Ruthless Blatantly Lies about Product Safety
I was enjoying the lack of need to update on the Ruthless situation, but this is something that I had decided to speak about as soon as I could confirm it. Around April 10th or 11th, Ruthless left the following comment on my first video calling them out on their shady behavior.
Needless to say, this rang all kinds of warning bells in my head. I managed to acquire the ingredient list (for reference, LadyBurd doesn’t like to give out information when you call them), and it reads as follows.
Ingredients: talc, laureth-4, sorbitan, sesquioleate, lanolin oil, isopropyl palmitate, calcium silicate, sodium dehyroacetate, trisodium EDTA, tocopheryl acetate, methylparaben, propylparaben, ethylparaben. May contain: calcium sodium borosilicate, mica (77019), titanium dioxide (77891), iron oxides (77491, 77492, 77499), bismuth oxychloride (77136), manganese violet (77742), ultramarines (77007), ferric ferrocyanide (77510), blue 1 lake (42090:2), red 7 lake (15850:1), red 28 lake (45410:2), red 40 lake (16035), yellow 5 lake (19140:1), yellow 10 lake (47005:1).
You know what’s coming next: red 7 lake, red 28 lake, and yellow 10 lake are all not approved for eye use. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, but there is no magical base product, additive, foiling medium, or whatever, that will magically make a product okay for an unapproved use.
On an ironic note, see the calcium sodium borosilicate? That would be mineral glitter, and the only glitter listed in the ingredients. It just so happens that, generally, it’s approved for eye use.