So, I’m not sure how many of you have experienced a relatively steady diet of Ava Anderson proselytizing in your Facebook feed, but I now have three of my friends who are now reps for AA and post about how great the products, but also sharing the horrific dangers of using normal cosmetic/hygiene products.
From the people who’ve used the products, I’m guessing the actual products are fairly nice to use, but that’s not my question. There seems to be a heck of a lot of fear mongering associated with selling these products, about how J&J baby shampoo has formaldehyde in it, and how everything in your toxic chemical laden soaps and such will give you cancer. It rings very hollow to me. But, I checked out the Ava Anderson site to see how much their ‘natural toxin free’ products cost. And the price is astronomical. $17 for a 16 oz bottle of shampoo, for instance. I’m guessing that if you become a rep for them you can get their products for a lot less, but I’m not sure. But it seems like they scare the crap out of people, get them to switch, and then because the prices are so high, they sell the products to afford them better…and the company grows.
Am I reading this correctly? Has there been any long term research into a lot of the ‘toxic’ claims as it relates to my normal $3 body wash and shampoo? I’m sure there’s a grain of truth in there somewhere, but it sounds very much to me like “Oh Noez…TOXINS!” type speech. Some google-fu has turned up very little with regards to their claims. I’m currently thinking ‘I survived, my sister survived, all my friends survived using these products my whole life so far…’ But then, I’ve got two kids…is it worth looking for ‘healthier’ products here?
I hesitate to reply because I’ve been a rep for AA for awhile, but for good reason. There IS research supporting the link between so many of these chemicals and diseases such as cancer and interference with normal body functioning (endocrine disruption, learning disabilities, asthma, allergies…etc). You can find a lot of it at ewg.org. I have two physicians (MD’s) on my team of consultants who will echo just the same.
Certainly, I would never compare Ava products to the $2.50 shampoo that you can buy at a drugstore…because sure, water and chemicals are cheap in this country. But here’s the thing that jumped out at me in your post - people you know (and yourself) have used these toxic products thus far and have “been fine”. Did you realize that 90% of cancer is environmentally-caused though (what we put in/on our bodies)? 10% of cancer is genetically-based. That’s a BIG number that we have “control” over (products we use, food we eat, etc.). And the chemicals that are in mainstream toxic products have been around form about 25 years…and we’re now starting to see the prevalence of disease rise astronomically. That’s a pretty fair incubation period. So what does the health of our childrens’ generation look like another 25 years from now? I really really believe that we’re on a horrific trajectory there. Think of your friends and family and their health…how many cases of reproductive issues (requiring IVF to start a family, for example), childrens’ allergies, autism…do you see now? I’d argue it’s about 10-fold what we saw 20 years ago.
So knowing what I know, I choose to control what I can control. And switching to non-toxic personal care and household cleaning products is an easy way to make a BIG impact on my health. I know that you have friends who are AA reps, but if you have any specific questions I’d be happy to help you. I’ve been doing research in this subject area for years. www.AvaAndersonMA.com
But it’s all circumstantial. Life expectancy is at an all time high right now. The ‘prevalence of disease’ is where? I understand the argument, and in the surface it makes sense, but there’s a distinct lack of hard data, other than “these chemicals are here”. Nothing about dosage, what the body naturally metabolizes, etc. the rise in allergies can hardly be pinpointed to our hygiene products, especially since the rise has really been prevalent in the past 10 years, but these ‘toxic’ products have been in use for 40 years. I also don’t really see why the non toxic stuff needs to be quadruple the price. I’ve also seen some of the Ava products use natural ingredients that metabolize to parabens that they purport to avoid. I’m genuinely interested in some real independent research has there been any?
Sorry…didn’t mean to one off snarky, and upon a retread I may have been. I am truly curious about real research into this. I know there has been research into the actual chemicals used in many products, but those are usually at exposure levels massively higher than what is in these products. Have there been any peer reviewed studies that examine the long term health of those who use typical store products vs those who use milder ‘non-toxic’ products?
Again, I’m not doubting the quality of product being sold, it’s just that a lot of the sales pitch for them seems to be predicated on stoking fear of the possibility of long term damage by not switching. This coupled with the exorbitant prices pings my warning bells a bit.
Okay, so argue that. I’ll challenge you to come up with studies and statistics that back up your argument, because I think it’s a load of hooey. I eagerly await your citations.
Oh, don’t be a grump. It’s people like you who prevent us from keeping (possible) spammers like SBJody long enough to eviscerate their arguments. :mad:
(ahem)
Please, SBJody, please accept Bo’s invitation to provide citations demonstrating that any of your, or Ava Anderson’s, claims have the slightest basis in fact and are not fearmongering based on ignorance, yours and your customers’, to sell vastly overpriced crap.
I can’t bring myself to tackle a pile of nonsense this large, so I’ll just summarize: this is all pseudoscience supported by nothing by anecdotes, vague fearmongering, and woo.
While I know nothing but what I read here, I would also suggest that it is possibly a pyramid scheme (a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public).
Seems to me Alcoa has been using pyramid marketing schemes for many decades (over 60 years at least), so maybe “usually unsustainable” is a better term. In any case, there’s a big difference between pyramid marketing and and Ponzi schemes. (I know you didn’t mention Ponzi, but just making sure nobody lumps the two together.) The differece is, with Ponzi, there is no underlying value. With pyramid marketing, the value depends on the value of the products, which is right there for anyone to sample and evaluate themselves.
Pyrmaid marketing schemes allow business growth with practically zero marketing costs. It’s one model for business growth. Personally, I detest it since it leads to friends hawking products to friends and those silly parties (which fortunately the menfolk are usually allowed to skip!). But it’s a free country, and while it’s a bit predatory in building false visions of riches in new members, it’s quite transparent in how it actually works. Caveat … what’s Latin for “seller”?
So, I won’t be buying any Alcoa cookware, Longeberger baskets, or Amway products. Avon did make some really great chapstick though, and I’m sorry our friends who supplied us with that no longer can!
I just saw “Go!” recently. Pyramid marketing made for an amusing plot twist in that flick.
Edit to add: Oops, on re-read, I see you were warning against a malicious form of pyramid scheme which really is Ponzi, rather than attacking pyramid marketing in general. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but figure the above might help clarify things anyway so left as is.
I am not selling products but I am changing my lifestyle completely to nontoxic products and organic food. I became aware of this after loosing family members and friends with cancer. If you are interested… you can do research. Information is out there but…
Please note that while it is perfectly acceptable to copy snippets of articles and post them here for discussion, copying the entire article goes beyond fair use and is not permitted here. This is why I removed it from your post.
Those wishing to read the article may find it in the second link in DWOLFE’s post.
Lauryl sulfate(SLS), Sodium laureth sulfate(SLES)
Can result in: suspected carcinogen linked kidney and liver damage; nervous system disruption; damage to eyes leading to cataracts; eczema and dermatitis, known to inflame skin layers.
Why used: foaming agent and emulsifier.
Found in: toothpaste, shampoo, bath salts, body and shower gels.
Banned in: Europe and Central America
Here in the UK we often see lobby groups claiming that we are at risk from some product or chemical that is banned (or only permitted at lower levels) in the USA or elsewhere.
In most, or indeed all, cases, the differences are minute. Very often, the product would have to be used or consumed in huge quantities to have any measurable effect.
Think harder about relative risk. People die in car accidents and tripping over the cat. They drown, burn and choke. Better to avoid the bigger risks and relax, than to worry overmuch about the chemicals in a shampoo. Of course you can stop using shampoo altogether if you are really worried: How to Wash Your Hair Without Shampoo (with Pictures) - wikiHow
I buy almost all of my body care items at Whole Foods because they have really strict standards for what they will accept in a product. You can read about it here:
You can also view the PDF file on the “more than 400 ingredients unacceptable for Premium Body Care. These include parabens, polypropylene and polyethylene glycols, sodium lauryl and laureth sulfates. Our research also yielded crucial information about the effects of ingredients in several categories of public interest.”
The prices are not insane, and the selections is incredible.
First off, AA makes a lot of, unsubstantiated, claims about many things we normally use in our daily lives as being toxic, and in some case, cause many different medical conditions, like Alzheimers. None of these claims have actually been backed up by any credible research, or independent studies.
Any studies mentioned by other members of this forum, were not conducted by an independent group, and was paid for, not using any type of blind or double blind tests, and reached a desired result paid for by AA.
AA, is nothing more than a pyramid group, like Amway.
The WHO(World Health Organization), the foremost authority of disease, medical conditions, and whose opinions are widely accepted by the AMA(American Medical Association), has stated there is no link to aluminum in any form, and the cause of Alzheimers. They further more state, that the medical profession has not concluded with absolute certainty what is the cause of Alzheimers, but they are 100% certain the cause is not related to aluminum.
