Bittersweet literature...Know what you read.

In response to some criticisms of Erikson's work, I would like to say that I agree on the level that the research she provides is suspiciously insufficient to back her claims. We are bombarded with "iffy" words like, "almost all", "may", "might", "greater risks than" and so forth. I have a personal peeve against those types of words, but that did not cause my interest in her book to wane.

I think that in order to read this book and get the most out of it, one has to digest Erikson's bold statements with a pinch of salt. I don't believe quite everything she says, but she says so much that I still squeezed some valuable information out of it. For instance, when she describes and defines chemicals like the infamous propylene gycol and sodium lauryl sulfate, she is not wrong (I have a naturopathic doctor of a sister-in-law and medical books to support me). Whether those unpronouncable chemicals will give me cancer or not, I can't be sure. The sun can give me cancer too, but I won't shut it out from my life forever. My computer that I'm typing on right now could possibly give me cancer from the electronic radiation it gives (but I love my computer too much to ever part with it).

I still recommend this book based on the otherwise hard facts it presents, along with the recipes. I find it absolutely delightful and exciting to make my own facial cleansers =) Think of it as taking back one or two years of your life that stress stole. It doesn't hurt to try and be a bit healthier, I say.

Rating:


She is guessing, and does sloppy research

This book, written by environmental writer Kim Erickson has three major points. Commercial cosmetics have carcinogens and other unsafe chemicals. Even the "earth friendly" cosmetics cannot be trusted. There are many homemade cosmetics that are safer.

Drop-Dead Gorgeous has over 100 recipes for cosmetics. The recipes are, for the most part, safe. Those that are questionable include the appropriate warnings. (For example, horseradish can burn sensitive skin.) Most recipes have been published in other magazines and books and have been around for a while. The use of these recipes may not be practical, but they are unlikely to do any harm. The book includes a recipe for skin cleaning to treat acne. If you use commercial cleansers or the organic recipes, you keep the skin clean and acne will be less frequent.
For athlete's foot, there is a recipe that includes garlic oil. Lucky there is also a recipe for smelly feet. It includes baking soda. There are recipes for hair dies, shampoos, rinses, facial scrubs, nail soaks, and sunburn lotion. This is handy information to have in any household.

The author uses a few pages to condemn the use of animals in the testing of cosmetics. One test is the LD-50. Basically, how much of a product, force fed to a critter is enough to be fatal in 50% of the cases. Maybe she doesn't realize this is also done with the basic chemicals found in organics. For example, cinnamon oil is about 75% cinnamic aldehyde (depending upon the type of oil). LD50 (orally in rats) for cinnamic aldehyde is 2220mg/kg. This means I (if I was a 200 pound rat) could eat about a third of a pound of cinnamic aldehyde with about a 50% chance of survival.

On page 11 she makes a special point to discredit a company that makes my favorite brand of peanut butter. "One company resisting the trend toward more humane treatment of animals is Proctor & Gamble, the manufactures of Cover Girl, Max Factor and Vidal Sassoon brands." She cites evidence that, "In 1993 alone, Proctor & Gamble invested $2.4 billion on advertising while spending only $450,000 in scientific grants to develop actual alternatives
to animal testing." The advertising number includes potato chips and hundreds of other products besides beauty products. P&G only does animal testing when required by law. Specifically European requirements for cosmetics. In addition to spending money on grants for alternatives to animal testing, P&G is active in promoting these alternate tests.
(Disclaimer: I do not own stock in P&G nor am I expecting a lifetime supply of Jif(tm) to start showing up at my door. It is just an easy thing to investigate.)

The author has a bias against commercial products and the contents. When writing about a commercial products on page 23: "Glycerin is a solvent, humectant, and emollient. The FDA issued a notice in 1992 that glycerin has not been shown to be safe or effective." When writing about her recipe products on page 41: A sweet, syrupy byproduct of soap making, glycerin has been used for thousand of years a humectant, emollient, and lubricant in skin care preparations, It is available at most pharmacies. She doesn't mention if she means organic glycerin or not. Organic glycerin is made from animal fat. She conplains that cosmetics make products that may cause cancer in rats. Yet one of her receipes uses tobacco leaves.

While no one can be an expert in everything, the author is careless with facts. On page 165 is says, "Deodorants simply inhibit the growth of bacteria that cause odor, while antiperspirants stops perspiration by blocking the pores." Later on the same page, "Antiperspirants, on the other hand, curb wetness by temporarily shrinking the size of the sweat glands." Antiperspirants do neither to stop sweat. Antiperspirants change the electric charge on the skin. Sweat has a positive charge. It is attracted to the skin by the negative charge. The antiperspirant reduces the negative charge, by changing most of it to a positive charge.
Like charges do not attract, they repel.

I do agree with the author, that we should make an effort to have fewer cancer causing elements in our lives. She does suggest that using cosmetics with unproven and dangerous chemicals might be causing cancer (and mutant fish in Lake Erie --page 9). Statistic doesn't help her cause. Women get cancer less often than men in America in every category shared by the two genders except for breast cancer. (Breast cancer is usually fatal for men. In America one man a day dies of breast cancer.) If cosmetics were a factor for cancer, you would expect women to have a at least a greater rate of skin cancer. The author writes in a charged fashion about the possible dangers of cosmetics. But her recipes for homemade cosmetics are safe.

Rating:


Great Eye-Opener

Anyone that uses any beauty products must read this book!

Rating: