|
|
|
October 21, 2004
Lotion sickness
As the heir to the throne launches a haircare range that’s environmentally friendly, Lucy Siegle reveals the ugly side of many beauty products
Some people are surprised that Prince Charles has turned his attention to haircare products in the form of his Duchy Originals Collection. HRH is not, after all, renowned for his own directional barnet. But with implications for the health of the planet and the use of natural resources, personal care is no longer just a personal issue.
UK consumers spend more than six billion British pounds a year on toiletries and cosmetics. Fuelled by advertising, we demand that teeth must be Hollywood white, body washes must annihilate bacteria, and deodorants must be strong enough to withstand a fortnight in the desert.
This means more chemicals. Some 8,000 are available to product manufacturers, at least 1,000 of which are considered potentially harmful. From mouthwashes to facial scrubs, our toiletries contain resilient chemicals, including endocrine disrupters linked to a decrease in male fertility across species, able to survive the journey down the plughole, infiltrating water sources.
Even the sourcing of ingredients can have major ecological significance. Take talc, an ingredient integral to most cosmetics. Last year The Observer, with the Environmental Investigation Agency, traced mainstream brands to illegal Indian talc mines which had destroyed the habitats of endangered tigers.
Converting your bathroom cabinet to brands such as Dr Hauschka, , or Green People, which use sustainable ingredients, is key to preventing such destruction.
The RSPCA estimates that 38,000 animals are still used in cosmetic testing. This will be news to many consumers, who think it is a thing of the past. In fact, the testing of ‘separate’ ingredients is not due to be phased out until 2013. Supporting companies which have championed animal-cruelty free toiletries, continues to send a dear message to legislators and the whole industry.
Disposable products like facial wipes — no longer the preserve of parents of babies: sales passed the 1.13 billion British pounds mark in 2003 — are also on an upward trend. Typically they are non-biodegradable, and many now add vitamins or have moisturising qualities, requiring more chemicals and prompting the question: what’s wrong with a soap and flannel?
As someone who is wedded to their make-up bag, I’m a big fan of the Women’s Environmental Network’s, www.wen.org.uk, ‘Beauty with a little wisdom’ campaign: it emphasizes transferring allegiance to sustainable natural and organic products and those with basic, recyclable packaging.
This means forgoing so-called ‘intelligent’ products such as the sunscreens and anti-ageing creams now harnessing nanotechnology. At one millionth of a millimetre, nanoparticles penetrate the skin, carrying substances like vitamin A and E into the lower layers. As the jury’s still out on the safety of this technology, I’m happy to give it a miss. Besides, who wants to be outwitted by their face cream?
Breath of fresh air
Contrary to what adverts would have us beleive, conventional air fresheners do not miraculously replace nasty, stale air with some fresh stuff from a pine forest. They use potent chemicals to deaden the olfactory receptors along with a blast of synthetic fragnance to mask any lingering smells. There there’s the new generation of plug-in or battery-operated air fresheners, meaning almost constant exposure to chemicals powered by extra energy. — Dawn/OM Service
|
|
|
|
