Do hypoallergenic skincare products contain fewer potential contact allergens?

Personal care products (PCPs) commonly cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Skincare companies often market their products as 'hypoallergenic'; however, this term is not regulated by industry standards. To determine whether PCPs marketed as hypoallergenic are truly less likely to precipitate ACD, we conducted a study of ingredients found in 'hypoallergenic PCPs' from two major UK retailers in 2022. Of 208 products meeting the inclusion criteria, 153 (73.6%) contained at least 1 allergen or related chemical from the British Society for Cutaneous Allergy baseline series, 21 (10.1%) had 2 potential allergens and 4 PCPs (1.9%) had 3 allergens. Cetearyl alcohol was the most common -allergen identified in leave-on PCPs and parabens in rinse-off products; fragrance was the most frequent related chemical found in 85 PCPs (40.1%). A high prevalence of common allergens was found in hypoallergenic PCPs, suggesting that dermatologists and consumers should be cautious of product ingredients.

From Treasure to Trash: The Lingering Value of Technological Artifacts.

Electronic waste (e-waste) is the fastest growing form of waste worldwide, associated with a range of environmental, health, and justice problems. Unfortunately, disposal and recycling are hindered by a tendency of consumers to resist recycling their e-waste. This backlog of un-discarded e-waste poses significant challenges for the future. This paper addresses the reasons why many people might continue to value their technological artifacts and therefore to hoard them, suggesting that many of these common explanations are deficient in some way. It argues instead for a derivative kind of value, here labelled "system value". Addressing the problem of hoarding by invoking the idea of system value, the authors conjecture, could offer some clarity about how to move forward with more successful e-waste management programs.

Women, e-waste, and technological solutions to climate change.

In this paper, we argue that a crossover class of climate change solutions (which we term "technological solutions") may disproportionately and adversely impact some populations over others. We begin by situating our discussion in the wider climate discourse, particularly with regard to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Basel Convention. We then suggest that many of the most attractive technological solutions to climate change, such as solar energy and electric car batteries, will likely add to the rapidly growing stream of electronic waste ("e-waste"). This e-waste may have negative downstream effects on otherwise disenfranchised populations. We argue that e-waste burdens women unfairly and disproportionately, affecting their mortality/morbidity and fertility, as well as the development of their children. Building on this, we claim that these injustices are more accurately captured as problems of recognition rather than distribution, since women are often institutionally under-acknowledged both in the workplace and in the home. Without institutional support and representation, women and children are deprived of adequate safety equipment, health precautions, and health insurance. Finally, we return to the question of climate justice in the context of the human right to health and argue for greater inclusion and recognition of women waste workers and other disenfranchised groups in forging future climate agreements.