Siloxanes in Makeup are Toxic

[Iffath]

Hello,

I have been feeling a bit depressed lately. Ignorance truly is bliss,
for the reasons below:

A lot of makeup products have siloxanes in them, i.e. Silocone-based hydrocarbons. This creates the ultra smooth, all-day wear and is in MAC Studiotech, makeup bases, and a lot of other things.

But the problem is, siloxanes and other silicon-based chemicals are toxic in the long run.

Now the government is trying to limit the exposure to siloxanes so we do not ruin the environment, and get weird toxic symptoms in the long run.

Siloxanes enter the environment when exposed in sewage drainoffs.

Environment Canada - Media Room - News Releases

I feel so guilty putting on UDPP and Studiotech now. I use it everyday. I have no idea what side-effects this may have in the long run. I really do not want to be susceptible to diseases and cancers from this stuff.

Any ideas?

[bebeflamand]

For some reason this never really scares me enough to stop using a product. The air we breathe is bad, the food we eat is poisoned, etc. I'm not going to wear any less make up because of this lol.

[TISH1124]

This will not affect my purchases or usage in any manner...The percent of this ingredient in the products is not enough to cause harm. Constant inhaling or ingesting of this ingredient in large amounts.. yes...But I do not inhale or ingest my makeup.
Everything you read about these days causes cancer, etc......including the air you breath...The only way to escape anything is to live in a glass bubble which I choose not to do.

I think proper skin care is the key to all...just cleans your face after wearing makeup and you should be fine if you have concerns as the effect on your skin.

the article even reads:

The final assessments conclude that siloxanes are not a concern forhuman health, based on the amount of these substances that an individual would be exposed to through the use of various products, including personal care products.

[HerGreyness]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bebeflamand

For some reason this never really scares me enough to stop using a product. The air we breathe is bad, the food we eat is poisoned, etc. I'm not going to wear any less make up because of this lol.

I agree. Nobody gets out of hear alive. And there are enough toxins on this planet which will kill us -- makeup is a minimum. Silicon based products might ruin your skin though causing pimples and comedones... as far as damaging the eco system.. I highly doubt we could do much worse than where we are now.

[HerGreyness]

oops.. here!

[lara]

You appear to have missed a relevant paragraph in the article:

Quote:

The final assessments conclude that siloxanes are not a concern for human health, based on the amount of these substances that an individual would be exposed to through the use of various products, including personal care products.

Reading thoroughly before scaremongering is generally the best advice.

[Iffath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lara

You appear to have missed a relevant paragraph in the article:



Reading thoroughly before scaremongering is generally the best advice.

Yes, Lara, I read through that in the news release, but you have also missed a very important point.

The article also states that:
Three types of siloxanes (D4, D5 and D6) were assessed as part of Batch 2

I.e.ONLY THREE siloxanes were assessed, not all the types of siloxanes were assessed in the study!

Furthermore, right after the paragraph you quote, Environment Canada also states:

However, siloxanes D4 and D5 are widely used in products across Canada, and therefore are entering the environment in relatively large quantities, stay in the environment a long time (persistent), and may harm fish and aquatic organisms. To limit the amount of D4 and D5 that is released to the environment, the Government of Canada is proposing to set a concentration limit for D4 and D5 in products.

I.e. certain siloxanes do harm organisms in their environment. Fish and aquatic organisms are the most sensitive to chemical pollutants and this is why the government is concerned.

They do not mention the fact that Siloxanes can be absorbed by the human skin, which is also a primary route of entry into the body.

Tish1127, heads up, you do not need to lick or smell your makeup to get a good old dose of siloxane, you will still be absorbing it into your body!

Remember, toxicity is a term that is dose-dependent, measured in units such as mg/kg.

I am in no way fear-mongering... because then I consulted my professor who has a PhD in the Environmental Health field, and has been teaching Environmental Health for twenty years, and he confirmed that siloxanes are toxic because they have silicon in them, and gave us a special lecture just on Siloxanes. Sorry for not sharing this part, this was what concerned me the most!!!

He also said that the company that created siloxanes also sold the business...
I guess obviously so they would no longer be responsible for liabilities.


And Lara, thanks for your accusation, I guess now you can accuse me of "scaremongoring", because indeed I am fearful and concerned for my health, concerned for the health of my fellow makeup-specktranettes, and concerned the health of my family.

Although "scaremongoring" was not my intention to begin with, educating my fellow peers and fellow specktranettes was, and I feel that to a certain extent I am accomplishing that.

I am going to link us to the lecture and some other articles, God-willing. Stay tuned!

[Iffath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HerGreyness

I agree. Nobody gets out of hear alive. And there are enough toxins on this planet which will kill us -- makeup is a minimum. Silicon based products might ruin your skin though causing pimples and comedones... as far as damaging the eco system.. I highly doubt we could do much worse than where we are now.

Yes, thank you...I also figured I will eventually die one day, so I guess I should not really worry too much.

But students of public health are concerned with health and the quality of life, and I want us all to have a good quality of life which can be disease-free and healthy for as long as possible. It is a euphoria and a dream, but that is why we still have scientists and researchers who try to find a cure for cancer, right?

[malaviKat]

I have to say...this sort of thing bothers me on and off (more on than off a lot of the time.) I think it's good of you to bring info like this to people's attention and, more importantly, for consumers to think about what's going on/into their bodies (as well as into the environment in which they live).

As an enviro studies grad student myself, I often have mixed feelings about my love affair with makeup... But when you start thinking about all of the compounds in everything from shampoo to mouthwash to toothpaste you realize that it takes a LOT of dedication on behalf of consumers to ensure that day to day living doesn't take its toll on the planet. It's good to see Enviro Canada being somewhat proactive in this situation but governments routinely let things slide (enough so that consumers are ignorant to the actual havoc being wreaked by their consumptive practices).

As an aside...since you're living in Canada (for the time being) you should check out Adria Vasil's book, Ecoholic (if you haven't already).

[Iffath]

Here is an article abstract about siloxane toxicity in rats, particularly D3, 4, 5, and 6. Will post more soon, God-willing. NB, it is interesting to note that "Cyclopentasiloxane" is indeed in StudioTech!


Cyclosiloxanes produce fatal liver and lung damage in mice.

Lieberman MW, Lykissa ED, Barrios R, Ou CN, Kala G, Kala SV.
Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030 USA.
To examine the toxicity of cyclosiloxanes (CSs), the predominant low molecular weight cyclic silicones found in breast implants, we injected female CD-1 mice intraperitoneally with different doses of distillate (3.5-35 g/kg body weight) containing cyclosiloxane D3 (hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane; CS-D3), cyclosiloxane D4 (octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane; CS-D4), cyclosiloxane D5 (decamethylcyclopentasiloxane; CS-D5), and cyclosiloxane D6 (dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane; CS-D6). The distillate was found to be lethal and all the mice injected with 35 g/kg died within 5-8 days. The median lethal dose (LD50) for distillate was estimated to be approximately 28 g/kg. These mice developed inflammatory lesions of the lung and liver as well as liver cell necrosis with elevated serum levels of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and lactic acid dehydrogenase. Administration of CS-D4 alone also produced lethality in these mice with an LD50 of 6-7 g/kg. CS-D4-treated mice also exhibited pulmonary and hepatic lesions and elevated serum enzymes. Analysis of LD50 data indicates that CS-D4 is about as toxic as carbon tetrachloride or trichloroethylene. We measured hydroxyl radical formation in CS-D4-treated mice and found increases of approximately 20-fold in liver and approximately 7-fold in lung on day 4 following injection. Our findings are significant because in vitro experiments have demonstrated that CSs can migrate out of breast implants, and in mouse experiments CSs have been shown to be widely distributed in many organs after a single subcutaneous injection and to persist for at least a year.

[MACPixie]

Silicone derived chemicals are found in everything, from Dry-wall to makeup. The amount in makeup is very minimal and mild. The study you've posted shows the effects in mice, which as vertebrate animals are relevant to human studies, but they are just a model. They are not human, and they are very very small in comparison and have much less tolerant immune systems and immunological defenses. I see the study was adjusted for body mass, but this is only a preliminary study, and cannot be used to make conclusions on what happens in the human body.

I understand your concern, I am a Biological Sciences student in my 3rd year at University and am in the process of apply for Veterinary Medicine, so don't get me wrong, it is right to be concerned, but the makeup industry's usage of Silicone is not nearly as big of a concern as people are making it.

This is an article xsparkage from youtube linked on her blog after the whole Coastal Scents debate, it is an interesting read.
Silica in cosmetics.

I do agree that we need to be concerned with what products we use etc, but using anything above moderation is harmful. Regular everyday pepper is a known carcinogen, but that doesn't warrant a ton of concern and I don't think this should either.

[mollyloretta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MACPixie

Silicone derived chemicals are found in everything, from Dry-wall to makeup. The amount in makeup is very minimal and mild. The study you've posted shows the effects in mice, which as vertebrate animals are relevant to human studies, but they are just a model. They are not human, and they are very very small in comparison and have much less tolerant immune systems and immunological defenses. I see the study was adjusted for body mass, but this is only a preliminary study, and cannot be used to make conclusions on what happens in the human body.

I understand your concern, I am a Biological Sciences student in my 3rd year at University and am in the process of apply for Veterinary Medicine, so don't get me wrong, it is right to be concerned, but the makeup industry's usage of Silicone is not nearly as big of a concern as people are making it.

This is an article xsparkage from youtube linked on her blog after the whole Coastal Scents debate, it is an interesting read.
Silica in cosmetics.

I do agree that we need to be concerned with what products we use etc, but using anything above moderation is harmful. Regular everyday pepper is a known carcinogen, but that doesn't warrant a ton of concern and I don't think this should either.

I find it interesting the types of research people do, yet they fail to recognize what type of silixane is being modeled to these animals.

Is it industrial-grade, or is it cosmetic-grade? Is it pure, or has it been processed? If it has been processed, in what way has it been processed? What are the size of the molecules and in what manner are they applied? How frequently?

There's a lot of information that must be looked at.

The only type proven to have an effect on animals, or humans, is industrial-grade, which is processed in a completely different manner than cosmetic-grade.

Everyone says the FDA is so horrible about what they approve, "Oh, this causes cancer, etc. etc. etc." If in fact an ingredient were proven to be cancerous, there would be a warning (IE: cigarettes), if the ingredients have not been tested, there would be a warning stating that this product has not been tested for safety. It's a requirement from the FDA (as you can view on their website at U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page).

What about mineral oil being considered acnegenic, when it's actually recognized as one of the safest, most gentle moisturizers out there? Again, cosmetic-grade mineral oil is different from industrial-grade (which you wouldn't want anywhere near your face).

Many cosmetic scares are actually created BY cosmetic companies in order to get you to purchase their products over other companies products; unfortunately it's completely legal unless they are berating a specific companies name, and they can realistically say whatever they want to about their own product (there are no regulations on putting no animal testing, non-comedogenic, hypoallergic, etc on your cosmetics). And realistically, anything can be an allergen.

Silica is also the main constituent of sand. I really want to know how so many people, and animals, can live by such without dying if it were really the case. (Cosmetic-grade silica is derived from sand.)

Silica is in almost every oil-absorbing powder, foundation, really anything with a natural finish, and let's not forget everyone's favorite things: foundation primer and eyeshadow primer. Good luck finding one without a silicone in it, which is obviously a derivative of silica.

Anyway. That's my two cents, it's not much, but I figured I'd throw it in there.

Thanks MACPixie for the pingback :-)

[Iffath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MACPixie

Silicone derived chemicals are found in everything, from Dry-wall to makeup. The amount in makeup is very minimal and mild. The study you've posted shows the effects in mice, which as vertebrate animals are relevant to human studies, but they are just a model. They are not human, and they are very very small in comparison and have much less tolerant immune systems and immunological defenses. I see the study was adjusted for body mass, but this is only a preliminary study, and cannot be used to make conclusions on what happens in the human body.

I understand your concern, I am a Biological Sciences student in my 3rd year at University and am in the process of apply for Veterinary Medicine, so don't get me wrong, it is right to be concerned, but the makeup industry's usage of Silicone is not nearly as big of a concern as people are making it.

This is an article xsparkage from youtube linked on her blog after the whole Coastal Scents debate, it is an interesting read.
Silica in cosmetics.

I do agree that we need to be concerned with what products we use etc, but using anything above moderation is harmful. Regular everyday pepper is a known carcinogen, but that doesn't warrant a ton of concern and I don't think this should either.

Thank you for your input, MACPixie. You are indeed correct, silicon is in a lot of things, and is basically inert in sand, but silicon-derived materials are a concern for many reasons. For example, silica dust is a known carcinogen, and OSHA and NIOSH have published TLVs (threshold limit values) for silica dust because it is a known carcinogen and has adverse health effects. Furthermore, silicon derived chemicals used in breast-implants have been a long concern in the cosmetics industry because it does cause toxicity in murine models (as we see from the study posted).


You are concerned with the fact that murine models are used in this study, and state that "but this is only a preliminary study, and cannot be used to make conclusions on what happens in the human body." I respond with the following:

Murine models are used in most medical studies because the human genome and murine genomes have a lot of similarities (not just being vertabrates). In fact, the human genome also has a genetic code for a tail (but offcourse we humans do not have tails like mice--although some people would argue we do have a coccyx tail-bone). One of my professors from a molecular biology course also stated in a lecture on murine models "Could Humans really be mice in disguise?". *LOL*, offcourse, we are not, but she said this because murine models are one of the best animal models and that is why they are used in such studies.

You may be aware of various murine models used in studies, being a veterinary pre-medicine student. For example, C-57 Black-6 Strains of mice, which are basically "manufactured" and sold so that we can use them in laboratory studies.

It is also historically "more" acceptable to the general public that laboratory researchers are using less popular animal-species such as mice and rats, because these rodents have historically known to carry pathogens which caused Bubonic plague for example, and they are considered pests. Except offcourse, in some parts of India, where they are also considered a delicacy.

Another reason why murine models are used in studies is because of ethical issues--obviously we cannot use human subjects. It would be unethical to inject humans with known or unknown chemicals. Teratology studies showed that murine models are good indicators of developmental abnormalities for various dosages of known taratogens, including Vitamin A, and even retinol-derived Accutane. It would be unethical to test pregnant human subjects to see what developmental effects occur in the human fetus. As a result, murine models are used.


Furthermore, you state that mice "have much less tolerant immune systems and immunological defenses", and cannot make conclusions from this study, but I find this argument questionable, for the reasons below:

First, there is a BIG difference between toxicity and immunology, although they may be related. A chemical becomes "toxic" because the body cannot metabolize it, cannot excrete it (renal or intestinal), it persists in the body, or all or one of the above. It is a term that is dose-dependant. For example, even ample amounts of water can cause toxicity! The amount (dose) is inherent to the term toxicity.

Immunology has to do with immunoglobulins (IgG, etc.), cellular interactions (e.g. macrophages engulfing absetsos fibers in an attempt to isolate them, but cannot break them down during phagocytosis, or lysozyme), protein-protein interactions, etc. Thus, your argument stating that this study is baseless because a murine and human immune system is so different is questionable, because the study I have posted takes into account toxicity.

Furthermore, even hypothetically, if we consider toxicity and immunity to be inter-related, should we stop labelling asbestos as a known carcinogen just because we have various immunological responses to it? Even humans have varying degrees of immunity and depending on age of the subject, varying degrees of immunological defenses, but does that mean we should we stop conducting studies on chemical toxicity and toxicological effects or using recommendations based on such research? For example, infants, young children and the elderly are more susceptible to diseases, as well as immune-comprimised individuals such as cancer patients receiving radiation or chemo therapy.

When NIOSH/OSHA publish TLVs, they are for healthy human subjects with no medical complications. It could be likely that humans with emphysema or lung fibrosis, who are even more susceptible to adverse health effects, should totally avoid a listed chemical and totally avoid exposure (i.e. TLVs do not apply)!

Also, you state "but using anything above moderation is harmful". Well, yes, off course!! That is exactly why I started this thread--toxicity is such a term, anything that is above moderation could have a potential toxic effect, and most siloxanes are considered to be toxic (remember dose-dependent)!

Finally, I am just so excited that with all the various responses. I had no idea there are so many technical and scientific information-driven-specktranettes!! I am so proud of us!!! Yay for Specktra!!!

[Iffath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mollyloretta

I find it interesting the types of research people do, yet they fail to recognize what type of silixane is being modeled to these animals.

Is it industrial-grade, or is it cosmetic-grade? Is it pure, or has it been processed? If it has been processed, in what way has it been processed? What are the size of the molecules and in what manner are they applied? How frequently?

There's a lot of information that must be looked at.

The only type proven to have an effect on animals, or humans, is industrial-grade, which is processed in a completely different manner than cosmetic-grade.

Everyone says the FDA is so horrible about what they approve, "Oh, this causes cancer, etc. etc. etc." If in fact an ingredient were proven to be cancerous, there would be a warning (IE: cigarettes), if the ingredients have not been tested, there would be a warning stating that this product has not been tested for safety. It's a requirement from the FDA (as you can view on their website at U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page).

What about mineral oil being considered acnegenic, when it's actually recognized as one of the safest, most gentle moisturizers out there? Again, cosmetic-grade mineral oil is different from industrial-grade (which you wouldn't want anywhere near your face).

Many cosmetic scares are actually created BY cosmetic companies in order to get you to purchase their products over other companies products; unfortunately it's completely legal unless they are berating a specific companies name, and they can realistically say whatever they want to about their own product (there are no regulations on putting no animal testing, non-comedogenic, hypoallergic, etc on your cosmetics). And realistically, anything can be an allergen.

Silica is also the main constituent of sand. I really want to know how so many people, and animals, can live by such without dying if it were really the case. (Cosmetic-grade silica is derived from sand.)

Silica is in almost every oil-absorbing powder, foundation, really anything with a natural finish, and let's not forget everyone's favorite things: foundation primer and eyeshadow primer. Good luck finding one without a silicone in it, which is obviously a derivative of silica.

Anyway. That's my two cents, it's not much, but I figured I'd throw it in there.

Thanks MACPixie for the pingback :-)

Thank you, Mollyloretta, for your input, and it is worth a lot. I absolutely agree with you in terms of cosmetic-grade versus industrial-grade. Even diamonds are generated and used industrially, but they are not worth as much as at the local jewelry counter *smiles*

Response to "yet they fail to recognize what type of silixane is being modeled to these animals...There's a lot of information that must be looked at."

Absolutely, this information is crucial, but we cannot always blame the scientists, because the articles are almost always longer than when they are published, and go through a lot of revisions, and some journals have word-limits on these papers, and some do not want technical details to be published, and some do not want to publish the entire scientific methods section (which would otherwise be found in a grant application or research proposal). This is why I sometimes criticize the journals Science and Nature, because their methods sections are shorter than I would like. But we could contact the scientists and ask them where they obtained their source for the chemicals used in their experiment, I am sure they would be more than happy to respond to our queries.

Response to "Silica is also the main constituent of sand. I really want to know how so many people, and animals, can live by such without dying if it were really the case. (Cosmetic-grade silica is derived from sand.)
Silica is in almost every oil-absorbing powder, foundation, really anything with a natural finish, and let's not forget everyone's favorite things: foundation primer and eyeshadow primer. Good luck finding one without a silicone in it, which is obviously a derivative of silica. The only type proven to have an effect on animals, or humans, is industrial-grade, which is processed in a completely different manner than cosmetic-grade"

First, you're absolutely right, silica is almost everywhere. There are various types of silica out there, and they have published TLVs such as Cristobalite, Quartz, Tridymite, and Tripoli.
Secondly, there are many articles that I was browsing through which showed the effect of silicon used in cosmetic breast implants which caused toxicity and is a potential carcinogen (remember, breast-implants--this is cosmetic grade).

Secondly, I am not slamming the FDA, but I would like to state that product ingredient disclosures were meant to inform consumers, not necessarily warn them about the safety of the ingredients. For example, in Canada, No-name artificial sweetener has sodium cyclamate in it, which is a known carcinogen, but on the box it does not state that "cyclamate" is a well known carcinogen. Rather, it just states that it "Contains cyclamate". I beleive Cyclamate has been banned in most parts of the USA in sweeteners.

Thirdly, silicon in cosmetics is also finely ground and processed, and it is a concern--as talcs and powder dusts are inhaled and even my professor who gave us a lecture in laboratory medicine and pathobiology stated that "we should avoid excessively using even baby-powder in children" because inhalable talcs, powders, and dusts do have adverse health effects and accumulate in the bronchioles in the lungs. And, again, this thread is started, not to show that we humans are dying from siloxanes, or even silicon, but that some siloxanes are toxic (dose-dependent) and harmful if in excess, and may even be harming animals in their environment. I feel bad for the poor aquatic animals...

[mollyloretta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iffath

Thank you, Mollyloretta, for your input, and it is worth a lot. I absolutely agree with you in terms of cosmetic-grade versus industrial-grade. Even diamonds are generated and used industrially, but they are not worth as much as at the local jewelry counter *smiles*

Response to "yet they fail to recognize what type of silixane is being modeled to these animals...There's a lot of information that must be looked at."

Absolutely, this information is crucial, but we cannot always blame the scientists, because the articles are almost always longer than when they are published, and go through a lot of revisions, and some journals have word-limits on these papers, and some do not want technical details to be published, and some do not want to publish the entire scientific methods section (which would otherwise be found in a grant application or research proposal). This is why I sometimes criticize the journals Science and Nature, because their methods sections are shorter than I would like. But we could contact the scientists and ask them where they obtained their source for the chemicals used in their experiment, I am sure they would be more than happy to respond to our queries.

Response to "Silica is also the main constituent of sand. I really want to know how so many people, and animals, can live by such without dying if it were really the case. (Cosmetic-grade silica is derived from sand.)
Silica is in almost every oil-absorbing powder, foundation, really anything with a natural finish, and let's not forget everyone's favorite things: foundation primer and eyeshadow primer. Good luck finding one without a silicone in it, which is obviously a derivative of silica. The only type proven to have an effect on animals, or humans, is industrial-grade, which is processed in a completely different manner than cosmetic-grade"

First, you're absolutely right, silica is almost everywhere. There are various types of silica out there, and they have published TLVs such as Cristobalite, Quartz, Tridymite, and Tripoli.
Secondly, there are many articles that I was browsing through which showed the effect of silicon used in cosmetic breast implants which caused toxicity and is a potential carcinogen (remember, breast-implants--this is cosmetic grade).

Secondly, I am not slamming the FDA, but I would like to state that product ingredient disclosures were meant to inform consumers, not necessarily warn them about the safety of the ingredients. For example, in Canada, No-name artificial sweetener has sodium cyclamate in it, which is a known carcinogen, but on the box it does not state that "cyclamate" is a well known carcinogen. Rather, it just states that it "Contains cyclamate". I beleive Cyclamate has been banned in most parts of the USA in sweeteners.

Thirdly, silicon in cosmetics is also finely ground and processed, and it is a concern--as talcs and powder dusts are inhaled and even my professor who gave us a lecture in laboratory medicine and pathobiology stated that "we should avoid excessively using even baby-powder in children" because inhalable talcs, powders, and dusts do have adverse health effects and accumulate in the bronchioles in the lungs. And, again, this thread is started, not to show that we humans are dying from siloxanes, or even silicon, but that some siloxanes are toxic (dose-dependent) and harmful if in excess, and may even be harming animals in their environment. I feel bad for the poor aquatic animals...

Inhalation is only an issue if using crystalline silica (where the crystal-like formations can imbed itself into your airways and lungs), microspheres (obviously, spherical) are harmless and are in an amorphous form. They're literally not even the same chemical make up. Due to the fact of the two different kinds, I find that most people are seeing that crystalline silica is the issue, but the microspheres are different, and safe for use.

Canadian FDA and American FDA are two separate entities -- just like in every country. Our government has different rules than other countries, just like in the instance that in England, cropping and docking an animals ears is considered inhumane, but is still at practice here (it's illegal over there, you won't see a rottweiler with a short tail, or a doberman with stand-up ears).

Anyway, upon my hours of research, I haven't found any proof of carcinogenic issues with silica microspheres. Even contacting college chemist professors, they've said the research I've conducted is spot-on, and an on-going issue with many claims that people have against the cosmetic industry.

Such as aluminum in anti-perspirant causing cancer. Anti-perspirant deodorant is considered an OTC drug, not a cosmetic, and the active ingredients (like aluminum) must go through mounds of testing prior to being released, the molecules must even be of a certain size, and are unable to be absorbed. If they were absorbed, it would defeat the purpose of what it aims to do anyway -- BLOCK sweat from breaking to the surface and causing odor.

Oddly, I recently did the research by contacting the FDA among other sources (which are sited on my blog, as always) regarding talc in cosmetics. Feel free to read it here.

Also my blog on mineral oil, as well as my blog regarding titanium dioxide and aluminum compounds.

For the sake of it, I'll also throw in information on animal testing.

I find it interesting people are complaining regarding microspheres, which have no proof or research showing that they cause any issues, but people are okay with the use of bismuth oxychloride which has been known to cause severe skin issues. It made my face bleed

[mollyloretta]

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) does not authorize FDA to approve cosmetic ingredients, with the exception of color additives that are not coal-tar hair dyes. In general, cosmetic manufacturers may use any ingredient they choose, except for a few ingredients that are prohibited by regulation. However, it is against the law to market a cosmetic in interstate commerce if it is adulterated. Under the FD&C Act, a cosmetic is adulterated if, among other reasons, it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious under the labeled conditions of use, or under customary or usual conditions of use. For more on this subject, see FDA Authority Over Cosmetics and Key Legal Concepts: “Interstate Commerce,” “Adulterated,” and “Misbranded.”

If a product or ingredient has not been shown to be safe, it is legally supposed to have this warning on the label:

“Warning: The safety of this product has not been determined.”

Please also keep in mind, my research is for cosmetic-use of these ingredients. I didn't research the warning labels for food or other injested materials. Cosmetology, esthetics and cosmetic chemistry are my fields of expertise :-) I can bake cookies, but other than that I'm useless regarding the regulations of food and such edible materials.

[mollyloretta]

Another great article, stating uses of silica, names, etc etc etc.

Basic Silica is silicon dioxide or SiO2, it occurs in a crystalline state, an amorphous (shapeless) state and in impure forms such as quartz, opal and sand. It is the primary constituent of the Earth's crust. It is usually found in the form of silicates. Silicones are synthetic polymers and are made by combining oxygen and silicon in high temperatures and pressures. In cosmetics the crystalline form of silica is being avoided for health and safety reasons and only the amorphous forms and silicates are being used.

Click to read more!

"The FDA recognizes silicones (dimethicone) as ingredients that can be used to make OTC drug claims as a "skin protectant." So even the US Government recognizes the safety of silicones in cosmetics and personal care products."

[crshanburn]

%70 percent of what we put on our skin is absorbed by our skin. Shown through medical patches and such. And most of us use these products everyday and quite frequently... I rather not find out 50 years from now that I have cancer just cuz I wanted to look pretty.

[HerGreyness]

aww hell, I figure I have to croak sometime and if I die a few years before my due date because of Cosmetics.. well, then so be it I would like to leave a nice cadaver..lol

[LatteQueen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iffath

Hello,

I have been feeling a bit depressed lately. Ignorance truly is bliss,
for the reasons below:

A lot of makeup products have siloxanes in them, i.e. Silocone-based hydrocarbons. This creates the ultra smooth, all-day wear and is in MAC Studiotech, makeup bases, and a lot of other things.

But the problem is, siloxanes and other silicon-based chemicals are toxic in the long run.

Now the government is trying to limit the exposure to siloxanes so we do not ruin the environment, and get weird toxic symptoms in the long run.

Siloxanes enter the environment when exposed in sewage drainoffs.

Environment Canada - Media Room - News Releases

I feel so guilty putting on UDPP and Studiotech now. I use it everyday. I have no idea what side-effects this may have in the long run. I really do not want to be susceptible to diseases and cancers from this stuff.

Any ideas?

I don't understand this. Don't the FDA regulate what goes in these products before they hit the market? If this stuff is harmful wouldn't the FDA not allow it..Or is it just such a small amount it wouldn't matter..I'm going to google this ingredient and read up on it..thanks..