Need your Mary Kay links and sources

[IfMamaAintHappy]

I am deep in discussion with people at Medical Relations at Mary Kay about any former use of human foreskins or testing on them in the past or currently.

Please please please, if you have a link or a source to share about where you have read that Mary Kay has used or currently uses foreskins or cell line derivatives, please post it here.

I first called this morning and Medical Relations says they absolutely do not test any product on human foreskin, and that they have heard this rumor circulating before. The worker I spoke to at Medical Relations also said that she was not sure she had that in writing, as it was such an obscure thing.

She said that they test products on skin, by way of using the reps and directors as a test market.

If you have specific questions you want me to ask medical relations, I will make a nuisance of myself to get to the bottom of this.

The most compelling info I have read online has been from THIS site right here. The rest are links to obscure places that are not reputable sources. I'd love to read the link about the person on the advisory board at John's Hopkins, but I can't pull up that paragraph, just able to see that the person that supposedly made one statement about it is in fact on the advisory board.

Thanks. Just trying to work the problem here.

[Frankly Speaking]

I doubt you are going to find anything. Mary Kay has been alerted to this controversy and any evidence would be carefully hidden. I don't believe foreskin derivatives have been used in the actual product but testing is another question. They don't have to list how they tested on the product label like they do with ingredients. It took almost 40 years for the information that the tobacco industry was controling the nicotine content of their products to make them addictive to become public because access to this documentation was carefully hidden. If MK has used human foreskins in testing, I think the information will have to eventually come from an insider who has an axe to grind.



Frank

[be11ydancer]

Have you already done a search of this site to see where it has been discussed? Perhaps people who first brought up the rumor can be PM'd and asked where they heard it.

FWIW, I used to be a consultant. I don't think any of their consultants would know, although there are some higher level sales managers (pink Cadillac types) that might know but would never divulge that kind of info. They all worship Mary Kay Ashe like she's some kind of Saint and I seriously doubt that anyone would speak badly of anything MK related.

I asked my consultant about this once and she said she's heard the same rumor at a sales meeting but no one really had any info. I'm not planning on buying anymore from her. If the rumor becomes proven, I'm throwing out all my stuff and will encourage others to do the same.

I would suspect that if MK did this, Clinique, Lancome, and other upscale cosmetics and skin care companies probably do too. This product absolutely uses foreskins as an INGREDIENT, a rep for them said so on Oprah: http://www.skinmedica.com/smproducts...overy_Complex®.

I hope some of this info is helpful to you.

[IfMamaAintHappy]

still hoping for sources and links.

Until then, as far as I'm concerned, it is an urban legend, and it offends me that people are allowed to trash my business all over this website (in more forums than this one) by making huge massive unsubstantiated claims.

It is in fact a horrific idea. And until someone can prove that the Timewise complex is made from groundup foreskin or that there are vials of foreskin tissue in the MK headquarter labs in Dallas to be used for testing products, I'd appreciate it if people just quit dragging it through the mud.

I mean, you're just gonna tell me I am naive and that MK HQ is lying, that its a big cover up.... because now that people have latched onto the idea that someone said MK uses foreskins, and said it on Mothering, it must be true, because women on mothering know the truth about all things terrible and horrific concerning business practices of large companies. I mean, they said stuff about fast food and there it is in the book Fast Food Nation, after all. And the stuff in Milk Money and Madness. If all those disgusting things are true, then Mary Kay and all the big companies must use foreskins in production and/or testing because this one flake small potatoes company said they used in their anti aging stuff on Oprah.

Really, people. Give me some links. I would be THRILLED to get to the bottom of this. Because Im disgusted at the trashing of my job on this subject.

[be11ydancer]

I am searching and searching right now. I've found some people's web pages that state the same theory and I've emailed them to ask what their sources were on it. I'm waiting for 3 responses so when I get them, I will let you know what they said.

ETA - O.K. So I'm doing a google search and found something that is very confusing to read but what it looks like is some kind of research or experiment done using foreskin to test on. The Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation helped fund the study. If anyone can decipher this, it might be helpful.

http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2002/volume.../1137-1143.pdf

Here's something from the Society of Cosmetic Chemists:
"The Student Poster Showcase is held annually to promote student research in the Cosmetic Industry.....Second Place was awarded to Radhika Utturkar, University of Cincinnati College of Pharmacy, for her poster entitled "Measurement of Natural Moisturizing Factors (NMF) in Neonatal Infant Foreskin and Vernix Caseosas". If you look at their contributors, Mary Kay Inc. is one of them.
http://www.scconline.org/members/newsletter.shtml

Maybe these links are just shots in the dark. What do yall think?

[Nathan1097]

Second Place was awarded to Radhika Utturkar, University of Cincinnati College of Pharmacy, for her poster entitled "Measurement of Natural Moisturizing Factors (NMF) in Neonatal Infant Foreskin and Vernix Caseosas". If you look at their contributors, Mary Kay Inc. is one of them.

Speaking of "cheesey substances"... :LOL Vernix caseosa, huh? Gosh... I could've sold it! My kids all had tons of it!

[A&A]

Enough proof for me:

On the advisory board of the John Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing:
Y.H. Laurie Pan, PhD, DABT (Mary Kay, Inc.)
http://caat.jhsph.edu/about-us/board.htm

Do a search for the word "foreskin"


http://caat.jhsph.edu/

[A&A]

Which leads me to believe that it's an industry-wide problem, similar to animal testing.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by ging-ging

If you have specific questions you want me to ask medical relations, I will make a nuisance of myself to get to the bottom of this.

Ask them if they test on human fibroblasts, and, if so, from what those human fibroblasts are derived.

[Sarah]

Thank you Jenni for looking into this!

Love Sarah

[karlatrx]

Testskin

I knew that foreskin was used for testing but I hadn't heard of the MaryKay connection before. I enjoy researching so I took a look around.

Several companies are pursuing skin replacement, both for in vitro
toxicology testing and, farther down the line, as graft material for burn
patients. The human cells in the Skin2 Dermal Model, from the La Jolla,
Calif.-based Marrow-Tech Inc., come from the dermis of a newborn's foreskin
tissue discarded after circumcision, seeded onto inert medical-grade nylon
mesh. Here, the cells divide and metabolize, secreting a collagen matrix
and growth factors, as they normally would. The Skin2 "Full-Thickness"
model caps the dermis with an epidermis. The company's next product will be
a stratum corneum (skin surface) model, which mimics the lipid barrier
function of skin and is expected to be useful for evaluating penetration of
skin-care products.

Organogenesis Inc. of Cambridge, Mass., uses a variation on the foreskin
theme for its Testskin by seeding human foreskin tissue into a bovine
collagen gel. Nutrients are added, the cells secrete collagen and growth
factors, and an epidermal layer is placed on top. Manufacturers now using
Testskin include Est'e Lauder Inc., Mary Kay Cosmetics Inc., Avon Products
Inc., and Amway Corp. Next from Organogenesis will be a skin model
containing pigment-producing melanocytes useful for testing sunscreens and
makeup for dark-complexioned people, says John Burger, director of investor
relations for the company.

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1991/...ar_910722.html

Here's some info on Testskin

TESTSKIN II is a living skin equivalent model that is comprised of fibroblasts and keratinocytes (derived from human neonatal foreskin)

http://www.organogenesis.com/product...n/physical.asp

Here's a quote from Discover Magazine from 1991.

“Organogenesis, a biotech firm in Massachusetts, has come up with a safe and cruelty-free alternative for these tests [cosmetic tests on animals]: a lab-grown piece of human skin... Testskin is already being used by laboratories at Helene Curtis, Estee Lauder, and Mary Kay Cosmetics.”
Discover Magazine, August, 1991

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/...xperiment.html

So Testskin is made from foreskins and apparently MaryKay has used it in the past. Do they still use it?

Cell culture, retroviral infection and PD determination. BJ
foreskin fibroblasts were cultured in DMEM (Gibco-BRL)
with Medium 199 (Gibco-BRL) at a 4:1 ratio with 10% Cosmic
Calf Serum (HyClone Laboratories, Inc.) and gentamicin
(Gibco-BRL), and incubated in 5% CO2. Cells were retrovirally
infected with either pBABE-hTERT, pBABE-hTERT-HA3
(triple hemaglutinin tagged at the C-terminus of hTERT, which
renders the protein unable to act at the telomere despite having
telomerase activity) (15), or vector only (pBABEpuro). As
controls for evaluating p53-mediated DNA damage response
and for rescuing aged cells from senescence,

We are grateful to Dr John P. Wise and coworkers (Yale
University, New Haven, CT) for assisting with the colonyforming
efficiency assays conducted in low oxygen. Funding
for this study was provided by the Jeffress Memorial Trust, The
Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation, and the V Foundation.

http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2002/volume.../1137-1143.pdf
This in English seems to be saying that they took foreskin cells (a fibroblast is a type of cell) did a bunch of technical stuff to it and are using it to test anti-aging products. Mary Kay Ash Foundation is listed as one of three companies paying for the study. It appears to be dated in 2002.

[be11ydancer]

I'm trying my best to do thorough research and keep everyone infomed of what I find. I hope you all will do the same.

So I emailed the owner of this site and asked her what her sources were. This is part of the reply that I received back:

"... It was mothering.com that I first heard of foreskins being used...that lead me to do more research, which lead me to these sites and others...
http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm
http://www.gettingit.com/article/200
The information I was finding lead me to dig even furthur and see if they are correct... I don't have the information saved...BUT, I will find it again...

How I searched was:
~ emailing the companies and asking them if they used human infant foreskins OR skin cultures/grafts...
~Asked from which companies the skin came...
~searched those companies and discovered those companies DID use human infant foreskins as well as bovine foreskin... Research the actual companies that make this skin FOR other companies to use, kwim?
They can claim that they don't technically test on the actually foreskin necessarily...BUT, cultures/skin grafts made from this "pure skin" is, IMO, the same thing, kwim? Do a search on the benefits of foreskin skin cultures, grafting, tissue engineering, helping burn victims with infant foreskin, etc., and you will come up with all sorts of "technical terms" for "testing on foreskin"....
So, although a company may say, "We don't test on infant foreskin" it may very turn out that the skin grafts they do test on where made FROM infant foreskin..."

So that's what I learned so far. That combined with the links from A&A and the links I provided in my previous post, I think it's safe to say that this is widely practiced by many cosmetic and personal care companies.

Ging-ging, I hope that some of this aides you in your search for solid proof. Perhaps when you are communicating with MK medical, you can ask if they use the various tissues or if they have used products purchased from any of the tissue science corporations.

[Frankly Speaking]

Early in the afternoon, I wrote a post that urged caution in judging Mary Kay on this issue. At that time, sufficient information had not been presented to assign guilt. I hit the "Submit Reply" button and got a message that the server was busy and my post went into whatever purgatory errant posts go to.

I'm glad it did. I have seen the evidence and now I'm convinced that Mary Kay is guilty and I feel it is appropriate that anyone with an ounce of ethics boycott Mary Kay whether they are a seller or user. Not only have they used fibroblasts in their own laboratories, they have financed the development of the testing products for themselves and other cosmetic companies to use.

Let representatives of Mary Kay come here and defend themselves if they are innocent and tell all you see about this.




Frank

[grisandole]

So, please help me understand in laymans terms. The take foreskin, use some of the cells to grow new "skin" in a petri dish or whatever, and then test the products on the new "skin". So, perhaps MK is saying that they don't test on foreskins because they aren't technically testing *on* the actual foreskin, but on skin derived from foreskin cells. However, if someone were to ask if the skin was derived from foreskin cells, then they should answer "yes" correct?

I love MK. LOVE it. Was considering becoming a consultant. And I am so sad that I will probably never buy it again. If this is all true, I will be writing a letter to the company telling them why I won't buy anymore.

I believe I've asked this in another post, but what are the skincare companies that ABSOLUTELY don't use this unethical, disgusting practice?

Kristi

[Sarah]

bellydancer- I think the site owner you quoted had an inadvertent typo- but just to clarify- it's bovine collagen- not bovine foreskin... as far as I know- Bovines don't have a foreskin.

I think the most insiduous aspect of all of this is that this test product is developed as an alternative to animal testing, so the companies who are going to be more likely to use it are the ones which we usually think of as ethical "good guys" If a produce is labeled as "cruelty free" then we should be extra careful to look into it.

Love Sarah

[be11ydancer]

So now it's time to find reputable makers of good cosmetics and toiletries. I was planning on looking into this place:

http://www.bodyshop.com

They have a store at a mall over here. I know they vehemently oppose animal testing (read that on the PETA site) so I'm curious what their stance is on foreskins. Anyone else have any ideas?

[SharonAnne]

Please don't flame me, as I'm kinda new to the foreskin controversy. But....

If the foreskin has already been amputated (ICK), what's the harm in testing on it? This is an honest question, not trying to start a debate or anything. I really want an answer.

Thanks!

[candiland]

It makes circumcision a profitable business. Also, in order for the foreskin to be tested on, it needs to contain no anesthetic. Which means a baby was sliced, ripped, and torn at for 10 minutes without pain relief.

Right?

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by grisandole

So, please help me understand in laymans terms. The take foreskin, use some of the cells to grow new "skin" in a petri dish or whatever, and then test the products on the new "skin". So, perhaps MK is saying that they don't test on foreskins because they aren't technically testing *on* the actual foreskin, but on skin derived from foreskin cells. However, if someone were to ask if the skin was derived from foreskin cells, then they should answer "yes" correct?

Think of it as making chicken stock where you boil the bones, cartlage and skin and the result is a gelatinous mass that can be stored and re-used later. The end product will have the "essence" of chicken but not all of the product that is not needed or commonly used.

Infant skin is pure and uncontaminated and the DNA is intact. By "cooking it down" they get a pure product that is not contaminated which could affect test results. As mentioned in the research project, new cells will replicate themselves 50 to 90 times. The other 98%-99.9% of the material is where the original cells have reproduced. It is human foreskin structure but not the original foreskin. Using old cells would result in far fewer replications. This pure product has all of the characteristics (essence) of skin. It is spread on a medium with nutrients where it replicates or "grows" into the laboratory equivalent of human skin. Probably the end result is 1/30th or 1/50th actual human cellular structure that was taken from the actual foreskin. The remaining actual foreskins that provided the material is discarded.

If a company that uses these foreskin products were asked if their laboratories use testing materials that contain components of infant foreskins, the truthful answer is "yes." If you ask if they test on foreskins, the truthful although deceitful answer would be "no" because they are not testing on the actual foreskin but instead, components of actual foreskins. It's a matter of semantics.

From an ethical and human rights standpoint, there is really no difference. The begining point is that a man loses a significant part of his sexuality and his civil and human rights are severely violated.




Frank

[karlatrx]

Originally Posted by SharonAnne

Please don't flame me, as I'm kinda new to the foreskin controversy. But....

If the foreskin has already been amputated (ICK), what's the harm in testing on it? This is an honest question, not trying to start a debate or anything. I really want an answer.

Thanks!

That's a good question, I didn't understand the problem when I first heard about it either. My first reaction was that if it was already off what difference does it make what they do with it. It might even seem better then wasting it.

To go along with what Sarah said. The Dr makes money from removing the foreskin, then he (or the hospital) makes money from selling it, then some pharmeceutical(sp?) company makes money from creating a testing product that they sell to cosmetics company who then makes money from selling their "cruelty free" cosmetics. If these huge corporations are making money from removing foreskins then it makes it that much harder to put an end to RIC.

It also gives the Dr's an incentive to ignore all the research and tell the parents that babies don't feel pain so they don't use anesthetic. Cruelty free? I don't think so!