This link will take you to a publication called, The True Story of Cosmetics, Exposing the Risks of the Smear Campaign, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which when told the information comes from CEI, the greenies all roll their eyes and snort say....oh...."now we see where you get your information",which is a way of demeaning someone without presenting information to justify their view.
The fact is they hate CEI for exposing them as they have done with these claims from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which along with The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics as its partner;
"are on a crusade to scare consumers away from using cosmetics and hygiene products that contain preservatives and other useful chemicals. As part of their effort to ban the use of synthetic ingredients from skin products, these environmental extremist groups are working to incite fear among consumers, making outrageous and bogus claims that we are poisoning ourselves by using lipstick, makeup, deodorants, skin creams, and even baby products. Specifically, they claim that the additives can cause cancer, create neurological disorders, or cause hormone disruption even though they are present in trace amounts."So, why do I care about this? The claims are the same kind of claims they make against pesticides! Furthermore, the real science needed to refute these unfounded, unscientific claims are also the same. To understand one of these issues is to understand all of them.
As an example they point out;
The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 presented In June 2011, three legislators seized the opportunity in the heat of a controversy involving a product called Brazilian Blowout—a hair salon product that violated U.S. safety laws and caused short-term health effects—to go after chemicals in all cosmetic products. Although the problem was quickly resolved used it as justification to introduce legislation that, if passed, will needlessly create a mammoth, overreaching, and costly regulatory regime over the manufacturing of cosmetics….The bill establishes a new safety standard for cosmetics that is out of whack with any sensible understanding of toxicology. It defines “reasonable certainty of no harm” as not exceeding a “1 in a million risk for any adverse health effect.” That would apply to just about every ingredient since just about everything carries a risk of more than one in a million, including bottled drinking water.The media has failed to present the story in any way that represents true science. They will intone on the new....beware _________(fill in the blank) because it sells and makes them look as if they actually know what they are talking about. They love these scare mongering tactics. All that I ask of the media is that they do their job by doing the research to find out what really is the truth. They claim to serve the public, but I find this to be hollow. The fact is; the media are as agenda driven as are the activists. Should we be upset to find that the media drives agendas? I think not. What we should be upset about is their failure to find out what is factual versus what is emotional scare mongering. Especially when emotion wins out over facts every time.
It is the same standard used for the Food Quality Protection Act of 1994. When applied to pesticides, it has led to unwarranted bans on numerous and critically valuable products, leaving consumers with few defenses against a host of risks, from West Nile virus to Lyme disease, as well as the psychological stress and uncomfortable stress and itchy welts associated with emerging bedbug problems.
Boy....is that a stupid thought or what? If all they were concerned with was facts then what would they do with all that empty space in the newspapers and magazines? Worse yet; what would they do about newscasters just sitting there smiling and not talking? Well...there is one upside to that. No one would call them talking heads any longer!