What do you guys think of this

[JPG74]

Scientific Review http://www.goodguide.com/products/196167-pinaud-clubman-special-reserve
or this among others http://www.goodguide.com/products/402258-proraso-aftershave-lotion

 

[wsteineker]

I file that under things I don't wanna know. Next someone will be saying that drinking is no good for you !

This just made my day.

 

[Ron Scott]

These guys are owned by Underwriters Labs, a respected not-for-profit with a long history (check your lamps and extension cords...).

I don't fully understand everything they're up to but they appear to be onto something interesting.

I would not discount them automatically.

 

[Porp]

Lol, proplyne glycol? That stuff is in everything. I think I'll place an order for some more Poraso and Pinaud products right now. People are such worrisome, frantic hypochondriacs these days. WCS order incoming.

 

[Rockminer]

Forgive my ignorance, but what am I looking at here? I click on the links and get some vague numbers with no explanation. Is there something else I should click?

 

[Porp]

Bring it on!

 

[luvmysuper]

When Burts Bees Shaving Soap has their highest rating and is on page 1 that kinda tells me all I want to know.

 

[Mick]

If it smells good.... DO IT!!!!

 

[luvmysuper]

These guys are owned by Underwriters Labs, a respected not-for-profit with a long history (check your lamps and extension cords...).

I don't fully understand everything they're up to but they appear to be onto something interesting.

I would not discount them automatically.

Underwriters Laboratories is a privately owned company. While they have a Non-profit arm, it was an independent Business Division that acquired GoodGuide.
UL earned nearly 2 Billion dollars in profits in 2011, the latest year I can find data.

GoodGuide has several Venture Capital Funds that have invested in them as a revenue source, and it appears that UL is thinking along the same lines.

 

[Porp]

Underwriters Laboratories is a privately owned company. While they have a Non-profit arm, it was an independent Business Division that acquired GoodGuide.
UL earned nearly 2 Billion dollars in profits in 2011, the latest year I can find data.

GoodGuide has several Venture Capital Funds that have invested in them as a revenue source, and it appears that UL is thinking along the same lines.

Phil, you rock.

 

[Myosin]

I like how all the major brands such as Nivea, Gillette, Burts, and Neutorgena are the top rated, but all the drug store brands are just given zeros with no explanation

 

[oldbluelight]

Oh goody! Someone who can tell me what's the right thing to do. I won't have to think about it. I can just trust this wonderful source that appeared suddenly on my computer to have my best interests at heart. I can be cofident that they have no hidden agenda because they couldn't have a website with the word 'good' in the title if that were so. I can be fully confident that all their assesments are based on peer reviewed science. By the way I'm sitting here 'smoking' propylene glycol but don't tell those nice folks at goodguide. I'll probably ingest it in one or more prepared foods today, too. It never ceases to amaze me the number of full grown adults needing to find permission and approval for their actions.

 

[Ron Scott]

Underwriters Laboratories is a privately owned company. While they have a Non-profit arm, it was an independent Business Division that acquired GoodGuide.
UL earned nearly 2 Billion dollars in profits in 2011, the latest year I can find data.

GoodGuide has several Venture Capital Funds that have invested in them as a revenue source, and it appears that UL is thinking along the same lines.

Still no motivation to BS the ratings that I can see. To make money they'd need to be providing a valuable service, no? Why such dislike of a ratings website?

 

[Rockminer]

I still don't see anything other than some vague rating. Zero explanation as to how the rating was acquired and absolutely zero scientific data to back it up. Every Pinaud AS product has the same rating. Just because a product has an ingredient in it doesn't mean it's lethal.

This reminds me of the Dr. Oz arsenic in apple juice scare.

 

[oldbluelight]

Still no motivation to BS the ratings that I can see. To make money they'd need to be providing a valuable service, no? Why such dislike of a ratings website?

Ron, I don't dislike the website per se. What I question is its liberal use of the term "Scientific Rating". By and large their categories seem to be based on popular phrases instead of quantifiable and objective criteria. For example they critique Pinaud's listing of ingredients but they do not cite a specific instance of the company's violation of any statute or regulation pertaining to the labling of their product. Quote from their explanation, "
However, there is no current regulatory requirement that companies disclose full ingredients lists for household chemical products (in contrast with personal care products, where disclosure is required). To create an incentive for disclosure, GoodGuide caps a product’s score if it lacks complete ingredient data or lists generic names that do not support chemical-specific evaluations." Note the phrase I've highlighted. It indicates their evaluation has an agenda. Science with an agenda isn't science. It's propaganda. Case in point, the 'science' of eugenics that proved over and over again just about anything Josef Goebbles wished to assert. There are many other examples of this as you go through the criteria. Slapping down the word 'scientific' and expressing their evaluations with numbers and avoiding any sort of repeatable, quantifable data leads me to give the site a Scientific Rating of 0.005 and a Grain of Salt Rating of 100 out of a possible 100.

 

[ZJ68]

They really slam Pinaud for their environmental and social policies without giving a single detail to support their rating, as far as I can tell. I don't see that this database serves any useful purpose.

 

[rushchairman]

Makes me feel better about my quasi-obsession with the Aubrey Organics line, but then, i already felt pretty good about it.

 

[Larry C in Texas]

Just another answer to a question I didn't ask and don't give the furry crack of a tiny rat's behind about.

 

[Tulse]

They really slam Pinaud for their environmental and social policies without giving a single detail to support their rating, as far as I can tell. I don't see that this database serves any useful purpose.

Yes, not a word as to why. Site is silly. It's a marketing and sales tool.

As far as ingredients in products, NCBI's database is a massively better resource than any of the pedestrian, scare tactics, marketing sites:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

 

[Useless shaver]

Next someone will be saying that drinking is no good for you !