Making up is hard to do
The average woman spends 10 working days a year getting ready for work while the beauty industry takes hundreds of pounds of women's money annually.(1) Ruth Rosselson asks whether it's really worth it.
Makeup is the ultimate capitalist success story, the perfect alliance between
the media, popular culture and the multinational companies who benefit financially.
Cosmetics companies, through extremely effective marketing campaigns, have
persuaded women that they need makeup to enhance their self-esteem, appear
attractive, succeed in business and attract a mate. Even the ‘natural’
look requires the use of makeup.
When magazines regularly run photo galleries of (female) celebrities who
dare to leave the house without makeup, the message to women is clear. These
products are essential to femininity, success, and women’s presence
in the public sphere. “Every woman knows that, regardless of all her
other achievements, she is a failure if she is not beautiful” argues
Germaine Greer,(2)and integral to this current definition of beauty is the
application of makeup.
Toxic ingredients
It has been estimated that some women could be absorbing around 2kg of chemicals
through cosmetics and toiletries each year.(3) The concern is that the synthetic
ingredients used in these products could be toxic and some have been linked
to cancer, reproductive problems and other health risks.(4,5) This is particularly
relevant for a product like lipstick, because of the amount that is absorbed
when eating, drinking or licking the lips.(5)
The US-based Environmental Working Group (EWG) is running a Safe Cosmetics
campaign and trying to encourage companies to sign its “Compact for
Safe Cosmetics” pledge. So far, none of the mainstream companies on
the table have signed and many of their products are listed by EWG as including
ingredients of varying degrees of concern.(4) Logona and Lavera have signed
the pledge while Dr Hauschka, Sante and Green People are companies which
also explicitly avoid such chemicals.
Animal ingredients
A number of different animal ingredients could be used in your makeup. Vegetarians
should watch out for stearic acid and glycerin, both of which could come
from animal or vegetable sources, sorbitan or octyl stearate, cochineal/carmine
(found in lipsticks and made from crushed beetles), and silk - found in
some eyeshadows. Vegans should also look out for beeswax, honey and lanolin.(6)
Unfortunately, most products don’t include ingredients listings. However,
all
makeup made by the following companies is suitable for vegetarians and they
also indicate which are suitable for vegans: Barry M, Body Shop, Bnevertoobusy,
Green People, Hard Candy, Logona, Sante and Urban Decay. Lavera and Dr Hauschka
indicate which products are suitable for vegetarians and vegans.
Animal Testing
Although the testing of cosmetic ingredients on animals in the UK was banned
in 1998, there is currently no ban on the selling of cosmetics (or the ingredients
which go in them) which have been tested abroad. According to Animal Aid,
this means that most of the products we see on our shelves are not cruelty
free because many countries continue to require that all new ingredients
must be animal tested to ensure safety.(7) Consequently, each time a new “super
improved” product is brought out, it’s likely that some animal
testing has been involved.
A proposed EU ban on the sale and marketing of cosmetics that have been
tested on animals is currently under negotiation. Without such a ban, testing
could still take place outside the EU, whereas a complete sales ban would
force companies to use non-animal methods.(7)
A number of companies state that they do not test their products or ingredients
on animals. However campaigners argue that the only guarantee that no animal
testing has been taking place at any stage is the existence of a fixed cut-off
date policy. Companies with such a policy are; Barry M, Bnevertoobusytobebeautiful,
Body Shop, Green People, Hard Candy, Lavera, Logona, Sante and Urban Decay.
Harmful cultural practice?
Susan Jeffries in her book “Beauty and Misogyny” suggests that the
wearing of makeup not only consumes women’s time and money but also their
emotional space.(1) Though makeup’s supporters argue that it offers an
opportunity for women to exercise creativity, this is rather limited, she
argues, because “women are required to conform to strict rules in order
to function in workplaces and escape criticism and discrimination.”(1)
She concludes that makeup fits the criterion of a harmful cultural practice
as defined by the UN, because “the substances that women apply to their
hair, face and body in pursuit of beauty are directly dangerous to our health”.(1)
Links
References
1 Susan Jeffries, Beauty & Misogyny 2005
2 Germaine Greer,
the Whole Woman 2000
3 Green People website, www.greenpeople.co.uk/
viewed July 2006
4 www.ewg.org/ viewed July 2006, also
5 Women’s
Environmental Network, Ending the Cosmetics Cover Up/Getting Lippy, Cosmetics,
toiletries and the Environment Factsheet, also http://safershopping.wwf.org.uk/
6 Email from Chris Olivant of the Vegetarian Society, 8th July 2006
7 Animal Aid factfile, on animal testing 2003 www.animalaid.org.uk
8 www.avoncompany.com viewed July 2006
9 hoovers.com 7/9/05
10 email from Clarins 7/3/06
11 BUAV factsheet 11/04
12
Who Owns Whom 2003/4
13 Hoovers.com 25/8/05 14 www.bigcampaign.org
viewed July 2006
15 www.uncaged.org 17/2/06
16 www.Naturewatch.org
July 2006
17 Baby Milk action www.babymilkaction.org