Listen, I’m all for boosting consumer awareness about the dangers of cosmetics, but when I came across this featured true or false quiz on the FDA’s website this morning I couldn’t help but laugh (out loud).
Something just isn’t right if we need to have a quiz (that looks like it’s designed for school children) about all of the industry’s lies.
Let’s see how you guys do (no peeking at answers!):
Question 1. FDA MUST APPROVE ALL COSMETICS BEFORE THEY GO ON THE MARKET.
Question 2. USING MASCARA THE WRONG WAY CAN CAUSE EYE INJURIES AND INFECTIONS – EVEN BLINDNESS.
Question 3. IT’S FINE TO USE HAIR DYES ON YOUR EYEBROWS AND EYELASHES. AFTER ALL, THEY’RE HAIR, TOO.
Question 4. TATTOOS USED TO BE PERMANENT, BUT NOW LASERS ARE AN EASY, RELIABLE WAY TO ERASE THEM.
Question 5. “CRUELTY FREE” OR “NOT TESTED IN ANIMALS” MEANS THAT NO ANIMAL TESTING WAS DONE ON THE PRODUCT AND ITS INGREDIENTS.
Question 6a. IF A PRODUCT IS LABELED “ALL NATURAL” OR “ORGANIC,” IT’S PROBABLY HYPOALLERGENIC.
Question 6b. EVEN IF A PRODUCT IS LABELED “HYPOALLERGENIC,” IT MAY CONTAIN SUBSTANCES THAT CAN CAUSE ALLERGIC REACTIONS.
Question 6c. CHOOSING PRODUCTS WITH THE CLAIM “DERMATOLOGIST TESTED” IS A WAY TO AVOID AN ALLERGIC REACTION OR OTHER SKIN IRRITATION.
Sorry we don’t offer you a janky online certificate (that’s mine above!) when you’re through but here are the answers: 1. false 2. true 3. false 4. false 5. false 6a. false 6b. true 6c. false
So how did you score?
Here’s an idea: How about the FDA takes this a little bit more seriously, and actually offers a grownup response to growing consumer awareness around the industry? Just a thought.
You guys watch football on Sunday night? Us too (first time for everything) and we were giggling to ourselves when this dramatic ad came on with sweeping shots of corn fields and music and a disembodied voice then there it was: The words “corn sugar” crossed the screen.
It was inevitable, no? People have been slinging crap at high fructose corn syrup for a couple of years now—and for good reason. And now the corn lobby is fighting back!
They want us to call HFCS by the natural-sounding “corn sugar,” and they want you to know that while it may be just as bad for you as any other sweetener out there, it’s not worse (ha). (Except that it is!)
It’s a classic move, rebranding. It’s what Blackwater did after their rogue soldiers got into trouble for (allegedly) killing 17 civilians in downtown Baghdad, it’s why we refer to rapeseed oil by the more friendly “canola,” it’s why Prince went with that symbol for a bit.
Anyway we don’t go near the stuff now, and we definitely won’t once it’s rebranded. What about you? Do you stay away from it, or do you not care?
Hey guess what? The FDA is probably going to approve genetically engineered FISH for sale in the United States. As in, whole live salmons, made out of a “genetic cocktail of genomes taken from other fish.” They say they have been testing the salmon for ten years, and told the Washington Post that: “In characteristics, physiology, behavior, this is an Atlantic salmon. It looks like an Atlantic salmon. It tastes like an Atlantic salmon.”
The catch? The testing has been done in a particularly non-transparent way, which has environmental groups—and lots of chefs—miffed. It seems problematic to us, too, obviously—as does the fact that it’s unclear if the people making frankenfish will be required to label their food as genetically engineered. I’m also curious about the nutritional profile. Will it be loaded with the same Omega-3 goodness of, say, wild Alaskan? And what are the long-term environmental implications?
If approved, it will be the first genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption.
The company is called AquaBounty, and here’s how they describe their little lab creatures:
AquaBounty is developing advanced-hybrid salmon, trout, and tilapia designed to grow faster than traditional fish. AquAdvantage Salmon reach market size twice as fast as traditional salmon … [They are also] reproductively sterile … [and] grow faster and reach mature size earlier than standard salmon.
How much faster? Eighteen months to full size.
OK the mic is yours. Would you eat it? What do you think the larger implications are here?
Image of non-genetically engineered salmon via
We have another post up on GOOD and this one is serious business, folks. It’s a slideshow (click the arrow!) that explains the limits of the FDA when it comes to cosmetics regulation. These are the things Alexandra and I like to think about whenever our faith in our project wavers, which doesn’t happen often, but we all have our days.
Not to be preachy but we think this is stuff every consumer needs to know. Read on, tell your friends and let us know what you think in the comments. Boop!
Illustration by Brianna Harden
It’s a new medical condition and—according to Latisse, the first FDA-approved prescription eyelash growth treatment—it’s sweeping the nation.
They call it: “inadequate, or not enough lashes,” and who would want that?
While the controversy around this product may be old news to some, the company now boasts ”1.5 million bottles sold” on its website. Clearly people have not been deterred by the risks associated with this stuff. So what is it? Latisse claims to dramatically lengthen and thicken lashes in a matter of eight weeks. Its roster of lash-deficient dames includes Brooke Shields—am I the only one who sees no difference between her before and after pics?—Claire Danes (whose after picture looks like lash extensions) and other beauties.
Does Latisse work? I haven’t tried it, though this study from Clinical Ophthalmology seems to suggest it may. But here’s what else it can do:
—Turn blue eyes brown, permanently
—Cause skin discoloration
—Cause hair growth in unwanted places
—Cause conjunctivitis, and red itchy eyelids (sexy!)
To boot it costs $120 a month and if you stop using it, your lashes will return to their paltry, inadequate former selves. This blogger documented her experience, and again, I’m just not seeing the difference (are you?). She also experienced said redness and itchiness, but has brown eyes so wasn’t concerned about that.
We’re not sure why FDA approved this stuff in the first place, but they did send a warning letter to the company last year for downplaying its side effects. To see those particulars take a look at this post on the Consumers Reports’ Health Blog, and the accompanying video.
So has anyone tried it? We love long lashes as much as the next girl, but is it worth the risk? (You can probably guess our answer.)
Image via.
Oy. A new report is suggesting that despite safety concerns around nanotechnology, so-called “nanocosmetics” are poised to emerge as a whole new product category with their popularity growing at breakneck speed.
There are so many reasons why this is a bad idea, but let’s defer to an expert from the book for a better understanding:
“This is a complicated issue because some nanoparticles may have toxicity associated with them, while other ones might be okay. One thing is sure, though: any time you put a tiny nanosized particle into your body, it can get into places it shouldn’t get into—like cells or DNA. I think in the future, we’re going to be going back and saying, ‘Why didn’t we test these things better at the outset?’” —Dr. Michael DiBartolomeis, a toxicologist from the California Department of Public Health
DNA, people! What’s more, products in the U.S. are not required to list on labels the presence of nanoparticles in cosmetics.
We’re glad the FDA has pledged a $15 million budget in 2011 to begin addressing the need for new regulatory science around nanotechnology. But will they focus on its use in drugs and turn a blind eye to cosmetics, as is so often the case? And as the industry charges forward with the use of nanoparticles—in everything from sunscreens to anti-aging creams and beyond—will it be a matter of too little too late?
Image of titanium dioxide nanoparticles via
When you start down the path to clean beauty, product labels can be both your only friend and your worst enemy. We devote a lot of time to decoding them in the book… But that’s not what I’m going to do here.
Since 1975 the law says that if a product contains an ingredient that hasn’t been tested for safety, the FDA will require that it feature a warning label saying: “Warning: The safety of this product has not been determined.” Ever seen one of those? Yeah, us neither.
Know this: Companies are required to list intended ingredients—which leaves room for that giant loophole of unintended ingredients that result from manufacturing or when different ingredients interact with each other.
Meanwhile, there are many—but not one overarching—certifiers of “green” products. So unless it’s USDA Certified Organic, promises of organic and “natural” are about as reliable as the promises that you’ll look younger and hotter—which is to say not at all.
As this Green Guide’s post on labeling points out, only 11% of the 10,500 cosmetic ingredients listed by the FDA have been tested for safety. The same article says that back in 2004, the FDA sent a letter to the cosmetics industry warning that they were going to get serious about enforcing this law. Yeah, well the F in FDA doesn’t stand for Fast.
Here’s a more promising promise: Whole Foods has announced that it’s taking on fake organic claims. From a recent guest-post from Jeremiah McElwee, at Whole Body:
We have recently announced official guidelines that any company wishing to sell products labeled with the word “organic” in Whole Body must meet a similarly strict criteria, and must be able to prove it.
We love it and plan to support this initiative in any way possible. Because, whether or not you believe it’s the role of business (in this case responsible business) to fill in where the government is failing, it sure as hell beats waiting for another letter from the FDA.
Johnson & Johnson is not making any new friends in the schoolyard this year. Back in February, a federal judge in Newark ruled in favor of letting a class action suit against the company proceed (presumably it’s ongoing, unless it was quietly settled…). The plaintiffs were alleging that J&J’s baby shampoo contained methyl chloride—one of the eight ingredients the FDA has actually banned for use in personal care products. (The EU, mind you, has nixed over 1,000.) In the past their baby shampoo was also found to contain formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, but these known carcinogens are still technically legal for use.
Now the company is in hot water again. In May, they announced a voluntary recall of liquid pediatric Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl, and Zyrtec, prompting a congressional investigation. According to the FDA, these children’s products may have contained one or some of the following: metal particles, too much of a particular active ingredient, or non-active ingredients that didn’t meet testing standards. Nice, right? Now the New York Times is reporting that Johnson & Johnson is being very uncooperative with the investigation. According to Representative Edolphus Towns, a Democrat from New York, the company had “used delaying tactics in its dealings with the committee and in some instances had provided misinformation.” That’s fancy for lying. According to Towns, J&J told members of their staff they were recalling six million bottles, but had informed the FDA that they were recalling 136 million bottles. There’s more, though! You can read all the juicy details in the article… Fingers crossed that this story actually stays in the news.
