lumière des étoiles

Parabens: The New Red #40
2006-01-05 11:04 a.m.

In Barnes & Noble the other day, I picked up some crapoo women's health magazine, that at first glance didn't look so crapoo. But when I got to the middle of the magazine, which featured an article detailing how to stick to a 950-1,000 calorie per day diet, I began to grow very suspicious. 1,000 calories is what anorexics usually aim for - which is why so many wind up having heart attacks and severe kidney failure. Even when trying to lose weight, it's important to maintain a certain standard balance, especially if one - as the magazine insists is necessary - exercises "nearly every day".

As I continued flipping through the pages, I came across a "how healthy are you" checklist, which insisted that "anything larger than a 30 inch waist" could "put women at risk for several types of cancers and heart disease." Oh really? Even if the women is 8% body fat, 5 foot 10, and named, say, Serena Williams? I don't in fact know much about Serena Williams, but I do know that this other stat is total garbage, and doesn't account for any type of body variation like size, stature, or height - or musculature, for that matter (like hers) - which is why it's so ridiculously wrong. What one person are they going with here? Someone who is under 5'5" and 21? Oh - the other doozy: "If you've gained more than ten pounds since high school, you're doubling your risk for..." [fill in scary sounding diseases here]. Again, I must say: oh really? So my mother, who graduated High School in 1957 and has had three children, is still only supposed to weigh between 125-135 pounds? Yowza! Or fine, what about me? My husband? We were both extremely thin in high school, but now that we've both become more athletic, our bodies have changed radically. I don't even remember what I weighed in high school, but I know that I hardly had any muscle tone or upper body strength. I have a feeling we probably weigh more now, and we're much healthier for it.

My point with all of this is how limited in scope the magazine - that sells itself as a "champion of women" - really is. Who is writing this crap? The Taliban? If not them, then some other haters-of-women. If you want to sell the diet pills, food, equipment, and serums you're hawking on every other page, then tell women that "boys don't like fat girls" when you're presenting the bit about the below-30-inch waist. Don't link it to CANCER and scare the crap out of everyone - that's down right cruel and irresponsible (not to mention patently absurd to - hopefully - most who will read it). At least if you make the "ideal" weight/size issue about aesthetics or getting a man to pay attention to you, you'll show your true, shallow colors and help women understand that your magazine belongs in the garbage rather than in a doctor's office.

Oh - and it's not like I'm protecting the name of the magazine, or something - I just can't remember it. I'll find it again and include the title here. I need to anyway - I'm writing to the editor. But while I'm complaining about magazines: I liked Alternative Medicine, until I realized its Christian slant. I wouldn't have a problem with this if it wasn't emphasized in odd places, feeling a bit like propaganda. Since I'd prefer my magazines secular, thankyouverymuch, I'm on the hunt for a new magazine about women's fitness (that doesn't exploit low self-esteem to sell products), holistic medicine (that doesn't get too flaky and spiritual), and nutrition that is reliable, accurate, and substantial in its appeal to intelligence rather than fear or superficiality (I soooo don't care to know someone else's take on "what men really mean" when they talk to women). Any suggestions? I'm still looking - if I find a good one, I'll definitely do a follow up report.

Pouring through said magazines in the past few months has turned me onto a very disturbing piece of information regarding the contents of most cosmetics and skin/hair care products for women. I saw a blurb about something called parabens - a preservative in nearly every kind of cosmetic, from blush and eye shadow to hair gel and general moisturizer. The little blurb warned of parabens' toxic potential, and explained they had been linked to breast cancer - in some cases appearing -intact- in trace amounts in actual lumpectomies. This scared me, so I went home and checked the contents of everything in my bathroom, and found that all of my products (at least the ones with ingredients listed that I could check), except for my shampoo, mascara, perfume, eyeliner, and toner contained parapens - most specifically Methylparaben and Propylparaben. I freaked and decided to do some more research, and found out why these chemicals have been linked to cancer.

Parabens, and another class of synthetic chemicals called phthalates (sounds like thay-lates), also found in almost everything, MASK ESTROGEN when absorbed into the body. This interferes on so many levels, as too much estrogen can be harmful to the endocrine system, reproductive system, immune system, and can dramatically increase a woman's risk for breast and uterine cancer. This synthetic estrogen thing can also cause birth defects, mutation, and reproductive failure in men (not to mention cancer in men).

When I say these chemicals are in almost everything, I mean it: according to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, whose website I highly recommend visiting, 94% of top selling products have several toxic or carcinogenic chemicals in them - yet none carry warning labels or are required by the government to regulate and test the long term effects of these chemicals. Another tidbit from the CFSC: Only 9-11% of chemicals included in the average bottle of moisturizer (Jergens? Oil of Olay? Caress?) or conditioner (Fructis? Suave? Pantene?) must be tested and regulated according to government standards. Of the 100,000 chemicals registered for use in the US, fewer than 10 percent have been tested for their effects on health. That means that 89-91% of the stuff in the product could have fallen to earth from mars, for all we know - and could be totally radioactive or something. Ok, so that's an exaggeration, but is it really? NO ONE is regulating or checking up on the companies, outside of non-profits like the CFSC or senators like Frank Lautenberg, who introduced the Child, Worker, and Consumer Safe Chemicals act to try and establish some kind of standards of safety and disclosure. Additionally, companies are allowed to list a chemical (or chemicals) as "fragrance" because of a loophole that allows them to protect their formula. But we have no way of knowing what "fragrance" is, and very few seem to be concerned with checking up and looking out for our safety.

Actually, that's not true. In Europe, major government players have not only paid attention, but taken legal action on the matter. The EU has banned in all domestic and imported products some forms of phthalates, citing their toxicity and interference with reproductive health and function. So if they've wised up, why can't we? One word: lobbyists. Or maybe two words: lobbyists, money. Lest we forget, the EU has also partially banned GMOs - genetically modified organisms - in food or produce, again citing severe health risks. We haven't done so...but they're Europeans, and we're Americans. Duh, they are different than us and get cancers we don't. GMOs and Phthalates are FINE for us!

There is hope, and there are alternatives, they're just frigging expensive. Nonetheless, I myself have tossed nearly everything in my bathroom and invested in two companies, particularly: Bare Escentuals, a cosmetics company that uses only natural minerals in make up, and Burt's Bees, a company who not only signed the CFSC's pledge to be carcinogenic-chemical free within five years, but already uses mostly whole and organic ingredients in their products. If, like me, your modest salary (or frugal upbringing, thanks mom) won't allow you to spend 16.95 on an 8 oz. bottle of shampoo, I'd suggest checking ebay and the internet for deals on organic products - I found a CASE of Avalon Organics (another good but $$$ brand) Peppermint Shampoo for $11.99 (plus $6 shipping) on ebay the other day. The same shampoo goes for $5-6 per bottle at Whole Foods - and there are six bottles in this case. Not a bad deal!

The other thing I'd suggest - if you can stomach it - is to use the Environmental Working Group's searchable product guide to look up the things you regularly use. Their rating system is easy to use and makes sense - they list relative concerns about the components of a product as low, moderate, or high, and allow you to build a list of names of products that you'd prefer to use. They also list each ingredient in the product, and explain what it is and does (within the product, and to you). Not every single product is in the database, but it's growing daily and contains thousands of names.

A side note about some of the "high risk" products: they're either fancy - Chanel, Gucci, Elizabeth Arden, etc., or cheap - Suave, Jergens, etc. What gives? Just thought that was really funny. The government's plan to initiate the rise of the middle class?

I don't want to be paranoid about everything around me, so I try to do what I can, when I can, to protect myself against things like this. I have no choice but to be realistic about what I can afford, though. I can't afford to buy organic meat and produce all the time, but I do when I can. I don't wear much make up or use a lot of products for my skin or hair, so I feel I can afford to invest in a few products that are more natural then chemical, even if they do cost a lot more then the Revlon stuff I'd normally pick up at Target or KMart. So some things synthetic and bad for us are bound to make their way into our bodies. Hopefully that won't mean that everything we use everyday will. But what's scariest about all of these chemicals in cosmetics is exactly that ambiguity: We just don't know - what they are, what they do, what long term effect they'll have. Since we don't know, we just have to trust the corporations' good will in manufacturing the product. But lately, for some reason, I've found it difficult to trust said corporations' moral and ethical sides. Something tells me they just don't give a crap if we die of breast cancer at 53, so long as we keep buying super lustrous lipstick.