The Ugly Truth About the Beauty Industry

swan19

I hope this thread can be used as a tool in helping you define the words organic and natural for yourself. I will post a chapter at a time and see what people think. My goal is to bring you solid information as well as some creative ideas, so that you can make informed decisions about being a truly "Natural Beauty."

A lot of the information you are about to discover may not be known by some people. The reason being - clever advertising and marketing. A lot of companies advertise as "organic" and "natural", but are they? Who regulates the cosmetic industry and more importantly are they doing there job?

Cancer is a major concern and almost everybody knows at least one person who has been affected by this, of which there are over 200 different types. And most scientists agree 80% are caused by toxic chemicals. Even more worrying is that the average woman applies 175 chemicals to her body each day in the form of cosmetics and chemicals, according to the Daily Mail. Think about it...cleansers, toners, exfoliators, masks, moisturizers, shampoo, perfume..the list goes on!!!

Its said that 1 in 3 of all women will be affected by cancer and 1 in 2 of all men. Its one of the biggest causes of death today but yet in 1901 its said that 1 in 8000 were affected. So what has changed???

Answer - The increase in the number of chemicals being produced!!!

Before 1940 there were only few chemicals made. From that year 500 million kilos of chemicals were manufactured which have never existed before. In 1950 this rose to 25 billion kilos and in 1980 it reached 250 billion kilos. At that point in time 85,000 chemicals had been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) but NOT even tested for long term health effects. A shocking 11% were only tested but not even for their safety...no...but for effectiveness only.

Everyday new synthetic chemicals are made and very few are actually approved. The chemical revolution since 1940 means that we are now exposed to over 50,000 chemicals in a life-time and will have accumulated at least 500 toxic compounds in our bodies.

Would you like to reduce that number? I know I would and thats why going organic in our cosmetics can reduce our exposure to toxic compounds.

We are all natural beauties, so the best choice we can make is to use natural and organic products and be beautiful in the way nature intended. In the following posts I suggest some fun ways you can use ingredients from your cupboards to use in facials and also some information on chemicals that we put on our skin everyday.

Knowledge is a powerful weapon to have when it comes to your health.

lorebringer

swan19 wrote: »

My goal is to bring you solid information as well as some creative ideas

If you are going to bring solid information to people, could you please show some peer reviewed scientific proof of the following:

swan19 wrote: »

And most scientists agree 80% are caused by toxic chemicals

swan19 wrote: »

will have accumulated at least 500 toxic compounds in our bodies.

swan19 wrote: »

going organic in our cosmetics can reduce our exposure to toxic compounds

Also, just to clarify

swan19 wrote: »

Its said that 1 in 3 of all women will be affected by cancer and 1 in 2 of all men. Its one of the biggest causes of death today but yet in 1901 its said that 1 in 8000 were affected. So what has changed???

Quite a lot - 3 main points:

1) We have better cancer diagnostic techniques, we have "discovered" (for want of a better word) more cancers - thus we find more cancers in people who would have been given a different label for their illness 110 years ago.

2) Life expectancy has gone up significantly (see here ---> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html life expectancy from the USA census, looking at "0" or people born the year named... take "white females" as an example, years 1900 - 1902 life expectancy is 51 where as year 2004 life expectancy is 80 - a 30 year life extention in 100 years (approx)) Because most cancers are relative to age (from the National Cancer Institute in USA ---> http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/results_single/sect_01_table.11_2pgs.pdf, the average age of cancer in white females is 66), 100 year ago these people would not have been alive, thus would not have gotten cancer.

3) Records are infinitely better now than they were 110 years ago. Take the economically poor, they didn''t see doctors as regularly as those do now and didn't have access to the same facilities as are available now. Looking at the death rate in the USA (here ---> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922292.html (from US National Centre for Health Statistics) TB and the flu were killing people at massive rates). If a poor person did not have the money to see a doctor, they got a chesty cough and 6 months later died it would have been presumed that they died of either of the above illnesses because it had not been proved that they had cancer (and everyone else around the were dropping like flies from TB or the flu!). These situations skewed stats and because not all forms of cancer were "discovered" (mainly due to lack of diagnostic techniques) rational explanations were used as cause of death.


Just to throw it out there - The World Cancer Research Fund, Ireland is classed as number 2 in the world for cancer rates and the USA is number 6 (so we are not that far apart). I used the USA stats because they are much better and more consistent than Irish stats, but they apply to us in essentially the same way (also being a first world country)


I couldn 't agree more with the following

swan19 wrote: »

Knowledge is a powerful weapon to have when it comes to your health.

but I need to see scientific proof of your claims.

booboo88

you know the waves from your microwave, mobile phone etc cause cancer too:rolleyes:

dudara

swan19 wrote:

I will post a chapter at a time

If you are posting published material, then please reference that material or link to it. Otherwise, I will close this thread.

In addition, if you wish to have an educational debate on this topic, then please post facts, supported by peer-reviewed literature. I do not wish to have scaremongering or half-baked "facts" floating around.

dudara

swan19

It was a project i did in college for my course..that was my introduction.

I'm sorry i didn't realize..feel free to remove the thread!

swan19

lorebringer wrote: »

If you are going to bring solid information to people, could you please show some peer reviewed scientific proof of the following:








Also, just to clarify



Quite a lot - 3 main points:

1) We have better cancer diagnostic techniques, we have "discovered" (for want of a better word) more cancers - thus we find more cancers in people who would have been given a different label for their illness 110 years ago.

2) Life expectancy has gone up significantly (see here ---> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html life expectancy from the USA census, looking at "0" or people born the year named... take "white females" as an example, years 1900 - 1902 life expectancy is 51 where as year 2004 life expectancy is 80 - a 30 year life extention in 100 years (approx)) Because most cancers are relative to age (from the National Cancer Institute in USA ---> http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/results_single/sect_01_table.11_2pgs.pdf, the average age of cancer in white females is 66), 100 year ago these people would not have been alive, thus would not have gotten cancer.

3) Records are infinitely better now than they were 110 years ago. Take the economically poor, they didn''t see doctors as regularly as those do now and didn't have access to the same facilities as are available now. Looking at the death rate in the USA (here ---> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922292.html (from US National Centre for Health Statistics) TB and the flu were killing people at massive rates). If a poor person did not have the money to see a doctor, they got a chesty cough and 6 months later died it would have been presumed that they died of either of the above illnesses because it had not been proved that they had cancer (and everyone else around the were dropping like flies from TB or the flu!). These situations skewed stats and because not all forms of cancer were "discovered" (mainly due to lack of diagnostic techniques) rational explanations were used as cause of death.


Just to throw it out there - The World Cancer Research Fund, Ireland is classed as number 2 in the world for cancer rates and the USA is number 6 (so we are not that far apart). I used the USA stats because they are much better and more consistent than Irish stats, but they apply to us in essentially the same way (also being a first world country)


I couldn 't agree more with the following



but I need to see scientific proof of your claims.

Thanks a million for your view point maybe i didn't research this as well as i thought..thank you so much for your input.

dudara

swan19 Please feel free to continue to post tips & tricks for natural beauty treats. That would be very popular here. Just be careful about making scientific claims or stating facts.