As a recovering girly girl, I’m often searching for ways to be ecologically, politically, womanly (etc etc) correct, in those moments of relapse when I am gripped by the unquenchable desire to buy some anti-humectant for my hair.
After I realised that every single darn thing is political, from shoes to hairpins to moisturiser, I began only shopping for my body products at health food stores. I thought, if I have to buy into these darn cultural beauty ideals, at least I can buy stuff that is good for the environment, not tested on bunnies, and not going to give me lead poisoning. But I was shocked to find that, just because you buy your shampoo alongside the organic, shade-grown wheat free cereal, it’s not always good news. For example, I was pretty appalled when I discovered that Burt’s Bees sells make-up in the colours: light, medium, dark and ethnic. The skin colour that would match “ethnic” would likely belong to a person with darker skin, but last time I checked, we all have ethnicities, and I would look mighty funny in “ethnic” foundation. Thank goodness ol’ Burt recently renamed this colour as “deep” - however, my suspicions of him persist.
But lo and behold, the internet, has bestowed yet another wonderful directory on us: the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database. As self-described, Skin Deep is a “personal care product safety guide with in-depth information on 14,841 products - 1,052 brands of lotion, lip balm, deodorant, sunscreen and other popular products - and the 7,093 ingredients that form them.” They also mention the scary and unbelivable fact that the FDA can’t require companies to do safety testing on products before the companies’ market them (does the same thing apply to our Canadian FDA?). The database is very simple to use, just key in the name of your favourite epilatory cream, and it will bring up a whole bunch of stats on all the ingredients, neatly summed up in a rating from 0 to 5, 0 meaning as pure as organic grass, and 5 meaning evacuate immediately.
I made a few shocking discoveries on my first trip there. For example, I discovered that both Aveda and Nature’s Gate, which between them manufacture more than 3/4s of the products in my bathroom, both score quite badly on the Skin Deep system. My PABA-free sunblock scores a rating of 3, which is pretty measly when you consider that Dove, a company with no clear pretensions to eco-friendliness, scores a 0.5 on multiple products. Goshdarnit!
Also, if you are more concerned about the bunnies than the ozone layer, you can visit Compassionate Consumer, which works basically the same way as Skin Deep except it shows you which products test on aminals, and which don’t.
The only downside to both these websites is that they are chock full of images of very conventionally attractive women lounging about in sulfate-free soap. None of them seem to be that interested in deconstructing what it is that compels us ladies (and men, of course) to buy products that are ripping holes in our organs the size of Ontario, and depleting our only source of life (i.e. the earth). But hey, if we can’t eliminate fascist beauty standards overnight, we can at least start with harm reduction.
And, since I am channeling my inner hippie tonight, here is a lovely recipe for vegan chocolate orange cupcakes.



Digg
10 comments
But Thea, what about sparkly makeup with micah in it? Micah's just a rock...if you scrape it up w/ your hands and break it up by machine w/o extra chemicals, it's as pure as organic grass. Yet the only affordable way to get it is to make hungry small-handed people in 3rd world countries go into pits & pull it up off the slabs lying in the ground...or something like that.
So how would sparkly lip gloss or shimmery eyeshadow fall under their ratings?
Posted by Katie
October 26, 2006, 12:47 PM
Here's the link:
http://pippiblog.wordpress.com/2006/0...
Posted by Katie
October 26, 2006, 12:53 PM
Whoops. It's not a small-hands issue. I was going off vague recollections. Look like the child involvement is just a matter of children in the poorest parts of the world always having to be involved in keeping themselves alive, doing dirty jobs...and that mica mining happens to be one of the world's dirty jobs. Anyway, read the link.
Posted by Katie
October 26, 2006, 1:55 PM
Ah Thea, you beat me to it! I was about to pen an entry on cosmetics and chemicals myself today. Consumer chemical safety is one of the torches I frequently brandish.
In answer to your question, does the Canadian FDA (i.e. Health Canada) require cosmetics manufacturers to test products for safety before they reach the market, the short answer is no. In fact, for virtually any chemical on the market, manufacturers are not required to prove that they are safe before they are approved for commercial and industrial use. There are huge gaps indeed, canyons in our chemical safety laws that would take me many blog entries to cover.
The EU currently has legislation in the works that goes above and beyond anything Canada has in the works: REACH. It would require chemical manufacturers to provide health and safety data themselves before chemicals are allowed to reach the market. George Bush has been highly critical of REACH (bet you could have guessed that though).
Health Canada is making one good step forwards this fall though on November 16th, all cosmetics will be required to have ingredients labels (look through your make-up bag now youll find a lot of things have no ingredient labels whatsoever). This is good, if you know a thing or two about chemicals with devious scientific records, such as causing cancer, mental retardation or reproductive abnormalities in lab animals.
But there are some problems with the new requirements. For one, the labels wont tell you if any of the ingredients are dangerous so if your eyeshadow contains an animal carcinogen, youll be none the wiser, unless you have a catalogue of 7,000 chemicals in your head.
And two, ingredients in perfumes and fragrances wont be on the label (perfume recipes are trade secrets). And a lot of the chemicals in perfumes are some of the most worrisome of all. Take phthalates for example theyre found in virtually every cosmetic you can think of, they cause a huge number of reproductive abnormalities in lab animals (low sperm count, intersexual genitals and other birth defects), and have been linked to early puberty in girls and genital abnormalities in baby boys.
But with some patience, your lipstick, a good internet connection and the EWG website to hand, you should be able to find out anything you want to know about what's in your make-up. I could gush for pages about how amazing the EWG is - they produce some of the most thorough tests, well-researched reports and reliable information out there. Unlike a lot of chemical safety groups, they are incredibly scientific and professional. Do yourself a favour and spend some time on their site - make sure to read their reports on Body Burden (which explore the prevalence of synthetic chemicals in our bodies). You'll never look at the world around you the same way again.
Posted by zoe
October 28, 2006, 11:24 PM
Oh, one more thing: if you're concerned about chemicals in your make up, a number of companies are one step ahead of you - there are already a number of cosmetic lines that are free of a lot of hazardous chemicals, including make-up you can get at The Body Shop.
Posted by zoe
October 29, 2006, 12:30 AM
Why aren't any of my comments getting unmoderated? I'm not saying anything offensive; I just know it!
Posted by Katie
October 30, 2006, 2:25 PM
Hi Katie - thanks for your comments! I'm not sure what you meant about being unmoderated - were your comments not showing up? Sometimes our blog gets a little glitchy, but our fantastic master of the web, Wesley, usually manages to work it out. I assure you it wasn't personal!
You're totally right about the other aspects to make-up production that are intensely problematic, apart from the death-causing chemicals and the entire existence of make-up in and of itself. Thanks for giving us that link.
I bet that SkinDeep doesn't research for whether or not the make-up is fair-trade. There's often a disheartening disconnect between people who are campaigning for environmental issues and people who are campaigning for labour/anti-oppression/ anti-abuse issues. Personally I'm far more interested in buying products that limit immediate harm to humans and other animals than I am in buying eco-friendly products, but that's just my own bias.
The truth of the matter is that people go on wearing make-up - yes, even totally conscious, thoughtful and sensitive people - so it's important to try and get the word out about stuff that limits the harm.
Posted by Thea
November 1, 2006, 4:12 PM
[...] Last week I posted on the website SkinDeep, which makes info on what kind of chemicals go into your shampoo easier to access. Katie, a keen-eyed commenter, let me know that the horrors of make-up don’t just stop at the burning sensation your moisturiser gives you - she also posted a link to an article about mica mining on the blog Villa Villekulla. In short Mica is the stuff in your blusher, lip gloss, eyeshadow etc etc that makes your face look all sparkly. It also has to be mined from the ground, and it turns that it is often children who are stuck with this awful job, resulting in death from mine collapse, as well as asthma, bronchitis, silicosis… [...]
Posted by Shameless Magazine - for girls who get it » oh ph
November 1, 2006, 4:44 PM
[...] Okay, cheesy tactics aside, I want to say that it’s been real inspiring to hear the reports of so many folks in the Shameless community on how they’re trying to make conscientious consumer choices, whether it’s organic local food, sweatshop-free clothing or cruelty-free makeup (or the choice not to buy at all). In a society where dollars speak louder than most things, I think there is definitely a lot that’s worthwhile in basing your shopping decisions on how to tread more lightly on the world, environmentally and labour-wise. [...]
Posted by Shameless Magazine - for girls who get it » karl
November 4, 2006, 2:28 PM
So many deep issues here. . . I've been thinking for days just about the Burt's Bees thing. First thing. Can I have a short answer from somebody about how to be sure that my "sparkly stuff" isn't oppressing the masses behind my back? Is there some non-ugly way to make glitter eye shadow? I use suncoat now. What's that makeup website for checking canadian products?? Is it as easy as the American "skindeep" site?
Is the Burt's Bees flub really that appalling? It's a mistake, and as a company with a cause they've fixed it. We can't expect our mainstream corporations to embrace activism completely ,flawlessly and without error from the get-go any more than we can expect this of people and nobody's sure what to people with more pigment in their skin nowadays. I use "black" in conversation, since it most truthfully refers to skin pigment(even if the pigment it means is some shade of brown). I never point it out if someone is of perceptably mixed ethnicity. It just brings up a whole debate where I feel I could be easily judged, especially being a white person(uh-oh, somebody's sure to say that that's why I don't get it). I use "people of colour" in my writing, but am afraid I will sound too self-rightious and formal using the term in conversation. Besides, like most people I don't know the history and no matter what it is, I find the term is confusing. It sounds too dam much like "coloured" which I'd never ever use. I remember a girl in my women's studies class getting this wrong for the entire class, probably for exactly this reason because the textbook used the term and evidently she didn't know that shortening it would be so catistropic. It was such an embarrasing error that nobody corrected her all class. So why Burt's Bees made this error i can sort of understand. The most honest approach would have been to call the makeup "dark" or "really, really black" both of which have sort of ominious connotations outside the Black is Beautiful philosophy of the past.
Finally, Burt's makes organic makeup both mainstream and affordable. Classism is a big issue here that seems to make these other debates sound silly. Not everyone can afford to go organic and for many having access to makeup is about dignity. I feel even more divided about American Apearl whose ads have been widely criticised within feminism, but whose clothing is even more mainstream than Burts makeup. I refuse to live in an expensive little indy-culture trendy bubble, but asside from shopping used what does that mean? For the moment, Burt's is still on my good side and I advocate that approach. If anyone has guiding advice, please share. This website is useful in that regard.
Posted by Myra
April 21, 2008, 9:59 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.