“Humanity is being murdered in the name of science.” Really?????

I have just been sent a link to the article that I am going to share with you now.  Not being a regular ‘Natural News’ reader  (I can’t think why)  this post escaped my attention for quite a while since it was published in April 2013!  That said it is still relevant,  I hear this sort of anti-science bull frequently and as science is a process that I am very fond of I feel a need to respond. So here we go….

This is EXACTLY what I thought after reading each bit.  I’ll give you the bit first and my thoughts in Italics.  Sorry if I offend:

——————————–

“Non-organic cosmetics and personal care products are loaded with “scientifically-formulated” chemical ingredients that cause cancer, liver damage, kidney damage, neurological disorders and even skin diseases.”

What the Heck!

The fact that the phrase “scientifically-formulated” is bracketed makes me suspicious and more than a little worried.  Does the author really hate science so much?  Does the author even know what science is?  That it is not a THING ‘Pass me the science, I want to add some to this plant to turn it into a NASTY CHEMICAL MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA’.  It begs the question as to which way the author would like chemical ingredients to be formulated? ARTISTICALLY, MUSICALLY or AGRICULTURALLY maybe?

Science is in fact a process, a philosophy of sorts – ‘I am going to think about this scientifically’.  That it is actually quite a sensible way to think about formulating a cosmetic being as though cosmetics are formulated using chemicals (and I mean that in its broadest sense, everything is a chemical) by scientists (Cosmetic Chemists) who (hopefully) have an understanding and appreciation of the scientific method. People who MAKE cosmetics without having any appreciation or understanding of the scientific process of formulating are at a disadvantage not really understanding what makes their product work, how to get the most cost-effective solution, how to ensure safety and so on and so forth.  That doesn’t mean that everyone putting ingredients together into a cream MUST be a scientist (as in qualifications) rather that they MUST understand the scientific process and concepts that underpin their creation.   Imagine how crazy the world would be if we dismissed the world of  engineering when making bridges, homes or blocks of flats.

“A typical “skin lotion” or cosmetic base is made with a sickening cocktail of incredibly toxic chemicals purchased in bulk from chemical factories. Many are shockingly high in lead, and most cosmetic manufacturers actually hide their ingredients from consumers in order to conceal the truth of what’s in their overpriced products.”

For Goodness Sake I’m getting really mad now.

Ok so rational, non swearing me is thinking ‘what, so buying ingredients in BULK is a bad thing?  WOW’  I mean bulk means lots, lots is usually a more efficient way to purchase and manufacture than a little isn’t it?  A truck carries 20MT of stuff usually and if you can fill that truck because you are buying in BULK that would be quite carbon friendly compared to say 10 trucks carrying little parcels of little ingredients from little places for little batches.  Or am I just being an idiot? 

As for the ‘incredibly toxic chemicals’ I would like to know which BULK incredibly toxic chemicals they are talking about as if we are onto the ‘perfumes, parabens, pthalates’ of whatever again I’d say that YES these types of ingredient can be toxic in some situations but not all but I’ve never known of them being purchased IN BULK.  Surfactants are so maybe they are talking about SLES/ SLS again but if they are they might like to consider that a 20MT tank of Decyl Glucoside (a natural and ‘allowed-in-organics’ surfactant) would be pretty damn toxic to fishes if it was to be pushed off the highway into a lake on the way to the cosmetic factory too so I guess it’s not JUST ‘typical’ cosmetics that are the problem here is it?

‘From chemical factories’  Again like this is a bad thing?  I mean few people think that factories are awesome and even less get married or set up home within their concrete and colourbond walls but hey, where else are you going to make stuff?  After all the word ‘factory’ just means a place where goods are manufactured  – I could set up a cheese factory in the middle of my woodlands if I so chose and to be honest I’d be happy to live there thus debunking my own factory theory.   Ha!

The FDA, for its part, openly allows cancer-causing chemicals and heavy metals to be used in cosmetics. After all, people who are harmed by cosmetics will become profitable patients for the cancer industry, right?

The second sentence here just makes me feel sick.  That is so twisted to think that everyone who makes or regulates cosmetics is in on some big dirty secret to give everyone cancer so that the cancer industry can profit from them.  Does anyone REALLY believe this stuff?  Are cancer patients EVER profit centres?  

———————————-

The article goes on a little more and gives us the option at the end to be ‘saved’ by the Environmental Working Group which is a nice touch.  Really classy.

Earlier this week I wrote about Freedom of Speech and the Cosmetic Chemist.  Freedom is a right and rights come with responsibilities and reflecting on the above leads me to conclude that this is a concept that is dangerously missed here.

And to think that the guy who wrote the above actually claims to have a background in science in his bio.

Humanity is not being murdered in the name of science, it is being murdered by fear.

Amanda

PS: The team at Natural News were very keen for you to visit their website so I’ve put a link to it here. http://www.naturalnews.com/039769_cosmetics_skin_care_toxic_chemicals.html#ixzz3JrY2uLqR