麻豆AV

Siobahn O鈥機onnor and Alexandra Spunt are two very pleasant ladies who came to see me when they were doing research for their recently published book, No More Dirty Looks. I was a little apprehensive about speaking with them, because frankly, I knew they shouldn鈥檛 be writing such a book. Not only did they have no knowledge of the science of cosmetics, they had no knowledge of science at all. It seems, though, that these days having expertise in a subject is not a requirement for writing about it. Cosmetic chemistry is a complex business even for experts, and struggling fruitfully with its nuances is way beyond the capabilities of a magazine editor and a fashion consultant. But books about toxic chemicals and callous corporations sell. Books about unfounded alarmist claims don鈥檛.聽No More Dirty Looks is really a book about biology, chemistry and toxicology, written by authors who have no background in any of these fields. Yes, they did interview a number of experts and did try to put the facts together, as they saw them. But that just doesn鈥檛 work. Without a solid background it isn鈥檛 possible to evaluate the validity of the diverse comments, in fact it isn鈥檛 even possible to evaluate who really has expertise. So it isn鈥檛 a great surprise that the book comes off as an essentially unscientific attack on the cosmetics industry.

It seems the authors鈥� conviction that cosmetics contain toxic chemicals was triggered by noting that a hair treatment product they had come across contained formaldehyde. It is easy to vilify this compound because of its ready association with embalming. Of course the fact that formaldehyde is used in embalming has absolutely nothing to do with evaluating its risk in cosmetics. It is common for activist tomes to follow the 鈥渆mbalming fluid鈥� comment with the 鈥渃arcinogenic鈥� one. Yes formaldehyde is a carcinogen. When fed to animals in enormous doses it can cause cancer. In smaller amounts it does nothing. When used as a preservative in cosmetics it makes up a tiny percentage of the product, a dose way below any that causes problems in animals. And of course we do not eat cosmetics. Even in cases of occupational exposure, such as anatomists and pathologists who inhale formaldehyde vapours in massive amounts, there is no clear indication of an increased cancer risk. So the trivial amount of formaldehyde in cosmetics is most unlikely to cause harm, except for the possibility of an allergic reaction. It should be noted also that formaldehyde is present naturally in fruits, vegetables and particularly in alcoholic beverages.

But perhaps the biggest problem with No More Dirty Looks is the implication that the cosmetic industry is some sort of out-of-control, unregulated industrial behemoth that cares only about profits and not one iota about safety. Anyone who has seen close up how the industry operates, who speaks to the researchers, who has observed the attention paid to safety, knows that this just isn鈥檛 the case. While it is true that unlike pharmaceutical products, no pre-market approval is required, the fear of product recalls, consumer complaints and lawsuits keeps cosmetic chemists busy trying to formulate the most effective and safe products. But I suspect O鈥機onnor and Spunt who likely have never seen the insides of any lab would have no way of relating to that.