This same thing happened to me with Clinique. And within a week of purchase it started to smell bad. I had my microbiologist mom run a culture on it and the tube was PACKED with staph. They think it was missing a necessary preservative upon manufacture? Blech!! I didn't sue but I did get my money back
When and where was this?
Northern Iowa and a long time ago, like 10ish years?? I just remember it well bc my lips were so itchy and irritated, it was miserable! And dumb me took a week to figure out the "treatment" was making them worse.
So you're saying that if we find out a company is knowingly using a harmful ingredient we should just ignore it because there are people who haven't had any problems?
LOL. Okay.
It will be interesting to see how this case plays out. Like I posted above linalool is used in a lot of products, including those in the UK (I didn't search for any other countries). I guess the lawsuit is just for one flavor though? Is this ingredient in all of their products?
So from a legal perspective when is the burden on the company vs the consumer to avoid certain ingredients that might irritate your well being.
What flavor?
I use them with no issues, but I'm curious if I've used the particular flavor though.
I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here because I don't know all the legalities, but if it's a certain ingredient that's causing the problem (I didn't see it mentioned in the 2 articles I read though), but it's ok by the FDA, should the FDA be more on the hook here?
EOS knowingly used ingredients that harm people? I would definitely want to see the evidence of this before making a claim that it's all the company's fault.
It will be interesting to see how this case plays out. Like I posted above linalool is used in a lot of products, including those in the UK (I didn't search for any other countries). I guess the lawsuit is just for one flavor though? Is this ingredient in all of their products?
So from a legal perspective when is the burden on the company vs the consumer to avoid certain ingredients that might irritate your well being.
What flavor?
I use them with no issues, but I'm curious if I've used the particular flavor though.
So you're saying that if we find out a company is knowingly using a harmful ingredient we should just ignore it because there are people who haven't had any problems?
LOL. Okay.
It will be interesting to see how this case plays out. Like I posted above linalool is used in a lot of products, including those in the UK (I didn't search for any other countries). I guess the lawsuit is just for one flavor though? Is this ingredient in all of their products?
So from a legal perspective when is the burden on the company vs the consumer to avoid certain ingredients that might irritate your well being.
I'm not in the legal field, so I don't know the answer to this.
And I haven't pursued any lawsuits myself, so I can't weigh in from that perspective. I also don't know which products have the ingredients and which don't.
But I'm in full support of lawsuits against companies that make false claims regarding their products or that knowingly use ingredients that cause problems in more than a handful of people.
I mean, people know that cigarettes are harmful and cigarette companies finally have to indicate as such on their packaging (albeit not in as graphic ways here as they do in other countries). But I cheer the fuck on every single person who has ever won a lawsuit against the cigarette companies because they have deliberately created an addictive product that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. I don't give a shit that people know that cigarettes are bad and smoke them anyway. For me, the onus is on the manufacturer.
Now with EOS the product is not fatal, obviously, so we are definitely talking apples and oranges with regard to severity and the number of people affected.
But I still think transparency should be scaled across products. It infuriates me that some large companies make money hand over fist at the expense of their consumers.
I also think the FDA is entirely too lax, but that's an entirely different problem.
I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here because I don't know all the legalities, but if it's a certain ingredient that's causing the problem (I didn't see it mentioned in the 2 articles I read though), but it's ok by the FDA, should the FDA be more on the hook here?
EOS knowingly used ingredients that harm people? I would definitely want to see the evidence of this before making a claim that it's all the company's fault.
The lawsuit is saying that EOS was aware of the problem but did nothing to investigate or to address the issue. After being given notice nothing changed about the way that they make and distribute the product.
It may not be ok with the FDA and it is certainly possible that the FDA is investigating. This lawsuit is a civil case and does not need to tie into anything with the FDA.
Whether or not the ingredients knowingly harmed people or not, they are ingredients that are known to cause the exact issues that the product is marketed to treat. People are buying lip balm for chapped lips that has ingredients which can cause chapped lips.
It will be interesting to see how this case plays out. Like I posted above linalool is used in a lot of products, including those in the UK (I didn't search for any other countries). I guess the lawsuit is just for one flavor though? Is this ingredient in all of their products?
So from a legal perspective when is the burden on the company vs the consumer to avoid certain ingredients that might irritate your well being.
I'm not in the legal field, so I don't know the answer to this.
And I haven't pursued any lawsuits myself, so I can't weigh in from that perspective. I also don't know which products have the ingredients and which don't.
But I'm in full support of lawsuits against companies that make false claims regarding their products or that knowingly use ingredients that cause problems in more than a handful of people.
I mean, people know that cigarettes are harmful and cigarette companies finally have to indicate as such on their packaging (albeit not in as graphic ways here as they do in other countries). But I cheer the fuck on every single person who has ever won a lawsuit against the cigarette companies because they have deliberately created an addictive product that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. I don't give a shit that people know that cigarettes are bad and smoke them anyway. For me, the onus is on the manufacturer.
Now with EOS the product is not fatal, obviously, so we are definitely talking apples and oranges with regard to severity and the number of people affected.
But I still think transparency should be scaled across products. It infuriates me that some large companies make money hand over fist at the expense of their consumers.
I also think the FDA is entirely too lax, but that's an entirely different problem.
Yeah the FDA thing is definitely a different story!
I guess from my brief reading it doesn't seem like the company knowingly used harmful ingredients as the ingredients in the products are very common in a lot of cosmetics in this country and other countries. The FDA says you don't have to put warnings on your products for approved ingredients. I don't think I've seen such warnings on other cosmetics.
I know a few people that are very sensitive to cosmetics with outbreaks and rashes and I'm not sure if they've tracked it down to one specific ingredient, so that's what made me think about whether or not it's the companies fault if someone has an adverse reaction if they are within U.S. regulations and the majority of consumers don't have an adverse reaction.
I was just thinking about the hot coffee and McDonald's lawsuit in regards to McDonald's regularly having their water over the regulation temperature. Now that seems like a clear example of the company not following regulations and knowingly putting people in danger.
I guess we'll see if this turns in to a full class action lawsuit.
I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here because I don't know all the legalities, but if it's a certain ingredient that's causing the problem (I didn't see it mentioned in the 2 articles I read though), but it's ok by the FDA, should the FDA be more on the hook here?
EOS knowingly used ingredients that harm people? I would definitely want to see the evidence of this before making a claim that it's all the company's fault.
The lawsuit is saying that EOS was aware of the problem but did nothing to investigate or to address the issue. After being given notice nothing changed about the way that they make and distribute the product.
It may not be ok with the FDA and it is certainly possible that the FDA is investigating. This lawsuit is a civil case and does not need to tie into anything with the FDA.
Whether or not the ingredients knowingly harmed people or not, they are ingredients that are known to cause the exact issues that the product is marketed to treat. People are buying lip balm for chapped lips that has ingredients which can cause chapped lips.
Ahh ok, I didn't see that part. I saw that EOS said that something like 0.0001 of their sales were complaints, so they didn't think it was a big problem. But maybe their numbers are wrong? There must be something else in the product besides linalool that someone mentioned above that's causing the problem since that's an ingredient in a lot of things including chapstick in this country. Hopefully they'll figure out which ingredient is causing the problem and have a better product.
I feel bad for people that are super sensitive to products as I know how frustrating it can be. I guess I hope that all products clearly list their ingredients so consumers can try to pinpoint which ingredient might be causing them regular sensitivities.
I have this exact reaction when using Burt's Bees and EOS, but my reaction is so much worse with Burts Bees. That stuff makes my lips chap, blister, and then crack and bleed. And this is exactly what it is meant help prevent and/or help
Took months to figure out, but turns out a developed a late in life beeswax allergy (and honey and bee propolis). I'm not suing Burts Bees or anyone because of my allergy.
FFS. Beeswax isn't a known irritant! Just because you have an allergy to something doesn't mean you should sue someone. This isn't the situation with Eos at all.
I find this thread to be an irritant. I'm suing ML.
Post by Queen Mamadala on Jan 15, 2016 17:25:59 GMT -5
I stopped using it for similar reasons. My lips are super sensitive, and they swell and get itchy when I use lip products that contain whatever it is I'm allergic to. I've been dealing with this issue for over a decade now and have gone through so many products, even "natural" and seemingly safe products. I hate it. There are a lot of lip products that I really liked, were pretty expensive, that I had to stop using once my lips started to react.
FFS. Beeswax isn't a known irritant! Just because you have an allergy to something doesn't mean you should sue someone. This isn't the situation with Eos at all.
I find this thread to be an irritant. I'm suing ML.
Actually, it is. My Dermatologist told me that some medical journal he read said somewhere around 4-5% of the population could be allergic and that there are studies now looking into it. Just google "beeswax allergy" and enjoy the pictures and info...
Uh huh. And lots of people are allergic to peanuts, nut products, shellfish, soy... Burt's Bees doesn't "hide" beeswax in their product. It's right there in the name. Eos is using a known irritant that the general public wouldn't typically be aware of or look for. There's a difference between ingredients that are irritants and those that people are allergic to.
Uh huh. And lots of people are allergic to peanuts, nut products, shellfish, soy... Burt's Bees doesn't "hide" beeswax in their product. It's right there in the name. Eos is using a known irritant that the general public wouldn't typically be aware of or look for. There's a difference between ingredients that are irritants and those that people are allergic to.
agree to disagree.
I love this response. It's the one people give when they can't think of anything to further their argument.
Uh huh. And lots of people are allergic to peanuts, nut products, shellfish, soy... Burt's Bees doesn't "hide" beeswax in their product. It's right there in the name. Eos is using a known irritant that the general public wouldn't typically be aware of or look for. There's a difference between ingredients that are irritants and those that people are allergic to.
agree to disagree.
So you feel like it's a-ok for a company to sell a potentially dangerous product without any warning as to that fact?
Actually, it is. My Dermatologist told me that some medical journal he read said somewhere around 4-5% of the population could be allergic and that there are studies now looking into it. Just google "beeswax allergy" and enjoy the pictures and info...
Uh huh. And lots of people are allergic to peanuts, nut products, shellfish, soy... Burt's Bees doesn't "hide" beeswax in their product. It's right there in the name. Eos is using a known irritant that the general public wouldn't typically be aware of or look for. There's a difference between ingredients that are irritants and those that people are allergic to.
Eos also lists all their ingredients. Now if they are hiding an ingredient that is a big problem that I definitely disagree with. I'm still trying to research which ingredients eos uses that aren't in other chapsticks and cosmetics but I can't seem to find an answer via Google.
Uh huh. And lots of people are allergic to peanuts, nut products, shellfish, soy... Burt's Bees doesn't "hide" beeswax in their product. It's right there in the name. Eos is using a known irritant that the general public wouldn't typically be aware of or look for. There's a difference between ingredients that are irritants and those that people are allergic to.
Eos also lists all their ingredients. Now if they are hiding an ingredient that is a big problem that I definitely disagree with. I'm still trying to research which ingredients eos uses that aren't in other chapsticks and cosmetics but I can't seem to find an answer via Google.
I know they list the ingredients. That's why I put hide in quotes. Whether they truly are hiding something, I don't know. The difference is that the majority of the population doesn't know that linalool is a known irritant and can cause blistering, rashes, dry skin, etc. So, I might go look at the ingredients and see that and not think anything of it. They aren't putting a warning on the package and they are promoting the product as something that will help to cure the issues that this irritant causes.
Making a comparison to something like Burt's Bees (which has beeswax in it) or peanut butter (which has peanuts in it) isn't a fair comparison. Those products have the allergy in the name and the substances are natural products that most people understand when they see them on an ingredient list. Irritants and allergies are not the same.
Eos also lists all their ingredients. Now if they are hiding an ingredient that is a big problem that I definitely disagree with. I'm still trying to research which ingredients eos uses that aren't in other chapsticks and cosmetics but I can't seem to find an answer via Google.
I know they list the ingredients. That's why I put hide in quotes. Whether they truly are hiding something, I don't know. The difference is that the majority of the population doesn't know that linalool is a known irritant and can cause blistering, rashes, dry skin, etc. So, I might go look at the ingredients and see that and not think anything of it. They aren't putting a warning on the package and they are promoting the product as something that will help to cure the issues that this irritant causes.
Making a comparison to something like Burt's Bees (which has beeswax in it) or peanut butter (which has peanuts in it) isn't a fair comparison. Those products have the allergy in the name and the substances are natural products that most people understand when they see them on an ingredient list. Irritants and allergies are not the same.
Yeah I definitely wasn't comparing it to Burts Bees or peanut butter at all! Totally different scenario. I was just trying to figure out the ingredients that eos specifically uses that are known to harmful that are different from other products/companies. There are tons of chapsticks and moisturizers in this country and other countries that use linnalol, and maybe the FDA should ban it, but from a legal perspective my questioning is wondering if the burden of proof is always on the company. Like I said previously, I know a few people that have severe reactions to different cosmetics, but not sure if they've been able to pinpoint it to 1 specific ingredient. I wasn't sure if there were other ingredients that the lawsuit has singled out that eos knowingly uses that are harmful as I couldn't find it in the documents I read.
I know they list the ingredients. That's why I put hide in quotes. Whether they truly are hiding something, I don't know. The difference is that the majority of the population doesn't know that linalool is a known irritant and can cause blistering, rashes, dry skin, etc. So, I might go look at the ingredients and see that and not think anything of it. They aren't putting a warning on the package and they are promoting the product as something that will help to cure the issues that this irritant causes.
Making a comparison to something like Burt's Bees (which has beeswax in it) or peanut butter (which has peanuts in it) isn't a fair comparison. Those products have the allergy in the name and the substances are natural products that most people understand when they see them on an ingredient list. Irritants and allergies are not the same.
Yeah I definitely wasn't comparing it to Burts Bees or peanut butter at all! Totally different scenario. I was just trying to figure out the ingredients that eos specifically uses that are known to harmful that are different from other products/companies. There are tons of chapsticks and moisturizers in this country and other countries that use linnalol, and maybe the FDA should ban it, but from a legal perspective my questioning is wondering if the burden of proof is always on the company. Like I said previously, I know a few people that have severe reactions to different cosmetics, but not sure if they've been able to pinpoint it to 1 specific ingredient. I wasn't sure if there were other ingredients that the lawsuit has singled out that eos knowingly uses that are harmful as I couldn't find it in the documents I read.
Yeah, that I don't know. I'm inclined to say yes, but I also think the FDA needs to be much stricter in general. The US allows all kinds of ingredients in food and cosmetics that other countries banned a long time ago. I almost wonder if you couldn't follow something like this up the line and say that the FDA was negligent in not banning the ingredient given the wealth of evidence that it is a known irritant and that other countries have banned it completely. I'm totally talking out of my ass now though.
So you feel like it's a-ok for a company to sell a potentially dangerous product without any warning as to that fact?
Known "irritant" to some people is not the same as calling a product dangerous to me. At all. Again, others here have said they have used the product for years with no negative effects. This isn't me as I do experience irritation. So I don't use it.
I have responded to both posts but will not be back here until my next meetings ends. Neither side here is going to change their opinions here though. I realize that.
Fortunately, neither side here is likely to sit on the jury.
Yeah I definitely wasn't comparing it to Burts Bees or peanut butter at all! Totally different scenario. I was just trying to figure out the ingredients that eos specifically uses that are known to harmful that are different from other products/companies. There are tons of chapsticks and moisturizers in this country and other countries that use linnalol, and maybe the FDA should ban it, but from a legal perspective my questioning is wondering if the burden of proof is always on the company. Like I said previously, I know a few people that have severe reactions to different cosmetics, but not sure if they've been able to pinpoint it to 1 specific ingredient. I wasn't sure if there were other ingredients that the lawsuit has singled out that eos knowingly uses that are harmful as I couldn't find it in the documents I read.
Yeah, that I don't know. I'm inclined to say yes, but I also think the FDA needs to be much stricter in general. The US allows all kinds of ingredients in food and cosmetics that other countries banned a long time ago. I almost wonder if you couldn't follow something like this up the line and say that the FDA was negligent in not banning the ingredient given the wealth of evidence that it is a known irritant and that other countries have banned it completely. I'm totally talking out of my ass now though.
And then the FDA won't approve life saving drugs that are approved in other countries. Follow the money and there is your answer.
I love this response. It's the one people give when they can't think of anything to further their argument.
No, it's a smart response when its apparent that a meeting of the minds is not going to happen. Why continue to go back and forth when neither side is willing to budge on their opinion?