From Doctor Oz, to the Food Babe, to the Cosmetics Cop, it is easy to mistake information as fact simply because it is popular in the media. The fad diet frenzy of cleansing bodies of "toxins" is completely unfounded by science yet worshiped by many.
“It’s criminal exploitation of the gullible man on the street and it sort of keys into something that we all would love to have – a simple remedy that frees us of our sins, so to speak. It’s nice to think that it could exist but unfortunately it doesn’t.”The article goes on to explain the science of why "detoxing" isn't even a medically valid term.
If toxins did build up in a way your body couldn’t excrete, he says, you’d likely be dead or in need of serious medical intervention. “The healthy body has kidneys, a liver, skin, even lungs that are detoxifying as we speak,” he says. “There is no known way – certainly not through detox treatments – to make something that works perfectly well in a healthy body work better.”Natural health sciences dietitian Catherine Collins was also interviewed for the Guardian article, stating,
“The ultimate lifestyle ‘detox’ is not smoking, exercising and enjoying a healthy balanced diet like the Mediterranean diet.”Trying to find unbiased sources of science can be difficult and takes effort and research. I wish I could trust someone named Cosmetics Cop or FoodBabe, they sound like really great fun superheros, however their science is invalid and while their fun names draw publicity, their information is vastly false and deceptive.
It doesn't take a ton of investigating to realize Food Babe Vani Hari does not have a degree in nutrition, or even a certificate, nor so much as a science degree. She just likes writing about how chemicals are bad and takes pictures of the boring kale-based lunches she serves her poor family. I don't think she means intentional harm, but her anti-science is being revered as science to the large population of her readers.
Hari's website claims that she is "hot on the train to investigate what's in your food." However, she has no formal education in what makes up our food, so why should we listen to her?
The Cosmetics Cop uses the same antics, and has been using them since the 80's, publishing novels that promote her own brand of skincare while bashing others that include the same ingredients.
Even the Environmental Working Group cannot be trusted as a real source of unbiased information since it includes information on companies that pay to be evaluated. Safe Cosmetics is another site where you can look up cosmetics brands and their ingredients based on a grading scale that companies have paid to be a part of.
With the FDA providing little oversight into American cosmetics, here are their findings on several chemicals recently in the news associated with cancer that have been found to either have no apparent link to causing cancer:
EDTA:
Exposure to EDTA in most cosmetic formulations, therefore, would produce systemic exposure levels well below those seen to be toxic in oral dosing studies.Parabens:
The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) reviewed the safety of methylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben in 1984 and concluded they were safe for use in cosmetic products at levels up to 25%. Typically parabens are used at levels ranging from 0.01 to 0.3%.FDA believes that at the present time there is no reason for consumers to be concerned about the use of cosmetics containing parabens. However, the agency will continue to evaluate new data in this area. If FDA determines that a health hazard exists, the agency will advise the industry and the public, and will consider its legal options under the authority of the FD&C Act in protecting the health and welfare of consumers.March 24, 2006; Updated October 31, 2007
Talc:
Before the 1970s, talcum powder was often contaminated with asbestos fibres which are known to cause cancer. But since then, all home products containing talcum powder are legally obliged to be asbestos-free.Some scientists have suggested that talc particles could travel to the ovaries, irritate them and cause inflammation. Low-level, long-term inflammation may increase the risk of some types of cancer. But so far, it doesn’t look like using anti-inflammatory drugs can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. And the evidence around whether talc could travel in this way is weak.Another chemical, Triclosan, which has little evidence to support its harm in humans but has proven harmful in wildlife, was removed last year by huge companies like Colgate, Proctor and Gamble, Avon and Johnson&Johnson. This was mainly at the urging of consumers and while unbiased research in human studies is limited, it is nice to see companies evolving upon new research.
For additional unbiased information directly from a cosmetic chemist regarding 12 commonly maligned chemicals, simply click this link.
I know I'm not a chemist or a biologist by trade, so why should you listen to me? Science fascinates me and I'm dedicated to finding unbiased research to make sure that bad science is corrected, and I'll always cite my sources. Science doesn't have to be intimidating. I want to investigate and research science in popular culture and educate other people on the factual evidence that can be found easily through any fact-checking source.
Another thing about science is that once new information becomes available, the science evolves with it. If and when updated information occurs that opposes what I've currently found via research I will absolutely address and correct it publicly and explain it in a way that is understandable for anyone reading who absolutely hated high school science.
Thank you for taking the time out of your day to educate yourself, and if there is any new science available that I missed in my research, please tell me and I'll absolutely correct my own research to evolve and reflect all current known information.
