SAME data but come to vastly different conclusions.
It can drive you nuts just trying to make sense of it all. :confused: -
I''m glad I live in California but as I age I wish I lived in the EU where they have social safety nets for old age pensioners.
I know...I know...they pay high taxes but they have actually have some SOCIAL SECURITY. They also have WAYYYYYYY more vacation time than we do. Grrrrrrrrr....my Belgian research partner is always off work for one holiday or another. -
Isn't it true that "happiness ratings" are highest in the Scandinavian countries? Where they pay the most in taxes...
-
The Danes are the happiest country in the world according to this recent research. The article concludes it's because of a soccer win in 1992 and generally low expectations. The latter reason could also explain why poor central American countries rank high in the happiness list.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!