Now, I would like to provide more evidence to substantiate Dr* T's First Theory (vide infra):
Is your Make-up killing you?
EDIT (14/10/07): The Daily Mail have now removed this link from their website. All down to this blog, of course ;) I'll try and find a cached version, otherwise it becomes a little bit pointless...
EDIT (14/10/07): ValueAddedWater has kindly put a .doc version of the Daily Mail's article here. Now you can read at your leisure - is your make-up killing you?
The answer is indeed no. Let's not forget, that this is nothing more than a press release for a TV show.
At the risk of treating the Daily Mail with any sort of seriousness, I couldn't let the article slip away unnoticed without drawing out a few salient points.
First of all, the Daily Mail's attitude to science is pretty well demonstrated here. For instance take the line:
Last year, Britons spent £6.4billion on cosmetics and grooming products, with the average woman applying 12 toiletries every day.
But here's the rub - these toiletries can bring with them at least 175 chemical compounds.
CHEMICALS? Can you fricking believe it? I mean, for God/Allah/Zeus/flying spaghetti monster (with his noodly appendage) sake, those blasted chemicals get everywhere! Is there anything safe in this world that hasn't been besmirched by CHEMICALS? Quick, Take ecover...... (there's a pithy middle class joke in there, but don't waste too much time looking for it)
Of course, the manufacturers would say these chemicals and resulting products are safe, but a growing school of thought begs to differ.
Of course they do. These manufacturers can do what they like. We don't have rules or regulations or overseeing bodies or government departments that can make sure that only suitable ingredients go into these type of products. Oh wait...
I think this gets to the nub of why this sort of program/article has me screaming like someone possessed (with what, I don't know) - where is the balance? Where is the person saying "Actually, what you're talking about is invented, manipulative, fear-inducing rubbish."
They were then challenged to live without their beauty products for eight days, swopping everything for natural chemical-free varieties.
Hmmmmm..... what would they be, then? No chemicals.
Water? Nope, it's got a Safety Data Sheet, so must be a chemical.
Air? Surely even the Daily Mail wouldn't allow us to say that oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide et al aren't chemicals.
One thing is for sure: few of us would want to rub any of these chemicals into our eyes, far less ingest them in liquids by drinking them.
Ditto vinegar. And it's a chemical. Yet we put it on our chips! Please someone think of the children (etc.)
"Man-made chemicals first emerged 100years ago, and every decade since, the overall production of these synthetic chemicals has doubled.
100 years ago? 1907? How about ...ooohh....so may to choose from.....Alfred Nobel's dynamite company (set up in 1860)? (allow to me kindly ignore thousands of years of "making chemicals").
Both girls use a natural deodorant, which contains no chemicals.
For the love of sweet baby Jesus/Aphrodite/Thor/Ra, what the hell does this mean?
The caption at the bottom of this photo is
Natural beauty: TV presenter Sarah Beeny has been without make-up for two years
Look around the eyes. Don't look at the eyes, look around the eyes. No make up? At all? Let me ask you, is this the face of someone who hasn't used make-up for two years?
Allow me to reinvoke Dr* T's first theory.