Monday, December 03, 2007
This year, millions of kids’ toys were recalled after lead was found in them. Now a new study shows that more than half of the 33 red lipsticks tested from drug and department store brands contained detectable levels of lead, a proven neurotoxin in humans. One-third of them exceeded the Food and Drug Administration’s level for lead in candy. As it turns out, the FDA—which regulates the beauty industry—has no pre-market approval authority over cosmetics and can only ask for a product recall, not demand it. And manufacturers don’t have to file data on ingredients or report injuries. “Nearly 90% of the over 10,000 chemicals used in cosmetics have not been evaluated for safety,” says Stacy Malkan of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which conducted the study. Critics of the study assert that any trace amounts of lead ingested from red lipsticks would be harmless. To learn which brands are lead-free, [go to Parade.com].
Wait for it...it won't be too long before a politician, doctor or grass roots group claims that cancer via lipstick is "an epidemic".
Blame PETA, too. Why bother conducting cosmetic tests for human safety on animals when those same tests can be accurately and conclusively conducted on a stick of celery or a head of lettuce? Personally, I hear through the grapevine from those in the cosmetic testing laboratories that cantaloupes cry when blush is applied to them because it stings so badly. I guess it's okay with PETA when cantaloupes are used as guinea pigs...uh...guniea cantaloupes.
Gee, I wonder if Brittany "Buttinski" McFadden is aware of this horrible, dangerous and silent killer called...Toxic Lipstick? Any why stop at lipstick? Surely there must be toxic and cancerous eye-liner, blush and rouge. Who knows, maybe Brittany Buttinski can start another new group called the Initiative For Cosmetic Free Apartment Living. I bet Big Cosmetics has more money and deeper pockets than even Big Tobacco!
Uh...wait...this lipstick-lead thing...it's all George Bush's fault. Yeah, that's it, he's the one to blame.
Certainly you're not denying that kissing someone wearing red lipstick could damange the health of the person not wearing the lipstick, are you?
Read the Healthland Institutes report of the fallacies and hoopla over second-hand smoke being a carcinogen. Try - if you can - to read it with an open mind, hard as that may be. I link to it and you can find it by clicking on the LABELS link "No Smoking".
I agree with you, society should go totally overboard in regulating anything and everything that might even hint at being potentially harmful or dangerous, especially "for the children". God knows "the children" are all what it is about.
What's it like to live every day of your life without any sense of humor?
My bad in my above comment.
It's the Heartland study - not Healthland. My bad typo.
Here's the url:
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.