Comments on: The Attainability Of Knowledge

By: Bagelsan

Bagelsan — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:50:00 +0000

I was in the mall the other day and saw a sign advertising makeup that said something like “found in nature, tested in a lab” and I was like “yes THANK you!” Chemicals that you apply to your body need to be tested, yanno? Even if you got them off a tree or by rubbing a tiny brightly colored frog against your skin or whatever “natural” thing you did… :p (That has to be my favorite makeup ad ever. As a scientisty type it’s so nice to have science appreciated! Hurray for “lab” not being a bad word!)

By: crshark

crshark — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:13:10 +0000

The FDA attempted to come up with a regulatory definition of “natural” for products in the 1970′s, but gave up the effort because there apparently was no scientific consensus. So there’s no federal regulations at all on the use of the word “natural” (as opposed to “organic”).

By: Kansai_Gal

Kansai_Gal — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:08:45 +0000

Beautypedia is not a free database, but the information I’d like to point out is found on a free landing page for a brand: http://www.beautypedia.com/Brand/Bare-Escentuals/65.aspx
More specifically “Regarding bismuth oxychloride, it is interesting to note that bismuth (a metallic element) seldom occurs in nature. Instead, it is a by-product of copper and lead refining, or is manufactured synthetically. Chemically, it’s similar to arsenic, a fact you won’t see in any advertising for bareMinerals. However, just as cosmetic-grade mineral oil is not identical to the petroleum from which it originated, neither is bismuth oxychloride identical to bismuth. The bismuth oxychloride used in cosmetics is non-toxic, but this background offers a good example of how skewed a company’s definition of ‘natural’ can be.”
For that and other reasons, ‘natural’ has always been one of my least favorite product gimmicks.

By: Carla

Carla — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:31:51 +0000

haha, you’re right…in fact, it doesn’t even make sense the way I interpreted it. D’oh!

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:16:24 +0000

“LOL… moving on:”

laughed out loud f’reals.

By: Lu

Lu — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:45:30 +0000

You are assuming that Idril lives in the US.

By: Julie

Julie — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:42:05 +0000

idril: I laughed at the name too…not only does it refer to a slightly stupid woman in French, it’s also remeniscent of “tart” in English, which is associated do an over-makeuped whorish woman. Neither of which are good for selling makeup to women.

I might just start a line of cosmetics called “Thick” ;)

By: Carla

Carla — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:07:01 +0000

Tarte products are already sold in the US. The cheek stain is awesome.

By: Mona

Mona — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:30:25 +0000

I love this blog, but could you please correct the grammar typo up there (“their” instead of “they’re”)?

By: Idril

Idril — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:58:15 +0000

On a less intellectual note, I couldn’t help but snigger reading about the brand “Tarte”. In french, it means “pie”, but is also widely used as “cheesy”.
I hope they’ll think twice before marketing it as Tarte here. Or maybe not, I could afford a good laugh.

By: Annoyed

Annoyed — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:10:49 +0000

I completely agree with you. It has always gotten on my nerves that most people conflate natural with good and unnatural(whatever that means)as bad.

But in this case I think there is conflict. Sephora is capitalizing on the assumption that natural is good and healthy. While The Environmental Working Group is pointing out any possible toxicities.

Oh, And I have never been able to get the tags either. Always mess them up :)

By: Reanimated Horse

Reanimated Horse — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:56:37 +0000

Lu, I’ve been using that cometicsdatabase.com resource for a while, too. It’s one of the best places out there for research on ingredients. There’s also a popular pact out there that companies can sign at safecosmetics.org. Unfortunately I’ve found lots of those Mom-and-Pop companies who’ve signed (and are using the logo) are still using ingredients that they explicitly said they wouldn’t. So, yeah – there’s no real way to know. Real information is still essentially unavailable. And if you think about it, many natural ingredients themselves are under-researched, and not ready to be called “safe.” So how am I to know what’s a better choice, even if I can find out?

My feeling is that most of us who are looking for natural cosmetics are getting dry hair or blotchy skin, and we start out by just looking for a solution. But then beneath the surface, we start to feel that these items are also safe for us – no carcinogens, etc. That, to me, is the danger in this advertising. We really just want makeup that won’t make us break out – so we buy it. But on some level we’re not addressing, we’re also feeling it’s safe.

By: P

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:39:29 +0000

On the other hand, I have no idea what my inability to use basic tags might signify.

By: P

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:37:38 +0000

[blockquote]So Sephora says [they're] natural. The Environmental Working Group however, an organization with a wholly different agenda, says that products that Sephora labels natural–such as Tarte, Caudalie, Decleor, and Korres Natural Products–present a moderate to high toxin hazard.[/blockquote]

This is framed as a contradiction, but it doesn’t have to be. Anthrax is natural. Botulism is natural. All sorts of nasty venoms are 100% natural but extremely toxic. Poison ivy is natural, but you probably wouldn’t want to put it on your face.

It is a sign of how insulated our lives are from nature that we fetishize the “natural,” equating the label with goodness and wholesomeness.

By: Lu

Lu — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:45:11 +0000

http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/product/256691/Afterglow_Cosmetics_Organic_Mineral_Foundation_-_Bisque/

This is the makeup I use. Hey, low toxin hazard! Although it’ll probably still give me cancer. Oh well.