Judging the FreeFrom Skincare Awards…

I am not sure what I expected when I sat down for our initial judging of the products entered for this year’s first ever FreeFrom Skincare Awards… It was obviously going to be a very different experience from judging the FreeFrom Food Awards which we had done only three weeks earlier. But, in fact, was it? Would we not be assessing the entrants against the same criteria? How ‘freefrom’ actually were they? How well did they cater for those with allergies and sensitivities? How well did they package or label their products for those with sensitive skins – were the sources of ingredients provided for example? If they claimed to deliver a benefit, did they do so? And (the equivalent of what did they taste like?) what did they feel like and we they pleasant to use?

This is, of course, the first year of the FreeFrom Skincare Awards so we had very little idea of how many or what kind of products would be entered. In fact we were both amazed and delighted as we had roughly double the number of entries that we had anticipated – although we could have wished that a few more of them had not left it till the very last few days. Poor Amy, our awards administrator, who has done a  brilliant job of sorting, filing and generally ‘dealing with’ all entries so far, was nearly run into the ground….

Because ‘freefrom’ in skincare terms does not only refer to food allergens (nuts, gluten, dairy etc) but to chemicals, both natural and artificial, which can cause allergic reactions or that you might not wish to apply to your skin for other health reasons, we had drawn up fairly stringent criteria for entry to the awards. (See the awards site for more details.) However, we needed to be sure that all entrants had adhered to these, so before a product was accepted, its ingredients had to pass our assessment panel to make sure that it actually qualified as a ‘freefrom product’. Ingredients were also assessed to establish whether they delivered positive benefits, were relatively neutral in  their effects, or were less than ideal, if not actually excluded by our criteria.

So, when we sat down for the initial judging (as with the food awards, our judging panel included health professionals with experience of sensitive skin problems, beauty experts and those with sensitive/problem skins) we were looking at the products, the entry forms, and the feed back from our ‘ingredients assessment panel’. (We had asked entrants not only to provide a list of all the ingredients but what they were ‘freefrom’ and  what benefits they delivered.) Products that really impressed us will now go forward to panels of experienced Beauty Bible testers (all of whom either have sensitive/problem skins, specific allergies/intolerances, or are  particularly passionate about organic/natural skincare) for a month’s in depth testing of their ease of use and efficacy.

Because these are ‘freefrom’ awards, we were very concerned that manufacturers should be allergy and sensitivity and/or health aware. As those with food allergies will know only too well, the only way you can assess whether or not a food is safe for you to eat is by reading the ingredients list, so labeling is crucial. And so it needs to be for skincare products. So we were somewhat shocked to find that one or two manufacturers of large products gave no ingredients information at all on their packaging, despite there being plenty of space for it.

We were also very unimpressed with the labeling on all too many of the products – illegibly small, printed in white on pale grey, squeezed into a corner by a lot of waffly and meaningless marketing hype. Not only was it hard to read but all too often sources of ingredients were not given. Vitamin E/tocepherol, glycerine or citric acid, for example, can be derived from many sources, some of which may be unsuitable for some sensitive people. They need to know.

That said, there were a great number of really good entries. (See just a few of them lined up for testing here.)  In fact, we had so many really good, if not quite award-winning, products entered that we decided to create another level of commendation for products that judges thought were very good and well-made, and that sat well in the natural or ‘free from’ skincare market, but which, in an exceptionally high standard field, were simply beaten by some truly outstanding products. All of these products will be ‘commended’ by the awards judges, will receive a FreeFrom Skincare Awards ‘commended’ logo and will be listed on the FreefromSkincare Awards site.

Meanwhile, those products which really stood out during the initial testing either for the quality of their ingredients, the care of their formulation, their ‘freefrom awareness’ or their innovation will go forward to our Beauty Bible testers to see if they can still ‘deliver’ over a longer period of repeated use. To know whether or not they can, you will need to stay tuned…. The winners will be announced and the awards presented at the Allergy + FreeFrom Show in May.

For now, check in at the FreeFrom Skincare Awards site next week (publication planned for the 15th March) to see who has been ‘commended’ and who is going through to the next testing round….

Depression, darkness, allergy…

Mid January is, notoriously, the time of year when people (well, those in the northern hemisphere anyhow) feel most depressed. I think that last Monday is the peak (or trough) depression day but the whole month is pretty grim. Not surprising really – the weather is cold and grey, you’ve got no money and you are over-weight after a Christmas spurge, the nights are long and dark, the days short, and it seems a very, very long time before there is a chance of even a bank holiday, let alone a proper holiday or some sun. So depressed seems like a reasonable way to feel.

Having a serious illness, or an intolerance or sensitivity that prevents you going places or eating nice food, or a child with a possibly life threatening allergy who has to be guarded 24/7, all also seem like good reasons to feel depressed. But, as Ruth Holroyd points out in her very interesting blog at What Allergy? there can be a far closer link between allergy and depression than the purely circumstantial.

Some years ago we ran several months of correspondence in the Foods Matter magazine in which readers described how an intolerance, to wheat in particular, could dramatically change their mood from perfectly cheerful to near suicidally depressed. The suggestion is that foods can can change the biochemical balance within the body, thus triggering quite dramatic mood swings.

To investigate this further, do read Ruth’s blog and follow the links she provides. You will also find a number of fascinating articles in the Food/nutrition/mood section of the Foodsmatter site – including, in the research section,  one report suggesting that chocolate is the ideal way to reduce your stress levels while warding off Alzheimer’s and a heart attack…. Another riveting read is Dr Katherine Desmaisons’ book, Potatoes not Prozac, first published in 1998, in which she charts her own dramatic mental/mood reactions to sugar and carbohydrates.

If you want to read yet more…. there are more articles, and loads of research reports in the FoodsMatter  ’depression’ section, many of which make the link between mood and micro-nutrition.

And in that context you might also want to start looking at some of the mountains of research connecting vitamin D deficiency with a range of mental illnesses including depression. For more on this see the Vitamin D Council’s website and, relating it to a real January illness, SAD or Seasonally Affected Disorder, an article by Dr Damien Downing on Vitamin D as an alternative treatment for SAD.

So – enough – and on to a far less depressing subject (well, at least for those who enjoy freefrom food): the growth in the availability of freefrom ready meals! More very soon…

 

‘The annual cost of caring for our autistic population exceeds the annual tax revenue from the entire mobile phone industry, which is about 20 billion UK pounds.’

Some months ago we uploaded another of Dr Andrew Goldsworthy’s excellent articles to the Foods Matter site, describing how electromagnetically-induced cell leakage might be a cause of autism. But it was only as I was skimming, belatedly, through ES-UK‘s October newsletter that the financial implications of his thesis came home to me. This is what he said:

“The incidence of autism has increased 60-fold, in parallel with the increase in electromagnetic pollution, over the last thirty years. The chance of having an autistic child may now be as high as one in fifty. Apart from the personal tragedies for the affected children and their families, autism is of enormous economic importance. In the UK alone, the annual cost to the Nation in care and lost production exceeds the annual tax revenue from the entire mobile phone industry, which is about 20 billion UK pounds. In theory the Government could close down the entire mobile phone industry and actually show a profit! There are ways in which the modulation of the signal can be changed to avoid this, but in the meantime, the compulsory introduction of smart meters can only contribute further to autism on a grand scale. (See here and my next post for more on Smart Meters – the wifi operated gas and electricity meters that the government plans to have installed in every home by 2019.)

This will be a further burden on the economy and increase the National deficit, and will far outweigh any possible advantages from the use of Smart Meters. There is also a risk of legal complications for the utility companies. If it can be shown that that the consumer has taken reasonable precautions to minimise their microwave exposure by eliminating WiFi, cordless phones and wireless baby monitors from their house, the utility company could be held legally responsible for any autistic children that they may have. In the UK, the lifetime cost of caring for an autistic child is in the region of one million pounds. It would be reasonable to claim compensation for this amount.”

Further on in the newsletter was the following quote from Matthew Lynne in MoneyWeek on 13th June – he is warning investors that they should monitor medical data and keep up  with the latest developments:

“They should be demanding that the mobile companies do everything they can to research the risks – and mitigate them. There is no point in simply denying that such a risk exists, in the way that the tobacco industry did for decades. Investors should also be preparing an exit strategy. If a link is ever proved beyond a doubt, you don’t want to be holding the shares or bonds of any of the main players in the industry. You might want to avoid holding equities full stop.”

So it is not only a group of ‘nutty’ scientists who are worried by  the ever thickening electrosmog in which we all live, but the money men. Maybe it is time that our government started to worry too…