It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vanity, a Deadly Sin. Cosmetic Industry Global Toxic agenda and Slave network

page: 4
49
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by numb99
 


What are you talking about a few months ago I just read that our average life span has dropped? Statistics are a load of crap.




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Guess who just threw out a bunch of "exfolianting soaps" and a bottle of head & shoulders. Good riddance, carcinogenic garbage!



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
To those who think that asking the question "how much" when someone talks about chemicals in products is being a control freak.....ARE YOU KIDDING ME!

If you are going to stand up and declare a product to be toxic - don't you think you should be able to answer the question?

Don't you understand that the information in the original post is simply used to spread fear so that you will stop buying Oil of Olay and start buying something at their competitors instead?

Aren't you tired of being afraid?

If someone can't tell me how much - they should shut up - not because I am a control freak but because they are merely trying to frighten the public. You have the right to free speech but not the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Why isn't anyone else asking this simple question "what is the dose?"

or do you just prefer to seek "organic" products in the hope that you can avoid disease. Kinda like whistling past a graveyard isn't it??

As for the definition of the term "organic" there is only one definition - that is that the chemical has a carbon component. The use of the term organic as in growing food in some special way so as to avoid contamination with chemicals is a highly suspect process used merely to inflate the price of food with the exact same nutrition value as comparable non-organic food.

The organic food market was created by instilling fear in the population that the use of pesticides has "contaminated" the food in some way as to render it unfit for human consumption. Google this and discover that organic food is merely a marketing tool.

As someone else pointed out - we are living longer and healthier lives than any generation before us - and yet...some still insist on living in fear of disease and death.

"life is a banquet and some poor sons of bitches are starving to death".

And best of all is when the fear riddled population rises up and demands that the government "do something", which means more taxes and more regulations and more intrusion in private lives! And then moan and bitch when industries quietly fold up the tent and get the hell out of Dodge.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by vegno
Guess who just threw out a bunch of "exfolianting soaps" and a bottle of head & shoulders. Good riddance, carcinogenic garbage!


So what are you going to use, arsenic and cyanide instead?


So many of you should really read the whole thread as the ignorance is astounding.



[edit on 21-11-2009 by Goathief]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
While that is true and prove how come is not complains about our GMO food and the obscene tampering of food in our nations supplies by Monsanto.

I guess while Europe is profiting from killing those addicted to vanity, our own food producers have not problem killing us with their modify and tampered food because after all they are here in the US.

Hypocrisy.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by marg6043]


I guess all those thousands in those third world countries who as this campaign dictates must become unemployed since their jobs are related to cosmetic industry and that is mainly European industries, once they become unemployed Europe ought to have ships at the ready to transport them to United States of America with a green card to be able to find a new job else they will come flocking to Europe in search for a living. Since Europe has no problem with cosmetics industry and it is mainly United States senators favorite pass time to blame these kind of industries IMO I believe those senators should also provide the solutions once thousands will become unemployed in the third world.
At least Europe gave them some kind of jobs. What America has done for them except invading their countries and installing their puppet governments?

[edit on 21-11-2009 by spacebot]

[edit on 21-11-2009 by spacebot]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by spacebot
 


lol. Sorry, couldn't resist pointing something out. When there are psychopathic killers in another land, murdering people for a body substance, and selling this substance to a European country, this has somehow led you to a tirade against the U.S!

Wow, you hate the U.S. badly! Pardon, but this does sound a little like scapegoating. I should be used to it by now, but sometimes, the convoluted way some people will get there, is amazing!



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 





Why isn't anyone else asking this simple question "what is the dose?"


Because the whole point of my thread is this industry is not regulated, and they abuse humans and animals. Without regulation we dont know the dose THEY DONT HAVE TO TELL YOU! We dont even know 89% of the products effects.
If Europe can ban over a 1000 substances, and the US only 9, perhaps you should address that discrepency that no regulating provides?

Im not going to test it, though as you are so adamant there is nothing wrong, perhaps you can and show us your findings?
***. The other point is that is abosrbs over time 65% per application into your system, so the 'small' dose in one bottle isn't immediate, however over time affects can take place as it gets stored in our cells.




C = Carcinogen W Industry Safety Warnings
A = Allergen I Irritant
T = Developmental/ Reproductive Toxicity
O = Other Dangers Notes: Triclosan scores a '10' Some ingredients not listed on labels may be hidden as "fragrances" SOURCE - Environmental


www.squidoo.com...


It doesn't list dosage, because they dont have to...get it ?

Again, You are completely ignoring the human and animal expence of this industry.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
some more information on the substances placed in cosmetics
I can't give doses as that is not provided to anyone due to self regulation of the industry, but this is what they can do to you built up over time. You can go a site I have listed below to get toxicity ratings for a particular product you wish to use.


Propylene Glycol (PG) and Butylene Glycol: Found in antifreeze. Acts as a "surfactant" (wetting agent and solvent). Penetrates skin and weakens protein and cellular structure. Strong enough to remove barnacles from boats. The EPA considers PG so toxic that workers are required to wear protective clothing and to dispose of PG by burying it in the ground. PG penetrates the skin so quickly, the EPA warns against contact to prevent brain, liver, and kidney abnormalities. But there isn't even a warning label on products such as stick deodorants, where the concentration is greater than in most industrial applications.

2. Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) & Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES): Detergents that pose serious health threats. Used in garage floor cleaners and engine degreasers - and in 90% of personal care products that foam. Animals exposed to SLS experience eye damage, depression, labored breathing, diarrhea, severe skin irritation, and even death. Young eyes may not develop properly if exposed to SLS. May damage the skin's immune system. Can be transformed into nitrosamines, a potent class of carcinogens. Your body may retain the SLS for up to five days and maintain residual levels in the heart, liver, lungs, and brain.

3. DEA (diethanolamine), MEA (monoethanolaniine) & TEA (triethanolamine): Hormone disrupting chemicals that can form cancer-causing nitrates. Restricted in Europe due to carcinogenic effects, yet they are still used in the USA. Americans may be exposed 10-20 times per day with shampoos, shaving creams and bubble baths. Dr. Samuel Epstein, Professor of Environmental Health at the University of Illinois, says that repeated applications of DEA-based detergents result in a major increase in liver and kidney cancer. The PDA's John Baily says: "The risk is significantly increased for children."

4. Sodium Hydroxide: The most recent addition to our personal care products. Found in crystal drain cleaners. Drano is 100% sodium hydroxide. This is a poison (caustic lye), yet a primary ingredient in adult and children's toothpaste and cleansers. Especially extra-whitening toothpastes.

5. Triclosan: Synthetic "anti-bacterial" with a chemical structure similar to Agent Orange. The EPA registers it as a pesticide, giving it highest scores as a risk to human health and the environment. It may produce dioxin, a hormone disrupting chemical with toxic effects measured in the parts per trillion; that is only one drop in 300 Olympic-size swimming pools! Hormone disruptors pose enormous long term chronic health risks. It can change genetic material, decrease fertility and sexual function, and foster birth defects. Stored in body fat, it can accumulate to toxic levels, damaging the liver, kidneys, and lungs. It can also cause paralysis, brain hemorrhages and heart problems. Tufts University School of Medicine says triclosan can force the emergence of "super bugs" that we cannot kill. Its widespread use in antibacterial cleansers, toothpastes and household products may have nightmarish implications on future generations.

6. DMDM & Urea (Imidazolidinyl): Two of many preservatives that often release formaldehyde which cause joint pain, skin reactions, allergies, depression, headaches, chest pains, ear infections, chronic fatigue, dizziness, and loss of sleep. Exposure also irritates the respiratory system; triggers heart palpitations or asthma, and aggravates coughs and colds. Other side effects include weakening the immune system and cancer.




[edit on 22-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

7. Polyethylene Glycol (PEG): Carcinogenic petroleum ingredient that reduces the skin's natural moisture. Increases the appearance of aging and leaves you vulnerable to bacteria. Used in spray-on oven cleaners and cleansers to dissolve oil and grease.

8. Parabens any parabens: Look for anything with the word paraben in it. Used primarily as a preservative. It's a strong hormone disrupting chemical. Has direct links to breast cancer and heart problems.

9. Alcohol, Isopropyl (SD-40): Drying, irritating solvent that strips skin's moisture and immune barrier, making you vulnerable to bacteria and viruses. Made from a petroleum derivative found in shellac and antifreeze as well as personal care products. Promotes brown spots and premature aging. A Consumer's Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients says it may cause headaches, flushing, dizziness, mental depression, nausea, vomiting, and coma. Fatal ingested dose is one ounce or less.

10. Mineral Oil: Petroleum by-product that coats the skin like plastic wrap, clogging the pores. Interferes with skin's ability to eliminate toxins, promoting acne and other disorders. Slows down skin function and cell development, resulting in premature aging. Baby oil is 100% mineral oil!

11. FD&C Color Pigments: Synthetic colors from coal tar that deposits toxins onto the skin, causing skin irritation. Absorption of certain colors can cause depletion of oxygen in the body and death. Animal studies have shown almost all of them to be carcinogenic.

12. Fragrances: Too bad so many feel a need to leave a lingering odor behind. Fragrances may contain up to 4000 ingredients (including different animal urines for strength), many of them toxic or carcinogenic. Fragrances cause headaches, dizziness, allergic rashes, skin discoloration, violent coughing, vomiting and skin irritations. Fragrances affect the nervous system, cause depression, hyper activity, irritability, inability to cope and other behavioral changes. No breakdown of ingredient listing is required other than the word 'fragrance'.


www.squidoo.com...

The last line is case in point, you can have 4000 ingredients, and all they have to write is "fragrances"

If anyone would like to see what is used where, I found this site that contains a cosmetic safety database.
www.cosmeticsdatabase.com...
Skin Deep is a safety guide to cosmetics and personal care products brought to you by researchers at the Environmental Working Group.

You can do a search by product, ingredient or company. and it gives you a rating for toxicity levels
Hope this helps.
Cheers zazzy


[edit on 22-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Ive been reading up on the health impacts of nanomaterials in cosmetics, it doesnt look great, its used in more than just sunscreens such as foundations, shampoos and lipsticks, and its been introduced with no regulatory oversight at all, this political party goes as far as to claim its the worst introduction of a product to market since asbestos.

In Oz, we have a member of parliament advocating regulation of nanotechnology in our lipsticks, shampoos, foundations and sunscreens etc.



Nanotechnology is the engineering of materials at the atomic level. "Nanomaterials could well be the 21st century's asbestos. The Iemma government is failing to keep up with this fast-moving technology", said Ms Rhiannon.

"Nanomaterials are already in products on NSW shelves and NICNAS report revealed that over ten thousand tonnes of nanomaterials are used in commercial production in Australia each year.

"Despite widespread commercial use, NSW has no nano-specific safety assessment process to protect workers and the environment from unsafe exposure and no labelling requirement for nanomaterials in products.

"Yet the public is none the wiser to the risks of slapping suncream or shampoos containing nanoparticles on our families and sending people off to work in factories that handle this potentially toxic technology. "release of consumer products containing manufactured nanoparticles and to establish a NSW regulatory body to assess the health and environmental risks of nanoparticles.

"a foolhardy and dangerous approach to allow nanomaterials into commercial industries in NSW with no regulatory oversight. "Because of their very small size and higher chemical reactivity, nanomaterials can be more toxic than the same materials in bulk form. They are more readily inhaled than larger particles, can be ingested, and may even be absorbed through the skin.

"Test tube studies have shown that nanomaterials can be toxic to human tissues and cells, resulting in DNA mutation and even cell death". "In 2004, the United Kingdom's Royal Society recommended that given their toxicity risks, nanomaterials should be subject to rigorous safety assessments prior to their commercial release, and factories and laboratories should treat nanomaterials as if they were hazardous.


"years later, we can buy products containing nanomaterials and there is still no regulatory oversight of nanoparticles", said Ms Rhiannon

74.125.155.132...:nano.foe.org.au...

[edit on 23-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
It doesn't list dosage, because they dont have to...get it ?


This bears repeating. Legislation, while at times directed towards corporate standards, is mostly payed for by corporate interest.

They don't want anything propagated that would ruin their image.

See how corporate interest has 'kind of' influenced the heirarchy of our society?

It's not just the Cosmetic Industry...



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief

Originally posted by vegno
Guess who just threw out a bunch of "exfolianting soaps" and a bottle of head & shoulders. Good riddance, carcinogenic garbage!


So what are you going to use, arsenic and cyanide instead?


So many of you should really read the whole thread as the ignorance is astounding.



[edit on 21-11-2009 by Goathief]


I don't think your attitude helps the situation here. Both of your posts I have seen, were more or less arrogant and provocative. Of course we should realize that all that comes from nature is not automatically safe for you. This is ALL about education, information and common sense. There are natural products which are toxic to everyone, products which are toxic only when mixed with some other products and even products which are toxic to SOME people only - as in allergies. There are many SAFE products and chemical substances those are toxic if overdosed. A common table salt is toxic for your body, if you use it too much, as are fat soluble vitamins and.. heck.. you can even die to 'water poisoning', thou it's not directly the water that is the poison. Most pure herbal oils are safe for MOST OF THE PEOPLE but they are diluted almost without exception when used. As they're often used as medicines, most certainly you need to find out about them before using.

If you have a good source for safe products or information, please do share it - don't just pop up to tell us we're ignorant and leave. Don't you think it's GOOD that people are thinking and trying to find out BETTER alternatives here for their daily cosmetics? I don't think you're hinting that it's impossible for a 'common man' to get good information about natural products and make an educated guess about things?

Here is an example of finnish herbal product that I use almost daily for cleaning my hair/scalp and the whole body as well. Just one of similar products I use for cleaning/shaving etc.

Ingredients:

Aqua
Coconut Alcohol
Mentha Piperita
Tilia Cordata
Sodium Chloride


It has worked just fine for me for a long time. Only 5 ingredients, so it's easier to find out what they are, compared to many mainstream products those can contain 10-20 different chemical compounds.

Here is some info to figure out, if this product indeed is safe to use.

Aqua that's just water.

Coconut Alcohol
www.cosmeticdatabase.com
Wikipedia

Mentha Piperita (Yes, the common peppermint)
www.rain-tree.com
www.cosmeticdatabase.com

As you see, this product is a bit uncertain. It's declared safe to use in cosmetics and has been used for thousands of years in natural remedies - so I've given this an 'ok' for my own use.

Tilia Cordata (Commonly Small-leaved Lime / Small-leaved Linden)
www.cosmeticdatabase.com
Wikipedia

Sodium Chloride (Sea salt)
www.cosmeticsdatabase.com
Wikipedia

Not much to worry about - thou I did just said earlier, even table salt can be dangerous if used excessively.

To sum it up. Many times, less is more. You don't need to use shampoo for your hair every day, pure water will do fine. Same goes with your body. With a little effort, you can cut like 30-60 excess chemicals from your daily routines.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz


"years later, we can buy products containing nanomaterials and there is still no regulatory oversight of nanoparticles", said Ms Rhiannon

74.125.155.132...:nano.foe.org.au...


Great point...again, this phrase bears repeating.

The educational capacity of the populace is so far behind technology...I didn't even know nanotech was being applied to the cosmetic industry yet. Fascinating...but scary. Scary because they are implementing without consulting...in the interest of money.

Unbelievable...



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by PilgriMage
If you have a good source for safe products or information, please do share it - don't just pop up to tell us we're ignorant and leave.

I have, I've not gone anywhere and I've shown you exactly why many in this thread are ignorant. Jojoba oil is a classic example. Fact of the matter is most aren't even reading the thread, just the OP, taking it as gospel and making a post which states how evil all these cosmetic companies are. Any information that blatantly contradicts what they want to believe is just ignored, there's only so many times one can repeat oneself. I've yet to see one reply that addresses any of the points I (or others) have brought up, it's a mental block which happens to the brainwashed.


Don't you think it's GOOD that people are thinking and trying to find out BETTER alternatives here for their daily cosmetics?


They aren't thinking for themselves on the most part, just lapping up the propaganda from the alternative camp, which by the way also sells many the same products which the OP listed as harmful (for some reason, this is now OK). It's not just me who's pointed out this hypocrisy, double standards and flawed logic - it's amazing that so many can ignore or rationalise anything contradictory that is staring them in the face.

Again, I refer anyone who is confused about this post to re-read the entire thread and address those points.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Goathief
 





They aren't thinking for themselves on the most part, just lapping up the propaganda from the alternative camp, which by the way also sells many the same products which the OP listed as harmful (for some reason, this is now OK). It's not just me who's pointed out this hypocrisy, double standards and flawed logic - it's amazing that so many can ignore or rationalise anything contradictory that is staring them in the face.


I haven't differentiated between organic/alternative and traditional cosmetic giants. I'm not fear mongering, Im asking for regulation and disclosure for all.

Additionally, I have listed SLS, the bubble maker,and yes there are some "organic" companies that use it, but not many, and Ive asked that you simply read up to see if the brand you like uses it, not many have to list if its even in there. You will find on "orgnaic" prodcuts that will lable No sulphates, no preservatives etc.

That said, there is a link provided with a annlysis by product and brand, and you will find that in general, the 'alternative' or competitors as you call them tend to come out with less animals being tortured, humans being exploited, less or no nano tech and lower toxic ratings overall.

I reccommend people interested in reviewing the toxicty and ethical standards of their products start there.




[edit on 24-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Without knowing how much chemical - it is absolutely impossible to determine if a thing is hazardous or not.

THE POISON IS IN THE DOSE.

If the people who posted the original information did the tests to find out WHAT was in the product, they likely also did tests to determine HOW MUCH but didn't release the information but you can't scare someone who has all the facts, now can you????

I understand the concept of slow toxicity but when the concentration of the substance in question is so low that it would take 35,000 years of exposure to build up enough of the substance to equal a toxic dose and humans only live to be about 100 years of so - then where is the hazard? Why is government regulation necessary?



This is the chemical composition of a typical thanksgiving dinner

www.heartland.org...

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Hm. Seems to me you continue to ask the question "why do we need regulation", but you continue to answer the question yourself.

There is information about ingredients and quantity which have not been disclosed to us.

We have a right to know what we are spending our money on. Maybe "it's all good". lol. I hope so. But we won't know until we see some reliable labels, and it's high time we did. I want to know what I'm buying, good or bad.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Without knowing how much chemical - it is absolutely impossible to determine if a thing is hazardous or not.

THE POISON IS IN THE DOSE.

If the people who posted the original information did the tests to find out WHAT was in the product, they likely also did tests to determine HOW MUCH but didn't release the information but you can't scare someone who has all the facts, now can you????

I understand the concept of slow toxicity but when the concentration of the substance in question is so low that it would take 35,000 years of exposure to build up enough of the substance to equal a toxic dose and humans only live to be about 100 years of so - then where is the hazard? Why is government regulation necessary?

This is the chemical composition of a typical thanksgiving dinner

www.heartland.org...

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS


And can you provide your evidence that is takes 35 000 years to become toxic? I smellz exageration.

Look if you dont want to know whats in your products, then good for you, enjoy the hives. Blind faith in something that is absorbed, hmmm your a braver and more trusting person than me.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Lady in Waiting

Good reasonable response! Yes we don't know the dose on the label. That is proprietary information. If a company was required to label a product with the exact recipe - then a competitor would merely copy it!

However, we do have some idea of the dose - regulations require that ingredients be put on the label in order of percentage. That is the product consists of more of the first ingredient than the second, more the second ingredient than the third and so on....

What we have in the original post is a blatant attempt at scare mongering. A list of ingredients - with each ingredient being compared to pure or high concentration products.

I repeat - if the writer of the original information took the time to analyse the product - why did he not take the time to determine the concentration. Why go through all the bother of identifying all the dangerous constituents and provide information about the hazards but not the dose.

Did you view the list of common chemicals found in a typical thanksgiving dinner. Did you see the carcinogens that exist in your food naturally.

Increasing regulations will not "solve" the problem. Proprietary information will still be protected.

The only thing increasing regulations will do is expand government powers, increase the cost of production and the resulting cost of the product for everyone else and likely cause the company to leave the country.

There is an entire industry of lobbyists (also called grass roots groups) who are making six figure salaries in scaring you. The trick of telling you what is in a product without also telling you the dose is common to this industry.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 





I repeat - if the writer of the original information took the time to analyse the product - why did he not take the time to determine the concentration. Why go through all the bother of identifying all the dangerous constituents and provide information about the hazards but not the dose.


I dont know how many times I have to repeat myself, because they do not provide the dosage, that is the whole point... Where is your proof of dosage levels? Lady pretty much said the same as me...

Im not going to annalyse hundreds of thousands of products, that is a ridiculous request, and Im not going to bother reanswering you time and again with the same information.



[edit on 24-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]




top topics



 
49
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join