You are on page 1of 11

Glinskaya 1 Catherine Glinskaya Mr.

Anthony Borrero Engl 1102 10 April 13

Reflection on C.A.P. Project

When I abstract myself from the C.A.P. project and from all my pre-writing and writing processes to view it as one whole piece, I need to admit that I find it to be challenging. Although I had the basis for the project in the form of the previously made research and generated ideas, I did not feel comfortable enough to continue the project. I understood that I needed to use and develop ideas presented in Prezi project and following it paper. Nevertheless, I was restrained by the though that all my ideas in new project would sound too alike and will appear as a simple repetition. I needed new research, new ideas, new ways of formatting and representing data. And yes, I needed more facts and statistics to be used. However, to obtain new information, gather ideas and develop them, I needed to focus on one specific, main direction of the paper. I needed to figure out for myself if I am more interested in the alternatives cosmetics offer, or to make the problem itself and the probable solutions to it the center of the concern. The alternative cosmetics seemed to be a more calling, unexplored topic, but I found my passion to be about the problem and solution solving. Indeed, I faced solution solving not only within the topic itself. Throughout the entire paper I constantly felt the need to find and connect new interesting approaches, outlooks and authors. In addition to that, it was a painful process for me to decide on ideas to be included in the paper. My ideas are like little babies to me. I know if I leave them, they

Glinskaya 2 will be abandoned forever. I could not accept the idea that they would have to die. Yet, they appeared to be indisposed, and did not belong in the project. Therefore, natural, or logical selection in this case, seemed to be more reasonable than to take care of every brainchild that was born during the process of writing. Although the ideas and subtopics of the project were laid out on the paper upfront, I faced another big challenge. It appeared in the face of the necessity to formulate good introduction, which would convey clear and comprehensive purpose and show the course of the paper. My struggle there was to keep the intrigue, make the reader want to continue to read without giving out all the secrets, but indicating the direction of my thoughts. It was almost impossible for me to move more than 2-3 pages before I was contented with the introduction. In fact, introduction seemed to be one of the most difficult parts, as it was one of the main parts, holding the paper together. Dissatisfaction with the introduction retarded the entire process of writing and I could not move on until the purpose was outlined. While I was struggling with the introduction, I also was reordering the flow of the thoughts and subtopics for them to sound logical and not to confuse the reader, and myself too. It took me some time to find the better way of presenting ideas, so they flow in an organic way. Still, I by no means consider the paper perfect and as smooth as Indian silk. If I had extra time to work on the paper, I would revise the transitions within the paragraphs, as well as among the ideas and the structure of the entire paper. Also, since I felt the pressure to make the conclusion no worse, and even better than the introduction, I would dedicate most of that time to make it as retentive as ABC song, and to make sure it leaves a reader with strong will to take action, whether it be decide for themselves not to buy toxics in cosmetics appearance, or to force the government to take real actions. Surprisingly enough, but I would have not left citations and work cited page alone if I had extra time. Since I was mainly focusing on the accuracy of the represented ideas, not enough time was left to organize the

Glinskaya 3 works cited page as neat as the products on the shelves of the supermarket. The result of its organization looks more like the New York City after the visit of the hurricane Sandy. I find the reason for that in the fact that it was my first attempt to cite Internet sources following the MLA rules. Despite all the weaknesses of the paper, or even due the act I faced them, I am certain that the project helped me to improve my analytical and problem solving skills in writing as well as helped me to develop the way I represent and connect both my ideas and the ideas of others. Although to be honest, I dont think I had any problems with thinking broad, I believe it served its purpose to make me question almost everything on a broader scale. In addition to that it also put the ability to connect ideas and facts on a higher level.

Glinskaya 4 Catherine Glisnkaya Mr. Anthony Borrero Engl 1102 11 April 2013 C.A.P. Project A beauty elixir, or poison? Many people nowadays seem to be concerned about safety and regulations in drug and food industry, but we take little stance when it comes to the safety of cosmetics. We simply are not being cautious of what we buy when it comes to shampoos, toothpaste, baby powder etc., being led by attractive bottles, advertisement, slogan or some catchy word presented on the label. Do we, American customers, even look at the back of the bottle? Even if we do, do we understand what we are reading there? Ammonium lauryl sulfate, dimethicone, cocamidopropyl betaine, guar hydropropylytrimonium were only a few names I found on my shampoos label. Ingredient such as Ammonium lauryl sulfate is one of the top chemicals listed on the toxic twelve list - the list that contains dangerous ingredients (Toxic Cosmetic Ingredients). If so, why it is still present in the shampoo I bought? In fact, about 90% of beauty and personal care products that foam contain Ammonium lauryl sulfate. It is linked to eye damage, depression, diarrhea, skin irritation, and even death (Toxic Cosmetic Ingredients). It is quite shocking information, which raises several questions which I will pursue further. Are the accusations of cosmetics industry in using hazardous chemicals solid?

Glinskaya 5 If yes, are the companies not abiding the safety rules, or there are simply no regulations to adhere to? To find answers to these questions we need to consider if the safety of cosmetics is a relatively new issue, or it has been brewing up for years. When did we start to see the lack of power over the cosmetics industry and a breach in customers safety? We also need to consider if there are any alternatives to choose and how we, as customers, should respond to the issue of safety in cosmetics industry. To start with, lets travel back to 1930ies, when a huge scandal around one of the most popular cosmetic companies took place. Several women suffered corneal damage after using an eyelash beautifier an eyelash and eyebrow dye called Lash Lure. Moreover one of the women went blind (Cosmetics and Personal par 1-3). Taking into consideration that these injuries happened several decades ago, we would assume that now, after dramatic cases like that the government would have corrected the situation by carefully regulating cosmetics industry. Unfortunately, passing legislative regulations has not become the result of these tragic events. American government seems not to notice the safety concerns. This, again, may be proven by about 38,000 injuries related to cosmetics, which required medical treatment, that were registered in America in 1990 (Cosmetics and Personal par 3). Unfortunately the issue of safety in cosmetics still continues, accumulating thousands of new cases of injuries each year for about 70 years since the first scandal appeared on the scene. Many of the customers suffer from skin rashes, inflammation and burns, blistering, allergies that are caused by cosmetics. These injuries, according to Thompson Solicitors, can leave lasting effects or even leave scarring (Thompson Solicitors). Furthermore, according to The Legal Line a company that works with customers claims, some allergic reactions related to cosmetics may effect the respiratory system with serious health implications, even to the point of causing asthma (The Legal Line).

Glinskaya 6 This information brings me to my main concern regarding the safety of cosmetics. If so many injuries were caused by cosmetics and so many cases of skin irritation, skin burn are still happening nowadays, why not to restrict or prohibit the usage of dangerous chemicals, or at least label them correctly? In fact, 89 % of all available to cosmetics chemicals were never evaluated (FDA Regulations par 1). Then, who is responsible for monitoring the situation? Greta Chapin-McGill in her article Marketing Requirements for Beauty Products points out several organizations that keep an eye on the cosmetics industry where The Food and Drug Administration (the FDA) seems to play the most important part (par1). The FDA, which promises on their website to protect and promote consumers health, does in fact has the authority to inspect manufacturers facilities (Chapin-McGill par 1 FDA). It has been administered the control in 1938, when the Congress passed the Federal Food and Drug Cosmetic Act (FD&C). This act was triggered by the scandal around Lash Lure, which was mentioned earlier. Yet, since the Act was passed, it was amended only once, in 1960, only to monitor color additives in beauty products (Chapin-McGill par 2). If to explore the FDAs website closer, it is clear that the FDA does not have power to regulate cosmetics industry. Speaking the FDAs words, cosmetic ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority (Ingredients Prohibited par 1). However, it points out that there are some regulations which violation can turn out into some mystical regulatory action (Ingredients Prohibited par 1). Unfortunately, that action is not specified. Nevertheless, there are indeed listed 8 chemicals prohibited in the use of cosmetology. The list consists of bithionol, clorofluorocarbon propellants, chloroform, halogenated salicylanilides, methylene chloride, vinyl chloride, zirconium-containing complexes and prohibited cattle materials with some exceptions in specified risk materials. The last one actually implies that vertebrae of the tail, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, strangely, can still be used in cosmetics (Ingredients Prohibited par 4-11, par 19). In addition to that, there is

Glinskaya 7 another exception to the rules, which is hidden underneath proficient language. The FDA states that the use of chlorofluocarbon propellants is prohibited in cosmetic aerosol products intended for domestic consumption (Ingredients Prohibited par 4). Does this mean that customers and workers in professional salons are left to be envenomed? Yet, the list is not completed. Besides those 8 humbly represented chemicals the FDA also itemizes cosmetic ingredients that are restricted by regulations. Only two chemicals are represented in this category: hexachlorophene and mercury compounds. By putting them into restricted section, the FDA clearly and obscenely states that these chemicals can be used, if no other alternative is found to be effective and safe (Ingredients Prohibited par 12). Indeed, do they mean that mercury in my eye cream is safe? As a matter of fact, the FDAs list of Selected Cosmetic Ingredients of 8 prohibited and 2 restricted chemicals looks extremely poor in comparison to one that European Union agreed on. The EU passed the Cosmetics Directive in 1976 with following amendments in 1979, 1985 and 11 corrections (Council Directive 1,2). This document lists 1371 chemicals banned for usage in cosmetics industry (Council Directive 65). Dene Godfrey comments on the number of the chemicals, arguing that the majority of the ingredients listed by the EU has never been used in cosmetics (Godfrey par 4). But, when it comes to customers health and safety, shouldnt the government, including the FDA, be more precautious about whats allowed in our cosmetics? The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health reported 884 chemicals available for use in cosmetics as toxic (Cosmetics and Personal par 1). And yet, the FDA leaves the banned list with 8. Summing it all up, the FDA really does not seem to have any authority over the cosmetics industry, except for it can control the color additives (Ingredients Prohibited par1). In that case, are there any other institutions the consumers can rely on in terms of safety? The campaign for Safe Cosmetics on their website mentions Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR)

Glinskaya 8 as a safety panel that examines chemicals used in cosmetology. However, in the history of more than 30 years it has reviewed only 11% of ingredients that are currently being used in cosmetics and named 9 unsafe ingredients (FDA Regulations par 3). This statistics does not give much confidence in the panel, although its effort is appreciated. In addition to that, words on the labels if the products seem to be too vague and unclear. What does it mean natural, safe, and pure? These terms are undefined with no indication of the danger the bottle might contain. Nor does the CIR take into consideration a likelihood of the exposure of the body to multiple hazardous chemicals during extended periods of time (FDA Regulations par 3). Since neither independent campaigns nor a government institution can fully provide the safety of cosmetics, the industry is left to self-regulate. What the companies do to insure the safety of their products? Apparently, companies do their own testing. At the same time, according to the FDA, they lack sufficient data and generally refuse to disclose the results (FDA Regulations par 2). In addition to that according to Rachael Pomerance, The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in the study of 17 popular fragrances found on average 14 undisclosed chemicals (Pomerance par 2). Moreover, out of 4 to 5 thousand distributors, only as few as 3 percent have filed reports on customers injuries. (FDA Regulations par 2). To top this huge mountain of disguise in cosmetics industry, the FDA estimated that less than 40 percent out of 2,000 to 2,500 cosmetic manufacturers are actually registered (FDA Regulations par 2). After all the information hunted out of the cumulus of the research, it is inevitably clear that cosmetics industry is left self-regulated with the companies and procedures we cannot completely trust. Now is the time for us to get out of the sinking in quicksand of trust to government, companies and campaigns, trying to find the solution to the problem of the safety of cosmetics. Since companies, and the cosmetics industry as a whole, are very sensitive to customers choices, we can start the fight against the non-safety of cosmetics

Glinskaya 9 products with our wallets. Why should we buy something that is portrayed as natural and offered as safe, while its contents are contaminated by dangerous chemicals? Why should we poison ourselves? Conversely, we, ach of us, need to make small steps toward big change and choose indeed healthy products for ourselves. Like it was previously mentioned, companies are extremely sensitive to the changes in the market and will have to follow the customers choice. They want to sell what we want to buy. Nevertheless, the industry needs bigger change. Since the companies lobbied the attempt of the FDA to restrict the regulations in the form of the Safe Cosmetics Act which was presented to the Congress in 2011, there is something to hide (Pomerance par 3). What is lurking within that toothpaste or a shower gel your family uses? As a result of the companies action, we still do not know what our cosmetics contain. Then, why are American customers still allowing the companies to make money by poisoning their fellow citizens? The only real solution to the problem is to change the way the cosmetics are produced. The FDAs current paper of gateway for manufacturers cannot serve this purpose. We need to be assure that the products we buy are indeed safe. The solution to the safety concern in the cosmetics industry will be achieved by passing legitimate real laws authorizing an institution, or several institutions, whether its the FDA or any other one, to have the power over the process of manufacturing the cosmetic goods. These regulations can no longer be guidelines. Moreover, they should authorize that chosen institution with the power to impose the law. By choosing the word power I mean it, I mean that we need to have an institution that can regulate the process of production, the chemicals being used in it and labeling of the products. And even if a company plays unfair game, the law should entitle the regulatory institution to recall the line of the products and to fine the company for not strictly abiding the regulations. Now its our time to decide if we let the cosmetics industry to continue killing us softly, or to make a change. How to achieve it? Choose for yourself.

Glinskaya 10 Works Cited Page

Bennett, James. Cosmetics and Skin 13 January 2013. Web. March 2013 <>

Chapin-McGill, Greta Marketing Requirements for Beauty Products. Ehow n.d. Web. March 2013 <>

Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Can be Cancer Risks . Cancer Prevention Coalition n.d. n.p. Web. March 2013 <>

Council Directive. The Council of the European Communities. 27 July 1976. Web. April 2013 < PDF>

FDA Regulations. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. n.d. Web. March 2013 <>

Glinskaya 11 Godfrey, Dene The EU Has Banned Over 1000 Chemicals; The FDA Has Only Banned 9. n.p. March 4, 2011. Web. March 2013 <>

Ingredients Prohibited & Restricted by FDA Regulations. The FDA. June 22, 1996; Updated May 30, 2000. Page Last Updated: 11/30/2012. Web. March 2013 < ients/ucm127406.htm>

Pomerance, Rachael How Safe Are Your Cosmetics? July 31 2012. n.p. Web. March 2013 <>

The Legal Line. n.d. Web. April 2013 <>

Thompson Solicitors.n.d. Web. April 2013. <>

Toxic Cosmetic Ingredients Toxic Chemicals In Cosmetics .Michal J. Witkowski. Toxic Free Awereness. May 24 2012. Web. March 2013 <>