I regard it as spurious, alarmist and possibly libellous.
I welcome comments because I've been asked for my opinion - well, someone
asked if it were true, assuming that I'd know about it :-)
> Subject: Fw: Lipstick Information - Please Read and pass on!
>
> LIPSTICK INFORMATION:
> Something to consider
> Next time you go shopping for
> Lipstick......
>
> This comes from someone
> Who works in the breast cancer unit at
>
> Mt. Sinai Hospital , in Toronto .
> From: Dr. Nahid Neman
> If there is a female you care anything about,
> Share this with her. I did!!!!!
> I am also sharing this with the males on my e-mail list,
> Because they need to tell the females
> THEY care about as well!
> Recently a lipstick brand called 'Red Earth'
> Decreased their prices from
> $67 to $9.90.
> It contained lead.
>
> Lead is a chemical which causes cancer.
>
> The lipstick brands that contain lead are:
> CHRISTIAN DIOR
> LANCÔME
> CLINIQUE
> Y.S.L
> ESTEE LAUDER
> SHISEIDO
> RED EARTH (Lip Gloss)
> CHANEL (Lip Conditioner)
> MARKET AMERICA-MOTNES LIPSTICK.
>
> The higher the lead content,
> The greater the chance of causing cancer.
> After doing a test on lipsticks,
> It was found that the Y.S.L. Lipstick
> Contained the most amount of lead.
> Watch out for those lipsticks
> Which are supposed to stay longer.
> If your lipstick stays longer, it is
> Because of the higher content of lead.
> Here is the test you can do yourself:
> 1. Put some lipstick on your hand.
> 2. Use a Gold ring to scratch on the lipstick.
> 3. If the lipstick colour changes to black,
> Then you know the lipstick contains lead.
> Please send this information to all your girlfriends,
> Wives and female family members.
> This information is being circulated at
> Walter Reed Army Medical Centre
>
> Dioxin Carcinogens cause cancer,
> Especially breast cancer
Tim Jackson - 29 Nov 2007 12:07 GMT
It's not true, it's not new, and we've had it here before. See
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_lead_in_lipstick.htm
where a near identical message from 2004 is listed.
Tim
> I regard it as spurious, alarmist and possibly libellous.
>
> I welcome comments because I've been asked for my opinion - well, someone
> asked if it were true, assuming that I'd know about it :-)
Mary Fisher - 29 Nov 2007 14:31 GMT
> It's not true, it's not new, and we've had it here before. See
> http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_lead_in_lipstick.htm
> where a near identical message from 2004 is listed.
Thanks, Tim,
Mary