Click here to visit the Beauty Brains blog.
Welcome to the new Forum. Please feel free to start a new discussion.
The Truth About Arbonne
-
Misunderstood and PrejudgedI started to do my own research on this company. Sadly, the people who have made the negative "blog" reviews are absolutely clueless about this business and the products they offer. Of course anyone can start a blog and any one can create a "review." That's why we love the internet so much. The internet highway is full of information whether it is good or bad and well, that's where you the reader has to decide.I recently saw a post about Arbonne Products on this site. I noticed it was done in 2007. Way before Arbonne reformulated all of their product ingredients. So, I would like one of the scientist that has knowledge of their products and the ingredients to go over this matter once more.My reason is because I'm a buyer of these products. I know how my skin feels and looks after using the products. I know they are safe. My mother who is a cancer surviver was directed to the company by her DOCTOR. Needless to say, People going through Chemo can NOT use regular products. A matter of fact if they do, they develop tumors. Strange? I think so. If Arbonne is "just like every other product out there on the shelves" Why hasn't my mom developed tumors from it? Answer: Because they actually are safe and toxin-free!But, Please do go over the chemicals in the FC5 line, Anti-Aging and such. I would like readers to be educated on this matter.Oh! One last thing. Someone stated that Arbonne tests on Animals. That is False. They have a panel of 100 people that test the products. The company is Vegan Certified. A company can not be considered certified vegan if they test on animals, use animal products and by-products in the formulas. Follow the link http://en.allexperts.com/q/Animal-Rights-2716/Animal-testing-cosmetics.htmArbonne is on the list of Companies that Do Not Test on Animals :)A PETA link stating that Arbonne Does not test on Animals.
-
Can't wait to see what the Brains have to say on this subject....
-
Seems like Arbonne is close to cure cancer.
-
It will be interesting to see what the Brains have to say. :)
-
@Cole: "People going through Chemo can NOT use regular products. A matter of fact if they do, they develop tumors." We'd love to see the data that supports statement.
-
As far as "Everyone" going through Chemo developing tumors from toxic products, I must retract that statement. I know for a fact that my mother developed tumors from said products. Here is a link you can check out. It confirms what I saidI'm still waiting for someone to tell me about the "chemicals" in Arbonne Products, the fact that it hasn't been addressed leads me to believe, that my company does not use toxic chemicals. Instead you pointed out my (once again) Retracted statement. I know what my mother went through, so I'm positive other people going through Chemo have had the same reaction to "regular" products.If you can answer my Original Question, it would be very much appreciated.Thank You
-
Please keep in mind that many people have different opinions on what constitutes a "toxic" chemical. Science generally does not support much of the claims that you state. I prefer to deal in science, not fear.
Was you mother part of a scientific study that showed that her tumors were, in fact, caused by said "regular" products? Strangely enough, my mom had many comments on how wonderful her skin looked during her agressive chemotherapy while using Mary Kay (which I would assume you would define as "regular" product). No new tumors for her. Obviously, this isn't a scientific approach to proving or disproving.
Perhaps your customers would appreciate a more factual and less fear-based marketing approach. I know my customers do (I'm an independent consultant for a "regular" line --just for the sake of being fair).
-
@CoastiWife: Thanks for the well thought out, evidence based comments. We appreciate it!@Cole: To be honest, I'm a little confused about what your "original question" was. Are you asking us to look at the reformulated Arbonnne line and let you know if we think the products are safe or not? If your contention is, as you said above, that Arbonne products are safe and toxin free, then we don't disagree. (Most cosmetic products meet that requirement or they would not be on the market.)
-
Fear based? The company prides themselves on the fact that they are green/recyclable, Vegan Certified, botanically based and natural.
1. J&J was just exposed for having carcinogenic chemicals in there baby line. Those EXACT same chemicals are also in everyday products. (links to all claims are below)
2. Mary Kay tests on animals, you're not a GREEN company and your products aren't botanically based.
3. Neutrogena just came out with an organic line! Hello!! If these chemicals weren't a problem why are companies just NOW coming out with healthier lines of products. (YouTube there organic line. They have a new commercial. You can find it there)
Speaking of your company Mary Kay just came out with a "natural" based line, just so they can keep up with Arbonne. Please, don't speak out of turn. I'm sorry that whom ever introduced you to the company didn't have the right approach.
Ignorance is bliss, but knowledge is power
As far as your mother having cancer and using Mary Kay. I highly doubt you're even being truthful. I don't hide behind false claims. I wouldn't be surprised if you posted just to get attention and to have people order your products. I on the other hand came here for the TRUTH and cold hard FACTS.
http://stepoutsideofthebox.blogspot.com/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/14/johnson-johnson-baby-products-toxic.aspx
http://www.newyorklawyerspersonalinjury.com/2011/11/toxic-chemicals-remain-in-johnson-johnson-baby-shampoo.shtml
http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/babies030105.cfm
http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmetics/talc.htm
http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmetics/cosmetics_personal_care.htm
http://www.naturalhealthway.com/articles/shampoo/shampoo.html
http://www.healthy-communications.com/8coschemicals.htm
http://www.purezing.com/living/toxins/living_toxins_dangerousingredients.html
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/do-toxins-cause-autism.html
^^^^^ I could show you SOOO much more...but I think this should be enough
Sent from Nichole Beall's iPhone
Arbonne International
District Manager
Www.NicholeBeall.myarbonne.com
-
"Neutrogena just came out with an organic line! Hello!! If these chemicals weren't a problem why are companies just NOW coming out with healthier lines of products."Companies are responding to fear rather than fact, as CoastieWife mentioned above. A company I worked for wanted to take parabens out of formula so they could claim "paraben free" because so many people are afraid of parabens. Yet, the most current scientific assessment is that parabens are safe. So claiming paraben free makes people feel better but it doesn't make the product any safer. In fact, it may make the product LESS save if the alternative preservative is not as effective.So yes, the public's fear of chemicals is a motivating factor for cosmetic companies.
-
@Right Brain, "evidence based comments"
When are false claims considered evidence? I just posted a link that clearly states that parabens cause tumors in high risk cancer patients. You want science I provided you with the link. Click on it and read it.
The first Arbonne post claims that their products are just like everything on the market ( *full of parabens, mineral oil, phthalates, sulfate, talc and so on) which is false. I'm not asking you to agree with whether or not Arbonne is safe. I wanted to disprove the 2007 post of false claims.
* Arbonne does not have these chemicals in their products
-
@Cole: OK. If Arbonne reformulated their products since 2007 and they took out the ingredients that we mentioned in our old post, then yes I agree with you that Arbonne does not have these chemicals in their products anymore.You've posted about 2 dozen links in this thread so I'm not sure which one you're referring to for proof that parabens cause tumors. But here's a link to the latest science that says they're safe: http://t.co/EMjJeyUpIs there anything else we can help you with?
-
My Purpose for these posts were and are to disprove the false claims. The reputation of the company I proudly work for is being attack by uneducated people. I'm saddened by the state of free speech and the stalk given to "experts" on blogs and other forums. This gives such a small picture of what Arbonne has to offer. I know I'm biased. My question is - What more to the story AREN'T they telling you? We need to stop bashing companies on public forums such as this one, it's extremely unethical.Personal care products we use every day, like face cream, baby shampoo, sunscreen, and lipstick, are some of the least-regulated on the market. Scientific evidence links a number of chemicals found in these products to breast cancer and other serious health issues. A congressional hearing TOMORROW will consider stronger regulation of the cosmetics industry. Join Breast Cancer Action to put public health first.Here is the linkThe site I had posted about people developing tumors from regular products the link is here:I appreciate what you do.
-
Right Brains Previous Comment about Parabens "Companies are responding to fear rather than fact"Dr. Mercola states, "Recent research has detected the presence of paraben esters in 99 percent of breast cancer tissues sampled. In 60 percent of cases, all five esters were detected. Parabens are chemicals that have been shown to have estrogen-like properties, and estrogen is one of the hormones involved in the development of breast cancer"To read more on this matter, follow the link below.Once Again, I am a proud Arbonne Consultant wanting to spread the "healthy" word. I think we need to educate consumers on the products that they use on a daily basis. Not blind and confuse them with false claims and rumors.If anyone is interested in the company and wants to know more, Please go to Www.NicholeBeall.MyArbonne.com
-
I tend to doubt websites that site EWG as a credible source personally. The same webpage also discourages getting a routine mammogram screening, and ironically, I am leaving to get my mammogram today (you will notice Cole, that I had previously ignored your rather rude comments regarding me being dishonest about my mother's breast cancer).
-
There were two sites posted about Parabens and breast cancer being linked, by practicing doctors. As far as the reference from EWG, it was from the Skin Deep Web Site. http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/What do you have against Environmental Working Group? They specialize in research and advocacy in the areas of toxic chemicals, agricultural subsidies, public lands, and corporate accountabilityThe site doesn't discourage Mammograms! It explains how being exposed to Radiation can increase your chances of getting cancer. The site gives facts and statistics, it's up to the individual to decide if after knowing the facts whether or not to get it done.I'd rather know the risks of doing something rather than blindly doing it, because I was told to get it done!That's just like the lawsuit against The big tobacco Companies. They didn't tell the consumer what the risks were and now they are being sued for it."While this may sound too shocking to be true for some, the available data fully supports that conclusion. According to the Cochrane Collaboration, for every 2,000 women invited for screening over the course of 10 years, just ONE woman will have her life prolonged. Meanwhile, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed with cancer had it not been for the mammography screening, will be misdiagnosed as having breast cancer, and will be treated unnecessarily. Additionally, more than 200 women will experience significant psychological distress for many months due to false positives."If your mother truly has Breast Cancer than I'm sorry for my comment. You never know, people hide behind their computers and spew lies all over the internet, because they have nothing better to do.I offered up Scientific Proof to my claims.
-
Dr. Mercola is well known to be a peddler of ideas not based on science. The Dr. in front of someone's name doesn't give them the authority to dispute what the preponderance of science has to say.
-
And my mother has had breast cancer twice. Her treatment has been at major academic medical centers where state of the art radiation therapy is available. None of her oncologists or any member of her treatment team has advised avoidance of parabens as part of the treatment strategy.
-
I'm sorry to hear about your mother. My mom is a cancer surviver. Do I think she hasn't gotten it again because she switched her products? Absolutely! My family is very prone to cancer. My Grandmother (mom's side) died from Breast Cancer before I was born. My Grandfather (Mom's Side) died from Intestinal Cancer and My Father's mother died from Ovarian Cancer. It's scary. I'd rather do everything in my power to prevent it, rather than sitting around and waiting for it to happen.I had no idea that Dr. Mercola was a "quack". I just looked up some info about him. Thanks for sharing! Is Dr. William Goodson of California Pacific Medical Center a quack as well?These are the quotes from the site (Study:BPA,Methylparaben blocks breast cancer drug)"In the latest study, researchers took noncancerous breast cells from high-risk patients, grew them in a laboratory and found that once the cells were exposed to bisphenol A and methylparaben, they started behaving like cancer cells."Jeanne Rizzo, chief executive officer of the Breast Cancer Fund, a San Francisco advocacy group, said the study shows that BPA and methylparaben have a triggering effect when it comes to cancer. The next step, she said, has to be for consumers to demand changes that reduce environmental exposure to these chemicals.Another Site About Cancer and Paraben's http://www.rodale.com/natural-deodorants"parabens are estrogenic," says Lynn Carroll, PhD, senior scientist at The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a nonprofit that researches hormone-mimicking chemicals. And they build up in breast milk. "That is concerning because whoever's eating the breast milk gets a dose, and those children are at a very vulnerable stage in their development.""Too much estrogen in your system can be responsible not just for breast cancer, but for other dangerous conditions such as malignant melanoma (ironic, considering that parabens are commonly used in sunscreens) and male reproductive disorders. A November 2010 study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that parabens can damage sperm in mice."Carroll says, another type of chemical used in deodorant fragrances, phthalates, can increase your skin's absorption of parabens. The parabens enter your bloodstream and attach themselves to the nearest estrogen receptor and cause problems. "Estrogen receptors are all over your body, but certainly, breast tissues have lots of them," she says.
-
"A November 2010 study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that parabens can damage sperm in mice."
Would that be this study "Urinary Concentrations of Parabens and Serum Hormone Levels, Semen Quality Parameters, and Sperm DNA Damage" 119 (2) 2011 pp252-257 ? I read their conclusions a bit differently...
"We found limited to no evidence of a relationship between paraben concentrations in urine and hormone levels or conventional semen quality parameters. However, it is possible that intraindividual variability in exposure and a modest sample size could have limited our ability to detect subtle relationships. Our observation of a relationship between BP and sperm DNA damage, in addition to the potential for additive effects from combined exposures to BP and BPA, warrants further investigation. Added research on the potential for additive or multiplicative interactions between exposures to multiple environmental agents on male reproduction is also needed."
Which really says; we didn't really find anything, but we think might of found something with butyl paraben but we'd like to keep looking just in case.
-
The studies were on methylparaben not Butylparaben. But thanks for looking into butylparaben for us.
-
@Cole, that's the paper, take some time to read it instead if relying on selected second hand snippets
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3040614/ If this is the site you were looking at, then you'd notice is was done September 2010. What was posted above (again) Methylparaben's was published in Nov 2010.....But here is what your site says about Butylparaben :)"Our observation that the only statistically significant relationship involved BP is consistent with in vitro and animal data that suggest BP has greater reproductive toxicity potential than the other parabens examined in this study""Studies investigating whether BP causes DNA damage are limited, although BP has been associated with genotoxicity in CHO-K1 Chinese hamster ovary cells (Tayama et al. 2008) and increased cell death and injury in rat hepatocytes [National Toxicology Program (NTP) 2004]. Our observation of a positive association with sperm DNA damage, as measured by Tail%, may also be consistent with previous reports that BP may be a suitable vaginal contraceptive because of its ability to inhibit acrosin (an enzyme that aids sperm penetration into the oocyte during the fertilization process), most likely by damaging the sperm membrane (Song et al. 1991, 1989)"
-
Can you provide a link to the November paper, I cant find the one you are talking about. Thanks
-
http://thebeautybrains.com/2011/10/19/do-cosmetics-really-cause-cancer/
Here are a few opinions regarding the EWG. I enjoy www.personalcaretruth.com as well.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!