Added to that, the reductionist logic upon which the biomedical model is based, which divides the body into disconnected parts to be treated separately by specialists, has a number of problematic effects. Naturally, it promotes the idea of a separation of body and mind, but it has also justified the development of harsh and aggressive medical procedures and products for individual body parts, without consideration of effects on the rest of the body. Ever notice how so many of those drug commercials on TV list a disproportionate amount of risks compared to the actual benefits of taking the drug? No one can argue that medicine has saved many lives and contributed to the advancement of society, but many people fail to see, or simply ignore, the underlying monetary motivations. The result is the widespread acceptance that Western medicine is the only appropriate approach to healing.

Our fabricated dependence upon marketed allopathic sources of healing is problematic because it ties us to the medical industry, often stripping us of the ability to make decisions about our bodies and to be the primary source of our own well-being. To put it crudely, this is a type of social control. Certainly, for some health issues medical intervention is absolutely necessary. But I really believe that if we each take control of our health (by receiving health education and learning to make decisions about our bodies and how to care for and heal our bodies from within as a first resort) we can become less reliant upon the medical industry and avoid turning to it for every somatic and psychic problem that arises. Instead, we can take advantage of medical science to treat only the more serious conditions that actually require aggressive treatments. If we collapse the barriers among mind, body, and culture we can see the multiple causes of illness, and therefore the multiple sources of prevention and recovery. I truly believe that by treating people as an integrated whole and helping them understand the interplay of all fundamental influences (social, psychological, and physical) people will become empowered to take sovereignty over their own health, resulting in better overall community health at a lower cost.

Oh Sarah Haskins, how I love thee!

Like most things, the widespread use of mineral oil seems to be motivated by money. Manufacturers like it because it’s incredibly inexpensive. In fact, I read that it’s actually cheaper to obtain and use mineral oil in cosmetics than it is to properly dispose of it. Mineral oil is indeed very effective in sealing in moisture by forming an oily film over skin to lock in water. The trouble with this is that it traps in toxins and wastes and obstructs normal skin respiration by keeping oxygen out. Interestingly, in our collective and frantic mission to halt aging, a large percentage of the products we use for this purpose are probably actually achieving the opposite result by aging our skin even more than naturally occurs with age.

Politically speaking, the “necessity” for mineral oil in the beauty industry is important because it supports the oil industry, which was clearly a huge influence on many of President Bush’s policies. But with the new administration, perhaps maintenance of the oil industry in spite of it’s negative side effects won’t be such a priority. This already seems to be the case. The Obama administration has already been considering reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which gives the EPA control over the regulation of certain chemicals. Right now, the cosmetic industry is excluded by this act, but that could change given Obama’s desire for increased environmental protections. Including the cosmetic industry under the TSCA could result in stricter regulations regarding environmental reporting and the testing and disposal of harmful chemicals. The cosmetic industry is naturally nervous about these possible changes, because though it is currently required to  test chemicals for human safety, there are no rules about minimizing risks to the environment.

In addition to the industry’s concerns over the effects the TSCA could have on profits,  it’s also been suggested that cosmetic companies should have a mandatory registration with the FDA, which can cost up to $10,000.  These new spotlights on the beauty industry will hopefully lead to a reevaluation of the risks of these chemicals on the human body, as well as on the environment. I would be surprised if there have been any long-term studies regarding the effects of mineral oil on health over time, but it’s obviously important to consider these issues when a huge percentage of the population is using products with mineral oil every day.

Even if the industry doesn’t get more restrictions on the chemicals they use, hopefully word will get around that mineral oil is horrible for our skin. Even knowing this, however, might not change much. I just discovered that my favorite lip ointment – Carmex – has mineral oil, and I still haven’t been able to give it up yet. It’s hard to let go of the products we have become so attached to. In a lot of cases we use them because we’ve been convinced that we need them, but in other cases we actually need them – my lips are really dry! I wish I knew another alternative that didn’t have mineral oil but until I get my act together to find one, I’ll choose comfort over discomfort and stick with my Carmex.

I decided to start this blog because I have become increasingly intrigued by how we relate to our bodies. What do our bodies mean to us? How do our bodies and minds connect? What does the body good? What does the body harm? What do we think about our bodies, and what are the consequences of our perceptions?

I’ll be using this blog to explore these questions, and also to promote a holistic and homeopathic approach to healing our bodies, minds, and spirits. I welcome your comments, questions, and rebuttals. I certainly am no expert, so if you feel you can expand on these topics for us, please do! I’m looking forward to this journey, and hope you will share in it with me