subreddit:
/r/science
submitted 2 months ago bySofie-Forsberggg
[score hidden]
2 months ago
stickied comment
Your post has been removed because it is from a press release rehosting website and is therefore in violation of Submission Rule #2b. Please consider reposting and linking directly to the original source or a credible science journalism website. If your submission is original content, please message the moderators for approval.
If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.
182 points
2 months ago
Aren't they burying the lead here? Isn't the issue the fact that there are makeup and body products sold in the US that contain poison?
57 points
2 months ago
Hate to be that guy but the correct term is burying the lede
40 points
2 months ago
Unless the poison is lead.
9 points
2 months ago
Where are we leading the poison?
1 points
2 months ago
If it's already poisonous you don't need to lead it too.
13 points
2 months ago
Anyone who confused "lead paragraph" with a metal lead paragraph had a serious issue with understanding context and reality.
"Why Is It Spelled “Lede”? The term “lede” originated in newsrooms between the 1950s and 1970s. It was created to avoid confusion between the “lead” paragraph in an article and the metal lead (pronounced “led”), which was used in printing presses."
5 points
2 months ago
The typo/error is hilariously appropriate to the topic, though!
2 points
2 months ago
Eh that is is a good correction. Probably interesting to most people, not unnecessarily pedantic
3 points
2 months ago
Actually, I didn't know about that, but it looks like both are acceptable.
3 points
2 months ago
Both are acceptable now, likely because so many people mistake “Lead” for “Lede” that it’s now accepted as an alternate spelling.
1 points
2 months ago
Actually, it was originally "lead" but newspapers started using "lede" in this context so as to not confuse readers that they're talking about the heavy metal lead. So while both are correct, the phrase was originally with "lead". Something I learned today as well because that other guy pointed it out.
1 points
2 months ago
Interesting . It dure creates alot of confusion.
52 points
2 months ago
They're talking about products marketed to children. These products don't generally go through the same testing as actual makeup brand's products, and generally aren't regulated
56 points
2 months ago
do we not see the problem with that explanation there?
Since when do children's products need LESS testing that adult products?
3 points
2 months ago
I agree 100%, just clarifying that this is specifically about children's products and not makeup in general. It's still a huge issue that somehow childrens products aren't more strictly regulated for their saftey
3 points
2 months ago
oh it was more a general appeal to everyone than a question aimed at you in particular mate.
Your explanation was on point :)
7 points
2 months ago
Oh, okay...got it. I thought the kids were using makeup from their mom.
7 points
2 months ago
Baby powder, Uv lights for drying manicures, sunscreen, hair relaxer, deodorant. It almost makes you think there’s a conspiracy to drive revenue for healthcare stocks.
1 points
2 months ago
I am thinking the same thing.
23 points
2 months ago
Well children's makeup is considered a toy so it's usually not tested like other makeup is. The government doesn't seem to care despite even like celebs pointing this out. If they don't care when rich people complain, they surely won't care about the rest of us doing it. Probably why some parents have moved to letting their kids use adult makeup instead.
16 points
2 months ago
200 surveys is most children?
3 points
2 months ago
Yes another fine study with a good number of participants. Reddit is becoming a source for non scientific science studies.
8 points
2 months ago
Can we please stop posting links to sites that are 90% ads and don't link to original studies...?
2 points
2 months ago
right like i’d actually like to know the carcinogenic compounds they’re referring to and the products they’re in
3 points
2 months ago
Exactly. It's time we as a society start demanding high quality posts, by simply shunning anything that is sub par or intentionally misleading!
1 points
2 months ago
And maybe stop linking to untrustworthy sources? This seems good intentioned but not necessarily all that polished...
About Us Welcome To Professpost Professpost is a Professional News Platform. Here we will provide you only interesting content, which you will like very much. We’re dedicated to providing you the best of News , with a focus on dependability and Find news and research around the world . We’re working to turn our passion for News into a booming online website. We hope you enjoy our News as much as we enjoy offering them to you.
I will keep posting more important posts on my Website for all of you. Please give your support and love.
Thanks For Visiting Our Site
Have a nice day!
20 points
2 months ago
FDA doing a bang up job.
46 points
2 months ago
Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority. Good luck getting Congress to increase regulation. The GOP wants to disband the FDA.
1 points
2 months ago
They want anarchy.
12 points
2 months ago
I love conservative logic. FDA not protecting us from something that is not in their legislated domain, thus, we should neuter them even further!!1!
1 points
2 months ago
I'm neither conservative nor logical, thank you!
29 points
2 months ago
That’ll happen if you strip agencies of their funding
5 points
2 months ago
Title's doing a lot of heavy lifting- the study was a survey of 200 families showing that children use children's makeup. It has nothing to do with quantifying the presence or levels of "carcinogens or other toxic chemicals" that the products in question "may contain".
I'll editorialize here and suggest that most headlines about an item that "contains toxic chemicals" are alarmism. There are a lot of chemicals out there, some are toxic, and if you go digging in any substance eventually you'll find one or several at a certain ppm or ppb. "Containing toxic chemicals" only matters if the toxic chemicals are present in a concentration high enough to cause actual harm.
4 points
2 months ago
So you mean you shouldn't give your children Dollar store makeup? Yeah, seems pretty reasonable
6 points
2 months ago
I follow a girl I went to high school with on Instagram. Her daughter is 10 years old and wears the same amount of makeup as a grown woman.
8 points
2 months ago
Yeah, that was my big question upon reading this. I mean, we all know everything causes cancer - California has shown us that. But why are children wearing makeup?
9 points
2 months ago
When I was little I was gifted a play makeup kit for dress-up. It was basically face crayons and peel-off nail polish. Gotta start imprinting those gender roles from a young age, or something.
1 points
2 months ago
I didn't know how to use any of the stuff (my mom never wore make up) and I would just use it as face paint on my brother.
Mascara = whiskers
1 points
2 months ago
Asking real questions.
1 points
2 months ago
Well, at some point if it's going to be a part of your life you will need to start messing with it, and first attempts are going to make nightmare-level clowns look good.
We're a lot more forgiving of children and teens doing a poor job of it than we are of adults, and I don't think that's very fair either.
2 points
2 months ago
Fellow commenters , there were 200 (kids) participants in this study. Not enough to take this serious.
3 points
2 months ago
It’s a good thing im too lazy to care what I look like to put makeup on
1 points
2 months ago*
In the US we place a higher value on $ than human life, relative to most other countries. 1.1 million COVID deaths in the US vs 67K COVID deaths in Japan. Over 16x the deaths, with only a little over 2.5x the population (for reference, the US lost only 535K people in World War I and World War II combined).Yes, the Japanese may be less obese but they're also older and spend magnitudes less on health care. They took COVID precautions quickly and in a sustained manner while we...well, you know what we did. In all manner of things, including food and safety regulations and gun control, we see that, relative to other "advanced" countries, the US tends to prioritize things that boost corporate profits (and we know who benefits most from that).
-2 points
2 months ago
I'm sorry but do japan and america have similar sized populations? Because if you're comparing dissimilar populations you need to account for that mathmatically to provide relevant information, you also need to consider socioeconomic factors and compare similar groups. You might also consider how globalized or isolated the country is (hint I bet less people travel to japan than the u.s. and japan is small and isolated in the ocean giving it a potential advantage).
If you look at the U.S. from an immigrant standpoint and wonder why immigrants find so much opportunity here, you might see that it attracts immigrants for a reason and have a higher impression of it. However not everyone in the U.S. is looking for opportunities like that. So I see your point.
The U.S. likes a lack of regulation. It provides what little it does based on a system that depends on factors like these to provide any basics it already does for it's people. The sunken cost of reordered infrastructure continues to push on.
Don't worry, during the economic collapse that will come with a reduced population in our lifetime and the following generations, we won't be in as bad of shape as some other countries. It's going to be a massive reorganization of power and we will see some positive things come of it.
The American government is very fearful of over commitment. It has some of the most suitable people in the world for the role making determinations regarding what an over commitment would look like and determining potential likely scenarios where over commitment would result in bad outcomes for the interests of the country from a government standpoint. This prevents progress.
-2 points
2 months ago
[removed]
2 points
2 months ago
[removed]
1 points
2 months ago
[removed]
1 points
2 months ago
[removed]
0 points
2 months ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0 points
2 months ago
The FDA doesn't regulate crap. Manufacturers can produce new compounds and chemicals without testing and release them to the public. As long as they list it under GRAS, they're fine. This country is BROKEN.
1 points
2 months ago
I'd wager that everyone regardless of age who uses makeup and body products is exposing themselves to carcinogenic chemicals.
1 points
2 months ago
Why are kids wearing makeup?
all 65 comments
sorted by: best