Sustainable You

Sustainability and the Built Environment

4900/6900: Wk 12 IAQ and Cosmetics

Response due at the beginning of class 04/05.

For this week, I thought we could all look at some of our cosmetics (e.g. shampoo, lotion, soap, make-up, fragrances, etc..) to learn more about our personal products. Please visit this site, Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Database. Once you’ve entered the site there is a section in the middle that allows you to “Search for a product, ingredient or company.” Please use the search feature to find hazard information on a minimum of three (3) products that you use.

1 a.b.c) After reading about your product please share the following:

  • Product
  • Hazard score
  • Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
  • Did anything surprise you that you learned?
  • In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
  • Do you think you will continue to use the product?

Also, for this week, please write about the following 2 questions in relation to the sustainability of cosmetics:

(2) Please look more in-depth into the “Environmental Working Group” that is the organization behind the Skin Deep website. I would like for you to report on your investigative findings about this company. Are they a third-part organization? Is it for profit or non-profit? Anything else you can find on the EWG please report it. Most importantly, after you look into them tell us if you think they are an organization you trust, please explain why.

And for those of you who haven’t seen Doll Face, this is sort of unrelated to our post this week, but this is a great statement regarding cosmetics and beauty in general.

Advertisements

Filed under: Sustainable Design

22 Responses

  1. Katherine Holland says:

    1a.) Product: Lumene Vitamin C+ Radiant Day Cream, Normal Skin.
    Hazard Score: The product scored a 7, which is high hazard.
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    I was expecting a lower score. This product seemed safe to me and I was not expecting it to be a high hazard and high health concern.

    Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    I was surprised at the cancer risk level, although it was fairly low, the fact it was there scared me. The product also had use restrictions at a moderately high level, which makes me nervous. Overall I am unpleased and surprised by the scoring on this product.
    Green washing aspect? I did not see any signs of greenwashing from the exterior packaging of this product.

    Do you think you will continue to buy this product? No, this product contains too many harmful ingredients and I do not want to keep using them on my face.

    1b.) Product: Bare Minerals Well Rested Concealer for eyes.
    Hazard Score: the product scored a 1, which is low hazard.
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I was actually expecting this score. Bare Minerals is an extremely trustworthy product and I would have been surprised if the hazard score had been high. This product is true to its name.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned? Honestly no. I have been using Bare Minerals for years and I believe the product is true to its name and the brand is honestly natural and not harmful/harsh on skin.
    Green washing aspect? I did not see any greenwashing from this products exterior packaging.
    Do you think you will continue to buy this product? Yes, I will continue using Bare Mineral products.

    1c.) Product: Artec Kiwi Color Reflector Shampoo and Conditioner.
    Hazard Score: These products scored a 7 with a high hazard risk.
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I was expecting this product to have a high score. Since this product is for color treated hair, I thought it would have lots of chemicals and additives.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned? I was surprised that the allergies and immunotoxicity score was moderately high. I was also surprised that the use restrictions were also moderately high.
    Green washing aspect? The name “Kiwi” seems to be misleading and could be a sign of greenwashing. The name on this product could confuse customers into believing this product is safe or natural.
    Do you think you will continue to buy this product? No I do not think I will be buying this product anymore. I do not think this product is good for my hair and skin. These products will probably weigh my hair down overtime.

    2.) The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a non-profit organization and is not a third party organization. The EWG uses public information to provide information on the health and safety of products. EWG contains a group of scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers and computer programmers to collect data. They have their own laboratory for testing and solutions. The Environmental Working Group is an organization I trust. The EWG comes off as an honest organization that wants to inform people about the products out there. This organization seems to have honest information for tons of products. The people behind this organization seem to be passionate about finding information on health and the environment relating to everyday products.

  2. Adam Nowaczyk says:

    1 a.b.c) After reading about your product please share the following:

    Product: The Body Shop Seaweed Purifying Facial Wash (2006 formulation)
    Hazard score: 6

    Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    I think it was fairly accurate to what I had thought. My wife has allergic reactions to Body Shop products.

    Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    I was actually very surprised that The Body Shop is a subsidiary of the L’Oreal Corporation. All this time I thought I was liking an independent business… very disappointed.

    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    I would say no. I always read the labels on products that I put on my face, body or hair. I mean the product is called Seaweed Purifying Facial Wash, so you think seaweed was pretty much it… nope. There are a lot of other chemicals in there.

    Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    I actually haven’t used this product in at least 3 years. I quit doing so because of price and access to Body Shop stores. I use a NIVEA face wash now which has the same exact score as the Body Shop product but at a lower price. I was mainly interested in seeing where The Body Shop placed in these scores and product ratings.

    As a side note, I think Skin Deep could do a better job of translating their findings and having a more substantial database of products.

    —–
    Also, for this week, please write about the following 2 questions in relation to the sustainability of cosmetics:

    (2) Please look more in-depth into the “Environmental Working Group” that is the organization behind the Skin Deep website. I would like for you to report on your investigative findings about this company.

    Are they a third-party organization?
    Yes, they are independent of the manufacturer/producer/marketer of the products they are associated with.

    Is it for profit or non-profit?
    Non-profit, with Over 84 cents out of every dollar going towards their actual programs. I would say that is pretty good for a non-profit.

    Anything else you can find on the EWG please report it. Most importantly, after you look into them tell us if you think they are an organization you trust, please explain why.
    Well, I think this answer can go two ways. They are a lobbying group, so automatically I don’t trust them, but that’s just because lobbyists have a bad name. Some lobbying groups can really be strong consumer advocates in a positive way. I did not find much controversy on EWG (except that they are accused to be overtly politically at times and aren’t recognized as a lobbying group in California) that would lead me to believe they are deceptive or acting on their own self-interest. I think they’re a bit ballsy, and to me that isn’t so bad.

  3. ashley Walker says:

    1a) Product: Clearasil Ultra Daily Face wash
    Hazard score: 2. overall hazard: low to moderate
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I was expecting and hoping that the score would be as low as it was.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned? no nothing really surprised me. clearasil is a good product and it gets good ratings.
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? I am not sure if there are any green washing aspects, the product does what it does. The only thing that might be suspect is the fact that it says a visible change by the next day but that change was noticeable for the next day so I dont really know nor am I aware if there are any green washing aspects
    Do you think you will continue to use the product? yes i will continue to use this product because it works for me and I have not had any negative effects from using it.

    1b) Product: jergens cherry almond moisturizer
    Hazard score: 6
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I was expecting a lower score. It kind of bothers me that the score is a 6 because this is something that I use all over my body twice a day.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned? It surprised me that the allergies and immunotoxicity was so high. the level was in between moderate and high.
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? I am not aware of any greenwashing because the bottle has little writing on it. There is nothing on the packaging that will raise an eyebrow.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product? I will continue to use it but not as much as I have been.

    1c) Product: Terressential lavender garden pure earth hair wash
    Hazard score: 2
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I thought it would be a zero but it is a two which is still good with the product being organic and all.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned? nothing surprised me.
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? No because it is FDA certified organic shampoo. all ingredients are organic.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product? yes i will continue to use this product because it does wonders for my hair!

    2) Are they a third-party organization?
    Yes, they are a third party organization. they are independent of the manufacturers, the producers, and the marketers of the products they show on there website.

    Is it for profit or non-profit?
    it is a Non-profit. 84 cents out of every dollar goes towards them and their programs that they are associated with.

    Anything else you can find on the EWG please report it. Most importantly, after you look into them tell us if you think they are an organization you trust, please explain why.
    it is hard to state if I trust them completely or not. This is because they can be telling the truth or they might not be. But then again the people who run this site and the group seem very passionate and dedicated about what they do so i trust them but only to a certain extent!.

  4. Megan Greene says:

    1. Product: Smashbox Eye Shadow
    2. Hazard Score: 2
    3. I have never really looked into the hazardous ingredients used in my cosmetics before, so I did not really know what to expect. The product is expensive for a cosmetic item, and normally you must pay more for better products. I think this product might be more expensive because of its safer ingredients compared to other eye shadows.
    4. I was just surprised overall at the number of problems each ingredient can cause especially since this was rated as a low hazard product. I was most surprised about the section involving cancer. It said that one or more animal studies showed tumor formation at high doses. Even though it wasn’t much, the fact that cancer was even mentioned scared me.
    5. I do not believe this product had any greenwashing aspect. The sticker on the container did not have anything involving the environment. I no longer have the box the container came in, so I am not sure if the box had any information on it. The Smashbox website had no claims regarding the environment under the description of the product, so I do not think any greenwashing was committed here.
    6. Although the different issues that some ingredients may cause makes me nervous, I realize that most cosmetics do come with some risk. Being that this product has a low-hazard score, I think I will continue to use this product.

    1. Product: Burt’s Bees Lip Balm
    2. Hazard Score: 2
    3. I was expecting a low score because it is a 100% natural product. I purchased this lip balm at Whole Foods, which generally carries products that are not very harmful.
    4. I was extremely surprised to find that the highest area of concern for this product was allergies and immunotoxicity. The container says that this product is hypoallergenic, meaning it is relatively unlikely to cause an allergic reaction. These two facts totally disagree with each other. I think this claim is definitely greenwashing.
    5. Like I said in the previous question, I think the hypoallergenic claim is greenwashing. The container also says “clinically tested,” which means the product has passed through many laboratory experiments. However, this doesn’t necessarily guarantee the promised results. I think this may be greenwashing.
    6. I do not have any allergies, so I do not think I will have to worry about that greenwashing affect. This product works for me and is pretty low-hazard, so I will continue to use it.

    1. Product: Vaseline Aloe Fresh Hydrating Body Lotion with Aloe and Cucumber
    2. Hazard Score: 8
    3. I was shocked to see this high of a score. I think for a very abundant product to have this high of a score is very surprising. People might purchase this product because it is a well-known brand without looking into how harmful it is.
    4. I was surprised to see 5 ingredients listed under the cancer concerns section. Most of the other products I looked at only had 1 or 2 ingredients listed under this category.
    5. I did not really find any greenwashing on this product. The only claim I saw was “Vaseline-keeping skin amazing.” This claim misleads customers to think their skin will look fabulous after using this product but says nothing about the health concerns that are present.
    6. I will definitely not use this product anymore. Cancer is too serious of a sickness and I will do everything in my power to avoid it.

    2. The EWG is a third-party organization because they are independent of the manufacturers, producers, and marketers of the products that they are investigating. They are also non-profit with funds coming from individuals, corporations, grant revenue, consulting, and interest & misc. income. Majority of donations go to toxics, energy and natural resources, and sustainable agriculture, and the rest goes towards fundraising and administrative purposes. The EWG uses the power of public information to protect public health and the environment. They want to protect the most vulnerable segments of our population including children and babies. I think I trust the EWG because they appear to be very passionate and focused on preventing health risks in people. Also, after looking at the list of accomplishments by the EWG between 2009-2010, I was very impressed. The list of accomplishments included: highlighting cell phone radiation risks, shedding light on secret chemicals, toxic chemical reform, pushing for more effective sunscreens, fighting for safer tap water, and the list goes on and on. I trust them because they seem to put importance on every area that can affect human health, which will help our future population substantially.

  5. Melodie Davis-Bundrage says:

    1 a)◦Product – Burt’s Bees Very Volumizing Pomegranate & Soy Shampoo
    ◦Hazard score – 4
    ◦Were you expecting a higher or lower score? -yes, I switched to more natural products a while back and am disappointed to know I still have products with this level of hazard
    ◦Did anything surprise you that you learned? The highest hazard is an 8 and it is because of the fragrance…as well just talked about this today in class.
    ◦In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? I don’t see any greenwashing with this product.
    ◦Do you think you will continue to use the product? I will continue to look around at other shampoos as I’m not married to this one.

    1b) Product – Motions Oil Sheen & Conditioning Spray
    ◦Hazard score – 6
    ◦Were you expecting a higher or lower score? – no, I knew this was not a natural product and is an aerosol but I don’t use it often
    ◦Did anything surprise you that you learned? Again it is the fragrance that has the score of 8 followed by a 6 for Limonene which is a hazard towards allergies as well as irritant for lungs, skin and eyes
    ◦In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? No greenwashing is noticed with this product
    ◦Do you think you will continue to use the product? I already don’t use this anymore but I still had it on the shelf

    1c) Product – Burts Bees Sensitive Daily Moisturizing Cream
    ◦Hazard score – 3
    ◦Were you expecting a higher or lower score? – yes, for a 99% natural product I was expecting a one or a two
    ◦Did anything surprise you that you learned?yes, I am very disappointed that this product is the one that has a cancer hazard even though it has the lowest hazard overall score and what really is astonishing is the level of skin irritants in a sensitive face cream
    ◦In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? Yes, the product does communicate a safer, natural, green label boasting of goodness that is not totally true
    ◦Do you think you will continue to use the product? I will probably keep looking for better skincare products

    (2) Please look more in-depth into the “Environmental Working Group” that is the organization behind the Skin Deep website. I would like for you to report on your investigative findings about this company. Are they a third-part organization? Is it for profit or non-profit? Anything else you can find on the EWG please report it. Most importantly, after you look into them tell us if you think they are an organization you trust, please explain why.

    The EWG is a third party organization and is also non-profit. Skin deep is for educational purposes only and does not endorse products or brands. The organization is financially supported by consumer donations and does not have marketing ties to brands or political groups. The organization is run by a research team with expertise at a level I trust.

  6. Kelsey Savell says:

    1.Product: Physician’s Formula Bronzer, SPF 20
    Hazard Score: 4
    I was expecting the score to be lower. I had heard that Physician’s Formula is healthier than most other makeup brands.
    I was surprised to see that Skin Deep classifies titanium dioxide as a 1 on the hazard scale. My research has shown that titanium dioxide is suspected of causing cancer and reproductive toxicity. I am also surprised that the data on this product is more than 10 years old (last updated in 1999).
    I think the brand name “Physician’s Formula” leads many consumers to believe that it is safer than the average cosmetic because it has been formulated by doctors. Though not greenwashing, it is worthy to note how this can be misleading.
    I will continue to use this product.

    2.Product: Redken Color Extend Shampoo (2007 formulation)
    Hazard Score: 8
    I was expecting this score to be about what it is. It appears the hazard score is so high out of concern for allergies and immunotoxicity. I purchased this shampoo at a salon, and I know that salons are very comfortable around strong, toxic chemicals. However, I have heard that Redken is one of the brands that actually does concern itself with the health effects of its products, so I was still disappointed to see such a high hazard score.
    Again because I have heard that Redken takes extra care with in formulating its products, I was surprised to see that its 2007 version scored 2 points higher on the hazard spectrum than did its 2005 formula.
    Redken makes no environmental or human health claims, so there is not a greenwashing aspect to this product.
    I will continue to use this product.

    3.Product: got2b Glued Rubber Spiking Cement (2006 formulation)
    Hazard score: 3
    I was expecting this score to be higher. It come in an aerosol spray can, is cheap, and makes no environmental or human health claims.
    I was surprised at the summary bar graph. The overall hazard is higher than any of the subcategories. It appears that the hazard concern in this product is largely attributable to a single ingredient, octinoxate, which occurs in low levels in this product.
    This product makes no environmental or human health claims, so there is not a greenwashing aspect to this product.
    I will continue to use this product.

    4.For every item listed on the website, there is a “buy online” option. If you buy the item by clicking through, EWG is getting an affiliate commission on the sale. Even items that have the highest toxicity rating are available for purchase online through the EWG Cosmetics Database website. Why would a group that cares for my well-being choose to make commissions on these products? So although they are a third party site, they profit from any purchases made through the site. This makes me highly skeptical of their work. I also have concerns about how consistent (e.g. product 3 in my examination received a higher hazard score for one ingredient that occurs in very low levels) and up to date (e.g. product 1 in my examination was last updated in 1999) their information is.

    LOVE doll face! 🙂

  7. Hannah Greenberg says:

    1 a.b.c) After reading about your product please share the following:
    Product: Olay Definity Correcting Facial Lotion with SPF 15
    Hazard score: 5
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    -I was expecting a lower score.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    I was surprised that one of the hazards was neurotoxicity. I would never think that a simple facial lotion could cause harm to one’s nervous system.
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    No, the product doesn’t really falsely advertise itself. It does not use any greenwashing to appeal to the customer. The only small aspect of greenwashing that I could maybe argue is that the design is simplistic which sometimes connotes eco-friendly.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    Yes. I have never used any other facial lotion, and throughout the years I have never had a problem with it. I think that the hazards must be very rare.

    Product: TreSemme Conditioner, Vitamin B12 & Gelatin Anti-Breakage
    Hazard score:4
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    -I imagined the score would be right about where it is. I don’t particularly search for non-hazardous conditioners, and I feel like the common ones present some danger.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    The only surprising thing that I learned was once again neurotoxicity. All the other hazards were not very high.
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    No. From what I have noticed when purchasing, they are not advertising themselves as being especially green.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    Yes. I have used this conditioner since I was a child, and haven’t suffered from it yet. I am a creature of habit, and unless, it is going to effect me in an extremely harmful way, I will probably keep using it.

    Product: Vaseline Intensive Care Total Moisture Lotion, Conditioning body lotion with Vitamins E & A
    Hazard score: 10
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    Yes, much lower. I use this lotion because I have sensitive skin, and most other lotions irritate it. I assumed that since this didn’t irritate my skin, that it wouldn’t be as harmful as most.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    Yes. The Retinyl Palmitate received an 8, and one of the reasons being was for Cancer risk, along with neurotoxicity. For such as basic lotion, I think the risk is extremely high.
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    I would say yes and no to this. The product itself does not really advertise as a green product. However, I think the Vaseline brand in general has a reputation of being all around good, and not irritable. So, I think they are somewhat greenwashing us by having such high risk ingredients in their products.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    I think I will continue using this until I run out. I will then search for a new lotion.
    Also, for this week, please write about the following 2 questions in relation to the sustainability of cosmetics:
    (2) Please look more in-depth into the “Environmental Working Group” that is the organization behind the Skin Deep website. I would like for you to report on your investigative findings about this company. Are they a third-part organization? Is it for profit or non-profit? Anything else you can find on the EWG please report it. Most importantly, after you look into them tell us if you think they are an organization you trust, please explain why.
    The EWG is, in fact, a third party organization. They are completely separate from the manufacturers and producers of the products on their website. The EWG is a non-profit organization. They receive over half of their funding from grants, and the majority of the rest is from individuals. I 90% trust EWG because they seem to know what they are doing, and do a lot of research to find their results. However, they are very pro-lobbying which makes me wonder if they have other motives.

  8. Katie Jones says:

    1a.
    Product: Aveeno Daily Moisturizing Lotion
    Hazard Score: 2
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    I was kinda expecting a higher score. Although Aveeno claims that all of its products are natural and dermatologist recommended, I expected their to be some sort of catch/ that it was an advertising scheme. I have extremely sensitive skin/ eczema and use this lotion every time that I get out of the shower so I was very happy to see the score low.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    Other than the low score, nothing really shocked me about this product. The highest variable in the rating was “allergies and immunotoxicity” which doesn’t surprise me because the product does have oatmeal in it.
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    The only greenwashing that this product could be accused of is the jar it comes in and the overall image of Aveeno itself. The brand always uses the colors light brown and green and therefore gives the look of being more natural/eco-friendly.
    Do you think you will continue using this product?
    Yes, I definitely think I will continue using this product. It moisturizes my skin well and doesn’t cause any irritation.

    1b. Product: Diorshow Blackout Mascara
    Hazard Score: 7
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I didn’t really have any expectations before searching this product but from previous knowledge I knew it would be pretty high. I was disappointed in the score but not surprised by it.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    It surprised me how high the developmental and reproductive toxicity score was. When you are putting something on like mascara you never think that you could be potentially putting yourself at risk, especially in the reproductive area.
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    No, not at all. The product never claims to be sustainable/safe.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    I am embarrassed to say this but yes I do. This is one of the only mascaras that I have been able to find that really make my eyes pop. I will try to not use the product as much but I don’t see myself throwing out the product completely.

    1c. Product: Dolce and Gabbana Light Blue Perfume
    Hazard Score: 5
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score? Because this is a perfume I was actually expecting this score to be a bit higher.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    Not really, I knew there would be a high risk for allergies but I guess I was a little surprised at the reproductive score. Overall, it was pretty much what I had expected
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    No not really. The bottle is a clear color and the top is light blue so maybe using bright earthy colors? but I think that is kinda a long shot
    Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    Yes, I definitely think I will keep using the product. I love the smell and it is one of the only fragrances that stays on my body. Also, it doesn’t irritate my eczema which is a huge plus.

    2. EWG is a third-party organization because they have no association with the any of the products that they have rated on their website. It also is a non-profit organization that relies on donations to help keep the website up and running. The organization is a four star charity and when you go to ewg.org website it gives you a break down of where there donations come from and in what places they are used. It also gives the list of foundation supporters. I definitely think they are a reliable source.

  9. Mary Alice Jasperse says:

    1a.) Alba Botanica Natural Very Emollient Body Lotion, Original Scent:
    Hazard Score: 3
    I was expecting a much lower score. I thought the product was pretty straight shooting because there was a pretty impressive list of claims: 100% vegetarian ingredients, no animal testing, no artificial colors, no parabens, no phthalates, no sodium/lauryl/laureth/sodium methyl sulfates.
    It surprised me that the EWG site had a beef with Aloe Vera as an ingredient! Under the Development/Reproductive Toxicity section, it said “One or more animal studies show any effects at moderate doses.” I thought aloe vera was a very reputable substance.
    I don’t think the product was necessarily greenwashing its product.
    One of the main problems the EWG site had with this product was the scent. But I love the scent! I will probably buy a different kind of lotion next time.
    1b.) Clinique Dramatically Different Moisturizing Lotion:
    Hazard Score: 4
    For this product, I think I had a sneaky suspicion that it would have a bad score…even though the sleek bottle says that it is allergy tested and dermatologist approved. There is no ingredient list on the bottle at all. I feel sort of duped because I have been using this product for probably 8 years. This is some serious devotion I will have to break in order to kick the habit.
    There were two endocrine disrupting ingredients present in the product: Methylparaben and Propylparaben. Both PARABENS. This is bad news. Almost all organic products these days say “paraben free,” which means these must be bad business. However, like I said, there is no ingredient list…
    I don’t think Clinique ever claimed to be “green.” But I think I always associate them with very sterile and trustworthy laboratories. Obviously we need to be avoiding laboratories.
    Like I said, I have been using this product for a really long time. I will try to look for a replacement. Maybe they will develop a paraben-free version. If, when I am finished with this bottle, there is no new version without parabens, I will not buy another bottle. Phew, a big statement.
    1c.) Yardley of London Lavender bar soap:
    Hazard: 4
    I was definitely expecting a lower score. I guess I thought this product would be pretty middle of the road. However, I am noticing that everything I have with fragrance is really bad.
    Under the fragrance section, there was a score of an 8! That is terrible! There were threats of neurotoxicity, among other things. There was also evidence of an iron oxide, which is potentially cancerous. There are just a ton of ingredients that have really long names.
    I am going to go back to using Dr. Bronner’s Magical Soap. It has all the ingredients on the package. It’s a couple of bucks extra, but Dr. Bronner’s scored a 1 on the EWG website and has earned “champion” status with the EWG.
    2). All sources I have found say that EWG is a nonprofit. Most of the accusations I have found are that the EWG members themselves say that they exaggerate the health risks that we expose ourselves to when we use certain products. One source I found was very critical of the lipstick guide. This article was obviously written by a man, because it claimed that lipstick was not eaten like candy, so women had nothing to worry about. Obviously he does not understand why women have to apply lipstick so often. It doesn’t evaporate. Most cites also cite a “dose makes the poison” argument. But, don’t we have a right to know if the potentially hazardous material is in our products at all? Again, we see businesses refusing to tell the public about their exposure to chemicals in order to avoid “public hysteria.” I still trust in the EWG. I think that the information is necessary. Product companies will most certainly not provide this information, so the EWG is providing a valuable service. And if they are overstating the risk, the industry is drastically understating the risk. I think it is a valuable source for consumers.

  10. Laney Haag says:

    1) A. Product: Nuetrogena Oil-Free Moisturizer, SPF 15
    Hazard Score: 6
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    I was expecting a lower score; this score is only one point away from being a high hazard product
    Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    I was surprised to learn that one of the two listed active ingredients, oxybenzone, has a hazard score of 7
    Do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    I would not say the product is guilty of greenwashing but I do think the way the product is advertised is misleading to users. Neutrogena is said to be the leader in dermatologist recommended skincare, but I doubt many dermatologists would recommend a product with a hazard score of 6.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product? Neutrogena makes this oil free moisturizer in different SPF. The moisturizers with higher SPF have lower hazard scores, so I would be more likely to buy the product with a SPF 50 instead of SPF 15.

    B. Product: Almay Oil Free Eye Makeup Remover Pads
    Hazard Score: 3
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    I would have expected this product to be low hazard, but since it is on the low end of the moderate hazard scale it is close to what I expected.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    I was surprised that three ingredients were classified at irritation concerns. I have been using the product for years and it has never irritated my eyes or skin.
    Do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    No I do not think this product is guilty of greenwashing.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    Yes I will continue to use this product.

    C. Product: Paul Mitchell Smoothing Super Skinny Serum
    Hazard Score: 6
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    Since this is a hair product, considering the product isn’t used on my skin, I assumed the score would be lower.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    I was surprised that the fragrance ingredient has a hazard score of 8.The fragrance has nothing to do with how well the product works so I would think the company would change the fragrance if it is so hazardous.
    Do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    No I do not think this product is guilty of greenwashing.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    No, after seeing the fragrance ingredient has moderate evidence of human neurotoxicity I am going to try to find another similar product that is not so dangerous to use.

    2. The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit organization and is also a third party organization. I learned that Skin Deep is the world’s largest personal care product safety guide and contains safety information for 70,750 products. I also learned that the EWG is a founding member of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. After learning that lead has been found in many brands of lipstick I think a campaign of this sort is needed. I think they are a reliable source because they list all of the data sources they use to create the safety information for the 70,000 plus products. I have learned information about the ingredients in the products I use on a daily basis that I would have never known about if EWG did not exist. Like the EWG says, I think consumers have a right to know this type of information.

  11. Melissa Worth says:

    1a)
    o Product: Philosophy Falling in Love Body Lotion
    o Hazard score: 5 (moderate hazard)
    o Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this product. I know that Philosophy has a pretty good reputation, but the scent is pretty strong, so that leads me to believe that there are a lot of chemicals in it.
    o Did anything surprise you that you learned? Yes, it has pretty high allergies & immunotoxicity concerns.
    o In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? No (doesn’t claim to be green)
    o Do you think you will continue to use the product? Probably (I don’t use it too often to begin w/)

    1b)
    o Product: Avon Moisture Effective Eye Makeup Remover Lotion
    o Hazard score: 3 (moderate hazard)
    o Were you expecting a higher or lower score? This was about what I had expected, but thankfully it’s not any higher since this stuff gets in my eyes as I’m taking my makeup off.
    o Did anything surprise you that you learned? Yes, again, this product had pretty high allergies & immunotoxicity concerns.
    o In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? No (doesn’t claim to be green)
    o Do you think you will continue to use the product? Yes, it works very well, and my mom swears by their products. My grandma used to sell Avon & now my mom does too.

    1c)
    o Product: Secret Flawless Anti-Perspirant Deodorant
    o Hazard score: 4 (moderate hazard)
    o Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I expected the hazard score to be a lot higher based on what little information I’ve heard about deodorant in this class.
    o Did anything surprise you that you learned? Yes, it didn’t really mention anything about breast cancer or how it traps toxins in your body.
    o In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? No (doesn’t claim to be green)
    o Do you think you will continue to use the product? Yes, I really like the way it smells & most products of moderate concern aren’t really a concern to me (i.e., there’s not a enough data to suggest that these products are truthfully hazardous to my health)

    (2) The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a non-profit organization, which is independent of any manufacturer/producer/marketer of these products and is comprised of scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers, and computer programmers. I didn’t find anything that really led me to believe that I couldn’t trust them, but I think it’s always important to question the source. As far as I can tell, they seem committed to protecting public health and the environment, so Skin Deep is a website I will continue to use.

  12. Brittany Biggers says:

    1a. Aveeno Active Naturals Daily Moisturizing Lotion: Overall hazard score is low. The score seems pretty right to me, but that’s only because I’ve always heard good things about Aveeno. I was really surprised that it has a high concern of neurotoxicity and organ toxicity. I believe that this product is slightly guilty of greenwashing, but in the long run they are doing a lot better job than most companies. I will continue to use this product.

    1b. Maybelline Volum Express Mascara: Overall hazard score is moderate. There is nothing advertised as natural on this product and from hearing about cosmetics in class it does not surprise me that this has a moderate rating. I think it’s surprising and slightly terrifying that there is a moderate concern that this product can cause cellular level changes. I do not think this product is guilty of greenwashing because there is nothing on the package that would suggest it is sustainable. I will probably use the rest of this tube, but then try to buy a safer product next time.

    1c. Clean & Clear Morning Burst Face Wash: Overall hazard score is almost all the way to high. This score is surprising, because you would never think that washing your face would be hazardous to your health. Everything I learned about this product was surprising, because not only does it have a high hazard score, but there are multiple high risk side effects.

    2. The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit organization that does not work as third-party organization. The get their information from a board of reliable scientists. As one of the only databases that takes the time to compile data about beauty products, I feel that this is as reliable of a source as you can get.

  13. Karen Cotton says:

    1. (a, b, c)
    • Product: Dermasil Dry Skin Treatment
    • Hazard score: Moderate (High Health concern)
    • Were you expecting a higher or lower score? Lower
    • Did anything surprise you that you learned? Moderate hazardous level for allergies and immunotoxicity
    • In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? No
    • Do you think you will continue to use the product? Yes
    • Product: Secret Powder Fresh Deodorant
    • Hazard score: Low – Moderate
    • Were you expecting a higher or lower score? Lower
    • Did anything surprise you that you learned? Moderate hazardous level for allergies and immunotoxicity
    • In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? Yes
    • Do you think you will continue to use the product? Yes

    • Product: Bausch and Lomb-Boston Advance Conditioning Solution
    • Hazard score: Low
    • Were you expecting a higher or lower score? Low
    • Did anything surprise you that you learned? Moderate hazardous level for allergies and immunotoxicity
    • In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? No
    • Do you think you will continue to use the product? Yes

    2. EWG is a non-profit environmental organization that is dedicated to using the power of public information to protect public health and the environment. The primary focuses of EWG’s research are in the areas toxic chemicals and human health, agricultural policy, and natural resources. Based on a review of the types of research projects that they have been involved in, EWG appears to be an organization that has information that is worth consideration by the consumer.

  14. Ari Strickland says:

    1a.product– Garnier Fructis Sleek and Shine leave-in conditioner
    Hazard score–moderate
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score?– I expected about that, not too high but definitely not great.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned?– I put that stuff on my hair everyday…and it can be neurotoxic!!
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?– yes, something of low concern was data gaps in the labeling.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product?–Yes, so far it’s the best i’ve found and i use it daily. When i find a better replacement then we’ll see.

    1b.product–Aveeno Positively Radiant Moisturizer
    Hazard score–little more than moderate.
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score?– i was expecting LOWER! Aveeno seems so natural!
    DId anything suprise you that you learned?–basically all the warnings: neurotoxicity and organ system toxicity
    Do you think you will continue to use the product? nope. i can find better moisturizer for myself than that, especially since i use it daily.

    1c.product–ReNu Multipurpose solution
    Hazard score–low to moderate
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I guess about that, how bad could simple saline solution be?
    Did anything suprise you that you learned?–endocrine disruption?
    Do you think you will continue to use the product?–probably no, i ususally change up things like contact solution that i use everyday.

    2)Are they a third-part organization? Is it for profit or non-profit? Anything else you can find on the EWG please report it. Most importantly, after you look into them tell us if you think they are an organization you trust, please explain why.
    Yes they are a third-party organization. They do make profit off of ads but their goal is to educate. They have so many resources from the EPA for guidlines of health and safety and so many databases of chemicals to compare the product to. With so much support backing them, I would agree that it is surely safe to trust the information. They also rate how good that data selection was per product so you actually do know how reliable they are.

  15. JoAnn M says:

    1 a.) After reading about your product please share the following:

    ◦Product: Dove Moisturizing Shampoo

    ◦Hazard score: moderate (3)

    ◦Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I expected a low score for some reason…?

    ◦Did anything surprise you that you learned?Everything I read about this product surprised me! Firstly, I was not aware that a shampoo could be so scary… BUT the data that made me the most nervous was that it contributes to contamination concerns, some of those being cancer concerns.It also had a very high allergies and immunotoxicity rating.

    ◦In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? I dont recall any labels of verbage insinuating anything healthy on the bottle, but it’s dove… It’s on a peaceful white bottle, with a dove flying across it. Who thinks that that’s a product that is going to be bad for them, I mean seriously?

    ◦Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    I will use what’s left of the bottle I have now, but I think I’ll start looking for a healthier alternative. As bad as this sounds, I thought if my hair looked good, that was all I needed to look at.

    1 b.)

    ◦Product: Aveeno Active Naturals Daily Moisturizing Lotion

    ◦Hazard score: low (2)

    ◦Were you expecting a higher or lower score? After finding out about my last products rating, I was expecting a rating similar to what was shown for this product.

    ◦Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    Yes, the fact that this product has HIGH neurotoxicity and organ system toxicity. You just don’t expect the products you use everyday, to have serious health connections to those parts of your body.

    ◦In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    This product advertises how it is natural, so therefore you think everything your body takes in from it won’t harm you. That apparently is only somewhat true. If this product has such high neuro an organ system toxicities, I feel that it is green washing me to believing that it’s better for me than it really is.

    ◦Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    I think I’ll keep my eyes open for better products that come my way, but for now, since the product did receive a low rating I think I’ll keep using it. Those other areas did scare me a bit, but I think I’m coming to the conclusion that no product is completely safe, so I must learn to fight my battles on what is more important than other things.

    1 c.)

    -Product: Secret Invisible Solid Platinum, Velvet Powder Scent

    -Hazard score: Moderate (3)

    -Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I’d say the score this product was given was about what I expected. I have come to realize through this post that it really is next to impossible to add something to the body and it not be harmed of become off balanced in some way.

    -Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    Again, the fact this product can affect neuro toxicity and that it has contamination concerns is the most alarming things to me. These concerns were moderate though

    -In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect?
    This was another product that emphasied its “natural chemistry.” This again to me is misleading, because when I think natural, I think healthy, as I’m sure many other consumers do.

    -Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    I will. This product causes me no irritation, which was its highest concern, and unless I find something that is truly healthier for me, I will more than likely stay with this product.

    *** It’s kind of funny to watch my though process from product to product. It went from freaking out to oh, this must be normal lol.

    (2) Please look more in-depth into the “Environmental Working Group” that is the organization behind the Skin Deep website. I would like for you to report on your investigative findings about this company. Are they a third-part organization? Is it for profit or non-profit? Anything else you can find on the EWG please report it. Most importantly, after you look into them tell us if you think they are an organization you trust, please explain why.

    -The Environmental working group is non- profit (with 84 cents of every dollar actually going to researrch!) and is also a third party organization. These two facts alone make this group pretty trustworthy in my opinion. They have a long list of accomplishments in years past and all their donations come from consumers. Their focus seems to be very driven to the furthering of eductaion, especially in protecting the youth. This group exudes a strong passion for what they are trying to accomplish and they do so in a manner that is very ethical, making it easy for the consumer to trust them.

  16. Samantha Morton says:

    1. Clinique Dramatically Different moisturizer
    -Hazard score :4
    -I was expecting a lower score because Clinique does an excellent job in their presentation to appear, simplistic and of high quality.
    -I was surprised to learn that Clinique has not signed on with Compact for Safe Cosmetics. That is a little disconcerting. What are they trying to hide?
    -I do not feel like Clinique is guilty of any greenwashing. They do not claim to be super natural or eco-friendly and after reading the ingredients of the moisturizer I will still use the product. Truth be told I wash my face very irregularly and the only time I use the facial moisturizer is after I give my face a good rinse.

    2.Garnier Fructis Pure Clean
    This product is not on the Skin Deep website but I’m so excited to say I found a greenwashing offender. I bought this shampoo because it said 94% Biodegradable on the bottle, not because of the conveniently placed Earth image with a tree sprouting from it. The fortifying shampoo (I’m not even sure what fortifying means..) claims to be free of silicone, paraben and dye. As an added bonus the bottle contains 50% recycled plastic, which I believe. It also has some nice tips to take a short shower and recycle the bottle. However since it was not on the website I did some research to find out the truth behind how “green” this shampoo really is. (And it looks pretty green to me, green bottle, green gel…) From the long list of ingredients it contains such red flags as: Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Hexylene Glycol, Parfum (Fragrance), Salicylic Acid, Benzoic Acid, Linalool, Hexyl cinnamal. I did some further research on the first chemical since it was higher up on the list, therefore indicating it was higher in concentration and the results said it posed more of a threat to the environment than to humans. I’m going to keep using it because I have 2/3 of the bottle left and I don’t want to be wasteful, but I doubt I’ll buy it again.
    3. Speed Stick deodorant.
    – Yes, I use men deodorant, but only because it was the only one I could find that wasn’t an antiperspirant. My mother has lectured me for too long about the potential hazards of an antiperspernt that I know better than to buy one – partly for fear of her wrath, and also because it makes sense why blocking ones pores to sweat is not so good. Again I couldn’t find the exact deodorant on the Skin Deep website so I used its closest relative, however the product I used still contains an antiperspirant. The fragrance and triclosan seemed to be the worst offenders in the product. As the website warns, bioaccumulation is a concern, as well as endocrine disruption.
    -Not an offender of greenwashing, although the casing is green, as well as the stick itself.
    -I will continue to use this product because it isn’t socially acceptable yet to walk around au natural.

    4. The Environmental working group is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and a third party organization. The EWG does not manufacture the goods it reports on it merely wants to get good information out to the public. I actually used to be in a club that did research on non-profits and then chose which one to donate to, so I reverted back to the process of investigation I am accustomed to. First place I looked was the board. EWG has an impressive board of a variety of people, with multiple perspectives (a good thing). There is a pediatrician, a former head of a non-profit, an environmental minister (?), and the founder of the nations first organic restaurant. The variety promotes balance and fairness in their work.

  17. Danielle M. says:

    1. a. Covergirl Lashblast Mascara
    – Hazard Score: 4
    – I expected it to fall in the middle of the spectrum, so I wasn’t really surprised by the score.
    – Not really, it is a waterproof mascara, so what they listed didn’t really surprise me. I only wear it every so often.
    – No, there isn’t anything on the packaging that refers to being green.
    – As I said, I only use it when I know that I will be around water. It isn’t a product that I use every day.
    b. Clinique All About Eyes
    – Hazard Score: 2
    – I wasn’t surprised be this score either. Clinique has a reputation for being good and gentle for your skin.
    – Once again, no I wasn’t surprised by the score.
    – There isn’t anything on the packaging that would claim to be green.
    – Yes, I will continue to use this product. It was nice to find out that is actually a good product.
    c. Tresemme Thermal Creations Heat Tamer Protective Spray
    – Hazard Score: 8
    – It was higher than I expected.
    – I was somewhat surprised. The only thing that it rated highly on was the allergies and immuntoxicity scale.
    – There isn’t anything on the packaging that suggests that it is green.
    – I will still probably continue to use it, unless I can find some else I like more.
    2. The EWG is not a third party organization and it is non-profit. I think this website is a good idea but most of the things that I use on a daily basis aren’t in their database, which is sort of frustrating. I was surprised by this because brands of cosmetics that I use aren’t obscure brands. And brands that were in their database that I do use the certain product I use weren’t listed.

  18. yvetteguilbeau says:

    1)
    product: Cetaphil daily facial cleanser
    hazard score: 6 (moderate hazard)
    -6 is the highest number in the moderate hazard range. I was expecting a lower score than that, one in the low hazard range
    -I do feel like the product had somewhat of a greenwashing aspect. Cetaphil’s image is one of being gentle and basic, and good for the skin in a simple way. Or atleast that’s the image I’ve always associated with it.
    -For now I will keep using it but I think I will research to find one that is less hazardous for everyday use

    product: Aveeno Active Naturals Positively Radiant Tinted Moisturizer
    hazard score: 10 (highest hazard)
    -I was definitely not expecting this product to have the highest hazard score.
    -I don’t feel like this product greenwashes, but I did think that was a safer product
    -I have not been using this product for very long, only a few weeks, but I think I will research a safer tinted moisturizer to start using

    product: smashbox photo finish lipstick, Flirty
    hazard score: 3 (moderate hazard)
    -I think this is a reasonable score for this product. I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had been higher. Its on the lowest end of the moderate hazard range
    –I don’t think this company greenwashes
    -I will still keep using this lipstick. I think this lipstick brand is a lot less hazardous than many others

    2) The EWG is a non-profit as well as a third party organization. I think the information they put out is trustworthy because their main focus is to educate consumers about the products they have studied. They do not make a profit off of these products or the information they put out. I think the EWG is really interested in protecting the health of the public by giving them the information to make healthier decisions about the products they use in their daily lives.

  19. Briana Martinez says:

    1.)
    • Product
    o Maybelline Define-A-Line Eyeliner, Slate Gray
    • Hazard score
    o 2: low hazard
    • Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    o I was expecting a higher score since this product is used on the eyelids and is in close contact with your eye which can inhale chemicals and other hazards easily
    • Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    o While the score was consider low hazard the highest rating was developmental and reproductive toxicity was almost in the moderate rang. That was kind of alarming I’m glad it didn’t show up high or I probably would have freaked out a bit
    • In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any green washing aspect?
    o Maybe a little bit as the actual container itself is green, and we as consumer have unconsciously associated green with pure, nature, good for you
    • Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    o Yes I will continue to use this product
    • Product
    o Revlon Super Lustrous Cream Lipstick, Certainly Red 740
    • Hazard score
    o 5: moderate hazard
    • Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    o This was around the score that I was expecting as I know lipstick has been under controversy off and on for several years
    • Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    o Most definitely was surprised!!! This lipstick has a high rating for developmental and reproductive toxicity: that a real scary thought to think your lipstick can affect your chance of reproduction. I did realize thought that the hazard levels depended on the color of the lipstick; the darker the color or I would assume the more pigments used, the worse the lipstick is for you
    • In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any green washing aspect?
    o No I do not think this product has any green washing on it as it made no claims to be good or pure for anything
    • Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    o This is a lipstick I rarely use anyway as it is very red; I don’t know if I will continue to use this product but I do know every time I shop for lipstick now that thought will be in the back of my head
    • Product
    o L’Oreal True Match Natural Foundation Gentle Mineral Makeup, Soft Sable, SPF 19
    • Hazard score
    o 7: high hazard
    • Were you expecting a higher or lower score?
    o I was thinking that this would be fairly low as not much is coming in contact with your face, but after second thought I guess the idea of your skin absorbing this product as you sweat as well as the addition of sunscreen to the product as well as the tendency to reapply shouldn’t surprise me
    • Did anything surprise you that you learned?
    o Not really by the time I got to the third product I was pretty much expecting anything
    • In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any green washing aspect?
    o To some extent the addition of sunscreen to the product could be said to give some allusion of protection since one would assume that by adding sunscreen surely this product cannot be harmful to me they are protecting me
    • Do you think you will continue to use the product?
    o I stopped using this product a while back. I actually didn’t care for the product itself, after seeing it is highly hazardous I guess my body must have known
    (2) EWG is a nonprofit non- partisan organization that focuses providing resources for consumers on environmental causes and impacts while make way for national policy change on environmental subject matter. They divide their efforts into four categories: health/toxics, farming, natural resources, and energy choices. The bulk of funding for ewg is from grant revenue –foundations (56%) followed by individuals at 35%. They put the most of their funds to toxics followed by sustainable agriculture. In 2002, they were accused of not filing or making clear they lobbying activity and some wanted their tax exempt status revoked. After looking at several sources I think for the most part they are a pretty trustworthy organization, but as with any organization you should always get more than one source to any matter before making your own decision and actions.

  20. Aubrey says:

    1a) The first product I researched was Yes to cucumbers hypoallergenic face toilettes. It had a score of 1 which qualifies it as “champion status. I was Happy to find that our, and slightly surprised, I think because i’m so skeptical of greenwashing I just assumed it was going to have a slightly higher score. the only thing that surprised me about the product is that one of the concerns is its ability to irritate skin. Since it’s hypoallergenic I thought that was odd. There were other low concerns such as data gaps i didn’t find too alarming. What you don’t know cant hurt you, right?
    1b) The next product i researched was Dove Go Fresh cool moisture cucumber body was. The score was a 4. There were moderate concerns for neurotoxicity which I thought was slightly alarming. then i started wondering if thats why I have a bad memory…hoer concerns were organ system toxicity and skin irritation concerns. Overall I wasn’t surprised about the score, although i wish it had been lower. i think there are some definite green washing tactics being used in terms of how the product is marketed. Its a white bottle with a picture of a cucumber in water, green lettering, even the name is GO Fresh. Its a ploy for sure and I will probably not be purchasing the product now that I know this site can refer me to a better more healthy product.
    1c) The third product I researched was my toothpaste which is Arm and hammer complete care fluoride anti cavity toothpaste with whitening. this product scored a 5 and some of the concerns were endocrine disrupters, bioaccumulation and neurotoxicity,all very scary words. I thought this product wold be lower because they market themselves as natural looking with a picture of fresh mint and details about baking soda. I suppose i just equated the fact that it was a baking soda toothpaste to organic or natural. Ill definitely be staying away from this toothpaste in the future. I looked into the other toothpaste options that have been researched and there are many many choices with a score of zero. Good thing Im almost out of this one anyway!

    2) Based on The research I have done about the EWG, they seem to have pure motives. The people working for the non profit organization are from varied positions that seem unbiased. They are representing environmentalists in their movement for policy change over issues of not only the toxicity of chemicals, but also of agricultural subsidies. they are in favor of more subsidies to organic farming which is something I can stand behind. There is, however some controversy surrounding the group. Apparently they put out a report (the TSCA) stating that 62,000 chemicals are safe without actually having a lot of research to back it up. Some people were concerned about why they would tell consumers something is safe that hasn’t been studied in depth enough o actually determine that. I find that alarming since one of their main missions is to watch chemical toxicity. Also there were concerns with their tax filing and they were being investigated for some of their money handling. For example, this company is non profit with most money going to research(keep in mind industry representatives question their research process as unscientific and/or inaccurate) however, its president makes192k/year. Yet they file as a non profit and have in the past been under investigation for hiding some expenses. I think it’s important to remember though who is criticizing this company. No doubt they will make some enemies when reporting to consumers that many products aren’t safe like we thought.

  21. Cam Gordon says:

    1a) Product: Biore Ice Cleanser Hazard score: 6
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score? This score was unsurprising to me, it seems most cleansers have chemicals in them that may lead to irritation for some.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned? Yes, I thought it was strange that potential neurotoxicity ranked below potential skin irritation.
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? No, there aren’t any green claims on the bottle.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product? I didn’t buy this, but I will probably use it until empty, checking the site before any future acquisitions.

    1b) Product: Burt’s Bees After Sun Soother Hazard score: 5
    Were you expecting a higher or lower score? I expected a lower score.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned? The fragrance was the most hazardous ingredient in the product.
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? Somewhat, Burt’s Bees has a very earthy, all-natural vibe to their packaging and marketing – in contrast to the long list of chemicals found in this product.
    Do you think you will continue to use the product? I have had this for years and have only used it very sparingly, I’ll most likely keep it around.

    1c) Product: Neosporin Antibiotic Ointment Hazard score: 2 Were you expecting a higher or lower score? This score seemed about right, any first aid product should be pretty nontoxic.
    Did anything surprise you that you learned? One of the antibacterials caused tumors in high doses in animal testing.
    In your opinion, do you feel the product you were using had any greenwashing aspect? No
    Do you think you will continue to use the product? Yes, although generally speaking I try to avoid having to use it in the first place.

    2) The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit, third party organization. The cosmetic industry is a business, and positive or negative ratings in EWG’s database could potentially make or break sales for certain brands and product lines. This makes me wary of their ratings, which lead to direct consumer endorsements or just the opposite. However, I haven’t seen a more detailed database than theirs to date, at least the technical information seems solidly reliable.

  22. Danielle Ruble says:

    1) product: benefit cosmetics moon beam: hazard score-7
    i expected a lower score.
    i was suprised that the allergy score was so high since it is a product that goes around the tear duct of your eye as a higlighter.
    i don’t think it has any greenwashing effect because there are no claims of being a green product.
    i will continue to use this product because it is one of my favorite products, but i will be careful to not get it in my eye.
    1b) burt’s bees beeswax lip balm- score 2
    the score is around what i expected.
    once again the allergy score was the highest.
    i will continue to use the product since it received a low score.
    i do think there is a greenwashing effect since burt bees is promoted as being all-natural, but the score was low.
    1c) redken all soft shampoo- score 6
    i was surprised that endocrine disruption was a high concern
    i don’t believe their was a greenwashing effect because there doesn’t seem to be any claims of sustainability
    i will continue to use the product, the only time i would be cautious with what i put on my scalp would be if i was pregnant because i have always been told you can’t dye your hair because it will effect your baby (don’t know if it’s true)

    2) EWG is headquartered in Washington DC and is an environmental organization. It is nonprofit and a third party. Regarding Skin Deep, industry representatives claim the website is “highly inaccurate” and johnson& johnson and banana boat have fought to preserve their integrity. I do trust the organization, but it will not effect my shopping habits that much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: