More on make-up

[friend_of_tofu]

I was interested to note that today's Sali Hughes column has the start of a good discussion about the Bad Science of cosmetics advertising, what "chemical-free" means and how seriously (or not) women are taken as consumer. I think the commenter has a very valid point, but I'd like to see this unpacked a bit more. Anyone got links to more detailed '

Comments

[valkyriekaren]

I remember when some skin care company started touting their products as containing a new, miracle ingredient, called 'Boswelox'. Doesn't that sound all sciencey?

Turned out to be an extract of a plant called boswellia. You might know it better under its common name, frankincense. Yeah, really innovative - it's only been used in cosmetic preparations for the last 5000 years or so!

I try to avoid anything that has harsh detergents in (Sodium Lauryl Sulphate and Sodium Laureth Sulphate are the most common ones) as they don't react well with my body chemistry. And I also try to stay away from highly perfumed products, or those that contain petrochemical dyes and oils. But it's not easy!

[pleiadeslion]

I don't know why this presenter bothers me so much. I think it's because she has this way of presenting beauty as if it's rocket science, and how you want to look (eg, making your skin look more tanned) as the one twoo way.

Or maybe I just watch too many science documentaries :/