More campaigning: this time on chemicals & the environment

[SenoraPostrophe]

Anyone who cares about having a clean environment free of toxic chemicals to live in, please sign this

wwf petition

More info (copied and pasted from an email they sent me): As a result of the poor regulation of the chemicals industry, there is not one person, or animal, on Earth that has not been exposed to a cocktail of man-made chemicals - from a polar bear in the Arctic, to a tree-frog in the tropical rainforest, to a new born baby in Britain.

Within the next five months the EU, led by the UK Government, will decide how effective the new chemicals regulation (known as REACH) will be at protecting the environment and the health of our children and wildlife for generations to come.

Please join WWF in asking the Prime Minister to persuade other European politicians to stop exposing us and our environment to toxic chemicals.

SLS - you mean sodium lauryl sulphate? I don't know what DH thinks of it as a stand-alone chemical. In my experience, it is almost always used with cocamidopropyl betaine which "detoxifies" it. As with any of these things, you have to look at the whole formula, rather than individual ingredients because no single ingredient is there at 100%.

PG - propylene glycol? - not the best humectant, he probably wouldn't use it in his formulations but he does recognise that it is a lot less sticky than glycerine so has some cosumer benefits.

I recall overhearing a conversation while temping for a meat company, two guys discussing DDT.. one said "yeh, I still got some in me shed, nothing wrong with it, bloody greenies" or some such similar garbage.

Think DDT might still be legal in some countries.

Is Newway another name for Amway? Not into their products, religion or selling strategies.

This is what I slaver over my skin Annemarie Borlind - I have sensitive skin and its the most harmonious I have found. I went on good faith regarding its ´safety´cause its from the health food store/reformhaus.

looks good paps are they v.expensive do they ship to uk
have done the questionnaire

"why tout and supply the commercial marketing avenue of faster, cleaner, better when the product may not be safely researched?"

Well, I believe that modern cleaning products have been safely research - far more than greenie alternatives - and there is something to be said for products where you can use less and have less contact time. But besides that, the need for faster, cleaner and more efficacious comes from the consumer. No company can successfully market a product that a consumer does not want or need, and I think that most of us would not want to return to the 40s and 50s where cleaning was a day-long activity for 6 days a week.

So if you are saying that we are wrong to want efficacious products then you are saying that you have no respect for the wants and needs of other women.

How do we know what women want? Because of products research carried out by major manufacturers.

WWF mentions in the link that ´a significant proportion of which have never been tested for safety´. Are you able to respond directly to that statement AmeriScot or Whizzz?

Since I have been asked to comment on the above directly - all chemicals for supply have to, by law, be supplied with a material safety data sheet if they are to be used for 'work' purposes. These data sheets have to by law, have 16 sections containing a wide range of data including first aid details, spillage procedures, physical properties, disposal of waste and toxicity to the environment & people.

"tested for safety" is a bit of a vague phrase - the materials will have been tested for the purpose for which they are intended.
I hope that helps to answer the query

They are mid range price here.

That site is in US dollars. here - thats the range I use.

Looks to be available in the UK -Simply Nature

e-mail:[email protected]
[email protected]
www.simply-nature.co.uk

thanks papillon

Cleansing Milk
150ml
£15.00

not cheap - cheaper I think here

similar price to clarins

A significant proportion - what does that mean? Does it mean over 50% - that is what is implied, I think, but in reality, it could mean anything 5%, 1%? Who knows?

And there is safety testing implied in long used products that are clearly "safe", although I can't think of anything off-hand, except perhaps for things like water, salt...

I would imagine that everything has some amount of safety testing - as Whizz points out, everything needs an MSDS sheet and that has basic handling and toxicology data for the actual raw material, targeted at those who work with the raw material and have much higher exposure than consumers.

With acceptable risks to employees, consumers are at much lower risks, and any ethical and well-resourced company will safety/clinical test their finished product as well as doing a full claims support.

cripes thats abit rough isn´t it AmeriSoct- I am shocked you even try and pin that angle on me!! I send that back on the wind as degrogatory wind-up.

I feel you have missed the point I was trying to make, or we are just coming from very different perspectives (or bias) - I am getting abit tired tonite to go into too much rewind. But it leads back to the infallable attitudes of humans bit I mentioned, and that the responsiblity begins with the producer and not just the consumer. Sure, products are market driven, but you say... low contact time ...that may not mean safe and I feel it is important to review and have regulation referendums that the EU are about to undertake, hence the WWF petition. We cannot just put DDT back on the market and say well its up to you folks now can we!! flippant I know, but scary.

Safely researched - far more than greenie alternatives. Well, the environmentally driven eco or natural industry has not been supported financially in the last 60 or so years compared to the artifical chemical industry. I have seen that with the organic industry. The ´conventional´market gets the research and product first, the organic industry next, if it is considered viable. Research funding has been more artificial chemical directed. So placing blame for lack of research is thinner ice imo. Not saying eco products should not be held accountable, but the reality of the lack research shows up more loopholes, because grass roots people have the desire to make eco, natural. In name at least. They sometimes could be seen as more heart driven and not just pocket / science focussed. Right or wrong.

e.g. From the Borlind cosmetics site... The term "natural cosmetics" can often mean a variety of things, a clear, legal definition is not yet available. And thats from a larger than grass roots company.

Thanks Whizzz for responding. I agree that the wording on the WWF site is vague and abit heavy on the activist biased lingo. Perhaps I should offer my services to them rather than spend all my time on MN discussing it

I had a look at the Borlind site and decided that it was so insignificant a brand that nothing needed to be substantiated. Are they STIWA tested, by any chance? (that's the German standard, btw).

I don't see where the reason to believe is. If someone puts 'natural' in their bumph, you believe them? Although research (real research, that is) says that most people who buy "natural" products don't really believe it - it's all wishful thinking.

Much as I tend to agree with lunachic on cosmetics - to a point - this discussion completely misses the point of the thread.

All of us are regularly exposed to many toxic chemicals needlessly: whether that is from crop spays, household chemicals, dioxins in the air, or whatever is beside the point.

Safety tests do exist, but they only go so far: PVC products are safe according to these tests, and yet study after study has shown that scratched PVC (and a couple of other plastics) food containers contaminate food with carcinogens. Yet food containers are still made and sold as before. Agri-chemicals are safe according to these tests, but every year (at least) there is some scare or another involving "too high" levels of these chemicals in foods. How do we know what is too high? well actually we don't - we're just guessing anyway.

Regulation needs to be increased.

PS I do agree that the word "natural" is bandied about too frequently by manufacturers (big and small). As well as regulating industry better with regard to what they can and can't use in their products, we should also be using the trades descriptions act more frequently IMO.

yeah im sorry this discussion got a bit carried away paps has opened another thread for signing the petition