here\'s the real deal with all those ingredients gwyneth paltrow says are bad for us
Paltrow has applied all of her.
Natural Philosophy of products like cooking books and cosmetics, so it\'s not surprising that the new Goop skin care products, because she is proud to announce stylish, non-toxic, organic up to 99% and free of any \"chemicals\" of P-hytonate and silicone.
Paltrow\'s Goop skin care is far from the first skin or beauty collection to promote these \"natural\" standards.
Brands such as Ashtar Harper, Cora and Jessica Alba\'s Honest Company, not to mention Aldibut-
Good things like Burt\'s beand Lush are part of the growing \"green beauty\" campaign, which reflects a fever for detox and organic food.
With her beautiful lines, Paltrow issued a similar alert that prompted people to come into contact with all the natural and organic things.
In an interview with fashion magazine, Paltrow said, \"apply yourself with chemicals, parab gold and silicone --it\'s not great.
In an interview with charm, she described her product as very natural, \"you can eat it.
Like juice cleaning and all
Natural foods are \"debunked by what it calls a statement of excellent health, and the green beauty presents itself with the question of whether it is really more than having all these horrible chemicals, parab gold compounds, and
\"The fact that we are still unable to answer this question shows that few people realize that even today, 2016, no one has complete control or understanding of our beauty products.
So what exactly is parabens and silicone?
Know if something is toxic or life.
As Paltrow may make you think, threats help to understand common jargon.
First of all, \"chemicals\" is a buzzword --
When it comes to chemicals, they are actually talking about thousands of different materials.
According to the beauty cabinet of the green beauty company, about a million chemicals were found in our \"personal care products.
Only 10% of the 10,000 products have \"security data\", the company added \".
\"While some of these materials are found to be harmful to human health, there is no scientific evidence that all\" chemicals \"are a threat.
Mark Lodge, a biochemist at Hull University, wrote: \"The word chemistry is usually synonymous with toxins or poison . \".
\"We use this phrase, \'it chock-
Filled with chemicals, suggesting something that is artificial and harmful to you.
Parabens, another often misunderstood word, is also a general term.
Parab gold refers to a class of preservatives used to kill mold and bacteria in products.
Parab gold is controversial because a paper published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology in 2004 shows that this preservative is associated with breast tumors and claims that parab gold \"can disrupt cell function.
\"But many believe that, as cosmetic chemist Perry Romanovsky said in 2015 of the vocabulary, the findings of the study were exaggerated: the study was not carried out in a scientific and rigorous manner, because there is no control group.
They also found parab Gold in non-cancerous breast tissue.
In fact, the study says more research should be done.
Meanwhile, the US governmentS.
According to the study, the Food and Drug Administration found that the use of parab Gold in personal care products is safe, up to 25%.
The typical level of cosmetics is more like 0. 01 to 0. 3%.
Although the word is often called a name, the effect of silicone on the threat is not even so obvious
Abandoned by green beauty company
Silicone is a synthetic polymer found in thousands of products, including skin and hair care products, which are said to be \"luminous seals\" and moisture in these products.
As silicone breast implants is associated with complications including cancer, the reputation of silicone has been compromised.
Although some beauty products can clog your pores, there is no evidence to confirm these claims, and experts have not actually found that silicone is harmful to human health.
Who decides what is not good for us?
In fact, even the Environmental Working Group believes that silicone is OK.
EWG, a non-profit organization with a deep database of cosmetic ingredients, lists them for the public on its website with its own safety advice.
It is also criticized for fear.
The spread strategy, in the absence of sufficient data to support these claims, makes a comprehensive statement on the toxicity of the ingredients.
But EWG has been successful by filling the gaps in information left by the FDA, which has left most ingredients without safety testing and the cosmetics industry with little supervision.
According to Tina Sigurdson, a staff lawyer at EWG, cosmetics are subject to minimal FDA supervision compared to food and medicine.
\"Cosmetic manufacturers do not need to confirm the safety of their products or report adverse events to the FDA,\" she told Mic . \".
As the agency said on its website:S.
The FDA is not authorized by law to require cosmetic manufacturers to submit their safety data to the FDA, and it is the responsibility of the FDA to demonstrate that a particular product or ingredient is harmful when used as intended.
This means that when problematic products enter the market, there is little way for consumers to understand the risks or hold the company accountable.
\"The FDA does not have a mandatory recall right in terms of personal care products,\" Sigurdson said . \".
So when on 2015, countless women claimed that their cleansing conditioner caused hair loss and other injuries, the FDA did not have a legal mandate to recall the product, and Wen Jiabao was not asked to warn the FDA about the influx of negative reports.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is a law that provides FDA authority over the cosmetics industry, which has not been updated much since its adoption in 1938, while the regulation of food and drug has always been.
The current law only stipulates that products cannot be adulterated or mislabeled.
The growing focus on consumer safety in the 1970 s led to the creation of a Cosmetic Ingredient Review, which was established and funded by the Personal Care Products Association, and the \"support\" of the FDA \".
But regulation has not changed much, especially in terms of ingredients.
In contrast, the EU is known for its strict regulation of personal care products: it requires manufacturers to prepare a \"product safety report\" before placing the products on the market \", and more than 1,300 cosmetic ingredients have been banned, compared to 11 by the FDA. (
One of the ingredients considered to be a potential culprit in the Wen scandal, in fact, was reportedly banned in the EU. )
Nevertheless, the FDA did investigate and report the ingredients;
Many common names, such as parab Gold, phthalate, talc and β-fatty acids, are covered on the FDA website.
But take a look and you will find that, despite the Paltrows and EWGs in the world, the FDA often points out that these chemicals are only at risk at high concentrations that are rarely contained in cosmetics, or the existing research does not prove the health risk by 100%.
The world of \"green beauty\" becomes clearer: So how do we really know the right answer?
Some may soon appear in the form of the personal care product safety act.
The bill, which was introduced to Congress in 2015, is unique, not only because it is a bipartisan effort, but also because it is supported by industry participants from the personal care products Board and green beauty advocates such as beauty counters.
If passed, the act will give the FDA more legal authority over the cosmetics industry and require the FDA to evaluate the safety of the five ingredients each year.
This means that we may not have to rely on environmental groups or gwynith Paltrow to tell us which ingredients are \"not very good\" and which ones we can eat.