SHOP ONLINE NOW

+ Cleaning Cupboard
+ Personal Care
+ Water Filters
+ Organic Food
+ Unique Gifts
+ Vitamin & Supplements
+ Animal Care
+ Amy's Consulting
+ Baby Care

New! Search All Of My Articles By Topic With Quick and Easy Links

If you like these articles, please link to them, instead of copying them. Thank you.

Green Living Now™News, Edition Twenty-nine

1. UNsafe When Used As Directed

By Amy Todisco

You know your favorite fragrant shampoo sitting in your shower stall, or that skin cream that promises to erase years from your skin? Think they've been tested for safety? Uh-uh. I used to think that everything that made it on to a store shelf had been tested and found safe. Why else would they sell them? Turns out, cosmetics are the least regulated products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). There's no pre-market safety testing, review, or approval for cosmetics. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health found that 884 of the chemicals available for use in cosmetics have been reported to the government as toxic substances. Isn't it interesting that some products sold in the U.S. contain ingredients banned in other industrialized countries, like Japan, Canada and the EU? What do they know they we don't? A lot, I'm afraid.

Take this comparison…the European Union's Cosmetics Directive has banned some 1,200 chemicals. The FDA has only restricted nine for use in cosmetics. The American approach says that a chemical is safe unless conclusively proven dangerous. The E.U.'s approach is based on the precautionary principle, which says essentially "better safe than sorry." A product can be kept off the market if its potential to harm outweighs its perceived benefit. In the U.S., products are presumed innocent. If something is found to be dangerous, generally a barrage of lawsuits is the punishment. This is crazy.

In the U.S., some products contain ingredients that even the industry sponsored cosmetics industry safety panel found unsafe when used as directed on the label. 70% of personal care products contain chemicals linked to birth defects and reproductive harm. And who is likely to use these products the most? Women and teen girls. Unfortunately, many companies legally use ingredients that are known or suspected to be carcinogens, mutagens or reproductive toxins in the their products. How do I know? Research from one of my favorite nonprofits, the Environmental Working Group (EWG). They looked at the ingredients in over 23,000 cosmetic products and shared the results. They also created a wonderful searchable database, so you can look up your favorite products and see how they're rated.

So, what can we learn from EWG's research?

· 97% of all the products investigated contain one or more ingredients never publicly assessed for safety.

· More than 750 personal care products sold in the US violate industry safety standards or cosmetic safety standards in other industrialized countries.

· 447 products were unsafe when used as directed according to industry safety panels.

· In 2004, EWG notified the FDA about the results of their initial analysis of hundreds of cosmetic products. Many contained chemicals that were not proven safe for use in cosmetics, and that caused harm when used according to the package directions. Not only did the FDA not do anything to improve product safety, it seems that they are actively working to exclude public health; consumer and product safety advocates from international cosmetics safety policy decisions. Specifically, FDA regulators are attending a forum in Brussels where only cosmetic industry reps and international regulators will discuss "ways to remove regulatory obstacles among the regions". Not ways to improve safety, but ways to remove regulations.

Industry insider madness: Did you hear the one about the caged tigers?

Stacey Malkan (Communications Director of another wonderful nonprofit, Healthcare Without Harm, in her new book, Not Just A Pretty Face) shares some shocking "pearls of wisdom" from industry insiders. For example, Proctor & Gamble toxicologist, Tim Long, likens toxic chemicals to tigers in cages at the zoo. According to Long, compared to tigers in the wild, tigers behind bars are not dangerous at all. Neither are toxic chemicals in cosmetic products, if you use them under certain conditions, he reasons. Is he serious? If that were true, then how come EWG found that 447 products were unsafe when used as directed according to industry safety panels? Ms. Malkan comments that she does not want flesh-eating tigers in cages all over her bathroom sink. Neither do I.

Another pearl comes from John Bailey, Chief spokesman for the US Cosmetics Industry. He thinks that hazardous chemicals in cosmetics can be compared to salt in cooking. He'd like us to believe that a little bit of toxic chemicals in our cosmetics are good, just like a little bit of salt on our peas or tomatoes. So, in another words, the dose makes the poison. Seems to me the only ones benefiting from putting toxic chemicals in our products are the manufacturers. Toxic chemicals don't improve our health. Quite the opposite.

Did you know that the Food & Drug Association (FDA) has no authority to require that companies test their products for safety before they're sold? They can't even recall unsafe products (check out the FDA's site), it's a voluntary act of the manufacturer. Good grief, is anyone out there protecting our health? Don't count on it. Guess who reviews the safety of cosmetics ingredients? The industry funded panel, Cosmetic Ingredients Review Board. At least manufacturers are required to list the products ingredients on the label in order of use, but we don't know what percentage of each ingredient is used. They also don't have to reveal what the 'fragrance" is made up of, which is often where toxic chemicals hide, including phthalates.

So, what can you do to protect yourself?

· Read the ingredients list on the product labels
· If you can't pronounce it, chances are it's a chemical you don't want to be absorbing into your body
· Choose cosmetics that are certified organic (I sell a bunch on my site. Not all organic products are alike though. I've chosen the ones that had the best ingredients, worked well, smelled good, and were reasonably priced. I've tried some products with great ingredients that didn't meet my other criteria and didn't make it in to my store. Look under "personal care".
· Caution: Just because a product is sold in a natural food store does not mean it's necessarily any better than it's supermarket counterpart. Many so-called "natural" or "organic" products contain the same toxic chemicals as supermarket brands in earthy looking packaging, and with a few added herbs or essential oils. Finding the "real deal" was why I started Green Living Now™™.
· Check Environmental Working Group's database of cosmetics to look up your favorite brand and see how it rates.

Chemicals to avoid in cosmetics courtesy of Aubrey Organics:

1. Methyl, Propyl, Butyl and Ethyl Paraben — Used as inhibitors of microbial growth and to extend shelf life of products. Have caused many allergic reactions and skin rashes. Studies have shown that they are weakly estrogenic and can be absorbed by the body through the skin. Widely used even though they are known to be toxic.

2. Diethanolamine (DEA), Triethanolamine (TEA) — Often used in cosmetics as emulsifiers and/or foaming agents. They can cause allergic reactions, eye irritation and dryness of hair and skin. DEA and TEA are "amines" (ammonia compounds) and can form cancer-causing nitrosamines when they come in contact with nitrates. Toxic if absorbed into the body over a long period of time.

3. Diazolidinyl Urea, Imidazolidinyl Urea — These are widely used preservatives. The American Academy of Dermatology has found them to be a primary cause of contact dermatitis. Two trade names for these chemicals are Germall II and Germall 115. Neither of the Germall chemicals contains a good antifungal agent, and they must be combined with other preservatives. Both these chemicals release formaldehyde, which can be toxic.

4. Sodium Lauryl/Laureth Sulfate — A cheap, harsh detergent used in shampoos for its cleansing and foam-building properties. Often derived from petroleum, it is frequently disguised in pseudo-natural cosmetics with the phrase "comes from coconuts." It causes eye irritation, scalp scurf similar to dandruff, skin rashes and other allergic reactions.

5. Petrolatum — Also known as petroleum jelly, this mineral oil derivative is used for its emollient properties in cosmetics. It has no nutrient value for the skin and can interfere with the body's own natural moisturizing mechanism, leading to dryness and chapping. It often creates the very conditions it claims to alleviate. Manufacturers use petrolatum because it is unbelievably cheap.

6. Propylene Glycol — Ideally this is a vegetable glycerin mixed with grain alcohol, both of which are natural. Usually it is a synthetic petrochemical mix used as a humectant. It has been known to cause allergic reactions, hives and eczema. When you see PEG (polyethylene glycol) or PPG (polypropylene glycol) on labels, beware—these are related synthetics.

7. PVP/VA Copolymer — A petroleum-derived chemical used in hairsprays, styling aids and other cosmetics. It can be considered toxic, since inhaled particles can damage the lungs of sensitive persons.

8. Stearalkonium Chloride — A quaternary ammonium compound used in hair conditioners and creams. Developed by the fabric industry as a fabric softener, it is a lot cheaper and easier to use in hair conditioning formulas than proteins or herbals, which are beneficial to the hair. Causes allergic reactions. Toxic.

9. Synthetic Colors — Used to make cosmetics "pretty," synthetic colors, along with synthetic hair dyes, should be avoided at all costs. They will be labeled as FD&C or D&C, followed by a color and a number. Example: FD&C Red No. 6 / D&C Green No. 6. Many synthetic colors can be carcinogenic. If a cosmetic contains them, don't use it.

10. Synthetic Fragrances — The synthetic fragrances used in cosmetics can have as many as 200 ingredients. There is no way to know what the chemicals are, since on the label it will simply read "fragrance." Some problems caused by these chemicals include headaches, dizziness, rash, hyperpigmentation, violent coughing, vomiting, skin irritation—the list goes on. Advice: Don't buy a cosmetic that has the word "fragrance" on the ingredients label.

Other chemicals to avoid. The following is from the Cancer Prevention Coalition:

Product Ingredients and Contaminants with Evidence of Carcinogenicity

HIDDEN CARCINOGENS

Contaminants:

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES: in, LANOLIN
ARSENIC, LEAD, BLUE 1, GREEN 3: in, COAL TAR DYES

DIOXANE: in, PEG, POLYSORBATE, LAURETHS, ETHOXYLATED ALCOHOLS

CRYSTALLINE SILICA: in, AMORPHOUS SILICATES

Nitrosamine Precursors:

DEA
TEA
BRONOPOL
PADIMATE O
Formaldehyde Releasers
BRONOPOL
QUATERNIUM 15
DIAZOLIDINYL UREA
IMIDAZOLIDINYL UREA
DMDM HYDANTOIN
Overt Carcinogens
DEA
TALC
FLUORIDE
SACCHARIN
CRYSTALLINE SILICA
COAL TAR DYES
BLUE 1
GREEN 3
PARA-PHENYLENEDIAMINE

The main thing to do is to educate ourselves about what we are buying, and then chose safer alternatives. Every dollar we spend sends a message to the manufacturer. It's either a "yes" vote or a "no" vote. Let's say "NO" to toxic chemicals in our products, just like they do in other industrialized (more progressive) countries. I'm tired of the basic corporate motto of "dollars before health", how about you?

To join the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, go here.

http://www.notjustaprettyface.org/
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html
http://www.safecosmetics.org/index.cfm
http://www.cosmeticdatabase.com/index.php?nothanks=1

http://www.wave-guide.org/archives/waveguide_3/rachels652.html

2. Industry Working Against the Public Interest-- Surprise, Surprise…

By Amy Todisco

Do you ever wonder if there is some government agency that collects, organizes and shares information on toxic chemicals? There is. It's called, The National Toxicology Program (NTP). It's at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). NTP research is used to establish air and water quality standards. They determine warning requirements based on the levels of toxic chemical exposure. They measure our health risks from a variety of sources: air pollution, drinking water, pesticide and other chemical contamination of food, seafood, and consumer products. NTP research provides valuable information about how to handle chemical emergencies, and more.

Every two years, the NTP produces the Report on Carcinogens, which identifies chemicals shown by scientific research to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing). This report is used by public health professionals and government officials at the state and federal levels to identify and prevent public health threats. Sounds good, so far, eh? So, why am I writing about them?

Well, the nonprofit, OMB (the Office of Management and Budget) Watch, has just released a report that shows how industry is trying to obstruct the National Toxicology Program. In the words of the Jim Nabors character, Gomer Pyle, "surprise, surprise".

How is this happening?

Apparently, in late 2000, a two-paragraph provision, the Data Quality Act (DQA), was slipped through Congress without debate. And, once again, Industry seems to be working against the public interest. Specifically, OMB says, "It has been used to lodge frivolous information quality challenges, which slow regulatory action and pressure agencies to remove or revise information.

Why is the Data Quality Act bad for us?

Five main reasons:

1. Industry has used it to slow down government studies, and more importantly, the implementation of protective regulations. It takes money and resources away from protecting public health.

2. It's wasted the time of top government employees who have to write detailed responses to frivolous complaints instead of working to protect the public.

3. It imposes a standard of certainty, which is impossible for scientific studies to reach. In other words, prove that chemical X is carcinogenic in humans, as opposed to industry having to prove that chemical X is safe. Since it's unethical to experiment on humans, animal studies are often used. Once the results come out, they are often discounted by industry because no one knows how chemical X will actually affect humans. And, rarely does any scientist study the impact of everyday exposure to chemical X, much less the chemical soup were are all exposed to on a daily basis.

4. It creates another useless bureaucratic layer, as information quality procedures already exist. Don't we have enough of these?

5. It's not about revising facts; it's about revising policy.

So, other than feeling depressed, here's what you can do with this information. Check out this interesting site, which offers many good steps on how to take back our country from corporate control: http://www.corporations.org/solutions/

Sources: http://www.ombwatch.org/info/NTPDataQuality.pdf

It's free to subscribe to my monthly newsletter.

Sign up for Green Living Expert, Amy Todisco's,
free E-newsletter and you'll receive well-researched,
useful, newsworthy information, and some free surprises,
to help you "green" up your indoor spaces and improve
your life. Your e-mail address will never be shared, rented
or sold. Your privacy is guaranteed.

Any Questions? Don't hesitate to contact me, Amy Todisco, Editor in Chief, and Owner of Green Living Now™, LLC, at: amy@greenlivingnow.com