Belly cupping

It's that thing where expectant mother (or even father) lovingly cuddles the swollen life with one or both arms. This week Jason Sudeikis (it took me like 6 tries to spell his name right) and Olivia Wilde announced that they are with child, joining the ranks of folks who have a reason to belly-cup. 

I mention it not because the pregnancy in and of itself is not news. Repeat: the pregnancy itself IS NOT NEWS. Rather, because of Wilde's position as a Revlon spokesperson. Wilde started endorsing Revlon with Emma Stone back in 2011. 

These days, celebrities don't use terms like 'spokesperson' or 'endorsement' because of the dirty, backroom deals that the words invoke. Vague, ambiguous words like 'ambassador' are used instead to lift the experience (and confuse the consumer. Are you or are you not getting paid to tell me which products I should be using? whatever).

So 'Global Ambassador' Olivia Wilde pushes Revlon cosmetics. Last month an ad campaign featuring both actresses came out in support of the new Fall 2013 cosmetics line. I'm omitting a link because I don't want to give Revlon any more free publicity.

Here's my issue. Wilde is pregnant. Guaranteed she will be as visible as ever so the paps and her adoring fans can watch her belly grow. Babies are big business in Hollywood.  And who benefits from all that extra exposure? Revlon. The company she endorses, through her 'global ambassadorship'. The company that makes and markets and sells products that contain harmful, health-threatening chemicals, such as BHT, parabens and resorcinol.

If you haven't yet, put your name to this complaint letter to Revlon over at the Breast Cancer Fund. Or send them your own letter here. Tell them that their chemicals have no place in our bodies. Tell them that if the company really cares, it will seek safer, less toxic alternatives to the ingredients it currently uses. Tell them there is no value, or style, or beauty, in applying poisons to your body.

Your favorite troublemaker,
Jazzy

Dirty Dozen

Yesterday EWG released a list of 'Dirty Dozen' chemicals -- twelve endocrine disrupters that appear in nearly all aspects of our everyday lives. Mother Jones covered the list in their own piece here and it was there, in the comments section, that I realized this needed to be its own post.

See, some of the trolls out there are mistaking EWG's list -- and MoJo's coverage -- for fear mongering. There were so many gems, laughable to the point of tears, and this one just about sums up the need for a good face-palm: 

"I just do not live in f***ed up Dem fantasy land. It is also fact that thanks to Dems are kids have no street smarts, no drive to succeed, and expect everything handed to them, yes this is caused by Dems. You made useless tools of kids."

Sadly, it was a pretty short trip from hazardous chemicals in household items to an illiterate diatribe about politics and the future of our children. "...are kids..." Yes, Mother Jones is a liberal publication. But this isn't a political issue! And sure, it's a fine line between revelatory information and alarmism, but I think the bigger problem is that some folks don't like to hear that our world is toxic and unhealthy, at our own doing. 

It makes them uncomfortable to have the mistakes of generations past and present staring them in the face. It makes them more uncomfortable to face the notion of being an active participant in this capitalist, democratic world, where consumers and voters have the burden -- yes, burden -- of using money and votes in a way that dictates the focus and direction of the market. 'We the People' have that obligation, and squander it at our own detriment.

Happy Tuesday,
Jazzy

Case of the Mondays

Monday is usually the day I use to catch up, get organized and figure out where my time needs to go for the week. For me, a case of the Mondays means that Monday isn't mine at all...after a sh*t busy weekend I'm heading into a sh*t busy morning, so it doesn't look like I'll get to posting until later in the day. Super sorry for all the jerking around with posting schedules; I promise it will get better!

Talk later,
Jazzy

Truth or Dare

Dare ya to get a post out on time, Jazzy!

Ok, ok, I deserved that. Better late than never, right? Yesterday ended up being a mental health day of sorts. Needed to get back to basics, clean out the cobwebs, which for me meant actually cleaning out some cobwebs and getting rid of A LOT of junk in my basement. I think I scared my husband; at one point he was actually sitting on the basement floor sorting through all the crap in front of his tool bench.

What does all this have to do with chemicals in our personal products? Not much at all. But the Breast Cancer Fund's latest action alert does have a lot to do with chemicals in popular cosmetics. BCF wants Revlon to clean up its act and they need help.

You can find the action alert here; BCF has created a web letter that will go directly to Revlon suits David Kennedy and Ronald Perelman. There's no mincing words here, either. The letter lists nearly 10 toxic chemicals found in Revlon products and calls on the company to find a new CEO who will care as much about a customer's health as her money.

Interesting chain of events here. You see, just three weeks ago Revlon announced that Kennedy was appointed interim CEO. He previously occupied the corner office from 2006-2009, and with his resignation received the appointment of Vice Chairman of Revlon's Board of Directors. So now Perelman's got his buddy back in charge, until they can find someone to take the gig long-term.

Does it matter who's holding the titles over there, as long as their products still contain junky chemicals that impact our health? That's how Breast Cancer Fund is selling this. A quick look at "Revlon Cares" -- the philanthropic arm of the cosmetics giant -- shows how the company is saying one thing and doing another. For starters, there's Emma Stone and her mother, a triple-negative cancer survivor. A lot of implied support there. 

There's also Revlon's involvement in the American Cancer Society's "Look Good, Feel Better" program, which gives women undergoing cancer treatment the chance to get some new cosmetics and a nice tutorial on boosting their best features during treatment. 

Er, so what your saying is that we should give these women MORE chemically-laden cosmetics to apply to their weakened bodies, but we get to call it great because it's all free of charge? Wha?

I think you get the idea. Revlon needs to shape up. Consumers and retailers are hip to the cause, and we need to bring the heat to the manufacturers. Put the pressure on them to make and sell products that aren't full of poison. Join me, won't you?

Happy Weekend,
Jazzy

Scheduling note -- Oct 23

Late posting today, everyone, so by sure to check back later. Might even be much later. Turns out couch blogging isn't really my thing. But we'll be back on track for Friday and definitely next week. 

Thanks for your understanding!
-- Jazzy

Over the hump

Holy crap, you guys...seriously, I am so humbled by SMACK!'s latest readership milestone. Thank you, love you!

Were those two mobile apps as eye-opening for you as they were for me? I realized that there's A LOT more than meets the eye when it comes to deciphering cryptic, borderline-misleading product labels. It's changed how I consider what we're doing here at SMACK! Moving forward, I'm eliminating the grades that I was giving out in our product reviews. Oh, we'll still do reviews, chock full of the shallow opinionated drivel you've come to know and love. But we'll leave the true ratings to the professionals.

If nothing else, Think Dirty and GoodGuide will help me be more critical than ever. Which, when it comes to choosing and using products that aren't full of poisonous chemicals, can only be a good thing.

As for the rest of this week, I have to wrench myself away from Allegiant, and stop drooling over the iPad Air. We'll to catch up on some news and maybe even get in a new About Face feature. And I think we'll be talking about shampoo. But not that Jason one. That one's no good.

Happy Hump Day!
-- Jazzy

Smarter Shopping, Part Deux

A lot of you like yesterday's Smarter Shopping about the new Think Dirty mobile app, so I was a little stressed about getting today's post about another product ratings app buttoned up. Here's what I got.

GoodGuide is brought to us from the folks at United Laboratories (UL), which acquired the company in 2012. Founded in 2006 by UC Berkeley professor and academic expert on global supply chains Dara O'Rourke, GoodGuide takes a holistic but scientific approach to rating products and the companies that make them.

According to GoodGuide, it's not enough to know if a product is good or bad for your body. Rather, they rank products based on a number of criteria in the categories of Environment, Health and Society. How easily is that shampoo bottle recycled? What does that nail polish do to the water supply? How do Nike's practices impact its factory workers? So on and so forth.

It's a pretty interesting concept. It makes sense because no one thing or one person exists in a vacuum, so every product we buy and use has a real impact on not just us and our lives, but on the environment and even the people who helped manufacture it.

Ok, so let's see what this baby can do. Like its counterparts at Think Dirty and EWG, GoodGuide uses a 0-10 scale, but it has reversed the ratings. The higher the number, the better a product or company has scored in its rankings. That will take some getting used to for you Skin Deep fans, but a familiar red-yellow-green color coding helps.

So I'm typing in the Jason Natural Tea Tree Normalizing Shampoo again, for a comparison to the rankings for the same product from Think Dirty and EWG. The result? Another not-so-good score for the product, here a 4.2, but again for different reasons. Let's see why.

EWG nailed the product for containing vitamin A, and Think Dirty did the same for containing dimethicone. GoodGuide doesn't seem to bother with any of that, but points to data adequacy and ingredient disclosure as reasons for the crummy score. Here's what they say:

"GoodGuide caps a product's score if it lacks complete ingredient data or lists generic names that do not support chemical-specific evaluations."

Huh. Doesn't sound so good, does it?

This is what I like about GoodGuide. They don't take the information at face value, because they know companies withhold product data. Nobody gets a freebie here. Every point in a score needs to earned.

GoodGuide has some handy features similar to Think Dirty, listing cleaner alternatives to a 'dirty' product and saved lists of favorite products. There are also links to buying a product online, which is a nice way to locate a hard-to-find product (though how GoodGuide decides which retailers get referred, I don't know).

All in all, it's a neat ratings system that deserves a good look. Check it out, and I guarantee you'll learn something about nearly every product and company you search.

-- Jazzy

Smarter shopping

Back during the summer I signed up to be 'one of the first' to find when the new mobile app for EWG's Skin Deep database would be ready. We're still waiting for it, but a couple other similar apps have caught my attention in the meantime: Think Dirty and GoodGuide.

I downloaded them both and have been trying them out over the past few days, both at home and on the fly at the store, and wanted to share my thoughts.

But first let's take a second to note that the very fact these consumer product ratings exist is GREAT. We're doing it! Forcing change, getting smarter, taking control of what we buy and use. But there's still a lot of work to do, and these apps can help us along the way.

First we're looking at Think Dirty. The fledgling app was launched just a few months ago and already lists more than 12,000 products. Here's some verbiage from the app's website: 

"Think Dirty(TM) empowers and educates the consumer on the cosmetics ingredients by allowing them to make an informed decision on what products to purchase...[It] is more than just a mobile app - it's a consumer revolution for safer cosmetics by learning one ingredient at a time, changing to cleaner options, one product at a time."

Couldn't be more on message, if you ask me.

What I like most about Think Dirty is the level of consumer involvement. Very, very interactive. Users can scan product UPC codes to learn more about the shampoo or deodorant they'd like to buy (so easy!) and if the product doesn't appear in TD's database, users have the option of submitting it themselves. 

It's bloody genius. The app grows and improves simply by being used as intended. I've already submitted a few products from my own bathroom, and also used the app to look at some of the 'natural and organic' shampoos that my local supermarket sells. The scanning feature is so easy it's ridiculous. I'm resisting the urge to kill a day in Target, wandering the aisles and scanning with abandon.

(I hear that collective sigh you're all letting out, and no, I don't need to get a life, but thanks)

Until now I've been using the Skin Deep database pretty exclusively to rate health and beauty and home products. I was definitely curious to see how the Think Dirty ratings stack up against EWG's.

I used Jason Natural Tea Tree Normalizing Shampoo as a test subject. What does that even mean, 'normalizing'? Anyway, both databases use a color-coded 1-to-10 scale: green for lowest toxicity, yellow for moderate and red for high. Here we go.

EWG gives the product a '6' rating and calls out retinyl acetate, or Vitamin A, as the culprit behind the rating. Think Dirty rates the same product a '9' using a similar scale. Ouch. 

But what's interesting is that Think Dirty attributes its high -- and therefore 'dirty' -- rating to dimethicone, NOT vitamin A. Think Dirty gives vitamin A a nice green '3' as an ingredient, where Skin Deep does nearly the same for dimethicone.

Confused? Good. Me, too.

But wait, it gets better! After reading more about the Think Dirty app and parent company, I was connecting some dots and realized this:

Last month Think Dirty partnered with the Breast Cancer Fund and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to promote safer personal products. One of the Campaign's four co-founders is Jane Houlihan, a longtime leader at -- you'll never guess -- Environmental Working Group. She counts among her professional accomplishments the creation of -- you guessed it this time -- the Skin Deep database. 

So how does that work? The organizations are so closely linked, but Think Dirty has already come up with a number of differing opinions from EWG and Skin Deep about products and ingredients. That ensuing confusion isn't good for consumers who are already overwhelmed trying to make good choices. Not only that, but how does the launch of Think Dirty impact EWG's own mobile app, which is already overdue?

Soooo, which is it, Jazzy? Do we download the app or not?

Yes, definitely, download the app. Add your products. See for yourself how they rank, and how EWG ranks them over at Skin Deep. And then tomorrow I'll throw in yet another ranking database to make this even more craptastically confusing.

Love, love!
-- Jazzy

Friday Friday

(Just in case you weren't sure what day of the week it is...)

My original plan for this post was a look at two mobile apps for finding out just what's in your favorite anything. But I quickly realized that I was biting off more than I could chew, and some other things came up, and my Blogger mobile app was being a jerk, so I'm scrapping that plan. We'll look at the apps next week after I've had more time to really kick the tires.

So for today we'll look at some required reading. That's right, required. As in, you MUST read these two articles.

Go ahead, I'll wait for you.

First, this piece over at EnvironmentalHealthNews.org, "In the Public Eye: Mascara Exempt from UN Mercury Treaty,"

and then this op-ed from Thursday's New York Times, "This is Your Brain on Toxins."

All done? Great, let's discuss.

At the heart of the debate over mascara are preservatives like thimerosal. They're mercury-based and extend the shelf life of mascara products to up to 5 years. Thimerosal may sound familiar to those of you who wear contacts (it's a common ingredient in soft lens solutions) and to anyone who's read anything about vaccines and autism.

While I don't like the idea of applying mercury-based anything directly to my eyes, the part of this article that really stood out to me was this paragraph:

"The FDA does not require ingredients that comprise less than 1 percent of a cosmetic product to be divulged on the label, so a lot more products may have thimerosal and consumers would never know, said Kristin Adams, chief executive officer of Afterglow Cosmetics, a natural and organic cosmetic company."

Whoa. If that's true, or even partially true, it means that ingredient disclosure isn't nearly as transparent as it needs to be. This does nothing for my trust issues.

The op-ed over at NYTimes.com helps a little. Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Nicholas Kristof is calling out chemical manufacturers to not wait until the sh*t hits the fan and change their products now, for the greater benefit of today's generations. 

"So what are the lessons from the human catastrophe of lead poisoning over so many decades? To me, today's version of the lead industry is the chemical industry -- companies like Exxon Mobil, DuPont, BASF and Dow Chemical -- over the years churning out endocrine-disruptor chemicals that mimic the body's hormones. Endocrine disruptors are found in everything from plastics to pesticides, toys to cosmetics, and there are growing concerns about their safety."

Naming names, I love it. Kristof also calls out his fellow members of the press to not stand by, blithely observing. He's calling for action, real ACTION, from industry, from media, and from consumers. Somebody give this guy a godd@mn medal.

That's Friday here at SMACK! Hope you have a great, lower-chemical weekend!!!

-- Jazzy

SMACK! Reviews: Giovanni Natural Mousse Hair Styling Foam

Late start today, sorry...

So most of us don't have a team of stylists working us over for our morning commutes or a trip to the grocery store, meaning some days we have to make a choice: face or hair. For me, it's always been hair. It's not like I'm blessed with flawless skin or never get dark circles, no. It's just that my hair has always been my thing. Literally, from the day I was born when I popped out with a bright orange carrot top.

Losing my hair during chemo really was devastating. Like, lots of ugly crying. But now it's back, thicker and wavier than ever. You might remember reading earlier this week that I recently ran out of mousse and wanted to find something a little gentler on my body. Through EWG's Skin Deep database, I wound up with Giovanni's Natural Mousse Hair Styling Foam. I've had fair to good luck with Giovanni hair products in the past, so I thought I'd give it a try.

The price was right: $7.99 for a 7 oz pump bottle at my local Whole Foods. It's about the same price on the Giovanni website. A little pricier than I'm used to, but I'd rather spend more for fewer chemicals than the other way around, right?

The pump tells me right off the bat that I'm getting something that's a little easier on the environment and me, what with it not having all those accelerants in a pressurized can. That's good! So let's bust out the hair dryer and have a little fun.

The bottle says 'medium to firm hold' but this is a really light mousse. Two quick pumps give me what I think is the right amount for my hair length. The scent, well, leaves a little to be desired. The mousse contains a lot of botanical extracts and even 'natural fragrance' but all that doesn't add up to a very pleasant-smelling product. Reminiscent of the Giovanni Hair Gel I reviewed a few months back. I guess the good thing about the wonky smell is that it's a little more gender neutral? Equally unappealing to both women and men?

Moving ahead. The bottle makes these claims:

• builds hair to amazing heights with amazing stay-power
• distributes easily for smooth-moves in style
• adds texture and shine

Ok. Let's put that to the test. The mousse does distribute easily, especially in wet hair. Like. It doesn't build my hair to amazing heights, but then again, that's not the look I'm going for. And as for adding texture and shine, my hair doesn't feel or look all that different when I'm done, other than being blown into submission to stay where I want it to. 

That doesn't mean you wouldn't get the results you want from this product. Everyone's hair is different: texture, weight, etc. 

I think I've mentioned that this is a pretty light mousse. So no residue or flakes or other weirdness that makes my hair feel like it has a lot of product in it. That might mean I'm not using enough. Or it might mean the mousse doesn't actually do anything. Or it might just mean that it's a nice light formula that gives you a boost of control without completely masking your hair with yuk.

Again, Giovanni puts in the teeny tiniest print that this product is USDA Certified Organic, has 100% vegetarian ingredients, does no animal testing, and does not add parabens, laryl or laureth sulfate or dyes to this product. Seriously, the type size of this post is larger than on the bottle. Why isn't this bigger, and like, in the middle of the front? On a huge tag that is all in my face?

All in all, this is a good product, not great, but still worth recommending. When it runs out I will probably try something else, but I can always come back to it and know what I'm getting.

SMACK! Grade: B

Target joins the party

Better late than never...

I was SO happy to see this news over at Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families yesterday, that Target is finally on board with selling cleaner, healthier, products. Yay!!

Starting in 2014, Target will begin to rank the manufacturers based on what they're calling their "Sustainable Product Standard." A set of criteria ranging from chemical ingredients to animal testing and recyclable packaging will be used to generate scores for manufacturers and as part of a larger incentive program with Target's corporate buyers.

GreenBiz.com has the back story to the news, which is based on a partnership between Target and GoodGuide, a products-rating website. Not surprisingly, inquiring minds want to know if this announcement was Target's way of catching up to its nemesis Walmart, which just a few weeks ago announced its own plan to reduce the chemicals in popular consumer products. At the time, just about a month ago, I wrote:

"...Wasn't I just saying last week that Target needed to man up, because offering better products at a good value really aligned with its corporate image? Well sorry, Spot, you really missed the boat on this one. Everything (anything) Target does now will be playing catch-up to its longtime rival. Best of all, Target will have to do something to avoid being seen as unresponsive to a major industry change..."

So there it is. Two of the nation's top retailers, if not THE top two retailers, are getting in the game. Sounds great, but where's the consumer in this process? Transparency is actually one of the categories in the new standard, but Target itself won't be offering any transparency to consumers about the scores different manufacturers receive or how to purchase safer, lower-chemical products.

There's still a bit of work to do, but this is still a great step in the right direction. Consumers are being heard, which means we need to keep doing what we're doing -- asking and demanding our retailers to uphold their end of the bargain. You know it's only a matter of time before towns and counties catch on to passing laws banning different chemicals, the same way plastic bags and soda have been shunned.

Happy Hump Day,
Jazzy

Seventeen dollars

How was your weekend? I have to admit, my inner snarky smartass was wondering how the whole federal holiday thing works when the federal government isn't...no matter, we're back from the long weekend and looking forward to a good (but short) week!

Over the weekend I couldn't help but think back to this time last year, when I had my first round of chemo under my belt and was just beginning to see the signs of hair loss. It'll take 10-14 days, they said, after the infusion and sure enough, on day 13, the first strands began shedding a little too easily.

I'll spare you the rest. It wasn't pleasant, or pretty.

It's also no longer an issue. My hair has grown back quite fully, surprising me every new half inch with a changing texture or uncontrollable wave. My mother had legendary bed head, but I think with my hair the way it is now I could take her.

As such, I use a battery of products to keep it looking presentable. Giovanni's Magnetic Force Hair Wax, which I reviewed back in July, is still in my daily lineup. But I ran out of mousse the other day. Acting on a hunch that it probably wasn't the healthiest choice, I decided to consult the Skin Deep database before buying anything else.

My instincts were right. Hair mousse is inherently really, really chemical-y. That kinda stinks because it's something I've always used, that's always worked with my hair for volume and body and good control. So, er, now what?

Big Sexy Hair makes a mousse that EWG rates a '0', the Big Altitude Bodifying Mousse. I don't have big sexy anything so I was intrigued, but I couldn't find it on store shelves. The closest thing I saw was a spray mousse that EWG rates an '8'. No thank you.

I settled on a mousse from Giovanni, and will have a review for it this week. Interesting to note: my local Whole Foods sells just 2 products that can be called mousse. Huh.

What are some of your favorite hair products? Me, I think wash-and-wear is a myth, but maybe you have easy breezy beautiful hair in which case you suck. Just kidding. Not really.

-- Jazzy

Scheduling note

Just a quick note about the holiday weekend...it's Thanksgiving in Canada, Columbus Day in the US, so I figure I'm going to go ahead and enjoy a long weekend! Posts should resume on Tuesday.

Also, today's the last day to sign a petition over at Environmental Working Group telling Revlon and L'Oreal that they need to eliminate toxic chemicals from their cosmetics. Over 100,000 people have added their names to the petition, but every extra signature makes the case stronger that these international companies need to make safer products. Aren't we worth it?

Have a great weekend!!

-- Jazzy

You are what you eat

Was freaking out a little as I had nothing lined up for today's post, but then last night's dinner came to the rescue!

USA Today ran this story Wednesday, as part of their breast cancer awareness coverage, about BPA in canned food. It was SO timely, as I had just pencilled in a great homemade soup for Wednesday's dinner and, yep, it's chock full of canned ingredients.

The recipe for this great Tuscan white bean and sausage soup came from Pinterest, of course, and I made it for the first time a few weeks ago. It was WONDERFUL. Tasty, hearty, just perfect for Fall. Super easy to make, too, so it got a quick spot on my list of go-to dinner recipes.

In light of the USA Today piece and last week's NYT article about arsenic in poultry, I was determined to make this batch of soup WITHOUT the side of toxic. So I paid nearly $10 for about a pound of two kinds of organic Italian sausage (chicken and pork, as opposed to the Italian-seasoned turkey sausage I'd used the first time around). I also decided to spring for BPA-free packaging for the canned tomatoes and found just the size I needed from Muir Glen. The tomatoes cost $1.99 -- about double their non-organic counterpart (in what is presumably a BPA-lined can). 

A couple things that I can't stand here. First, I can't shake the feeling like I can't trust where my food comes from. Second, there is no value in buying food that is tainted. Gone are the days of buying a case of tomatoes at my local warehouse club because they seemed to be such a good value. The message here is that you can pay with your wallet or you can pay with your health.

My second take on the Tuscan Autumn Soup was definitely cleaner than the first time around, but sadly (or ironically?), we preferred the first version.

In the meantime, consumers need to take it upon themselves to pressure food companies to use BPA alternatives in their packaging. And pressure supermarkets to price better, healthier options in a more consumer-friendly manner. There's no such thing as cheap food anymore.

-- Jazzy

Arsenic & Old Lace

Have you seen this news from the FDA, that it's finally decided arsenic ISN'T such a good thing in our food supply? The New York Times reported last week that the FDA has pulled approval for 3 of 4 drugs (all containing arsenic) commonly used in poultry and pig feeds. Mmm, mmm, mmm!!

There almost are no words...but don't worry, I'll find some and use them.

It may take a few minutes.

Or a bit longer...

Actually, I am just at a total loss here. Arsenic. In my chicken. Here I am, trying to make good choices, to eat healthier, leaner proteins to go with my colorful veggies, and...arsenic.

Needless to say, this story is just a field day for conspiracy theorists (so few in number that they are on the Internet). An article from NPR back in May framed out a lot of the context to the issue, the pharma companies involved, why it matters. I found it very helpful to learning  how all this came to be. But I'm still pretty much dumbfounded by the whole thing.

So naive, Jazzy. So. Naive.

There was a line about organic chicken not being an issue, I guess because organic poultry farms don't use poison in their animal feeds. What a wild idea!!

Suffice it to say that I will be buying organic meats whenever possible for now on. Arsenic is NOT welcome at my dinner table.

Yours in better eating,
Jazzy

Egg on my face

Soooo...I'm an a$$hole. Sorry for that.

I messed up. Spent a lot of time, and words, praising a product that turns out to be not, quite, what I had thought it was.

A few months back I brought you along on the adventure of coloring my hair for the first time since its regrowth after finishing chemo. It was a celebration of sorts, marking the occasion that I once again had hair and finally had enough hair to require coloring.

I thought I'd done my research. Heavily proselytized my choice, Logona's Herbal Hair Color in the Tizian shade. Went through the process with readers, and then did it again a few weeks later after the initial application faded out. And again a few weeks ago.

Henna's some kind of time consuming. My most recent coloring took more than two and a half hours. I really liked the result, but I really didn't like being stuck in my house for such a chunk of the day (you know, in addition to being really cheap I'm also really impatient.). 

I decided to look into some alternatives, like Herbatint, or the Aveda salon near my house. But I never got that far. Skimming through the hair color products in the Skin Deep database, I was shocked to find my once beloved Logona product...with a 5 rating.

To be fair, there are 10 other Logona Herbal Hair Color shades that have a rating of 3 or under. And they are probably really great products. I know I loved using the Tizian shade. I loved how it smelled, I loved how it felt, and I loved how it looked.

It must have been love

But it's over now
It must have been good
But I lost it somehow

Sorry, my sleep has been crap the last few days and I'm a bit punchy from it. Back to the Logona, I just can't anymore. Now knowing that the fragrance and a few other ingredients more or less wipe out any benefit to using something plant-based and natural, I just can't. It just goes to show you how different formulations of the same product (with slight variations for color or scent) can make a dramatic different 

I'm about halfway between colorings, which gives me a couple weeks to come up with a new action plan for covering all the gray and white that's sprouted out of my scalp. I could choose another, less toxic shade. Or I may look into a whole different product that doesn't suck up so much of a day. Of course I will let you know what I choose next, with what I promise will be better research and more due diligence.

Disappointed,
Jazzy

Against the grain

Eliminating some plastic from your life is an easy, quick way to reduce your 'chemical load' (that's a catch phrase from the film The Human Experiment...catchy, isn't it?) Plastic has its merits, for sure -- the collision that totaled my car last year comes to mind -- but I just don't need that much of it, day in and day out.

One of my errands last week was to bring our more frequently-used knives to be sharpened. I've never sharpened them myself, for fear of ruining them, so I let the professionals do it. There's a great, locally-owned cutlery shop in my town, and I feel great about supporting a small business.

My small talk with the owner went something like this: my knives need sharpening because I'm too chicken sh*t to try it myself at home; what else should I be doing to take care of them; whadaya mean, plastic cutting boards are bad for cutlery?

Did you know that? I didn't. Maybe I'm a sucker, and he saw a chance to sell some swampland in Florida. Maybe he caught me during one of those moments (and I have a lot of them) when I still don't yet feel like a real grownup but I play one on TV so I'll just go with whatever seems like the grownup thing to do.

Or maybe I saw an opportunity to do something that was good for my home and me. Replacing plastic cutting boards with wooden ones will keep those knives from dulling and keep a little bit of plastic out of my life (and my dinner).

The debate between plastic and wooden boards often comes down to food-borne bacteria. Those plastic boards may dull your knives, but they'll never make you sick. Or will they? If I'm not supposed to do anything to heat a plastic water bottle (because hot water would make chemicals leach out of the plastic), then shouldn't the same logic apply to carving an oven-fresh (and blazing hot) piece of meat on a plastic board?

I picked up a cute 10x10 Boos Block, figuring it was a good gateway piece to some bigger, higher-quality butcher block-style cutting boards. Getting into the habit of using it will be a good step towards replacing all the plastic boards with a nice collection of wooden ones.

And I'm going to use some good old fashioned common sense. I'll continue to wash fruits and vegetables thoroughly before prepping. I'll never use the wooden board near raw meat or eggs. I'll protect the wood with mineral oil, to build up a moisture barrier that will keep out funky things that would eventually damage the board. And I will continue to find ways to get some plastic out of my life.

Yours in the kitchen,

Jazzy

Movie night

Holy weekend Batman! I feel like I've been run over by a truck.

But it's Monday. My favorite part of the week, when I regroup from the chaos of the weekend and settle into the calming task of plotting out my week. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh....

Today we're talking about Sean Penn's film, The Human Experiment. I've never seen it in him (I'm no ScarJo, after all) but I sure am glad he's using his celebrity to bring some attention to this issue, THE issue, that we so care about here at SMACK!

Here's the trailer:

ABCNews.com gave the movie some nice press in advance of its premiere Sunday at the Mill Valley Film Festival in California. I think I love that the film's directors, Emmy Award winners Dana Nachman and Don Hardy, are journalists AND filmmakers. It's a passion project, for sure. I mean, who wants to tackle such a large, nebulous, vague issue? Most days I feel overwhelmed just trying to learn about the chemicals in our daily household products, let alone writing about them.

So this movie is going on a 'required viewing' list for SMACK! readers. It may take a while, since community screenings don't start until 2014, but let's all agree to see it if the opportunity arises, okay? 

In the meantime, I'm going to be combing through the list of recommended, 'greener' alternative products that the film is pushing on Vine.com. You can also check out the "Toxic of the Month" club over at the film's website to learn more about making better choices at the store to avoid exposure to harmful chemicals. This month's chemical is triclosan, most commonly found in anti-bacterial hand soap nearly everything. We haven't covered triclosan in any SMACK! posts because, like I said, I overwhelm pretty easily, especially in the face of all this information about chemicals and exposure risks.

I encourage everyone to watch for community screenings of The Human Experiment, and to find ways (even small ones) to reduce the chemical exposure in your daily lives. Your body will thank you for it!!

-- Jazzy

Easy does it

It's Friday. It's been a long week, and I'm getting a late start to the day, so let's keep this light. No headache-inducing rants, depressing statistics or retail rage. Instead, some easy reading from around the interwebs.

30 Something Mother Runner recommends a few greener cleaning alternatives.

Here's a list of chemicals that Whole Foods doesn't want in the products it sells. Glad someone's trying to look out for us! 


Love, love, LOVE that ABC News is shining its spotlight on Sean Penn's film, The Human Experiment, about toxic chemicals in household products.

Walmart loses some street cred for selling jewelry that contains 300 times more lead than the federal limit for children's products. The Washington Toxics Coalition conducted the study and is calling out the retailer. Makes you wonder what those Alex and Ani bracelets are made of, no?

Waiter, there's a toxic chemical in my soup...a really great article over at The Oregonian about BPA in canned food.

And I think that just about does it. Me, I think I might need a nap today.

Happy weekending!
-- Jazzy

About Face: Paris Fashion Week

Fashion Week in Paris -- what better place to start our new About Face series!

Now the majority of us don't live in the 'couture' world -- I mean, I'm too cheap to pay $16 for natural body lotion -- but there's no denying that the style trends in our favorite stores are born on the runways.

So what's coming down the line? I perused the major collections, looking for beauty styles that are current but wearable. After all, few of us can rock the heavy winged lid or glittered lashes as a day look (but if you can, go for it!). While each fashion house used a specific look to showcase its collection, there were a few common, and very current, trends:

Doing a 180

We're trying something new here at SMACK! I'm calling it About Face, paying homage to the marching band military term for turning and marching in the opposite direction.

Brass tacks

A really, really great infographic was making its way around the internets yesterday, so I decided to give it its own post.

If you've ever wondered why we do what we do here at SMACK!, well here it is:

Check out the original, from the folks at Beauty Counter, here. 

This is serious, folks. Environmental health isn't some crunchy granola nebulous thing reserved for the left-leaning passions of tree-hugging hippies. It's REAL, and each generation is facing its own health issues as a direct result of what we pump into the world and into our bodies.

Yikes.

-- Jazzy

Mirror, mirror

I have a distinct memory of the first time I thought a beauty ad was complete bullsh*t. I was 21 (in case you're wondering how long I've been a cynical beeyotch, well, a LONG time). Flipping through some fashion magazine, I saw an ad for a national brand featuring a well-known actress/celebrity type. This was back when 'endorsement' wasn't a four-letter word. So whatever, here's this actress from Party of Buffy the Dawson's something-or-other show, shilling some wrinkle cream or similar nonsense.  

My reaction was immediate and STRONG. Because whoever the actress/celebrity endorser was (and I can't for the life of me remember), she was just 20 years old. Right? How, HOW, can a woman younger than me effectively sell me something that clearly neither of us need?!?!?!

Full stop there, Jazzy. You promised, no rants. Right, right. Not going there, I swear. It's actually a relevant story to some news I saw last week over at cosmeticsdesign.com.

Last week the site covered the findings of NPD Group's latest Women's Skincare In-Depth Consumer Report, which is claiming that 39% of Gen Ys are already concerned about anti-aging. The news story is here, and NPD's original press release here.

These women are between the ages of 25 and 34 (also, the holy grail of demographics). Still settling into their adult lives, but already looking a little too critically at their reflections. According to NPD's research, they use an average of three skincare products daily. And it's not enough.

At the risk of regurgitating NPD's message, here's what their talking head had to say about this market trend: 

“Open to learning, reachable, and seeking solutions, Gen Y women are a critical age group for skincare marketers to target now, as they are beginning to develop skincare regimens that are likely to follow them throughout the rest of their lives,”

Where's the fine line (no pun intended) between wanting to take care of your skin and feeling comfortable in the skin you have? Where does the perceived need to 'fight aging' come from? 

I promised I wouldn't rant, so I'll quit while I'm ahead. But I want that to sink in a little, that the folks behind the beauty ads are exploiting the insecurities of consumers. All because we're worth it.

-- Jazzy