This post may contain affiliate links. Purchasing through affiliate links help support this website.

Glowing in the Dark

I’ve received a lot of reader questions over the past month about blacklight reactive products. As I’m a big fan of things that glow in the dark, as well as blinky lights, I know a bit about it. There are some really cool glow in the dark products as well as black-light reactive products.

Photobucket
Glow in the dark LED Poi are my favorite blinky light toys. I sooo need  to get my own set, because I constantly get entranced watching my friend Lea spin these. I love it so much that I’ve been learning to spin. If you’ve never seen LED poi being spinned, go check it out here.

Kryolan has a line of Invisible Luminescent Makeup/Body Paint. It comes in white, blue, orange and green. The colors go on invisible but under blacklight they glow. They also make several other types of blacklight reactive makeup, including lipsticks. These are FDA approved. These should not be used on the eyes though, from what I can tell. Update: Here’s a disclaimer from Kryolan about their Dayglow colors line, and an ingredients list.

You can also get glow in the dark earrings. When I used to wear 3 earrings in each ear, I often had 3 pair of acrylics in pink, blue and yellow.

Manic Panic makes colors of dye that are blacklight reactive. Electric Lizard, Electric Banana, Pretty Flamingo, Electric Lava, Hot Hot Pink and Wildfire. I used to dye my hair with Wildfire mixed with another shade of red so I had glowy bright red hair.

You can buy hair accents, braids, twists, falls etc, from I Kick Shins in blacklight reactive colors. Platinum Blond, Mixed Blond, Light Mixed Blond, Autumn Mix, Red, Neon Magenta, Hot Pink, Baby Pink, Orange, Neon Orange, Yellow, Neon Yellow, Lime Green, Sky Blue, Lavender, Purple with White Tips, Neon Violet, Silver White, Silvery Snow, Creamy White, Snow White and Grey are all blacklight reactive.

Aromaleigh makes some of their Rocks! line blacklight reactive. Brownsugar, Suspectdevice, Prettyvacant, Peek-a-boo, Coralfang, Deathvalley, Atomic, Bigneonglitter, Flowersofromance, Prettyinpink, Iwantcandy, Newrose, Personalitycrisis, Teenagekicks, Psycho-candy, Tempted, Heartofglass, Lookinforakiss, Obsession, Raspberryberet, Funkytown, Purplerain, Spellbound, Hitormiss, Blueorchid, Ladystardust, Bodyelectric, Bluemonday, Endlessea, Oceanrain, Justlikeheaven, Strychnine, Greenhell, Venom, Swampthing, Avalon, Poisonivy, and Lazysod are all blacklight reactive. These are all eye safe.

Of course, there’s also nail polish! I found an unexpected UV reactive polish in Color Club’s Milky White Base Coat, which glows no matter what polish I have on top of it.

Photobucket

Photobucket

You can see me wearing hair from I Kick Shins in Snow White, as well as makeup from Aromaleigh in BodyElectric and FlowersofRomance.

If you’re ever curious about whether or not a product is safe or hazardous, you can always run the ingredients list through the Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database. The ingredients are rated as follows with 0 through 10, 0 to 2 low hazard, 3 to 6 moderate hazard and 7 to 10 high hazard.

Because I was curious, I ran the Aromaleigh Rocks! shadows through the database.
Ingredients: mica(CI 77019), titanium dioxide(CI 77891), iron oxides(CI 77491, CI 77492, CI 77499). May contain polyester-3, D&C yellow 5, D&C blue 1, D&C red 40, calcium sodium borosilicate, ferric ferrocyanide (CI 77510), tin oxide (CI 77861).

mica – 1 to 3
titanium dioxide – 1 to 4
Iron Oxides – 2
Polyester-3 – 0
D&C yellow 5 – 0
D&C blue 1 – 1 to 2
ferric ferrocyanide – 1 to 3
D&C red 40 – 0
calcium sodium borosilicate – 0
tin oxide (CI 77861) – 2

This leads me to feel that they’re safe.

All of the above ingredients are safe by my standards and the FDA. So, what’s not safe? Any eye shadows that are sold with luminescent zinc sulfide. This ingredient is NOT FDA approved for the eyes. I checked the FDA for the full information on this.
Photobucket

To be clear, in makeup, blacklight reactive is what you want to purchase if you want it on your eyes or your lips. In other products, like hair or blinky toys, blacklight reactive or Glow in the Dark is normally fine.

Do you have any favorite glow in the dark items you love? Do share!

Edited to Add:
I contacted Aromaleigh regarding the change in the Rocks ingredients. Here is the response that I received back from the company:
When Aromaleigh first created the Rocks line, pre-mixed base colors were used with a ‘may contain’ list on them. It was the same for the lipsticks, too. Pre-mixed liquid color toners were used to create the shades, not powdered dye. Just like the lipsticks, all of the ‘may contain’ ingredients on the premixed tone colors had to be listed. When evaluating ways to improve Aromaleigh, the company realized that it was more cost-efficient to make the shadows from batch-certified dyes that did not have any ‘may contain’ ingredients. This is why the ingredients list changed.

From my understanding of what Aromaleigh said, the ‘may contain’ stuff means that it could have trace amounts from being made with the same machinery/tools as stuff that does contain it. It’s the same with a box of Organic Truffles that I have. It says it ‘may contain’ nuts, but it doesn’t contain nuts. There can be trace amounts of nuts in the box.

By buying batch certified dye colors where there is no ‘contamination’ aka trace amounts, Aromaleigh can say ‘it only has these dyes.’ This certainly reinforces that the ingredients that are being used match up to the approved dyes from the FDA List.
Photobucket

Here is the response that Aromaleigh posted on their forums regarding the ingredients issue:
Email from Sept. 17, 2009

Last Updated on

Share

No Comments

  • That's the big problem in general, I think. People spreading misinformation, be it about the HPV vaccine, or about FDA labeling & ingredients.

  • You know, I had been avoiding the “Rocks!” makeup since i have sensitivities to odd things, but after reading all the comment-storm, I may pick up a few to carefully try out. =)

  • Can I just say, I love you for posting this? (I'm argument-averse, and usually just shake my head quietly. That doesn't help stop the misinformation, though. *sigh*)

  • And I just remembered, when I moved my crescent moon disappeared too 🙁 I don't know how I missplace a freakin moon 😀

  • I was fine with being shown the discrepancies in the ingredients list. I was also satisfied with the response that I received from Aromaleigh regarding WHY the ingredients changed. I feel that information was relevant and helpful.

  • An ingredients list discrepancy on Phyrra's blog. I'd want to know about it if it were my blog.

  • It was never my intention to turn this into a battle field, just to point out an ingredients list discrepancy and possible safety hazards. Unfortunately, others wanted to battle which I think I handled pretty well.

  • Now that I've had a few moments to look some things up, let's get detailed: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4482 “of the deaths associated with Gardasil reported to CDC’s VAERS, the majority of them are explained. At the time of the post-licensure review published in JAMA in August of 2009, there had been 32 deaths reported following Gardasil injection occurring between 2 to 405 days after the last injection. This is the breakdown of those 32 reported deaths after investigation: 'Eight of the reports were second-hand reports that could not be verified. Four were manufacturer reports with no identifying information for confirmation or medical review… Causes of death (of the remaining 20) included 4 unexplained deaths, 2 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis (1 complicated by pulmonary embolism), 1 case related to prescription drug abuse, 1 case of juvenile amyotropic lateral sclerosis, 1 case of meningoencephalitis (Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B), 1 case of influenza B viral sepsis, 3 cases of pulmonary embolism (1 associated with hyperviscosity due to diabetic ketoacidosis), 6 cardiac-related deaths (4 arrhythmias and 2 cases of myocarditis), and 2 cases due to idiopathic seizure disorder.' Keep in mind that over 23 million doses of Gardasil had been administered in the US at this point. It would be remarkable if none of those millions of women had died within a year or so of receiving the vaccine. A rate of death similar to that of the control population with a random smattering of causes should be expected, and is exactly what is found. ” http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=98 “What people don’t understand about VAERS is that it’s not a good epidemiological for establishing strong evidence of causation, and it’s dubious even for correlation. Indeed, such was never its intent when it was designed. … “Adverse events” reported don’t even have to be something that looks suspicious as having been caused by vaccines. … 'To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database.' … For example, when Medscape reports that 6% of the adverse events reported to VAERS were considered “serious,” as it turns out, this is less than half the 15% of reactions reported as “serious” for other vaccines. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1652 Over the first 2.5 years since its release, 23 million doses of qHPV were administered, and VAERS received 12,424 reports of adverse events. Of these, only 6.2% were classified as serious or life-threatening. … Of all of these events, only two are above what one should expect from their respective baseline rates and not previously identified by the original licensure studies. … This does not establish that qHPV causes these events; remember that this study and the VAERS in general are not designed to establish causation. … Notice, however, that the rates of major events of concern … were all exceedingly rare, and not above what one would expect to occur in the normal unvaccinated population. In spite of the clear limitations inherent in the use of the VAERS database, this study should strongly reinforce the confidence of physicians and parents regarding the safety of HPV vaccination.”

  • Actually, we all have “trace amounts” of pretty much everything, including things that are toxic, in our bodies, all the time. It's not the chemical, it's the dose that makes something toxic or not. Oxygen is toxic if you get too much. We ingest mercury when we eat fish. For more information on what is *actually* harmful in terms of chemicals and “toxins”, visit sources like http://www.skeptoid.com, http://www.quackcast.com and http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org – in fact, I recommend visiting that last site first.

  • I would also like to point out that it's not just the FDA. Gardasil has been approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMEA), and other national regulatory bodies. The Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) and the Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) recommend HPV vaccine, as does the World Health Organization (WHO) and many other agencies. Over 100 different countries' regulatory agencies have approved the vaccine. So, you're welcome to think the FDA is so corrupt that it can actually plot to kill children and no one but a few concerned mothers can see through the smokescreen (you'd be wrong, but you're welcome to think so), but if you think that the nations of the world have all managed to work together on this conspiracy, you haven't been paying any attention to current events or history. Even if you *do* assume that the FDA is in league with Big Pharma for more and more profits – killing off the customer base is bad for business

  • sorry, not a single case of illness or death has been attributed to the HPV vaccine, and ever case of death has been ruled conclusively to be of other causes. Many cases of experiencing side effects have been seen, but every single one of those fell within the range of expected side effects that were disclosed prior to administration.

  • actually, there is not a single case of the HPV vaccination having any side effects other than the expected and admitted ones. Not a single girl who has received the vaccination has gone blind or had a stroke. Sorry, you fell victim to blatant lies created by people who have ideological agendas, not evidence. You have also just condemned your daughters to catching HPV, since more than 80% of girls will have some form of HPV in their lifetime. Hopefully, if they're lucky, it won't turn into cancer. Since HPV is being found in the majority if cervical cancer cases, is the second leading cause of all head and throat cancers (and will be the leading cause as smoking continues to decline), and also responsible for more rare cancers like anal cancer, AND is being found in cancer cells of the outer epidermis, the people responsible for peddling the lies and misinformation about the vaccine have just given your daughters a pretty grim future. Of all the cases of illness or death being reported after receiving the vaccination, not a single one can be attributed to the vaccine other than those side effects already known, such as soreness at the injection site, dizziness, etc. Every case of death has been attributed to other things. For instance, in the case of the 6 girls who died in India, one was a suicide, one was a drowning, and one was from malaria and had a snake bite. Yet these are included in the death toll because the criteria is ONLY to have died after receiving the vaccine. In a given population, it is expected that a percentage of them will die of *something* within a year. So far, even the number of girls who *have* died from unrelated causes is lower than sheer chance. Having watched more than one friend suffer through the complications of HPV, I'm horrified that you would voluntarily put your children through this or that you would condemn other men and women to the same fate simply because they had the misfortune to sexually attracted to your children when they get older.

  • then.don't.buy.it. What's so hard about that? Why can you not just write one response, with all your info lined up, instead of multiple stuff, EVERYWHERE YOU GO, and repeat the same stuff over and over and over. If something that “may contain” is not good enough for you, then leave it at that. You were on Grey's blog with hardly any info other than what you found on a quick google search, ASSUMING Kristen even USED TKB. When you first did the whole “multiple-posty” thing when you felt you were being victimized a long time ago, I did feel bad for you at first, for the treatment you received. Then you posted the same stuff, even though it was already visible, onto new forums. You truly do not know when to stop. I am not a “fan”, “fanatic”, “fan girl”. I wear whatever I want, as long as it's unique and has good payoff, I am not loyal to any single company. Hell, if you went after Lime Crime with this much BS I'd even feel bad for the queen unicorn demon herself. Repeating the same stuff isn't going to make people go “OMGZ! The 12th time she mentions “FDA” I TOTALLY GET IT NOW!” Stop it, for the love of EVERYTHING… just. stop.

  • That reminds me! I totally had glow in the dark stars on my roof when I lived at home. They're still there! Scared the hell out of my Oma and Opa lol. I have a little stash of orange and blue stars waiting to be stuck somewhere 😀

  • I don't think anyone believes you're stalking Tally. You've both researched the topic and have come to different conclusions. I'm not choosing sides in this matter but I will say I don't think it's right for Aromaleigh fans to be called “deranged”on MakeupTalk or any forum, just because they choose to support Kristen and believe the best. Even those of us who have been stung by Kristen were in that place once, and we weren't deranged or less than human.

  • Wow!!! I have to say I had some rocks but didn't use them for the reactive purpose. I just loved the colors. I was told to check my rocks products ingredients because there may contain some unsafe ingredients for your eyes and I was having irritation after using them. So unfortunately I quit using the rock collection but I do still use other products from the Aromaleigh line that I do like…Lets not turn Phyrra's blog into a battle field!!!! I love getting information and that is why I read peoples blogs. Not to hear the arguing!!!!

  • I really like the UV reactive tattoos, but yeah I'm not sure how safe they are. I was thinking of getting a cheshire cat done like that, but I don't think there have been long term studies done on how they can affect you. A friend of mine got a cyber tattoo on his face in uv reactive ink. It looked cool, but it definitely had me worried.

  • First I have to say I love the look, wow you look stunning! Love the glowing dancing Poi, that was fascinating to me! From a formulators stand point I thought I'd clarify the use of “may contain” in cosmetics. It is used for trace ingredients (less than 1%) and color additives exclusively. So you shouldnt see 'may contain silica' because silica is not a color additive and has to be declared in the main body of ingredients. Its use is primarily to list colorants that 'could' be in your batch of blush or eyeshadow etc. So if a blush uses “XYZ” formula but one shade has Ultramarines and another doesnt, you can put “May contain Ultramarines” to prevent having to make 2 labels. IF the formula differs a separate ingredient listing has to be made for the product (save for colorants). Just thought I'd clarify the use of maycontain, that is the only way it should be used in makeup. =D I recently saw some uv activated tatoos, wondering how 'safe' those are, they looked really cool!

  • I hate to tell you this Tally, but there are quite a few companies out there who change their formulations/ ingredients without notifying their customers. Soap, shampoo, laundry detergent, conditioner, soup, cereal, top ramen, sanitary products, vitamins, make-up, facial care products, nail polish, you name it. I happen to know this for a fact because due to my illness, I always, always, ALWAYS check the labels of EVERYTHING that I use. Being complacent means that I risk using a product with something that I will react to. This just happens to be an everyday fact of life for me. The rest of us are having a normal conversation, it is you who has an relentless obsession that you simply can not let go of.

  • As Jen stated previously, if a product is manufactured in a facility that also manufactures another ingredient that may potential to cause a reaction or not be safe, they MUST label it, even if the ingredient in question is not processed on the same equipment or included in the manufacture of the product you are purchasing. What is so hard to understand about that? Since you simply insist on bashing Kristen about her truthful labeling, let me tell you a true story about a mineral make up company who failed to properly label their products. A customer had been using a few products from a company we shall refer to by their initials, EDM, for well over a year. The customer was getting low on these products and placed an order for full sizes of the two products. When she received the two full sizes, she decided to set aside the mini sized products she had been using & use the full sizes so that the minis could be used while traveling since they were smaller. Almost immediately after applying the products, the customer's face started burning, so she washed off the make up and found that the areas where she had applied these two products where angry red & puffy. The customer ended up at the dermatologist for treatment & testing. The end result after patch testing was that the two new products had different ingredients in them, although the labels on the the old AND the new products were the same. The customer had a massive allergic reaction to one or more ingredients in the new products that EDM failed to disclose on the product labels. Lab testing confirmed that there were ingredients in the new products that were not listed on the labels. The formulations of all EDM's products were in the process of being changed to add certain ingredients & products that were NOT supposed to have the new ingredient in them yet were contaminated with them or converted to the new formulation & mis-labeled because they were processed in the same plant as the products with the new ingredient/formulation. This is absolutely true. It happened to me. I have upwards of $550.00 in out of pocket medical expenses to prove it, as well as medical documentation. BTW – that amount is the amount I paid AFTER my insurance company paid the bills. If you want the whole story: You can go here to read it. http://www.87px.net/mmf/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=… So the moral of this post is this; If there is even a minuscule chance that a product may contain microscopic traces of another ingredient, it is better to list it on the label so that the consumer can make the choice whether they want to use that product or not. Had EDM mentioned that their products with the old formulation were packaged in the same facility as those with the new formulation, I wouldn't have ordered it. Kristen did the right thing by correctly labeling her products. However, considering that you have targeted Aromaleigh in your witch hunt, I'm sure you'll find fault with something.

  • Hey Phyrra, so I have finals coming up, so I can't deal with this anymore. However, if you have a counter-argument, or receive another email from Kristen, feel free to post it at makeuptalk.

  • I've had enough of 'trace amounts' of you. And trace amounts doesn't mean it's actually IN the product, but nothing seems to get rid of you.

  • Duh. I guess all of you are just that ignorant. That's EXACTLY what MAY CONTAINS already means. Please tell me you don't actually know that. May Contains means it was processed in the same plant as some other chemicals were processed. At the time Rocks! were originally formulated, those were the only places MAKING the bright dyes. As technology improved OTHER companies started making dyes in plants that DIDN'T work with anything that would require it to be listed in a MAY CONTAIN warning, and so YES, they were REMOVED form the ingredient. How do you not understand this simple explanation? Why? Because no matter what you are told, you're going to spew your bullshit. No one is the MMU community cares what you have to say, a simple Google of YOUR name pulls up all your crazy and you're instantly discounted. Just leave it alone, Tally, you're making yourself look stupid. Why aren't you embarrassed? Phyrra, you have some mightly patience. If I have a blog I'd have banned these witchhunters.

  • And for me, even “Trace Amounts” of something that is not FDA approved for use around the eyes is still too much.

  • Labeling something as 'may contain' is done properly. It may not be enough for you, but it is enough for me, and for the FDA.

  • TooScared, although we pretty much know who are you, IP logging and all… Are you actually THAT ignorant? Either your as dumb as a box of rocks! or you're just blindly following your straw man argument. Just because something says may contain, doesn't mean it does. Those premade bases are MADE and MARKETED towards making cosmetics, SHADOWS included, but because the company handled other chemicals it's responsible to list them as MAY having been like ten feet away from other products. Come on, you know this. You cannot be that stupid. But good, we're glad you're done with AL, I hope that means we won't have to hear any more of your ranty BULLSHIT all over the internet. What you're doing could be seen as harassment and since, seriously, we know who you are tracing your IP and what you're posting is BLATANTLY false and you're skewing info for your own purpose. I hope someone takes the initiative to sue your dumb ass. (My caps are yelling at your ignorance.)

  • Yup, I did, but that isn't enough because only the removed ingredients would cause a color to be blacklight reactive. Furthermore, I am suspicious as to why this change occured without customers being notified. Finally, if the “May Contain” list included stuff that may only be there in trace amounts, why are the eye safe ingredients still left? Why are only the non- eye safe ingredients gone? And even if non eye safe ingredients were present in small amounts, there should have been a clarification under the ingredients list, saying “These particular dyes in the “May contain list” are only here in trace amounts, (even thought the other dyes in the “May contain list” are not here in trace amounts), so even though they aren't FDA approved for eye use, you can still use these around your eyes”.

  • Wow, some of you just don't know about how to have a logical discussion about something that isn't FDA approved. I at first said that Kristen would never have anything non eye safe in her shadows, despite what others said in that Jennifae blog. Then I realized that the TKB blacklight responsive eyeshadows weren't eyesafe like I originally thought. Then I did my own research. If you with your ugly comments (which I refuse to read because I got enough of that the first time around that i was honest) want to continue to use something that isn't FDA approved because you believe so much in a company, then that is your problem. I am just trying to educate normal people. And scream all you want, I'm not listening.

  • TooScaredToSay, I don't think you understand what 'May Contain' means with the FDA. May contain does NOT mean it contains it! Aromaleigh had to ethically list 'may contain' just like many foods list 'may contain peanuts' even when they don't contain them. It means they were made in the same building/warehouse as a product that contained them.

  • Phyrra updated this blog post with the following info from AL: Edited to Add: I contacted Aromaleigh regarding the change in the Rocks ingredients. Here is the response that I received back from the company: When Aromaleigh first created the Rocks line, pre-mixed base colors were used with a 'may contain' list on them. It was the same for the lipsticks, too. Pre-mixed liquid color toners were used to create the shades, not powdered dye. Just like the lipsticks, all of the 'may contain' ingredients on the premixed tone colors had to be listed. When evaluating ways to improve Aromaleigh, the company realized that it was more cost-efficient to make the shadows from batch-certified dyes that did not have any 'may contain' ingredients. This is why the ingredients list changed. —-But that explanation means that Kristen KNOWINGLY, FOR THREE YEARS SINCE INTRODUCTION OF ROCKS!, used pre-mixed base colors that COULD have contained at ANY TIME, colorants that the FDA designates as not-safe for eye area use. (Ingredient list not changed until Nov/Dec 2009.) Those pre-mixed bases should NEVER have been used for any product she was marketing specifically for eye use. It's completely unacceptable and unethical that she used those ingredients for 3 years. And if she claims the switch was made long before that and she just forgot to update the website and her product labels, then it's still unacceptable and unethical that she ever included those colorants THAT MIGHT HAVE CONTAINED AT ANY TIME INGREDIENTS UNSAFE FOR THE EYES in products she was marketing specifically for eye use. ROCKS! shouldn't have been sold to anyone as eyeshadows at any time if they could have contained unsafe for eye colorants. I am so done with this company!!! (Clarification: the caps are for emphasis, I'm not yelling at anyone here although I am outraged at Kristen.)

  • You would have to ask Tally why it isn't okay to disagree with someone without attacking them publicly & personally. It is quite apparent from everything that I have read across more sites than I care to count that she has set out on a witch hunt against Aromaleigh & Kristen personally. If my memory serves me correctly, I do believe it was Tally who took the issue from private email to public forum. For the record, a witch hunt is defined as investigation carried out in all outward appearances to uncover or expose objectionable or subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views or opinions. So, let's take a look at why Tally's actions are perceived by many to be a witch hunt, shall we? Tally is well aware that Kristen reads forums, make-up review sites, other review sites & scans through what is posted about Aromaleigh on the internet. With that knowledge, Tally obsessively posted as many derogatory reviews of Aromaleigh & Kristen herself on as many web sites & forums as she possibly could knowing that Kristen would come across them & read them. Tally even mentions her issues with Aromaleigh in her introductions on make-up sites. Tally's initial complaints about Aromaleigh had NOTHING to do with the ingredients in the Rock! Sonics eye shadows, those complaints came later. It has become quite apparent to many and not just myself & those who were dubbed as “fan girls” that Tally is actively looking for anything she can use against Aromaleigh & Kristen. The fact that she has fixated her efforts on the Aromaleigh products to the exclusion of other make up companies/products, several of which do indeed contain these ingredients, has made it clear that this recent complaint/ “investigation” is a retaliatory action and therefor has been labeled a witch hunt. The relentless obsession that Tally has with stalking Aromaleigh & Kristen with with repetitive posts across many many web sites is obsessive and paints a rather disturbing picture about Tally herself. As you stated, I am a very reasonable & intelligent person, so therefor I read quite a bit and I also investigate things thoroughly, hence I've stumbled on Tally's infinite posts across the internet while researching other make-up products that I wanted to try. I thought I'd make it clear that I am researching products, not intentionally stalking Tally since she has claimed that Kristen's followers have set out to stalk her and devalue her posts on opinions sites so that the ratings go down so that they are not read. Being a reasonable & intelligent person also means that I look at things from multiple angles, examine them thoroughly, investigate myself and come up with my own conclusions.

  • LMFAO, whatever, Lady. You don't know me from anywhere. I don't even know what makeuptalk is. It's just impossible to read a blog these days without seeing your name spouting the same CRAP. Do you have a CLUE what the words 'may include' means when listed in ingredients? It means that ANYTHING that might have touched the product in the production of that dye/lake/color'formula/whatever MUST be included int he ingredients. It's the same as reading the back of a food label and seeing the warning 'processed in a plant that handled nuts', which in this case is appropriate, because you are the biggest nut of them all. It's entirely possible what the old ingredients used in the rocks like had to have that caveat included, and maybe she went with a different or cheaper supplier who DIDN'T process those dyes/lakes/etc so they no longer needed to be listed on the label because they weer NEVER IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH. Seriously, if you were so concerned, why not go after ALL the companies who use these ingredients? No one actually CARES what the FLIP you have to say because as you can CLEARLY see, you've earned the reputation as a nasty nut job. SO be nasty on your little nasty 'Rant' website. Which most people agree is also a pathetic joke and the people who post there are nasty lunatics as well. But hey, at least you've got company.

  • I agree with you about the FDA and what they are doing to innocent girls who trust enough to get the injection while some of them are handicapped from the HPV and some have died. As far as your comment about Tally, if a witch hunt, means getting down to the bottom of what's going on, then I wouldn't mind being a part of the hunt. Why does this have to be taken so personally? Why isn't it okay to disagree without attacking someone for thinking differently. I don't get it. Tally's just trying to get the word out. If the product's really unsafe then you would be thankful for her efforts I'm sure because you're a reasonable, intelligent person. No one is telling you to stop buying the questionable pigments, or anything else. Tally's just communicating information. Unless there's proof she's wrong, why accuse her of anything?

  • Finally, the main reason I posted here is because I didn't want Phyrra to be embarassed because she said the rocks! were eye safe when she had two different ingredient lists. I linked to Phyrra's old list of rocks! shadow ingredients in my makeuptalk post (one of many links proving the ingredient list used to be different).

  • Let's just cut to the chase here, shall we? This is a witch hunt. Pure & Simple. I've spent quite a bit a time reading Tally7's many postings across many forums & message boards on the net about her dealings with Kristen & Aromaleigh. It all repeats the same theme of poor Tally, ad nauseum. And now we have these accusations of Tally7's about improper use of color additives and it's so blatantly obvious that Tally7 has a personal vendetta against Kristen & is going to continue to pursue it by what ever means she feels possible. What makes it quite evident to everyone that this is a personal attack is the fact that I have yet to see another make-up company mentioned, yet I know for a fact that there are three of them out there that use the same exact products in their make-up, but no where are they mentioned in Tally7's diatribe of dastardly deeds. So much for doing your homework, Tally7. If you were soooo concerned about the safety of your fellow bloggers, friends, make-up talk users etc., you would have found the other companies using the same ingredients instead of focusing all your efforts on Kristen, don't you think? Many of us have read your posts, or tried to read them because you ramble on incessantly, repeating yourself, while never making a point, we've also seen or heard about the new forum you are so involved in which is nothing more than an Aromaleigh hate fest. Do you honestly think you have any credibility with many bloggers & forum users at this point? That answer is No! You do not. For the simple fact that the majority of your posts are about your obsessive fixation on Aromaleigh & Kristen. As for as the FDA goes, I take what they say with a grain of salt. That agency is so corrupt & inept that Americans are dying or maimed every year due to their mistakes. Their failures are horrific. Girls who received the HPV vaccination are going blind or have had strokes. (thankfully I refused the vaccination for my daughters), the recalls of Vioxcx, Cylert, Avantia and others.

  • People with Sjogren's Syndrome have problems with their eyes due to the lack of moisture in them, so eye make-up is usually something they avoid. Again, I wore the make-up around my eyes, got some in my eyes & I had NO PROBLEMS!

  • That's really great! But when the FDA says something isn't approved for use around the eyes, it worries me. There are so many things they do allow to be used comercially that aren't really all that safe, that when they actually do say something isn't safe, I worry.

  • But the problem isn't that the colorants aren't safe for use on the skin. They can be used safely on other skin on the face, not just near the eyes. The problem isn't that the colorant is bad for the skin. It's that the colorant could cause problems/damage if it got IN the eye. The inside of your eye IS much different physiologically than the skin surface near your eyes.

  • From my understanding that's not necessarily true. However, until I hear from Aromaleigh, I won't know.

  • AL Blacklight reactive eye shadows totally rock! October 2008 I went to a Rave with Birdie, my service dog, both of us wore AL Blacklight reactive shadows & we received TONS of compliments. I wore them as eye shadow & face paint as well as mixing some into clear polish & painting it on my finger & toe nails. Birdie wore Aromaleigh Rocks Sonics Blacklight reactive shadows as nail polish & we put some into her fur with clear glycerin gel along withAromaleigh Rocks Permafrost glitter. They added glow sticks around her neck & she good to go. For a black dog, she lit up the raised platform on the dance floor. The Jousters said next Rave they have, we need to bring a suit case of Aromaleigh Rocks! Oh, and for the record, I am very very prone to reacting to things I put on my skin due to an auto immune illness I have. I am like the frog in eco system, the first creature to grow a fifth leg or extra eyeballs. So if there was something even remotely irritating or had the potential to cause problems in an AL Blacklight reactive product, it didn't set my unbelievably sensitive skin off. I react to so many common things that you would be hard pressed to convince me that there is something not FDA safe in AL products considering they don't cause a skin reaction, not do they trigger full blown auto-immune responses the that Everyday Minerals Products did. So considering this little frog is happily peeping along looking beautiful in her gorgeous Aromaliegh Black Light Reactive colors & not gobbling up anti-histamines & steroids to do it, I'd say they're pretty damn safe. Besides, I cave some the dermatologist & she loves them.

  • But if she really stopped using those red and orange colorants she wouldn't be able to make the colors that had used them anymore. I don't remember any Rocks! colors being discontinued since last November. Seems like it's still all the same colors just minus the colorants the FDA lists as not for use near the eyes being included in the ingredients list.

  • Things got all out of order with these postings! So I am reposting this where it will make more sense. It is a reconcilliation between the FDA saying the color is not safe for use around eyes, and a hazard rating of 4: Ok, right, I followed your link, and D&C red 22 did have a hazard rating of 1-4 depending on usage, but also it states under “Violations, restrictions & warnings” “Color additive not approved by FDA for cosmetics used around eyes” So possibly, the hazard rating of 4 has to do with using it around eyes (depending on usage) and a hazard rating of 4 is too high for the FDA? Maybe this is some beaurocracy mess? Lols. So who should I believe? The FDA, or the hazard rating of 4 (prob. due to use around the eyes). And why have only the questionable ingredients been removed, like you said, and I add, without warning (yes a poke of mine, that last statement). I could never ask Kristen, so I am glad someone can!

  • Ok, right, I followed your link, and D&C red 22 did have a hazard rating of 1-4 depending on usage, but also it states under “Violations, restrictions & warnings” “Color additive not approved by FDA for cosmetics used around eyes” So possibly, the hazard rating of 4 has to do with using it around eyes (depending on usage) and a hazard rating of 4 is too high for the FDA? Maybe this is some beaurocracy mess? Lols. So who should I believe? The FDA, or the hazard rating of 4 (prob. due to use around the eyes). And why have only the questionable ingredients been removed, like you said, and I add, without warning (yes a poke of mine, that last statement). I could never ask Kristen, so I am glad someone can!

  • I LOVE glow in the dark stuff. I have blacklights, shirts, makeup, nail polish, and I even used to have stars on my ceiling that were glow in the dark.

  • I see what you mean by the list. Like I said below, I'm waiting for a response from Aromaleigh. Once I have that information, I'll update my post. I'm really curious to see why the ingredients changed from ones that are potentially questionable to ones that are clearly safe. As soon as I know I'll update.

  • Thanks so much for all the reasonable responses except one! I am really interested to know what that rating 0-4 is. As of now, coud you please follow my link to see what it means that the colors I list, orange 5, red 22 and red 28, are not permitted for use in the eye area? http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRe… I'd like to reconciliate that with your 0-4 thing. Thank goodness we can have a logical discussion somewhere!

  • Oooh I dont think I own any blacklight reactive stuff, though I was looking at a glow in the dark nail polish just the other day 🙂

  • If you go to the link I gave above and put in the exact ingredient name, it lists a hazard rating. That's how I looked up the ingredients. Right now, I'm waiting to hear back from Aromaleigh with information on when the ingredients changed and why. Once I have that information I will update my post.

  • Thanks so much! Can you tell me where you found this and what these ratings mean? I am particularly intereted in orange 5, orange 22, and orange 28, since those were the ones listed by the FDA as not eye safe: This is my source of information, Phyrra: http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRe… What is yours? I'd like to know why my link says they aren't safe but your's does. I am fact driven. If I hear a rumour that could be hazardous to customers, then by all means I will follow up on it. If it turns out that based on facts, these ingredients are safe, then I'll remove my makeuptalk post, simple as that. Logical and worried for consumer and my own health is how I'd describe myself at this moment. I mean, yes, I'd rather not through away my black light AL shadows, obviously, but right now, I am scared.

  • Yes, I did. I've sent an email to Aromaleigh asking about the change. I'll be posting the response I get here.

  • This comment isn't random b.c. Phrrya expressed her belief that aromaleigh's rocks! shadows are eye safe at the exact time I posted on makeuptalk that I believe that they might not be. This is not trolling. This is getting to the bottom of an issue. Maybe you should stop overreacting and start thinking of people's safety. Seriously, I know you from makeuptalk, and troll is your favorite word, so I am dismissing you.

  • Jen, I am only stating facts. If stating facts for people's safety is a troll, them I am glad to be one.

  • Phyrra, your post here from November 27, 2009, shows the not-safe-for-eyes colorants in the Rocks! eye shadows: http://frescophyrra.blogspot.com/2009/11/aromalei… Rocks! Sonic Eye Shadow This is an 80 color collection of mattes, shimmers, glows and sparkling shade. They're quite simply amazing. It's $6.50 for 1.2 gm net weight. Ingredients: mica(CI 77019), titanium dioxide(CI 77891), iron oxides(CI 77491, CI 77492, CI 77499). May contain polyester-3, D&C yellow 5 and 11, D&C orange 5, D&C violet 2, D&C blue 1, D&C red 22, 28 and 40, calcium sodium borosilicate, ferric ferrocyanide (CI 77510), tin oxide (CI 77861). Did you copy/paste that info straight from the AL website? Seems like typing all those lists would have taken a very long time. Seems to make more sense they were copied/pasted. So the list with not-safe colors could have been current on the AL website in November 2009.

  • I sent an email asking. My assumption is that the ingredients changed on the website and the formula changed for the products. I'm also guessing that since the line is undergoing a revamp it's because there are all kinds of new ingredients available that weren't available when the line first came out.

  • Aww thank you! Yes, I love the blacklight stuff, even if lately all I've done is play with poi 😉

  • When I looked up the old ingredients here is what I found: D&C yellow 11 – rated 0 to 4 D&C orange 5 – rated 1 to 4 D&C violet 2 – rated 2 to 5 D&C red 22 – rated 4 D&C red 28 – rated 2 to 4 D&C red 40 – rated 0 So none of these are particularly bad. I'm trying to find out when the ingredients changed.

  • OMG, really? You? Why don't you troll your nasty attitude someplace else. How does a post about blacklight and UV makeup and looks warrant a random comment from you about something totally different? You realize people who read your comments all over the place just think your a bitter wack-job, right? Sorry to have to tell you that, btw.

  • Love your article (and your boobz). I personally love wearing blacklight reactive stuff, although I don't go out as much as I used to. They're awfully fun to wear, and I'm surprised more companies don't make them.

  • I heard some rumors, and did some research of my own. Try googling aromaleigh “D&C red 22”

  • The aromaleigh rocks! eyeshadow ingredient list has changed. It used to contain D&C red 22, 28, and D&C orange 5. These are not approved for use on the eyes. Check out your aromaleigh in-depth review. You list different ingredients.

  • Ooh sounds lovely! I really love all the glow in the dark. I didn't mention here, but I also love glow in the dark body paint.I've had some really cool things painted on me.

  • The only glow stuff/uv reactive stuff I have are the balls in mah face! (teeheee, my monroe balls) I don't wear them much because they are a gauge bigger and it hurts popping them in and out again 🙁 Oh, and my AL rocks. I wore them glowbowling! Of course I couldn't see how awesome it was but my friend said it was lol

Comments are closed.