Drop-Dead Gorgeous: Protecting Yourself from the Hidden Dangers of Cosmetics [Paperback]

Drop-Dead Gorgeous has over 100 recipes for cosmetics. The recipes are, for the most part, safe. Those that are questionable include the appropriate warnings. (For example, horseradish can burn sensitive skin.) Most recipes have been published in other magazines and books and have been around for a while. The use of these recipes may not be practical, but they are unlikely to do any harm. The book includes a recipe for skin cleaning to treat acne. If you use commercial cleansers or the organic recipes, you keep the skin clean and acne will be less frequent.
For athlete's foot, there is a recipe that includes garlic oil. Lucky there is also a recipe for smelly feet. It includes baking soda. There are recipes for hair dies, shampoos, rinses, facial scrubs, nail soaks, and sunburn lotion. This is handy information to have in any household.

The author uses a few pages to condemn the use of animals in the testing of cosmetics. One test is the LD-50. Basically, how much of a product, force fed to a critter is enough to be fatal in 50% of the cases. Maybe she doesn't realize this is also done with the basic chemicals found in organics. For example, cinnamon oil is about 75% cinnamic aldehyde (depending upon the type of oil). LD50 (orally in rats) for cinnamic aldehyde is 2220mg/kg. This means I (if I was a 200 pound rat) could eat about a third of a pound of cinnamic aldehyde with about a 50% chance of survival.

On page 11 she makes a special point to discredit a company that makes my favorite brand of peanut butter. "One company resisting the trend toward more humane treatment of animals is Proctor & Gamble, the manufactures of Cover Girl, Max Factor and Vidal Sassoon brands." She cites evidence that, "In 1993 alone, Proctor & Gamble invested $2.4 billion on advertising while spending only $450,000 in scientific grants to develop actual alternatives
to animal testing." The advertising number includes potato chips and hundreds of other products besides beauty products. P&G only does animal testing when required by law. Specifically European requirements for cosmetics. In addition to spending money on grants for alternatives to animal testing, P&G is active in promoting these alternate tests.
(Disclaimer: I do not own stock in P&G nor am I expecting a lifetime supply of Jif(tm) to start showing up at my door. It is just an easy thing to investigate.)

The author has a bias against commercial products and the contents. When writing about a commercial products on page 23: "Glycerin is a solvent, humectant, and emollient. The FDA issued a notice in 1992 that glycerin has not been shown to be safe or effective." When writing about her recipe products on page 41: A sweet, syrupy byproduct of soap making, glycerin has been used for thousand of years a humectant, emollient, and lubricant in skin care preparations, It is available at most pharmacies. She doesn't mention if she means organic glycerin or not. Organic glycerin is made from animal fat. She conplains that cosmetics make products that may cause cancer in rats. Yet one of her receipes uses tobacco leaves.

While no one can be an expert in everything, the author is careless with facts. On page 165 is says, "Deodorants simply inhibit the growth of bacteria that cause odor, while antiperspirants stops perspiration by blocking the pores." Later on the same page, "Antiperspirants, on the other hand, curb wetness by temporarily shrinking the size of the sweat glands." Antiperspirants do neither to stop sweat. Antiperspirants change the electric charge on the skin. Sweat has a positive charge. It is attracted to the skin by the negative charge. The antiperspirant reduces the negative charge, by changing most of it to a positive charge.
Like charges do not attract, they repel.

I do agree with the author, that we should make an effort to have fewer cancer causing elements in our lives. She does suggest that using cosmetics with unproven and dangerous chemicals might be causing cancer (and mutant fish in Lake Erie --page 9). Statistic doesn't help her cause. Women get cancer less often than men in America in every category shared by the two genders except for breast cancer. (Breast cancer is usually fatal for men. In America one man a day dies of breast cancer.) If cosmetics were a factor for cancer, you would expect women to have a at least a greater rate of skin cancer. The author writes in a charged fashion about the possible dangers of cosmetics. But her recipes for homemade cosmetics are safe.

I appreciate Kim's easy to do recipie's and also her guide to shopping for "safe" products. My only problem with the book is her recipies, some needed to be reworked as the proportions are wrong. As well I couldn't get some to mix. It did get somewhat frustrating but she did provide a comprehensive listing of existing products.

It is scary to read some of things she has to say but I feel that education is the best way to alert people of the dangers in everyday products.