Popular shampoos contain toxic chemicals linked to nerve damage
Overview
The article actually depicts a criticism about the major manufacturing companies in America . The article is informing the consumers about the danger brought about by the products available in the market. The products identified are ideally meant for health and hygienic purposes but it actually causes a moral issue on the part of consumers especially because these products are dangerous to their health.
Brief Summary
The main products identified in the article are shampoos like Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner. The article was saying that these products contain an ingredient called methylisothiazoline, or MIT, which actually causes neurological damage. This data was gathered by the National Institutes of Health through experimentations with the brain cells of rats.
Researchers are concerned that exposure to this chemical by pregnant women could put their fetus at risk for abnormal brain development. In other people, exposure could also be a factor in the development of Alzheimer's disease and other nervous system disorders.
The chemical causes these effects by preventing communication between neurons. Essentially, it slows the networking of neurons, and since the nervous system and brain function on a system of neural networks, the slowing of this network will suppress and impair the normal function of the brain and nervous system.
The manufacturers of such products know the danger of the products they are producing. Yet, through advertising, they are concealing these facts and therefore they are not preserving the rights of the consumers to acquire adequate information about the dangers of the product they are purchasing.
Statement of the Central Moral Problem or Ethical Issue
The central moral problem in the case is the abuse of rights of the manufacturers. It is frequently called the Due Care Theory wherein the consumers and sellers do not meet as equals because sellers have the knowledge and expertise that consumers don’t have. The manufacturers of the personal care products like shampoos failed to take the responsibility of:
Informing the public about the dangers brought by the product through advertising.
Making sure that the products they are producing are of good quality and does not lead to any risks of danger to one’s health.
Analysis of the Moral Issue
Before we analyze the issue using different approaches, we should first verify if the case states relevant facts and the intention of the author is to inform and not to argue against major shampoo manufacturers. We should never ignore the fact that the person who wrote it may have the intention to persuade the consumers not to purchase the products of some manufacturers. As such, they may even try to present invalid data about the company. Somehow, analyzing the validity of the case is one of the most important things to do in order to make personal judgments, thus, make proposed solutions.
I have researched the net and discovered that the same article was posted on the site of OCA or Organic Consumers Association. OCA is campaigning for food safety, organic agriculture, fair trade and sustainability. OCA was able to further research and proved that the data presented in the article were all true. In addition, it was also posted in another site called MY TOXIC HOUSE, a site that safe lifestyle for families. The site ensures its credibility especially because it affects the way of living of each families, and therefore would never post an article that is not true.
Having known that the article is indeed true, we can now try to analyze the issue using different approaches such as the egoistic, utilitarian,, and so on.
If we would analyze the case by being pure egoists, its like saying that it is okay not to tell the consumers that the shampoos causes dangers of health. For an egoist, it would be okay to conceal relevant information about the product. Egoists actually would contend that profit maximization for their own benefits should be the major thing to be considered and not the welfare of the consumers. So, for an egoist it is okay to let the consumers suffer Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disease for as long as the business becomes profitable. Thus, they would never consider the narrow view of each corporation which is the fulfillment of other obligations other than the satisfaction of demand. These obligations are directly associated with the consumers and the society at large. If businesses would think the same way, there would no longer be safe products that can be bought in the market. If all managers would think like an egoist, the consumer’s welfare would certainly be at risk. Therefore, for an egoist, it is justifiable to produce substandard products and to hide information about the health risk of the ingredients of the products being manufactured.
If we would now consider being utilitarianist, we would consider the greatest happiness of the majority. Thus, utilitarianist would argue that the manufacturers should be responsible about the quality of product they are rendering to market. They should make sure that the consumers are properly informed (probably through advertising) and even if it would cause to have net loss, the safety of the consumers justifies the action. For a ultilitarianist manager, it is okay to sacrifice oneself just to cater to the happiness of the majority-the consumers.
Chosen course of action
The business should apply strict product liability theory, wherein the manufacturers shoulder the legal liabilities to compensate injuries because the defective product makes it dangerous. The manufacturers should ensure that the limitations of their products are known by the consumers. Such limitations or risk in the health of the consumers will be the responsibility of the manufacturers.
Proposed plan of action
Manufacturers of Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner should make sure that the advertising are not deceiving and should show the real risk of using the products. Some may argue that if they do such, they won’t earn anything at all. Well, the problem lies with the process of production. There is no perfect product. There is no product that doesn’t carry with it any health risk and possibility of injuries. But as manufacturers, they should ensure that their products will have the least possibility of health risk and injuries. By then, advertising and marketing such products would be easy.
In the case, the business must first ensure that the ingredients in the products do not contain chemicals that are harmful to one’s health. What would happen if all people using Head and Shoulders shampoo would have Alzheimer's disease and other nervous system disorders? What would happen if the exposure MIT by pregnant women has put their fetus at risk for abnormal brain development? These are the things that manufacturers should consider. Life is so valuable to be wasted. When you are a manufacturer you always try to preserve life and ensure that the products you are rendering the market would make living life easy. Business is a process of mutual relationship between buyers and sellers- the sellers benefits by acquiring income while the buyers benefits by the satisfaction of the demand by the seller. Business owners should never think like egoists and break this mutual relationship. They should never think more of the narrow view of business which is profit. It is because certainly business is not just profit-making but also being responsible to the community, especially to the consumers using the products. As a responsible manager or business owner, one must ensure that the product is of good quality and able to function with its intended purpose. Manufacturers should ensure that the products were able to pass safety standards set by the company. These safety standards comprise rules on the way products will be manufactured- the direct materials, equipments and the process as a whole would be safe. Safety standards also include testing of prototypes to really check that the products do not negatively affect the lives of the consumers.
As we discussed in the class, there are some companies who are not into product development towards the safety of the consumers. They use the technique called cost-benefit analysis wherein they try to assess whether the investment in the development of a particular product will be justified by the “returns” it brings. Such “returns” are measured by the lesser cost it can bring to the business. For instance, one business would no longer invest on changing the production schedule of the product to make is safe because paying those who are injured upon using the product would give them lesser cost. I like to believe that such act is wrong because they are leaving the consumers at risk. They are actually breaking the mutual connection between the buyers and sellers. I still believe that ensuring the quality of the product (i.e., changing the ingredients of a product to make it less injury-prone) is still the best option even though it would cost the business greater expense. Businesses are accountable for ensuring such.
Another plan of action that needs to be done is when it comes to advertising. Marketing strategies are oftentimes deceiving. One example given in the case is on the case of Herbal Essences Shampoo by Clairol. In its packaging, it's trying to exploit the word "herbal" to imply that the shampoo is healthy, even though it is primarily made with the same ingredients as other popular shampoos. The first three ingredients, for example, are: water, sodium laureth, and sodium lauryl sulfate. This is an example of trying to deceive the consumers. This is wrong.
In the case of shampoo that is prone to neurological disorders, I have discovered that manufacturers of such products actually know about its health risk. Yet, they are concealing this fact to the public because they are thinking primarily of profit. Concealment is one of the wrong ways to market the product. It’s like you are cheating with the consumers. We really do not expect caveat emptor (let the buyers beware) to happen at most times because I firmly believe that the responsibility is carried more by the manufacturers.
There are several ways by which advertising becomes wrong- through exaggeration, concealment, etc. But the power of advertising is really strong because, advertising through media for instance, is very influential nowadays. Even advertisement through hear-say is also powerful, especially here in the Philippines where people especially manangs are generally chismosa. If a certain product works for them, they would tell the entire neighborhood about such. Then, the entire neighborhood would use the product as well, and then they would again tell another neighborhood and so on. It would now be a bandwagon appeal. But, ask each manangs about something about the product and you’ll be fascinated that the only thing they know about the product is the name. Nothing more, nothing less. Often times, they may even pronounced the name wrong. My point here is that caveat emptor, especially here in the Philippines , is generally ineffective. There are only a few would take time to research more and observe about the product description. So, clearly, more than just logical analysis, manufacturers are really more responsible about their own products. Manufacturers should not wait until the government pushes them to do so. They should not rely on FDA which is responsible for regulating products, and investigating the safety of most products. Manufacturers should take action within themselves.
Shampoos are considered one of the things that people use everyday. It is used for hygienic purposes and is even considered one of the personal care products. If there is a little risk involved in using some of the products of shampoo, and people use it everyday, the risk would still be piled up and multiplied by the number of days of use. The risk therefore is high, especially if you are loyal to a particular product of shampoo.
THE ARTICLE
Popular shampoos contain toxic chemicals linked to nerve damage
NewsTarget.com printable article
Friday, February 18, 2005
Source: http://www.newstarget.com/003210.html
Researchers at the National Institutes of Health have found a correlation between an ingredient found in shampoos and nervous system damage. The experiments were conducted with the brain cells of rats and they show that contact with this ingredient called methylisothiazoline, or MIT, causes neurological damage.
Which products contain this chemical compound MIT? Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner all contain this ingredient. Researchers are concerned that exposure to this chemical by pregnant women could put their fetus at risk for abnormal brain development. In other people, exposure could also be a factor in the development of Alzheimer's disease and other nervous system disorders.
The chemical causes these effects by preventing communication between neurons. Essentially, it slows the networking of neurons, and since the nervous system and brain function on a system of neural networks, the slowing of this network will suppress and impair the normal function of the brain and nervous system.
These finding were presented December 5th at the American Society for Cell Biology annual meeting.
I have frequently warned readers about the dangers of using brand-name personal care products. The vast majority of these products contain toxic chemical compounds like MIT that contribute to cancer, liver disorders and neurological diseases. In fact, this chemical, MIT, is just one of dozens of such chemicals that are found in personal care products.
Why are these dangerous personal care products allowed to remain on the market? Because the FDA, which is responsible for regulating these products, spends almost no time, money or effort actually investigating the safety of such products. Instead, the FDA spends the vast majority of its time approving new prescription drugs rather than protecting the public against the dangers from such drugs or personal care products like shampoos, soaps, deodorants and fragrance products.
In fact, it may surprise you to learn that manufacturers can put practically any chemical they want into shampoos, even if it is a hazardous chemical listed in the RTECS database of toxicity and even if it is considered a toxic waste chemical by the EPA. The FDA allows all sorts of chemicals to be used in these products, including chemicals that are known carcinogens and that contribute to liver failure and nervous system disorders. How's that for protecting public health?
If you thought prescription drugs were dangerous, just take a look at the toxic chemicals found in personal care products used by virtually all Americans every single day. Americans bathe themselves in toxic chemicals and they do it by buying and using products made by brand name companies that have premier shelf positioning at convenience stores, grocery stores and discount clubs.
One of the more curious personal care products on the market is Herbal Essences Shampoo by Clairol. Personally, I think this product is a joke because it's trying to exploit the word "herbal" to imply that the shampoo is healthy, even though it is primarily made with the same ingredients as other popular shampoos. The first three ingredients, for example, are: water, sodium laureth, and sodium lauryl sulfate. Big deal, huh? You can find the same three ingredients in 99-cent shampoo at Wal-Mart. Plus, the product contains all sorts of other ingredients that I personally would never allow to touch my skin (like methylchloroisothiazolinone, if you can believe there's actually a chemical with a name that long). Think the color of the shampoo is from the herbs? Think again. Three other ingredients in the shampoo are Yellow #5, Orange #4 and Violet #2.
In other words, this is a shampoo product purchased by naive consumers, in my opinion. People who really know herbs and natural products can only laugh at a product like this. Want a real shampoo? Buy Olive Oil Shampoo from Heritage Products, available at most natural health stores.
The bottom line to all of this, though, is that every week, it seems like we see a new announcement about some toxic chemical found in personal care products that is related to either cancer or neurological disorders. And yet week after week these products are being sold by retailers and consumed in large quantities by the American people who remain oblivious to the real damage these products are causing to their health.
Once again, the solution here is to protect yourself by learning the truth about these products and switching to products made with safe ingredients. There are safe shampoos, safe soaps, safe laundry detergents, dishwashing liquids and even deodorant products. You don't have to expose yourself to toxic chemicals to take care of personal hygiene, because whether you agree with it or not, these disease-causing chemicals are going to remain quite legal in the use of personal care products for many years to come. Why? You can bet that the manufacturers of these products will fight against any attempt to regulate or outlaw these toxic chemicals. That's because the chemicals are convenient for such manufacturers. It's much the same way in which food manufacturers use sodium nitrate in bacon and other packaged meats. It's all about their convenience rather than protecting your health.
So, here's the idiot test for today: if I was standing on a street corner with a bottle of colored liquid, and I told you that liquid contained a toxic chemical that caused neurological disorders, Alzheimer's disease and birth defects, would you buy that product from me and scrub it into your scalp under warm water?
Of course not. But if you're buying these popular shampoo products, that's exactly what you're doing right now. Such is the power of brand marketing in America.
Overview
The article actually depicts a criticism about the major manufacturing companies in America . The article is informing the consumers about the danger brought about by the products available in the market. The products identified are ideally meant for health and hygienic purposes but it actually causes a moral issue on the part of consumers especially because these products are dangerous to their health.
Brief Summary
The main products identified in the article are shampoos like Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner. The article was saying that these products contain an ingredient called methylisothiazoline, or MIT, which actually causes neurological damage. This data was gathered by the National Institutes of Health through experimentations with the brain cells of rats.
Researchers are concerned that exposure to this chemical by pregnant women could put their fetus at risk for abnormal brain development. In other people, exposure could also be a factor in the development of Alzheimer's disease and other nervous system disorders.
The chemical causes these effects by preventing communication between neurons. Essentially, it slows the networking of neurons, and since the nervous system and brain function on a system of neural networks, the slowing of this network will suppress and impair the normal function of the brain and nervous system.
The manufacturers of such products know the danger of the products they are producing. Yet, through advertising, they are concealing these facts and therefore they are not preserving the rights of the consumers to acquire adequate information about the dangers of the product they are purchasing.
Statement of the Central Moral Problem or Ethical Issue
The central moral problem in the case is the abuse of rights of the manufacturers. It is frequently called the Due Care Theory wherein the consumers and sellers do not meet as equals because sellers have the knowledge and expertise that consumers don’t have. The manufacturers of the personal care products like shampoos failed to take the responsibility of:
Informing the public about the dangers brought by the product through advertising.
Making sure that the products they are producing are of good quality and does not lead to any risks of danger to one’s health.
Analysis of the Moral Issue
Before we analyze the issue using different approaches, we should first verify if the case states relevant facts and the intention of the author is to inform and not to argue against major shampoo manufacturers. We should never ignore the fact that the person who wrote it may have the intention to persuade the consumers not to purchase the products of some manufacturers. As such, they may even try to present invalid data about the company. Somehow, analyzing the validity of the case is one of the most important things to do in order to make personal judgments, thus, make proposed solutions.
I have researched the net and discovered that the same article was posted on the site of OCA or Organic Consumers Association. OCA is campaigning for food safety, organic agriculture, fair trade and sustainability. OCA was able to further research and proved that the data presented in the article were all true. In addition, it was also posted in another site called MY TOXIC HOUSE, a site that safe lifestyle for families. The site ensures its credibility especially because it affects the way of living of each families, and therefore would never post an article that is not true.
Having known that the article is indeed true, we can now try to analyze the issue using different approaches such as the egoistic, utilitarian,, and so on.
If we would analyze the case by being pure egoists, its like saying that it is okay not to tell the consumers that the shampoos causes dangers of health. For an egoist, it would be okay to conceal relevant information about the product. Egoists actually would contend that profit maximization for their own benefits should be the major thing to be considered and not the welfare of the consumers. So, for an egoist it is okay to let the consumers suffer Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disease for as long as the business becomes profitable. Thus, they would never consider the narrow view of each corporation which is the fulfillment of other obligations other than the satisfaction of demand. These obligations are directly associated with the consumers and the society at large. If businesses would think the same way, there would no longer be safe products that can be bought in the market. If all managers would think like an egoist, the consumer’s welfare would certainly be at risk. Therefore, for an egoist, it is justifiable to produce substandard products and to hide information about the health risk of the ingredients of the products being manufactured.
If we would now consider being utilitarianist, we would consider the greatest happiness of the majority. Thus, utilitarianist would argue that the manufacturers should be responsible about the quality of product they are rendering to market. They should make sure that the consumers are properly informed (probably through advertising) and even if it would cause to have net loss, the safety of the consumers justifies the action. For a ultilitarianist manager, it is okay to sacrifice oneself just to cater to the happiness of the majority-the consumers.
Chosen course of action
The business should apply strict product liability theory, wherein the manufacturers shoulder the legal liabilities to compensate injuries because the defective product makes it dangerous. The manufacturers should ensure that the limitations of their products are known by the consumers. Such limitations or risk in the health of the consumers will be the responsibility of the manufacturers.
Proposed plan of action
Manufacturers of Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner should make sure that the advertising are not deceiving and should show the real risk of using the products. Some may argue that if they do such, they won’t earn anything at all. Well, the problem lies with the process of production. There is no perfect product. There is no product that doesn’t carry with it any health risk and possibility of injuries. But as manufacturers, they should ensure that their products will have the least possibility of health risk and injuries. By then, advertising and marketing such products would be easy.
In the case, the business must first ensure that the ingredients in the products do not contain chemicals that are harmful to one’s health. What would happen if all people using Head and Shoulders shampoo would have Alzheimer's disease and other nervous system disorders? What would happen if the exposure MIT by pregnant women has put their fetus at risk for abnormal brain development? These are the things that manufacturers should consider. Life is so valuable to be wasted. When you are a manufacturer you always try to preserve life and ensure that the products you are rendering the market would make living life easy. Business is a process of mutual relationship between buyers and sellers- the sellers benefits by acquiring income while the buyers benefits by the satisfaction of the demand by the seller. Business owners should never think like egoists and break this mutual relationship. They should never think more of the narrow view of business which is profit. It is because certainly business is not just profit-making but also being responsible to the community, especially to the consumers using the products. As a responsible manager or business owner, one must ensure that the product is of good quality and able to function with its intended purpose. Manufacturers should ensure that the products were able to pass safety standards set by the company. These safety standards comprise rules on the way products will be manufactured- the direct materials, equipments and the process as a whole would be safe. Safety standards also include testing of prototypes to really check that the products do not negatively affect the lives of the consumers.
As we discussed in the class, there are some companies who are not into product development towards the safety of the consumers. They use the technique called cost-benefit analysis wherein they try to assess whether the investment in the development of a particular product will be justified by the “returns” it brings. Such “returns” are measured by the lesser cost it can bring to the business. For instance, one business would no longer invest on changing the production schedule of the product to make is safe because paying those who are injured upon using the product would give them lesser cost. I like to believe that such act is wrong because they are leaving the consumers at risk. They are actually breaking the mutual connection between the buyers and sellers. I still believe that ensuring the quality of the product (i.e., changing the ingredients of a product to make it less injury-prone) is still the best option even though it would cost the business greater expense. Businesses are accountable for ensuring such.
Another plan of action that needs to be done is when it comes to advertising. Marketing strategies are oftentimes deceiving. One example given in the case is on the case of Herbal Essences Shampoo by Clairol. In its packaging, it's trying to exploit the word "herbal" to imply that the shampoo is healthy, even though it is primarily made with the same ingredients as other popular shampoos. The first three ingredients, for example, are: water, sodium laureth, and sodium lauryl sulfate. This is an example of trying to deceive the consumers. This is wrong.
In the case of shampoo that is prone to neurological disorders, I have discovered that manufacturers of such products actually know about its health risk. Yet, they are concealing this fact to the public because they are thinking primarily of profit. Concealment is one of the wrong ways to market the product. It’s like you are cheating with the consumers. We really do not expect caveat emptor (let the buyers beware) to happen at most times because I firmly believe that the responsibility is carried more by the manufacturers.
There are several ways by which advertising becomes wrong- through exaggeration, concealment, etc. But the power of advertising is really strong because, advertising through media for instance, is very influential nowadays. Even advertisement through hear-say is also powerful, especially here in the Philippines where people especially manangs are generally chismosa. If a certain product works for them, they would tell the entire neighborhood about such. Then, the entire neighborhood would use the product as well, and then they would again tell another neighborhood and so on. It would now be a bandwagon appeal. But, ask each manangs about something about the product and you’ll be fascinated that the only thing they know about the product is the name. Nothing more, nothing less. Often times, they may even pronounced the name wrong. My point here is that caveat emptor, especially here in the Philippines , is generally ineffective. There are only a few would take time to research more and observe about the product description. So, clearly, more than just logical analysis, manufacturers are really more responsible about their own products. Manufacturers should not wait until the government pushes them to do so. They should not rely on FDA which is responsible for regulating products, and investigating the safety of most products. Manufacturers should take action within themselves.
Shampoos are considered one of the things that people use everyday. It is used for hygienic purposes and is even considered one of the personal care products. If there is a little risk involved in using some of the products of shampoo, and people use it everyday, the risk would still be piled up and multiplied by the number of days of use. The risk therefore is high, especially if you are loyal to a particular product of shampoo.
THE ARTICLE
Popular shampoos contain toxic chemicals linked to nerve damage
NewsTarget.com printable article
Friday, February 18, 2005
Source: http://www.newstarget.com/003210.html
Researchers at the National Institutes of Health have found a correlation between an ingredient found in shampoos and nervous system damage. The experiments were conducted with the brain cells of rats and they show that contact with this ingredient called methylisothiazoline, or MIT, causes neurological damage.
Which products contain this chemical compound MIT? Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner all contain this ingredient. Researchers are concerned that exposure to this chemical by pregnant women could put their fetus at risk for abnormal brain development. In other people, exposure could also be a factor in the development of Alzheimer's disease and other nervous system disorders.
The chemical causes these effects by preventing communication between neurons. Essentially, it slows the networking of neurons, and since the nervous system and brain function on a system of neural networks, the slowing of this network will suppress and impair the normal function of the brain and nervous system.
These finding were presented December 5th at the American Society for Cell Biology annual meeting.
I have frequently warned readers about the dangers of using brand-name personal care products. The vast majority of these products contain toxic chemical compounds like MIT that contribute to cancer, liver disorders and neurological diseases. In fact, this chemical, MIT, is just one of dozens of such chemicals that are found in personal care products.
Why are these dangerous personal care products allowed to remain on the market? Because the FDA, which is responsible for regulating these products, spends almost no time, money or effort actually investigating the safety of such products. Instead, the FDA spends the vast majority of its time approving new prescription drugs rather than protecting the public against the dangers from such drugs or personal care products like shampoos, soaps, deodorants and fragrance products.
In fact, it may surprise you to learn that manufacturers can put practically any chemical they want into shampoos, even if it is a hazardous chemical listed in the RTECS database of toxicity and even if it is considered a toxic waste chemical by the EPA. The FDA allows all sorts of chemicals to be used in these products, including chemicals that are known carcinogens and that contribute to liver failure and nervous system disorders. How's that for protecting public health?
If you thought prescription drugs were dangerous, just take a look at the toxic chemicals found in personal care products used by virtually all Americans every single day. Americans bathe themselves in toxic chemicals and they do it by buying and using products made by brand name companies that have premier shelf positioning at convenience stores, grocery stores and discount clubs.
One of the more curious personal care products on the market is Herbal Essences Shampoo by Clairol. Personally, I think this product is a joke because it's trying to exploit the word "herbal" to imply that the shampoo is healthy, even though it is primarily made with the same ingredients as other popular shampoos. The first three ingredients, for example, are: water, sodium laureth, and sodium lauryl sulfate. Big deal, huh? You can find the same three ingredients in 99-cent shampoo at Wal-Mart. Plus, the product contains all sorts of other ingredients that I personally would never allow to touch my skin (like methylchloroisothiazolinone, if you can believe there's actually a chemical with a name that long). Think the color of the shampoo is from the herbs? Think again. Three other ingredients in the shampoo are Yellow #5, Orange #4 and Violet #2.
In other words, this is a shampoo product purchased by naive consumers, in my opinion. People who really know herbs and natural products can only laugh at a product like this. Want a real shampoo? Buy Olive Oil Shampoo from Heritage Products, available at most natural health stores.
The bottom line to all of this, though, is that every week, it seems like we see a new announcement about some toxic chemical found in personal care products that is related to either cancer or neurological disorders. And yet week after week these products are being sold by retailers and consumed in large quantities by the American people who remain oblivious to the real damage these products are causing to their health.
Once again, the solution here is to protect yourself by learning the truth about these products and switching to products made with safe ingredients. There are safe shampoos, safe soaps, safe laundry detergents, dishwashing liquids and even deodorant products. You don't have to expose yourself to toxic chemicals to take care of personal hygiene, because whether you agree with it or not, these disease-causing chemicals are going to remain quite legal in the use of personal care products for many years to come. Why? You can bet that the manufacturers of these products will fight against any attempt to regulate or outlaw these toxic chemicals. That's because the chemicals are convenient for such manufacturers. It's much the same way in which food manufacturers use sodium nitrate in bacon and other packaged meats. It's all about their convenience rather than protecting your health.
So, here's the idiot test for today: if I was standing on a street corner with a bottle of colored liquid, and I told you that liquid contained a toxic chemical that caused neurological disorders, Alzheimer's disease and birth defects, would you buy that product from me and scrub it into your scalp under warm water?
Of course not. But if you're buying these popular shampoo products, that's exactly what you're doing right now. Such is the power of brand marketing in America.
.jpg)
.jpg)
