Authors: Julie Gabriel
Tags: #ebook, #book
The biodynamic method has been controlled and certified by the Demeter International Association since 1928. The U.S. Demeter Association was formed in the 1980s and certified its first farm in 1982. There are several skin care lines that use biodynamically grown plants in their products, such as Weleda, Primavera, and Dr. Hauschka. Biodynamic skin care, according to Susan West Kurz, is based on a process of healing the skin as opposed to removing the symptoms. “We don’t say, let’s cope with your dryness by putting on a moisturizer,” says Susan. “We are stimulating skin’s vital functions so it isn’t dry all the time. I often ask women why they use night creams, and they say because their skin is dry. Maybe, I tell them, these creams do not work!Why would you need a moisturizer twenty-four hours a day if they were effective? Biodynam-ics requires a shift in consciousness. We look at the whole process rather than symptoms.”
Hypoallergenic
Variations:
dermatologist-tested, allergy-tested, nonirritating These claims are not making a cosmetic product more natural. Company claims that certain beauty products produce fewer allergic reactions often have little ground. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there are currently no federal standards or definitions that govern the use of the term “hypoallergenic.”
In fact, beauty product manufacturers are not required to provide evidence that their products produce fewer allergic reactions, and products prescribed for sensitive skin often contain chemical and plant-based ingredients that cause skin irritation. It’s been proven that all cosmetic products, mild and regular, may cause an allergic reaction in people with sensitive skin. That’s why if you are “blessed” with supersensitive skin, you should use beauty products with as few ingredients as possible and consider making your own basic skin and hair care products from organic fruits, vegetables, milk, and cereals, so you are completely sure of what you are using on your skin.
Cruelty-Free
Variations:
no animal testing, we are against animal testing
Although the “cruelty-free” and “no animal testing” labels suggest that no animal testing was done on the product or its ingredients, you may be surprised to learn that no legal definitions of these claims exist and no independent organization verifies them. In fact, it is common for manufacturers whose products bear these labels to commission outside laboratories to conduct tests on animals to prove that they themselves do not conduct animal tests. Cruelty-free has nothing to do with green beauty and should not be mistaken for it, even though organic manufacturers steer clear of animal testing in any form.
Animal testing is a big business that kills up to 100 million animals every year, according to the British newspaper the
Guardian
in 2005. And the worst part is that most of them die for nothing. It’s true that many groundbreaking scientific and medical discoveries were made thanks to animals, including the development of penicillin, organ transplants, the poliomyelitis vaccine, not to mention the famous Pavlov’s dogs, the first cloned animal, Dolly the sheep, and dog Laika, the first animal to travel in space. Finding a new pain-reducing treatment for burn victims or a new flu vaccine is one thing; involving animals in testing a new shimmery base for lip-glosses is another. Besides, more and more scientists today insist that animal testing of cosmetics is indisputably cruel and inhumane and does not always prove the safety of cosmetic ingredients.
During a series of experiments on animals, scientists establish in which concentrations particular chemicals are safe for use. Scientists try to measure the levels of skin irritancy, eye tissue damage, and toxicity caused by various cosmetic ingredients. To test for irritancy, they perform the Draize test, during which caustic substances are placed in the eyes of rabbits to see how much damage can be done to their sensitive eye tissues. This test is extremely painful for the rabbits, which often scream and sometimes break their necks trying to wiggle out of restraints.
Another test performed to evaluate the safety of cosmetics is the lethal dosage (LD) test. During this test, researchers try to figure out the amount of a substance that will kill a predetermined ratio of animals. For example, in the LD50 test, animals are forced to ingest poisonous substances, most often through stomach tubes, until half of them die. Common reactions to lethal dosage tests include convulsions, vomiting, paralysis, and bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth, or rectum.
What amazes me most is the logic of product developers who order such tests: if they already know that the chemical is irritating, toxic, or lethal, why kill animals and waste time and money to find out how much of this deadly stuff they can legally stuff into a new cosmetic product? If animals develop serious diseases and even die from this substance, why does anyone need to determine whether this chemical is safe for humans if we dilute it with water or another chemical? If you already know it is toxic and/or irritating, why use it in cosmetics at all? There are more than eight thousand chemical substances that are recognized as safe—why continue loading beauty products with yet another deadly chemical cocktail?
Animal tests don’t always predict human risks. Each living species reacts differently to various substances. Pet lovers know that certain human foods are poisonous to animals due to their body chemistry. For example, you should not feed pork, onions, grapes, or macadamia nuts to dogs, while aspirin is poisonous to cats. Some substances that are toxic to humans didn’t have any adverse effects on animals during tests. One of them, thalidomide (kevadon), a sedative used to treat insomnia, was developed in the 1960s. The drug was put on the market after extensive animal tests didn’t show any toxicity. After thalidomide was approved for treatment of depression, it caused severe birth abnormalities. Starting in 1962, there were reports of thousands of children born deformed, and many of them died shortly after birth. The
British Medical Journal
even called it “thalidomide disaster” (Woolham 1962). Today, thalidomide is used in treatment of multiple myeloma and inflammatory diseases, but with extreme caution because we now know it is a strong teratogen.
During tests, researchers use industrial-strength solutions that rapidly cause harmful effects in animals. Basically, any substance used in large quantities can hurt or even kill. Water can be toxic if drunk in gallons at once! Humans are unlikely to encounter high concentrations of toxic substances in real life as they shave, shower, and style their hair. Instead, we use potentially harmful substances consistently in low doses over years and even decades. As a result, systemic effects would be different. It’s the same with the sun: when we overdose from exposure to the sun, we get an instant reaction (sunburns) and delayed reaction (premature skin aging, higher risk of skin cancer). Many chemicals we use daily will act slowly, triggering disease after decades of use.
Animals, especially lab animals, live much shorter lives than humans. Many species have been genetically modified so they become more susceptible to cancer or other diseases. Not a single animal test can prove that the chemical in question is safe for use by humans. Such tests can only show that the chemical doesn’t cause visible damage over a short period of time. Then the animals are killed, and the cosmetic industry gets a green light to formulate and sell new products using the chemical. Animal tests cannot predict the effect such chemicals have on humans who will encounter these chemicals over prolonged periods of time and in combination with various other chemicals of synthetic or natural origin.
To add injury to insult, animal testing results can be affected by many factors: how well the animals eat and sleep, how stressed they are, and what their living conditions are. Results of the same test can vary from one research facility to another. The LD50 results can be 8–14 times higher in one laboratory than in another, observed the activist group Animal Liberation on their website (
http://www.animalliberation.org.au/toxtest.php
).
Today, many cosmetic companies develop and refine alternative testing procedures that do not involve animals. Among reliable alternatives to animal testing are tests in vitro, literally “in a tube,” when chemical substances are applied to individual cells rather than dropped into a rabbit’s eyes or poured into a dog’s throat. For example, to study if a certain ingredient irritates the eye, Eytex, a vegetable protein whose molecules have a similar organization as those in the cornea, can be used to study facial skin care, makeup, and hair care. Irritating products make the protein gel appear cloudy, similar to the cloudiness and tears you may experience after applying an eye cream. Human cornea cells from eye banks can be grown and reproduced in test tubes. After the test chemical has been applied to the human cell culture, scientists examine the number of dead or damaged cells by adding a red dye. Healthy cells take up this dye, but dead or damaged cells do not. The less red dye is absorbed, the more toxic the product is. Finally, to test products that are made of ingredients that are already found to be safe, human volunteers can be used. The greater number of people involved, the more reliable the results. Many well-known cosmetic companies, such as The Body Shop, regularly use human volunteers.
In nonanimal testing, adverse reactions and mutations of individual cells can be accurately measured, recorded, and scrutinized. The results can be measured accurately by a computer, and there’s no need to break a rabbit’s neck.
The future of animal testing is starting to look dim. The testing of cosmetics on animals is currently banned in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. In 2009, all animal-tested cosmetics will be banned from sale throughout the European Union, and all cosmetics-related animal testing will be halted. The European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients, which represents seventy cosmetic companies from all over Europe, opposes the ban. In the United States, animal testing is still in use.
As consumers, we are partly responsible, too. Each of us can choose not to buy cosmetic products from companies that either practice animal testing or pay other companies to conduct such tests. By voting with your dollar, you can send a strong message to cosmetic manufacturers that testing on animals is cruel, useless, and unacceptable.
The fact that a product is called “herbal” or “natural” doesn’t mean it is cruelty-free.
The fact that a product is called “herbal” or “natural” doesn’t mean it is cruelty-free. Many cosmetic companies claim they do not test their products on animals but buy ingredients from suppliers that either own research labs that perform tests on animals or order such tests from independent labs. Still, a logo of a leaping bunny on a box or a tube of a cosmetic product is a good sign that this particular company does not carry out cruel animal testing or at least does not directly support it. In future chapters, I will never recommend using a beauty product made by a company that encourages animal testing in any form.
Non-GMO
Variation:
no genetically modified organisms used
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is a natural substance whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. A plant’s DNA can be twisted up a notch to make it more resistant to pests or a harsh climate, improve its shelf life, or increase nutritional value. Genetically modified plants most commonly used in cosmetics include soya and corn. Soybean oil, corn flour, and potato starch are common ingredients in moisturizers, masks, and makeup. According to Greenpeace, more than 50 percent of the world’s soy contains genetically modified organisms. However, no GM labels are required on cosmetics.
The risks of genetic engineering are still unknown. Opponents of GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, warn that any product used on the skin enters the bloodstream more quickly, which increases any potential risk that GMOs may have. “I believe that people should always have the ability to know what they are supporting with their dollars as well as what they are putting on and in their bodies,” says Joshua Scott Onysko, the creator of Pangea Organics. “GMOs are man playing god. Companies like Monsanto claim that extensive testing has been done on these new GMO crops, but what does ‘testing’mean? How do you ‘test’ the effects of [genetically modified] organisms on a planet with millions of different species? I believe their stewardship of this planet and its people is as myopic as their business plans.”
The practice of genetic modification is not restricted in the United States, although some states and counties, such as Mendocino County, California, banned the production of GMOs in 2004. In general, United States law does not impose mandatory identification of the presence of GMOs in consumer products, whether food or cosmetics, because the FDA does not consider genetically modified food to present any greater safety concerns than other foods do.
Most countries in Europe, Japan, and Mexico declared that genetic modification has not been proven safe. Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Greece banned the use of engineered corn and rapeseed, but many European countries lifted the GMO ban in 2004. The controversy over genetically modified food in Europe is still going on, even though surveys consistently find that 97 percent of European consumers want clear labeling of all genetically engineered foods and 80 percent do not want genetically engineered foods at all. Currently, the United States is fighting to obtain European Union clearance for the sale of genetically modified seeds, challenging European bans of GMOs in the U.S.-based World Trade Organization.
GM opponents want all food and cosmetic products containing as little as 1 percent of genetically modified organisms to be labeled accordingly, so consumers can decide whether to buy genetically modified products or not. Greenpeace argues that instead of investing in GMplants, governments must support organic farming methods that help repair the damage done by industrial farming and reduce the excessive use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
At the very least, produce with GMO ingredients must be properly labeled as such. “The last thing I want to eat is a tomato with fish genes,” says Myra Eby, founder of natural skin care line MyChelle. “It is only fair for the end consumer to knowingly purchase products containing GMO ingredients. I feel all manufacturers choosing to use GMO ingredients owe it to us, the consumers, and they should label the products properly so an informed decision can be made. It is shocking to me that the grocery store shelves are lined with produce that contains GMO ingredients without any warnings on them.”