Cosmetics and journalism: The Independent

Another post on how the mainstream media is almost completely incapable of addressing the topic of cosmetics and safety.

Rob Cottingham's "Wash, exfoliate, rinse, contaminate. Repeat" brought the following to my attention:

According to a report in The Independent, the FDA is warning cosmetics makers they may have to start warning consumers they have no idea if their products are dangerous...

The article Cottingham refers to is "How toxic is your bathroom?" by Pat Thomas. While the article highlights welcome news concerning an FDA warning, what's frustrating about it is the refusal to discuss how this issue particularly impacts women.

In the piece, the examples given ignore makeup completely: no foundation, mascara, blush, or lipstick are cited, although some token female products are thrown in [one shampoo (marketed for women), one hair dye product, and one moisturizer]. Although the word "cosmetics" appears a few times, it's written as if women didn't wear makeup at all. The silence surrounding makeup is deafening—it's as if makeup were a taboo subject even in an article purporting to examine personal product safety.

I usually find when there's some sort of mainstream media article examining personal products and safety, they turn a blind eye to makeup, or give it a token nod while simultaneously reinstating its legitimacy by publishing a partner article that directly or indirectly supports makeup.

The sub-heading to this article is: Be warned: your daily beauty regime could be taking years off your life. Although some men engage in what could be considered a "beauty regime", the language sets up an expectation that the products that will be discussed are those strongly associated with (female) beauty (as opposed to male "grooming"). The most obvious product associated with beauty is gender-specific: cosmetics.

Thomas' omissions imply that personal product safety is an entirely equitable problem:

On average, we each use nine personal care products a day containing 126 different ingredients.

A sentence indicating that women on average use many more personal products than men wouldn't go amiss here; but no, the Independent would much rather not mention women, for fear of touching the sacred cow of the beauty industry.

This is ironic, considering that one of the concepts conveyed by the article is "the 'cocktail effect'—the daily mixing of many different types of toxins in and on the body—and how this might damage health over the longer term."

Which gender do you think is more likely to suffer from the cocktail effect?