The Story of Cosmetics

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
V's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2009
Posts: 849
The Story of Cosmetics

From the folks who brought you The Story of Stuff. The story of how we are being poisoned for profit.


DrKrbyLuv's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: The Story of Cosmetics

Thanks for the video V

Toxins in - toxins out

I agree with the "precautionary principle" which says, if potential dangers exist, don't use the chemical unless it has been thoroughly tested.

It's disturbing that no one is monitoring or regulating the chemicals used in personal care products.  We know that carcinogenic chemicals are present in many common products and that they have been shown to harm the health of animals, but, inexplicably, they are deemed safe for human use.  The video points out that we are animals too.

A truly toxic issue - Modern life is saturated with carcinogenic chemicals. But without regulation, just how are we supposed to avoid them? 

I used to be under the impression that you had a reasonable chance of avoiding debilitating and potentially fatal diseases like cancer if you just took a few simple precautions: ate plenty of fruit and vegetables, gave up smoking, drank in moderation and did a bit of exercise. It's since become apparent that the world we live in is so overrun with environmental pollutants that it is next to impossible to keep oneself truly healthy.

A report released in the US earlier this year by the President's Cancer Panel concluded that the risk of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated; that exposure to potential carcinogens is widespread; that the 80,000 or so chemicals used by millions of Americans in their daily lives (mostly inadvertently) are largely unregulated and that, to a "disturbing extent", babies are being born "pre-polluted".

I've known for a while that imbibing food is a perilous adventure. Meat, fish and dairy products have long since terrified me. Even fresh produce has its dangers. A conventional apple for example – the very fruit that is meant to keep the doctor at bay – can contain up to 42 different pesticides, many of them known carcinogens.

But now, it seems that food is the least of our worries, to the extent that you have some control over what you digest. The fact is we are being bombarded 24/7 by toxic chemicals: benzene and formaldehyde in our furniture and carpets, bisphenol A (BPA) in food containers and the coating on credit card receipts, and who knows what in our electronic devices.

Some of these chemicals, like formaldehyde (which is probably in the desk I'm typing at right now and in the sofa I'll be reclining on later) and BPA, which is everywhere, have been the subject of hundreds of studies and are known to be harmful, even in very low doses. BPA is particularly troubling, being linked to breast cancer, infertility and birth defects in infants (reducing the normal distance between their anus and genitals for example), yet it is ubiquitous in – of all things – babies' bottles. BPA was banned from use in Canada in 2008; despite more than 700 studies coming to the same distressing conclusion, it is still FDA-approved for use in the United States.

Meanwhile, according to the President's Cancer Panel, a whopping 41% of Americans – almost half the population – will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. In 2009 alone, 562,000 Americans died from the disease.

In our current "monopoly capitalism" industries regulate themselves by forming lobbying cartels.  For example:

American Cancer Society: The World's Wealthiest "Nonprofit" Institution

The American Cancer Society is fixated on damage control— diagnosis and treatment— and basic molecular biology, with indifference or even hostility to cancer prevention. This myopic mindset is compounded by interlocking conflicts of interest with the cancer drug, mammography, and other industries. The "nonprofit" status of the Society is in sharp conflict with its high overhead and expenses, excessive reserves of assets and contributions to political parties. All attempts to reform the Society over the past two decades have failed; a national economic boycott of the Society is long overdue.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is accumulating great wealth in its role as a "charity." According to James Bennett, professor of economics at George Mason University and recognized authority on charitable organizations, in 1988 the ACS held a fund balance of over $400 million with about $69 million of holdings in land, buildings, and equipment (1). Of that money, the ACS spent only $90 million— 26 percent of its budget— on medical research and programs. The rest covered "operating expenses," including about 60 percent for generous salaries, pensions, executive benefits, and overhead. By 1989, the cash reserves of the ACS were worth more than $700 million (2). In 1991, Americans, believing they were contributing to fighting cancer, gave nearly $350 million to the ACS, 6 percent more than the previous year. Most of this money comes from public donations averaging $3,500, and high-profile fund-raising campaigns such as the springtime daffodil sale and the May relay races. However, over the last two decades, an increasing proportion of the ACS budget comes from large corporations, including the pharmaceutical, cancer drug, telecommunications, and entertainment industries.


The American Cancer Society Runs With the Money and Away from the Cure, Part VI

(NaturalNews) In the previous installment of this series, we examined the close relationship the American Cancer Society (ACS) has had with the chemical industry. Today we will take a look at the relationships the ACS has had with the Mammography and other industries that profit from cancer.

and this link from npr...


Public safety concerns have given way to profit concerns of the largest corporations.  Cartels have formed in most industries that literally control our government - this is how monopoly capitalism works and why less than 1% of the people control 83% of the wealth (U.S.).

The question that must be asked is profit the only motive for companies to use dangerous chemicals?  My opinion may be found in the Controversial Topics Forum.


Saffron's picture
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 29 2009
Posts: 250
Re: The Story of Cosmetics

Personal solution: wash hair with baking soda and rinse with apple cider vinegar. 

Google "no 'poo" to learn more. Here's one site - hopefully my link will post:

Does it work? yes. Is there a transition period? yes, though not as bad as you might think - mostly gotta get over our own hangups about a) using shampoo and b) washing hair so frequently. 

My hair did get frizzy for awhile and from this link I realize I was using too much baking soda (it's hard not to - we are used to "lathering" and we want to *feel* something in our hair to know something is being done.) But, the end result is hair you love (ok, maybe that's a "gal" thing) and don't need to wash as frequently.

Adam Taggart's picture
Adam Taggart
Status: Peak Prosperity Co-founder (Online)
Joined: May 26 2009
Posts: 3210
Updated link for President's Cancer Panel report

The link in DrKrbyLuv's post above is now broken, but the report has been archived here:

(Thanks to RJ for providing the fresh link)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments