We Review | Over-the-Counter Counter Threats?
Written by: JP

Drop-Dead Gorgeous: Protecting Yourself from the Hidden Dangers of Cosmetics
by Kim Erickson

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.  I have had a
few cosmetic specialists check the recipes.  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.  Her book has a nice recommendation by Kate O'Mara who is the
Founder/Director of HerbNetwork.com.

According to her website, Kim Erickson is a certified herbalist.  I asked her about that.  Her reply is, "I am certified by the Australasian College of Herbal Studies (www.herbed.com).  The college is licensed by the State of Oregon and approved by the American Association of Drugless Practitioners, the Oregon Board of Pharmacy and the National Certificate Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, among others." She is a vegetarian and has been doing freelance writing since 1996 for many ecology publications.

Her research for the book is extensive. There are 17 pages of footnotes citing
references.  Some from respected journals, some from websites, animal rights papers, and a few from aromatherapy publications.  While I am sure they strive for factual information, I find it difficult to accept findings from aromatherapy. A school of thought that includes the belief that cinnamon is an aphrodisiac.*

Even when she is citing a reference, there are conflicting statements.
On  coal tar colors. On page 25 it reads "almost all these colors have been shown to cause cancer."  On page 219 she states "studies have shown all coal tar colors to cause cancer in animals"  On page 25  the World Health Organization (WHO) considers coal tar colors to be "probable carcinogens".  On page 25 the author describes how in 1960 the FDA put coal tar colors on a provisional list allowing their continued use pending the FDA's conclusions on their safety. The author claims (referencing a book) that "only a handful of colors have been tested for safety, and the bulk of colors remain on the list 30 years later".  Since the book is published in 2002 it should read 42
years later, except the figure is from a book published in 1986.  While her source claims "...the bulk of colors remain on the list" the FDA claims otherwise.
  
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 Jiff(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.

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.

*Call me a skeptic, or maybe it is the lack of late-night bakeries with a liquor
license and known as "pick-up spots" in the area.