Safe beauty products and make-up

Havn't read this story yet and I did buy a J & J baby talc yesterday! now off to read all about it - so thanks!

Well said M0nica.

Skin sensitivity is why haven't bought any J&J products for decades, nor any from any big cosmetic manufacturer.

I was not being personal about any individual's concerns about any given manufacturer, just that there seems to be a big band wagon rolling, not specifically on Gransnet, that big companies are always bad and small companies are always good. Life ain't that simple.

For those who have not read the article it us about a link between j&j baby powder and ovarian cancer.

I don't assume anything M0nica but I routinely investigate any company whose products I consider buying, mainly because I will not use products that are tested on animals. I also like to know more about the ingredients used because I have developed sensitivity to quite a few of them since I got older. Johnson & Johnson don't have a good track record on any of the above points but I certainly don't think they're out to get me

Because a company has a bad reputation is no excuse of damning them for things they may not have done. We also do not know how many of the cases against them are vexatious. The Americans, and especially their lawyers, love these cases because their courts use far lower standards of proof than we do and while damages in this country tend to be limited to the remedying the wrong done, in the US successful litigants are award punitive damages, which usually start at around $1 million upwards making it very lucrative for all those involved.

I doubt I have bought one of their products in the last 40 years so I have never felt any need to investigate them but I am uncomfortable with the modern habit of assuming every big company is nefarious and out to get us and always in the wrong.

I would never buy any Johnson & Johnson product anyway on the grounds that they are one of the worst offenders in terms of animal testing anywhere in the world. But added to that is the fact that they have already been forced by consumer pressure to stop using several toxic substances in their products, including baby products, and currently face over 1000 pending lawsuits. Of course they are rich and powerful enough to pay for the best defence lawyers but none of this fills me with confidence. I think they are a company best avoided for a great many reasons.

I listened to 'Inside Health' too and did not consider the need to stop using J&J products. I don't use talcum powder anyway, but do use baby shampoo and other skincare products in the baby range.

My rationale is that if it is sensitive enough for a baby's skin, it will be good enough for my more mature skin.

I was listening to the R4 programme 'Inside Health' last night and two medical researchers discussed the research behind this case and the link between talc and overian cancer and it is really very tenuous. There have been a number of studies on this subject, none of them of a high quality and the results have varied from study to study. They came to the conclusion that there MAY be a connection between ovarian cancer and talc, but it is not proven and and would only account for a very small proportion of all cases of the cancer.

I would read very widely on this subject before immediately condemning J&J out of hand.

Manufacturers do have to list the ingredients but the problem is that we don't know it is they are listing. We know from the sugar awareness movement at the moment how many words are used to disguise the word 'sugar' or 'sweetened'. I had a look at my toothpaste ingredients and couldn't identify most of them!

There's an adage, "If you wouldn't put it in your body, then don't put it on your body!"

That's the ideal, which most of us wouldn't adhere to, but it does raise awareness of what you're using. It's much easier now to check the ingredients as manufacturers have to list them.

As far as the manufactureres are concerned, they'll use whatever they legally can to reduce their costs and prolong shelflife.