[Since when are baby products considered suitable subject matter for "Fashion & Style"? From the March 28 The New York Times Fashion & Style section]:

Methinks a lot of the personal care product (over)pricing issues (and ethical issues) are stemming from the cosmetic industry’s massive marketing campaigns. It’s not about beauty, it’s about keeping our bodies, and our babies’ bodies, clean & comfortable. If we got off the anti-aging, Youth Rules bandwagon, the industry would have a lot less emotional control over moms’ heart (and purse)strings.

A group member wrote: 
“Is the world ready for this view? There is more to looking youthful and feeling attractive when you learn to tap into your inner anti-ageing power. It’s also about fulfilling an inner potential.”

And I responded:
There is more to looking **your age** and feeling **self-acceptance and self-confidence** when you learn to tap into your inner **knowledge of your place within nature.** It’s ALL about accepting your past, living in the present, and acknowledging that aging and death are all part of life.

I have no desire to stay “youthful” and I think “anti-aging” is a crock devised by cosmetic manufacturers to sell more product to insecure women who don’t feel “beautiful” unless their skin is untouched by time. I want to be healthy, and enjoy every stage of life I am in. I enjoy aging, I have creative energy, and I’m feeling much mellower now that I have more years of life experience. If wisdom was revered in our culture, wrinkles would be considered… “beautiful.”

I’m curious to know how “pure, natural, and healthy” skin care manufacturers respond to questions from environmentalists and health advocates about their continued use of ingredients such as petroleum byproducts, imidazolidinyl urea and parabens. They address the issue as related to their affect on the human body (“Used in percentages far less than 1%, the risk of skin absorption from a topical product applied in such small amounts to limited areas of the body is extremely low…”), but not on how the ingredients are affecting the environment, including aquatic life.

Many  companies also claim to be environmentally friendly (“Our goal is to provide consumers with safe and effective products and use recyclable materials whenever possible.”) How do they address proponents of the Precautionary Principle, in other words, “better safe than sorry…” Why wait for “conclusive studies” to discontinue using these ingredients, when many recent studies from independent researchers around the world raise concern and are advising caution? I’ll go with the “better safe than sorry” philosophy, unless my life is being threatened…

Some companies will invite you to join the “2.5 billion dollar Anti-Age industry…” Yes, there’s lots of money in convincing women that aging is bad and wrinkles are ugly. But that’s a whole Pandora’s Box in itself. I would rather convince women that healthy skin and a sparkling, self-assured smile are beautiful, and wrinkles express character and a life well-lived.

TODAY’S RANT: I just HAD to respond to these posts from a Linked In group I belong to — here’s the conversation that got me all riled up:

To me ‘safe cosmetic’ means a cosmetic (something that affects the surface layers of the skin on a temporary basis) that has been manufactured to be stable physically, chemically and microbiologically for the duration of the usable shelf-life. It should be made with Good Manufacturing Practice, stored in accordance to instructions and contain chemicals that have been tested and proved to have no detrimental effects in the dose and presentation of this particular formulation. I may have missed something but that is what I have for now. In a nutshell it is an applied safety relating to the ingredients > manufacturing method> supply chain> in-use instructions> disposal.

Response from another Linked In group member:

I know I teach my clients that cosmetics is simply placed on the top layer of your face. So as long as you have no skin reaction then the safest cosmetics is the one you regularly remove. Cleansing the face morning and night and allowing the skin to air is more important to me than the brand of make-up you use.

And here’s my response:

FACT: 60% of products applied to the body actually enter the bloodstream, and those that don’t enter your body are washed off into the environment. Ingredients that are not readily biodegradable are affecting our water supply, the creatures living within our waters, and entering our soils.

QUESTION: Who is doing the “testing” to ensure safety? If it’s not an independent research institution, the results can be compared to the testing done by tobacco companies with their own hired scientists, claiming that nicotine does no harm…

I believe “safe” should follow the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: The health of our planet and all living things upon it should take priority over cosmetic applications to the body (products used to improve appearance, as opposed to products used to improve health).

Definition of the Precautionary Principle from Wikipedia (http://bit.ly/3hGeAc): * precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.

In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement.*

In late Fall 2008, our family was renting a home in Menlo Park, a middle-class northern California town. The home was surrounded by a humungous lawn, which the landlord expected us to maintain.

One day I was driving behind a gardening truck, with a bumper sticker which read, “Food Not Lawns.” I was stunned. A gardener suggesting that his clients grow edibles instead of ornamentals. The odd thing is, I ended up behind that truck about five more times over the next several weeks.

A seed was planted in my brain.

Mind you, I am NOT a gardener. I’ve always liked having indoor plants around to green up my environment, but digging in the dirt was not my thing. I’m a Bed & Breakfaster, not a camper. But this got me thinking: What is the PURPOSE of a “Keep Off the Grass” lawn?

So I started doing some research. And the more I learned**, the more disturbed I became. I started seeing showcase lawns in the same vein as a woman’s personal appearance: Big Business was profiting by promoting looks over health.

In July 2009 I organized a Meetup group in the San Francisco Bay Area (meetup.com/ediblegardens/) with this Mission: To motivate and assist homeowners who are interested in replacing ornamental landscaping with edible landscaping, promoting organic gardening, re-establishing native plants, and using the land we live on to nourish us. The group has since grown to include local nonprofit organizations, businesses, and over 130 members.

My husband and I purchased our first home in Fall 2009, and immediately removed the lawn. We then installed a sign which reads “This Is a ‘Greening up with the Joneses’ Garden in Progress: You Can Do This Too!” ;>)

I was incredibly honored when I was invited to help introduce organic skincare to the U.S. as a Founding Leader with a company I so admire. I have never felt more integrated — with my work life, my home life, my activism, and my community.

**WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT LAWNS:

1. Lawns are a highly inefficient use of space, water, and money; we could be using that same water and land to grow healthy organic food to fill the bellies of human beings, instead of maintaining a “decoration” for the outside of buildings.

2. Lawns are seriously contributing to the rapid degradation of our natural environment. Lawns use more equipment, labor, fuel, and agricultural toxins than industrial farming.

3. Growing your own food guarantees its organic origins. You know it’s perfectly fresh and healthy for your family – free of pesticides or other additives. When you grow your own food you discover what produce is supposed to taste like!

4. And… you can share the bounty with others.

If you had a choice between dating a super popular, flashy, charming guy who was suspected of murdering his previous girlfriend, but was out on bail because the jury could not establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or dating a “nice boy” from a good family who had a flawless criminal record and gave you everything you could possibly dream of in a relationship… Which guy would you choose? (Hard to decide? What if it was your daughter making the decision…?)

Do a search for “rosemary cancer” on the web, and you’ll come up with dozens of articles describing the benefits of using “cancer-fighting” rosemary.

one example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1021464/Adding-rosemary-steak-help-prevent-cancer.html

Do a search for “parabens cancer” on the web, and you’ll come up with dozens of articles outlining the potential dangers of using “estrogen-mimicking” parabens.

one example: http://articlehubseurope.com/cancer-hub/why-should-you-choose-a-paraben-free-anti-aging-moisturizer/

Considering that 60% of what you put on your skin is absorbed into your bloodstream, what would YOU feel more comfortable putting on your body?

“Most beauty companies use ingredients until they are proven unsafe. We take the directly opposite approach and follow the ‘Precautionary Principle’ – if an ingredient has not been proven to be safe, we presume it is unsafe and don’t use it.” –Neal’s Yard Remedies, Owner Peter Kindersley

As tawdry as it can all seem sometimes, the Bernard Madoff stuff and political gridlock, as I set the table this morning and tie my red white and blue ribbons on the candelabra, sprinkle out my same-colored confetti, the flag hangs, I unfurl the beat-up souvenir copy of the Declaration of Independence and see the beautiful signature of John Hancock and Jefferson and I still get goosebumps. Invariably when I read excerpts to my kids, I well up, and I am not a sentimental person.

But as I skimmed the language this morning, I was struck by the words “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It made me feel thankful for the election last year, and whatever anyone’s position, that there was such engagement and participation. When I get discouraged about the country and the world, a little taste of Independence Day makes me feel better.

Have a great 4th!

–Danna Breen, Portola Valley CA