Stress is an unpleasant emotion that causes a complex series of physiological changes in your body that can cause, among other health issues, dull skin, acne and premature wrinkling. This “flight or fight” response produces excess adrenaline whose primary function is to prepare you for action in an urgent situation by boosting the oxygen supply and glucose needed for energy, to the brain and muscles. The downside to your beauty skin care regime is in doing so; it also redirects blood away from skin decreasing the skin’s level of oxygen.

Repeated, chronic stress deprives your skin of what it needs and can result in a dull skin tone, lost elasticity, overactive oil glands and adult acne. Long term chronic stress levels can also cause premature wrinkles and discoloration of the skin as it slows down your cell regeneration process. Stress is commonly associated with hives, itching and acne, however, it can also aggravate or trigger otherwise treatable skin conditions such as eczema, psoriasis, and rosacea.

 What steps can you take to combat these effects in your daily beauty regime?

• Start with your normal routine. It is easy during stressful times to overreact and overmedicate. If you are suffering from stress related skin issues, it is important to remember to continue practicing good skin care. Start by remembering to wash and moisturize each morning and each night.

• Treat the problem specifically. Use products, and prescriptions if necessary, specifically targeted to your skin problem. If adult acne is the issue, try a non-drying product formulated specifically to avoid over-drying you’re already stressed out skin. If itchy skin is your issue, avoid very hot baths and showers and make sure to moisturize daily, preferably immediately after bathing. Do you already moisturize? Try increasing it to two times per day. For sensitive skin, avoid additional irritations by switching to fragrance free, hypoallergenic cleansers, make up, and moisturizers.

• Remember the sunscreen. The sun’s rays heighten the effects of stress increasing the likelihood of acne, wrinkles and dry skin. If you haven’t already, try incorporating a product with broad-spectrum protection against UVA and UVB rays with a SPF of 15-30 into your beauty care regime.

• Eliminate triggers from your diet. Caffeine alters your brain chemistry, inhibiting the actions of adenosine and increasing the adrenaline levels giving you that extra boost of energy. However, it also deprives the skin adding to the effects of stress. During times of heightened stress, try substituting caffeine free drinks, or if that’s not a possibility, decrease you caffeine intake with Greed Tea.

As irritating as stressed out skin may be, the effects are usually temporary and treatable with a modified skin care regime. Ultimately the most important thing you can do is to determine the source of your stress and to work on tactics to help you manage and eliminate the “flight or fight” reaction. For example, exercising regularly helps to produce endorphins that can help you reduce stress. In addition to the havoc stress can play on your beauty plan, it can also affect your immune system, digestion and overall health. For more information on how you can keep your skin and body in tip top shape visit AlwaysNewYou.com.

On Wednesday, June 10, the signers of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics had the opportunity to participate in a conference call with the CFSC to better understand what would be involved should the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 (or HR 5786)  be passed.   The representatives of the CFSC spoke briefly about the proposed legislation and what would basically be required from small and medium size businesses.  Many indie businesses  have been very concerned about the impact this bill could have, particularly if it involved exhorbitant costs for safety testing on finished products.  The sole purpose of the conference call was to address any questions we had, and to also dispel the many “myths” that the CFSC felt were circulating on the web.   The CFSC worked very closely with the sponsors of this bill over the last 2 years or so.

I have to say that I went into this call grudgingly because I was disappointed that the Compact for Safe Cosmetics never alerted any of the signers (I never received any notifications) that this legislation was in the works.  We all found out the same time everyone else did.  Many other organizations such as the Beauty Indie Network and Personal Care Truth have written extensively on this issue and why they oppose this proposed bill.  As a result, a petition was formed and at the time of this writing, thousands of people have signed the petition opposing this proposed bill.   Signers of the petition include both businesses who make safe and natural skin care as well as the consumers who buy these products.   For the sake of clarity, I would like to point out that none of the companies and consumers who have signed the petition are against safe cosmetics, in fact it is quite the opposite.  This proposed bill as currently written is both complicated and vague.   In my opinion if  enforced the way it is currently written, this bill will  create a bureaucratic mess that will not do justice to the companies already selling safe cosmetics or to the consumers which this bill is trying protect. 

Here are a few highlights which were addressed during the call:

1) Salons which were previously exempt from FDA labeling requirements (interesting…on the video put out by the CFSC, “The Story of Cosmetics,” Annie Leonard states that the FDA does not enforce any labeling requirements which is false), would now have to disclose all ingredients.  Websites would also be required to list all product ingredients as well.

2) Under section 612, all companies would have to register their companies with the FDA.  Besides the usual contact information, number of employees would have to be disclosed as well as receipts of gross sales so that a fee schedule could be determined.  At this point, the drafters of this bill have no idea what those fees might be.  Once they figure out how much this massive project will cost, they will then charge fees accordingly.  So, yes, the more expensive it will be to amass the huge data base they are proposing, the higher the fees will be (this was my understanding).   All companies making less than 1 million in sales will be exempt from any type of fees. 

3) In addition to submitting all of our ingredients to the FDA,  we would also need to provide extensive safety data for all of those ingredients.   However, the CFSC did state that they were trying to avoid duplicate testing of  ingredients.   They want these costs to be incurred further up the chain, as in the raw material suppliers.  They stated there would be a new clause referred to as the “provider right to know,” which basically means that raw material suppliers would be legally required to provide safety data on all ingredients they supply to contract manufacturers and cosmetic companies.   So, we would get this documentation directly from them and then electronically submit the information to the FDA.  CFSC stated that in many cases, suppliers often refuse to supply basic information about an ingredient (s).   This has not been my experience.  Just about every supplier that I have dealt with either directly or through my contract manufacturer has supplied Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) which basically gives detailed information on the physical characteristics of an ingredient, toxicological information, and a whole host of safety data including any hazardous situations which may result in using such an ingredient.  However, it may be true that some do not.  Every Time there is a change in even one of our ingredients (s) or a change in our contract manufacturers or suppliers, we would need to notify the FDA.

4) On the issue of safety testing on finished products, they stated that this would not be required or would be highly unlikely.   In other words, we would not be saddled with the prohibitive costs involved in testing finished products for the purpose of detecting prohibited substances whether they are reported in a formula or not (all individual ingredients are already thoroughly tested for safety by the manufacturers of raw materials).  They also reasoned that because most of the compact signers were already using safe ingredients,  this would not be something that we would likely be dealing with in the future.  They did state that some testing might be required if for example, 2 or more ingredients used in a formula could result in the creation of a toxic substance or compound.  But, they haven’t yet figured out the specifics on how they would handle such a scenario.  According to CFSC, it would likely be assessed on a case by case basis.  Another example of possible testing on a finished product could involve the use of “penetration enhancers,” or nanoparticles if their research indicated that these particles could be problematic.  However, it was my impression that they were just throwing some ideas around and that this was more of an educated guess than fact.

5) Listing all trace elements on an ingredient label- the CFSC stated that trace elements would be excluded as long as they were present below technically feasible levels (lower than 10 part per billion). One of the signers had asked if every trace element would need to be listed for water, and their response was only if something such as lead was found at unsafe levels.   Some were concerned that all trace elements would need to be listed on an ingredient panel.  This would have made it unpractical as well as confusing for the consumer.   For example, lavender could have as many as 200 trace elements and that would make it impossible to list all of them on an ingredient label.   They also stated that if passed, this bill would be in a data collection mode for the better part of 2-3 years.  What this means is that no changes would be immediate.  However, once their “prohibitive” list of CMR chemicals is released, a company would basically have 2.5 years later to clean up their act or stop using the ingredient (s).

The next step would involve efforts to encourage compact signers to support the  proposed bill.  In fact, I received a brief survey after the call asking the usual survey questions, but additionally asked if we were planning on getting involved to help promote this bill as well as the video they produced, “The Story of Cosmetics,” either by social media, blogging, or contacting our elected officials.  The CFSC did encourage further dialogue and did state that they wanted our feedback. 

Regarding the issue of safety testing, please understand that many companies already do testing to make sure their products are safe, such as ensuring that the preservatives they use are effective and will not cause harm.   The testing I am talking about is testing for those ingredients which would be deemed unsafe at certain levels or are even prohibited.    Since most if not all compact signers never use any of these substances to begin with, it would be unnecessary and unfair to place this financial burden on them.    Most of us do extensive research to ensure that the products we put on the market are safe.

Finally, CFSC also stated that this bill would probably go through many re-writes and that they wanted our feedback  to make it the best it can be.  While I did appreciate that, this conference call did not alleviate all of my concerns.   While I did feel somewhat relieved to hear that we would not be responsible for testing finished products (to specifically look for potentially prohibited substances such as lead, formaldehyde, etc. that most of us do not use in the first place) I do not entirely trust this response.   I am not saying they were lying, but this is just a draft of a bill and anything can change for better or worse.  For example,a  recent legislation was (CPSIA – Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act) was signed into law by former president George W. Bush in February 2009  requiring mandatory testing for toxic substances (e.g. lead, phthalates, etc.) in toys and as a result several small toy companies had to shut down because they could not afford the price of testing.  From what was reported, none of these companies used lead or any other prohibited substances.  The reason this legislation was put into law to begin with was because a few large companies manufactured and imported unsafe children’s products and sold them to American consumers.  

It bears repeating that none of us are against using SAFE COSMETICS.   It was often our own frustration with the limited selection of natural and non-toxic products in the market place that inspired us to start our businesses.  I am a passionate advocate for safe cosmetics and skin care.  My main reason for opposing this bill is the current way in which it is written.  The FDA could use improvement in the way that it regulates cosmetics, but let’s work together to find a way that would be less burdensome on small and medium size businesses.   Recently the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) announced that they had sent a letter to key health policy leaders in Congress outlining a number of proposed regulatory changes that could improve the FDA’s jurisdiction over cosmetics.  While not perfect, this proposal is certainly more practical and reasonable than HR 5786.

On July 21, 2010, the Safe Cosmetics Act (SCA) or H.R. 5786 was introduced to Congress by Reps. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois (D),  Ed Markey of Mass, (D),  and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin (D).   While it looks good on the surface or appears to be well intended, the ramifications of this bill as currently written could close down small and even some medium size businesses overnight.

We all want safe cosmetics.  Companies such as mine go to great lengths to ensure that the products we manufacture are safe and non-toxic.  This is why we developed our businesses to begin with; many of us were motivated to go into business because our choices for safe and natural skin care were limited. 

There are many elements to this proposed bill.   In addition to the requirement that all companies register with the FDA and provide full ingredient listings (I do not have any issues with this), we would also have to submit extensive safety documentation on all of our finished products.  This means that we would need to submit documentation on toxicology, composition, physical characteristics, etc. for each and every single ingredient we use.  Since safety data for any ingredient has already been thoroughly conducted by the manufacturers of raw materials, this would only  be reinventing the wheel.   Additionally all  companies would be required to conduct “safety” testing on all of their finished products  which could cost as much as $8000 – 20,000 (these are rough estimates) to test just one product.   So, even with a small collection such as La Vie Celeste, that could cost my company $40,000 or more to test 5 products alone.  What about those companies that offer dozens of products?  And it is not even clear as to how often this testing would be required.   Would it be every time a new product is developed, or for every batch? 

The Compact for Safe Cosmetics worked closely with the representatives who drafted this bill.  While La Vie Celeste is a compact signer, I am disappointed that none of the compact signers were alerted to the fact that this proposed bill was heading down the pike.  What a surprise this was when the news broke the week of July 20th.  

At this point, I am carefully reviewing all of the material and following updates very carefully.   In reality, it does take a lot for a bill to get passed.  In fact, most proposed bills never see the light of day.  But, this should not allow us to become lax regarding any proposed legislation we may feel strongly about.    Please read more at www.signthepetition.com/1/oppose-hr-5786-safe-cosmetics-act-of-2010.    There is an excellent synopsis of the bill so you can look at all of the major points.   If you decide you would like to oppose it,  then please sign the petition.

If you are lazy like me and want your skin care and make-up routine to be as fast and  easy as possible, then you might like the idea of using a powder foundation rather than a liquid make-up.   Powder foundations can be great for oily skin, but many women, particularly those with dry skin may shy away from them because powders (depending upon the formulation) make cake and make dry skin look even worse.

A powder foundation is usually thicker in consistency than a pressed powder.  Foundation powders are designed to give more coverage than a sheer pressed powder which is usually used for touch ups during the day such as blotting excess oil.  The majority of pressed powders use talc.  Talc may be clogging for some skin types.  There was also some controversy regarding talc some years ago; a few studies suggested there may be a link between talc and ovarian cancer because some women use talc based dusting powders in the genital area.  So far, these studies have been inconclusive.  Inhaling talcum powder can be problematic for some individuals (e.g. irritation of the the lungs), but this is more likely with a loose powder.  It is worth mentioning that even non-talc based powders (e.g. mineral make-up) can cause irritation when inhaled.  I personally cannot use loose mineral make-up because it makes me cough.

One of the best powder foundations I have tried is by ZUZU LUXE.  It has a super silky texture and can be applied dry or wet with a sponge (included in packaging).   Although I do not have dry skin,  I have seen other reviewers state that is also works great on dry skin.  It is talc free and only contains 10 ingredients which is a short list compared to other brands on the market.   It is always a good idea to choose products with as few ingredients as possible; the more ingredients, the greater your risk for allergic reaction, irritation and or breakouts.

The color selection is decent, so that most women should be able to find a good match.  It is available at all Whole Food Stores or on-line.  It sells for $27.99.  While this is not inexpensive, it is still affordable when compared to many department stores brands.

In April I posted a entry regarding a letter that Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment had sent to the FDA requesting information about the status of their investigation into the widely used chemical, triclosan.   The FDA responded by stating that they did not have sufficient safety evidence to warrant changing consumer use of products containing triclosan.  Triclosan is an broad spectrum antibacterial which can be found in numerous products including hand soaps, toothpaste, cosmetics, etc.   The FDA stated that in some products, the use of triclosan did provide a benefit,  however, in the case of antibacterial soaps and body washes, they stated that they did not have evidence that it works any better than soap and water.

The Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) refuted the FDA’s comment regarding triclosan’s ineffectiveness in antibacterial soaps by citing two recent scientific papers demonstrating the effectiveness of antibacterial soaps in comparison to non-antibacterial soaps.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports an estimated 76 million cases of foodborne illnesses every year in the U.S.   The SDA notes that antibacterial soaps play a huge role in the daily hygiene routines of millions of people, and  have been used safely and effectively in homes, workplaces and hospitals on a daily basis.   They said they look forward to providing Rep. Markey with any relevant updated information regarding the safety of triclosan.

By now most of us have heard about the alleged dangers of using a group of preservatives called parabens.  There are 6 different types of parabens.   Among them are methylparaben, butylparaben, proplparaben, etc.   As with many synthetic preservatives, they are usually used in a range of .50-1.00% concentration which is considered low.  Parabens have been used in skin care and cosmetics for years and are a very effective broad spectrum group of preservatives (they address both mold and bacteria).  

Over the last few years the controversy about parabens began over a single 2004 study which was conducted in the UK by an oncologist in Edinborough.  In this study, the researchers found parabens in the breast tissue of 18 out of 20 women who had breast cancer.    Before you know it,  this information spread all over the Internet and took on a life of its own.   Even major commercial cosmetic and skin care companies began eliminating parabens from there products.  I do not suspect it was because they necessarily felt they were dangerous, but because many consumers believed they were.   And because business is business, the main focus was on the bottom line.

The study in question appears to have been extremely flawed.  It did not bother to test healthy breast tissue as a comparison.   There did not appear to be any “scientific” evidence that the parabens found in breast tissue had any direct link to breast cancer.  Experimental designs must be tightly controlled; every caution must be taken to control for extraneous variables, or those things that can interfere with the results.   Causation (A causes B) was absolutely not proven in this study.  So, to say that parabens caused breast cancer based on the results of this study is not valid.     

Let me say that we do not use parabens in the La Vie Celeste skin care line.  We did not use them even before this huge controversy.   One of the main preservatives we use is a non-toxic synthetic preservative called Cosmocil CQ.  I have written about the need for an effective non-toxic preservative (s) in both my blog posts and other articles which I have written for distribution.   Many “all natural” preservatives are simply not effective enough to pass a preservative “challenge test,” which basically puts a product through extreme circumstances to see how well it will hold up when exposed to high heat and also the introduction of mold and bacteria over a 28 day period or longer.   All of our products passed the 28 day challenge test with no problem what so ever.

I believe that more rigorous scientific research needs to be done to prove that parabens are harmful.   Many watchdog groups emphatically state that parabens cause cancer and are toxic, but do not necessarily have the scientific studies to back it up.  Yes, parabens can cause skin irritations in some, but so can many other preservatives; it really depends on the sensitivity of the individual.  It is not uncommon for people to have allergic reactions or sensitivities to some natural ingredients as well.

I choose to err on the side of caution when it comes to parabens.  I believe more research needs to be done to either refute the negative conclusions which have been reached, or scientifically prove that they are potentially harmful.  In the meantime, as I mentioned above, there are less controversial perservative options which are highly effective.

Also, please remember that the potential harm from toxic chemicals does not usually occur from the use of a single product; it is the cumulative long term exposure from a multitude of chemicals on a daily basis.  When you add up all of the products we use on a daily basis and count the number of chemicals we are exposed to,  it could easily add up to 200-300 a day.

La Vie Celeste Skin Care, Inc.

Contact: Dr. Teri Dourmashkin  866-921-9599

What The Stars Will Be Wearing After The Golden Globe Awards…

June 3, 2010 –Hollywood, CA– Do you want to know the next skin care product celebrities will be raving about? Now you can get your hands on it before they do…Imagine Natural Anti-Aging Skin Care in just 2 minutes a day with the power of R-Lipoic Acid.

We are pleased to announce La Vie Celeste Day and Night Restorative Face Cream will be included in the Celebrity Gift Bags for the GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS in January 2011.

La Vie Celeste was designed for busy, successful professional women who want a simple skin care regimen. Unparalleled in the beauty industry, now you can restore, nurture and soothe even the most sensitive skin in only seconds a day all at an unbelievably affordable price.

Formulated by Dr. Teri Dourmashkin, La Vie Celeste Skin Care is an all natural anti-aging skin care line specifically developed to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles safely and easily.  The line features the powerful and proven antioxidant, R-Lipoic Acid which can be found in both the La Vie Celeste face and eye creams.  Research indicates that R-Lipoic Acid has superior anti-aging benefits and is more effective than the more commonly used Alpha Lipoic Acid.

Dr. Dourmashkin uses only ingredients which enhance the overall health and beauty of your skin.  The La Vie Celeste skin care system contains no toxic ingredients of any kind.  It is free of harmful preservatives, colors, artificial fragrance, phthalates, PEG compounds, and petrochemicals of any kind.

Women want high end luxurious products with real results they can see and feel.  Spending $100.00 or more on a skin cream is not doable for many women, particularly in this economy. And  even for those who can afford it, they may opt to buy products which give them more value.  The La Vie Celeste collection represents the best of both worlds; high end luxury without the exorbitant price tag.  This really is luxury for less,” doctor Dourmashkin stated.

Turn Back the Clock NOW http:www.laviecelesteskincare.com. 

Dr. Dourmashkin has a doctorate degree in Health Education from Columbia University.  She is a passionate advocate of safe and non-toxic skin care.

When you think about it, we ladies are constantly reapplying our lipsticks throughout the day and licking our lips.  Over the course of a lifetime, the average woman uses about 4 pounds of lipstick.   Most of us might be surprised to learn that many of the leading brands of lipstick, particularly shades of red (this can also include the “berry” shades) contain lead.  Some argue that because lead is found in nature, that it is perfectly safe, particularly in small amounts.  But, when you think of the cumulative effect, it makes sense that we should be cautious.

Last year I had a heavy metal test done and was surprised to learn that I  tested relatively high for lead.  I did not immediately think of red lipstick as the culprit since I don’t wear red that often these days, but I did wear it frequently for  many years.  I got rid of all of my ceramic mugs since they can contain lead depending upon where they are manufactured (e.g. outside of the U.S. such as China and Mexico), but other than that was scratching my head.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has recently brought the issue of  lipsticks and lead  into the public arena.    In 2009, the FDA tested 22 brands of varying shades of lipstick and ALL of them contained lead.  The biggest offenders were L’Oreal, Revlon and Cover Girl.  The particular shade with the highest level of lead was “Maximum Red,” by Cover Girl.

My recommendation would be to find all natural brands to replace the red shades you may be currently using.  Some companies to watch for are “Gabriel,” which has a gorgeous hot shade of red called “Pomegranate.”  This shade is more of a blue based red, very reminiscent of the 1940’s.   Another beautiful shade which I would describe as a very soft red (totally appropriate for day and night) is by “Primitive,” and is called “Belize.”   Both are available at Whole Foods.

If you have not yet explored the world of more naturally based cosmetics, I think you will find there is plenty to choose from.   Definitely not as big of a selection compared to your local department store, but if you are committed to finding safer and non-toxic  choices, then I don’t think you will be disappointed.

There has been so much buzz over the use of nanotechnology, or “penetration enhancers” in skin care over the last few years.   Nanotechnology utilizes extremely small particle sizes (only a billionths of a metre) to drive “active” ingredients deeper into the skin.  Many products containing nanotechnology also come with hefty price tags.  It is not uncommon to find anti-aging  face creams selling well in excess of $100.00 a jar.   Nanotechnology is also used in some sunblocks containing  zinc oxide and titanium dioxide as they may help diminish that  white “chalky” look.

The debate centers on whether or not nanoparticles can actually penetrate past the outer layer of skin into the bloodstream and possibly interact with the immune system.  Theoretically, if this is true, then toxic ingredients encapsulated into nano form could potentially do harm.

The “experts” have mixed opinions.  Some preliminary studies suggest that nanoparticles may illicit an inflammatory response and lead to possible cancer or genetic disorders, particularly from ingesting these particles.  Of particular concern is the use of spray on products, such as sunblocks or sunscreens which may be inhaled upon application.

The FDA does not have any specific regulations regarding the monitoring of nanoparticles.  They generally only investigate if a problem (s) has been reported after a product has been introduced into the market.

The nanoparticle debate continues on both sides of the Atlantic.  Recently, a center opened in Scotland specifically to address the safety of nanoparticles.

So, while the jury is still out, doesn’t it make more sense to avoid products with nanotechnology until more research is done?

At La Vie Celeste, we never use nanoparticles in any of our products.  And, the anti-aging results our customers have experienced  have been spectacular!

I was pleased to see a television broadcast on 60 Minutes this evening regarding the use of Phthalates.  Phthalates are a group of industrial chemicals which are ubiquitous in modern day society.  They are used primarily to give more flexibility to plastics.   They can be found in everything from shower curtains, rain coats, toys, vinyl flooring,  nail polish, shampoos and skin creams (they help creams to spread better).  They are often used to “hold” fragrance so that it can last longer.  The majority of fragrances which men and women use on a daily basis contain phthalates.   However, you will not usually see it listed on any ingredient label.   For example, companies are allowed to file a fragrance (s) as a “trade secret”  without having to reveal all of the individual ingredients that make up a ”finished” fragrance.  In some cases, as many as 300 ingredients can comprise a particular fragrance, and phthalates are among them.  Even IV bags routinely used in hospital settings contain phthalates.  

According to the American Chemistry Council, phthalates have been around since the 1950’s and are considered safe.  However, other health care experts and advocacy groups seriously question the safety of phthalates.  A recent study (source: EWG) revealed that 20 teenage girls age 14-19  had numerous potentially toxic chemicals in their blood and urine, including  phthalates.  In 2008, under pressure from the EWG (Environmental Working Group) and other health organizations, Congress banned 6 different phthalates from childrens’ toys and cosmetics.

The “expert” opinions regarding the safety of phthalates on the 60 Minutes broadcast were mixed.  And while none of the experts could say for certain that phthalates pose a significant health threat, several did suspect (based on the available studies) that they could  pose potential health problems.   Some studies have indicated that phthalates may cause abnormalities in infant boys, such as underdeveloped reproductive organs.

While we cannot avoid phthalates completely, isn’t it better to err on the side of caution and avoid products that contain them when possible?  For example, synthetic  fragrances can be avoided and can be replaced with naturally based ones.  Why not educate yourself so that you can make more informed choices?