Skin Deep and other selection-of-products tools

 

I present to you now the working tools which enabled me to select the products in this Guide of products of hygiene, beauty and of the non-toxic cosmetics . You can make use of it also to do your own research, you do not need knowledge or particular training, the only things that one needs are time and patience!

If there are some among you who wonder, when reading these lines, “Why should I do such a work? ” and “Why are the shelves of the stores filled with products dangerous for health? ”, the answer to these questions is simple: the regulations and the laws are imperfect and not strict and precise enough (see the chapter “ Reading the Labels ”). Personally, I do not believe in the conspiracy theory of the plot, we are quite simply taken, trapped by the development of the chemical industry whose synthetic lucky finds at lower cost of manufacture replaced gradually, over the last 50, 60 years, the natural ingredients in our products for human consumption. It is the history of Frankenstein: we created the monster and now the monster devours us. These synthetic products invade our lives and our bodies up to the point where we become sick of them. Everything is chemical or treated with products resulting from the petrochemical industry: the fibres of our clothing, our domestic household appliances, our cosmetics, our drugs, our pieces of furniture, our lawns, food is infested with preservatives and pesticides, the water we drink, the air we breathe, all are soiled.

Here are some figures about the cosmetics which should encourage you to check your products before buying them:

º 22% of all the products of personal care can be contaminated by the carcinogen 1.4-dioxane, including many products for children (EWG 2007d, CDC 2009).

º 60% of the solar shields contain oxybenzone, a potential hormonal perturbator which penetrates easily in the skin and contaminates the bodies of 97% of Americans (EWG 2010, Calafat et al. 2008).

º 61% of the lipstick brands tested contain lead residues (SCC 2007).

Health Canada roughly approves each year a 1000 new chemical substances that manufacturers and importers wish to introduce on the market without proving their harmlessness however before their marketing and to provide at the time of registration sufficient information on the long-term effects so that all the actors implied in the marketing of the products can be held legally responsible for the safety of the products. In the United States, this number can go up to 2500 per year. At intervals of 20.000 new cosmetics products per year and with the reduced means available to Health Canada it is practically impossible to study the effects of organic-accumulation and the interactions and the protection of the population and the environment are not assured.

Our principal working tool is the ranking of the Environment Working Group or Skin Deep , an American non-lucrative association founded in 1993 whose objective is to use the power of public information to protect the health of the consumers and the environment. This site is currently the most complete existing data base. One counts there more than 74.000 products of personal care sold on the market and 151.995 chemical ingredients whose detailed analysis is based on scientific studies of toxicity and the safety of the components of the products. There is a double system of evaluation on this site: one system for the ingredients which make up the product and a system for the product itself , or its grade, its overall rating. The evaluation of the risks of a product is based on the rates of risk of its constitutive ingredients and other factors. In general, the dimensions of risk are higher for the products which contain “activators of penetration” (ingredients which increase the absorption of the product by the skin like the PEG) and which are made of combinations of ingredients associated with a broad range of health problems.

For each ingredient available on Skin Deep, there is a rating on two levels – a rate of danger or risk and a rate of availability of the data.

The rate of danger or the risks of the ingredients , founded on a scale from 0 to 10, reflects the known and suspected risks of the ingredients, 0 being the degree which presents a weak risk of danger, 10 being the degree which presents a maximum risk of danger to human health.

Low hazard Moderate hazard High hazard

The data availability grade is a combination of two aspects that reflect the range of security data and the number of scientific studies.  la littérature scientifique publiée et inclus dans la base de données de Skin Deep.   It can be unknown, (when there is no study available and then one announces it by grade 0 on a gray logo), be limited (grade 1, with 2 to a 100 studies), correct or passable (grade 2, with a 100 studies), good (grade 3, with a 1000 studies) and very good (grade 4, with 10.000 studies). The same ingredient can be listed with a range of grades of the kind 0-2 because the degree of danger can vary according to the conditions of mixture or the presence of other factors. The more studies there are available, the more the grade is reliable and justified. The surest products are those which have good grades for the two measurements: a weak grade of risk and a grade of availability of the data correct or good. “Not all the ingredients have the same quantity of data about their safety. For example, certain ingredients can seem to present weak risks, but that can be due to the fact that they were not studied or evaluated completely. Other ingredients can seem to present weak risks but they were carefully studied or evaluated. This score makes it possible to differentiate between the ingredients and the products which were studied to differing degrees”.

The calculations of the grades allotted to the products and the ingredients are very complex processes. If you want to know more about the sources of the studies used and their grading, the balancing factors in the categories of danger and how they are calculated, I recommend to you to read the chapter  «  Products, Scores and Methods   »  on their site.

99% of the products contain at least an ingredient having been the subject of no public or private study and more than one third of the products contain at least an ingredient suspected to be carcinogenic.

The site is updated on all levels, studies, products, components and the ranking can change according to new data.

Some people of my entourage who are not very familiar with the world of cosmetics admitted to me that the consultation of this site “scares them” but in life it is better to face the fears and to make more provisions to avoid errors than to face irreversible misfortunes. The taste for danger is obsolete when one looks at the statistics of cancers, auto-immune and degenerative diseases.

When certain products selected in this Guide of products of hygiene, beauty and of the non-toxic cosmetics were not posted on Skin Deep, I analyzed the grades of the ingredients separately and I posted them by writing the figure and the color which corresponds to them (green, yellow, red). This analysis is not as exact as the overall rating of the product given by Skin Deep but that gives us a good idea of the harmlessness of the ingredients. When an ingredient is classified red only, it will remain a problematic ingredient in the total composition of the product, its degree of danger being able to be increased in the presence of other activator agents of the penetration in the skin.

I also kept some names of English products when I did not find the equivalent in French to be sure that the list of ingredients corresponds with the posted product.

Like “ Dirty List ” of the David Suzuki Foundation, Skin Deep is not only satisfied to enumerate the ingredients and to give them grades according to their level of danger. For once, one explains us clearly, thanks to the scientific studies available and carried out everywhere in the world, which are the bonds between these ingredients and the problems of health. Thus, you will learn that there are direct links between certain ingredients and cancer, or the attacks to the reproductive system (bad development of the foetus or infertility, bad quality of sperm) and to the immune system, of allergies, the disturbance of the hormonal system, the neurotoxicity, the cellular modifications as well as the ecological consequences on our environment.

“If you wish that a product or a brand be added to the data base of Skin Deep, then this company should have to be encouraged to join the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics [1]   which is a partnership with companies for a coalition of public health and the environmental organizations. This agreement requires that the respective companies list their products on Skin Deep”. [2]

You also can, at any time, contact the EWG to make suggestions of products to be added to the data base.

If your product is not available on Skin Deep, suggest to the manufacturer that he join Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

Oddly, Skin Deep has become the “black sheep” of many manufacturers who should, by definition and by posting the list of ingredients, protect us from the dangers. In fact, the list of ingredients was invented at first to protect and inform the consumer. However, with time, it became the perfect tool to sow confusion and to disinform us, which explains the recognition of millions of consumers for initiatives like Skin Deep!  “Surfing” on this site to check your products, I guarantee you, will bring you several surprises, and not of the most pleasant! Even certified organic brands and products that one should buy with eyes closed, recommended by Rita Stiens in her books or of course on other sites, have a disconcerting rating in this system. The causes of the discord turn around the “ fragrance” generic and the odoriferous substances whose allergenic potential is quite high. Here are some examples:

º Limonene , odoriferous substance, an ingredient usually used in the certified organic cosmetics posted as “Known human immune system toxicant  [3] », and scored  6   (like geraniol) on Skin Deep and is considered as “good”   by Rita Stiens.

 º Eugenol , odoriferous substance, posted as “Known human immune system toxicant”, is graded 7 on Skin Deep and is considered as “good”   by Rita Stiens.

º Cinnamal , odoriferous substance graded “satisfying”   by Rita Stiens, is « Human skin immune toxicant – strong evidence », rated  7  by Skin Deep.  If you want to read more on the arguments of Rita Stiens go on her Website  (in French) but when one knows the world of the cosmetics a little bit one notices that, contrary to the North-American products, in the European products and in particular the German ones these odoriferous ingredients are used and present almost in a systematic way… hello objectivity….

º Benzyl Alcohol , (preservative, solvent, odoriferous substance) graded as “good”   by Rita Stiens classifoed  6  by Skin Deep, is an aromatic molecule classified among the 26 allergic odorous compounds whose mentioning is obligatory in Europe.

º Fragrance or Perfume : is a generic ingredient of which one does not know the components, “Ingredient not fully labelled – identity unknown, Known human immune system toxicant”  [4] , rated  8 .

Skin Deep is not a system without fault. It classifies “Perfume” in red (which is graded 8 as individual ingredient which causes a considerable drop in the overall rating of the product) without taking into account if it is of synthetic or natural origin, and this is valid for the other odoriferous substances which we quoted here above. But several manufacturers of organic cosmetics today directly indicate the components of the  “perfume” generic and their natural and sometimes even organic (the asterisk) origin. Therefore, the products are not penalized by this automatic classification of the “perfume” ingredient and of grade 8 . There are exceptions however…

Why did I (almost) not select Dr. Hauschka products in this Guide?

The more surprising example (besides some lists of Melvita ingredients whose products are not on Skin Deep and two or three Lavera products) is the case of the Dr. Hauschka brand. Although all the products are certified BDIH which represents a rather good guarantee as far as the harmlessness of the ingredients is concerned, on Skin Deep the grading of the products of this well-known brand can go from 3 to 6 ….which is disconcerting enough for natural certified products! Being certified BDIH, it is clear that the “fragrance” cannot be synthetic. However, the company chose to post the ingredient without asterisk and without specifying of which origin the perfume is.

If one looks at a product like the  Dr. Hauschka Skin Care Hand Cream ,  it contains eugenol 7 and fragrance 8 which will lower the overall rating of the product to 6 . The best sale at Dr. Hauschka,  Dr. Hauschka Skin Care Rose Day Cream , contains Fragrance 8 , Eugenol 7 , Limonene 6 , Benzyl Alcohol 6 (one of the rare synthetic preservatives authorized by BDIH and ECOCERT) which will lower the total evaluation to 6 .

Dr. Hauschka is not the only brand being penalized by this automatic grading system. Weleda also and, in fact, all the other brands, Lavera, Logona, etc…, who use these ingredients.

Melvita, at least, began to put an asterisk beside the Perfume ingredient to specify that the components of the Perfume come from essential oils.

The Dr. Hauschka products do not post with an asterisk, contrary to other brands whose products are also certified by BDIH, the natural origin of the  “Perfume (Fragrance)” generic. Other companies such as NeoBio from which the majority of the products are also certified BDIH, Druide, certified ECOCERT, and even companies whose products are not certified do not even post the generic “Perfume” any more but directly its detailed ingredients thus getting rid of grade ! If there are no precise details, how then will the consumer make the difference between “Perfume” on a conventional product and “Perfume” on a certified organic product!? If there is nothing to hide, let us post transparency like the other companies that I have just mentioned.

THE LABELLING OF “PERFUME” AT DR. HAUSCHKA AND AT WELEDA

 

 

Since the conclusions of the report Not So Sexy: The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrance (Canadian edition) [5] , written by researchers from Canada Environmental Defence and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, I have zero-tolerance for “professional” secrets of perfumes, which, sometimes, as you can notice, bear their names well….

As for the ingredients (limonene, eugenol, cinnamal, coumarin) which increase the grades of the products, I repeat that they are on the list of the 26 allergenic scenting substances whose presence must be announced on the labels in Europe. Therefore there is a real risk which one should not minimize under the pretext that the ingredients are of natural origin – it is not because it is natural that it is inoffensive! It is estimated that 45% of allergies are due to the scenting substances present in the products of care. The classification of Skin Deep is very useful for people suffering from allergies to these substances coming from essential oils. And if other people tolerate these components well, it will be their choice, but in good conscience and complete transparency.

A few exceptions notwithstanding, I have selected for this Guide of products of hygiene, of beauty and of the non-toxic cosmetics only products classified between 0 and 2 (seldom 3 and some Weleda products of which the grade is higher but is explained). However, the Dr. Hauschka products do not correspond, for reasons which we have just explained, with our criteria of selection. We await the modifications which are essential as much in the posting of the ingredients as for their choice. I am however by no means anxious for the future of the German company Dr. Hauschka which made a sales turnover of 75 million euros in 2006 with a two-digit growth (according to the latest statistics that I found).

On Good Guide (another tool of reference where the grading is also done on a scale of 10 but in the contrary direction of Skin Deep: a high grade ensures a better classification), the Dr. Hauschka products (105) are not better graded either: the total grade varies between 8.5/10 and 6.5/10 and the grade on health between 10/10 and as low as 4/10. There are only three products which have a perfect grade on health (10/10) and these are in fact the same products that are also very well graded on Skin Deep. For the 102 other evaluated products, the grade for health is going down, from 8.5/10 to 4/10. As regards the famous Rose Day Cream, the grade for health is even lower than on Skin Deep, 5/10! The same for the Hand Cream, the grade for health is 5/10, the worst evaluations being allotted to make-up (lipsticks, mascara, make-up foundation) which also corresponds to the classification of Skin Deep.

One also reproaches Skin Deep for grading the ingredients in the same way, no matter the percentage which they occupy in the composition of the product. The argument of “the negligible quantity” has been repeated to us ad nauseam for years by the industry of conventional cosmetics. It is inadmissible and unacceptable coming on behalf of a certified organic product. The very reason d’être of the industry of certified organic cosmetics is “to fight”, to set itself apart from the conventional industry. We will not be satisfied now with the same arguments about the small quantity. We will not buy the same old excuses and the same justifications from an industry that one does not stop pointing the finger! Organic-accumulation is also valid for the industry of certified organic cosmetics!

If it is true that Skin Deep is not a certifying organization and that the Dr. Hauschka company should not reveal the exact contents of the generic “Perfume”, it is also true that it must, as a leader in natural beauty care, display a total transparency with respect to the consumer , which is not the case with the current label.

What are the conclusions of these disagreements?

  • I start from the principle that by choosing a certified organic product you have a better guarantee as far as the harmlessness of the product is concerned than the near-totality of the products resulting from conventional industry, not because of what they allow but especially because of what they do not allow, and one should not lose sight of the fact of the real progress which these products bring in the life of people and especially of sick or allergic people.
  • Certain certified organic products must give proof of more transparency in the posting of their ingredients.
  • Contrary to BDIH, certain certifications like ECOCERT or Cosmetique Bio allow up to 5% of the ingredients of synthesis used especially as preservatives, which is a lot….
  • The discordance between certain experts of European organic cosmetics and Skin Deep situates itself especially at the level of the odorous substances which have a high allergenic potential, therefore all depends on your sensitivity to these substances; as Skin Deep says it so well, the companies have only to post the components of the “Perfume” generic to get rid of grade 8.
  • By precaution, a person who has already had a cancer or a disease of the immune or degenerative system must choose her products according to criteria of Skin Deep, because it is always in the advantage of the consumer and not of the manufacturer (this is my personal opinion).

Other tools for selection of the products.

The GoodGuide

GoodGuide was founded in 2007 by Dara O’ Rourke, professor of environmental policy and labour at the University of California in Berkeley. Their mission is to help the consumers make purchasing decisions which reflect their preferences and their values. The founders of GoodGuide believe that better information can transform the market: the more consumers buy products of better quality, the more retailers and manufacturers run up against interesting incentives to manufacture products that are safe and respectful of the environment and who use an ethical supply of raw materials and labour.

The total grade of a product on GoodGuide is compiled from three sub-ratings bearing on health, the environment and society. Each one of these sub-ratings is based on the analysis of a whole of indicators that GoodGuide determined as being the best tools available to measure performance in these fields. The grading panel also gives a short summary of the reason for which a product or a company receives a good or a bad mark in one of these fields. A good grade for the “health” criterion, for example, is accompanied by an explanation on the product which does not contain any ingredient hazardous for health, a bad score is equally accompanied by an explanation on the ingredients present in the product which are evaluated as being dangerous for health.

GoodGuide evaluates a whole lot of products, from food to toys, from electronic appliances to diapers for babies. Because of the differences in the types of health risks presented by the various categories of products, the grade for health and the grading methods also vary according to the category. For personal care and chemicals for domestic use the grades are determined by the number of ingredients in a product which present certain worries concerning health or regulations. Interesting fact: the grades on the criteria “environment” and “implication in society or in the community and the ethical attitude” of the company influence much the total grade of the product.

Beware, the evaluation on Good Guide is always on a scale from 0 to 10 but, contrary to Skin Deep, a high grade is allotted to the best products. Thus, a product which has a grade of 10/10 for health indicates an advisable product, without health risk, while on Skin Deep, a 10 is in the red, and represents the height of the degree of danger and a product to be avoided.

In my opinion, Good Guide is a good tool but, as regards products of hygiene and beauty, it is far from being as rigorous as Skin Deep.

Like for Rita Stiens, you may note several disagreements between Good Guide and Skin Deep for some ingredients as retinyl palmitate; EWG says it may accelerate skin cancer tumours in the sun, whereas Good Guide gives the product a perfect score for health.

If you want to know more about the Good Guide and Skin Deep “imperfections”, I recommend the article ” Is there a trustworthy database of safe, green products? ” by Adria Vasil, the queen of green.

 

Rita Stiens

A former journalist, Rita Stiens publishes in 2005 La Vérité sur les Cosmétiques naturels   (The Truth on natural Cosmetics – in French only) which has the effect of a small revolution in the world of beauty care. This book has a considerable impact, not only upon the manufacturers of cosmetics but also, and especially so, on the consumers of beauty products. Indeed, for the first time, are listed in a complete guide the various raw materials and substances used for the formulation of hygiene and beauty care. One demystifies this industry and one points the finger at the dangers to health that certain ingredients present.

Her Website http://www.laveritesurlescosmetiques.com/ is an invaluable tool of information for the novelties in the field of organic cosmetics and the analyses of products on sale on the market.

For the women who use the creams sold in supermarkets (I myself have been a large consumer in these places), I suggest you read La Vérité sur les cosmétiques naturelles (T he Truth on Natural Cosmetics), where Rita has published several files on the ingredients of certain products from l’Oréal, Body Shop, Yves Rocher, La Roche-Posay that you can compare with non-toxic products and thus see the differences.

Sometimes, the opinions diverge. As we saw higher up with the scented substances, Rita Siens thus classifies sometimes as “very-well” ingredients graded “red” by Skin Deep (e.g. Aluminum Starchoctenylsuccinate 9 or the preservative Benzyl Alcohol 6 ). Sometimes, it is the opposite: for instance, Dibromohexamidine Isethionate 0 and Dichlorobenzyl Alcohol 0 , two preservatives not recommended by Rita Stiens are classified 0 , in terms of risk, by Skin Deep, the first because of lack of scientific data, the second with a limited number of data. We do not take part in these divergences which, fortunately, are not numerous, but we considered it prudent to eliminate all the possible risks and we invite you to show understanding even in the choices of the products which we selected.

Although less exhaustive and rigorous than Skin Deep, this working tool (the book and the Website of Rita Stiens) has the great merit, contrary to many other books or Internet sites available, to present and analyze the products in an individual way and not by brand or product line.

Guide to Less Toxic Products from the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia

The objective of this Guide is:

  • to provide information on the potential health risks of the products commonly used.
  • to help to identify less toxic alternatives for the products of personal care, cleaning detergents, household products, baby products, and pest-destroying products.
  • to provide information to help you to choose products not evaluated in this guide in order to choose the most secure ones for your needs.

Like GoodGuide, the Guide to Less Toxic Products evaluates products of broad consumption among which products of personal care that are classified in three categories: Best, Good and Simply Unscented .

Being a Canadian site, the selected products are more close to those that we find in Quebec. The classification misses rigor however, it does not have any criteria, justifications, lists of ingredients in support of the evaluations suggested and sometimes one advises a brand (e.g. Aubrey Organics) instead of naming the product although it is known that very seldom a brand is excellent or very bad for the whole of its products and it is always necessary to go by individual evaluations, product by product.

As regards the classification “without perfume”, we saw in the chapter “Reading the labels” that the manufacturers sometimes use more agents which mask the unpleasant odors in a product “ without perfume ” than the number of ingredients used in a product with perfume. “Without perfume” or “ simply unscented ” does not represent any guarantee for the harmlessness of the product. The only way of evaluating a product correctly is when we have the complete list of ingredients which is not yet possible with the current legislation.

The “ Fragrance ” can include one of the 3163 different chemicals (IFRA 2010), of which none must be reproduced on the labels. The studies on the generic “Fragrance” reveal an average of 14 made up hidden by the formulation, including the potential hormonal perturbators and diethyle phthalate, a compound related to the deterioration of spermatozoa (EWG and SCC, 2010).

The Guide to Less Toxic Products can be a good starting point because of the suggestions that one finds there, but it is necessary to continue the analysis and to verify the list of ingredients.

Lastly, on the Swiss website Beautebio.ch  (in French) which also uses Skin Deep as a tool for analysis of the ingredients, you can find a very useful classification of certain certified organic beauty products. However, the number of products is very restricted and they do not always correspond to those which are sold on our market.

Beauty-test.com  (in French) can be useful to you if you seek the list of ingredients of the products which are not analyzed by Skin Deep or although you cannot find it on the Websites of the respective companies because the manufacturers, even in the industry of certified organic cosmetics, do not post the INCI list of their products, being satisfied, in the best of cases, to post the active ingredients. This site does however not have any critical glance as far as the harmlessness of the products is concerned.

“Do not touch my Skin Deep! ”

This text belongs to a correspondence that I have had with a manufacturer of organic cosmetics who invited me not to take Skin Deep for the Bible…

“When one is a consumer and a simple laywoman in the world of cosmetics one does not know any more where to look and to which saint to pray. Manipulated by a large and long tradition of publicity of the completely poisoning conventional cosmetics industry and often disappointed by the healthier alternatives available on our markets, one is still awaiting, confused, sometimes frustrated, quiet and docile as a pupil in a new class, the arrival of a miracle. If in the virtual world you realize that elsewhere people have chosen, a long time ago, “a committed beauty” at home, we continue to buy our products at the drugstore, thinking that one is doing good to oneself and that we are protected. After more than two years of research and much money spent and sometimes wasted, I can finally say yes, there are healthier choices, I can continue to be attractive without endangering my health. But who has time to do what I did? And would I have followed this course without having had breast cancer?

Who has time to check hundreds of ingredients and to run to the four corners of the city to unearth a less toxic and often expensive product? How many women can afford to order the products online and pay the custom charges? You will say to me that organic and certification are the road to salvation which is for 90% true, but even there, it is not as simple as it seems! When one chooses “organic”, one should have done one’s homework, otherwise, if not, one gets easily lost between true and false claims of the products, between real certifications and green labels, flowered, full with promises and lies at the same time.

Thus, try to find the lists of the ingredients of the products on the Websites of the companies! Few are giving proof of transparency and few also respond to your email when you write to them. Not more recent than at the last Salon de l’Expo manger santé et vivre vert / eat healthily and live green, I saw products which are manufactured and sold here at home as  “organic” products without certification and which do not use the INCI! I also witnessed the “plea for happiness” pronounced by the manufacturer of one these product lines, wrongfully “organic”, before a sexagenarian clientele whose infinite credulity and angelic innocence as one can only see it in Quebec, made me feel ill at ease.

There is no legislation and there are no organizations in Quebec to verify the organic cosmetics, the CART controls organic agriculture but not the cosmetics industry! What are we doing then??!!?? Contrary to other countries or other provinces in Canada, there is not even a Guide to help us in the choice of our products! For the consumer who sits with fear in his belly because he has  already had a cancer, unless he would do a Master’s in biochemistry, only Skin Deep remains the only rigorous and scientific tool at his disposal on which he can rely to check the harmlessness of the products. It is certainly not perfect in the eyes of all these low lives, but it clearly defends the interests of the consumer and not those of the industry. Many scientific studies are still missing because the big pharmaceutical companies find little interest in doing so because “not profitable enough” isn’t it? But Skin Deep exaggerates upwards and not downwards, which is good for the consumer. I understand that the manufacturer can feel treated unfavourably but it is  industry that must adjust itself, it is not up to the consumer any more to make concessions.  And one should certainly use the “negligible quantity” argument, because that is exactly what conventional industry serves  us concerning these dangerous ingredients.

Rita Stiens preaches for the German cosmetics. For “The Observatory of the cosmetics” harmlessness is not the first criterion of selection of the products and these two plus Skin Deep act as if they never heard the ones speak about the others and as if they were alone on the planet to put forth recommendations to the consumers…

The controversies in the world of beauty care are numerous and each manufacturer looks after his own interests. Organic, agricultural and cosmetic certifications proliferate because when one cannot adhere to a more strict certification one invents another one, and are all these certifications accredited here at home? Cosmos! Here’s some good news: “a unifying European certification” has just been born… Actually, that does not change anything at all for the consumer, another stamp because the others are still there! One star, three stars, Vegan, only certified organic ingredients!? How to find one’s way in the jungle of certifications? There is thus a heap of difficulties confronting any well-intentioned person before choosing his/her shampoo or a sun lotion for his/her children. One day at the grocer’s, a lady said to me that “biodegradable” on a product or detergent means “organic” in the organic sense! I do not even blame her, dear reader!

As consumers, we need reference marks now , while waiting for Governments to legislate, for industry to transfer completely to “green” and non-toxic, that importers make healthy choices and that pharmacies (if they do not explode meanwhile because of their content of dangerous and toxic ingredients present on the shelves of beauty care products) become aware, please, leave us at least Skin Deep! ”

 


[1] ↑  See chapter Are cosmetics toxic?

[2] ↑ Translation from English to French from the Skin Deep website.

[3] ↑ Tanslated in French as: Connu comme toxique pour le système immunitaire humain

[4] ↑ “Ingredient not completely labelled – unknown identity, known for being toxic to the immune system”

[5] ↑   See chapter Are cosmetics toxic?