harmful skin care ingredients ?

[fresh]

could anyone help me check these ingredients below to see whether there are any harmful skin care ingredients included ? thanks .

 

- Aqua; Glycerin; Hydrogenated Palm glycerides; Dimethicone;

 

- Cetearyl Alcohol; Ethylhexyl Palmitate; Sodium Cetearyl Sulfate; Propylene Glycol;

 

- Chamomilla Recutita(Matricaria)Flower Extract; Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice;

 

- Tocopheryle Acetate; Bisabolol; Phenoxyethanol; Methylparaben; Ethylparaben;

 

- Propylparaben; Parfum(Fragrance)

 

can anyone give me some further advice about how to tell whether the skin care cream includes any harmful ingredients ?

thanks again.

 

[Phi for All]

"Harmful" needs to be defined. And some people are more sensitive to certain ingredients than others.

 

I know they used to use Dimethicone to fill silicone breast implants but the industry switched to saline for safety reasons. Dimethicone is an approved ingredient in many products used on skin.

 

I wouldn't think a skin care company would last long using ingredients that were dangerous to a significant portion of their customers. Are you experiencing any adverse effects from this skin care product?

[John Cuthber]

Yes, the first ingredient on the list (Aqua) is just a sneaky way of getting dihydrogen monoxide into a product without calling it by that name.

 

http://www.dhmo.org/

 

Seriously, what possible reason would a cosmetic company have for producing a harmful product?

[Enthalpy]

In order to offer Fresh the opportunity of a class-action.

But for that, he needs some credible story and can't find it by himself.

[fresh]

although i am not experiencing any adverse effect from skin care products, i really want to know how to tell the irritant or not healthy ingredients when reading label, such as separating the good alcohols from bad and avoiding mineral oil....petrolatum..(but i am not 100% sure i am correct or wrong, so willing to share with you and discuss about it.)

i am not here to be sarcastic or critical about skin care products, but we should be aware that some products have adverse effect on skin in long time in particular once users stop using it.
for example, some products include estrogen/steriod or the like...but i dont know their chemical names, that's why i am here to ask...

Enthalpy, you no need to be cynical and oversensitive, be nice.

Seriously, what possible reason would a cosmetic company have for producing a harmful product?

1.for lower cost and longer shelf life.2. attracting customers by developing skin-whitening & rejuvenating effect which may be harmful to health, etc.

i am curious what skin care products are you guys using ? i once used Johnson's baby milk lotion. Edited February 16, 2013 by fresh

[John Cuthber]

i am curious what skin care products are you guys using ? i once used Johnson's baby milk lotion.

Soap and DHMO

Edited February 16, 2013 by John Cuthber

[fresh]

Soap and DHMO

dihydrogen monoxide is water, right ? H20. how come this link claims H20 is dangerous :

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

 

'Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands

of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in

damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen

Monoxide are:...;

 

H2O, WATER, we drink and use everyday....

hello H2O ~~~~

[Phi for All]

Drownings, floods, burst pipes....

[John Cuthber]

dihydrogen monoxide is water, right ? H20. how come this link claims H20 is dangerous :

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

 

'Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands

of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in

damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen

Monoxide are:...;

 

H2O, WATER, we drink and use everyday....

hello H2O ~~~~

So, why did you ask if it was a harmful ingredient?

[fresh]

So, why did you ask if it was a harmful ingredient?

did i ask H20 is a harmful ingredient ??

[John Cuthber]

Yes.

That's why I was able to say

"Yes, the first ingredient on the list (Aqua) is just a sneaky way of getting dihydrogen monoxide into a product without calling it by that name."

I was being ironic, what did you think I meant?

[fresh]

Yes.

That's why I was able to say

"Yes, the first ingredient on the list (Aqua) is just a sneaky way of getting dihydrogen monoxide into a product without calling it by that name."

I was being ironic, what did you think I meant?

i am asking why the link given claims H2O is dangerous,,,? because i feel so funny. @.@

later i find it is just ' H20 hoax ' .

[John Cuthber]

The DHMO story is a way of explaining to people that most chemicals are not harmful. The point is that, if you want to, you can make water look so dangerous that it should be banned.

The same is true of the chemicals in that skin cream.

I'm sure I could find "scare stories" about all of them, but they are pretty nearly harmless. If you ate lots of it you would probably get an upset stomach for a while, but that's all.

 

 

As for "for example, some products include estrogen/steriod or the like"

Well they shouldn't. It would certainly be illegal here in Europe and I don't think it would be acceptable elsewhere.

 

The other thing is that, for example, skin lightning creams are labelled as such. They ought to state what the active ingredient is. They claim to have a real medical effect and, as such should be regulated as drugs. In particular, they should list the possible side effects.

If you live somewhere where they are not required to do that then I suggest that you think about telling the politicians.

[fresh]

i just read this :

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) did a study which found the average person in the US uses 15 body, skin and hair products daily. (I’m struggling with this estimate. Do you believe it? I use a handmade soap and little else. The amount of toxins absorbed through the skin and lungs from the daily use of 15 products is downright scary!) The EWG estimates that one in five products used on the skin contains an ingredient which is a suspected carcinogen. This means that most people in the US use at least three products on a daily basis which contain a potential carcinogen. Believe it or not, many of the ingredients used in skincare products – and approved for use by the FDA – undergo little or no testing prior to approval.

http://goodworkswellness.com/top-ingredients-to-avoid-in-skin-care-products/

[hypervalent_iodine]

Your problem there is that you're reading an article about how bad most skin care products are by a group of people trying to sell a book on skin care. If ever there were a good example of conflicting interests, that would be it.

[John Cuthber]

That EWG site is exactly the sort of thing of which the DHMO site is a parody.

 

Lots of things are suspected carcinogens.

The fact that, in most cases they are not actually carcinogenic or are so weakly so that you can ignore the risk doesn't get a mention.

[Phi for All]

 

Believe it or not, many of the ingredients used in skincare products – and approved for use by the FDA – undergo little or no testing prior to approval.

 

The FDA only requires testing if you're making a medical claim or trying to use an ingredient that hasn't already been tested as safe. This is a cunning piece of marketing mendacity, because soaps using known ingredients don't have to go through the approval process, yet they make it sound like the manufacturers are deliberately putting harmful ingredients into their products and the FDA is ignoring it.

 

In reality, if a manufacturer made any money from a product that hurt people, they'd lose it and more in the lawsuits that would follow. Longer shelf life or cheaper ingredients won't help you if no one will buy your product because it's harmful.

[fresh]

ok, nobody believes it, but it really happens around me.. although there are so many complaints.on those famous skin care products, the horrible thing is those products are still in the market.

if i list the product brands, i guess it is against rule here ? so i give it up.

[John Cuthber]

"ok, nobody believes it, but it really happens around me.."

What happens?

 

As far as I can tell, it's not against the rule to say which brands you believe are causing problems- provided that you have some sort of evidence which explains why you believe it.

[fresh]

"ok, nobody believes it, but it really happens around me.."

What happens?

 

As far as I can tell, it's not against the rule to say which brands you believe are causing problems- provided that you have some sort of evidence which explains why you believe it.

ok, not against rules here.

my evidence is what i heard from friends, what i saw on TV and what i find out...even in Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SK-II

 

i dont understand why it (and the products alike) is still in the market.

the thought that i want to learn how to read labels in products does make sense to me.

[Phi for All]

i dont understand why it (and the products alike) is still in the market.

 

People who are happy with a product aren't as likely to praise it publicly as those who are unhappy with it will complain about it. For every person who complains publicly there are tens of thousands of people who experience no problems, generally.

 

the thought that i want to learn how to read labels in products does make sense to me.

 

Please understand that comments about why you're questioning established products IN NO WAY mean we're questioning why you want to learn to read labeled ingredients. You're being smart about that part.

 

The questions are because you seem to be putting a lot of significance on a few vocal complaints and ignoring the fact that these products are still being purchased by a large enough customer base to keep these companies profitable. Market economics suggests these products are not dangerous to a very large amount of those who use them.

[John Cuthber]

As far as I can tell from the wiki article, there was a scare when some cosmetic product was (presumably inadvertently contaminated with Cr and Nd which are potentially harmful as they can cause allergic reactions.

 

OK, someone somwhere crewed up, but that's not a reason to take the product off the market. At best it's a reason to bring in better quality control.

[pippo]

Cosmetic/pharma products may not necessarily be harmful, but most are at least USELESS. Also, way oversold. What could one expect in this consumer society.

As far as I can tell from the wiki article, there was a scare when some cosmetic product was (presumably inadvertently contaminated with Cr and Nd which are potentially harmful as they can cause allergic reactions.

 

OK, someone somwhere crewed up, but that's not a reason to take the product off the market. At best it's a reason to bring in better quality control.

If the Cr is the hexavalent form, it IS harmful.

In order to offer Fresh the opportunity of a class-action.

But for that, he needs some credible story and can't find it by himself.

Maybe I can help, then. What if the cosmetic companies that peddle in the women's care market skin exfolients that contain plastic? Yes, plastic. Goes down the drain, and causes plastics pollution. Not decomposable, gets into the ocean, and consumed by plankton, consumed by sardines, then we eat sardines. Hey, worse things happen, but thats pollution, people. Just depends on how much pollution. A good lawyer will show how much.

Edited March 5, 2013 by pippo

[CharonY]

It should be noted that generally products are not acutely harmful. Depending on the product there may be components that may have minor health effects if used for a long time, due to bioaccumulation. Nonetheless, unless ingested routinely, chances are that overall health effects are likely lower than say, pesticides in food or air pollution in many areas.

In addition, certain components may elicit allergic responses (including the perfume component).

[fresh]

i wonder why most of actresses dont have any acnes on their face after long time heavy make up.

Thanks for their good skin ?