Daily Mail: Poison in print, not cosmetics

Update on this 11 October 2007

It appears that the article in question has been taken down from the Daily Mail Website. I wonder why? 

Doesn’t matter, as I’ve got a copy of it available in all its glory! I just need to transfer it off my works laptop

Update 14-10-07. The original web article is now attached for viewing pleasure.

Daily Mail Article

It doesn’t have the pictures of the two young ladies featured spending a grand a month, but the text is there for everyone to work with.

Daily mail shite story  (Link now busted)
Unfortunately, I’m having to play catch up with this one. I spotted it this morning in work, but as I was in work, doing blogging may have been frowned on, so the excellent Dr*T at Thinking is Dangerous got his two penneth worth during lunch. Here are my choice quotes from this piece of trash. Apparently its based upon a Sarah Beeny programme on next week.She really ought to stick to property developing … Sarah love, you’re gonna have to understand this. Everything you wear, eat, build with is made of chemicals. Its Zen… “It just is”


“Emma, a personal trainer, follows a similar routine, but she also has an obsession with lipgloss: she owns 60 different ones and touches up her lips every few minutes. In a bid to ensure she always has fresh breath, Emma also cleans her teeth seven times a day and carries a tube of toothpaste in her handbag, which she rubs into her teeth and gums at almost hourly intervals. Between them, the two girls get through four cans of deodorant a week, and spend £1,000 a month on cosmetics. “

And I work in the industry. Product availability and cost is not an issue to me. My daily routine of products involves. Shampoo, Soap, Toothpaste, and Spray Antiperspirant. Thats it. Total of 4 products.These two have to me symptoms of OCD. I suggest a low dose therapy of Fluoxetine here

Continue please

we ingest through our skin, and occasionally through the mouth, up to 5lb of chemicals a year.I keep hearing this, I need to know where this comes from. Remember that when you apply a lotion, very little is absorbed. I suspect that of the 5lbs applied, at least 4 and a half is washed off.

“Her deodorant contains 26 chemicals and Charlotte’s hairspray has 23”

Aerosols. They list the propellant, 4 ingredients usually, and if they are highly scented there will be quite a few fragrance allergens listed. And don’t think that by using “Natural Essential Oils that this will be better. They’re loaded with these allergens, and they have to be declared as well. The hairspray in reality probably contains about 10 discrete materials.

“(….Parabens….)These are known hormone disruptors: evidence suggests they can mimic the female hormone oestrogen, and a lifetime of increased exposure to oestrogen is linked to a heightened risk of breast cancer. “

From Wikipedia:In an in vivo study, the effect of butylparaben was determined to be approximately 100,000 times weaker than estradiol, although this effect was only observed when employing a dose level which was 25,000 times higher than is actually used to preserve products ““One study found parabens present in 18 out of 20 breast cancer tissue samples (though it is important to note that the study did not prove they’d actually caused the breast cancer)”. Discredited D’Arbre paper

“Parabens are also thought to adversely affect male reproductive functions.” (I made this up in the pub reading wikipedia)

Also of concern are phthalates, a substance that gives our lotions that silky, creamy, texture, but which are also a ‘plasticiser’ used to make plastics flexible. Certain phthalates are known carcinogens, and studies have suggested they damage the liver, kidneys, lungs and the reproductive system, as well as affecting the development of unborn baby boys. “ BULLSHIT. They are not added to lotion to give texture, there are plenty of materials to do that. You may have caught them there as part of the fragrance years ago but no more. Manufacturers don’t need the griefaluminum in deodorants is linked to breast cancer by medical research. ” BULLSHIT

And did you know that certain eye shadows contain arsenic?

This little gem I wish to address personally. The pigments used in Colour Cosmetics in the EU have limits for this. They’re the same as for food. Also don’t assume that these are soluble and absorbable. they ain’t.

This from the annexe. The Legal limits for impurities in pigments
Arsenic Not more than 3 mg/kg
Lead Not more than 10 mg/kg
Mercury Not more than 1 mg/kg
Cadmium Not more than 1 mg/kg
Heavy metals (as Pb) Not more than 40 mg/kg
Have you ever seen a kilo of eye shadow?

Its Huge. A typical eyeshadow or mascara is a few grams. And how much do you apply? Even if you apply it like Devine used to? Exactly?

Given the facts, it’s hardly surprising that a growing number of experts believe these substances have a cumulative effect on our bodies.They think the ‘chemical cocktail’ inside us is contributing to the increased frequency of a host of illnesses ranging from eczema to cancers as well as developmental problems such as autism and dyslexia. “

An expert is a word of two parts. Ex as in has-been, Spurt as in a drip under pressure

The jury is well out, and most of the research is not conclusive by half

People who use permanent hair dye are more than twice as likely to develop bladder cancer as those that don’t.

 This has gone beyond now. Its not even funny anymore

This is my source, its got better credentials than yours

To summarise then. The Daily Mail as usual is spouting shite. Poisonous shite that scares people.

May they rot in hell


5 responses to “Daily Mail: Poison in print, not cosmetics

  1. The Daily Mail adores any article where the narrative expounds upon the way in which maodern life is poisoning us and threatening future generations. Who can forget the model of balance and decorum that was Is your family toxic?

  2. valueaddedwater

    The only thing that people bring into the house that is truly toxic is the daily mail

    CTPA response here :CTPA

    And believe me they’re fuming (Thats the public link).

  3. Yep it was appalling dangerous nonsense. I have commented in detail, (much as yours above) on Channel 4 forum and the “unreality TV”forum but it’s amazing how you still get the “yes but these nasty chemicals are dangerous” posts; don’t they read the other damn posts? I have even linked to the Sense About Science chemical guide for non scientists, but no one seems interested in the facts. My posts to the Elave blog on the programme have been moderated out!

  4. Thanks – I’ve linked the .doc from my blog – I hope that’s ok (should’ve asked first … grovel grovel)

    Dr* T

  5. valueaddedwater

    No worries mate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s