Tag: beauty products

A $21,000 Cosmetology School Debt, and a $9-an-Hour Job (Part one)

 

When she was in cosmetology school, Tracy Lozano had a love-hate relationship with weekday mornings. Those predawn moments were the only time she saw her infant daughter awake, and she savored them. When the time came to hand the baby to her own mother, she said in a recent interview, she would stifle her tears, letting them roll only when she had closed the door behind her.

She would put on her game face when she pulled into the parking lot of the Iowa School of Beauty, just outside Des Moines. From what Ms. Lozano could tell, a cosmetology license was a realistic way to ensure a better life, and she was willing to make sacrifices. While also working nights at a Pizza Hut, she borrowed $21,000 to cover tuition and salon supplies and put in eight-hour days at the school for the better part of a year.

The amount of time Ms. Lozano spent learning to give haircuts, manicures and facials was enormous, but the requirement was set by the state, and she didn’t much question it. She was determined to earn enough money to move out of her mother’s house. Only a few weeks after getting her cosmetology license in 2005, she was hired at a local Great Clips.  The job, though, paid just $9 an hour, which meant that her days double-shifting at Pizza Hut weren’t over. Even with tips, Ms. Lozano didn’t earn more than $25,000 in any of her first few years as a cosmetologist. For years, she relied on food stamps and health insurance from the state. She couldn’t cover living expenses and keep chipping away at her loan payments. Thirteen years after graduating, she still owes more than $8,000.

What Ms. Lozano didn’t know was that the state-regulated school system she had put her faith in relies on a business model in which the drive for revenue often trumps students’ educational needs. For-profit schools dominate the cosmetology training world and reap money from taxpayers, students and salon customers. They have beaten back attempts to create cheaper alternatives, even while miring their students in debt. In Iowa in particular, the companies charge steep prices — nearly $20,000 on average for a cosmetology certificate, equivalent to the cost of a two-year community-college degree twice over — and they have fought to keep the required number of school hours higher than anywhere else in the country.

Each state sets its own standards. Most require 1,500 hours, and some, like New York and Massachusetts, require only 1,000. Iowa requires 2,100 — that’s a full year’s worth of 40-hour workweeks, plus an extra 20. By comparison, you can become an emergency medical technician in the state after 132 hours at a community college. Put another way: An Iowa cosmetologist who has a heart attack can have her life saved by a medic with one-sixteenth her training.

There’s little evidence that spending more hours in school leads to higher wages. Nor is there proof that extra hours result in improved public safety. But one relationship is clear: The more hours that students are forced to be in school, the more debt they accrue. Among cosmetology programs across the nation, Iowa’s had the fourth-highest median student debt in 2014, according to federal data.

Walk into any hair salon in Iowa and you’re likely to find a stylist making $10 an hour who loves her job but is struggling to pay off her student loans. Over 10 months, in visits to a dozen salons and in conversations with 37 former Iowa cosmetology students — and an additional 25 in other states — we heard a variety of opinions about how much training the profession requires and the financial returns it offers. And we heard again and again how the dream of becoming a professional hairstylist, or someday owning a salon, can be stymied by debt.  The issue is national. More than 177,000 people enroll in for-profit beauty schools across the United States each year, which on average charge more than $17,000 for tuition, fees and supplies to earn a cosmetology certificate.  Across the Iowa border, in Fremont, Neb., Ashley Sandoval makes $10.50 an hour at another Great Clips location. In the five years since she graduated from cosmetology school, she said, interest has ballooned her debt from $22,000 to $29,000. “I’ll be paying it off for the rest of my life,” Ms. Sandoval said.

The Iowa Cosmetology School Association, which acts on behalf of several of the 13 companies that own schools in the state, would not make a representative available for an interview. But the association did provide written responses to questions through its lobbyist, Threase A. Harms. The group said that its primary concern was successfully preparing students, not making money, and that differences in state regulations made comparing hours difficult. The association also doesn’t see the crippling student debt as the schools’ fault, citing the fact that students are allowed to take out more in loans than is necessary to cover educational expenses. “We have students graduating with minimal debt because they made wise choices,” the association said.

Cosmetology schools have a unique business model in the for-profit school world. They have two main streams of revenue. The first comes from students, often in the form of taxpayer-funded grants and loans to pay for the tuition. Cosmetology schools took in nearly $1.2 billion in federal grants and loans during the 2015-16 school year.  The second stream is the salon work the students do while in school. They spend some time in classrooms learning about, for example, chemicals and how to sanitize the work space, but once they’ve hit a certain number of hours, they start working on real clients in salons run by the schools. In full-time programs, going to school becomes a full-time job, where students clock in and out for seven- or eight-hour shifts.

The total number of required hours varies, but all states require some amount of practice with paying customers. In Iowa, students spend 715 hours in the classroom and 1,385 hours on the floor.

Prices for these salon services — which include haircuts, manicures, facials and, at some schools, massages — are typically set below market rates to attract customers. The salons also sell shampoo, conditioner and other beauty products. One Iowa student said he and others had gotten perks (such as trips and special training) if they sold enough products. Another student, who sued a school in Pennsylvania, reported that her grades were partly based on whether she offered salon products to clients.  The schools don’t have to pay students for the services they provide; in fact, the students pay tuition for the hours they work in the salons.

All told, for-profit cosmetology schools nationwide brought in more than $200 million in revenue from their salons in the 2015-16 school year, according to federal statistics. Most schools are small, privately owned entities that do not have to disclose their profits.  “Without the revenue coming from those salons, most of these schools wouldn’t be profitable, or it would be marginal,” said Leon Greenberg, a lawyer in Las Vegas who has examined the financial documents of several schools he unsuccessfully sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act. “It’s pretty much ingrained in their business model.”  Some schools have pushed their business models to the legal limit — and beyond, according to government regulators.

La’ James International College owns six of the 27 cosmetology schools in Iowa, plus one in Nebraska and another in Illinois. Iowa’s attorney general sued the school in 2014, accusing it of defrauding students through deceptive marketing and enrollment practices. Under a settlement, the school admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to forgive almost $2.2 million in student debt. It had to pay a $500,000 fine, and the owners — Cynthia Becher and her son, Travis Becher — had to personally pay fines of $25,000 each. The federal government also placed La’ James under restrictive monitoring for alleged mishandling of students’ financial aid. (The Bechers declined to comment on the suit.)

Lisa Shaw, a former La’ James massage instructor, said Ms. Becher had met with staff members regularly and often told them, “This is a business first, and a school second.”

Ms. Shaw and Bez Lancial-McMullen, a former La’ James cosmetology instructor at the campus in Davenport, Iowa, recalled attending meetings in which company officials spoke of the need to maintain sizable profits. Students were regularly pulled out of Ms. Lancial-McMullen’s classes to work in the salon, she said. Other complaints submitted to the attorney general’s office about the school describe similar practices, although the Bechers have consistently denied the claims.  Both women eventually resigned because they objected to the way students were being treated. Ms. Shaw left in 2014, saying the company’s owners looked at students “as dollar signs.”  “I feel like the school is predatory,” Ms. Shaw said. “I could no longer be a part of taking people’s money and then treating them like that.”  Stephanie Wood Becher, who is the school’s director of marketing (and Travis Becher’s wife), denied that Cynthia Becher would ever tell employees to put the school’s business needs first.  “Education and betterment of the student is always and has always been the #1 priority for her and L.J.I.C.,” Ms. Wood Becher wrote in an email.

La’ James had to open its books during the attorney general’s lawsuit, revealing annual profits that ranged from $1.2 million to $3.4 million from 2009 through 2012. In Iowa, tuition, fees and supplies for its cosmetology program come to $21,500 per student.  Compared with other institutions, “I think we’re cheap,” Mr. Becher said, noting that the cost includes books and supply kits. “We’re private. We’re not public. We don’t get tax breaks.”  The Becher family also owns more than a dozen limited liability companies, which include a distribution center for its salon products. In 2017, the United States Department of Education reprimanded La’ James for failing to publicly disclose a rape in a dorm in Nebraska. Federal law requires colleges to publish annual security reports and logs about crimes on campus, which La’ James failed to do, “exposing students and staff to potential harm,” according to government reviewers.Joni Buresh, the school’s compliance officer, said in an email that the security reports were available to students, and that she believed that the law requiring crime logs didn’t apply to campuses like the one in Nebraska.    She acknowledged that a rape had been reported to the police but said that school officials “honestly are not confident that this rape incident ever occurred.” Ms. Buresh said they had now filed the paperwork requested by the federal reviewers.

END OF PART ONE.

Terms You Should Know In The Beauty Industry.

 

  • Free From~ This statement has become the mantra for large commercial brands, with the smaller brands following suit as a way to convey that their product is somehow safer than their competitors.
    • Danger of Claim: It can reinforce the idea that if something is “free from” a certain ingredient, that the missing ingredient is somehow “dangerous.”  And what was once part of the formula has since been removed, when it may have never been in the product in the first place.  This is marketing to the consumer that has been led to believe natural is better and everything else will kill them. Example: Parabens, sulfates, etc. get a bad rap, when there is actually scientific data that shows these are perfectly safe for personal care use in the recommended dosages within the cosmetic formula.  Or if it is a leave on or rinse off product will also determine ratios.  Any chemical in its full strength has the potential for causing harm, yet these are not offered to the end user, ever.
  • Chemical Free~ Another claim that bears no reality in truth or common sense.  Nothing formulated can be without chemicals as all things are chemical…natural or synthetic, makes no difference, it is just the manner in which they are derived or created.  Again, shamelessly used for SCARE tactic marketing.
    • Danger of Claim: This connotes the idea, all things chemical are hazardous to our health…..think of water, essential oils, olive oil, etc…..these appear to be benign now don’t they? However, from the point of view of the overstated 60% absorption claim, these are all potential penetration enhancers.  This claim also overlooks the fact of what the product is packaged in.  There is no getting around the chemical processes that goes into creating the packaging, such as a jar or tube, technically.
  • Hypoallergenic or Noncomedogenic~ These terms are not even recognized by the FDA and there actually isn’t any proven data in clinical trials, and has yet to be tested by the US Food and Drug Administration as to the validity of such terms.
    • Danger of Claim: Any ingredient could cause a problem for any individual and this connotes that it won’t cause a problem….sorry, but trial and error only, unfortunately.  Up to 10% of the population can and will have a reaction to something the majority of the population won’t have.  This includes a developed allergy after using an ingredient for years.  Our bodies are ever changing.  Those with acne may have a similar reaction. What won’t cause acne on one individual may be horribly occlusive to another.
  • Dermatologist / Clinically Tested~ This is a claim that can be made based on a single doctor trying it out on themselves or a patient.  Based on this perception it is theorized by the end user, it must be a proven product. A clinical study performed by the manufacturer on a small number of people will not constitute nationally, what can occur if millions use the product.
    • Danger of Claim: Gives the perception that it must be safe and work because a doctor or a clinical study said so, but is not necessarily the reality. Safety and efficacy data will change as high volume of users join the pool, and this is PURE marketing! 
  • Anti-aging Formula~ This ties into penetration enhancers being utilized within a skin cream and are designed to assist beneficial ingredients in penetrating into the otherwise impermeable surface layers of the skin to restore soft, supple skin with more elasticity.
    • Danger of Claim: EWG and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics have underscored this message as a penetration enhancer being the carrier of chemicals to the blood stream.  When in reality, penetration enhancers for the purpose of cosmetics are only skin deep and are not geared toward penetration through the dermis layer into the blood brain barrier as would be the desired effect with a topical drug.  Permanent change does not occur with any cosmetic, and only maintains the skin as long as the product is being used.
  • Non Toxic / Harmful Chemicals~ What does this even mean?  Who and what entity is deciding what is toxic or not?  This is yet to be determined and will continue to be debatable since EWG and CFSC think anything, other than naturally derived, is toxic to our bodies.  The majority of scientific research does not support the validity of this marketing claim.  Plus, too much of anything natural or synthetic can cause issues for some.
    • Danger of Claim: This statement plays into the fears of the consumer and reinforces the CFSC’s campaign rhetoric against beauty industry leaders and their products.  Such as lead being added to lipstick which is categorically FALSE and is considered a contaminant, which is found also in drinking water and the foods we eat that are grown in the ground.
  • 100% Pure / Natural / Organic~ This connotes that only natural chemicals are safe for the body and that synthetic chemicals are the bane of our existence and will give us cancer or worse. There is no human scientific data to support this claim.  And animal studies do not extrapolate to humans despite how hard watchdog groups try to convince us.
    • Danger of Claim: Beauty products labeled as natural are less tested and scrutinized than are synthetic products and pharmaceuticals. In fact, most compounds as they exist in their natural state cannot be formulated into skin care products. They first must be chemically altered before they can be incorporated into cosmetics, thereby negating the claim of being pure and natural.
  • FDA Approved ~ This marketing claim gives the unwitting consumer the idea the product is endorsed by the FDA, and the product must have been tested by the FDA to show proof of the companies claim of safety and / or efficacy.
    • Danger of Claim: This is outright FALSE and is actually in violation of FDA regulation.  FDA does not approve any finished product for the end user in the cosmetic and beauty industry.  Only prescription and OTC drugs and medical devices are FDA approved for their intended purpose.
  • Does Not Contain Fillers~ This marketing claim is designed to intimate that their product is formulated with nothing but pure and essential ingredients only, and that no fillers are used to create a less than desirable product, supposedly.
    • Danger of Claim: This insinuates that somehow a filler ingredient is cheap and makes another product substandard.  Unfortunately, this bears no weight in actual truth.  Those that claim their ingredients are the ultimate and then claim fillers as bad, are also ingredients that are used as filler.  Mica for instance is not only an essential ingredient to the formulation of the majority of mineral makeup, but it is also a FILLER ingredient.  By definition a filler ingredient is used for finish of product, bulking agent, or any ingredient utilized for the desired effect for smooth application.  There is no actual separation of the two.  Water can be considered a filler ingredient, since it is not typically essential but makes up the bulk of many skin care products.
  • Non Irritating~ This gives the end user of a product the assurance that their otherwise sensitive skin, will not have any problem with the product.  This expands on item 3.
    • Danger of Claim: The problem with this claim is everyone’s skin is different.  There are ingredients that have a long standing history of safety and efficacy, yet there will be the small percentile that will have irritation when using it.  Mineral makeup for instance works well for the majority of women, Bismuth Oxychloride excluded, but for a small number, no matter how much they hope, they will always have an irritant reaction and can never wear minerals, no matter its’ popularity.  We disclose this fact, by using only ingredients with known lower irritant risk factors, but still, only the end user will determine what is right for their skin or how they’ll react through testing it on themselves. It may not be a single ingredient, but when used in combination with another or its presumed ratio, is where the problem lies.  So by not purchasing something because one may see a certain ingredient of concern, they may be missing out on what otherwise could be fantastic for their skin.   Always TEST…TEST…TEST the product for absolute certainty.

 

 

 

8 chemical ingredients that are among the most dangerous to you in the shower!

The Real Hair TruthThink about this: Nary a day goes by when we don’t use beauty products – toothpaste, shampoo, conditioner, lotion, moisturizer, deodorant, soap, shaving cream and perfume, among others. The list could go on and on. We use them so often, we cast them off as harmless and simple, everyday necessities. The truth is, they are anything but harmless and can be replaced easily with safer alternatives. You see, over time, these supposed “harmless” products’ hazardous ingredients compound and grow in the body, ultimately allowing a bunch of little doses to add up to a much bigger problem.  The following 8 ingredients are among the most dangerous found in common beauty products. Most of them are skin irritants that have cancer-causing effects.

My rule of thumb is to never put a product on my skin or hair that has ingredients in it I cannot pronounce. This has meant getting used to DIY beauty products as well as all-natural options found at my local health store. But if you enjoy the convenience and the price of mainstream products, at least avoid these 8 offenders.

1. Triclosan
Triclosan is an antimicrobial agent that is one of the most common additives found in everyday consumer products, such as shampoo, toothpaste and soap. A study conducted by the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine linked triclosan to cancer. Triclosan also creates resistant bacteria, which can represent a potentially severe public health risk.
Synonyms: 2,4,4′-Trichloro-2′-Hydroxy Diphenyl Ether; 5-Chloro-2- (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) – Phenol; 5-Chloro-2- (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) Phenol; Phenol, 5-Chloro-2- (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) -; Phenol, 5chloro2 (2,4dichlorophenoxy) ; 2,4,4′-Trichloro-2′-Hydroxydiphenyl Ether; 5-Chloro-2- (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) Phenol; Ch 3565; Irgasan; Irgasan Dp300; Phenol, 5-Chloro-2- (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)

2. Methylisothiazolinone (MIT or MI)
Used as a preservative in baby wipes and lotions, MI is a skin irritant that has long been associated with allergic reactions. It has also exhibited neurotoxic effects.
Synonyms: 2-Methyl- 3 (2h) -Isothiazolone; 2-Methyl-2h-Isothiazol-3-One; 2-Methyl-3 (2h) -Isothiazolone; 2-Methyl-4-Isothiazolin-3-One; 3 (2h) -Isothiazolone, 2-Methyl-; 3 (2h) Isothiazolone, 2methyl; Methylchloroisothiazolinone225methylisothiazolinone Solution; 2-Methyl-3 (2h) -Isothiazolone; 2-Methyl-4-Isothiazolin-3-One

3. Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) and Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES)
Both of these chemicals are toxic to the body and the environment, with SLES slightly more hazardous since it is often contaminated with 1,4 Dioxane (see #4). SLS and SLES work to make beauty products more easily absorbed by the skin. They are linked to skin, eye and lung irritation as well as organ system toxicity.
SLS synonyms: Monododecyl Ester Sodium Salt Sulfuric Acid; Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate; Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate; Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Sodium Lauryl Sulfate; Sodium Salt Sulfuric Acid, Monododecyl Ester; Sulfuric Acid Monododecyl Ester Sodium Salt; Sulfuric Acid, Monododecyl Ester, Sodium Salt; Ai3-00356; Akyposal Sds; Aquarex Me; Aquarex Methyl
SLES Synonyms: Ethanol, 2 [2 (Dodecyloxy) Ethoxy], Hydrogen Sulfate, Sodiumsal; Sodium 2- (2-Dodecyloxyethoxy) Ethyl Sulphate; Sodium Lauryl Di (Oxyethyl) Sulfate

4. 1,4 Dioxane
This chemical is a known carcinogen. It can fall under the umbrella of SLES (see #3) or a slew of other ingredients listed below as a contaminant, or it may not even be listed at all. It contaminates up to 46 percent of personal care products. The chemical is a byproduct of an ingredient processing method called ethoxylation used to reduce the risk of skin irritation for petroleum-based ingredients. Even though 1,4 dioxane can be easily removed from products before sale, it often is not.
Possible impurity in: Polysorbate-20, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Peg-100 Stearate, Polysorbate-60, Ceteareth-20, Cetyl Peg/ Ppg-10/ 1 Dimethicone, Laureth-7, Peg/ Ppg-18/ 18 Dimethicone, Peg-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Polysorbate-80, etc.
Synonyms: 1,4-Diethylene Dioxide; 1,4-Dioxacyclohexane; Di (Ethylene Oxide); Diethylene Dioxide; Diethylene Dioxide (Osha); Diethylene Ether; Diokan; Dioksan (Polish); Diossano-1,4 (Italian); Dioxaan-1,4 (Dutch); Dioxan

5. Oxybenzone
Often found in spray-on sunscreens, oxybenzone is a major hormone disruptor. It causes biochemical and cellular level changes. It is easily absorbed by the skin and has been determined to contaminate the bodies of 97 percent of Americans.
Synonyms: Benzophenone-3, (2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxyphenyl) Phenyl- Methanone; (2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxyphenyl) Phenylmethanone; 2-Benzoyl-5-Methoxyphenol; 2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxybenzophenone; 4-08-00-02442 (Beilstein Handbook Reference) ; 4-Methoxy-2-Hydroxybenzophenone; Advastab 45; Ai3-23644; Anuvex; B3; Benzophenone, 2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxy

6. Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
Already banned in the EU, BHA and BHT are used as stabilizers and preservatives in beauty products. BHA is considered a human carcinogen. BHT is a toluene-based ingredient that is a moderate irritant and has tumor-promotion effects.
BHA Synonyms: Antioxyne B; Antrancine 12; Eec No. E320; Embanox; Nipantiox 1-F; Protex; Sustane 1-F; Tenox Bha
BHT Synonyms: Dbpc; Advastab 401; Agidol; Agidol 1; Alkofen Bp; Antioxidant 29; Antioxidant 30; Antioxidant 4; Antioxidant 4k; Antioxidant Kb; Antrancine 8

5. Oxybenzone
Often found in spray-on sunscreens, oxybenzone is a major hormone disruptor. It causes biochemical and cellular level changes. It is easily absorbed by the skin and has been determined to contaminate the bodies of 97 percent of Americans.
Synonyms: Benzophenone-3, (2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxyphenyl) Phenyl- Methanone; (2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxyphenyl) Phenylmethanone; 2-Benzoyl-5-Methoxyphenol; 2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxybenzophenone; 4-08-00-02442 (Beilstein Handbook Reference) ; 4-Methoxy-2-Hydroxybenzophenone; Advastab 45; Ai3-23644; Anuvex; B3; Benzophenone, 2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxy

6. Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
Already banned in the EU, BHA and BHT are used as stabilizers and preservatives in beauty products. BHA is considered a human carcinogen. BHT is a toluene-based ingredient that is a moderate irritant and has tumor-promotion effects.
BHA Synonyms: Antioxyne B; Antrancine 12; Eec No. E320; Embanox; Nipantiox 1-F; Protex; Sustane 1-F; Tenox Bha
BHT Synonyms: Dbpc; Advastab 401; Agidol; Agidol 1; Alkofen Bp; Antioxidant 29; Antioxidant 30; Antioxidant 4; Antioxidant 4k; Antioxidant Kb; Antrancine 8

Your beauty products may boost your outer beauty, but do they support your inner health? Most beauty products contain ingredients that harm your body more than they help it and in an alarmingly dangerous way. Take the time to read the back of your beauty products and see what really is going into your skin with every lather, rub and scrub.

Beware of Misleading Brand Names, Slogans and Logos!

THE BEAUTIFUL LIES

One important topic in my next film, “The Beautiful LieS” is labeling of hair care products. Advertising is key to success for a business in the beauty industry and a manufacturer or entrepreneur will say and do whatever is in the parameters legality. Stretch it, twist it and they the manufacturer will also go outside of what the government guidelines and use the printed information on the product container to their benefit until the government catch’s them.  Manufacturers often use misleading brand names, logos and slogans in an effort to dupe health conscious consumers into buying their products.  Constant vigilance is necessary when making purchases of  personal care products.

BULLSHIT keratin-complex

(Keratin Complex has aldehydes that when used with the  Flat Iron form formaldehyde. Pure and simple fact. Read there MSDS sheet if you can get one. I don’t think that the manufacturers are the ones who are going to “set the record straight.” There is bit of conflict of interest here. I would tend to trust third party (A Chemist) more than someone who has something to lose if we stop buying their products. Also on the container it is read as, “OSHA COMPLIANT”. OSHA does not endorse and or all beauty products. See how a manufacturer can stretch there usage of words. By the way OSHA did send Keratin Complex a letter to change there wording on the product label.)

These products are used for your home use and also for services that are given to you in a professional salon.  Take it from me everyone, so called professionals in my industry are the sheep of all sheep. They will take the word of a sales person coming in there salon front door. And listen to the advertising SPEAL from them and the next thing they will ask the salesperson is “How much is a whole line? Do you have a intro deal?,  Do you take payments?”. Not bothering to ask for the MSDS sheet for the product. A MSDS sheet is required by law from a manufacturer to the person using, purchasing or selling the product to see the listed ingredients in any and all chemical or hair and skin products used on a consumer in a so called licensed professional beauty salon.

BIG BROTHER

In this day and age the FDA is your GOVERNMENT watch dog for you. According to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), its responsibilities include “[protecting the public health by assuring that foods are safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled.” This responsibility entails regulating a large number of companies producing this nation’s food, making appointments to the high-level positions within the agency very important. And anything and everything they say you should take there (FDA) word on if it is healthy, toxic, or illegal.

BIG BROTHER

But in this day and age would you take the governments word!

A good example is the 1976 slogan in which a soft drink manufacturer claimed that their product “Adds Life”, thus giving consumers the impression that the product was not only refreshing, but also somehow added to their well-being. The slogan should have read something to the effect that the product “is addictive, will rot teeth and will contribute to obesity and diabetes”. Tobacco companies have typically used beautiful, young, wealthy-looking models with perfect teeth to advertise their products, when the “grim reaper” would be more appropriate.

bullshit

Don’t Read Slogans – Read Labels
Take the time to read labels on packaging to find out what exactly it is you are buying. Packaged cereal such as muesli is considered by many to be an excellent breakfast choice. However, a closer look at the ingredient list will reveal that many muesli products are packed with refined sugar, fat and preservatives. Don’t be fooled by slogans such as “Nature`s Choice”, “Nature`s Best” or “Happy and Healthy”. These slogans imply that the contents are nutritious and wholesome when they are often far from it.

Manufacturers will also try to get around legislation regarding honest labeling. For example, in Australia and New Zealand, the word “light” can only be used if the ingredients it refers to meets the criteria for low fat and sugar content. However, companies increasingly use the word “lite” to get past this requirement.

When Organic Doesn’t mean Organic
Shampoo manufacturers are notorious for dishonest labeling. “Organic” is a favorite word they use, suggesting of course, that their product is a healthy pure organic product to use to wash your hair. Careful scrutiny of the ingredient list will reveal that many shampoos with this slogan are as far from being organic as the next cheap, toxic shampoo on the shelf.

bullshit

Golden Syrup is not Honey
Golden syrup is a pale treacle made during the process of refining sugar cane juice into sugar; or by treatment of a sugar solution with acid. While it may have an appearance similar to honey and is often used as a substitute for honey, it is a pure cane sugar product. Slogans on the can may lead the consumer to believe that syrup is the same as honey.

bullshit

Don’t be fooled by misleading Brand Names beauty products. slogans and pictures. Be informed about the products you use. Research the product if you can, or at the very least, read the ingredients listed on the packaging.

IT’S ALL ABOUT PERCEPTION!!!