Poisonous face paints in UK??

Just stumbled on this article about certain brands of face paints being poisonous...scary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20727513http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20727513

I've never heard of the brand so hopefully it's not widely distributed....7200 kits is a lot of dangerous paint going on children's faces, though. Yet another reason to make sure we buy established, reputable brands.

Wow, yuckie! I have never heard of it either but it makes you wonder about some of those dollar store halloween packs you see -

I saw this on Facebook earlier. Scary!

It is a very cheap pack of poor quality face paint. Not something a professional would even look at. They have done a full product recall so perhaps people might learn from this to just pay a bit extra and get a professional in to do it. :-)

And so it goes on....sigh. I'm not painting my children anymore. I'll get a practice head instead. I think there is probably too much we're still unaware of.

Willoughby, I think you may be over reacting a bit. Like I said, it is not any of the known, proven and trusted brands e.g. snazaroo, grimas, DFX, paradice, superstar, TAG etc It is a cheap (unbranded) pack that is sold in pound stores etc.

skylark wrote:Willoughby, I think you may be over reacting a bit.

That may well be the case, however, I've decided to rather be safe than sorry as my kids mean too much to me. There are too many uncertainties in life and too many things we cannot control. This is one thing I can. I am a little disappointed - don't get me wrong - even though I've made this decision. I had gone and bought soooo many goodies and supplies, I was really so excited about it, but the excitement has gone. I still love the creative side of the painting, it's just that I'll rather use the practice heads and skins from now on. (I'm still in love with all my rainbow cakes )

Given that this is no different from any other product having illegal versions that aren't safe (and therefore not bought by professionals, or even responsible parents), I do feel that it's possible to overreact. A huge tomato recall in the US last year (I think?) doesn't seem to have stopped people eating pasta sauce permanently. They just accepted that it was a problem, handled it and moved on.

After all, every day we eat meat (hormones), veggies (pesticides), fruit (parabens), baby milk (formaldehyde), breathe the air (pollutants), expose ourselves to sunlight (carcinogenic), drink the water from our local supplies (more heavy metals than face paints, and you don't eat those), wear makeup (all the stuff that's in face paints), take medicines (toxic but essential)....I think it's possible to focus too much on one item that is highly, highly unlikely to harm anyone compared to everything else they're exposed to every day.

Looking at this in a fairly sombre sort of way...we live in a poisonous environment. And we adapt, and we're not supposed to avoid all of it. In fact, the prevalence of allergies in today's children appears to be, at least in part, due to us attempting to "save" them from everything. Research shows that a lack of exposure to normal environmental pathogens is actually BAD for us:

http://www.nature.com/news/early-exposure-to-germs-has-lasting-benefits-1.10294

So where do you draw the line? I see where you're coming from, and that you're a loving mama who simply wishes to protect her children. But where does it end? Do you prevent them drinking the local water (as it exposes them to heavy metals in larger amounts than face paint), or playing outside (where there may be toxocariasis or toxoplasmosis)? Do you let them climb trees, where they might fall out? What about hot drinks in plastic containers? You know they can release BPAs which affect hormonal reactions, right?

Personally, I'm a huge believer in risk management as opposed to risk avoidance - mainly because I consider it more sensible and healthier, but also because the latter is impossible...and trying will pretty much drive you insane.

Sorry for the long reply, but it happens to be a topical subject for me right now, after some conversations I recently had about research into risk and kids.

Kammy x

P.S. BTW, my little boy means everything to me, too.

Kammy wrote:Given that this is no different from any other product having illegal versions that aren't safe (and therefore not bought by professionals, or even responsible parents), I do feel that it's possible to overreact. A huge tomato recall in the US last year (I think?) doesn't seem to have stopped people eating pasta sauce permanently. They just accepted that it was a problem, handled it and moved on.

After all, every day we eat meat (hormones), veggies (pesticides), fruit (parabens), baby milk (formaldehyde), breathe the air (pollutants), expose ourselves to sunlight (carcinogenic), drink the water from our local supplies (more heavy metals than face paints, and you don't eat those), wear makeup (all the stuff that's in face paints), take medicines (toxic but essential)....I think it's possible to focus too much on one item that is highly, highly unlikely to harm anyone compared to everything else they're exposed to every day.

Looking at this in a fairly sombre sort of way...we live in a poisonous environment. And we adapt, and we're not supposed to avoid all of it. In fact, the prevalence of allergies in today's children appears to be, at least in part, due to us attempting to "save" them from everything. Research shows that a lack of exposure to normal environmental pathogens is actually BAD for us:

http://www.nature.com/news/early-exposure-to-germs-has-lasting-benefits-1.10294

So where do you draw the line? I see where you're coming from, and that you're a loving mama who simply wishes to protect her children. But where does it end? Do you prevent them drinking the local water (as it exposes them to heavy metals in larger amounts than face paint), or playing outside (where there may be toxocariasis or toxoplasmosis)? Do you let them climb trees, where they might fall out? What about hot drinks in plastic containers? You know they can release BPAs which affect hormonal reactions, right?

Personally, I'm a huge believer in risk management as opposed to risk avoidance - mainly because I consider it more sensible and healthier, but also because the latter is impossible...and trying will pretty much drive you insane.

Sorry for the long reply, but it happens to be a topical subject for me right now, after some conversations I recently had about research into risk and kids.

Kammy x

P.S. BTW, my little boy means everything to me, too.

Well...I was going to respond...
But Kammy pretty much just said everything I was going to say...
I guess i can add that the product that was recalled was not one of the products
that have been put through rigorous scrutiny by the same governing body that found
this product to be in violation of the safety standards. Perhaps one could be wary of
the new kids on the block like Wolfe, DFX and TAG, but the products that have been
around the block a decade or two like Kryolan, Paradise, Snazaroo...ect we can have
a degree of comfort in using. Like Kammy said, the paints in question weren't the professional products that we use, rather it was yet another cheap product that was
manufactured without regard to content safety and with an intent to somehow carve
a small piece of the very lucrative face and body art industry's monetary takings. The people who came up with it presented a cheap product knowing that the price point would speak
to those who don't want to hire a pro and they were only concerned with giving the consumer what he/she thought she wanted and pocketing the money. I don't think the fine
was nearly high enough for the crapstorm of backlash that will result from this, but I think that as professionals, we should have a prepared statement to correct any misperceptions our future clients may have about our products. This could be used to futher the awareness of professional painting, but it can also change perceptions about painting as a whole as it has already affected the Willoughby.

That was a very eloquently put post Kammy.

Lady Jayde wrote: Perhaps one could be wary of the new kids on the block like Wolfe, DFX and TAG...

I am a little surprised to read this, considering these are some of the 'professional' brands that are supposedly safe and used by many professionals out there. Why would you think we 'could be wary' of these particular brands?

The brands in the article are the cheap department store paints, not the professional quality face paints we use.

I've been using these same face paints that are cosmetic grade (not non-toxic like the store brand ones) for years without any problems.

As far as stopping using them on your kids... & switching to a practice head... are you going to quit using face paints on all children? It doesn't seem right to use what you believe to be a harmful product on any child. I know I'd not use anything on someone else's child I didn't feel I could use on my own child.

FYI, this scare comes out every year somewhere in the world, usually around Halloween & makes our jobs harder. People think we use the same junk found in Halloween shops & department stores. There's also the big scare every few years about neon paints....

I don't (haven't) painted any other kids (or adults for that matter) yet. I've only just started about 3 months ago and had only been painting on myself and my daughter. I have a conscience too and won't paint other people's children with anything I wouldn't put on my own kids. I won't be hypocritical either and paint other people's kids and not my own. How would I explain that I prefer to rather not paint my own kids... parents would want to know why. If I explained how I felt, I doubt they'd let me anywhere near their kids!

There are many, many threads on this forum that address the same subject. There are some posts that go into GREAT detail about what ingredients are in the paints that we professionals use. These are not products that are cooked up in some illegal face paint lab somewhere in the jungles of Borneo. The ingredients in regular and pearl/metallic (not neon, though) colors for the brands are ingredients that are deemed compliant with what the FDA requires for the make-up industry's standards. I, myself, am not an expert on this, but there are those who have done the research and the homework and have passed that information on to us here on the forum.

Willoughby wrote:

Lady Jayde wrote: Perhaps one could be wary of the new kids on the block like Wolfe, DFX and TAG...

I am a little surprised to read this, considering these are some of the 'professional' brands that are supposedly safe and used by many professionals out there. Why would you think we 'could be wary' of these particular brands?

Uh...did you miss the whole "new kids on the block" reference?
As hard as this is going to be for someone who's already made up his/her
mind, don't read more into what I am writing than what you see; I'm pretty
Good at beating my own dead horses and rerely leave anything for supposition.
The brands I mentioned don't have the decades of cosmetic manufacturing experience
that Mehron and Kryolan have. It really is that simple. I personally have no qualms
with using any of the pro brands, but if someone were on the fence then my statement would apply. Easy peasy.

And THAT folks concludes this yearly discussion about that redonkulous scare
Tactic article. Disproven to death is the phrase that comes to mind here. I have
more pressing matters to tend to like how to convince my daughter that the lights
That came on our tree are considered decorations and that no further baubles are
necessary...not even the presence of presents has deterred her little one track mind!

Willoughby wrote:

Lady Jayde wrote: Perhaps one could be wary of the new kids on the block like Wolfe, DFX and TAG...

I am a little surprised to read this, considering these are some of the 'professional' brands that are supposedly safe and used by many professionals out there. Why would you think we 'could be wary' of these particular brands?

Lady Jayde is not telling you to throw out the TAG. There is NOTHING wrong with your Wolfe/TAG/Superstar/Chameleon....they're just newer products.

Kroyolan has been in the market since 1947.

Paradise (aka Mehron) has on their mission statement that they have been selling, creating, and testing their face paints, commercial and theater cosmetics since 1927. That's 85 years. (http://www.mehron.com/aboutus.asp)

Snaz has been on the market since 1989.

So that's two brands that have been used for over 60 years and one brand that is 23 years old.

In comparison, Wolfe/TAG/DFX/Chameleon/FAB are "newbies". Wolfe "Only" opened up shop in 2002 and they started expanding their face paint line in 2005. DFX is also 7 years old; they have a track record of experiencing a company 'disaster' and managing to recall all of their American Paint. I know some pharmaceutical companies that couldn't understand why unlabelled product needs to be off the shelves. While I don't always agree with DFX customer service, their paint is top notch (fragrence and paraben free, FDA compliant, and they are the ONLY company with FDA compliant neons).

TAG shipped out its first face paints in (I think) 2008 to the US. I can't figure out (based on their site) if they were selling in Australia prior to that. *** I contacted TAG, they've been making face paints for 4 years.

FAB is a new line to the US (as of 2011) but Superstar had already been in existence in Europe for I-can't-remember-how-many years.

Edited- LJ I started typing before you posted. I'm officially ending the yearly "face paint is toxic" thread. http://www.snazaroo.us/safety.htm

[quote="Lady Jayde"][quote="Willoughby"]

Lady Jayde wrote:

Uh...did you miss the whole "new kids on the block" reference?
As hard as this is going to be for someone who's already made up his/her
mind, don't read more into what I am writing than what you see; I'm pretty
Good at beating my own dead horses and rerely leave anything for supposition.
The brands I mentioned don't have the decades of cosmetic manufacturing experience
that Mehron and Kryolan have. It really is that simple. I personally have no qualms
with using any of the pro brands, but if someone were on the fence then my statement would apply. Easy peasy.

I guess I did actually, I'm a new kid on the block myself and hadn't researched how long these brands had all been around for. Thank you for explaining though.

The newbie remark is just like saying a recall would be more likely coming for the newer brand vehicle Sometimes, there are kinks to be fixed. Although, we've own two Toyota Siennas and we have recalls many times. That doesn't mean we will not purchase another one though

I use these paints on my children and I'm a crazy hippie earthy natural raw foodist. LOL I try to eat super healthy to combat the toxics we deal with everyday. Even the beds we sleep in have toxins down to the clothes we wear

CottonKandyClown wrote:The newbie remark is just like saying a recall would be more likely coming for the newer brand vehicle Sometimes, there are kinks to be fixed. Although, we've own two Toyota Siennas and we have recalls many times. That doesn't mean we will not purchase another one though

I use these paints on my children and I'm a crazy hippie earthy natural raw foodist. LOL I try to eat super healthy to combat the toxics we deal with everyday. Even the beds we sleep in have toxins down to the clothes we wear

Honestly, I think that that's like comparing Apples and Cell Phones. The newbie comment was meant to discern that there are some new manufacturers on the block, as compared to there being new products by those manufacturers with longevity. Whenever you have new technological innovations you will have kinks to work out. The cosmetic industry plays around with innovation as well, but not at the same scale as the automobile industry and the trial and error on the part of the cosmetic companies generally result in some sort of reaction to the product where as that of the auto industry can have much further reaching and deadly consequences. Since I use the makeup from the new kids in my work, I'm not disparaging their product, rather I'm suggesting that if someone is wary about the integrity of the manufacturers they may want to start with the older companies who have proven track records of knowing what they are doing. That's not saying that there couldn't be potential corruption even in those companies as new blood takes over and comes up with more cost saving shortcuts (as is often the norm now adays), but if we are content live in the land of What If then there's no argument that will sway a mind already made up.

Tam, thanks for the clarification...I don't generally do a good job of being clear, concise and nice at 2am. One of these days I'm going to go flippin' mad and seriously violate this forums' Geneva Convention...