ingredient so when new research emerges, I won’t be biting my nails (buffed, not polished) over
some benzaldehyde-loaded “holy grail” lotion I used diligently over the years. Have you ever heard
of a chemical that was considered unsafe for many years being recently declared safe? I haven’t.
More often, things happen the other way around.
The Golden Rule of Beauty
When people encounter new scientific information that casts doubt on the status quo, they often
can’t believe their eyes (or ears). If all this is true, you may ask, why haven’t I heard it before? Why
do so many dermatologists with perfect credentials endorse beauty products that are making me sick?
Could they be doing it to keep themselves busy?
These are all perfectly good questions, and getting the right answers is an important part of your
green coming-of-age. To follow all the leads and examine all the underlying reasons may be beyond
the scope of this book, but some issues have to be explained. The beauty industry is one of the most
profitable of all industries, and as in every business, you may be surprised to find out that the
information is governed by the same old Golden Rule: those who have the gold make the rule.
So who has the gold? One of the world’s largest and most profitable industries, which will start
losing millions of dollars if people start asking uncomfortable questions about what goes into their
favorite moisturizers and perfumes. The formulations smell awesome and perform well; they are
proven to sell, and the whole process runs smoothly. The financial health of this industry depends on
what the public knows about risks associated with many of their products. Like any reasonable
business (the cosmetic manufacturers didn’t generate this much money by being unreasonable), the
beauty industry is doing everything in its power to protect its profits and please its shareholders.
Science and business have long been aware of the links between cosmetics and the meteoric rise of
cancer, asthma, diabetes, and a host of other systemic diseases. However, the industries responsible
for producing synthetic chemicals have long been seeking, with much success, to downplay or dismiss
them.
Things aren’t as dramatic as you may think. No one is paying the scientists to shelve the research
results. No one is bribing the media. Things are much more subtle. If a cosmetic company buys a
certain number of magazine ads, it’s very unlikely that the editor-in-chief would be happy to read a
story about peanut oil that wasn’t mentioned on the label of a sunscreen triggering potentially deadly
allergies in hundreds of people, including children—especially since this cosmetic company
regularly delivers a boatful of full-size freebies for review and personal use.
Media, government, science, industry, medicine—keeping the status quo is vital for all of them.
Too many people would choose profits over health and technology over nature. Using airless
packaging that prevents contamination requires fewer investments than spending years in researching
and developing another preservative. Thousands of people would lose their jobs, tons of moisturizers
would be left unsold, whole manufacturing processes would have to be revised, a few class-action
lawsuits would be filed—and this means millions if not billions of dollars lost. Once a product is on
the market, the burden of legal proof required for its removal is extremely high.