Over the weekend I was flipping through a magazine and came across an ad for cosmeticsinfo.org, a site that provides safety information and reviews on popular cosmetics. At first, I was excited to find another resource for researching and reviewing my options, but as I began clicking through something struck me as odd. The first thing I saw was a photo comparison of powder foundation with preservatives and powder foundation without preservatives. According to the image and brief description, powder foundation without preservatives would be moldy within 14 days. OK. At first, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they were referencing natural preservatives? So I read on. Next I noticed that several products I had researched on www.cosmeticsdatabase.comand found to have a very low safety rating were highly reviewed on this site. I started to dig deeper and found that cosmeticsinfo.org is an industry website sponsored by cosmetics manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers of the vast majority of finished personal care products in the United States. Call me a skeptic, but I have a hard time finding the information on site populated by the people who stand to lose or gain the most completely trustworthy. It seems to me that the information is a response to sites like www.cosmeticsdatabase.com and an effort to convince consumers that the most popular products are safe (according to the FDA and others). Personally, I’ve found their safety standards don’t measure up to my own. I prefer the credibility of an independent third party, but that’s just me. They report the facts minus the spin even if the site is a little tougher to navigate.
All of this is simply to reinforce the message that I’ve shared in the past. Read the labels. Even on information websites. Sometimes knowing the driving force behind an organization or website is more important than the content itself.
Check back tomorrow for a review of a new cleanser and moisturizer.
