MAHA influencer demands stricter safety standards for US cosmetics
As the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement gains momentum, U.S.-made products are getting closer attention.
In an on-camera interview with Fox News Digital, TV personality and clean beauty brand owner Emily Austin expressed her excitement about the push for change.
Austin, who is the CEO of People's Beauty in New York City, noted that her skincare brand is made with "clean ingredients," with no parabens, sulphates, phthalates, silicone, dyes or fragrances.
The People's Beauty website states that its products are formulated to "EU cosmetics standards (the highest standard in the world), banning over 1,300 toxins."
"But how sad is it that we have to fit another country's health standards?" Austin questioned during the interview.
"I would love our website to say, 'We meet the U.S. health standard – because America has higher standards for their consumers."
Austin said she considers it "pathetic" that the U.S. "brags" about meeting Europe's standards of safety.
"It should be all across the globe," she added. "But especially a country like the U.S., where everyone has eyes on [us] – I think it's a shame."
As the Mediterranean diet has been widely dubbed one of the healthiest ways to eat, Austin suggested that the U.S. should take a page out of Europe's book when it comes to food as well as cosmetics.
Austin said she is optimistic that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — leader of the MAHA movement — will tackle preservatives and pesticide use in the U.S. food supply.
"Why are we eating poison, and then questioning why so many Americans are sick?" she said. "Too many people are focused on the cure and not on preventative care."
For cosmetics, Austin challenged the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban the same toxins as the EU — especially offenders like parabens, also known as preservatives, which have been linked to endocrine issues.
For women, this may manifest as reproductive complications or hormone disruptions that could lead to cancer, according to Austin.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
"Just because [some companies are] legally allowed to have parabens to a certain extent, doesn't mean they should," she said.
"Yes, it's better for the companies, of course — your products don't expire — but at whose expense?" she went on. "It's at the consumer's health expense."
To consumers, Austin recommends sticking with ingredients that come from nature and steering clear of plastics in exfoliating products and chemical-based oils.
"Nature provides you with every single alternative that you need for cosmetics," she said.
"I really don't think there's a good excuse anymore to use chemicals. Maybe it's a lot cheaper, but nature always has the same solution."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump gives his thoughts on Elon Musk amid clash on bill President Donald Trump responded to Elon Musk's criticism of his "big, beautiful bill" with disappointment as Musk responded on X. A centerpiece of Donald Trump's tax bill would make millions of Medicaid recipients work, volunteer or study to maintain their publicly-financed health insurance. Republicans say the work requirement is vital to protect taxpayers while motivating nondisabled Medicaid recipients to take charge of their physical and fiscal health. Dr. Mehmet Oz challenged this population to "prove that you matter." But health advocacy groups and analysts say most recipients already work in jobs that don't provide affordable health insurance or pay enough for people to afford their own insurance. They say mandating a Medicaid work requirement − combined with more frequent eligibility checks − would create an administrative nightmare that drops coverage for many who qualify for the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled residents. What is Medicaid churn? Medicaid rolls vary from month to month as people lose eligibility due to a new job, a raise or other income source that disqualifies them for coverage. A job loss or change in life circumstances could make someone newly eligible. The constant change of Medicaid rolls is what health policy experts call churn. A person who temporarily loses coverage due to a paperwork issue or mistake then must again sign up. "Churn is what happens when these eligibility systems become difficult to navigate," said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the program on Medicaid and the uninsured for KFF, a health policy nonprofit. The federal government requires state Medicaid programs to check enrollees eligibility once a year. The Trump tax cut legislation would mandate states double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states would have the added duty of verifying a person's employment or exemption status. The legislation, which passed the House and awaits Senate approval, mandates Medicaid recipients who are "able-bodied" adults without children work 80 hours per month or qualify for an exemption such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The bill defines able-bodied as people who are not medically certified as physically or unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs. Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks due to administrative miscues. "People are going to have to document work status or exemption status multiple times a year, and at each point there's a risk that someone who is eligible could lose coverage," Tolbert said. Thousands lost coverage under Arkansas work requirement During the first Trump administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave states the option of implementing a work requirement for nondisabled adults on Medicaid. Arkansas' work requirement cut more than 18,000 residents from Medicaid within the first seven months of the program. People were removed often because people were unaware of paperwork requirements to keep their coverage, research shows and analysts said. In April, a study by researchers from the Urban Institute and Loyola University Chicago found the Arkansas uninsured rate jumped 7.4 percentage points among low-income adults age 30 to 49 after the state's work requirement began. The policy's impact on employment among that age group was "negative, small and statistically insignificant," the study said. Arkansas adults who didn't have access to the internet at home were disproportionately harmed by the policy, a sign adults might've had trouble accessing the state's online portal to report work histories or exemptions, the Urban Institute said. If the work requirement for Medicaid recipients is adopted nationwide, health experts say millions of working poor Americans will inevitably lose coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 10.9 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage through 2034 under the legislation. Most would lose coverage due to the Medicaid work requirement and the twice-a-year eligibility checks, but about 3.1 million would become uninsured from tweaks to Affordable Care Act enrollment, according to a KFF analysis. The ranks of the uninsured could grow larger if Congress doesn't extend the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made ACA plans more affordable for consumers. If the tax credits expire and Congress passes the current version of the Trump tax bill, as many as 16 million Americans would lose coverage , according to CBO. "Coverage loss from work requirements should actually be very small," said Kathy Hempstead, a senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "But we anticipate it will be very large, because people will not be able to comply with the requirements and will lose their coverage." Dr. Oz: Medicaid spending is 'crippling the system' The Trump administration's top Medicaid official has defended the House legislation as a necessary step to slow spending for the federal health program that covers nearly 80 million low-income and disabled Americans. In a June 4 interview with Fox Business, Dr. Oz challenged Medicaid recipients who would face work requirements should "prove that you matter." Oz, the Trump-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the work requirement asks "able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or volunteer or take care of a loved one who needs help or go back into school. Do something to show you have agency over your future." In a Fox News interview posted on the social media site X, Oz said Medicaid spending has surged 50% since 2019, a pace that is "crippling the system." However, some Republicans have pushed back on the proposed cuts. In a May opinion piece in the New York Times, Sen. Josh Hawley, R- Missouri, said "slashing health insurance for the working poor" is "morally wrong and politically suicidal." Survey: Americans worried about Medicaid cuts The public is paying attention to the proposed Medicaid cuts. Slightly more than half of adults said they're worried significant cuts in Medicaid spending would negatively affect their family's ability to obtain and afford health care, according to a KFF health tracking poll released June 6. The survey this survey of 2,539 U.S. adults was conducted online and by telephone over three weeks in May. The survey said nearly 6 in 10 adults said the Trump administration's policies would weaken Medicaid, but there is a stark divide based on party affiliation. Nine in 10 Democrats but just 2 in 10 Republicans expect the administration's policies would weaken Medicaid. Republicans also were far more likely than Democrats to say that the Trump's policies would strengthen Medicaid. Still, while the survey suggests people are tracking the news, many likely wouldn't know whether their coverage has changed until they try to get medical care. "People don't often know that they've lost coverage until they try and fill a prescription or see a doctor," Tolbert said.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Americans Are Suffering From 'Time Poverty'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. With labor market uncertainty, jobs rewarding employees for "going the extra mile" and competing responsibilities inside and outside the workplace, a growing number of Americans are suffering from what experts refer to as "time poverty." The term has been increasingly adopted by psychologists to denote the chronic imbalance between the time a person requires and that which their work life allows them. A new survey by wellness firm Wondr Health revealed the extent of the issue, finding that the majority (62 percent) of U.S. workers do not take their allotted time off because of the internalized pressures of work and let about one-third of their annual vacation days go unspent. "No one is harder on most of us than ourselves and it leads to time poverty, a condition where we simply do not have enough time for a meaningful work-life balance," said Dr. Tim Church, chief medical officer at Wondr Health. "This is a wakeup call for employees and their employers. It's time to rethink workplace culture." A growing number of Americans are suffering from what experts refer to as "time poverty." A growing number of Americans are suffering from what experts refer to as "time poverty." Annie Ng/AP Illustration David Ballard, vice president of One Mind at Work, a company focused on mental health solutions for the workplace, said: "Some work cultures actually discourage taking time off, reward overworking, and position stress and being on 24/7 as a badge of honor. "In this type of environment, employees may avoid taking time off because they would feel guilty or worry they would be seen unfavorably or be penalized if they did." Ron Goetzel, senior scientist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and an expert in employee well-being, told Newsweek that the issue of time poverty "takes a toll on individuals, businesses and the larger society." "Although all of us are given 24 hours in a day, people feel they need to cram in as much activity into that time as possible—without sitting back and asking whether the activity enhances their quality of life, happiness and a sense of accomplishment, or not." The mental health implications have already become clear. According to a 2020 study, time poverty is linked to lower mental well-being, productivity and even physical health. Researchers also found that "subjective feelings of time poverty had a stronger negative effect on well-being than being unemployed." Despite this, they noted that the issue was one that had long gone underappreciated by either policymakers or employers. This is in spite of the potential deleterious impacts, not just on individuals, but on the businesses themselves. As workplace wellness experts and psychologists told Newsweek, time poverty among workers can mean lower productivity, higher rates of absenteeism or presenteeism—employees being at work but not fully functional—and increased employee turnover. "Employees that don't take time off are at risk for burnout, which is detrimental to both the employee and the business," said Dr. Chloe Carmichael, a clinical psychologist known for her work on anxiety and stress management. "The employees can also become resentful of the employer and less productive." Church added: "It's costly, plain and simple. When employees are burnt out or stressed, productivity and creativity drop. That's lost potential right there." This is indicative of the wider struggles of stress in the workplace, which several studies have linked to employees looking for opportunities elsewhere. "Burnout is a complex, multi-factorial problem, but we know for sure that chronic exposure to work-related stress, without the ability to recover, leads inevitably to mental and emotional exhaustion, detachment and decreased productivity and effectiveness," wellness expert Dr. Susan Biali Haas told Newsweek. Yasemin Besen-Cassino, a sociologist at Montclair State University, said the current climate in the U.S. labor had added to this troubling status quo, which she described as "overwork culture," with mass layoffs and broader economic uncertainty weighing on employees' minds. In addition, she told Newsweek that new technologies permitting workers to be ever-present made many feel they must contribute to work via emails or zoom calls even during off days. She added that many workers choose to use their paid time off to provide child care because of lack of affordable alternatives. "Therefore many workers are not recharging on these days, but rather performing caregiving," she told Newsweek. However, experts pointed to potential remedies—some easy, others not—that could limit the exposure to workplace stress to the benefit of employees and employers. Carmichael suggested that businesses consider mandatory time off, which would "remove the potential for internalized pressure." Author and stress researcher Rebecca Heiss said that taking vacations was far from a panacea for workplace-related stress, as despite a yoga retreat or week away employees will "ultimately will have to return to work and when we do all of those emails and projects are waiting for us and have compounded." Some pointed to the need for allotted "mental health days," as well as the willingness of businesses to invest in employee wellness programs and foster open communication with their workforces. Others advocated a wider cultural shift that would need to take place. "It's important to create a culture where taking a vacation is normalized and encouraged so that workers can fully recharge," Besen-Cassino said. "Shifting workplace culture can ensure workers can take vacations and are healthier and more productive in the long run." While employers might be reticent, Church said it is in their interest to consider the stress on their workers. "Maybe most importantly, businesses risk losing their best people," he said. "If the culture doesn't support rest and wellness, employees look for other places where their well-being is valued. "Addressing burnout and time poverty isn't just about being better employers, it's smart business."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Ax to the vax — RFK Jr. continues on his anti-vaccine warpath
It's time for President Donald Trump, despite his own casual relationship with the truth, to stop putting American lives at risk and get rid of his dangerous quack in chief, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In his latest broadside against science, Kennedy is removing all 17 members of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, the CDC's main advisory body, to ostensibly restore 'public trust above any specific pro- or anti-vaccine agenda.' God protect us, as RFK won't. This is how a society becomes undone. Science and reason get stepped on by half-truths and conspiracy theories. Next comes preventable death and disease. The problem is that there is no anti-vaccine side in the legitimate practice of science and medicine. The department's accompanying press release denigrated 'public health ideology' as if the practice of public health wasn't the CDC's only function. Researchers and doctors should be biased in favor of evidence-based therapeutics that save lives. Railing against bias towards vaccines is like a politician condemning researchers biased in favor of seatbelts in cars or keeping lead out of household paint. It's idiotic. We understand that the Make America Healthy Again movement Kennedy leads is all about questioning medical and nutritional practice. On a really abstract level, we are in agreement that no scientific truisms should be entirely above questioning — such a perspective would be anti-science. But there is a specific and long-standing methodology for actually answering those questions, and it is not debate club or who can most incite crowds of followers. It is the scientific method, under which hypotheses can be rigorously tested in ways that are replicable and based on clear and clearly laid out evidence. In that arena — really the only arena that actually matters when it comes to public health — the safety and efficacy of vaccines has been conclusively established. There is no additional discussion necessary or appropriate, particularly when it comes to immunizations that have now been standard-issue for decades and have by all measures radically decreased illness and mortality where they've been successfully deployed. The measles vaccine will always be better for individuals and public health than getting the measles. The same is true for polio, tetanus, COVID and all else. Preying on public skepticism of the pharmaceutical and health industries to hawk alternative approaches that are often unregulated and don't work is damaging it enough. Yet a true believer like RFK is more dangerous, especially now that he stands at the pinnacle of our nation's public health bureaucracy, a position that allows him to substantively impose his own anti-science view on an unsuspecting public and take the choice away from the American people. If RFK's new picks for ACIP — which the secretary falsely promised Sen. Bill Cassidy he wouldn't touch during his confirmation process — step back from recommending various crucial vaccines, this could substantially prevent even those who want to make the informed decision to receive inoculations or have their children vaccinated from being able to do so. As much as Kennedy and his followers emphasize the need for people to be able to make individual choices about their health, they seem hell-bent on taking that choice away entirely, especially given that insurance is not required to cover vaccines that are not CDC-recommended. We wonder what RFK will have to say for himself as once-eradicated diseases begin cutting through the U.S. population again. Is there anything that will get him to veer off this disastrous course? If the answer is no, and we suspect it is, then he must be removed before he can further damage public health. _____
