choof.org
Welcome to choof.org. Unfair. Unbalanced.
Trent
Reznor
Nine Inch Nails
Emma
Goldman
Emma Goldman
Che
Guevara
Che Guevara
James
Joyce
James Joyce
Huey
Newton
To Die for the People
Ride the
clipper
The Sexist Clipper
Adbusters Adbusters
Buy! Shop!
UGA SGA
Archive
UGA SGA
An
Organization
Archive
An Organization
E-mail
Chris
E-mail Chris

More Links

Reenhead
Memepool
Robot Wisdom
Daily Rotten
Boing Boing
Politechbot
Declan's Pics
Cryptome
Richard Stallman
Seth Schoen
Earth Liberation Front
Lisa Rein's Radar
How Appealing
Stay Free
Mary Hodder
Bad Ads Weblog
Commercial Alert
Ponderance
Adrian Pritchett
Jenny Toomey
Simson Garfinkel

Archive

November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003












Choof.org "News"

June 22, 2004

Skin Deep Database Available at EWG

The Washington Post reports that the Environmental Working Group has developed a new database to evaluate cosmetics and other products sold: "...The Washington-based organization has made it easy to calculate your risk of exposure to potentially harmful substances through the personal care products you use. In its new "Skin Deep" study, funded by the Heinz Family Foundation, the Beldon Fund and the John Merck Fund, EWG uses a complex formula to assign a health-risk rating to each of 7,500 personal-care products.

"In EWG's assessment, Just For Men Brush-In Color Gel for Mustache, Beard & Sideburns, Natural Real Black merits a whopping 9.5 score (on a scale of 0 to 10, the top end reflecting the highest risk). Rite Aid Pure Baby Oil comes in for a tiny 1.1 rating. In between are Crest Rejuvenating Effects Liquid Gel Toothpaste (4.3) and Speed Stick Deodorant Solid, Fresh Scent at 5.3. EWG says all those products impose a cumulative chemical load about which too little is known.

"The rating system offers a means of quantifying the answer to a controversial question: Just what are we doing to ourselves when we slather stuff on our bodies? At first blush, the numbers may scare you. Dig deeper and you'll find much that could temper your fear -- or, depending on your point of view, fire your temper.

[...]

"But the industry says the public shouldn't fear its products. Gerald McEwen, vice president for science of the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA), maintains that "cosmetics really are safe. There are not a huge number of complaints, and no evidence of a lot of health problems from their use."

"In any case, the context for any possible risks need to be taken into account. Michael Thun, head of epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, says that "evidence doesn't support the view [that cosmetics are major contributors to cancer risk] at all. If cosmetics pose any [cancer] risk at all, that risk is very small compared to known major risks like smoking, [poor] nutrition, obesity and physical inactivity and sunlight."

"EWG itself encourages a moderate response to the data. EWG project director Jane Houlihan says Skin Deep's findings are "cause for concern, but not alarm."

Posted by chris at June 22, 2004 01:10 PM

Comments

Post a comment




























Archive | Pictures

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.11