One of my earliest childhood make up memories (sans applying mum's silver liquid eyeliner and range of lipsticks to recreate Paul Stanley's Starchild and Ace Frehley's Spaceman Kiss characters during the early eighties), was around the age of twelve; as mum applied a dab of the powder puff to my face "to quell the shine" before bidding me farewell to another day at school.
Unbeknownst to me at the time, this daily morning ritual would serve to pave the way for a future inundated with a myriad of beauty products aimed to cleanse, tone, moisturise, protect, revitalise, lift, nourish, preserve, stimulate, hydrate, plump, perfume.. and the list goes on. Regardless of where we turn, we are imbued with advertising reminding us that despite our best abilities, there's always room for improvement.
As a woman who admits to that surge of confidence and professionalism wearing make up in the work place as well as socially, I find I'm still not adverse to lashings of mascara, a dab of concealer and smidgeon of gloss at Sunday brunch. Even so, if we subtract these elements of the equation rendering it a "make up free day", once the use of soap, shampoo, conditioner, body wash, facial cleanser, moisturiser, deodorant and fragrance are applied, is it safe to truly say we're out of the woods?
Environmentalists warn the average woman's make up bag is a weapons of mass destruction; a ticking time bomb waiting to explode with serious health consequences. And it seems, more and more people are taking stock.
According to Stacy Malkan, author of Not Just a Pretty Face and co-founder of the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics, the average woman is exposed to around twenty products containing over 200 chemicals before she even walks out the front door in the morning, from soap to shampoo, and toothpaste and eye liner.
The controversial book debunks common myths pertaining to the safety of cosmetics and personal care products, as potentially major sources of chemical exposure. Due to this 35 billion dollar industry remaining still largely unregulated, hazardous chemicals used as ingredients, are "within acceptable limits" as claimed by industry sources.
It's ironic that the products specifically designed to pamper, preen and beautify, contain these copious chemicals that are in fact, linked to health threats documented by the World Health Organisation, including cancer, infertility and birth defects. While we expect the food we buy and consume to be safe, the same stringent standards are not universally applied to cosmetic manufacturers.
The book claims that unlike drug manufacturers who must provide proof of the safety and effectiveness of their products prior to being sold on the market, no cosmetic product requires pre-market approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. Considering the leading cosmetic and skin care brands are produced to international standards, namely US and France, this is a matter which hits closer to home than we may care to realise.
Consumers in the UK are marginally better off following the European Union's cosmetics directive in 2006, protecting them from chemicals considered mutagenic, carcinogenic or containing reproductive toxins. Furthermore, all UK cosmetics and their ingredients must now be safety-tested.
While environmental groups have taken a firmer stance with the potential for long-term health consequences over minor skin allergies or rashes, with WHO research has evidence suggesting certain ingredients are carcinogenic, while others affect a variety of hormone related diseases and conditions.
Concerning levels are found in parabens (used as preservatives), petrochemicals and their by-products (in skin creams, moisturisers, foundations, lip balms), mercury (in mascara), lead (in lipstick), dioxane (in shampoo and body washes) and phthalates (in nail polish, hair sprays and fragrances). Activitsts such as the Environmental Working Group and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics argue that it's the cumulative and synergistic effects of these chemicals with one another that are obtained from all facets of our daily lives that need to be examined.
Furthermore, the fact that nanotechnology, which is becoming increasingly popular, allows the production of minute chemical particles to penetrate deeper within the epidermis, is especially dangerous to younger people who are particularly susceptible to chemical infiltration.
We know the chemicals found in cigarettes are harmful regardless of how minute the amounts may be. While smoking one cigarette is extremely unlikely to kill a person, the repeated use and subsequent build up of these toxins in the system will, over time, most likely do the job. Poison, even in its smallest amounts causes both short-term as well as long-term damage to organs when accumulated over time.
The cosmetics industry perpetuates that we are all in dire need of beautifying ourselves, but it's the cosmetics industry that is in need of a new makeover.
Posts
