- Hello, beauties. This is not the original
intro for the video. So I rerecorded this part because the first intro that I recorded was so
awful. There was just like a weird vibe with it. But today we're gonna be talking about clean
beauty. We're gonna be talking about dangerous chemicals that are in your beauty products. We're
gonna be talking about the way that the beauty industry markets its products to make them seem
holier thou, thou and moral, and better for your body than they actually are. We're just gonna be
talking about a lot of lies today, essentially, but I hope you like the video, Also, before we get
fully started, speaking of weird vibes, actually, this is not a weird vibe, this is a good vibe,
quite literally, a good vibe. So I am working with Bellesa today for this video because we
are working together to create a giveaway for everyone. So everyone who signs up to my giveaway
will get either a free toy, a free vibe, or a free gift card. You get something either way. Bellesa
is a by woman company for all things sexual wellness, but they are not just for women, they
are for everyone. Bellesa's mission is to empower everyone to embrace, explore, and celebrate their
sexuality. So this toy is called the Pebble, and she's a pink little beautiful thing. She
suctions and she vibrates. You just press the little button, and there she goes. But I really
like her because she fits perfectly in the palm of your hand. So very ergonomic, no cramping involved
here. So this one is called the Demi Wand. She's super, super cute. Has a couple different
vibration settings, but as you can see is pretty discreet, pretty quiet, but powerful. She works
on all body types 'cause pleasure is for everyone. And I really like the flexible neck. Okay, so
what I also really love about this company is that all their little cases are really cute, super
discreet. If you don't like to put your toys out on display, which I know a lot of people don't.
And they're just super easy to charge. Bellesa has tons of toys on their website, you'll definitely
find something that works for you and your body. Sexual health is very important, something we
don't talk about enough, and so that's why I'm really excited about this partnership. So yeah,
don't forget to enter my giveaway. You'll get a little gift. And thank you Bellesa. Okay,
let's just get started with the video, y'all. - Every woman needs makeup. - Well, it's also confusing. I mean
some people say don't use soap, others say that cream is bad for your skin. - One of the earliest beauty history
facts I learned as a kid in school was that Queen Elizabeth I wore lead face
paint to get her white, ashy veneer, but this wasn't the first time lead was used in
makeup, no. Lead-based makeup is thought to have been used as far back as 3,500 BCE. And even after
it was classified as a poison in the U.K. in 1631, lead was still used in makeup for hundreds of
years after. A story that people hear less of though is that makeup was also once
used deliberately as a murder weapon, maybe still is used. I don't know. "True Crime
Aficionados" keep me updated. Giulia Tofana was an Italian alchemist who sold a poison called Aqua
Tofana. Aqua Tofana was disguised as a cosmetic, but supplied unhappy woman with a discreet way
to kill off their husbands, quite literally a toxin for toxic relationships. Tofana's story has
been told and retold so many times and there's so many contradictory facts. Some sources say she
was the daughter of another poisoner. Some say she was never found and died of natural causes.
Others say that she was arrested and executed for her crimes. The mythology of Giulia Tofana has
been exaggerated, for sure, but Mike Dash does a good job in analyzing it on his blog, "A Blast
from the Past." He writes that according to 19th century scholar, Alessandro Ademollo, Tofana
was only one member and a group of poisoners who operated for 30 or so years. She herself died
around 1651, probably in her own bed. And after, the operation was led by her business partner,
Girolama Spara. The main ingredient for the poison was arsenic, which they obtained at regular
supply from a corrupt priest, Father Girolamo of Sant'Agnese in Agone. Just really quickly, I'm
trying to get these Italian pronunciations right because one of my best friends is Italian,
and I had her record some names for me. - [Francesca talking over sirens] Guilia Tofana Aqua Tofana Alessandro Ademollo - [Mina] And it just sounds
so bad. So I apologize. - You can call me Senora Gucci. - Apparently to disguise the arsenic, the woman
turned it into a liquid, and then bottled it in glass jars, identified as Manna of Saint Nicholas,
a miraculous healing oil that supposedly was sweated from the saint's bones in far off Bari.
The effects that Aqua Tofana supposedly had on its victims are summarized in a warning notice to the
public that was issued in Rome late in the 1650s, when fear of the poison was at its
height. According to this document, the chief symptoms were agonizing pains
in the stomach and the throat, vomiting, extreme thirst, and dysentery, standard
medical side effects. While these symptoms are in line with arsenic poisoning,
Ademollo site's contemporary accounts, suggesting that the poison made by Spara and
her associates also contained antimony and lead, triple homicide. Another entry in Roman
gentleman, Giacinto Gigli's diaries mentions a fourth possible ingredient, corrosive
supplement, a highly-toxic contemporary treatment for venereal disease known today as mercuric
chloride. Ladies, we're nothing if not thorough. - Poison is a woman's weapon. - So whether accidental or purposely,
beauty products have had a long, dangerous, and deadly history. It's no surprise then that
over time, many of us have become wary of the kinds of products we're putting on our faces
every day. So today I wanna talk about the concept of clean beauty, an alleged solution
to our fears. Physician James Hamlin defines clean beauty as a movement that sometimes
refers to minimal environmental impact, but more often refers to an undefined idea of
purity. He says that the marketing approach behind products like these represents a
new transcendent level of purity seeking, not only must one clean oneself but it must
also be done by way of products and practices that are themselves clean. I would say the
tenets of clean beauty marketing is that, one, their ingredient forward. They brag about
how transparent they are and how they would never slide in harmful ingredients under your
nose. Two, they're wellness adjacent. Not only are these ingredients fully listed out for you,
they're also very beneficial to your health. None of that toxic shit that other makeup brands put
in their products. And three, they're all about highlighting your natural features. If you look
at any clean girl TikToks, it's always minimal makeup, dewy skin, and coordinated monochromatic
outfits, which shows that she's healthy, hygienic, and organized. That slick back ponytail literally
prevents any hairs from getting outta place, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Before we get
into clean beauty, let's address why people of the modern era might be skeptical about their
beauty products to begin with. If there's a need for a clean movement, let's address the
unclean products that have existed before it. - I think they're trying to poison me. - Before the advent of mass commercialized makeup,
recipe books were a common way for people to get their hands on cosmetics and skincare. And if you
look at some of these recipes, you'd wonder how the human species even survived long enough to
exist into today. An example is this 1776 hair removal recipe in Toilet of Flora, which calls
for quick-lime, nitre, and orpiment, common ingredients in historic depilatory creams. These
are not safe at all. Quick-lime contains calcium oxide, which can cause skin burns, eye damage, and
respiratory irritation. Niter or potassium nitrate can cause skin, eye, and respiratory irritation,
as well as emit toxic fumes if burned at too high temperature. Orpiment is the mineral form of
arsenic sulfide, which is very toxic. It can emit toxic vapors. And if it comes into contact
with the skin, it can cause scabbing, blistering, and sores, as well as possible hair loss. So I
guess it does that one thing right. With prolonged exposure, it can even cause organ failure. In "The
Ugly-Girl Papers or Hints for the Toilet" in 1874 Harper's bizarre article, an ointment of nitric
oxide of mercury mixed with lard was advised to be rubbed at the edges of eyelids to restore lost
eyelashes. In the early 20th century, coal tar dyes were popularly used as hair colorants. It was
also famously used in a 1933 product called Lash Lure, an eyelash and eyebrow colorant, and there
were detrimental effects. But even after blindness and at least one death documented as resulting
from use of the product, it remained on the market for five more years because the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, the FDA for short, neglected to warn the public and had no regulatory authority
to remove dangerous cosmetic products from store shelves. Even though it makes us feel better to
think people in history were just really dumb, they're actually having critics and experts trying
to bring these harms to light for centuries. Even in the first century AD, Roman poet and satirist,
Juvenal, wrote, "This coated face which is covered with so many drugs and where unfortunate husbands
press their lips, is it a face or a sore?" He was suspecting that there was something wrong
with these lead-based facial powders, something toxic maybe, that was causing sores. And
during the early years of Queen Elizabeth I reign, wearing white lead face paint was very popular,
as I said, but fell out of favor among many of her subjects during the Black Plague. Part of that is
because there were rumors that cosmetics blocked body vapors from naturally circulating, which
might well constitute the first-ever consumer health alert, according to Samuel Epstein.
Throughout the 1800s, chemists were formulating more and more beauty products for the market, but
it wasn't until 1906 that Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act, which laid the foundation for
the creation of the FDA. What happened in 1906, you may ask? Well, Upton Sinclair published
"The Jungle," which revealed all kinds of food adulteration and unsanitary practices
in meat production, like how workers would fall to their deaths in these factories and their
bodies would be ground up, along with the animal meat that consumers would then eat. Yummy. So
unsurprisingly, public outrage prompted Congress to establish federal responsibility for public
health and welfare. What's actually ironic is that Upton Sinclair was pretty dismayed that public
outrage was solely directed at their consumer goods and not at the abuse of factory workers,
which was like the main point of his story. He said later, "I aimed at the public's heart and
by accident, I hit it in the stomach." However, there were many limitations to the Pure Food and
Drug Act. In 1933, Arthur Kallet and F.J. Schlink, released their book, "100,000,000 Guinea Pigs:
Dangers in Everyday Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics," which pushed the idea that American producers of
food and drugs are using the population as test subjects. This book then prompted the FDA to put
on a showing of faulty products for lawmakers. - Many dangerous and fraudulent foods, drugs,
and cosmetics still to be found on the market. - [Mina] The exhibit displayed photos of products
that had either inaccurate labeling or caused harm to consumers. This exhibit featured
products including Lash Lure, our favorite, and Koremlu. So if you don't know about
Koremlu, this was a hair removal product and was successful for its time, selling
over 120,000 jars within its first year. But the main depilatory agent was thallium
acetate, which can cause neuromuscular damage, respiratory problems, blindness, and permanent
hair loss. One woman reportedly lost her teeth, eyesight, ability to walk, and
thus her job due to Koremlu. - Have you ever stopped to consider
what you'd look like completely bald? - What? - In 1938, Congress passed the food Drug
in Cosmetic Act. However, under this act, cosmetic manufacturers were still not required
to evaluate the safety of their ingredients, which is really weird. And only after a cosmetic
had injured or killed a number of people, with the FDA then be able to remove that product
from the market. Lovely. Two kinds of products were also excluded from the 1938 law. All soaps
and cold tar dyes, such as the one responsible for the Lash Lure injuries. The law simply require
that a label be placed on coal tar dye products, warning that blackness may result from the
use of this product. Things didn't really get any better throughout the 20th century, and
there were few amendments to help consumers. Popular mid-century cosmetic brands like
Avon produced makeup containing asbestos, a carcinogen known to cause ovarian cancer
and mesothelioma. So needless to say, everyone was growing really tired of
these health issues associated with their products, eventually leading to the clean
consumerism movement starting in the 1960s. - [Narrator] This is corn silk, a unique
face powder made from corn. Yes, corn. - There were a number of reasons contributing
to clean consumerism. For one, there was an increased interest in environmentalism
sparked by Rachel Carson's 1962 book, "Silent Spring," leading to consumer protection
regulations, mostly with an environmental focus, like the 1963 Clean Air Act and the 1970 creation
of the EPA. Lack of government regulation of cosmetics, as I've talked about before, also led
to the creation of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review in 1976. However, important to note, CIR does not
have regulatory authority to force a company to withdraw an unsafe product from the market.
Either way, consumers were getting restless and new companies cropped up to address these
demands. Advertising clean and green products, everything from household cleaners to
food, to beauty products, with these brands essentially promising to self-regulate
when the government would not step in. - Final Net has no aerosol
propellants. Use non-aerosol Final Net. - However, there were some people who were
hell bent on not supporting companies at all. Most popularly, the hippies along with some
black activists and feminists, who championed the back-to-nature aesthetics. Some of them opted
outta beauty entirely, but some chose to DIY their beauty products with items from their pantries.
However, their aesthetics were inevitably co-opted by brands who marketed the natural look. These
companies were still using chemical formulas but added natural plant extracts and created
color pigments that alluded to or like that were recalled natural colors, like berry-colored
lipsticks. A question you might be wondering is, why did beauty products use synthetics to begin
with though? Because, I mean, at some point, all makeup was once natural, so why don't we just
continue using the tried and true basic natural ingredients like lead and arsenic? Well, other
than the fact that natural doesn't always mean safer, the industry pivoted to synthetics in part
because natural ingredients can also pose costly problems. And "Beauty Imagined: A History of the
Global Beauty Industry," Jeffrey Jones writes, "The use of pure natural products greatly
raised the cost and complexity of cosmetics due to problems of spoiled ingredients. Without
the employment of synthetic preservatives, plant-derived formulations, especially if not
tested on animals, carried health risks unless treated carefully." One of the first examples of
clean cosmetics marketing was CoverGirl's Clean Make-up campaign in 1968, which focused on the
no makeup look. Creative director, George Porous, recalled, "Once we did clean makeup, we had to get
a look for it. Clean, clean, clean, that operative word ran through everything we did, everything we
touched, everything we wrote. Models dressed all in white were shown boating, running, swimming.
The scene was almost always in a boat, on an ocean, on a beach, or in another environment where
there's a lot of wind and water, and the dominant color scheme is white and blue." CoverGirl's
advertising language like, "So natural you can't believe its makeup," expresses the contradictory
desire for no makeup makeup and the belief that natural means good and healthy that we still see
today. My personal take is that no makeup makeup has always been more detrimental to my self-esteem
than a glam look. And that's because when I'm plastering makeup on my face, I know that the
purpose is to make my face look very different and dramatized. I don't feel dysmorphic staring at
my face because I'm very aware that heavy makeup is like a mask. However, the times when I've tried
to do the clean girl, no makeup makeup, I feel myself getting more uncomfortable staring at my
face without makeup because I find that natural makeup really emphasizes things like contour,
which sort of changes your natural features like just a little. And so after a while, looking
at my face without contour feels a little odd, even though these are my natural features. Does
that make sense? Does anyone else feel that way? In the '70s, natural was becoming such a movement
that even products that did not look natural tried to cash in on the trend. In the February
1975 issue of "Vogue," Maybelline advertised look natural mascara, shown with light blue
eyeshadow, the model did not look at all natural. - The first rule in applying eye makeup is
you can never wear enough blue eyeshadow. - The '90s was a big decade for alternative
everything, from alternative music to alternatives to meat. Alternative was basically a synonym
for the hip and forward thinking. Alternative medicine, a catch-all term for anything
falling outside the Western medical hegemony, was growing in popularity as well. Practices
like acupuncture and homeopathy were rapidly moving from just solely being practiced by Asian
immigrants and white hippies to being studied as real medical interventions. This trend was
especially pronounced among young women, more girls than ever before. Were
getting into aura reading and tofu and going to Lilith Fair. A 1993 study in
"The New England Journal of Medicine" found that one third of respondents had sought care
deemed alternative, like chiropractic therapy, acupuncture, massage, homeopathy, and
spiritual healing in just the past year. - I am not a businessman. I am a holistic
healer. It's a calling, it's a gift, - And I get it. I mean, I was raised on Tiger
Balm. And in general, there's so much distrust in our formalized western medical system. A lot
of doctors don't listen to women, especially a black woman. A lot of pharmaceutical companies
prioritize their best interest over public health. - I'm a capitalist. I'm trying
to create a big drug company, a successful drug company,
a profitable drug company. - Different doctors give out conflicting advice.
The whole system can feel very dystopian and like no one's listening to you. Nowadays, especially
in cities like L.A. and New York, I feel like I'm always running into people who regularly
or have at least tried alternative healthcare, though at the same time I think we have to
address, it's definitely a privileged form of healthcare. Healthcare already is expensive in
the U.S., but also a lot of medical insurances will just not cover your energy healing or sound
bath sessions. James H. Carter, MD, wrote a piece in 1995 actually predicting this. He writes, "No
particular form of treatment should be offered solely on the basis of a patient's ability to pay.
Unless we are careful, our nation may eventually develop a two-tier system of healthcare, one for
the rich and famous, and another system for the poor." Natural makeup also made a resurgence in
the '90s after a decade of glamour and heavy blue eyeshadow. In 1991, Bobbi Brown launched Bobbi
Brown Essentials, initially offering only nude lipsticks. The line grew quickly and Estee
Lauder Companies acquired the brand in 1995, with Brown staying on as chief creative officer.
In 2018, brown pivoted her brand away from makeup and dove into the wellness and beauty industry.
The launch of Evolution_18, a wellness line for QVC consisting of smoothie powders, a hair and
nails vitamin, and probiotic supplements coincided with Brown leaving Estee Lauder after 25 years
due to differing views on the direction of Bobbi Brown Cosmetics. Brown then launched a lifestyle
brand editorial website, justbobby.com, which aims to educate people on food, wellness, et cetera,
and also opened a hotel in New Jersey in tandem with her wellness line. I feel like Bobbi Brown's
pivot to a holistic natural lifestyle brand is in line with what we're seeing a lot of today. Many
beauty companies have pivoted from just producing cosmetics to also producing skincare products
or incorporating skincare ingredients into their makeup lines. A lot of this new focus on wellness
is definitely inspired by Gwyneth Paltrow's success. Paltrow initially launched her brand
goop in 2008 as a home-spun weekly newsletter, but since then, goop has expanded to be an entire
wellness empire, complete with a website, a podcast, nationwide stores selling beauty cookware
and clothing, and a documentary series. Goop's whole ethos is promoting clean beauty and using
labels like non-toxic, natural, cruelty-free, and organic to prove it. The problem is that these
generic greenwashing labels are not defined by the FDA and so virtually promise nothing. The terms
natural and organic would imply that there's no carcinogens in these products. But in a 2008 study
initiated by consumer activist, David Steinman, and the Organic Consumers Association, they
conducted a laboratory analysis of 99 personal care products branded as natural and organic and
found that 45 of them contained detectable levels of the carcinogen, 1,4-Dioxane. 1,4-Dioxane,
by the way, does not appear on product labels as it is not intentionally added to products.
It's created as an accidental byproduct during manufacturing. So, yeah, the FDA does not require
that companies add hidden carcinogens onto their labels because those things, those carcinogens
are not created purposely, which you know is very stupid because the carcinogens are still in the
products, whether or not they're purposely there. I feel like it's pretty general consensus
that people know that natural and organic are misleading labels, but something people
don't know about enough is that fragrance-free is a botched term as well. You would think that
fragrance-free means that there are no fragrance chemicals in the product, but manufacturers can
legally add unidentified fragrance ingredients to mask foul odors generated by other chemicals
and still call the product fragrance-free. - Ah, smells like the old government coverup. - Similarly, hypoallergenic, allergy-tested,
and safe for sensitive skin mean nothing because manufacturers are not required to do
any skin testing to validate these claims, nor do these claims need to be proven to the FDA
or any other regulatory body. To some extent, people are aware that these labels mean nothing,
right? According to the Euromonitor International Voice of the Consumer Beauty Survey, U.S.
consumers looking for natural organic features in skincare have fallen since 2015. This has
led companies to instead push free form claims or ingredient exclusion lists, which leaves less
room for ambiguity. These exclusion lists tend to include endocrine disruptors. And if you don't
know what an endocrine disruptor is, these are substances that interfere with your hormones and
normal functions. What I've noticed though is that companies like goop mostly highlight synthetic
endocrine disruptors, like phthalates and PFAs, not natural ones. Researchers have actually found
that persistent exposure to lavender oil products is associated with premature breast development
in girls and abnormal breast development in boys. But goop doesn't talk about lavender oil because
as Timothy Caulfield, the Canada research chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of
Alberta says, "Goop is spreading chemophobia, the irrational fear of chemicals." He says, "I
don't know a universe where chemicals don't exist, but that's the narrative that brands like
goop and Honest Company like to sell, and unfortunately, it's extremely effective."
Another synthetic endocrine disruptor that gets a lot of attention are parabens. A lot of companies
will brag that their products are paraben-free, and that's because for a while, there were a
bunch of news headlines that linked parabens to breast cancer. However, the big 2004 research
paper, led by Phillipa Darbre that is constantly cited as the origin of this theory has been
largely discredited since publication. Darbre even clarified later that year, "Nowhere in the
manuscript was any claim made that the presence of parabens had caused breast cancer," but
people ran with it anyway. The issue is further complicated by companies recognizing a
specific ingredient is blacklisted by consumers, and instead will substitute with other ingredients
that may be equally bad or worse. A lot of companies that say their products are free from
parabens use methylisothiazolinone. I don't even know if I pronounced that correctly, but this
ingredient is associated with allergic reactions, but no one's checking for this ingredient
because it's too long to pronounce. And there also are not any news headlines
talking about it. Parabens are like the wizard. Meanwhile, there's so many other
toxic ingredients hiding behind the curtain. - Oh, pay no attention to that- - [Narrator] Methylisothiazolinone. - [Wizard] Behind the curtain. - While I absolutely advocate for companies
to remove harmful ingredients from their products and to raise awareness of it, it just
feels like a disingenuous marketing tactic, and then also gives people a false sense of
safety. Like, "Oh, the big bad paraben is gone, this product is completely okay now," when
that might not be the case. But overall, this has contributed to the rise of the ingredient-led
revolution. So what that means is that right now, consumers are really focused on specific
product ingredients. So not only are companies saying they don't have parabens, they'll also
spotlight certain trendy active ingredients. Ingredient-led marketing is just another form
of clean beauty because it implies that there's no nonsense in the bottle. You are getting pure
clean ingredients, You are getting niacinamide, and that's it. What's personally annoyed me about
the ingredient-led movement though is that a lot of people have a very baseline understanding
of these ingredients. Like you go on TikTok, and someone tells you that vitamin C is a
miracle worker for your skin. And to an extent, sure that's true, but what they don't tell you
is that if you use vitamin C with a soap based cleanser, it's less effective. To make it through
your skin's acid mantle, vitamin C is best when formulated with a low pH, below 3.5. But according
to Leslie Baumann, MD, "Soap-based cleansers have a high pH. So using this kind of cleanser
will ultimately decrease the skin's ability to absorb Vitamin C." Collagen is also a useless
ingredient in skincare if you think it's going to improve your skin elasticity, which is usually
what collagen is marketed as doing, and that's because collagen molecules are too heavy to be
absorbed by your skin. At this point, ingredients are the new organic natural buzzwords because just
because a product has this ingredient doesn't mean it's going to benefit your skin in any way. And
there are so many products now that I feel like the chances of combining ingredients that don't
work together is much higher than before when all people did for their skincare routines was
wash their face and put on moisturizer. But like those greenwashing buzzwords, ingredient-led
products are all about signaling that I move a certain class, a high class group of people
who are meticulous about what they're putting on their faces and intelligent enough to know
about what's in their products. Baumann explains that expensive products tend to sell well, not
despite their price, but because of it. She says, "It's really sad. I'll have a lady come in with
Creme de la Mer and these $600 creams, and she thinks she's doing everything right for her skin,
but she's not on a sunscreen and she's not on a retinoid and she's not on vitamin C. The next
patient will be someone who comes in and feels guilty that she's not taking better care of her
skin because she's busy taking care of her kids. She's only using sunscreen and a little vitamin A.
I laugh because the second lady's doing better for her skin than the first." And on top of all this,
another glaring issue is that a lot of labels are straight up wrong. The Environmental Working
Group, EWG, looked into labels of 14,200 products, and about half of them turned out to have
mislabeled ingredients. Some ingredient names were misspelled. Other names for the same ingredient
varied according to the manufacturer. The EWG also identified 41 online retailers of cosmetics
that failed to post ingredient lists at all. So to me, a clean beauty marketing has always been about
virtue signaling at best and giving a false sense of safety so that consumers don't actually look
into their products at worst. Last year, Biden signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2023, which includes the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act, MoCRA, of 2022. And
according to the FDA website, MoCRA is the most significant expansion of the FDA's authority
to regulate products since 1938. Among these updates include the requirement that any facility
that manufactures or processes cosmetic products intended for sale in the U.S. has to register
with the FDA. It requires manufacturers, packers, and distributors of cosmetics intended for sale in
the U.S. to submit to the FDA list of products and ingredients information, and including location
of manufacturer and the ingredients of any fragrances or flavors. It imposes greater record
keeping obligations regarding public safety, and reporting, documenting, and following up
on serious adverse events with an expanded definition of what constitutes a serious adverse
event, and it imposes new labeling requirements. A lot of these things, honestly, I thought
the FDA was already doing before I started researching this video, so that's hot, but a lot
of cool improvements, I guess. But some things that are important that are not introduced in
the new law. The new law does not authorize the FDA to conduct annual investigations into
the safety of ingredients, or in certain cases, restrict or prohibit the use of ingredients,
like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAs, or so-called endocrine disruptors. I love talking
about this stuff, but I cannot wait until the end of this video because I feel like my tongue has
been moving in ways trying to say these words, and it's just been not been good for me. The new
law also does not address or alter the existing guidelines for cosmetic labeling and marketing
issues, such as defining or restricting use of certain terms, like natural, clean, non-toxic,
or safe. It does not provide guidance on how much support brands need to make certain claims,
such as scientific studies, customer surveys, or third-party certifications. And it does
not address greenwashing or environmental impact claims, which have been the focus of recent
legislative action in the United Kingdom and the E.U. And lastly, it fails to address whether and
under what conditions a product can claim to be environmentally friendly, green, or zero-pollution
in its marketing. So there's definitely a lot more things to consider, a lot more things to include
in the next update, which I hope will not take another 90 years or so. Honestly, I've really
struggled educating myself about the beauty sector because I am not a woman in STEM. I cannot
pronounce half of these scientific names. And there's just straight up not a lot of research,
whether that's because there's not enough interest or research costs are too much, or if big oil is
lobbying against these initiatives, I don't know. But what I really wanna remain optimistic about
is that I think the ingredient-led revolution can introduce these conversations about what we're
putting on our bodies, what we're putting in our bodies. I think becoming more informed is never
going to hurt you. And I think that while there's a lot of misinformation out there, I feel like
we're still moving ahead, at least, in trying to parse through that information, versus back in
the '90s or whatever when people didn't care at all it was in their products, or they didn't know
what any of these ingredients meant. At least now we'd have some baseline knowledge of what vitamin
C does for you. And until the FDA and until these regulation bodies, regulatory bodies figure out
how to keep consumers safe, I just hope we're not putting anything akin to lead on our bodies.
I honestly really can't believe big lead got away with it for literally thousands of years,
but enough is enough. All right, this is the end of the video. Thank you all so much for sticking
around this long. Once again, I have a Patreon, I have a podcast, and I have social media if you
want to support me in any other way. Anyways, thank you so much and have a lovely rest of
your day. I'll see you next time. Bye. Muah!
