| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:05 pm  |
Warning to FDA, dated Nov. 10, 2006
So the sunscreen I use, Solbar, is on this list.
Apparently the EU banned the use of micronized zinc oxide in cosmetics in 2003 "citing a lack of data on skin absorption and inhalation, studies showing the ingredient to be potentially toxic in the presence of light".
There are TONS of items on this list.
SHOULD I BE WORRIED?
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/06n0107/06N-0107-EC29-Attach-1.pdf
I'm sorry it is in pdf form...it's from the FDA website. I originally went to the FDA site to see if I could find anything on the JM eyelash stuff...(JM is on this list too, but not for the eyelash serum).
Tell me I'm being paranoid...I just want to find a bloody sunscreen that won't make me shiny...and won't kill me apparently... |
_________________
32, Fair Skin, combo/break-out prone. Simple routine of REN No. 1 Purity Cleansing Balm and Argan oil as a moisturizer; Clarisonic when needed. That's it! |
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:50 pm |
I was seriously about to buy the Solbar Zinc sunscreen...
I'm beginning to think that treating acne, scars, and oily skin just might be less complicated than finding a safe and effective sunscreen  .
Wait, maybe not...I also just started using the Nano Silver Cyclic face wash...sigh
I would like to see the studies (or summaries of) that led EU to its decision. lol They are probably in that 154pg pdf but I need to go to bed. Thanks for the heads up! |
_________________
28 Fair skin, brown hair, blue eyes & acne prone combo skin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:51 am |
This does help...though it seems from these posts that micronized isn't as bad as nano-sized, but the study I found doesn't distinguish.
I found a pdf that Z-Cote is technically micronized, not nano-sized and that the type that Solbar uses is coated which means it is NOT photoreactive.
Apparently if you want transparent protection you can't avoid having micronized Tit. Dioxide or Zin Oxide.
I take comfort in the fact that my sunscreen is micro and not nano (in my book would make a different, particle size is important when it comes to skin absorption)...while the study I read does say micronized they lump micronized together with nano.
I also am glad my sunscreen is coated...meaning it is not phototoxic/reactive.
I'll be putting it on this morning.  |
_________________
32, Fair Skin, combo/break-out prone. Simple routine of REN No. 1 Purity Cleansing Balm and Argan oil as a moisturizer; Clarisonic when needed. That's it! |
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:54 am |
| ParisTroika wrote: |
I'll be putting it on this morning. |
 Good decision Paris!!  |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:05 am |
Isn't it maddening though...that they DON'T know the safety on some things?
I mean, they pull drugs off the market all the time because people die or have heart attacks. It's ridiculous. Why they don't think about people's safety is beyond me. Same way I view insurance companies...you're in the business of taking care of people. TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE DARN IT! |
_________________
32, Fair Skin, combo/break-out prone. Simple routine of REN No. 1 Purity Cleansing Balm and Argan oil as a moisturizer; Clarisonic when needed. That's it! |
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:51 am |
Don't you all think it's just a matter of degree? I could just be rationalizing, but I drive over 100 miles a day for work on a very terrible stretch of road. We all do things that have potential risk.
I would imagine we would have to use "tons" of product to suffer any ill effects.
I think we have so many more things to worry about and let's face it, we are on this forum because we get pleasure from skincare and cosmetics. I'm not saying we should be ignorant, I'm just saying we should keep things in perspective.
P.S. I noticed the $160.00 Serge Lutens Blusher was on the list, so now we don't have to be tempted anymore
|
_________________
oily/dehydrated/acne prone/few wrinkles/olive coloring/older than you! |
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:54 am |
I suppose that nothing is ever 100% certain and what it comes down to is looking at the available evidence and making a judgement or waiting until there is more evidence to make a judgment. Sometimes in light of future evidence that judgment will be seen to be wrong but we can only go on what we know now. That is science and that is a good thing!! Personally I wouldn't have it anyother way and don't find it maddening at all.
I really think that it is taking things to an extreme to say that they don't think about peoples safety ever. If anything companies are very concerned about safety for fear of lawsuits!! We wouldn't have an FDA if there was no concern over peoples safety!! I really think there is a difference between valid safety concerns and the scare tactic "safety concerns" of some groups. The former relies on science or the lack of it while the later relies on opinions that are not based on science or has not looked at the science and so they claim that there is no evidence for safety when there really is (but that would contradict their opinions so it can't be valid....).
From what I have seen drugs do not get pulled off the market all the time and when they do it is often being very cautious and not because they have been proven to be very dangerous. If you look at the recent mess over the Cox2 inhibitors the fact is that they took a cautious approach and pulled the drugs off the market. The actual science that proves there is a link between these drugs and heart attacks is not solid and more research needs to be done to see if there really is a possible connection. So in this case they chose to be cautious-some would even say overly cautious.
Or look at silicone breast implants. Those were pulled off the market in light of evidence showing possible connections between them and all sort of problems. There was even a big lawsuit over them where the manufacturers ended up paying out a hugh settlement. Yet years later what happens? The "evidence" connecting these implants to the health problems was found to be flawed and lacking. In fact the FDA just approved these for use again in the US. So essentially they were pulled from the market despite the lack of real evidence that they posed a health risk and who really suffered here. I can think of a few companies that were the real victims.
Yes I am a cautious person and if I don't know enough about a product to feel that it is safe I don't use it. I don't rely on the FDA or a company to do the research for me. I look into it and decide for myself. Can I even be sure that something is safe? No I can't. But I can be sure that I am making my decisions based on evidence and not scare tactics. That I DO have control over!! |
|
|
|
|
| Sun Nov 24, 2024 3:12 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
