Kourtney Kardashian lobbies Congress for cosmetic reform

Embed from Getty Images

This might sound like the premise for a terrible straight-to-DVD movie, but it’s true. Kourtney Kardashian headed to Washington D.C. to speak out for cosmetic formulation reform. According to The Hill, the 39-year-old mother of three joined Rep, Frank Pauline Jr.of New Jersey and Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in a hearing on Tuesday asking for a much-needed update in the national laws that regulate the production of cosmetics.

According to Rep. Pauline, who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, current FDA regulations on cosmetics are “obsolete,” having been enacted under the original Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. He says that this is “unacceptable” and that legislation is needed “to ensure cosmetics are safe for the American people.”

TMZ caught the 39-year-old mother of three making her way though the halls of the Capitol, and, in true Kardashian fashion, she stopped to take a selfie with a fan. NBC Washington reporter Jennifer Vasquez tweeted some photos from the hearing, including the throng of eager fans and onlookers also hoping to get a pic with the reality personality.

The timing on this hearing is slightly curious, as Tuesday marked the launch of a brand new makeup collaboration between Kourtney and her makeup maven younger sister, Kylie Jenner. Three eyeshadow quads and three lip colors were released with names taken from Kourt’s vocabulary, including Poosh and Slob Kabob.

Kourtney is a big proponent of living the healthy life, so I’m curious to see if she practices what she preaches with her new makeup collection. But, heading to D.C. to talk cosmetics certainly can be viewed as a Kardashian-level publicity stunt, not that these women need any help selling anything to their fans. I’ll stick with my NYX.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Kourtney Kardashian arriving to her 'Pretty Little Things' Event Party

Kourtney Kardashian for PrettyLittleThing

Photos: Getty Images, WENN.com

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

89 Responses to “Kourtney Kardashian lobbies Congress for cosmetic reform”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lenn says:

    Talking doesn’t seem to be one of her strenghts.

    • darkladi says:

      I was embarrassed for her

    • naomipaige says:

      The fact that this whole family is allowed to all of these events is even scarier. WTF cares what this chick has to say??? Certainly not me.

    • Deanne says:

      She’s a 39 year old woman and says “like” constantly when she speaks. That entire family are so inarticulate. It was embarrassing to watch.

      • Anna says:

        I can’t watch it. I opted for watching the paint dry in my bathroom. I did tune in several years ago to their show on a couple of occasions. First after about 15 minutes of absolutely nothing happening except watching them eat and say absolutely nothing, I turnedit off. I thought I’d try again, and all they did is eat and have a short conversation where they said absolutely nothing. Turned it off after about 8 minutes. Unfortunately we weren’t painting at the time.

      • Yes says:

        I can’t unhear the K sisters either, but given her visibility, it IS cool that she is a bit of an activist ?

  2. MousyB says:

    I find it rather sketchy that Kourt isnt really talking about whats in her own damn products…This definitely screams publicity stunt to me – she has no expertise in this area lol!!

    • Bethany F says:

      since when does Kourtney have her own makeup line? she did a collab with Kylie but those are for Kylie’s products. Kourtney prob just chose some colors for that, i doubt she was allowed to choose the chemicals in the formula to alter the product like that.

    • AnnaKist says:

      Spot on, Mousy B. Shameless.

    • Megan says:

      Greenpeace did a campaign on cosmetics about a decade ago. What can be sold in the US vs the EU is dramatically different because US cosmetics are full of harmful chemicals and and really gross stuff like rendered animal fat.

  3. monette says:

    E!has a breakdown of her eating habits and exercise routine and they are both insane.
    No sugar, no dairy, no gluten and A LOT of exercise, even on vacations.
    She looks amazing, she is tiny, 39 and was pregnant 3 times.
    I guess that’s the price you have to pay to have abs after 3 kids.
    Oh well, I’ll just live with my muffin top:))

    • fubar says:

      Many people I know don’t eat sugar, dairy, salt or gluten. Nothing insane about it.

      • Alissa says:

        it just seems pretty miserable haha. I like to stay in shape and be relatively healthy, but I’m not going to completely deprive myself of tasty food.

      • Snowflake says:

        No, that’s insane imo.

      • monette says:

        @Fubar
        If you don’t have health issues, yes it’s insane not to eat whole groups of food.
        Please read the article and tell me her lifestyle is totally normal and ok.

        https://m.eonline.com/amp/news/927910/this-is-how-kourtney-kardashian-keeps-her-body-ridiculously-fit

      • Lexter says:

        Fyi you NEED salt to survive

      • manda says:

        No, that’s a recipe for an unhappy life. I can understand keeping a diet low in sugar and salt, but they taste good and aren’t bad in moderation. And people that avoid gluten who AREN’T celiac or legitimately gluten intolerant in some way are stupid. So you’re right on that–not insane, just stupid

      • minx says:

        Life is very short. We need to enjoy ourselves sometimes.

      • Veronica S. says:

        Lol, you’d die without salt and sugars in your diet. They’re required for proper cellular and metabolic functions. I presume you mean they aren’t eating processed sugars and excessive salt, which is an entirely different concept. But, uh, kind of a bizarre one and definitely privileged. Most people can’t afford to eat that restrictively.

        Dairy make sense because lactose intolerance is extremely common outside of European and certain African genetic demographics. Gluten is only a real problem for people with celiac disease. The only reason to give it up otherwise is to have a pseudoscientific way of telling people you don’t eat bread.

      • Rachel in August says:

        I don’t eat dairy, sugar or gluten either. My sugar comes in the form of blueberries and Granny Smith Apples. I only eat sea salt or Himalayan salt as regular “table” salt is toxic to the body. And pasteurized dairy is not good for the human body at all. It’s inflammatory (and most U.S. milk contains rBGH). You do need salt in your diet for proper digestion.

        @ Veronica … gluten is in many condiments and foods you wouldn’t expect at all. Modern wheat strains contain much more gluten to extend shelf life; they didn’t come from nature but rather a laboratory.

      • Merritt says:

        That is still sugar. It isn’t magically not sugar because it is from fruit. Also you clearly don’t know what pasteurization does. Before pasteurization, countless people died from various diseases in food. People are so used to certain health expectations that they think they can dismiss the things that help prevent illness.

      • Megan says:

        @Merritt I believe Rachel is saying she doesn’t eat processed sugar. I don’t eat processed sugar, gluten, highly processed dairy, or fried foods because they all make me feel like crap. Pretty much the only cheese I eat is unpasteurized cheese from France.

      • jwoolman says:

        Alissa — there really is life after dairy, gluten, sugar and salt withdrawal… 🙂 Loads of foods out there to enjoy.

        Actually, a short time away from gobs of sugar and salt wakes up your tastebuds. That means you can really enjoy foods without them added.

        I’ve gone without gluten for months at a time with no feeling of deprivation (I’m actually sensitive to something else in wheat, not actually gluten). It took just two weeks without dairy to get rid of symptoms that had been plaguing me since I was tiny. Cravings for dairy disappeared quickly. So even if you feel you can’t live without something – you actually can and enjoy your life.

        I’m sure Kourtney does just fine with her food preferences.

      • jwoolman says:

        Veronica – when people talk about eliminating sugar and salt, they typically mean added sugar and salt. We don’t need that much of either. Diabetics do need to be aware of the sugar content of unprocessed fruit, though, and can’t just pig out on that. The fiber and protein and fat in such foods or their accompaniments does slow down absorption, though, which is helpful. For example, a small apple with peanut butter is a good choice for a diabetic.

        Plain unprocessed food of course does have natural amounts of various sugars and sodium. But for most of our time on this planet, few of us had much access to the large amounts of added cane/beet sugar and salt that many Americans eat today. It was quite an innovation when blocks of relatively refined sugar and salt were first sold in markets in Europe at least. Salt was especially used to help preserve meat products and actually spices in general were used to disguise the off-taste of deteriorating meat… . I don’t know how much small-scale production of salt from natural evaporation of sea water and finding underground salt deposits was used before that point. But it was more a rich people’s thing for a long time.

        A typical piece of fruit or serving of raw veg might have 5-15 milligrams sodium in it, for instance. Americans very typically eat several grams of sodium today in processed foods and from the salt shaker (thousands of milligrams). That’s a big change. People trying to reduce sodium may need to go below 500 milligrams if salt-sensitive. Current recommendations are 1500-2500 milligrams. That’s still a lot compared to our ancestors.

        By the way – there is no minimum daily requirement for gluten. It’s just the protein part of certain grains that aren’t even used in all cultures. Some people deal with it just fine, others don’t. You will not die from lack of gluten.

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      But what is the point of all that natural living and excluding “toxins” like dairy and sugar when she has implants?

    • Hannah says:

      I don’t see amazing – she looks wrecked and much older than her age.

      • Kitten says:

        I always wonder when I read comments like this what people like you think 39 year olds actually look like SMDH…

    • reverie says:

      You dont have to eat like that to get rid of your muffin top. For real. Why’s it have to be so extreme these days? “I can starve myself or I can be overweight.” Good grief.

      Also, by having a look at that article, she’s eating a lot of food and it’s all clean and normal food. She also mentions indulging as well. Obviously she’s going to talk about her approach to eating in terms of the ideal day and what her goals are. It’s a bit of a spectrum.

      She looks healthy, fit and toned and its ridiculous to paint it any other way.

      • Merritt says:

        Clean eating is a myth. It is a movement fueled by people who often have orthorexia and many have wound up with health problems due to their obsession with eliminating food groups instead of focusing on a well rounded diet and moderation.

      • Gretchen says:

        Yes, thank you Merrit, I hate this whole ‘clean’ eating fad and its implicit suggestion that whatever food isn’t on its restricted dietary list is somehow dirty. I can also see how this notion of clean and dirty food could seriously trigger people with disordered eating habits. The sooner this trend is over, the better.

      • monette says:

        @ Reverie
        My muffin top is a “side effect” of pregnancy. I used to have a tiny little waist, but I guess it’s gone.
        I am exercising much more now because I am on maternity leave. My legs are crazy toned.
        Before I had an office job, now I’m outside all day, I bike a lot, jog on top of running after my kid.
        I eat cleaner than before, because I had to be an example to my child.
        And STILL I have a muffin top that doesn’t go away, saddlebags, etc.
        As you can see I am frustrated and that is because I am actually putting a big effort into it and still I don’t get the results I would like.
        Reading her diet and exercise routine made me realize maybe what I want comes with even bigger efforts that I am not willing to make because they seem crazy to me. A normal person.
        All I want right now is a muffin :))

    • Rachel in August says:

      @ Merritt, well aware it’s still sugar but it’s not refined, processed sugar nor is it HFCS. And you do need fruits and certain sugars in your diet, yes. Pasteurization was actually invented for beer and wine, not milk. And the pasteurization kills the enzymes your body needs to digest the milk, which is so protein-dense it’s basically like liquid meat. Furthermore, your body basically only absorbs about 30% of the calcium. Non-dairy sources of calcium are more readily absorbed by the body. Cultures that consume next to no dairy have very, very low rates of osteoporosis. And again, U.S. milk – toxic rBGH. I have mild MS and pasteurized dairy causes bodily inflammation, not good. There are lots and lots of articles citing pasteurized dairy being unhealthy long-term. Plus because of the filth, then antibiotic levels in the milk go up … antibiotics destroy your immune system.

      • Merritt says:

        None of that is true. You are spreading dangerous myths that are not supported by science at all.

      • ladybug says:

        Also something really gross but true- the FDA allows a certain amount of levels of puss in milk whether it is organic or not. It occurs naturally due to cows udders prone to infections.

    • Hannah says:

      @kitten I just mean that she easily looks much much older than she is. I only said it because the original comment said she looked amazing. I suppose my point was all that healthy lifestyle and she looks absolutely wrecked.

      • Kitten says:

        You think so? I think she just looks a bit tired. The header shot and a couple others were taken under terrible lighting, which makes all of us look like monsters. I do agree that she looks a lot different on her IG with all the crazy filters but overall, I think she looks her age, maybe a couple years younger.

        And I say this because I am 39 and most of my peers look older than her. They also don’t have access to all the resources that she does though, so there’s that. IDK…

      • Nancy says:

        I’ll be 39 in a couple weeks. I think she looks great. It isn’t easy I would imagine to be that short and stay so thin. She isn’t even five foot tall. She has the Kardashian genes, but for some reason, seems more down to earth. It isn’t all about her, like her sisters are. Maybe because she’s a mom of three and isn’t so full of herself, that I can’t hate on Miss Kourtney, the first and prettiest of the spawn!

      • Jayna says:

        Kourtney looks great and not “much older” than her age as you put it.

      • monette says:

        @ Hannah
        By amazing I meant her body. And not in these pictures. The ones on the beach, on vacation.
        I didn’t even look at her face.

  4. Swack says:

    And she admits her own make up line has not been tested for safety yet.

  5. RBC says:

    Cue the rumours of Kourtney wanting to enter politics. I wonder how long before some journalist digs up some sketchy details about the manufacturing of Kylie’s cosmetics?

  6. minx says:

    Oh, brother.

  7. Liberty says:

    I first glanced at this and thought it said “cosmetic surgery reform” ….and I thought, like, what, “your fifth one is free”?

  8. Erinn says:

    She’s one of those “I refuse to eat it unless it’s organic” types though – completely ignoring the fact that organic farming still uses chemical pesticides and there’s less tracking on the use of them. Many organic pesticides are used more intensely than synthetic pesticides because they’re not as effective.

    There’s a lot of ‘natural is always safe’ sentiment from people. Arsenic is natural. Grapefruit can effect heart medication. Citrus essential oils can cause burns when exposed to the sun.

    Rotenone was used as an organic pesticide for decades in the US. But research shows that it actually attacks the mitochondria and caused parkinsons like symptoms in rats. It has the potential to kill many species and humans are one of them.

    I think there ultimately, just needs to be a balance. Natural CAN be amazing and better, and safer. But it’s not always safer – and a lot of people assume that it will be. Which – I guess is partially on them for not looking into it, but also based on the marketing surrounding the non-gmo/organic/natural companies.

    Large makeup companies go through a lot more research and testing than small hand-made type products do. I think it’s important to read your labels and watch out for things that you really don’t want in your body. It’s also good to keep track of certain ingredients that you get a reaction to. I’ve been trying to buy non-comedogenic products whenever I can because I have sensitive skin and am prone to acne. But I also am not going to write off a big makeup company in favor of a small one claiming to be all natural unless I see some scientific benefit and proof of it being safe.

    Natural isn’t ALWAYS better. Big companies aren’t always the bad guys. Balance and science is key.

    • Liberty says:

      So well said, Erinn.

    • Deedee says:

      This, +1,000!

    • jwoolman says:

      erinn — in order to be certified organically grown on the label in the US, you do need to have regular testing for pesticide residues and plant buffer crops around the land because your neighbors use synthetic pesticides and fertilizers not allowed in the certification standard. Other countries also have their own certification standards. It generally takes a farm several years before it can be certified because of soil residues from previous crops. They can still sell the crops during the transition and tell people they are in transition to organic farming methods, but cannot claim certification.

      I would not trust anything labeled organically grown from China – they are still in the robber baron phase of capitalism, and there is no good oversight of the certification process. Large manufacturers are likely to source their products from China. If the price is much lower than definitely US-grown certified products, that’s why. I don’t trust Libby’s “organic” products to actually be organically grown, for example, for this reason.

      Despite the optimism expressed on Wikipedia, the trace amounts of pesticide residues do add up and we do not really know how much of a problem they are long term. I translate clinical trial material and such trials are simply not extensive enough or reliable enough to really tell us about long term problems, which often surface only post-marketing approval. The newer synthetic pesticides are a major departure from traditional farming methods and “organically grown” is an attempt to return to older established methods with a long history of use, while maintaining good crop yields in other ways.

      When testing for food allergies, I was advised to be sure to test the organically grown version of a food before giving up on it, since some people do react to trace amounts of pesticides. So you might be able to eat the organically grown version even if you react to the standard type. The foods are nutritionally the same, but in my experience they do taste different (the organically grown ones tend to taste a lot better, which may also have something to do with the varieties planted to accommodate the pesticide use). I would especially give carrots and tomatoes and strawberries and wheat that are organically grown a try if the price isn’t impossible.

      An American wheat farmer who started to react to wheat speculated that the problems more and more people are having with American wheat may actually be due to the pesticides used throughout the growing cycle. I definitely have heard people say they can tolerate organically grown or imported European wheat but not regular US wheat, and the Europeans seem to have less of a love affair with extensive pesticide use than we do.

  9. Alissa says:

    it might be a publicity stunt, it might be that they all use so much makeup that maybe they’d like it to be healthier, especially Kourtney who’s known to be overly zealous in her health requirements. That being said, I do swear by the Kylie matte lip kits. 🤷

  10. Merritt says:

    Environmental Working Group? A group that has proven to be more interested in fear mongering, than safety.

  11. naomipaige says:

    I guess their 15 minutes of fame are never going to end. Can’t stand the whole Klan. All of them are such famewh**es!!!!

    What about Kim’s new nude pics? Great role model for her young children. Pure sleazy trash!!!!!!!

    • otaku fairy says:

      I’m actually a bit concerned about the deplorable example you’re setting for any children you may have in the future. Hopefully they’ll be adopted by someone more progressive. We don’t more Kathleen Bliss-types in the world.

      • Cine says:

        She is setting a deplorable example because she is against a mother of three showing off her body in that manner? To each their own. I wouldn’t do it, but I totally get the desire for praise. My concern grows from the fact that she seems to post very revealing pics of herself for no other reason than that she wants applause and adoration, which is the opposite of what a mother would want for her children. IMO, she’s very simply stating she has no other worth. Where are the pics of her at a charity event ? A literary occasion, or just a natural day out without high heels and a face loaded with makeup and wigs? I would love her to have that confidence, if only for her kids and other young women, to realize that you do not need to hide or revise your true self. To those who would say she feels empowered by showing her body, as she herself states, I would say that would be fine, and kudos to her…. except that she bought her body and her face and continues to do so.

  12. grabbyhands says:

    Playacting at politics to get attention and press time.

    If this wasn’t going to benefit them personally in some way, I doubt Kourtney and PMK would give a damn if they sacrificed newborns to test cosmetics.

    • jwoolman says:

      More likely the environmental group approached Kourtney precisely to benefit from the publicity that would come along with her. And Kourtney is actually interested in such issues herself, so it’s a good fit. Her sisters, not so much. It’s not at all unusual for non-scientists, including celebrity types, to participate in such hearings.

      I’ve looked at EWG material on sunscreens and didn’t see any red flags (I’m a chemist). Their information seemed useful for someone trying to find products to try that were less problematic for whatever reason. In my case, I was concerned about fragrance-free especially but I also tend to react to materials on my skin after a certain exposure time. There really is a problem with sunscreens in particular, trying to balance any long-term problems with the ingredients against needed short-term effectiveness against specific solar radiation. Not keen on the idea of constantly slathering ourselves with the stuff. Maybe we should just wear burkas in the sun….

  13. Jillian says:

    If I had to pick a Kardashian, I’d go with Kourtney.

    I really love her outfit. She looks great

    • JustJen says:

      Agree. She’s the one to put her kids first and she’s always been the most sensible.

      I’ve never tried Kylie makeup although my daughter requested (and received) some of her eyeshadow palettes. For lips I prefer Jeffree Starr.

      • Neverwintersand says:

        DON’T google all the Jeffree Star shennanigans then, you won’t like it! 🙂

      • Hannah says:

        Puts her kids first…on much watched television show.

      • Hannah says:

        Puts her kids first…on a much watched television show without their proper consent.

      • Belle says:

        She has famewhore-d her kids the least, I’ll give her that.

      • minx says:

        She picked a drunken douchebag as her kids’ father, though.

      • me says:

        She allowed E cameras to film their births. Those kids have had a camera shoved in their faces since the day they were born.

      • Alissa says:

        lol I bet none of these people commenting have ever posted video or pictures of their families on Facebook. 🙄

      • Cine says:

        @alissa. Unstaged and natural pics and videos? You bet they did. Nobody was paid for those family pics, nobody was exploited, and there IS a difference.

  14. Chaine says:

    For all of the effort and procedures, outside of her bubble of carefully curated lighting and filters, she looks her age.

    • Lucy2 says:

      I agree.

      I’m all for safety in cosmetics, but maybe they should have had someone With some actual scientific knowledge and expertise testify? This is nothing but a publicity stunt.

    • Pandy says:

      I don’t find anything about her interesting or attractive. She’s thin. Guess I can agree to that but otherwise, if you saw her on a street you wouldn’t give her a second glance.

    • ellie says:

      I actually think she looks even older than her age

  15. Harryg says:

    There’s always a hidden agenda with these people! Do not buy the crap they try to sell you!

  16. wheneight says:

    I’m no fan of hers, but this is a great cause! The United States has almost no regulation when it comes to cosmetics and that’s scary. I know European countries have very stringent policies when it comes to comes to the safety of makeup and skincare, why not us? These are products going onto your face, absorbing into your skin and bloodstream. We need to be regulating these for sure.

    • Merritt says:

      Of course regulation should be better. But her showing up with someone from EWG is a joke. EWG just likes to fear monger and claim everything is going to kill you without science backing up their statements. EWG also has been caught listing chemicals that don’t exist are harmful.

  17. ValiantlyVarnished says:

    I know it’s easy to bash a Kardashian but it’s sad that what she is trying to say isnt being taken seriously. Because it should be. There is literally NO regulation for the cosmetics industry. None. And any rules that were put in place havent been updates since 1984. There was a recent study done that found lead in multiple brands of lipstick. Claire’s makeup for little girls was found to have huge amounts of lead in it. The US is one of the few countries that doesn’t regulate skincare and makeup. There are ingredients like BHT that are found in TONS of cosmetics, skincare and even food, that is banned in the EU because it is a known carcinogen. I wear makeup pretty much everyday because I love it. But I also try to aware of what I’m purchasing and applying to my skin and body. People may not like the messenger but it doesn’t make the message any less important.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I agree. I am not a fan by any means, but this publicity stunt is drawing attention to an important issue.

  18. nikzilla says:

    She appears to have the least amount of “work” done to her face.

  19. JennyJenny says:

    Who’s the woman getting out of the cab??
    It sure doesn’t look like Kourtney…. LOL

  20. me says:

    This seems like major pr to me. Why wasn’t Kim and Kris, or Kylie there then? They were like “OK we need to get Kourtney some good pr, what can we do?”

    Kourtney seems innocent enough, but what I hate is her snobby attitude when it comes to organic food. In one episode she told Kim to get rid of the Almond milk in her fridge and get her chef to make her fresh almond milk instead because the one from the store is garbage. It made me think, wow Kourtney if it wasn’t for your sister’s tape with Ray-J would you even be able to afford a chef and all that organic food you eat? Probably not. So stfu !

    • jwoolman says:

      She and her sisters have enough money to buy food with minimal pesticide residues. Considering it has been estimated in the past that Americans ingest 5 gallons of pesticides per year, that’s not a bad idea even if that estimate is off by an order of magnitude or two.

      Some foods are really hard or impossible to clean from such residues because of the way they are grown (strawberries and wheat, for instance). Also breeding produce for traits like pesticide resistance (not a typo for pest resistance — they want to be able to use large amounts of the pesticide without damaging the crop), machine harvestability, and protection from damage under rough transport conditions has resulted in food that just doesn’t taste as good as it used to. If you have the money, definitely try “organically grown” versions just for taste alone. I’ve seen that myself when I could get such tomatoes, sweet potatoes, and carrots. I am spoiled forever especially by the carrots.

      I even had a cat years ago who was addicted to organically grown tomatoes but hardly touched the regular ones from the grocery store. Her addiction was triggered when a piece of an organic tomato dropped behind something and she spent considerable time retrieving it. I made the mistake of giving her a fresh piece to see what she would do. This cat would try to kill me if I went into the kitchen and didn’t give her a small slice. Nobody messed with the little runt, she had claws and teeth and was not afraid to use them. I can only eat tomatoes occasionally or else I start reacting to them, so I was buying the organic tomatoes for the cat most of the time…. This was an older cat that I inherited from a neighbor who died, so I had nothing to do with her attraction to those tomatoes. Her previous pet human used to drop meat on the floor from his sandwich for her, while she really wanted the tomato!

      I’m a chemist myself and have even translated material for the dreaded Monsanto. The concerns about standard pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not due to imagination gone wild. We have drastically altered the way our food is grown and what is actually in that food in a very short period, and we really don’t have enough experience and data yet to know what may be benign, beneficial, or harmful over the short term and the long term in various populations. We are really playing with fire in so many ways. Most of us have to compromise due to financial constraints. Anybody without those constraints can avoid the possible problems and at the same time get better tasting food. Why not?

      And she’s right that homemade fresh almond milk will be much better than the stuff in the grocery store. Why bother with the commercial stuff if you don’t even have to make the almond milk yourself? It isn’t that hard, and as long as you are paying for other food prep — why not?

      • me says:

        It was the way she talked about the almond milk that seemed super snotty. I know organic food is way better for you. I know it’s also pricey so only a small percentage of folks can have a fully organic based diet. My mom and I talk about this all the time. She says my generation isn’t as physically strong as hers was. I keep telling her she grew up in India and lived off a completely organic diet. Literally everything she ate growing up was organic…but that’s just how it was back then. Even in India, it’s nothing like that now. They use horrible things to make fruit and veggies grow bigger, and also “sprays” to make the color more appeasing. It’s disgusting. But we don’t need to be snobs about organic food. Not everyone can afford to live that way…and even if someone has the money, they shouldn’t be bullied into buying all organic if they don’t want to. We need to all do our own research and decide for ourselves.

  21. No Doubtful says:

    She looks a lot like her mother with her hair styled like that.

  22. LittlefishMom says:

    Well if she believes in it then good for her. No judgement.

  23. Sara says:

    Funny how defensive and aggressive people get when you discuss the toxic food supply. They want to listen to the government as if they have good intentions. Lol keep trusting your government and good luck with that. America poisons there people slowly. Many chemicals our government allows to be put in our food are illegal in Europe.

    • ASHBY says:

      @ Sara

      I could not agree with you more.

      I came to study at Harvard 18 years ago and stayed after I got a very good job offer in my last year of school.

      After all these years, I’m still amazed what is allowed in the food and personal care products in the United States.

      Pretty much anything goes and not too many people seem to care.

      I live almost the same as I was raised and taught in Europe, I eat very close to what mother nature produces, I’m active, I don’t drink or smoke, I sleep well, I spend time relaxing and I purchase things very carefully, nearly studying everything, because I only got this one body and I got lucky/blessed with my good health, so I’m trying to preserve it as long as possible.

      I got good genes, I don’t want to damaged my health over the years with bad lifestyle choices and chemically loaded products.

      Some chemicals maybe contributing factors to many health problems, like cancer.

    • LittlefishMom says:

      Yes Sara!!!!!!!

  24. Jeanine says:

    Why is Kris suddenly pushing her out into the spotlight the past few years? That’s all that came to mind

  25. sunshine gold says:

    Can we lobby congress for Kardashian reform?