Reason 1,945,640 Not To Wear Make-Up

[CandyStripes]

Women who use make-up on a daily basis are absorbing almost 5lb of chemicals a year into their bodies, it is claimed.

Many use more than 20 different beauty products a day striving to look their best while nine out of 10 apply make-up which is past its use by date.

Dependence on cosmetics and toiletries means that a cocktail of 4lb 6oz of chemicals a year is absorbed into the body through the skin.

Some synthetic compounds involved have been linked to side effects ranging from skin irritation to premature ageing and cancer.

Richard Bence, a biochemist who has spent three years researching conventional products, said: "We really need to start questioning the products we are putting on our skin and not just assume that the chemicals in them are safe.

"We have no idea what these chemicals do when they are mixed together, the effect could be much greater than the sum of the individual parts." Mr Bence, an advocate of organic beauty products, believes that absorbing chemicals through the skin in more dangerous than swallowing them.

He said: "If lipstick gets into your mouth it is broken down by the enzymes in saliva and in the stomach. But chemicals get straight into your bloodstream, there is no protection."

Warnings over using out-of-date lipstick and mascara have also been issued by the Royal College of Optometrists which believes such items are a "hothouse" for harmful bacteria.

Clio Turton, of the Soil Association, said: "Many women are using over 20 different products a day, bombarding themselves with hundreds of different chemicals. They should be asking themselves 'is that eyelash conditioner really essential?' "

Among chemicals under scrutiny are parabens (para-hydroxybenzoic acids) which are preservatives used in products including soap, shampoo, deodorant and baby lotion. Traces of parabens have been found in breast tumour samples, although its link to the development of the cancer is disputed.

Sodium lauryl sulphate, used to help create lather in soaps, shampoo, shaving foam, toothpaste and bubble bath, can cause skin irritation.

The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association said there was no reason for worry because the products were covered by European Union rules requiring them to be safe.

A spokesman said: "The cocktail effect is an urban myth. We do know how different chemicals react individually and can predict how they interact with each other and this is taken into account when the safety of products is assessed."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nbeauty121.xml

[limniade]

I don't see how someone could absorb 5 pounds of chemicals through their skin by wearing makeup. Five POUNDS? The average bottle of foundation is about one fluid ounce and lasts about 4-5 months, and that's if you DO keep it past the date. Eye shadow, blush, lipstick and eyeliner are even lighter. I don't think I've owned five pounds of makeup TOTAL, in my entire makeup-wearing life.

I don't see how someone could simultaneously use 5 pounds of makeup and use expired makeup. You either go through a lot of it or you don't.

Even someone who loads the crap on with a spackle might go through a third of a pound (5.5 oz) in a year. And that is a LOT of makeup.

My guess is that if we're absorbing 5 pounds of chemicals a year, our makeup has little to do with it.

[Below 30]

The proof is in how many females look like they're 40 by the time they are 25, when they take the make-up off their face. By logic, all that chemical cover up from age 12, is not going to be good for the skin, it's not natural.

Ironically, by the age of 25, most females will need make up just to look like the did when they were 16 without make-up -30-

[limniade]

Ironically, by the age of 25, most females will need make up just to look like the did when they were 16 without make-up -30-

Um, no ****. That's because nobody looks like they're 16 when they're 25, unless they are extremely late bloomers, because it's a nine-year age difference during a time when people do an awful lot of changing physically. That's like saying that someone who wears makeup as a 16-year-old should be trying to look like they're 10.

90% of aging is from UV exposure. If they look 40 at 25, they tanned their way into it.

[Below 30]

Skin.....The skin. Men have skin that look like their youth, all the way into their early 40's. Women have skin that look like they're 40 when they are 25, but it should look like it did when they were 16. Men in general don't cover their face with chemicals 18 hours a day, most women do, hence the reality of the aftermath at age 25 for women -30-

[limniade]

Skin.....The skin. Men have skin that look like their youth, all the way into their early 40's. Women have skin that look like they're 40 when they are 25, but it should look like it did when they were 16. Men in general don't cover their face with chemicals 18 hours a day, most women do, hence the reality of the aftermath at age 25 for women -30-

Men have a thicker epidermis and a thicker collagen level. That's why they show the effects of aging less than women.

90% of aging is caused by UV exposure. Not by makeup. Look it up.

No woman's skin at 25 "should" look like it did at 16. It's physically impossible. Many women at 16 aren't even through puberty, and your skin doesn't even complete its development until age 24. Making this claim ignores more about hormonal changes, skin development and the effects of sun damage than I could explain in a post.

Nor does any of this address the theory that we absorb 5 pounds of chemicals through makeup, when 5 pounds of makeup is about as much as fits in a quart bucket of paint. The only place I've ever seen 5 pounds of makeup in one place is on the shelf where it's being sold.

[limniade]

Incidentally, I just weighed all my makeup (foundation, blush, 3 eye shadows, two eyeliners, concealer), glass containers and all, and it weighed 6 ounces.

[CandyStripes]

Skin.....The skin. Men have skin that look like their youth, all the way into their early 40's. Women have skin that look like they're 40 when they are 25, but it should look like it did when they were 16. Men in general don't cover their face with chemicals 18 hours a day, most women do, hence the reality of the aftermath at age 25 for women -30-

Not really, men start getting forehead and eye wrinkles in their late twenties-early thirties but their skin stays much firmer because of some M word I can't quite remember.

You're exaggerating, most women's skin don't look that bad. At least I've never seen one that looked that bad.

ETA: I only wear lip gloss so I have no clue how much make-up weighs. Liminiade you really think 5lbs is impossible?

[Below 30]

If a woman wears make-up from age 12 to 25, you believe that messed up skin has to do with UV light? You believe that it has to do with a thinner skin? You believe that all those unnatural chemicals are completely safe and do no damage to a woman's thin skin?

Re-evaluate all of that information and tell us again why a man's skin stays youthful longer than a female -30-

[limniade]

If a woman wears make-up from age 12 to 25, you believe that messed up skin has to do with UV light? You believe that it has to do with a thinner skin? You believe that all those unnatural chemicals are completely safe and do no damage to a woman's thin skin?

Re-evaluate all of that information and tell us again why a man's skin stays youthful longer than a female -30-

I don't believe it, I KNOW it. Because skin care is a major hobby of mine and I know what I'm talking about.

A few minutes on Google backs me up.

Effects of UV on skin: http://dermatology.about.com/cs/beauty/a/suneffect.htm

Differences between men's skin and women's skin:

http://www.dermadoctor.com/pages/newsletter261.asp?WID=

There you go.

[CandyStripes]

If a woman wears make-up from age 12 to 25, you believe that messed up skin has to do with UV light? You believe that it has to do with a thinner skin? You believe that all those unnatural chemicals are completely safe and do no damage to a woman's thin skin?

Re-evaluate all of that information and tell us again why a man's skin stays youthful longer than a female -30-

Genetics has more effect than make-up. Most people think I'm still in high school, that's because I look young due to genetics. Even if I wear make-up everyday, it's not going to have as much effect in the aging of my skin like genes do.

[Below 30]

So EVA looks like this without make-up, because she has thin skin and the UV light is beating up her skin? So it has nothing to do with the 'rabbit' tested chemicals she wore on her face since her early teens? But men are immune to UV light and it has nothing to do with men not wearing harsh chemicals on their face everyday?

[limniade]

To get back to the original topic, the other reason I'm suspicious about the "5 pounds" claim is that we generally keep the cosmetic-wearing only to our face (and neck, to a minor degree). Sure, the skin is a major absorption target and I have no doubt that we absorb plenty of pollutants just by being out in the air, but we're just as likely to do it through our hands, arms, legs, and any other exposed skin than simply our face.

Everyone who wears makeup knows that a) even 'heavy' makeup is a relatively thin layer and b) it wears off during the course of a day, and must be reapplied. Some women touch up, some don't, but most of the women I know (note: anecdote, not data) don't apply twice in a day unless they're going out for a special occasion.

Younger girls have a tendency to be more conscientious about this stuff than older ones, too.

Another factor is that a lot of foundation brands contain SPF. Since most aging is caused by UV exposure, it therefore stands to reason that wearing foundation with SPF would actually PROTECT your skin, not ruin it.

[limniade]

So EVA looks like this without make-up, because she has thin skin and the UV light is beating up her skin? So it has nothing to do with the 'rabbit' tested chemicals she wore on her face since her early teens? But men are immune to UV light and it has nothing to do with men not wearing harsh chemicals on their face everyday?

That's right. As I said, look it up yourself. You don't have to believe *me*, go ask any dermatologist or plastic surgeon. There are a million places for you to find this information.

[empresscat]

To get back to the original topic, the other reason I'm suspicious about the "5 pounds" claim is that we generally keep the cosmetic-wearing only to our face (and neck, to a minor degree). Sure, the skin is a major absorption target and I have no doubt that we absorb plenty of pollutants just by being out in the air, but we're just as likely to do it through our hands, arms, legs, and any other exposed skin than simply our face.

Everyone who wears makeup knows that a) even 'heavy' makeup is a relatively thin layer and b) it wears off during the course of a day, and must be reapplied. Some women touch up, some don't, but most of the women I know (note: anecdote, not data) don't apply twice in a day unless they're going out for a special occasion.

Younger girls have a tendency to be more conscientious about this stuff than older ones, too.

Another factor is that a lot of foundation brands contain SPF. Since most aging is caused by UV exposure, it therefore stands to reason that wearing foundation with SPF would actually PROTECT your skin, not ruin it.

I think they were talking about other items such as lotion and shampoos - and actually, there is recent evidence that cosmetics - including tanning lotion - when worn in the sun bakes into your skin and you absorb the chemicals more readily.

Titania posted links in another thread that are relevant, but I'm too lazy to go find them now.

[Below 30]

[1]Because women have thinner skin than men, the sun?s penetrating UVA rays damage female skin to a greater degree[1]

Where are the studies that show that make-up doesn't accelerate the aging process of a woman's skin?

Genetics has more effect than make-up. Most people think I'm still in high school, that's because I look young due to genetics. Even if I wear make-up everyday, it's not going to have as much effect in the aging of my skin like genes do.

Are you saying that you do not wear make-up everyday? Then that's what I'm getting at, less make-up over the life of the facial skin will help it look youthful longer. It has nothing to do with UV light and DNA code cannot stop the attack of environmental/synthetic (make-up) factors. Meaning, even if your genes dictate young looking skin, if you splash acid on your face, your genes won't keep you skin safe -30-



[1] Excerpt taken from: http://www.dermadoctor.com/pages/newsletter261.asp?WID=

[CandyStripes]

[1]Because women have thinner skin than men, the sun?s penetrating UVA rays damage female skin to a greater degree.

Where are the studies that show that make-up doesn't accelerate the aging process of a woman's skin?




Are you saying that you do not wear make-up everyday? Then that's what I'm getting at, less make-up over the life of the facial skin will help it look youthful longer. It has nothing to do with UV light and DNA code cannot stop the attack of environmental/synthetic (make-up) factors. Meaning, even if your genes dictate young looking skin, if you splash acid on your face, your genes won't keep you skin safe -30-



[1] Excerpt taken from: http://www.dermadoctor.com/pages/newsletter261.asp?WID=

I've ALWAYS looked younger even before I was old enough to wear make-up. My sister doesn't wear make-up either, but she looks her age.

Look for a picture of Stacey Dash without make-up. She still looks pretty young, which is due to the fact that she has good genes and oily skin. People with oily skin don't age as fast as their peers. That's a fact.

[limniade]

Where are the studies that show that make-up doesn't accelerate the aging process of a woman's skin?

A cosmetic, by the definition set by the FDA, cannot have any kind of measurable medical effect. Otherwise it must be sold as a medicine, not a cosmetic. Any lotion, cream, anti-aging potion, eyeliner, blush, microdermabrasion cloth, etc. that you see on the shelves are determined by the FDA to have no, or virtually no, measurable effect.

And chances are that if it DID have a measurable aging effect on the skin, the FDA wouldn't approve it, nor would the company want to sell it.

[Below 30]

I've ALWAYS looked younger even before I was old enough to wear make-up. My sister doesn't wear make-up either, but she looks her age.

Look for a picture of Stacey Dash without make-up. She still looks pretty young, which is due to the fact that she has good genes and oily skin. People with oily skin don't age as fast as their peers. That's a fact.

Your sister looks her age which is proper. I'm saying that if she wore make-up everyday, she'd probably look 15 years older than she should, due to the prolonged chemical attack. With Stacey, we don't know if she always wears make-up everyday or just for professional work. She is an extreme case of a young looking female for her age -30-

[Below 30]

A cosmetic, by the definition set by the FDA, cannot have any kind of measurable medical effect. Otherwise it must be sold as a medicine, not a cosmetic. Any lotion, cream, anti-aging potion, eyeliner, blush, microdermabrasion cloth, etc. that you see on the shelves are determined by the FDA to have no, or virtually no, measurable effect.

And chances are that if it DID have a measurable aging effect on the skin, the FDA wouldn't approve it, nor would the company want to sell it.

The FDA? Come now, how many products have been re-called because the FDA didn't screen them properly? Plus, cosmetics isn't a food or medicine, so they aren't going to seriously regulate those products anyway
-30-

[anb1683]

I LOVE MAKEUP...I don't care, I have awesome skin, I take care of it. Drink lots water and wear a mosturizer with sunscreen...

[limniade]

The FDA? Come now, how many products have been re-called because the FDA didn't screen them properly? Plus, cosmetics isn't a food or medicine, so they aren't going to seriously regulate those products anyway

They damn well would regulate a product if it were found to have measurable negative effects. That's the whole reason the FDA exists.

Seriously, dude, I've already proved you're wrong, and the entire field of dermatology is available for you to inquire further. Your argument is just plain wrong.

[limniade]

By the way, for an example of a product that WAS recently pulled off the market due to overreaching claims and potential measurable physical effects:

Jan Marini Age Intervention Eyelash. The old formula used an ingredient commonly found in glaucoma medication, where the major side effect was that the eyelashes grew very quickly and very long. The packaging made the claim, therefore, that using the product would make your eyelashes grow faster and longer.

Well, that's a measurable physical effect, and that would make it a medication under the rules of the FDA, not a cosmetic. So the Jan Marini company had to change their formula and remove the claim that it WOULD grow your eyelashes, and now it says that it makes your eyelashes APPEAR longer and thicker. Thus it still qualifies as a cosmetic, not a medication.

That happened in roughly November of 2006.

The FDA can and does regulate cosmetics.

PS: The product really did work, and it worked fantastically. I used it myself and looked like I was wearing false eyelashes. It was awesome! I just started using the new formula but haven't been using it long enough to see effects due to extenuating circumstances.

[XAnonymousX]

Incidentally, I just weighed all my makeup (foundation, blush, 3 eye shadows, two eyeliners, concealer), glass containers and all, and it weighed 6 ounces.

Go back and read that again. It said you absorb 5lb's of chemicals into your skin PER YEAR.

[Below 30]

I guess the FDA did a great job with ephedra and Vioxx. Those were medical drugs, so I guess the FDA can screw up medical drug approval, but they'd never screw up for cosmetics. I don't think your FDA claims are helping to prove your points.

Go back and read that again. It said you absorb 5lb's of chemicals into your skin PER YEAR.

Good point.

-30-

[limniade]

Go back and read that again. It said you absorb 5lb's of chemicals into your skin PER YEAR.

It also says that our skin absorbs that much through the use of cosmetics. My counterargument is that most women don't even use a tenth of that amount per year, and my explanations for that are:

1. The article claims that a lot of the chemicals are through using expired makeup,

2. Makeup comes in very small quantities and lasts months.

If you're using expired makeup, it means you've had the same product for a long time. Foundation takes about 4 months to expire, eyeliners and mascaras should be replaced about every 3 months (but usually aren't) and eye shadows will last up to a year.

Now, I'm probably pretty typical about how much makeup I wear. Foundation, blush, eyeshadow, eyeliner, mascara if I happen to own any, powder. I go through foundation about every six months. I've had my eye shadows and liners for about a year.

The typical bottle of liquid foundation is roughly 1 ounce, and is probably the heaviest in terms of weight.

So, the logical conclusions are:

1. If you're using 5 pounds of cosmetics, you are constantly buying new makeup and thus aren't using expired products,

Or:

2. If you're using expired products, you're not using 5 pounds of cosmetics, because you're using the same 1oz bottle of foundation and half-ounce compact of eye shadow or blush longer than you should.

I find the likelihood of any woman using 5 pounds of makeup in a year to be incredibly small. 5 pounds of makeup is A LOT of makeup. You could literally buy out the entire stock of foundation in all shades at Target and probably total five pounds, and that would include the glass bottles, not just the foundation. And you would still not use it all up even if you changed your makeup 5 times a day. Foundation goes a LONG way, and that's the product that gets used up the fastest. Blush, eye shadow and eye liner last several times longer.

The whole article just does not make sense on its face, no pun intended.

[limniade]

I guess the FDA did a great job with ephedra and Vioxx. Those were medical drugs, so I guess the FDA can screw up medical drug approval, but they'd never screw up for cosmetics. I don't think your FDA claims are helping to prove your points.

Are they still on the market?

Thanks for playing.

[limniade]

Also, one could theorize that someone could stock up on 5 pounds of makeup and then use it one at a time, but a bottle of foundation lasts, I think, up to a year as long as it hasn't been opened. So it wouldn't be expired.

[Below 30]

Are they still on the market?

Thanks for playing.

Why were they ever on the market in the first place? Nice try, but you need to try harder to defend them. And why didn't you deny that they allowed those products to even get into the retail channel? What does that say about the integrity of the FDA? -30-

[limniade]

Why were they ever on the market in the first place? Nice try, but you need to try harder to defend them. And why didn't you deny that they allowed those products to even get into the retail channel? What does that say about the integrity of the FDA? -30-

I really don't have to defend the FDA at all. I've already supported my argument with sound medical facts. It really has nothing to do with the FDA. Cosmetics wouldn't cause aging even if the FDA disbanded tomorrow.