Non-Stick Cookware Chemicals Cause 150 Percent Increase in Infertility
By Mike Adams, January 29, 2009
Is eating off non-stick cookware a new form of chemical birth control?
New research published in the journal Human Reproduction reveals that women with the highest levels of Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in their blood are 150% more likely to have difficulty conceiving a child. PFCs are commonly used in non-stick cookware, and eating off non-stick cookware inevitably results in the consumption of these chemicals. Even so-called "diamond" non-stick surfaces are easily scratched.
A previous report by NaturalNews exposed the truth about so-called "diamond" non-stick cookware surfaces. See: http://www.naturalnews.com/021059.html
PFCs are also known to impair fetal growth, harm the liver and suppress immune system function.
They're also highly toxic to the environment, both during the manufacture and disposal of non-stick cookware products.
So why do the chemicals remain legal in the U.S. and other countries?
Because they're made by powerful corporations like DuPont (the owner of the Teflon trademark). Those corporations hold great sway over U.S. regulators, and they routinely distort the truth to hide the dangers of their chemicals. DuPont, for example, illegally withheld information about the health risks of its chemicals from the EPA, says a Bloomberg article from 2004 (http://www.ewg.org/node/16471).
It's almost routine these days for corporations to lie about the dangers of the chemicals they produce.
To this day, DuPont insists PFOA and Teflon are perfectly safe to cook on.
Showing posts with label Toxic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toxic. Show all posts
1/26/2009
India's Waterways: A Toxic Stew of Chemicals
India's Waterways: A Toxic Stew of Pharmaceutical Chemicals Dumped from Big Pharma Factories
by Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor (NaturalNews.com)
Many of the pharmaceuticals consumed in the United States are made in India, where labor is cheap and environmental laws are lenient on powerful corporations. U.S. drug companies are exploiting this situation to manufacture hundreds of millions of doses of high-profit pharmaceuticals in India, where ingredients purchased for a few cents can be re-sold to U.S. health patients for hundreds of dollars (the markup on some drugs is literally over 500,000%).
There's something else Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about its drug operations in India: Big Pharma's manufacturing facilities dump millions of doses of toxic pharmaceutical chemicals directly into India's waterways. Researchers were recently stunned to discover that 100 pounds of a powerful antibiotic called ciprofloxacin was being dumped into a local stream every day! That's a quantity of antibiotics that could treat an entire city of 90,000 people every day.
But that's not all: The same waterway contained an astonishing 21 pharmaceutical chemicals reports the Associated Press, some at levels that were 150 times the highest levels of contamination found in U.S. waterways. (And even the levels found in the U.S. were quite alarming.)
Big Pharma as a Major Chemical Polluter
These findings are now added to the revelations of pharmaceutical contamination unveiled by the Associated Press last year, which found that the public water supplies in virtually all U.S. cities tested were contaminated with pharmaceutical chemicals. What's emerging from these disturbing discoveries is a picture of Big Pharma as a global corporate polluter that's dumping chemicals into the world's sensitive waterways, polluting villages, cities and aquatic ecosystems around the world.
Under the Bush Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency outright refused to regulate pharmaceuticals as environmental hazards. With Obama in the White House, it remains to be seen whether the new administration will clamp down on pharmaceutical pollution.
Big Pharma now has something in common with Exxon, Cargill, Alcoa and Chevron: The outrageous pollution of the environment with toxic chemicals. But in many ways, Big Pharma's chemicals are far more dangerous. HRT drugs, for example, are toxic at parts per billion, and they're now being found in public water supplies around the world. Municipal water treatment facilities, by the way, don't remove pharmaceutical chemicals from the water! Whatever HRT drugs, psychiatric drugs or other chemicals that exist in the water are passed right through the water treatment centers which unwisely add yet more chemicals (fluoride and chlorine, typically) to the toxic brew. Citizens drinking public water supplies in India, the U.K., Canada and the United States are now verifiably participating in a grand experiment involving the mass medication of the population with low levels of utterly untested pharmaceutical combinations.
How long will this be allowed to continue before the environmental protection authorities clamp down on pharmaceutical dumping?
So far, environmental regulators have done nothing to stop the dumping of drugs into public water supplies. This is true even in America, where hospitals routinely dispose of drugs by simply flushing them down the toilet (injecting them directly into the water supply consumed downstream). Consumers also need to realize that the drugs you swallow are also environmental pollutants. Many drugs pass right through the human body unaltered, where they are flushed back into the water supply that's consumed downstream. (Yes, the toilet water from one city becomes the drinking water of the next city down the river. If you didn't know this, you have a LOT to learn about the water supply, and you probably won't like what you learn... especially if you live downstream...)
Big Pharma is Contaminating Our Planet
It's becoming quite clear that the pharmaceutical industry is now directly contributing to the mass chemical contamination of our planet. By allowing factories to dump drugs into local waterways, by tolerating a "flush it" mentality at hospitals and pharmacies, and by drugging consumers with an endless brew of vaccines, medications and toxic substances such as chemotherapy agents, the pharmaceutical industry has "achieved" the distinction as a major world polluter.
Those who take pharmaceuticals are, in fact, directly contributing to the chemical contamination of the planet. That's why getting off medications is not only good for your health; it's also good for the planet. You can't be "green" if you're taking medications. Consuming pharmaceuticals is simply incompatible with sustainable life on Earth. And the more drugs are manufactured and consumed, the worse this problem will become. Let me put it this way: The survival of our planet depends on the demise of Big Pharma. You can save the planet, or you can save Big Pharma. But not both. Which would you rather have around for future generations? Living oceans, blue skies, clean water and healthy species? Or sterile oceans, dwindling aquatic life, mutant human babies and widespread cancer, infertility and shortened lifespans? It's your choice: Mother Nature, or Big Pharma.
Centuries of the Chemical Destruction of our Planet
The devastating long-term effects of this chemical contamination of our world's waterways have yet to be truly understood at all. The chemicals being dumped into our environment by Big Pharma today may pollute our planet for hundreds of years, destroying aquatic ecosystems, killing fish populations and causing widespread physical deformities across many species.
Combine this with all the pesticide runoff already being used across the planet and it becomes quite clear that the human race has set itself on a path of self destruction. How's that? Because humans don't exist in isolation from the natural world. When we destroy or disrupt the planet's delicate ecosystems through chemical contamination, we unleash a backlash of effects that put the entire human race in jeopardy: Outbreaks of infectious disease, plummeting fish stocks in ocean waters, rising risks of superbugs across the population and even long-term disruptions in the food supply due to pharmaceutical contamination of food crops and soil microorganisms. (Irrigation water being sprayed on crops is now also contaminated with pharmaceuticals...)
Stated bluntly, what's happening is that the pharmaceutical industry is poisoning our world -- and it's doing it for profit. While their factories in India are dumping millions of doses of antibiotics (and a brew of twenty other drugs) into the water supply each year, they're importing those drugs into the U.S. and selling them at monopoly prices to gullible consumers, all while pretending they're on some sort of humanitarian mission to help people.
The truth is that Big Pharma is committing crimes against Nature, and we'll all end up paying the price for allowing these crimes to continue under our watch. Every living thing in our world is interconnected: You can't poison the waterways with a toxic brew of dangerous chemicals and expect to be insulated from the effects of that forever. Sometimes I stand back in sheer astonishment at how short-sighted human civilization truly is. Today our population demonstrates a striking lack of understanding about the web of life on our planet combined with an outright abandonment of ethics and morals. Companies (and many people) simply do whatever benefits them at the moment, regardless of the long-term consequences.
The pharmaceutical industry exemplifies this destructive philosophy best, as it actually works to trap people in a cycle of disease treatment, all while raking in obscene profits for poisoning the people and the planet.
What a Shameful Business Model.
It's beyond shame, really. It's a crime. And it's time we put an end to these crimes against the People and against the planet.
Once again, I call for the arrest and prosecution of Big Pharma CEOs and executives for their role in planning and executing these crimes against humanity and Nature. In the U.S., this must be pursued by the Dept. of Justice, since the FDA, EPA and FTC remain in a tight conspiracy with the drug industry and will do nothing to bring their protected corporations to justice.
You can help support the effort to bring these criminals to justice (and end the chemical contamination of our planet by Big Pharma) by contacting your elected representatives (in any country) and letting them know how outraged you are about the widespread chemical pollution caused by the pharmaceutical industry.
Save the planet. End the era of Big Pharma.
by Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor (NaturalNews.com)
Many of the pharmaceuticals consumed in the United States are made in India, where labor is cheap and environmental laws are lenient on powerful corporations. U.S. drug companies are exploiting this situation to manufacture hundreds of millions of doses of high-profit pharmaceuticals in India, where ingredients purchased for a few cents can be re-sold to U.S. health patients for hundreds of dollars (the markup on some drugs is literally over 500,000%).
There's something else Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about its drug operations in India: Big Pharma's manufacturing facilities dump millions of doses of toxic pharmaceutical chemicals directly into India's waterways. Researchers were recently stunned to discover that 100 pounds of a powerful antibiotic called ciprofloxacin was being dumped into a local stream every day! That's a quantity of antibiotics that could treat an entire city of 90,000 people every day.
But that's not all: The same waterway contained an astonishing 21 pharmaceutical chemicals reports the Associated Press, some at levels that were 150 times the highest levels of contamination found in U.S. waterways. (And even the levels found in the U.S. were quite alarming.)
Big Pharma as a Major Chemical Polluter
These findings are now added to the revelations of pharmaceutical contamination unveiled by the Associated Press last year, which found that the public water supplies in virtually all U.S. cities tested were contaminated with pharmaceutical chemicals. What's emerging from these disturbing discoveries is a picture of Big Pharma as a global corporate polluter that's dumping chemicals into the world's sensitive waterways, polluting villages, cities and aquatic ecosystems around the world.
Under the Bush Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency outright refused to regulate pharmaceuticals as environmental hazards. With Obama in the White House, it remains to be seen whether the new administration will clamp down on pharmaceutical pollution.
Big Pharma now has something in common with Exxon, Cargill, Alcoa and Chevron: The outrageous pollution of the environment with toxic chemicals. But in many ways, Big Pharma's chemicals are far more dangerous. HRT drugs, for example, are toxic at parts per billion, and they're now being found in public water supplies around the world. Municipal water treatment facilities, by the way, don't remove pharmaceutical chemicals from the water! Whatever HRT drugs, psychiatric drugs or other chemicals that exist in the water are passed right through the water treatment centers which unwisely add yet more chemicals (fluoride and chlorine, typically) to the toxic brew. Citizens drinking public water supplies in India, the U.K., Canada and the United States are now verifiably participating in a grand experiment involving the mass medication of the population with low levels of utterly untested pharmaceutical combinations.
How long will this be allowed to continue before the environmental protection authorities clamp down on pharmaceutical dumping?
So far, environmental regulators have done nothing to stop the dumping of drugs into public water supplies. This is true even in America, where hospitals routinely dispose of drugs by simply flushing them down the toilet (injecting them directly into the water supply consumed downstream). Consumers also need to realize that the drugs you swallow are also environmental pollutants. Many drugs pass right through the human body unaltered, where they are flushed back into the water supply that's consumed downstream. (Yes, the toilet water from one city becomes the drinking water of the next city down the river. If you didn't know this, you have a LOT to learn about the water supply, and you probably won't like what you learn... especially if you live downstream...)
Big Pharma is Contaminating Our Planet
It's becoming quite clear that the pharmaceutical industry is now directly contributing to the mass chemical contamination of our planet. By allowing factories to dump drugs into local waterways, by tolerating a "flush it" mentality at hospitals and pharmacies, and by drugging consumers with an endless brew of vaccines, medications and toxic substances such as chemotherapy agents, the pharmaceutical industry has "achieved" the distinction as a major world polluter.
Those who take pharmaceuticals are, in fact, directly contributing to the chemical contamination of the planet. That's why getting off medications is not only good for your health; it's also good for the planet. You can't be "green" if you're taking medications. Consuming pharmaceuticals is simply incompatible with sustainable life on Earth. And the more drugs are manufactured and consumed, the worse this problem will become. Let me put it this way: The survival of our planet depends on the demise of Big Pharma. You can save the planet, or you can save Big Pharma. But not both. Which would you rather have around for future generations? Living oceans, blue skies, clean water and healthy species? Or sterile oceans, dwindling aquatic life, mutant human babies and widespread cancer, infertility and shortened lifespans? It's your choice: Mother Nature, or Big Pharma.
Centuries of the Chemical Destruction of our Planet
The devastating long-term effects of this chemical contamination of our world's waterways have yet to be truly understood at all. The chemicals being dumped into our environment by Big Pharma today may pollute our planet for hundreds of years, destroying aquatic ecosystems, killing fish populations and causing widespread physical deformities across many species.
Combine this with all the pesticide runoff already being used across the planet and it becomes quite clear that the human race has set itself on a path of self destruction. How's that? Because humans don't exist in isolation from the natural world. When we destroy or disrupt the planet's delicate ecosystems through chemical contamination, we unleash a backlash of effects that put the entire human race in jeopardy: Outbreaks of infectious disease, plummeting fish stocks in ocean waters, rising risks of superbugs across the population and even long-term disruptions in the food supply due to pharmaceutical contamination of food crops and soil microorganisms. (Irrigation water being sprayed on crops is now also contaminated with pharmaceuticals...)
Stated bluntly, what's happening is that the pharmaceutical industry is poisoning our world -- and it's doing it for profit. While their factories in India are dumping millions of doses of antibiotics (and a brew of twenty other drugs) into the water supply each year, they're importing those drugs into the U.S. and selling them at monopoly prices to gullible consumers, all while pretending they're on some sort of humanitarian mission to help people.
The truth is that Big Pharma is committing crimes against Nature, and we'll all end up paying the price for allowing these crimes to continue under our watch. Every living thing in our world is interconnected: You can't poison the waterways with a toxic brew of dangerous chemicals and expect to be insulated from the effects of that forever. Sometimes I stand back in sheer astonishment at how short-sighted human civilization truly is. Today our population demonstrates a striking lack of understanding about the web of life on our planet combined with an outright abandonment of ethics and morals. Companies (and many people) simply do whatever benefits them at the moment, regardless of the long-term consequences.
The pharmaceutical industry exemplifies this destructive philosophy best, as it actually works to trap people in a cycle of disease treatment, all while raking in obscene profits for poisoning the people and the planet.
What a Shameful Business Model.
It's beyond shame, really. It's a crime. And it's time we put an end to these crimes against the People and against the planet.
Once again, I call for the arrest and prosecution of Big Pharma CEOs and executives for their role in planning and executing these crimes against humanity and Nature. In the U.S., this must be pursued by the Dept. of Justice, since the FDA, EPA and FTC remain in a tight conspiracy with the drug industry and will do nothing to bring their protected corporations to justice.
You can help support the effort to bring these criminals to justice (and end the chemical contamination of our planet by Big Pharma) by contacting your elected representatives (in any country) and letting them know how outraged you are about the widespread chemical pollution caused by the pharmaceutical industry.
Save the planet. End the era of Big Pharma.
1/19/2009
Coming Clean! Hidden Dangers In Soap
Coming Clean - The Hidden Dangers in Common Soap
by Karyn Siegel-Maier
Originally published in Better Nutrition Magazine
Get the real dirt on what's in your soap (and what shouldn't be there)
Our standards of personal hygiene have changed dramatically since the 18th century. No longer do we fear "throwing out the baby with the bath water" since the days of the entire family taking turns in the same tub of soapy water each week are long gone. No, modern plumbing allows most of us to relish in private showers on a daily basis and, to keep up with our demands, the cosmetic industry has not fallen short of providing a vast array of soaps and cleansers in which to wash away the sins of dirt. Unfortunately, soap itself has also undergone major transformations and what you may be buying off the shelf today may be considered anything but "clean."
Soap Basics
Soap is made by combining a fat source (either animal or vegetable) and an alkali (acid) in a chemical process known as saponification. In spite of efforts to promote bathing as an immodest act by some factions of the early Christian church, the soap industry came into its own in the 12th and 13th centuries in Italy and France. By the 16th century, soapmaking became a prosperous industry in England and by the mid-17th century, the New England colonists benefited from exporting much-needed soap ash and animal fats to England. Soon, the territories now known as New Hampshire and Maine profited greatly from these exports and eventually became the heart of soap manufacturing in the United States.
Early soaps were made by boiling goat or sheep tallow (fat) with water and hardwood ash (alkali), although Italian and French soapmakers explored the use of olive oil in place of animal fats to improve texture and quality. But, commercial Soaps, as we know them today, may contain a variety of other chemicals that are not neutralized in the manufacturing process and that are being applied to your skin every day.
What's In Your Soap?
In 1938, under the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, cosmetics were legally defined as any product used for the purpose of "cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering appearance" without affecting bodily function. Products that come under this category include sprays, lotions, powders, deodorants, facial makeup and, you guessed it, soaps. Unlike products that are classified as both a cosmetic and a drug (such as fluoride toothpaste) cosmetics and their individual ingredients do not need FDA approval before appearing on the market. In fact, the FDA has no regulatory authority over these products and their ingredients until after they appear on the market, and only if it can be determined that they have caused direct harm to human health. Furthermore, the fact that many soaps and cleansers are formulated from a variety of combined chemicals complicates the issue further. Only about 16 percent of cosmetics have been tested for toxicity by the FDA-- although it does require companies to label cosmetics with a warning if they contain irritants or hazardous substances.
Curious now about what you're taking a bath with?
Here's a brief rundown on some potentially harmful ingredients found in many commercial soaps:
A-pinene -- Derived from the resinous sap of pine trees, this substance is a major component of turpentine and can damage the immune system.
A-terpineol -- This chemical is extremely irritating to your mucus membranes. Frequent or prolonged exposure (and especially repeated inhalation) can also cause edema, as well as respiratory difficulties.
Benzaldehyde -- Also called oil of bitter almond, this substance is a narcotic and anesthetic that can depress the central nervous system. When inhaled, it can bring on vomiting, dizziness and a sudden drop in blood pressure.
Benzyl Acetate -- An eye and lung irritant and known carcinogen (cancer-causer) that has been associated with pancreatic cancer.
Ethanol -- Appears on the EPA Hazardous Waste List and is used in the manufacture of varnish and paint remover. This chemical can irritate the respiratory tract and can cause impaired vision and loss of muscle control.
Linalool -- A narcotic that can impair respiratory function and motor activity. Linalool also attracts bees which can be a problem for those allergic to bee stings.
Sodium Laurel Sulfate (SLS) -- Used to increase absorption of other chemicals; it is also a "wetting agent" that allows shampoo to spread out and penetrate more easily. SLS breaks down lipids (fats) and impairs the skin's ability to retain moisture. It is classified as a "mutagen," meaning it can alter cellular genetic material. In fact, SLS has been used in Japanese studies to promote bacterial mutations.
Triclosan -- A bactericide (anti-bacterial) and mutagen that is readily absorbed through the skin. It's also an eye irritant and associated with causing liver damage.
A New Generation Of Chemical-resistant Supergerms?
It should also be said that the overuse of chemical antibacterials, such as triclosan, has created a widespread problem of a new generation of bacteria that have mutated to become resistant to these harsh chemicals. According to research from Tufts University, triclosan-containing antibacterial soaps used in the home can become breeding grounds for creating a strain of resistant bacteria.
The Color of ... Danger
And, what about the colors that are added to soaps? Many of them are permitted in cosmetics (and some drugs) for use on the skin but are suspected of being carcinogens, teratogens (indicating the substance can pass through the placenta to an unborn child) or toxins. A mere sampling of these include (all prefixed by D&C, which means that the dye may only be used in drugs and cosmetics, not in foods):
* Blue Aluminum Lake 1 and 2
* Red No. 19
* Aluminum Lake
* Zirconium Lake
* Yellow No. 8
Get Clean The Natural Way!
You can take out the mystery of reading labels and the fear of uncertainty when you buy from your natural foods store. Chances are they will have a variety of body bars and facial cleansers on the shelves that will be safe for the entire family to use. And, you can be sure that these soaps are environmentally safe and cruelty-free to boot.
What Should You Look For In Natural Soaps?
Natural soaps contain vegetable-based oils, such as oils of olive, coconut, canola or soya, rather than animal products. They may also contain emollients such as glycerin and lanolin. Oddly, glycerin is a natural by-product of soap making, but many commercial manufacturers separate this substance from their product and sell it to other industries for a profit. Soaps that are "cold-pressed" retain their original glycerin content. Lanolin, on the other hand, is an animal product in the sense that it is derived from the wool of sheep, but without sacrificing the animal.
Natural soaps will also contain botanical essential oils, not perfumes or synthetic dyes and fragrances. The essential oils perform double duty: they offer superior cleansing and healing properties while providing the benefits of aromatherapy. You can replace your old triclosan-containing antibacterial soaps with those formulated with tea tree, rose, geranium or lavender. If you have very oily skin with a tendency toward acne, you might benefit from soaps made with carrot, citrus or mint oils. Dry skin benefits from the oils of lavender, rose geranium and calendula, while extremely dry skin can be helped with the oils of avocado, jojoba, wheat germ and sweet almond.
by Karyn Siegel-Maier
Originally published in Better Nutrition Magazine
Get the real dirt on what's in your soap (and what shouldn't be there)
Our standards of personal hygiene have changed dramatically since the 18th century. No longer do we fear "throwing out the baby with the bath water" since the days of the entire family taking turns in the same tub of soapy water each week are long gone. No, modern plumbing allows most of us to relish in private showers on a daily basis and, to keep up with our demands, the cosmetic industry has not fallen short of providing a vast array of soaps and cleansers in which to wash away the sins of dirt. Unfortunately, soap itself has also undergone major transformations and what you may be buying off the shelf today may be considered anything but "clean."
Soap Basics
Soap is made by combining a fat source (either animal or vegetable) and an alkali (acid) in a chemical process known as saponification. In spite of efforts to promote bathing as an immodest act by some factions of the early Christian church, the soap industry came into its own in the 12th and 13th centuries in Italy and France. By the 16th century, soapmaking became a prosperous industry in England and by the mid-17th century, the New England colonists benefited from exporting much-needed soap ash and animal fats to England. Soon, the territories now known as New Hampshire and Maine profited greatly from these exports and eventually became the heart of soap manufacturing in the United States.
Early soaps were made by boiling goat or sheep tallow (fat) with water and hardwood ash (alkali), although Italian and French soapmakers explored the use of olive oil in place of animal fats to improve texture and quality. But, commercial Soaps, as we know them today, may contain a variety of other chemicals that are not neutralized in the manufacturing process and that are being applied to your skin every day.
What's In Your Soap?
In 1938, under the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, cosmetics were legally defined as any product used for the purpose of "cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering appearance" without affecting bodily function. Products that come under this category include sprays, lotions, powders, deodorants, facial makeup and, you guessed it, soaps. Unlike products that are classified as both a cosmetic and a drug (such as fluoride toothpaste) cosmetics and their individual ingredients do not need FDA approval before appearing on the market. In fact, the FDA has no regulatory authority over these products and their ingredients until after they appear on the market, and only if it can be determined that they have caused direct harm to human health. Furthermore, the fact that many soaps and cleansers are formulated from a variety of combined chemicals complicates the issue further. Only about 16 percent of cosmetics have been tested for toxicity by the FDA-- although it does require companies to label cosmetics with a warning if they contain irritants or hazardous substances.
Curious now about what you're taking a bath with?
Here's a brief rundown on some potentially harmful ingredients found in many commercial soaps:
A-pinene -- Derived from the resinous sap of pine trees, this substance is a major component of turpentine and can damage the immune system.
A-terpineol -- This chemical is extremely irritating to your mucus membranes. Frequent or prolonged exposure (and especially repeated inhalation) can also cause edema, as well as respiratory difficulties.
Benzaldehyde -- Also called oil of bitter almond, this substance is a narcotic and anesthetic that can depress the central nervous system. When inhaled, it can bring on vomiting, dizziness and a sudden drop in blood pressure.
Benzyl Acetate -- An eye and lung irritant and known carcinogen (cancer-causer) that has been associated with pancreatic cancer.
Ethanol -- Appears on the EPA Hazardous Waste List and is used in the manufacture of varnish and paint remover. This chemical can irritate the respiratory tract and can cause impaired vision and loss of muscle control.
Linalool -- A narcotic that can impair respiratory function and motor activity. Linalool also attracts bees which can be a problem for those allergic to bee stings.
Sodium Laurel Sulfate (SLS) -- Used to increase absorption of other chemicals; it is also a "wetting agent" that allows shampoo to spread out and penetrate more easily. SLS breaks down lipids (fats) and impairs the skin's ability to retain moisture. It is classified as a "mutagen," meaning it can alter cellular genetic material. In fact, SLS has been used in Japanese studies to promote bacterial mutations.
Triclosan -- A bactericide (anti-bacterial) and mutagen that is readily absorbed through the skin. It's also an eye irritant and associated with causing liver damage.
A New Generation Of Chemical-resistant Supergerms?
It should also be said that the overuse of chemical antibacterials, such as triclosan, has created a widespread problem of a new generation of bacteria that have mutated to become resistant to these harsh chemicals. According to research from Tufts University, triclosan-containing antibacterial soaps used in the home can become breeding grounds for creating a strain of resistant bacteria.
The Color of ... Danger
And, what about the colors that are added to soaps? Many of them are permitted in cosmetics (and some drugs) for use on the skin but are suspected of being carcinogens, teratogens (indicating the substance can pass through the placenta to an unborn child) or toxins. A mere sampling of these include (all prefixed by D&C, which means that the dye may only be used in drugs and cosmetics, not in foods):
* Blue Aluminum Lake 1 and 2
* Red No. 19
* Aluminum Lake
* Zirconium Lake
* Yellow No. 8
Get Clean The Natural Way!
You can take out the mystery of reading labels and the fear of uncertainty when you buy from your natural foods store. Chances are they will have a variety of body bars and facial cleansers on the shelves that will be safe for the entire family to use. And, you can be sure that these soaps are environmentally safe and cruelty-free to boot.
What Should You Look For In Natural Soaps?
Natural soaps contain vegetable-based oils, such as oils of olive, coconut, canola or soya, rather than animal products. They may also contain emollients such as glycerin and lanolin. Oddly, glycerin is a natural by-product of soap making, but many commercial manufacturers separate this substance from their product and sell it to other industries for a profit. Soaps that are "cold-pressed" retain their original glycerin content. Lanolin, on the other hand, is an animal product in the sense that it is derived from the wool of sheep, but without sacrificing the animal.
Natural soaps will also contain botanical essential oils, not perfumes or synthetic dyes and fragrances. The essential oils perform double duty: they offer superior cleansing and healing properties while providing the benefits of aromatherapy. You can replace your old triclosan-containing antibacterial soaps with those formulated with tea tree, rose, geranium or lavender. If you have very oily skin with a tendency toward acne, you might benefit from soaps made with carrot, citrus or mint oils. Dry skin benefits from the oils of lavender, rose geranium and calendula, while extremely dry skin can be helped with the oils of avocado, jojoba, wheat germ and sweet almond.
1/16/2009
Should Teens Ditch The Makeup?
Cosmetics and Breast Cancer: Should Teens Ditch the Makeup?
A new report found teenage girls' bodies contained the same potentially hormone-altering chemicals found in many cosmetics.
Could that strawberry-pink blush your teenage daughter rubs on her cheeks every morning be increasing her breast cancer risk? What about the sudsy lavender shower soap you both like? A controversial new report highlights teen girls' extra vulnerability to environmental contaminants during their crucial adolescent years, and revisits an unsettled debate over whether cosmetics are part of the problem. So-called hormone disrupters are the toxic troublemakers at the center of this discussion. These chemicals—found not just in cosmetics but also in pesticides, plastics, and drugs—are thought to mimic hormones such as estrogen when they’re absorbed by the human body. And high, sustained levels of estrogen are linked to the development of breast cancer.
The question is: How to navigate the largely self-regulated cosmetics industry as a conscientious shopper? Is there something you should be doing to help protect your daughters and granddaughters from the world around them? The debate over the safety of cosmetic ingredients was reignited in September when the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington, D.C.–based nonprofit, published a report on the subject. EWG found that teenage girls' bodies contained the same potentially hormone-altering chemicals found in many cosmetics and its report references earlier studies that link those chemicals to health risks, including cancer, in lab animals. Of particular concern is a chemical family known as phthalates, used in some nail polishes and fragrances.
"We're concerned that these hormone-disrupting chemicals could start to play a role in how growth and development plays out in the teen body and therefore how it might be linked to health effects later in life," says Rebecca Sutton, PhD, author of the report and a senior scientist at EWG.But don't liquidate your cosmetics shelf just yet. The authors of the EWG report, which looked at 20 girls ages 14 to 19, did not show a direct link between the girls' makeup habits and what was found in their bodies. The chemicals could have come from any number of other sources. "The phthalates in the plastic water bottles these girls drink from, or the microwave containers they eat out of, may be far more likely to get into their system than cosmetic use, and as of now, no one has banned these things," says M. William Audeh, MD, an oncologist who works in cancer risk assessment at the Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. "I agree that the general environment in which we grow up and live is far too full of unnatural, possibly harmful chemicals," says Dr. Audeh. "But I think that to say that cosmetics are an important source, and then blame diseases on them, is going much too far."
Much of current research into hormone-disrupting agents focuses on men and boys, and some of it is alarming. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, for instance, suggested that lavender and tea tree oils caused several prepubescent boys to develop breasts.
But experts agree that more research is needed on hormone disrupters picked up from various sources and the risks they may pose to adolescent females. "Cancer occurs only when a cancer-causing agent has occurred in a very specific window of development," says Irma H. Russo, MD, chief of the molecular endocrinology section of the Breast Cancer Research Laboratory at Fox Chase Cancer Center, in Philadelphia, and a researcher into the impact of hormone disrupters on female development. And that "window of susceptibility," as Dr. Russo calls it, extends from a girl's prepubescent years all the way back to her in utero development.
If anything, looking at girls between the ages of 14 to 19 may be a little bit late because sometimes the damage occurs much earlier," she says.
A new report found teenage girls' bodies contained the same potentially hormone-altering chemicals found in many cosmetics.
Could that strawberry-pink blush your teenage daughter rubs on her cheeks every morning be increasing her breast cancer risk? What about the sudsy lavender shower soap you both like? A controversial new report highlights teen girls' extra vulnerability to environmental contaminants during their crucial adolescent years, and revisits an unsettled debate over whether cosmetics are part of the problem. So-called hormone disrupters are the toxic troublemakers at the center of this discussion. These chemicals—found not just in cosmetics but also in pesticides, plastics, and drugs—are thought to mimic hormones such as estrogen when they’re absorbed by the human body. And high, sustained levels of estrogen are linked to the development of breast cancer.
The question is: How to navigate the largely self-regulated cosmetics industry as a conscientious shopper? Is there something you should be doing to help protect your daughters and granddaughters from the world around them? The debate over the safety of cosmetic ingredients was reignited in September when the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington, D.C.–based nonprofit, published a report on the subject. EWG found that teenage girls' bodies contained the same potentially hormone-altering chemicals found in many cosmetics and its report references earlier studies that link those chemicals to health risks, including cancer, in lab animals. Of particular concern is a chemical family known as phthalates, used in some nail polishes and fragrances.
Activists Demand Cleaner Cosmetics
Stacy Malkan, a cofounder of the advocacy group Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author of Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, says cosmetics need extra scrutiny because they are often a direct source of exposure to so many different chemicals. Cosmetics are rubbed right into the skin, inhaled (think perfumes and other sprays), or swallowed (as with lipsticks)—and often on a daily basis.
To some cancer experts, pinpointing the exact source of these chemicals is not as important as the age of the girls exposed—not just to cosmetics and household and industrial products, but also to cigarette smoke, radiation, and even fatty foods. "What is known is that when developing breast tissue is exposed to toxic chemicals, it has more effect and impact," says Julia A. Smith, MD, PhD, director of the NYU Cancer Institute's breast cancer screening and prevention program and director of the Lynne Cohen breast cancer preventive care program at New York University.
Dr. Smith also finds it disconcerting that younger girls appear to be using more cosmetic and personal care products than adult women. The EWG’s teenage survey participants used an average of 17 personal care products every day, containing an estimated 174 different ingredients, compared to the roughly 12 products and 168 different chemicals they previously found that adult women each used daily. Advocates say the problem is serious, and they suggest playing it safe by avoiding chemical-laden cosmetics—and argue that it isn't difficult to do so. Hair sprays and lip liners aren’t exactly essential (although many a junior-high student would disagree). "While we may not be able to control the carcinogens we breathe from the air or drink from the water, we don't need to be putting these chemicals directly on our skin," says Malkan.Eventually, she says, there should be no cosmetics that contain hormone-disrupters on the market. "Taking these chemicals out of personal care products should be a no-brainer. It's an easy way, relatively speaking, to reduce the toxic load in the world. "Malkan, who confesses to having been "obsessed with beauty products" in her teenage years, would like to see more research into the effects of cosmetic ingredients on teenagers and children, as well as studies tracking repeated exposures over long periods of time.
Unnecessary panic?
A cosmetics industry representative interviewed for this story pointed out that the EWG report "lacks many of the rigors that you would normally associate with a real scientific report," such as a large study population and control or placebo groups.
"They're presenting some very alarming assertions that are not supported by the methodology they used," says John Bailey, PhD, chief scientist of the Personal Care Products Council.
As for the EWG–referenced studies suggesting the dangers of cosmetic ingredients, Bailey says, "Many of these studies involve cell cultures where you take cells out of the body and you expose them to very high concentrations of a material." That’s not the same, he says, as looking at "real use and actual exposure [in which] products are applied to the skin at low levels." Dr. Audeh is also worried about the public reaction to findings such as the EWG’s. He says such reports can result in "unnecessary panic aimed at what may be a minor or relatively unimportant source of chemical exposure. "The science is certainly preliminary in this field. Even if cosmetics ingredients do prove harmful in further studies, scientists also have yet to pinpoint the exact mechanism by which hormone-disrupting chemicals may affect breast health.Is there a direct impact when you paint your nails with polish containing phthalates, for instance? Or do the chemicals amplify preexisting risk factors for breast cancer—such as family history or genetic predisposition?"
Not everyone who's exposed to a given environmental influence reacts the same way," explains Dr. Smith. "But our experience shows us that there's an interaction between the environment and one's underlying biology and genetics. Teasing out the exact effects is going to take time."
Research On Men and Boys
Much of current research into hormone-disrupting agents focuses on men and boys, and some of it is alarming. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, for instance, suggested that lavender and tea tree oils caused several prepubescent boys to develop breasts.
But experts agree that more research is needed on hormone disrupters picked up from various sources and the risks they may pose to adolescent females. "Cancer occurs only when a cancer-causing agent has occurred in a very specific window of development," says Irma H. Russo, MD, chief of the molecular endocrinology section of the Breast Cancer Research Laboratory at Fox Chase Cancer Center, in Philadelphia, and a researcher into the impact of hormone disrupters on female development. And that "window of susceptibility," as Dr. Russo calls it, extends from a girl's prepubescent years all the way back to her in utero development.
If anything, looking at girls between the ages of 14 to 19 may be a little bit late because sometimes the damage occurs much earlier," she says.
How To Be An Educated Consumer
Until research sways (or doesn’t sway) more minds and brings stricter control over the sorts of chemicals in question, cosmetics activists such as Malkan urge consumers to press for more regulation of the industry. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has some authority over beauty products, the cosmetics industry is a largely self-regulating and self-testing one, with a focus on weeding out products that pose immediate and obvious health risks, such as allergic reactions or skin irritation. Malkan advises women to serve as their own regulators: "The government is not protecting us and the companies are not protecting us, so we have to protect ourselves."
To that end, she offers some tips for sorting through the maze of makeup, lotions, potions, creams, and gels out there.
• Choose products with fewer ingredients and fewer chemicals.
• Before buying, think to yourself, "Do I really need this product?" and consider whether you can cut it from your daily routine.
(The Personal Care Products Council also offers a website, Cosmeticsinfo.org, with information about ingredients and regulation.)Dr. Audeh has his own list of toxic products that teenage girls should avoid to make sure they’re not increasing their breast cancer risk—it includes cigarette smoke, high-fat diets, and diets with lots of red meat—but he doesn’t believe soaps and makeup belong at the top of it. "I am not claiming that exposure to estrogenic chemicals from cosmetics are totally without health risks," says Dr. Audeh. "But it is hard to argue that of all these things, cosmetics are the most important."
Reprinted from Health.com
Lead writer: Michael Gollust
Last Updated: November 26, 2008
http://www.health.com/health/condition-article/0,,20242656,00.html
1/12/2009
Skin Care Matters!
It MATTERS what you put on your skin!
More and more people are paying attention to the foods they eat -- hence the increased demand for organic food. However, most people overlook the importance of caring for the skin -- the largest organ of the body. Most everything we put on our skin can be absorbed into the blood stream. Sobering, huh? Have you looked at the ingredients in your hand lotion lately? Your cosmetics? Your hair spray? Hair dye (scary!)? Perfumes? Body Washes? etc.
I put together my personal favorites -- my "top five websites for information regarding skin care products." Bookmark these links. They will afford you vital information regarding products you probably put on your skin every day.
The following are good websites:
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com
http://www.notjustaprettyface.org
http://www.herbalmusings.com
http://www.barbthrasher.amazonherb.net
http://www.ewg.org
A good rule of thumb: If you wouldn't eat the products you slather on your skin, you shouldn't be putting them ON your skin. Put another way: If you aren't willing to ingest the ingredients -- then perhaps you shouldn't be putting them on your skin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
