<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Great Eye-Opener
Review: Anyone that uses any beauty products must read this book!
Rating:
Summary: Great Eye-Opener
Review: Drop-Dead Gorgeous provides the beginning of a journey to protect your health from corporate-owned/manufactured beauty products that expose consumers to cancer-causing chemicals. At issue is the desire to enhance beauty with cosmetics versus toxic contamination to the individual as well as the environment. Well-researched by environmental journalist, Kim Erickson, the book presents the shocking information of the chemical poisoning of consumers by a large percentage of products sold by the beauty industry. In a succinct manner, Drop-Dead Gorgeous allows for the full impact of the facts without the drudgery of technical jargon. Happily, the majority of the book does not linger in the serious and potentially overwhelming condition of the cosmetics counter; Erickson quickly moves to solutions and arranges her selection of options harmoniously. As the Founder/Director of HerbNetwork.com, I have the opportunity to read and review a large volume of Natural Beauty Books. Drop-Dead Gorgeous offers simple recipes, having an average of three-five ingredients, creating user-friendly, natural products including shampoos, rinse, hair colors, skin creams and bath oils. Delightfully, Erickson continues with her logic since she does not stop with just recipes! She offers a shopping guide! Because frankly, how many women (or men) have time to create their own kitchen cosmetics? Each section of the book relates to a specific body area. Looking at hair care, for example, this chapter contains background information on problems such as dandruff or hazardous shampoo ingredients as well as solutions that include a listing of recipes for shampoos, conditioners, natural colors/dyes, dandruff treatments, rinses, styling gels and even hair spray! The smart shopping guide allows busy women (& men) to choose healthful products off the shelves of the beauty sections of their local stores. The listing includes beauty manufacturing companies as well as an index of applicable products. This feature allows the reader to put their new awareness into action immediately! Once you have read Drop-Dead Gorgeous, there is no going back to ignorant consumerism in the beauty department of your local store. If you are so inclined, Erickson provides information to become an activist regarding this industry. Sample protest letters as well as addresses of some dominate beauty industry companies simplify the process of confronting the immoral corporations with the issues facing 21st century beauty product consumers and how your intention to boycott their products impacts their bottom-line. If you prefer upbeat letter writing or you want to have a greater selection of beauty products, you will be pleased to find a listing of Environmentally-friendly non-corporate companies that produce a variety of natural products. I confidently recommend Kim Erickson's Drop-Dead Gorgeous for anyone who has ever washed his or her hair.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent and very educational
Review: I am a makeup queen and as an induvidual who has not only worked in the cosmetics industry as well as having a huge collection of cosmetics this book is priceless. I thought I was relatively educated...hardly. I found this book to be easy to read and understand. But more importantly it educated me and also gave me insight as to why I had reactions to certain products. I appreciate Kim's easy to do recipie's and also her guide to shopping for "safe" products. My only problem with the book is her recipies, some needed to be reworked as the proportions are wrong. As well I couldn't get some to mix. It did get somewhat frustrating but she did provide a comprehensive listing of existing products. It is scary to read some of things she has to say but I feel that education is the best way to alert people of the dangers in everyday products.
Rating:
Summary: overdue, and excellent
Review: There is a ton of useful and interesting information in this book (albeit alarming! how can i look at my make-up drawer the same way?) Not only is the reader given insights into just what the heck some of those funky chemical names on your foundation jar really are and what they can do to you, but there's a good mix of history, and most especially lots of practical "recipes" for homemade concoctions that do just as well or better as the high-priced and toxic gunk out there. I've tried two of the recipes already and really like them! Plus, my bio-tech-oriented husband says that the science/research behind this book appears quite sound. Though some of this material may sound familiar to better-read watchdogs of the world of cosmetics, this book stands out for its breadth and depth of material in one place. It's clear the author didn't want to just jump on a bashing bandwagon, but cares about what people do to their bodies. (And, understands the desire to look good!) Not a "light" read by any means, but buy it and learn a lot! Better yet, give some to your gal pals - they'll thank you for the wake-up call.
Rating: 
Summary: Important issues raised but, at times, a frustrating read
Review: This book raises important issues about cosmetic safety but is a frustrating read in that it fails to provide sufficiently detailed information on these issues. Take the sections on coal tar colours. On page 25 we read "almost all these colours have been shown to cause cancer". Strong stuff, but what exactly does it mean? Does it mean that these colours have been shown to cause cancer in humans through the normal use of cosmetics - or that these colours have been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals? We have to wait another 200 pages for the author to clarify - on p219 she states "studies have shown all coal tar colours to cause cancer in animals". However this doesn't clarify things completely. For a start we've moved from "almost all" colours causing cancer on p25 to "all" doing so on p219 and we are not told what was done to the lab animals. Were coal tar colours rubbed on their skin or were they injected with the colours? Perhaps the matter could be clarified by checking the author's references? Given the strength of the author's claims about coal tar colours, I would have expected her to back them up with a stack of references to the primary literature - but the only reference is to Ruth Winter's book, "A Consumer's Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients". How reliable is this book? Is it based on a thorough study of the primary literature? Any reader interested in following up the primary literature is left in the unsatisfactory position of having to hunt down Winter's book to see if this contains the relevant references. In the next paragraph on p25 we are told that the World Health Organization (WHO) considers coal tar colours to be "probable carcinogens". Why, if earlier up the page we are told that "almost all these colours have been shown to cause cancer", does the WHO consider them only to be "probable" causes of cancer? Does the author mean that on the basis of animal studies, the WHO considers coal tar dyes to be probable causes of cancer in humans? If so, is it just the coal tar dyes ingested in food that are probable causes of cancer? Or is it also coal tar dyes used in cosmetics? If so, what is the evidence cited by the WHO that coal tar dyes can be absorbed through the skin? It would be very helpful if the author had clarified this issue and had referenced the relevant WHO documents. Instead the only reference is again to Winter's book. On p16, the author does address the question of chemical absorption through the skin, but only in general terms. She quotes Ruth Winter (!) who says "it is now generally accepted that all chemicals penetrate the skin to some extent and many do in significant amounts". However, no specific evidence is presented about the coal tar dyes. But such information is easily available in the public domain. Frustrated with the limited information in this book I had a look at the FDA website and found an article on hair dyes which states "Several coal-tar hair dye ingredients have been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals. In the case of 4-methoxy-m-phenylenediamine (4-MMPD, 2,4-diaminoanisole) which had also been demonstrated in human and animal studies to penetrate the skin, the agency considered the risk associated with its use in hair dyes a "material fact" which should be made known to consumers." However, in another FDA article it is pointed out that whilst 4-MMPD has caused cancer when fed to laboratory animals in large doses, it has not caused cancer when rubbed onto their skin. It states "In other studies, when investigators painted 4MMPD on the skin of rodents, there was no evidence that the compounds caused cancer in the animals. But critics claim that not enough of the chemical penetrates the skin from the small areas on which it's applied to accurately assess the compound's ability to prompt cancers in a limited number of animals." It is shame that the author did not include such easily available information as it would have helped clarify the issue. On p25 the author describes how in 1960 the FDA put coal tar colours on a provisional list allowing their continued use pending the FDA's conclusions on their safety. The author claims (again referencing Winter) that "only a handful of colours have been tested for safety, and the bulk of colours remain on the list 30 years later". (Given the book was published in 2002, shouldn't this be 40 years later!) This claim led me, again, to the FDA's website where I read "From the original 1960 catalog of about 200 provisionally listed colours, which included straight colors and lakes, only lakes of some colours remain on the provisional list. Industry withdrew or the FDA banned many, whilst the rest became permanently listed and are still used". Now I've no idea where the truth lies but I would have thought it is incumbent on the author to explain the seeming anomaly between her claim and the position of the FDA, especially when the FDA's position so easy to establish. One more example of the frustration this book causes. On p19 the author states that "plastic bottles...may contain dioxins that can leach into the shampoos, body washes and skin creams we use every day". Given that the author describes dioxins as "the most potent carcinogen ever studied" this claim about plastic bottles is a very serious one. However no references whatsoever are given in support. Does her claim apply to all plastics? Should we avoid any cosmetics in plastic containers? We are not told. Don't get me wrong, I'm as worried as the author about the (potentially) harmful effects of cosmetic chemicals. It's just that her case would have been strengthened if she had made her arguments clearer, provided more information and demonstrated a familiarity with the primary literature.
Rating: 
Summary: She is guessing, and does sloppy research
Review: 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:
Summary: She is guessing, and does sloppy research
Review: 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.
<< 1 >>
| 
