With miniscule letters it read on the box: “Not intended for the immediate eye area”. My friend and I looked at each other and wondered if we had understood it correctly. Where else if not the immediate eye area is eyeshadow meant to be used? What’s next, a lipstick that isn’t intended for the immediate mouth area? This is of course a symptom of a much bigger problem than just one company trying to safeguard itself against angry and dissatisfied customers with rashes around their eyes.
The warm and pleasant sun rays can cause us harm if we are not careful. The go-to advice to avoid this has long been to wear sunscreen. Sunscreen does indeed protect us from harmful UV radiation but many of the chemicals that are frequently used in sunscreens are, unfortunately, harmful themselves – either to our own health or to the environment. So, how do we best protect ourselves against the sun’s UV radiation while, at the same time, considering the chemical ingredients present in sunscreens?
During the last ten years or so, Bisphenol A, or BPA for short, has arguably become the “poster child” for hormone-disrupting chemicals in everyday products. Lately, we have been asked by both companies and regulators if there is a “next BPA” to keep track of.
We believe there is one such chemical: melamine.
It is very hard to say anything in general about the safety of nano. Some materials are probably safe, a few we know are very hazardous, but in general there is a huge gap in knowledge and data.
The mounting evidence against PFAS have now surpassed the sole awareness of the scientific community, and today many regular citizens are aware of this problematic group of chemicals.
This begs the question: If PFAS are that bad, how on earth can they still be allowed?