Check out my website dedicated to investigating what's really in your beauty products at http://journalism.bournemouth.ac.uk/2010/hmullins
I recently became interested in this after reading numerous press reports and scientific studies concerning the safety of cosmetics. I've heard various claims that products contain whale blubber, brake fluid, bull's sperm and a whole load of other extraordinary ingredients but it's not so much this that I'm interested in. Rather, I want to explore the usual chemicals that are included in the majority of the products we buy and use.
How much research has been done into the safety of the chemicals that we apply to our skin on a regular basis? Quite a lot it turns out, but how much has the research been used? Many scientists, toxicologists and environmentalists have not only voiced their concerns over chemicals such as parabens and pthalates but have backed them up with scientific tests. Yet, because other research has proved the opposite, no changes have developed. Should more research be being done? Should these chemicals be banned at least until their safety can be ensured?
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Use of Hair-Dye Chemical Trimmed
New European regulations will limit the use of a chemical that is the vital ingredient in hair dyes.
The new rules will come into effect on July 15 and will reduce the amount of para phenylenediamine (PPD) and its derivatives allowed in commercial and professional hair products to 6%. The maximum concentration applied to hair must not exceed 2%.
This hair dye precursor is used in oxidative colouring products and is a ‘sensitiser’ which can encourage an allergic reaction in some consumers. JP’s Style Hair Salon owner Jill Price said, “It’s definitely good that they have lowered PPD because this chemical sometimes causes skin irritation like eczema.
“Some of the darker shade dyes contain a lot of PPD which can damage the hair and stain the skin.”
The amendment to The Cosmetic Products Safety Regulations also states that warnings about allergic reactions must be printed on products.
Independent consultant Helen Lynn thinks that PPD would and should be completely banned if there was not pressure from the beauty industry.
She said, “There aren’t any viable alternatives to PPD and it works very well at colouring hair permanently so the beauty industry is keen to keep it legal.
“PPD penetrates the skin so I wouldn’t buy it. People need to start asking if they really need their hair dyed.”
However The Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association Director General Dr Chris Flower has defended PPD. He said, “The safety of PPD has been extensively investigated over decades and it is safe for use as a hair-dye when regulated and used as directed.”
Author of Toxic Beauty Dawn Mellowship said, “I never use any hair dyes because when I was sixteen I used a semi-permanent dye that made a third of my hair fall out and it never grew back. My friend had used the same product and all of her hair had fallen out. I don’t think people know what a lot of the ingredients in products really do.”
The new rules will come into effect on July 15 and will reduce the amount of para phenylenediamine (PPD) and its derivatives allowed in commercial and professional hair products to 6%. The maximum concentration applied to hair must not exceed 2%.
This hair dye precursor is used in oxidative colouring products and is a ‘sensitiser’ which can encourage an allergic reaction in some consumers. JP’s Style Hair Salon owner Jill Price said, “It’s definitely good that they have lowered PPD because this chemical sometimes causes skin irritation like eczema.
“Some of the darker shade dyes contain a lot of PPD which can damage the hair and stain the skin.”
The amendment to The Cosmetic Products Safety Regulations also states that warnings about allergic reactions must be printed on products.
Independent consultant Helen Lynn thinks that PPD would and should be completely banned if there was not pressure from the beauty industry.
She said, “There aren’t any viable alternatives to PPD and it works very well at colouring hair permanently so the beauty industry is keen to keep it legal.
“PPD penetrates the skin so I wouldn’t buy it. People need to start asking if they really need their hair dyed.”
However The Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association Director General Dr Chris Flower has defended PPD. He said, “The safety of PPD has been extensively investigated over decades and it is safe for use as a hair-dye when regulated and used as directed.”
Author of Toxic Beauty Dawn Mellowship said, “I never use any hair dyes because when I was sixteen I used a semi-permanent dye that made a third of my hair fall out and it never grew back. My friend had used the same product and all of her hair had fallen out. I don’t think people know what a lot of the ingredients in products really do.”
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Oysters Radio Package
Listen here to a radio feature I made. It is pegged to a recent local news story:
Oysters Radio Package from Hayley Mullins on Vimeo.
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Getting High Legally
After the death of two teenagers, Louis Wainwright, 18, and Nicholas Smith, 19, head teachers are calling for the ban of the drug mephedrone.
Head teachers, as well as the police, are unable to exercise any serious power over the possession of mephedrone because it is a legal drug and schools who had caught children as young as nine with the drug had to return confiscated drugs at the end of the school day.
But I say make this legal high a class A drug and a new drug will come to light that teens just won’t be able to resist trying.
Why do teens love testing out drugs? There seems to exist a stage before proper adulthood, a stage of trying everything, experimenting, and wanting to feel good/ cool. Is it that teens don’t think about the consequences or do they simply enjoy taking risks?
If all drugs were legal would there be such a desire to take them? People are able to get drugs by one means or another so why not just legalise them and educate people about them properly. That way we can also guarantee that the drugs that are being sold are pure – not 90% dog worming tablets.
As a legal drug, mephedrone is cheap and easy to buy on the internet, eliminating any dodgy dealings on street corners. In fact, a Google search revealed more than 52,000 hits for the drug in the UK. Of course, it is banned for human consumption and is therefore advertised as plant food.
Would banning mephedrone really make a difference? Let’s face it, it isn’t going to stop people taking it. The only thing it might do is push the price out of the reach of nine year olds.
Head teachers, as well as the police, are unable to exercise any serious power over the possession of mephedrone because it is a legal drug and schools who had caught children as young as nine with the drug had to return confiscated drugs at the end of the school day.
But I say make this legal high a class A drug and a new drug will come to light that teens just won’t be able to resist trying.
Why do teens love testing out drugs? There seems to exist a stage before proper adulthood, a stage of trying everything, experimenting, and wanting to feel good/ cool. Is it that teens don’t think about the consequences or do they simply enjoy taking risks?
If all drugs were legal would there be such a desire to take them? People are able to get drugs by one means or another so why not just legalise them and educate people about them properly. That way we can also guarantee that the drugs that are being sold are pure – not 90% dog worming tablets.
As a legal drug, mephedrone is cheap and easy to buy on the internet, eliminating any dodgy dealings on street corners. In fact, a Google search revealed more than 52,000 hits for the drug in the UK. Of course, it is banned for human consumption and is therefore advertised as plant food.
Would banning mephedrone really make a difference? Let’s face it, it isn’t going to stop people taking it. The only thing it might do is push the price out of the reach of nine year olds.
Sunday, 7 March 2010
For better exam results ... stay in bed
The results of a recent experiment showed that students who were allowed to stay in bed for an extra hour in the morning did better in their exams.
In the experiment trialled at Monkseaton school, a Tyneside comprehensive, three scientists have shown that the sleeping pattern of adolescents means that they work better later in the morning.
Hardly surprising really though. Ask any student if they would rather start lessons at 10am than 9am and I guarantee they will say yes.
You’ve all seen the cereal advert where a sleepy teenager can’t even manage to pour the milk into his bowl because he has had to get up so ridiculously early for school. (Of course, when he eats the amazingly fantastic cereal in the advert he will be wide awake.)
It’s not really the teens that we should be concerned with though, I don’t think. What about university students? Ever seen one of those get up early? The number of uni students who made a 9am lecture during their undergraduate degree must be very small.
Not least because students go to bed later. Whether that be due to the house party of the year or pulling an all-nighter before an essay deadline.
You don’t need to be a scientist to work out that if students go to bed late then they aren’t going to (want to) get up early. Plus, of course, they won’t be able to function fully until later the next day.
The research suggests that adolescent students are not able to work properly until two to four hours later than adults. Or perhaps us adults just have the sense and experience to know that if you’re going to be alert in the morning you can’t stay up ridiculously late.
What I want to know is, if schools adopt this idea of starting at 10am, how are the next generation ever going to be persuaded to start work at 9 when they get a job?
All said, I was hoping I might have a case for suggesting that my upcoming law exam be pushed back into the afternoon but unfortuanately the study says that the adolescent “time shift” persists only until the age of 21, after which we are able to get up as early as we did when we were young children. I don’t agree, I’d take the opportunity for a lie-in any day.
In the experiment trialled at Monkseaton school, a Tyneside comprehensive, three scientists have shown that the sleeping pattern of adolescents means that they work better later in the morning.
Hardly surprising really though. Ask any student if they would rather start lessons at 10am than 9am and I guarantee they will say yes.
You’ve all seen the cereal advert where a sleepy teenager can’t even manage to pour the milk into his bowl because he has had to get up so ridiculously early for school. (Of course, when he eats the amazingly fantastic cereal in the advert he will be wide awake.)
It’s not really the teens that we should be concerned with though, I don’t think. What about university students? Ever seen one of those get up early? The number of uni students who made a 9am lecture during their undergraduate degree must be very small.
Not least because students go to bed later. Whether that be due to the house party of the year or pulling an all-nighter before an essay deadline.
You don’t need to be a scientist to work out that if students go to bed late then they aren’t going to (want to) get up early. Plus, of course, they won’t be able to function fully until later the next day.
The research suggests that adolescent students are not able to work properly until two to four hours later than adults. Or perhaps us adults just have the sense and experience to know that if you’re going to be alert in the morning you can’t stay up ridiculously late.
What I want to know is, if schools adopt this idea of starting at 10am, how are the next generation ever going to be persuaded to start work at 9 when they get a job?
All said, I was hoping I might have a case for suggesting that my upcoming law exam be pushed back into the afternoon but unfortuanately the study says that the adolescent “time shift” persists only until the age of 21, after which we are able to get up as early as we did when we were young children. I don’t agree, I’d take the opportunity for a lie-in any day.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Venables is back inside
At 10 years of age, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were the youngest murderers in modern British criminal history when they abducted and murdered two year old James Bulger in 1993.
Now, Venables has been put back behind bars at the age of 27, after breaching the terms of his release from prison in 2001.
How must the two young men have felt when they were released on life licence back into the real world at 18? Even with new names, addresses, national insurance numbers and a worldwide ban preventing the publication of any information that may identify them, they must still have feared being recognised.
In fact, Venables was reportedly paranoid that someone would try to attack him before his release whilst he resided in a secure children’s home.
However alongside rumours that Venables was petrified of being uncovered are now rumours that on his release in 2001 he went around telling people who he really was.
Of course, even if this isn’t true, the chances of Venables’ true identity being revealed is much higher now that he has returned to prison. After all, how hard can it be for the other prisoners to identify a 27 year old man who is in for breaking his parole conditions?
Laurence Lee, Venables’ former solicitor has said that he is surprised that Venables has been recalled to prison as he thought that, of the two boys, Venables was the less likely to re-offend.
After his conviction, Venables reportedly went on to gain six GCSEs and was apparently allowed to join the army. What baffles me is the reports that he was employed as a bouncer. Surely bouncers have to go through some sort of training – perhaps not the sort of training we would want someone convicted of murder to receive!
Venables and Thompson were given their new identities aged 18. I was ok with this. Someone of course should have been keeping on eye on them (i.e. not allowed them to be employed as a bouncer!!) but the anonymity was granted to protect them as they were only children at the time. I was willing to give them a chance, to lead an adult life separated from their childhood. However, according to a YouGov poll last week, 67% of the population think that Venables and Thompson should never have been released.
What I’m not so sure if I’m ok with is whether or not Venables should be able to keep his new identity now that he has broken the terms of his licence. He was given a chance to lead a normal life but went against the conditions. I don’t think that he deserves anonymity any longer and I think that we have a right to know exactly what he has done to break the terms of his parole for our own safety if nothing else.
Now, Venables has been put back behind bars at the age of 27, after breaching the terms of his release from prison in 2001.
How must the two young men have felt when they were released on life licence back into the real world at 18? Even with new names, addresses, national insurance numbers and a worldwide ban preventing the publication of any information that may identify them, they must still have feared being recognised.
In fact, Venables was reportedly paranoid that someone would try to attack him before his release whilst he resided in a secure children’s home.
However alongside rumours that Venables was petrified of being uncovered are now rumours that on his release in 2001 he went around telling people who he really was.
Of course, even if this isn’t true, the chances of Venables’ true identity being revealed is much higher now that he has returned to prison. After all, how hard can it be for the other prisoners to identify a 27 year old man who is in for breaking his parole conditions?
Laurence Lee, Venables’ former solicitor has said that he is surprised that Venables has been recalled to prison as he thought that, of the two boys, Venables was the less likely to re-offend.
After his conviction, Venables reportedly went on to gain six GCSEs and was apparently allowed to join the army. What baffles me is the reports that he was employed as a bouncer. Surely bouncers have to go through some sort of training – perhaps not the sort of training we would want someone convicted of murder to receive!
Venables and Thompson were given their new identities aged 18. I was ok with this. Someone of course should have been keeping on eye on them (i.e. not allowed them to be employed as a bouncer!!) but the anonymity was granted to protect them as they were only children at the time. I was willing to give them a chance, to lead an adult life separated from their childhood. However, according to a YouGov poll last week, 67% of the population think that Venables and Thompson should never have been released.
What I’m not so sure if I’m ok with is whether or not Venables should be able to keep his new identity now that he has broken the terms of his licence. He was given a chance to lead a normal life but went against the conditions. I don’t think that he deserves anonymity any longer and I think that we have a right to know exactly what he has done to break the terms of his parole for our own safety if nothing else.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Poisonous shellfish in Weymouth
People who have eaten oysters from Weymouth in the last week are being urged to consult their GP.
Diarrheic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) produced by algal toxins has been found in bivalve molluscs, such as mussels, clams, oysters and scallops, in Littlesea on the Fleet in Weymouth.
Weymouth Port Health Authority food and safety manager Nigel Emery said: “I have issued a temporary closure notice to the commercial grower not to harvest any more oysters until we know from sampling that there’s no more toxin risk.”
A national surveillance programme is run by CEFAS and co-ordinated by the Food Standards Agency to check the level of toxins in the sea where bivalve molluscs are grown. The monthly sampling programme looks for the presence of certain algae on commercial seabeds that can cause illness if they start producing toxins.
Fleet Oyster Farm owner Nigel Bloxham, who harvests Littlesea oysters to serve at his restaurant the Crab House Café, admitted that the closure notice will affect him but refused to comment further.
Other Dorset businesses are staying positive. C Quest Shellfish owner John Boughton said: “Nobody should knock those oysters, the tests have probably just picked up the run off of fresh water. I’m still going to eat them, nothing will poison me.”
Dorset Seafood Festival co-ordinator Paul Mills said: “Prior to the seafood festival there was a huge oyster festival in Weymouth for about 15 years in Hope Square. This would have put a real dampener on that, but there’s not going to be a shortage of things for people to try at the seafood festival.”
The symptoms of DSP include diarrhoea, vomiting, cramps and headaches.
The local authorities will now take a weekly sample until two consecutive negative results are produced before lifting the ban.
Diarrheic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) produced by algal toxins has been found in bivalve molluscs, such as mussels, clams, oysters and scallops, in Littlesea on the Fleet in Weymouth.
Weymouth Port Health Authority food and safety manager Nigel Emery said: “I have issued a temporary closure notice to the commercial grower not to harvest any more oysters until we know from sampling that there’s no more toxin risk.”
A national surveillance programme is run by CEFAS and co-ordinated by the Food Standards Agency to check the level of toxins in the sea where bivalve molluscs are grown. The monthly sampling programme looks for the presence of certain algae on commercial seabeds that can cause illness if they start producing toxins.
Fleet Oyster Farm owner Nigel Bloxham, who harvests Littlesea oysters to serve at his restaurant the Crab House Café, admitted that the closure notice will affect him but refused to comment further.
Other Dorset businesses are staying positive. C Quest Shellfish owner John Boughton said: “Nobody should knock those oysters, the tests have probably just picked up the run off of fresh water. I’m still going to eat them, nothing will poison me.”
Dorset Seafood Festival co-ordinator Paul Mills said: “Prior to the seafood festival there was a huge oyster festival in Weymouth for about 15 years in Hope Square. This would have put a real dampener on that, but there’s not going to be a shortage of things for people to try at the seafood festival.”
The symptoms of DSP include diarrhoea, vomiting, cramps and headaches.
The local authorities will now take a weekly sample until two consecutive negative results are produced before lifting the ban.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)