To end, we have reached the point of saturation with prescription drugs. Every body of water tested contains measurable drug residues. The tons of antibiotics used in animal farming, which run off into the water table and surrounding bodies of water, are conferring antibiotic resistance to germs in sewage, and these germs also are found in our water supply. Flushed down our toilets are tons of drugs and drug metabolites that also find their way into our water supply. We have no way to know the long-term health consequences of ingesting a mixture of drugs and drug-breakdown products. These drugs represent another level of iatrogenic disease that we are unable to completely measure.

It is becoming clearer, that the blind faith in the varieties of “new alchemy” are not meeting the needs of our perceived vision of a desirable world and only represent a threat to the human project itself.

We need a massive paradigm shift pretty quickly

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

“Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the basic toxicity of only seven percent of the most frequently manufactured chemicals in the US and we haven’t yet even got near to analysing the “cocktail effect””
Close to the truth but if we have little evidence on the remaining 93% why do you have to add “sinister synthetics” because you can’t know can you? The “cocktail effects will never be studied directly because of the inherent problems in methodology so outright bans in the case of doubt is the best practice, and it’s called the precautionary principle and is the basis of OECD chemicals legislation).
“It was heartening to see, after they stopped using the chemical “nasties”, how the toxins were eliminated from the two female volounteers in programme no 1 and from the female teenager in programme 2. Also they felt much better healthwise, had more self-confidence and were financially better off. What more proof is needed?”

Do you know what proof is John? This is anecdote. when you’ve learned the difference maybe we can continue to debate.

I think this is also quiet relevant:
“Although the hormonal changes in the boys were linked to phthalate monoester levels in breast milk, we cannot exclude that fetal exposure may be a contributing factor to altered postnatal hormone levels. Levels of phthalate monoesters in breast milk may be a proxy of general maternal exposure: the women with high levels of phthalate monoesters in milk may also be among those with highest exposures during pregnancy. Phthalates can cross the placenta; DEHP and mEHP have been detected in maternal and cord blood (Latini et al. 2003) and their metabolites were found in amniotic fluid (Silva et al. 2004c). Sources of phthalate exposures in women can be inhalation (Adibi et al. 2003), contamination via building materials and furniture, use of consumer products including cosmetics (Koo and Lee 2004), and food items (Anderson et al. 2001). Thus, exposure to some phthalates such as DEHP and DiNP is likely to be constant rather than episodic, whereas others such as DMP and DEP, through their presence in cosmetics, are more influenced by personal habits.”

it comes from:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16451866
Human Breast Milk Contamination with Phthalates and Alterations of Endogenous Reproductive Hormones in Infants Three Months of Age
Katharina M. Main, Gerda K. Mortensen, Marko M. Kaleva, Kirsten A. Boisen, Ida N. Damgaard, Marla Chellakooty, Ida M. Schmidt, Anne-Maarit Suomi, Helena E. Virtanen, Jørgen H. Petersen, Anna-Maria Andersson, Jorma Toppari, and Niels E. Skakkebæk
Environ Health Perspect. 2006 February; 114(2): 270–276.

Dave

The only issue with any chemical, natural or synthetic is the dose at which harm may be caused.
Why is natural “simple”?; I have already explained that essential oils contain hundred of chemicals that have never been tested. I suggest you look at the properties of some naturally occuring substance on the USDA Ethnobotanical and Phytochemical Database, (http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/duke/farmacy-scroll3.pl
For example try searching for lemon and have a look at some of the properties of the many constituents.
Your explanation of the leaving group of parabens metabolism is also inaccurate. For example you say “Methyl paraben may degrade releasing methanol, a potentially toxic chemical.”. Parabens are in fact very readily degraded in the body by esterases and the “leaving group” (the alcohol, methanol, propanol etc depending on the parabens) is further rapidly degraded by dehydrogenases. Thus even the tiny amount of methanol you acknowledge as being likely to be released will be rapidly broken down. I could use similar counter arguments for your other examples but it would be too tedious to contemplate. However your post does highlight the reason why we have this “tiresome “to and fro” of chemically charged argument,”; because it is important that the science is accurately reported and put into context, exactly why this programme, (to bring us back to the thread) was so irresponsible.
You say “it is the people in the end who will decide what is best for them.”, but I hope they do so with the best available evidence and not out of context nonsense. The two key factors to remember are:
1. Natural doesn’t necessarily mean simple or best
2. Dose is the only determinant of “toxicity”

On a helpful note, Smart Skin Care.com list a few ingredients which may be capable of causing skin damage with prolonged use, or are simply redundant. They also offer a direct service in the US or Canada, to a medical doctor who is a skin care specialist. I don’t know if there is a similar one in the UK or EU:

Imidazolidinyl Urea and Diazolidinyl Urea: Used as preservatives to prevent bacterial growth although ineffective against fungi. Known to be a relatively common cause of contact dermatitis. Two trade names for these chemicals are Germall II and Germall 115. Germall 115 may release formaldehyde, a potentially toxic chemical. Potential for low level skin damage in the long term is unproven but appears likely.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate: A detergent common in shampoos and cleaners, where it is relatively safe due to short contact time. If exposure is prolonged is likely to cause skin irritation, dryness and other damage. In fact, sodium lauryl sulfate is sometimes used as a model skin irritant in the experiments where skin protectors are tested. Avoid products with sodium lauryl sulfate unless time of contact with the skin is very short. Even skin cleansers should rather be without it.

Mineral oil: petroleum derived hydrocarbons; used as inexpensive base in some products (less today than in the past). Is moderately comedogenic. Mineral oil may also interfere with normal perspiration and other skin functions.

Synthetic Colors: Whether synthetic colors are completely safe or mildly damaging in the long run is unknown. Since they serve no useful purpose, they are best avoided (except perhaps when avoiding them means foregoing an otherwise great product). They are labeled as FD&C or D&C, followed by a color and a number, e.g. FD&C Red No. 6 or D&C Green No. 6. Some are found to be mutagens in rodents.

Synthetic Fragrances: There are over 200 synthetic fragrances used in cosmetics. There is no way to know which particular ones are in your product, since on the label it will simply say “Fragrance.” Safety of most synthetic fragrances is an open question. Best to avoid them since they provide no skin benefits. True, it is good to have a nice smelling cream. However, apart from the questionable safety, frangrance may mask spoilage of your product, an effect you would want to avoid.

Ethanolamines (Monoethanolamine aka MEA, Diethanolamine aka DEA, Triethanolamine aka TEA): common pH stabilizers; when exposed to oxygen/air form nitrosoamines, which may be irritating and/or toxic. The amount of nitrosoamines formed during typical use of skin care products with ethanolamines is unclear.

Parabens (e.g. Methyl, Ethyl, Propyl and Butyl Paraben): Used as preservatives; inhibit microbial growth and extend shelf life of products. Methyl paraben may degrade releasing methanol, a potentially toxic chemical. However, the amounts of methanol that might be released from methyl paraben in skin care products are too small for any known systemic effects. Most people don’t have an obvious skin reaction to parabens. However, more research is needed to determine whether they are truly nontoxic or may cause low level skin damage in the long term.

With all this tiresome “to and fro” of chemically charged argument, it is the people in the end who will decide what is best for them. I just hope they will come out on the side of the natural and simple in all its incontestable benefits and the cult of “sorcorers apprentices” will not prevail.