My Environment: Personal Care Products

M2.2: Personal Care Products

I have been on a mission to be a conscious consumer for awhile now, however I continually am trying to find a balance between cost, ease and environmental/health foot prints for each of the products that I use. Additionally, I have extremely sensitive skin and use clinical intervention for acne, so I try to refrain from introducing my skin to new products to prevent additional outbreaks or re-balancing of current face regimes chemicals.

I review 2 products that I use daily, (1) my face wash and (2) my shampoo/conditioner (but I will be talking about the chemical composition of my conditioner).

(1) Burt’s Bees’ Facial Cleanser - Sensitive with Cotton Extract

usage: 2x/daily

(2) SUAVE HAIR Professionals Almond + Shea Butter Moisturizing Shampoo And Conditioner

usage: 1x/daily

Burt's Bees market's itself as a natural product, reporting that they are a "98.9% natural" and that they are "fragrance free". They fair fairly well in the EWG's Skin Deep: Cosmetic Database with a score of 2, however, there are some hidden chemicals in the mix of their formula. Their most hazardous chemical reported in their formula, phenoxyethanol, scores a 4 on EWG's 10-value scoring metric and can cause effects as minor as irritation or as major as organ system toxicity. Other chemicals that score above a 1 or 2 on EWG's scoring scale are Potassium Sorbate, Sobium Benzoate, and Benozic Acid, all which report some level of organ system toxicity. I am a little surprised about the score of this product being higher than a 1, especially seeing as the product markets itself as natural and is sold at a higher price point to match that of other natural products (~$14 @ target). However, I am put a little at ease at the thought that most of the 10's of components that are listed on the back of the bottle are considered extremely low hazard to my health. 29 of the 33 indigents on the back have a hazard score of 1 according to the EWG rating system, and the 4 components that are greater than that are the least present in the formula and are present at the bottom of the label. All in all I will continue to use this product, at least until the formula changes, or I find another product that is comparable and does not make me breakout.

In contrast to the knowledge that I come to my face wash with, I knowingly purchase my shampoo and conditioner because of ease, cost and previous behavior, however am trying to replace it in the near future and am experimenting with shampoo and conditioner bars to try and cut plastic usage. However, the majority of my shampoo and conditioner use is with Suave Professional Almond and Shea Butter Shampoo and Conditioner. This specific shampoo and conditioner is Paraben free (according to skinsafeproducts.com) and at a enticing price point for any graduate student (each bottle is under $5), which make it a common product in my bathroom. However, I continue to purchase the product knowing about the slew of other chemicals that reside in it formula. So when looking up the conditioner within the EWG's: Cosmetic Database, I was not necessarily surprised. 

However, learning that the Conditioner scores a 5 on EWG's hazardous rating scale makes me unsure if it will remain a future product that I will use. As opposed to score of 3 & 4 in hazardous chemicals like that of the Burt's Bees' product that I use, Suave's chemicals ranged from 4-8. With the greatest hazards being Fragrance, which can cause organ system toxicity and irritation, and Methylisothiazolinone, which can cause neurotoxicity. Due to the moderate hazard of the product, I will most likely hasten my search to find a more natural and chemically reduced product for my bathroom, and would only recommend the product to individuals where money is the most important factor when buying a product.

I believe that these risks (i.e. chemicals used in their formulation) should not not only be more exposed, but more commonly understood within the the general public. If legislation is going to be relaxed about the use of chemicals in everyday products that are offered to Americans (i.e. not take away American's rights to do or use whatever they want), then they need to ensure that the chemicals, and their side effects are denoted in layman's terms on all packaging and or commercial marketing material. Additionally, information around the chemical formulation of everyday products should be emphasized within the public school system in order to create a culture that is both knowledgable about what these chemicals do and the side effects that they may cause. As a consumer, I would love to not have to be on my phone, looking up every chemical that is listed on the back of a bottle when I buy a product, and believe that if the chemicals in everyday products remain unregulated as they have been in the past, then better dissemination in school and direct consumers are necessary steps to ensure better health outcomes.

M2.4: "10 Americans"

My initial reaction to Ken Cook's talk "10 Americans", was literal horror. My thought process of using any product, as conscious as I try to be, is how immediately it will help me, and never the long term damage that it will cause to my body. But after this weeks module and learning more about these damn sneaky chemicals that get slid into my products that are even marketed as "100% natural", I am nervous about their insidious nature and the impact that they will eventually have on my body.

And that is an interesting concept, it is my body and I have the right to do what I want with it, including pumping it full of chemicals if that is what I choose. But is it really my choice in any capacity. I am an educated female identifying professional, however I know almost nothing when it comes to the chemicals on the back of my own shampoo bottle, and I have even done my research on certain hazardous chemicals, I have taken chemistry classes, and and even spent time in chemical labs and still the formulas and science on the back of these bottles are lost to me.

So in a current political administration that is obsessed with controlling women's bodies and preventing abortion, why is this government so okay with hazardous and potentially fatal impacts in utero through their lack of regulation. This seems like a paradox that no one will ever win. So additional information and education about these chemicals and their immediate and long term effects need to be effectively disseminated to the consuming public in a manner that is easily digestible and understood. Only through this mass information circulation can we really be considered conscious consumers.