This sad case is an example of a chronic exposure (exposed to something over a long span of time) and how it can be detrimental to health. Many ingredients are not harmful in small doses (acute exposure) but if they accumulate in the body they can cause harm. The claims against Johnson & Johnson are worrisome and bring to the forefront (again) deceptive practices companies use to benefit their sales–something that has been seen in other consumer product industries.
Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a Missouri state jury to pay $72 million of damages to the family of a woman whose death from ovarian cancer was linked to her use of the company’s talc-based Baby Powder and Shower to Shower for several decades.
In a verdict announced late Monday night, jurors in the circuit court of St. Louis awarded the family of Jacqueline Fox $10 million of actual damages and $62 million of punitive damages, according to the family’s lawyers and court records.
The verdict is the first by a U.S. jury to award damages over the claims, the lawyers said.
Johnson & Johnson faces claims that it, in an effort to boost sales, failed for decades to warn consumers that its talc-based products could cause cancer. About 1,000 cases have been filed in Missouri state court, and another 200 in New Jersey.
Fox, who lived in Birmingham, Alabama, claimed she used Baby Powder and Shower to Shower for feminine hygiene for more than 35 years before being diagnosed three years ago with ovarian cancer. She died in October at age 62.
Jurors found Johnson & Johnson liable for fraud, negligence and conspiracy, the family’s lawyers said. Deliberations lasted four hours, following a three-week trial.
Jere Beasley, a lawyer for Fox’s family, said Johnson & Johnson “knew as far back as the 1980s of the risk,” and yet resorted to “lying to the public, lying to the regulatory agencies.” He spoke on a conference call with journalists.
Carol Goodrich, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman, said: “We have no higher responsibility than the health and safety of consumers, and we are disappointed with the outcome of the trial. We sympathize with the plaintiff’s family but firmly believe the safety of cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence.“
Trials in several other talc lawsuits have been set for later this year, according to Danielle Mason, who also represented Fox’s family at trial.
In October 2013, a federal jury in Sioux Falls, South Dakota found that plaintiff Deane Berg’s use of Johnson & Johnson’s body powder products was a factor in her developing ovarian cancer. Nevertheless, it awarded no damages, court records show.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc now owns the Shower to Shower brand but was not a defendant in the Fox case.
The case is Hogans et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al, Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 1422-CC09012.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York. Additional reporting by Jessica Dye in New York; editing by Steve Orlofsky and Alan Crosby)
via Reuters http://news.yahoo.com/j-j-must-pay-72-million-cancer-death-154301727–finance.html;_ylt=AwrC0CZlGdZWpgkAzmzQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByaWg0YW05BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM4BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg–
Have you ever thought of the environmental impacts of your online shopping? You may (or may not) be buying all natural and organic products online to decrease the use of toxic chemicals and your environmental impact, but you still have an impact! The old cliché fits here: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!
By MATT RICHTEL–Februay 16, 2016
Ruchit Garg, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, says that he worries that something isn’t right with his Internet shopping habit. With each new delivery to his doorstep — sometimes several in a day — he faces the source of his guilt and frustration: another cardboard box.
Then, when he opens the shipment, he is often confronted with a Russian nesting doll’s worth of boxes inside boxes to protect his electronics, deodorant, clothing or groceries. Mr. Garg dutifully recycles, but he shared his concerns recently on Twitter.
A handful of scientists and policy makers are circling the same question, grappling with the long-term environmental effect of an economy that runs increasingly on gotta-have-it-now gratification. This cycle leads consumers to expect that even their modest wants can be satisfied like urgent needs, and not always feel so great about it.
The new arms race for Internet retailers is speed, making the old Federal Express commercial, “When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,” seem as quaint as delivery by horse and buggy. Amazon boasted in a news release in December about its “fastest order delivered to date” — a Miami customer’s craving for a four-pack of Starbucks vanilla frappuccino was sated in 10 minutes flat.
In 10 major regions, Google Express delivers in a little less than two hours from dozens of stores — including toys, drugs, hardware and pet supplies. Postmates, a San Francisco start-up, promises deliveries in less than an hour. It dropped off nearly one million packages in December.
Over all, the $350 billion e-commerce industry has doubled in the last five years, with Amazon setting the pace. Its Prime membership service has grown to more than 50 million subscribers, by one estimate. (And its new faster service, Prime Now, can “get customers pretty much anything in minutes,” its website says).
Uber calls its new UberRush service “your on-demand delivery fleet”; Jet Delivery offers “white glove” service in less than two hours; Instacart can deliver groceries to your door in less than an hour.
The environmental cost can include the additional cardboard — 35.4 million tons of containerboard were produced in 2014 in the United States, with e-commerce companies among the fastest-growing users — and the emissions from increasingly personalized freight services.
“There’s a whole fleet of trucks circulating through neighborhoods nonstop,” said Dan Sperling, the founding director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, and the transportation expert on the California Air Resources Board. He also is overseeing a new statewide task force of trucking companies and government officials trying to reduce overall emissions from freight deliveries, including for e-commerce.
Dr. Sperling said that consumers shared as much responsibility for the environmental cost of the deliveries as the companies that provided the speedy services.
“From a sustainability perspective, we’re heading in the wrong direction,” he said.
But measuring the effect of the cardboard economy is more difficult.
There are possible trade-offs, for example. As people shop more online, they might use their cars less. And delivery services have immense incentive to find the most efficient routes, keeping their fuel costs and emissions down. For its part, Amazon said that delivering to consumers straight from huge warehouses cuts down the need to distribute to thousands of stores.
So far, though, shoppers appear to be ordering online while still driving to brick-and-mortar stores at least as much as in the past, according to Dr. Sperling and other academics. One recent study explored the environmental effect of Internet shopping in Newark, Del., and found that a rise in e-commerce in recent years by local residents corresponded to more trucks on the road and an increase in greenhouse emissions.
Ardeshi Faghri, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Delaware, said the increase of various emissions — which he estimated at 20 percent from 2001 to 2011 — “could be due to a multitude of reasons, but we think that online shopping and more delivery trucks are really one of the primary reasons.”
“Online shopping has not helped the environment,” he said. “It has made it worse.”
Other scholars say that, at least for now, online shopping appears to be complementing brick-and-mortar shopping, not replacing it.
“People who shop online also like to see and feel things,” said Cara Wang, an associate professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute who studies transportation issues and has written a paper about habits of online shoppers. “And they have to return things.”
Dr. Wang and other researchers say the demand for instant delivery, in particular, creates challenges for trucking companies trying to be efficient. Instead of taking big truckloads to single retailers they now make more scattershot deliveries.
Many drivers deliver just one item. This is often the case for Postmates, which has a fleet of 15,000 freelance drivers signed up to make deliveries of whatever the customer orders — an Uber-like service, but for deliveries. The cost typically starts at $5, and a 9 percent service fee applied to the cost of the item. (The company says it also has about 5,000 deliverers who go on bike or foot in dense urban areas).
Ruchit Garg and his 3-year-old son with produce ordered online through Google. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
And the push for speed from marketers gives shoppers little incentive to wait.
“Why select one week if I can get it in one hour?” asked Miguel Jaller, an assistant professor at U.C. Davis who studies urban freight patterns.
Such is the case for Monica Rohleder, who admits to using Amazon Prime so much that “my husband jokes we keep Amazon in business.”
Ms. Rohleder, who lives in Los Angeles and works at a public relations firm, said she liked overnight delivery, but “within a couple of hours is best” because she is busy with work and her two young children. So she often does not order something until it’s urgent. “There’s the immediate gratification of getting something and checking it off your list,” she said.
One afternoon she received six boxes, from Amazon and Nordstrom, for a Hawaii trip, including bathing suits, workout clothes and coloring books. Some of the clothes did not fit, so she returned them.
She thinks more about the cardboard that comes into her house than the truck emissions, she said. “It’s embarrassing,” she added of her mass of weekly recycling.
Dennis Colley, the president of the Fibre Box Association — the trade group for the corrugated paper, or cardboard, industry — estimated that the use of boxes for e-commerce was growing faster than most other market segments. However, he emphasized the industry’s efforts to be environmentally conscious, and that 90 percent of corrugated packaging were recycled.
Amazon is aware of the cardboard issue. Since 2009, it has received 33 million comments, ratings and photographs about its packaging as part of its “packaging feedback program.” Amazon said it used that feedback to make sure that cardboard box size was consistent with the size of the product. It also works with manufacturers to send some products without additional cardboard packaging, said Craig Berman, a company spokesman.
Though recycling can make consumers think they are helping the environment, the process has its own costs, including the emissions from shipping it to recycling centers, which use a lot of energy and water. Don Fullerton, a professor of finance and an expert in economics and the environment at the University of Illinois, said one possible solution would be to make the retailers responsible for taking back the boxes. That would create incentives for them to come up with solutions for less packaging.
“And maybe not put a box inside a box inside a box,” he said
Robert Reed, a spokesman for Recology, San Francisco’s main recycling processor, which collects 100 tons of cardboard every day, has a simpler solution: “Slow down consumption,” he said. “Slow down.”
This product was purchased by Nature’s Pulchritude. All opinions are that of Nature’s Pulchritude and have not be influenced in any way, shape, or form.
“Oh, Honey. It’s a natural humectant… nature’s gift for glowing, supple hair. Ah, Hemp Oil. With an incredibly rich array of Fatty Acids to ensure well-nourished tresses. Oh! Ah! Oyin’s Honey-Hemp Conditioner! How could it possibly be improved? Perhaps by adding just the smallest touch of Silk Protein and a generous dollop of Aloe Vera Gel… just to take the succulence over the top. ;o)”
I first started using this product about 4-5 years ago. I wanted to try the products for a few month and eventually got my hands on their ‘snack pack.’ I have since purchased 2 of the 33 ounce bottles. This product was pivotal on my natural hair “journey” and has been a staple. I use this conditioner both as a rinse out and deep conditioner, and have also experimented with using it as a leave-in. It is a fantastic moisturizer and leaves my hair feeling like silk!
This is a fantastic conditioner. Great ingredients, great quality all around. This product does what it claims. The 33 ounce bottle is very convenient because it has a pump. A little goes a long way. 1 33 ounce bottle last me about a year with minimum biweekly use. It has a moderately thick consistency–not runny, not stiffly thick, just right and easily spreadable.
Sweet Citrus. That is the best way to describe how Honey Hemp conditioner smells. It smells really, really, really good. Depending on the products you use after conditioning the faint scent of the product will linger in your hair.
Nourish and Moisture. Check, Check. This product does a great job moisturizing my hair. It works well as a rinse out, but works better as a deep conditioner. 30 minutes underneath a hooded dryer is enough. The moisturized feeling is not from a heavy silicones, waxes, etc. but from true moisturization! My hair feels moisturized after completely rinsing the product out of my hair. [Author’s Note: My hair type is predominately 4a, normal porosity, moderate density]
I typically don’t use this product to detangle but it does work well for detangling. My hair is so well moisturized it does not re-tangle at all after detangling, which makes styling much easier.
The only questionable ingredient in this product is optiphen, which is a mixture of Phenoxyethanol and Caprylyl Glycol. Phenoxyethanol is widely used in natural products and prompted my series “Preservatives in Natural Products.” I don’t think this ingredient is cause for concern, but I’d still like more unbiased peer reviewed studies to fully deem this ingredient Safe!
This product was purchased by Nature’s Pulchritude. All opinions are that of Nature’s Pulchritude and have not be influenced in any way, shape, or form.
My lip balm search has yielded yet another great lip balm! Read about my lip balm ‘incident’ and my first great lip balm find. This product moisturizes and keeps my lips soft and supple as I reapply throughout the day!
Certified organic, great supple scent, and it keeps my lips moisturized. Fabulous product! I have not experienced any allergic reactions.
The ginger in this product is so subtle it is almost non existent. The mango is the dominant scent. The overall scent is light and does not linger longer than 2-3 minutes. The product is flavored organically, no synthetic fragrances!
This lip balm is smooth and buttery. The castor oil combined with beeswax is a great pair and it makes the lip balm feel substantial on the lips. It is heavy enough to know it is there, but it melts into your lips after several minutes.
This product has 8 ingredients, all of which are USDA certified organic. For more detailed information about the ingredients read its Label Poise. I’m not too sure what “flavor” means but it may be proprietary essential oils? That is my major gripe with this product.
As you loyal readers already know (Thank you for reading :)), the mission of Nature’s Pulchritude is to educate consumers on the ingredients in their beauty, cosmetic, and personal care products so that they can make informed decisions and in turn shift the market towards effective and safe products for everyone. This article is just a glimpse of a wave of evidence that shows that more and more customers care about what is in their products and that retailers are investing in making sure they sell what customers want. YOU as a CONSUMER hold the POWER! Do NOT forget that! If you want to learn how to pick the appropriate beauty products without the unwanted chemicals, visit Label Poise!
(Heather Clancy, 12/10/2015)–More consumers than ever are inquiring about the makeup of cosmetics and other personal care products. The best anecdotal evidence? The pressure giant retailers Target and Walmart have put on their suppliers — especially over the past year — not just to disclose their use of “ingredients of concern” but to phase them out entirely.
For the most part, the retailers’ past efforts have been very company-specific. Both companies have published lists of chemicals they’d like to see go, such as triclosan, diethyl phthalate and preservative compounds that release formaldehyde.
Now, however, Walmart and Target are taking this cause industry-wide in collaboration with non-profit Forum for the Future. All three are encouraging other retailers, consumer products companies and other interested parties to participate in the forum’s Beauty and Personal Care Products Sustainability Project.
The goal: clarify priorities for products such as makeup, hair products and other personal care goods and share best practices that accelerate the availability of greener chemical alternatives.
“You wouldn’t have the retailers pushing as hard if the consumer pressure wasn’t there,” said Helen Clarkson, director of Forum for the Future U.S. “Retailers are seeing more rapid growth in product categories with natural or safe on the label. … We want more products like this, and we want to be more sure about what the labels mean, because more manufacturers are making these claims.”
Many details, including specific membership requirements, have yet to be finalized. What’s clear, however, is that the new leadership group will focus on coordinating the work of existing initiatives, such as the Green Chemistry & Commerce Council.One of the first things it plans to tackle is the development of sustainable preservatives. “We want them to be ambitious,” Clarkson said.
Walmart began asking for disclosures about chemicals from its suppliers way back in 2006. Its initiative, the Sustainable Chemistry Policy, prioritizes action around 10 chemicals of concern.
Target updated its own chemicals list earlier this year as part of broader update to its Product Sustainability Index. Its “Made to Matter” brand, which features natural, organic and sustainable brands selected by Target, should generate $1 billion in sales this year, according to the company. In fact, human wellness is officially part of its corporate social responsibility platform.
“It is a critical time for collaboration; we need the supply chain to come together to truly move the need and make the greatest impact,” Target spokeswoman Angie Thompson told GreenBiz.
Forum for the Future has collaborated closely with Walmart and Target over the past year to document what’s working and what’s not. In preparation for the leadership group’s first meeting this month, in October it published a “think piece” identifying potential barriers as well as frameworks that could inform a systemic approach.
Aside from the retailers, other companies involved in the research were BASF, CVS, Dow Chemical Company, Eastman Chemical, the Environmental Defense Fund, Henkel, Johnson & Johnson, Method, Procter & Gamble and Unilever.
Among the report’s recommendations are a push for more cross-initiative communications among the groups already working on solutions. The authors note: “To ensure a systems approach and lay the groundwork for greater alignment, we recommend creating a short-term, overarching organizational structure that provides an umbrella for the various sustainability initiatives in the beauty and persona care industry and combines their influence. This body should support holistic thinking over the coming months, until alignment and collaboration among the various existing initiatives has build up enough momentum to continue independently.”
Forum for the Future also advocates a collaborative research and development initiative centered on sustainable preservatives. Among the issues that the industry needs to address are the sharing of intellectual property and safety information, as well as the framework for forward-thinking procurement policies that help bring these new products to market.
The latter is already a focus for GC3, according to the Forum’s analysis. Other groups, such as the Sustainability Consortium, have made progress in prioritizing ingredients.
“We see more and more retailers developing sustainable product indices, as well as evolving their policies beyond just chemicals, to now include ingredients, animal testing, safety and packaging,” Sarah Lewis, a TSC managing director, told GreenBiz. “We are also seeing convergence around key certifications and standards in this space.”
There’s also a policy-related twist that could inform the sustainable chemicals movement, in the form of proposed reforms to the nearly 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act. Two bills are circulating in Congress, both of which would require more testing and more disclosure.
“Americans are exposed to a toxic soup of more than 80,000 different chemicals, but we have no idea what the impact of those chemicals is on our bodies — or those of our children,” said New Mexico senator Tom Udall when in March he proposed the Senate’s version of the bill (named for the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg).
Right now, however, it doesn’t look like the legislation will be addressed this year.
It has officially been fall for over a month, though the temperatures have been fluctuating between spring and fall. Fall means goodbye bright, vibrant colors and hello to dark, vampy, smoldering shades.
China Glaze Manhunt* (Creme)- This is a true royal blue that is simply gorgeous on the nail. The wear of this polish is terrific!
Zoya Ibiza+(Shimmer)- This color is a deep blue with true blue glitter that gives the polish depth and looks “lit from within.”
Zoya Lidia+ (Creme)- This is a gorgeous true purple. Purple nail color has been high on my must have list for a while and this color delivered!
Formula X Law of Attraction (Metallic Glitter)- Ever just sit and stare at your nails as the light reflects on it? Yes, this polish will have you doing that. Gorgeous blue contrasts a yellow gold tone.
Zoya Aggie+ (Metallic)- I have yet to wear this color but the duochrome gold/green goes great with a fall wardrobe palette while still giving a nice pop of color.
Zoya Sansa+ (Creme w/ Glitter)- A deep purple with red and silver glitter.
Zoya Yuna+ (Creme w/ Glitter)- Muted green with subtle gold shimmer. Very fall!
Welp. I am slightly unsettled reading this article, but not at all surprised. No one should use nail polish of any kind, whether 3-Free, 5-Free, 8-Free, etc., and think that it is “safe.” The same reason you do not want interior paint on your skin, or you wouldn’t take a deep breath in a freshly painted room or over an open can of paint. There are chemicals! Some are really bad, some are minorly bad, some innocuous. I regularly review nail polish here and when it comes to “Envirofactor” no polish gets a perfect score!
It also isn’t surprise that companies took out the ingredients plagued with bad PR and replaced them with chemicals that can also be detrimental to health. However, before I place blame on the nail polish manufacturers I must look to the federal regulations in the United States that allows untested chemicals to be used in consumer products without any testing (scientific or otherwise). The “good” news is that avoiding TPHP is fairly simple since it enters the body through dermal exposure: either paint neatly or tape the skin around your nails. Another good measure to avoid inhalation exposure is to be in a well ventilated room with a face mask on. This was longer than expected and really deserves its own post, look out for that soon!
By Michael Hawthorne, 10/23/2015 — Some cosmetics manufacturers and beauty salons promote “eco-friendly” nail polishes that are free of a handful of chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive problems.
Copyright Jose M. Osorio/Chicago Tribune 2014
But a new study suggests a replacement for one of those toxic compounds might be just as worrisome.
Signs of triphenyl phosphate, known as TPHP or TPP, turned up in every one of the 26 women tested a few hours after they applied nail polish commonly sold at department stores and pharmacies. The chemical, used to make polish flexible and durable, also is an ingredient in a controversial flame retardant added to furniture cushions.
Scientists are increasingly concerned about triphenyl phosphate because animal studies indicate it is an endocrine disruptor, meaning it can mimic natural hormones and scramble the healthy development of cells. One study showed the chemical can trigger obesity by causing immature bone cells to transform into fat. Another linked exposure to fertility problems.
The new study’s authors said popular nail polish lines — including OPI, Sally Hansen, Revlon, Maybelline and Wet N Wild — switched to triphenyl phosphate during the past decade after pressure from consumers and retailers forced them to phase out the use of another compound, dibutyl phthalate, which is banned in cosmetics in Europe and listed as a developmental toxin in California.
“The emerging science seems to be moving toward TPHP being problematic for similar reasons,” said Heather Stapleton, a Duke University chemist who co-wrote the exposure study, published this week in the peer-reviewed journal Environment International.
Though researchers acknowledged the small sample size in their study, they said exposure likely is widespread. Triphenyl phosphate is listed as an ingredient in half of the 3,000 nail products reviewed by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization that collaborated with Stapleton on the new study and has pushed for years to overhaul regulation of cosmetics.
It is unclear what, if any, hazards the chemical poses at the levels detected in women who participated in the new study. But the discovery that levels spiked shortly after they applied nail polish shows how difficult it can be even for diligent consumers to avoid chemicals in cosmetics and household products.
Stapleton and her colleagues focused on nail polish after an earlier study found that women tend to have higher levels of TPHP in their bodies than men. In the new study, levels remained stable when the participants wore gloves fitted with synthetic nails, suggesting the chemical is absorbed through the skin rather than inhaled.
The Food and Drug Administration said in a statement that federal law doesn’t require manufacturers to prove that cosmetic ingredients are safe before putting them on the market or even file product formulations with the FDA.
Echoing earlier statements about other chemicals in personal care products, the chief trade group for cosmetics manufacturers called the Stapleton-EWG study “speculative” and “misleading.”
“The makers of nail polish stand behind their products and take pride in providing Americans with access to a wide variety of safe, high quality and innovative products they trust and enjoy,” the Personal Care Products Council said in a statement.
In recent years several companies have started labeling nail polish as “3-free,” meaning the products do not contain the toxic chemicals toluene, formaldehyde or dibutyl phthalate, the compound that triphenyl phosphate replaced in some product lines.
Several other common nail product ingredients also pose health risks to salon workers and customers. A 2007 safety brochure from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists 17 chemicals that can trigger a burning throat or lungs, labored breathing or shortness of breath.
“For women using nail polish regularly, this represents a source of chronic exposure,” said Joseph Allen, a Harvard University researcher who has documented toxic air in nail salons but was not involved in the new study. “Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, consumers often can’t make informed decisions about the products they purchase and use due to a lack of reporting and transparency; workers in nail salons simply have no choice at all when it comes to avoiding exposure.”
The EPA is concerned about triphenyl phosphate for different reasons. The chemical is an ingredient in Firemaster 550, a flame retardant the agency once touted as safe but has since determined could pose significant health risks.
A 2012 Tribune investigation revealed the EPA endorsed Firemaster 550 even though the agency’s own scientists were deeply skeptical of its safety.Studies conducted by its manufacturer found that exposing rats to the flame retardant can lower birth weight, alter female genitalia and cause skeletal malformations.
Independent scientists, including Stapleton, later found that small doses of Firemaster 550 administered to rats can trigger obesity, anxiety and other problems.
Last year the EPA added triphenyl phosphate to a list of chemicals targeted for in-depth reviews based on widespread exposure and potential toxicity.
“This is another example of why we need better cosmetics regulation and chemical regulation in general,” said Johanna Congleton, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group who co-wrote the new nail polish study. “We shouldn’t allow industry to keep replacing one bad chemical with another.”
If costume makeup is on your agenda this Halloween, you may want to reconsider your getup or at least be cautious with your cosmetic choices. Side effects of toxic costume makeup can be extreme, so take some tips from the pros this Halloween and be thoughtful when you’re dressing up. We spoke with New York City dermatologist Dr. Sejal Shah, an expert in skin conditions and diseases such as acne and rosacea, as well as those affecting hair and nails. Shah filled us in on the hazards you might encounter through your Halloween costume — it turns out the scariest part of your costume might be what’s in your makeup. Here’s what to look for, and how to avoid the risks.
Colorful makeup and dyes “Besides color additives, makeup contains a number of base ingredients, such as fillers, fragrances, binders, emollients, and preservatives, to name a few,” says Shah. “In cheap Halloween makeup, it’s usually these base ingredients that are lower quality and likely to cause skin problems. Halloween makeup has also been found to contain detectable levels of heavy metals that can cause problems.” As far as reactions go, Shah says that the heavy texture of Halloween makeup makes it more likely to cause acne. But a few pimples should be the least of your worries. “The FDA does not require cosmetic products and ingredients to be FDA-approved before going to market,” she warns. “The exception to this is color additives, which do require FDA approval, but it is possible to have reactions to dyes.” Shah advises checking the FDA-approved list of color additives. She says red dye is known for causing reactions (it’s also found in other colors) as is PPD (paraphenylenediamine), found in black and dark colored cosmetics and dye.
Masks, prosthetics, plasticizers, and adhesives Even if you’re not wearing makeup, you may be putting your skin at risk with low-quality masks, plasticizers, or prosthetics when worn for an extended period of time. “Absorption of these plasticizers through the skin from wearing a mask for a short time is low, but the risk is still there,” says Shah. “A poorly fitting mask can [also] cause skin irritation.” Another risky Halloween add-on may be your faux eyelashes or nails. “Glue can damage the nails or cause loss of the eyelashes, either due to pulling and traction [or cause a] skin reaction at the lash line or eyelids,” says Shah.
Be on the look out for heavy metal And no, we don’t mean the loud music. “The scariest and most concerning substances found in Halloween makeup are heavy metals, which can be toxic,” says Shah. “For example, lead has been found in these makeups, and although lead poisoning doesn’t commonly occur via the skin, it can be absorbed through the skin.”
How to be safe this Halloween
Do a patch test Shah suggests doing a patch test any time you are using a new product or have sensitive skin. “I recommend applying a small amount to your inner arm — the inner elbow or inner wrist work well — to see if you develop a reaction,” she says. “Some people may develop a reaction immediately; whereas in others it might take a few days, so it’s a good idea to test it out for a few days, even up to a week.”
Don’t be too frugal If you spend more money on face paint or Halloween makeup, you can expect better quality ingredients. “If your regular makeup isn’t going to complete your Halloween costume, try to go for high quality theater makeup,” says Shah. Look for natural-based makeup to be safe.
Treat your skin right Be mindful of the instructions on your costume makeup — they’re there for a reason. “If you must use inexpensive low quality makeup, don’t use it around your eyes or mouth, especially if it’s not meant for that area,” says Shah. For example, certain dyes are only FDA approved for certain areas. When it comes to removal, wash your makeup off as soon as possible. “You may need to double up on the cleansing (such as a makeup wipe or remover followed by cleanser) to ensure all the makeup is off, and apply a gentle moisturizer with calming ingredients to reduce any mild irritation or dryness. If you have a more significant reaction you may need to see your dermatologist.”
Product Review: Zoya Armor Brand: Zoya Product: Armour Every nail polish aficionado knows that a good top coat is everything. A good top coat adds shine, protects your nail color, extends wear, and preferably dries quickly though all layers of polish. After my main top coat in rotation ran out, I decided to try a new top coat. What better than a big 5 free top coat from one of my favorite nail brands?
“Nails are ready to take on the world with Zoya Armor Topcoat & UV Blocker. Add a protective, ultra-glossy, flexible shine to nail color and prevent exposure to yellowing UV rays. The super-brilliant, ultra-strong and flexible topcoat provides a chip-free coating to defend nail color against wear and tear.”
Formula The formula is easy to work with, it is not as thick as other top coats but at the same time is not thin. This product lived up to part of its claims and maintained the integrity of the nail color it was applied to and did not yellow at all.
Application Applying this top coat was very straight forward, it applies evenly in 2-3 brush strokes
Shine Armour leaves a nice shine on the nails rigt after application and after completely drying.
Wear “Chip-free coating to defend against wear and tear?’ “Armour” is nothing short of a misnomer. I can overlook this polish taking 3+ hours (!!!!) to dry, which resulted in a small nick in my polish, but this product did NOT protect my nail polish! My polished chipped within 24 hours! This is simply unacceptable! I have tested this product with Zoya and other salon quality polishes with the same results.
EnviroFactor The polish is big 5 free as it contains no Formaldehyde, Camphor, Formaldehyde Resin, Tolune, or Dibutyl Phthalate. The remaining ingredients are typical of what you would find in a nail polish and some are likely toxic to the lungs and nervous system, which is not at all surprising considering it is nail polish. It is best to polish nails in a well ventilated area and do not inhale over an open bottle.
If I had no prior experience with Zoya products I would be turned off from the brand, however, all of their polishes have been great albeit this is the first top/base coat or treatment I have used from the brand. I had to go and buy another bottle of my usual top coat weeks after purchasing this product. This product retails for $10 and should be of much better quality, period. Armour is part of Zoya’s color lock system and is followed by quick dry drops. It should be noted these quick dry drops retail for $16 for .5 ounce bottle. I will not be purchasing this product again nor will I try the quick dry drops
Appreciating the 'Pulchritude' Of Nature Through Natural and Organic Beauty Products and Food.