LA Looks causes cancer, Suave tests on animals.

jazzedbutterflyjazzedbutterfly Posts: 8Registered Users
This hall of shame discussion is for all the bad companies out there that jeopardize our health and the health of innocent animals!!!

To find out if your hair product is dangerous or tests on animals go to ewg.org/skindeep or cosmeticsdatabase.com

LA LOOKS LINKED TO CANCER: http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/product.php?prod_id=34724&refurl=%2Fbrowse.php%3Fatatime%3D500%26category%3Dstylinggel%2Flotion%26
-Nataly

Comments

  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    Ever since the scares back in the '70s that Tab caused cancer and all sorts of other problems, I find it really hard to believe any one company's 'research' with a very pointed agenda. (although it is difficult, if not impossible to find one that does not have an agenda) I suspect the products they decry are the ones that must be given in amounts that are thousands of time a realistic dosage/exposure in order to cause these problems.

    Animal testing? Are they using multiple choice or fill in the blank? Seriously, there are a lot of medications on the market that cannot be tested other than animal testing. There are no viable alternatives to some of them. Using animals for cosmetic testing? I don't care for it, but I'm not rabid about using products that do not. And I'm not so sure that I want to use something by a company that bowed to terrorism...as that is what many of the methods used by animal rights people are...pure and simple. If the company caves on this issue when they are doing their best, then what else are they going to cave on?
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • jazzedbutterflyjazzedbutterfly Posts: 8Registered Users
    uhm, exactly what agenda would the environmental working group have? They examine all products regardless.

    If you have facts lay them on the table but to pull out a "conspiracy" card doesn't do anything to form an argument.:sad8:
    -Nataly
  • jazzedbutterflyjazzedbutterfly Posts: 8Registered Users
    actually they don't target products. They target ingredients. It is completely independent and unbias.

    So are you saying you don't mind using products rubbed in rabbits eyes, a product that kills dogs because animal rights groups can be violent?

    So basically since they are violent it is okay to perpetuate that towards animals through buying animal tested products.

    Maybe you just shouldn't support violence at all?
    -Nataly
  • wild~hairwild~hair Posts: 9,890Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    If you have facts lay them on the table but to pull out a "conspiracy" card doesn't do anything to form an argument.:sad8:

    That seems to be the tactic with susancnw: distract from the discussion at hand with alarmist rhetoric. :roll: It does get tiresome.
  • msjananimsjanani Posts: 624Registered Users
    susancnw wrote: »
    Ever since the scares back in the '70s that Tab caused cancer and all sorts of other problems, I find it really hard to believe any one company's 'research' with a very pointed agenda. (although it is difficult, if not impossible to find one that does not have an agenda) I suspect the products they decry are the ones that must be given in amounts that are thousands of time a realistic dosage/exposure in order to cause these problems.

    Animal testing? Are they using multiple choice or fill in the blank? Seriously, there are a lot of medications on the market that cannot be tested other than animal testing. There are no viable alternatives to some of them. Using animals for cosmetic testing? I don't care for it, but I'm not rabid about using products that do not. And I'm not so sure that I want to use something by a company that bowed to terrorism...as that is what many of the methods used by animal rights people are...pure and simple. If the company caves on this issue when they are doing their best, then what else are they going to cave on?

    Agreed.
    3A low/medium porosity, medium texture

    Current products:
    Stylers: HE Tousle Me Softly, Condition 3-in-1 Mousse
    Conditioners: Terax Crema, Mill Creek Botanicals Henna Conditioner
    Cleanser: DevaCurl NoPoo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/theevolutionofcurl/
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    My older sister has rheumatoid arthritis. It is a wicked and ugly disease...and some of the medications that she has taken over the years were tested on animals first. Of course, medical marijuana would help her a great deal, but she does not live in a state that allows it. So she takes the meds. She is also in clinical trials for a new treatment that might help many others in the future.

    My father died of liver cancer. The platinum treatment that gave us an extra 10 months with him were animal tested.

    I had a stroke in 94 due to a chiropractic exam. Meds I took then and some now were animal tested. I don't like the idea, but if they will enable me to have a better quality of life and thus provide one for my family...then it is okay with me.

    Are there other sites that back up the dangerous ingredient claims by this group? Is this research corroborated by another group? A university research? I don't necessarily trust research funded by companies unless I can find other validation. And I do a lot of research on what I use on my hair and body and what I allow my family to use. Can we at least agree that pretty much anything is a poison if you take/use enough of it.

    How is animal testing violence towards animals? I happen to like it if the products that I use are not tested on animals, but if I find something that I like and works for me/us and I don't see a pledge or guarantee that it is not tested on animals, it is not necessarily going to make me turn away. And I can't remember the last time I read anything on cosmetic products being rubbed in rabbit's eyes. I know it was done a long time ago, but most manufacturers have agreed that the same testing can be done in other ways.

    Where did environmental working groups come from?

    And no, I do not have a problem with violence for self protection. Maybe if my younger sister had used street fighting methods, she would not have been date raped. Maybe my older sister's abusive husband would have realized that beating her up was not going to be as easy as he thought it was. The instant he was confronted with the same violence that he inflicted on her, he backed down.

    WC - I didn't suggest a conspiracy..that came out of your little mind as you make assumptions about me based on the very little that you think you know about me.

    And yes, I consider breaking windows, and torching labs to be a violent activity, just as I think it is violent to spike trees to prevent cutting them down or setting SUVs on fire like the guy did in LA a couple of years ago violent.
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • helloitsiohelloitsio Posts: 1,369Registered Users Curl Novice
    susancnw wrote: »
    Ever since the scares back in the '70s that Tab caused cancer and all sorts of other problems, I find it really hard to believe any one company's 'research' with a very pointed agenda. (although it is difficult, if not impossible to find one that does not have an agenda) I suspect the products they decry are the ones that must be given in amounts that are thousands of time a realistic dosage/exposure in order to cause these problems.

    Animal testing? Are they using multiple choice or fill in the blank? Seriously, there are a lot of medications on the market that cannot be tested other than animal testing. There are no viable alternatives to some of them. Using animals for cosmetic testing? I don't care for it, but I'm not rabid about using products that do not. And I'm not so sure that I want to use something by a company that bowed to terrorism...as that is what many of the methods used by animal rights people are...pure and simple. If the company caves on this issue when they are doing their best, then what else are they going to cave on?

    I agree wholeheartedly. I received my degree in environmental toxicology so I've had quite a bit of study in biochemistry and toxicology. I also work for a branch of Cal EPA and work alongside toxicologists. I'm not a major fan of animal testing, but it's the only way to verify the efficacy of pharmaceuticals or the effects of products on humans (albeit done by extrapolation and using more conservative numbers). Simply put, there really is no other way.

    For a beauty product to cause cancer, it probably would have to be given in abnormal doses and over a long period of time. I hardly think the gel we apply to our hair can cause breast cancer 5 years from now. Anything can be harmful when factoring in dosage, duration, application. etc. Even water.

    While it's good that society is growing more cautious about chemicals and product ingredients, it seems that there is a fine line between being cautious and paranoid. You're more likely to get in a car accident than get cancer from LA Looks gel.
    2 b/c :: slight protein sensitivity :: med/coarse texture :: normal porosity

    Location: SoCal
    http://public.fotki.com/Helloitsio/
    http://skinandhairjunkie.wordpress.com/
  • bluegirlbluegirl Posts: 4Registered Users
    helloitsio wrote: »
    susancnw wrote: »
    Ever since the scares back in the '70s that Tab caused cancer and all sorts of other problems, I find it really hard to believe any one company's 'research' with a very pointed agenda. (although it is difficult, if not impossible to find one that does not have an agenda) I suspect the products they decry are the ones that must be given in amounts that are thousands of time a realistic dosage/exposure in order to cause these problems.

    Animal testing? Are they using multiple choice or fill in the blank? Seriously, there are a lot of medications on the market that cannot be tested other than animal testing. There are no viable alternatives to some of them. Using animals for cosmetic testing? I don't care for it, but I'm not rabid about using products that do not. And I'm not so sure that I want to use something by a company that bowed to terrorism...as that is what many of the methods used by animal rights people are...pure and simple. If the company caves on this issue when they are doing their best, then what else are they going to cave on?

    I agree wholeheartedly. I received my degree in environmental toxicology so I've had quite a bit of study in biochemistry and toxicology. I also work for a branch of Cal EPA and work alongside toxicologists. I'm not a major fan of animal testing, but it's the only way to verify the efficacy of pharmaceuticals or the effects of products on humans (albeit done by extrapolation and using more conservative numbers). Simply put, there really is no other way.

    For a beauty product to cause cancer, it probably would have to be given in abnormal doses and over a long period of time. I hardly think the gel we apply to our hair can cause breast cancer 5 years from now. Anything can be harmful when factoring in dosage, duration, application. etc. Even water.

    While it's good that society is growing more cautious about chemicals and product ingredients, it seems that there is a fine line between being cautious and paranoid. You're more likely to get in a car accident than get cancer from LA Looks gel.

    I find this hard to believe when there are so many companies out there that do not test on animals?

    I do realize that animal testing is needed for medicines/pharmaceutical products to be sure that they are safe/effective in humans. While I believe that this sort of testing should be limited as much as possible, I know that it is necessary. However, it is not necessary to test cosmetics or other products on animals.

    Companies that don't test on animals make almost every product out there, from cosmetics to hair products to laundry powder. So how is animal testing necessary for these types of products?

    Rubbing products in rabbits eyes is called the Draize eye irritation test, and is still one of the most widely used cosmetic tests. There is an alternative to it-it's called not testing on animals. Nowadays, one of the many alternatives is to synthesise 'skin-like' substances for these kind of tests in the laboratory. However, most companies don't bother with this, they prefer the old-fashioned and horribly cruel methods of testing.

    Don't assume that when you buy a product that is tested on animals, they use some kind of modern, 'nice' testing method-the reality is completely different.
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    WH - I have to address the 'alarmist rhetoric' comment. I made no such comment and have you taken a good look at the title of this thread? If that's not alarmist, I don't know what is.

    Bluegirl, thanks for your input from the scientific. I didn't major in any sciences (although my hubby's PhD is synthetic organic chemistry), but I find it fascinating and keep up reading it as much as I can. My views and opinions come from years of reading, absorbing a lot from him.

    Had it occcured to the folks that are so vehemently against animal testing that sometimes it comes down to a matter of dollars? Many of the companies that eschew animal testing charge a very pretty penny for that fact. There are times when I can't shell out the bucks for those products. I can be careful in what I purchase, and do my best, but there are times when I just can't do it. I try to find companies that limit their testing...particularly for eye products like mascara and makeup. There are a lot of cosmetic companies that no longer test that way, I believe that companies like L'Oreal, Revlon, Almay and Rimmel do not test on animals.
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • bluegirlbluegirl Posts: 4Registered Users
    susancnw wrote: »
    WH - I have to address the 'alarmist rhetoric' comment. I made no such comment and have you taken a good look at the title of this thread? If that's not alarmist, I don't know what is.

    Bluegirl, thanks for your input from the scientific. I didn't major in any sciences (although my hubby's PhD is synthetic organic chemistry), but I find it fascinating and keep up reading it as much as I can. My views and opinions come from years of reading, absorbing a lot from him.

    Had it occcured to the folks that are so vehemently against animal testing that sometimes it comes down to a matter of dollars? Many of the companies that eschew animal testing charge a very pretty penny for that fact. There are times when I can't shell out the bucks for those products. I can be careful in what I purchase, and do my best, but there are times when I just can't do it. I try to find companies that limit their testing...particularly for eye products like mascara and makeup. There are a lot of cosmetic companies that no longer test that way, I believe that companies like L'Oreal, Revlon, Almay and Rimmel do not test on animals.

    Sounds like your husband would know a lot more about it than I do-I don't have any kind of degree in science, but I have read a fair bit about animal testing and its alternatives. That's mainly what I base my opinions on. And I agree that sometimes it can be difficult to find cheap products that are not tested. However, as more and more companies give up animal testing, I think that this should become less of a problem. Companies that limit their testing are certainly taking a step in the right direction, anyway.
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    Sounds like your husband would know a lot more about it than I do-I don't have any kind of degree in science, but I have read a fair bit about animal testing and its alternatives. That's mainly what I base my opinions on. And I agree that sometimes it can be difficult to find cheap products that are not tested. However, as more and more companies give up animal testing, I think that this should become less of a problem. Companies that limit their testing are certainly taking a step in the right direction, anyway.[/quote]

    I agree about the right direction. I have probably read the same stuff that you have ;)

    Another problem with the link and statement is that I want to know how old their research is.
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • hmkennyhmkenny Posts: 1,465Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    I think to say "LA Looks causes cancer" is a bit alarmist. Perhaps megadoses of an ingredient found in LA Looks might have been tested on animals and has been linked with cancer. There is probably just a smideon of the cancer causing ingredient in the gel. Honestly, I don't really know. I don't think enough information is provided by cosmeticsdatabase.com to make that determination. If I was in love with LA Looks I'd dig deeper, but I don't even use it.

    ETA: Is there even a way to determine that something causes cancer without having it tested on an animal? No, there is not!

    Another ETA: I am all in favor of cosmetic companies not testing on animals, but I also think that it is highly likely that those same companies simply avoid the ingredients that have already been tested (on animals) and proven to be a possible cause of cancer.
    3a/medium texture/normal porosity
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    hmkenny wrote: »
    I think to say "LA Looks causes cancer" is a bit alarmist. Perhaps megadoses of an ingredient found in LA Looks might have been tested on animals and has been linked with cancer. There is probably just a smideon of the cancer causing ingredient in the gel. Honestly, I don't really know. I don't think enough information is provided by cosmeticsdatabase.com to make that determination. If I was in love with LA Looks I'd dig deeper, but I don't even use it.

    ETA: Is there even a way to determine that something causes cancer without having it tested on an animal? No, there is not!

    Another ETA: I am all in favor of cosmetic companies not testing on animals, but I also think that it is highly likely that those same companies simply avoid the ingredients that have already been tested (on animals) and proven to be a possible cause of cancer.

    You are SO much more succinct than I am :)
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • hmkennyhmkenny Posts: 1,465Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Thanks, Susan. :)
    3a/medium texture/normal porosity
  • PrettyPorcupinePrettyPorcupine Posts: 258Registered Users
    The problem is that many, many, many companies can make similar or superior products without old-fashioned animal testing. (And many drugs that have been found safe for animal use have proven deadly to humans, and vice versa.) L'Oreal can do it, Yves Rocher can do it, Kiss My Face can do it, and so can many others. Learning this about Suave knocks them off my list forever. It isn't right and it isn't necessary.:cry:
    Modified CG. You'll pry my 'cones from my cold dead fingers! Mixed waves, coarse, below shoulder length, dark brown. I hate my hair :evil: but I'm trying to learn to accept it.

    Gels: LA Looks Wet Look Styling Gel, Garnier Fructis Wet Shine Gel. Condish: Alberto V05 Free Me Fresia, Tresemme' Flawless Curls, LVPNG, Neutrogena Triple Moisture. Shampoo: Tresemme' Flawless Curls. Silicone Serum: Whatever is on sale, but I don't leave home without it.
  • MaloryMalory Posts: 379Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    hmkenny wrote: »
    Is there even a way to determine that something causes cancer without having it tested on an animal? No, there is not!

    Yes. The title of this thread is a bit contradictory. The OP is complaining about products causing cancer, but doesn't want companies to test in advance to make sure that their products don't cause cancer.

    The problem is that many, many, many companies can make similar or superior products without old-fashioned animal testing.


    HM Kenny explained how they do this:
    hmkenny wrote: »
    I also think that it is highly likely that those same companies simply avoid the ingredients that have already been tested (on animals) and proven to be a possible cause of cancer.


    This is from an anti-animal testing site:

    http://www.api4animals.org/facts.php?more=1&p=450#one
    Why would a company’s label say “not tested on animals” if it weren’t true?

    There are no regulations that cover the “cruelty-free” labeling claims. This allows companies to take liberties with their language.
    Unfortunately, such liberties may include manipulating consumers into purchasing products with mere final product claims. There are no repercussions for companies that make deceptive “not tested on animals” claims, because they are likely being truthful in the literal sense.
    A company itself may very well not test; it may not even commission or contract testing on its behalf. However, ingredient suppliers may engage in testing, and companies may purchase ingredients with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” philosophy. Or testing may occur in a parent company, while the subsidiary company — which labels the product — has not actually done the testing itself.


    By the way, I have had pets with medical conditions who would have died without drugs that were tested on other animals.
  • hmkennyhmkenny Posts: 1,465Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    The problem is that many, many, many companies can make similar or superior products without old-fashioned animal testing. (And many drugs that have been found safe for animal use have proven deadly to humans, and vice versa.) L'Oreal can do it, Yves Rocher can do it, Kiss My Face can do it, and so can many others. Learning this about Suave knocks them off my list forever. It isn't right and it isn't necessary.:cry:

    Yes, but how did those companies know that the ingredients they chose to use are safe? Other companies probably already proved their safety. How? Possibly on animals. Yes, many companies do not test their products on animals, but are they using ingredients that have never been tested on animals?
    3a/medium texture/normal porosity
  • jillipoojillipoo Posts: 3,795Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    wild~hair wrote: »
    If you have facts lay them on the table but to pull out a "conspiracy" card doesn't do anything to form an argument.:sad8:

    That seems to be the tactic with susancnw: distract from the discussion at hand with alarmist rhetoric. :roll: It does get tiresome.

    Wow, this is harsh. I've reread susancnw's initial comments and I don't find them distracting or alarmist in nature.

    Not to mention that it's rude to talk about someone in the third person as if they aren't reading what you're saying!

    This is an incendiary topic, so we might want to be a little more respectful of views that differ from our own.
    3a and strictly CG since August 2007. Porous and on the fine side. No to magnesium sulfate and glycerin. Yes to protein! Favorites:
    CO-WASHES: Suave Coconut
    CONDITIONERS and LEAVE-INS: Mop Top Daily Conditioner, KBB Nectar, Aubrey GPB or Island Naturals, Robert Craig, Any Jessicurl
    CURL ENHANCERS/CREMES/MOUSSES: KCCC, JoiWhip
    GELS: Fuzzy Duck, B5 Design, MGA Scultping, BRHG


    Fotki password: chuckle
    Blog: http://jillipoo.blogspot.com/
    Twitter: nopoojillipoo
  • enelyaenelya Posts: 69Registered Users
    I've done a bit of research on this myself, but what I have found is that the concern of the EWG or the Campaign for Safe Cosemetics isn't so much that one product can cause cancer itself, rather, the concern has more to do with long-term, repeated exposure to certain toxins that we apply everyday and from mulitple sources.

    An example could be parabens and any of its forms (ie: methylparaben, butylparaben etc). Parabens are a cheap perservative that are typically used in almost all personal care products and usually in several forms in one product. There's also some concern about possible estrogenic properties of parabens.

    On an individual, one time use level, any product containing parabens will have safe levels of it. However, the concern comes in when you use that product everyday in combination with other products also containing parabens (let's say your conditioner, gel, deoradant, body moisturizer, facial wash, soap, foundation etc all contain parabens...). Even though each individual product is safe on its own, how safe is it to use all these in combination with one another, and to do so more than once?

    Then there's also concern over the environment and the daily, universal exposure to these chemicals through our household gray water. Deepending on the chemical properties of the toxin and whether or not they break down (or how they break down), this exposure can then cause the toxins to be recirculated into soil, ponds, lakes, air etc Some reseach does suggest that genetic mutations in animals, particularily that of frogs, could, in part, be due to exposure from toxins in graywater.

    That's where the concern lies, from what I have read.

    An interesting book on this topic is "Not Just Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry" by Stacy Malkin. Atthe very least it'll give you a bit of insight into how this movement got started, what some of the research suggests, what some of their concerns and tatics are etc

    There's also "Don't go to the Counter Without Me"- I can't remember the author right now.

    I dunno, some things to consider perhaps...
  • spacedcowgirlspacedcowgirl Posts: 111Registered Users
    I think on the one hand, assertions that a particular product "causes cancer" are 90% of the time scientifically questionable and the research they are based on is usually taken out of context. Just because a certain chemical can cause cancer in high enough doses (which is true of a LOT of chemicals) doesn't mean there is any risk to the user of a gel or styling product. There would generally be even less risk from using a shampoo or conditioner because you're rinsing the product down the drain before it can sit on your skin for any period of time. The Environmental Working Group may be right in this case but I approach any report of this kind with a huge dose of skepticism. And believe me, I am no fan of taking corporations at their word either, but these reports are just so alarmist that I almost think they often do more harm than good.

    On the other side, I think painting all animal welfare advocates as violent is a disingenuous straw man argument. Most people who would prefer to see animal testing ended are not even PETA members, much less the kind of people who would torch a lab or condone violence. To lump them all in together is unfair and dishonest. (Plus, being totally honest, I can't get anywhere near as worked up about the ELF and ALF as I do about "real" terrorism that kills people. Except for the tree-spiking people--and that is awful--these groups only seek to destroy property. And while that is still 100% wrong and not to be condoned, they are not al Qaeda and this makes it all the more unfair for run-of-the-mill, non-violent animal welfare activists or protesters--who don't destroy even property, much less hurt anybody--to be implicitly labeled as terrorists.)

    Finally, to me testing of drugs and other therapies is a completely different issue from testing of cosmetics and "optional" consumer products. I hope we someday see a future where animal testing is no longer needed and completely eliminated. Or at least where sophisticated testing methods are available that result in no pain or distress to the test animal. With regard to cosmetics, though, although I'm not perfect and I do succumb to the temptation to buy products from "bad" companies from time to time, objectively I have a very hard time justifying animal pain and suffering just so I can have the gel or mascara I want. For me personally there is a very clear line between animal testing on therapies that save lives, and animal testing on stuff whose only function is to make me look cute. I think if you have made a personal decision that you want a certain gel badly enough that you don't care if animals suffered in its development or production, then fine and that is certainly your right. But a situation where someone would have died without an animal-tested therapy is a whole different ball of wax from makeup or hair gel, and to me the two are not even really comparable or worth discussing in the same breath.

    I also don't think there is anything wrong with companies avoiding animal testing by only using ingredients that have previously been found safe. There are boatloads of toxicology data out there from the "old days" and companies should absolutely be using it, otherwise those animals died in vain. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
    2b/2c/3a
    Back on CG (OK, I'm a little indecisive).
    pw: curls
    Currently using: Whole Foods 365 Herbal Mint Conditioner (co-wash), MOP Mixed Greens Conditioner, Paul Mitchell Lite Detangler, CK, ISO Bouncy Creme. Gave up on plopping due to tangles/"stickiness" and now I just comb through products and diffuse. It looks basically as good and dries a lot faster (I wasn't getting good clumps from plopping anyway). Still wish I were a lot curlier!
  • Riot CrrlRiot Crrl Posts: 3,135Registered Users
    Most of us seem to leave some sort of conditioner in. It's in contact with our skin 24/7. I also use what most of the straight- and/or short-haired people would consider a disgustingly gross amount.

    ITA with this part, though:
    Finally, to me testing of drugs and other therapies is a completely different issue from testing of cosmetics and "optional" consumer products.
  • spacedcowgirlspacedcowgirl Posts: 111Registered Users
    That is a good point, about leaving conditioner in. I know I use a lot and don't rinse all of it off. I guess in that case it would be even more exposure than the manufacturer might estimate because most CG/curly people use conditioner in this "off-label" (e.g. leaving some or a lot in) kind of way.

    I still think a lot of concerns about products causing cancer are overblown or taken out of context, but I think you are right that maybe we should scrutinize conditioner ingredients a little more since we are leaving it in. Thanks for pointing that out because I hadn't thought of it before I went off on my little rant. :)
    2b/2c/3a
    Back on CG (OK, I'm a little indecisive).
    pw: curls
    Currently using: Whole Foods 365 Herbal Mint Conditioner (co-wash), MOP Mixed Greens Conditioner, Paul Mitchell Lite Detangler, CK, ISO Bouncy Creme. Gave up on plopping due to tangles/"stickiness" and now I just comb through products and diffuse. It looks basically as good and dries a lot faster (I wasn't getting good clumps from plopping anyway). Still wish I were a lot curlier!
  • Riot CrrlRiot Crrl Posts: 3,135Registered Users
    You are welcome. Thank you for pointing out the difference so well between testing lifesaving treatments on animals, and eyeshadow. I wanted to say something but I couldn't get it out right.

    Unfortunately, I always tend to get unnecessarily semantical in these discussions. I've been trying to shut up but I think I'll just go with it.

    The terms "natural" and "organic" are kind of ridiculous to me. Organic means that it's comprised of carbon, so that's pretty much everything. "Natural" is like... well, is honey natural? It was chemically synthesized by bees. Is lemon juice natural? It was chemically synthesized by the tree. I sort of have to think that since we are a species that evolved here on earth, it follows that we are incapable of doing anything unnatural, by our very nature. So cars, Aqua-Net, and nuclear bombs are natural.

    If you have applied heat or acids to food, you've done chemistry. Our bodies are made up of chemicals and manufacture them and function by having them react with each other, so if you've thought, breathed, or existed, you've done chemistry. All foods and our own bodies are made up of chemicals among other things.
  • hopetocurlhopetocurl Posts: 1,280Registered Users
    Enelya, The author of "Don't Go to the Cosmetics Counter without Me" is Paula Begouin. I am going to quote RedCatWaves,
    Paula Begoun just chaps my butt in general. She made her name by denouncing the cosmetics industry as selling worthless products. Then, she turns around and starts selling...worthless products. She's the ultimate sellout. I won't use her products on principal.

    What RCW says is true. She writes the book, then starts selling her own cosmetics with the same ingredients that she poo-poos others for using.

    Just food for thought, this is a very passionate thread...
    Currently, using JC HCC, Too Shea, CK and CCSS, RR or LOOB or MOP-C.
    CK is the one!!

    as of 6/17/10 - I have to add Joico!

    Pics at: http://public.fotki.com/hopetocurl/
    pw:wheredacurls

    We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, some have weird names and each is a different color. But they all have to learn how to live in the same box. ~Anonymous

    Life is full of oxymorons....and morons too. ~hopetocurl

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file