Monday, March 3, 2014
I had another email on this topic. There are common misconceptions about "moisturizers". Humectants draw water from the air. However, if air is dry and too much of a humectant is used, or too much of one is in a cosmetic product, it can draw water from hair or skin and be counterproductive for the purpose used.
Can cosmetic mineral oil baby oil replace hair conditioner? Yes, best used on hair with little to no residue, or less conditioner than normally used first. Many people put more conditioner on hair lacking moisture and the result is more build-up (residue) and drier hair. It does not help.
Technically, no oil, or any other cosmetic ingredient moisturizes hair or skin. Water does so. Cosmetic mineral oil can help keep added water in both, or it can help maintain a moisture level. It can do so longer than most other ingredients, including vegetable oils and silicone.
That is what any "moisturizer" is supposed to do, and why cosmetic mineral oil is used in so many cosmetics for extra dry skin, for example. And also why mineral oil baby oil is often used in small amounts on damp to wet skin post bathing.
This blog post and this link The top three "moisturizing" cosmetic ingredients in order are: petrolatum (Vaseline), lanolin and mineral oil. The others following do not come close to the same performance. The difference for longer hair is that mineral oil is neither heavy nor sticky, or greasy used alone in small amounts, like the first two. It does not contain and is not a wax, Petrolatum contains wax and mineral oil, and lanolin is a wax. Both can be difficult to remove from hair, while mineral oil can be washed out easily. Mineral oil has superb detangling properties, and it is also antistatic. It should not need reapplication between hair washes, if enough is used post washing.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
This has been another email topic of late.
This is how it works. A cosmetic product like USB/BP mineral oil, often used as baby oil, with or without fragrance for example, gets fantastic reviews online. Then, a totally unrelated cosmetic product that previously had mixed reviews at best has the same, or almost the exact same positive reviews.
That is the basis of copycat marketing, which is not restricted to cosmetic products. As more companies pay for product reviews with money, goods or discounts, copycat positive, and negative reviews to dis the competition, will continue.
As I just said on Twitter, in a shorter version in agreement to an email about this, copycat positive reviews cannot suddenly make any product work better than it has been reported to perform in the past.
This blog post
Monday, February 24, 2014
I still get emails on this topic. I replied on Twitter but I will state the facts here too.
Misbranded cosmetics See paragraph "b" and "hair grower" 2013, FDA, revised
It means any cosmetic marketing for products natural or otherwise, promoting hair growth with no approved new drug application is in violation of FDA regulations. That does not stop small companies marketing their products online and elsewhere in violation of the regulations, until they get caught. More should be caught.
The FDA regulations apply to large and small companies and are in place to ensure companies can prove what is claimed, not just make money. Other countries have similar if not the same regulations. Any cosmetic company that is boldly violating government marketing regulations, I have no doubt is violating other regulations as well.
This blog post and this FDA link.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
I keep getting email inquiries regarding this topic, I have replied to on Twitter as well because of their frequency.
Here are my Tweets today on the matter, expanded for this post.
Email reply: Odd odor cosmetics There is no reason a cosmetic should begin to smell odd except if it is going or has gone off, regardless of the expiry claims.
Cosmetic preservatives are supposed to accommodate consumer use, temperature fluctuations and more. Cosmetics that contain water or infusions can go bad.
An odd or bad odor of any cosmetic can be the last sign something is wrong. Tossing it out is best or a refund or get a free replacement.
"When Should I Throw Out a Product?"
"And remember: If it smells funky, looks gunky or the texture has changed significantly—definitely toss it out!"
Within a reasonable time reputable cosmetic companies do not excuse or refuse refunds or free replacements over such matters.
I have had food well kept go off before a best before expiry date too. I have never had a problem getting a refund or free replacement. The product was unstable.
2011 "Effective vs. Ineffective Preservation Using Water Activity*"
"This illustrates the need need to concentrate on controlling and preventing microbial contamination during manufacturing."
The point is that you should be able to count on a cosmetic not to go off well before keeping it too long becomes a hazard.ttp://www.
"Challenges Persist in Working with Green Materials in Beauty Product Development"
"Stability also is a major issue, with some green preservative systems leading to discoloration and/or odor changes."
"The preservative wars"
“No single preservative is equally effective against all types of microorganisms” ... Although synthetic preservatives bear the brunt of criticism from anti-preservative groups, natural preservatives are not free from controversy."
The topic of "all natural" cosmetics and the preservation of cosmetics is not a simple one. What side of the preservative wars am I on? Cosmetics must be safe to use. I am on the side of reputable evidence-based information with history.
Email Reply: Why did I say with history? From http://www.aocs.org/Membership/FreeCover.cfm?itemnumber=18591
See paragraph starting with "While consumers tend to view" and the one after it under "Going natural has its own challenges" To be clear, I side with the first of the two paragraphs.
Peer-reviewed evidence-based science is used to re-evaluate cosmetic ingredients and levels used in cosmetics as needed, with continuing research.
Note: the 2nd paragraph "some studies have reported adverse effects of natural preservatives, including allergic reactions, early puberty, and cancer".
Ongoing reputable scientific research "in context" is very important!
The 2nd paragraph comments made make no sense to me without reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence to support them. And by those same comments,
"The data haven’t been presented to scientific committees and papers haven’t been published"
Saturday, December 21, 2013
It is potentially everywhere in the world these days, whether "imported" or smuggled, or homemade and it can kill! Fake alcohol needs publicity to warn potential customers of the risks. I Tweeted more about it, after reading and Retweeting the first article below.
"Fake vodka 'can kill you' warning"
Sometimes it takes a face and name to get the message across regarding how devastating, and serious this can be, anywhere!
"Cheznye Emmons: British backpacker, 23, dies after drinking poisoned alcohol in Indonesia"
"Seizures of fake alcohol increase fivefold in two years"
"New Jersey restaurants caught selling fake alcohol"
"Dangers of Illicit Alcohol, Canada"
"A Killer Hangover: China’s Problem with Fake Alcohol"
"methanol poisoning, 2013"
"Bootleggers sentenced to 90 years in prison in Turkey"
"Methanol poisoning claims 19 lives in central Europe"
Beer is counterfeited too but safety procedures for producing it are not observed.
"Heineken ‘absolutely on top’ of fake beer threat after Vietnam gang bust"
Sunday, December 15, 2013
I Retweeted this today on Twitter.
"Cautionary reminder re: herbal supplements, Skip the Supplements, via @nytimes, #cancer, #endcancer http://nyti.ms/1j5s8xA"
New York Times Article, 2013, quote"when parents in our hospital still want to use products whose quality can’t be assured, we ask them to sign a waiver ... the supplement may be dangerous, and that most have not been studied for their effectiveness."
My Tweet on it.
"Consumers & doctors not completely on their own. There is oversight w/limitations as stated. Many people take unneeded supplements."
The fact that many companies violate the regulations of what oversight there is and the statistics in that article are not heartening, makes the issue that much more serious.
Supplements may not be necessary. That is why dietary supplementation, or supplements used to medicate, should be discussed with a qualified medical doctor, especially where children are concerned. There can be risks, or side effects outside of those for dosage and other cautions, given what has been revealed lately.
The news on this topic is spreading. To me, it is not spreading fast enough!
Added: My response also in part to an email on natural product safety on Twitter, shortened.there.
I think more people need to understand that: 1."Chemical-free" only exists in bad marketing. Everything contains chemicals.
2. By no means are natural products necessarily safer than drugs, especially with the amount of fraud, unproven drug claims, and mislabeling of products still happening now.
Added today, December 19, 2013, directly from my Twitter account:
Study finds vitamin pills have 'limited benefit' - Health News - NHS Choices -
"Enough Is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements" http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1789253
"Effects of vitamin D supplements on bone mineral density: a systematic review and meta-analysis", 2013 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61647-5/abstract
"use of vitamin D for osteoporosis prevention without specific risk factors ... vitamin D deficiency seems to be inappropriate."
The Mayo Clinic has been saying this for a while now. Current, 2013 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/supplements/NU00198
Note use of the word may regarding study conclusions. What are the health benefits of honey? - Medical News Today:
I am all for natural product use without hype or fraud or promoted "miracles". New and better research will validate some health claims made or not. It is about the quality of the research, and whether the risks outweigh any benefits of a specific product.
What I am against is false and misleading claims for: health products, systems, foods and cosmetics. There is lot of that in the marketplace today.
I will not support bad marketing, that exists only to make money at the possible cost of health, as well as money. There are too many people who have too little money to spend as it is and need qualified medical help. No one needs to waste money.
Regarding honey and infants, see the botulism links in this blog post,
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
From my Twitter account in paragraphs for easier reading as a blog post. Someone said they like the "activist" in me. I suppose I am one. I support a number of causes on Twitter: anti-human trafficking; no bullying; anti-abuse human, and animal; pro-education, human rights, and equality for all; accessible, affordable food, and medicine for all; and civility in all discussions. I debunk cosmetic, alternative products, food, supplements, and therapy marketing claims, and Tweet current, reputable source information on side effects, and precautions regarding products. I support all indie art forms.
Note: The mention of animals dying is about rhino horn, and other animal parts erroneously used for medical applications, as they are unproven to work for such conditions but are claimed to in marketing. The animals are poached, and game wardens have also been killed in the process. What is relevant here is below, with correct grammar, explanation, and added quotes. To get everything within 140 characters on Twitter sentences get shortened.
Most researchers are cautious in research conclusions because both safety and efficacy are important. A botanical may be safe but it has to work! Ethical researchers use and no doubt peer reviewers demand, use of words like may regarding conclusions for good reasons. Outcomes need to be repeated.
What started the above?
An alternative to statins in some treatments? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735284/, 2013 Not yet! "extensive clinical studies are required in larger numbers
Cont: of patients to establish the efficacy and safety of P. emblica in the management of endothelial dysfunction and hyperlipidemia."
From the full text, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735284/
"Quality control is one of the important factors during evaluation of any herbal product. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the bioactive ingredients of the product are intact. The test product used in the present study comprised a highly standardized ..."
And if botanicals do prove to be alternatives to established drugs, the constituents that are the mechanisms required will become drugs.
"New concerns about the safety and quality of herbal supplements", 2013 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/new-concerns-about-the-safety-and-quality-of-herbal-supplements/
"number of drugs we use today are derived from, or based on, chemicals originally found in nature. ... The benefit of drug products over herbs is the reproducibility of effects, which starts with isolating and purifying the active ingredient. The next step is manufacturing a dosage that results in consistency in absorption and standard and predictable dosages."
Botanicals can have variances for a number of reasons. If it were as simple as some claim, illnesses and diseases still prevalent would not exist. New research can reveal risks, or side effects in both drugs and botanicals. There is ongoing science to make all proper medication safer, and work better. A number of alternative natural products can and do have serious side effects, and precautions you may not be aware of until it is too late.
I do not endorse any belief system or practice that precludes needed, qualified medical care. I do not support unproven medical claims. I do not support unproven cosmetic new drug claims that violate government marketing regulations, causing people to waste their money.
"Warning Letters, - Health Fraud", 2013
"DNA barcoding detects contamination and substitution in North American herbal products", 2013
"the industry suffers from unethical activities by some of the manufacturers, which includes false advertising, product substitution, contamination and use of fillers."
I am pro-consumer education, and that comes from reputable sources which I regularly Tweet, that I recommend be discussed with qualified medical doctors. I am disgusted by misinformation on the Internet, and elsewhere that is there only for profit but can harm people too.
People and animals needlessly die, and people can become ill and die, or have conditions worsen because of the greed of others. That is an affront to me. Wanting to believe in a romanticized past that bad marketing promotes does not make products, or systems, or beliefs work. Diseases from the past are still here today.
Reputable science will validate traditional therapies or not. Most are not validated. That does not mean botanicals are not good for some applications. Ironically, the same bad marketers are quick to use unsubstantiated scientific studies to promote their goals, yet rail against scientific study reviews, or better studies, that do not support their claims. You cannot have it both ways!
Many consumers are ignorant about products and therapies. They can be victims of unscrupulous, inaccurate, misleading marketing. I present current, reputable information people can read for themselves.
Consumers may be misled by vendors' claims that herbal products can treat, prevent, diagnose, or cure specific diseases, despite regulations prohibiting such statements."