Good day and we are very gald to indicating this mail to your entry company and we are looking a reliable company can supply us our needs and so kindly send us the price list of the your products ok

Thanks and hoping to hear form you end.

Mr patinco joe

The author happily accepts without investigation or analysis every activist claim. An informative analysis would have been to ask the FDA or cosmetic industry organization the Personal Care Product Council their position on claims. But this wouldn’t make such a good scary story.

That the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics or EWG is not aware of safety data does not mean such data do not exist. EWG is an activist group and has limited scientific and technical capabilities. I recall reading publications from this group with misspelled terms, data taken out of context and incorrectly cited.
The author of this article as well as the EWG should please understand that bias does not make up for ignorance. Folks in the government and industry are not evil they’re as moral as others. The implied claim by these activist groups and the author of greater morality and knowledge speaks volumes of the egotism involved in their wild claims.

Very few “trace chemicals” actually do build up in the body – your statement on this is far too general and vague, and not substantiated by fact. The CIR DO take into consideration extended exposure, where the information is available, but “lifetime use” is unlikely ever to be measured. Why? Think about it! You specify phthalates, but there is no evidence that any (and there are several different phthalates) accumulate in the body. In fact, on the contrary, there is evidence that they are excreted. I repeat – very few trace chemicals build up in the body. The EWG study that measured trace contaminants in umbilical cords does not prove accumulation; only a transient presence, and it certainly does not prove that any of these traces are dangerous. The EWG has little scientific credibility. They are very good at scaring people into donating money, but only by using ridiculous scare tactics (phrases such as “if you can’t pronounce it, it can’t be safe, for example) and distorting and misreporting scientific studies to fit their agenda. They are given far more credibility than they deserve.

Can you explain to me why it is ok for the EWG to raise over $6 million in 2008 and spend just over 50% on EWG staff salaries and the rest on lobbying, but it is not ok for the PCPC to spend $600,000 on lobbying. Should ALL lobbying be made illegal, or just those groups whose interests conflict with yours? Democracy? Hmmmm.

Fyi – the CIR panel has been reconstituted and independent experts are the great majority of the make up of this body.