<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Not Just A Pretty Face</title>
	<atom:link href="http://notjustaprettyface.org/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org</link>
	<description>The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:50:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Brazilian Blowout: Perfect Case Study for our Broken System by Kourtney L.</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/brazilian-blowout-perfect-case-study-for-our-broken-system/comment-page-1#comment-85150</link>
		<dc:creator>Kourtney L.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=8385#comment-85150</guid>
		<description>I hope there is success in creating laws that can ban products like this. For now, I believe blogs like yours, conversation about this product in and out of salons can help. Awareness is everything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope there is success in creating laws that can ban products like this. For now, I believe blogs like yours, conversation about this product in and out of salons can help. Awareness is everything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Organic Cheaters Exposed by New Product Tests by Rebecca</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/organic-cheaters-caught-with-carcinogens/comment-page-1#comment-85127</link>
		<dc:creator>Rebecca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:43:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/index.php/blog/organic-cheaters-caught-with-carcinogens#comment-85127</guid>
		<description>I am p&#039;ed. I just bought a ton of Nature&#039;s Gate. It does have the &quot;New Improved&quot; bit on the label and can&#039;t see 1,4 Dioxane(?) anywhere in the Ingredients list. I also bought Kiss my Face toothpaste and deoderant and don&#039;t see it on there either. It is very frustrating to make the switch, which is quite pricy, for better health only to find that again I am being scammed and cheated with advertising ploys! Geez!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am p&#8217;ed. I just bought a ton of Nature&#8217;s Gate. It does have the &#8220;New Improved&#8221; bit on the label and can&#8217;t see 1,4 Dioxane(?) anywhere in the Ingredients list. I also bought Kiss my Face toothpaste and deoderant and don&#8217;t see it on there either. It is very frustrating to make the switch, which is quite pricy, for better health only to find that again I am being scammed and cheated with advertising ploys! Geez!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Corporations: Invest in Safer Products, Not Spin Doctors! by Rachael</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/corporations-invest-in-safer-products-not-spin-doctors/comment-page-1#comment-85074</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=8213#comment-85074</guid>
		<description>I have heard the &quot;stress causing more health problems than the chemicals&quot; defense from people before. This comes from people who are in denial or who are just afraid of change...and also people who just don&#039;t want to face the facts that our government and big cosmetics/pharmaceutical companies just don&#039;t have the health and safety of the American people as their top priority. In essence, it is really just another excuse to not do the right thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have heard the &#8220;stress causing more health problems than the chemicals&#8221; defense from people before. This comes from people who are in denial or who are just afraid of change&#8230;and also people who just don&#8217;t want to face the facts that our government and big cosmetics/pharmaceutical companies just don&#8217;t have the health and safety of the American people as their top priority. In essence, it is really just another excuse to not do the right thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Dove: Please Don&#8217;t Hang your Chemicals on My Door Knob by Emily</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/dove-please-dont-hang-your-chemicals-on-my-door-knob/comment-page-1#comment-85068</link>
		<dc:creator>Emily</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 06:53:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=8067#comment-85068</guid>
		<description>I totally understand why you&#039;re so mad about the aggressive advertising by Dove. I also can&#039;t use Dove products, I always get a bad rash. Guess their products aren&#039;t so friendly,  huh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I totally understand why you&#8217;re so mad about the aggressive advertising by Dove. I also can&#8217;t use Dove products, I always get a bad rash. Guess their products aren&#8217;t so friendly,  huh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Beauty Industry’s Top 5 Excuses for Toxic Products by Christina Perri</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/beauty-indstry%e2%80%99s-top-5-excuses-for-toxic-products/comment-page-1#comment-85045</link>
		<dc:creator>Christina Perri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 04:19:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=2382#comment-85045</guid>
		<description>Excuses indeed! There&#039;s really no reason (aside from greed) to use these ingredients. We need to educate ourselves and read labels!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excuses indeed! There&#8217;s really no reason (aside from greed) to use these ingredients. We need to educate ourselves and read labels!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Corporations: Invest in Safer Products, Not Spin Doctors! by Stacy Malkan</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/corporations-invest-in-safer-products-not-spin-doctors/comment-page-1#comment-84784</link>
		<dc:creator>Stacy Malkan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:40:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=8213#comment-84784</guid>
		<description>Colin, Take a closer look and you will see that I do have it right. EU countries are required to follow the EU Cosmetics Directive, yes, but they are also allowed to have their own stricter regulations (obviously). That&#039;s the case in Sweden, where they do not allow formaldehyde releasing preservatives in cosmetics. Similarly, triclosan is not allowed in Sweden. Johnson &amp; Johnson fought all the way to the Supreme Court of Sweden for their &quot;right&quot; to put triclosan in bandage wraps (as if putting pesticides on open wounds is a good idea); J&amp;J lost that case. RE: Japan, for whatever reason, and my guess is to be on the safe side of the stricter regulations, Johnson &amp; Johnson does not use formaldehyde-releasing preservatives there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Colin, Take a closer look and you will see that I do have it right. EU countries are required to follow the EU Cosmetics Directive, yes, but they are also allowed to have their own stricter regulations (obviously). That&#8217;s the case in Sweden, where they do not allow formaldehyde releasing preservatives in cosmetics. Similarly, triclosan is not allowed in Sweden. Johnson &amp; Johnson fought all the way to the Supreme Court of Sweden for their &#8220;right&#8221; to put triclosan in bandage wraps (as if putting pesticides on open wounds is a good idea); J&amp;J lost that case. RE: Japan, for whatever reason, and my guess is to be on the safe side of the stricter regulations, Johnson &amp; Johnson does not use formaldehyde-releasing preservatives there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Corporations: Invest in Safer Products, Not Spin Doctors! by Colin</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/corporations-invest-in-safer-products-not-spin-doctors/comment-page-1#comment-84738</link>
		<dc:creator>Colin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Dec 2011 22:50:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=8213#comment-84738</guid>
		<description>Stacy, I am not sure you have any of that right.  Sweden is a member of the EU and so has exactly the same cosmetic regulations.  I confess that I don&#039;t know Japanese regulations very well, but at least one formaldehyde donor is positively listed in Japan.  Japan does not permit formaldehyde itself but it defines the test to be used.  That test would not detect formaldehyde in Johnson&#039;s Baby shampoo with the old preservative, so it would be considered formaldehyde free in Japan.  Not many tests would come to that. The level would be way way lower than you would find in say an apple.  I really think that even the calculations in that Scientific American article vastly overstate how much formaldehyde you would actually find if you looked for it.  It really is a non-issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stacy, I am not sure you have any of that right.  Sweden is a member of the EU and so has exactly the same cosmetic regulations.  I confess that I don&#8217;t know Japanese regulations very well, but at least one formaldehyde donor is positively listed in Japan.  Japan does not permit formaldehyde itself but it defines the test to be used.  That test would not detect formaldehyde in Johnson&#8217;s Baby shampoo with the old preservative, so it would be considered formaldehyde free in Japan.  Not many tests would come to that. The level would be way way lower than you would find in say an apple.  I really think that even the calculations in that Scientific American article vastly overstate how much formaldehyde you would actually find if you looked for it.  It really is a non-issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on NEW YORK, NY by San Antonio Divorce Lawyers</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/book-tour/new-york-new-york-%e2%80%93-safe-cosmetics-101-teen-rally/comment-page-1#comment-84731</link>
		<dc:creator>San Antonio Divorce Lawyers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:30:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prettyface.live.radicaldesigns.org/?p=18#comment-84731</guid>
		<description>Yes! thought your post is a good read Not Just A Pretty Face » Blog Archive » NEW YORK, NY! Billi Guler

Ford &amp; Laurel have been assisting clients in the legal areas of divorce for many years.  Based in San Antonio, both attorneys have extensive experience in the courtroom and in litigation. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes! thought your post is a good read Not Just A Pretty Face » Blog Archive » NEW YORK, NY! Billi Guler</p>
<p>Ford &amp; Laurel have been assisting clients in the legal areas of divorce for many years.  Based in San Antonio, both attorneys have extensive experience in the courtroom and in litigation. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Corporations: Invest in Safer Products, Not Spin Doctors! by Stacy Malkan</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/corporations-invest-in-safer-products-not-spin-doctors/comment-page-1#comment-84640</link>
		<dc:creator>Stacy Malkan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 06:25:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=8213#comment-84640</guid>
		<description>Colin, Not quite. Formaldehyde releasing preservatives are banned from cosmetics in Sweden and Japan. Also, French authorities have recently proposed that the European Union reclassify formaldehyde with a stricter designation as carcinogenic to humans, which could change the way formaldehyde is regulated in cosmetics. It seems that Johnson &amp; Johnson made the decision to formulate its baby shampoo to the highest standards in the region. The U.S., as usual, is far behind what other countries are doing in terms of chemical and cosmetic safety.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Colin, Not quite. Formaldehyde releasing preservatives are banned from cosmetics in Sweden and Japan. Also, French authorities have recently proposed that the European Union reclassify formaldehyde with a stricter designation as carcinogenic to humans, which could change the way formaldehyde is regulated in cosmetics. It seems that Johnson &amp; Johnson made the decision to formulate its baby shampoo to the highest standards in the region. The U.S., as usual, is far behind what other countries are doing in terms of chemical and cosmetic safety.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Corporations: Invest in Safer Products, Not Spin Doctors! by Colin</title>
		<link>http://notjustaprettyface.org/blog/corporations-invest-in-safer-products-not-spin-doctors/comment-page-1#comment-84569</link>
		<dc:creator>Colin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://notjustaprettyface.org/?p=8213#comment-84569</guid>
		<description>Just a few easily checkable facts.  Both old and new Johnsons Baby Shampoos formulations are completely legal in both the EU and the US.  It is clearly not the case that the change in formulations has anything to do with regulations.  It is also pretty clearly not a victory for a US based pressure group either, or the change would have been made in the US first. 

I don&#039;t know why J&amp;J have chosen to make this particular change right now. It may have been due to pressure from consumers, but I can think of other reasons that are just as plausible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a few easily checkable facts.  Both old and new Johnsons Baby Shampoos formulations are completely legal in both the EU and the US.  It is clearly not the case that the change in formulations has anything to do with regulations.  It is also pretty clearly not a victory for a US based pressure group either, or the change would have been made in the US first. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know why J&amp;J have chosen to make this particular change right now. It may have been due to pressure from consumers, but I can think of other reasons that are just as plausible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

