Talk:Ingredients of cosmetics

General Discussion

No manufacturer has ever used carmine, or carminic acid in lipstick. It would be incredibly foolish to do so, since there exist legal, FDA-approved synthetic organic pigments that provide the same colors for 1/10th the cost. I'm getting rid of that sentence. I'm also going to bring this article back to a neutral POV.

I am not au fait with the way Wikipedia works, but may I suggest that someone removes the external link that claims to offer an understanding of how INCI works. The link is to a blog on which the owner basically claims that the longer the chemical name ,the more dangerous the chemical. This is, toxicologically, nonsense. There is no value in the informatoin contained on that link. 81.136.175.200 (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy - General

Please try to keep POV out of this article. Scare tactics designed to panic gullible consumers into buying your products have no place here. Please do not add information that cannot be verified.

Controversy - Deodorant and anti-perspirant

This is a controversial topic due to the actions of a few manufacturers trying to sell their products at the expense of others. Anti-perspirants are technically drugs, and deodorants are just perfume. 99% of this has no place in this article. Unless someone objects, I'm going to delete the whole category

Not on DYK

Unusually for me I'm not going to place this on DYK. There is simply too much missing for it to be linked from the Main Page. violet/riga (t) 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ingredients of cosmetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070123111819/http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/cosmetics/html/consolidated_dir.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/cosmetics/html/consolidated_dir.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Deodorants section, dubious aluminium claim

The general consensus seems to be that there are no demonstrable health effects of aluminium. There are a bunch of scary-sounding references in this section, but when I read them, they all seem to deal with theoretical risks rather than real ones. For example, aluminium damages DNA, but it apparently requires large doses. It seems unfeasible to try to get large doses of aluminium into your system by ingestion, because it is not well absorbed into the body. Then another quoted article examines transdermal uptake, noting that it leads to increased aluminium concentration in various mouse tissues. No indication of health effects, let alone human health effects. It seems that someone has been cherrypicking evidence to make aluminium look poisonous. Could we get an expert opinion on this subject? GilHamiltonTheArm (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)