Natural and Organic Products
You might expect a product labeled "pure, natural and organic" to be, well … pure, natural and organic. But you might be in for a surprise.
Unlike the food industry, there are no legal standards for organic or natural personal care products sold in the United States. This means that companies can, and often do, use these terms as marketing gimmicks. For example, the top-selling shampoo in the United States is Clairol Herbal Essences, which until recently claimed to offer users an "organic experience." However, there isn't much about this product that is either herbal or organic; it contains more than a dozen synthetic petrochemicals and has a moderate toxicity rating in Skin Deep.
Even top-selling brands in the natural products sector have been found to contain 1,4-dioxane, a synthetic chemical carcinogen.
New industry standards are emerging that may help consumers differentiate between the natural and not-so-natural products, but multiple standards with different meanings may not be helpful for consumers. For example, some require safety substantiation from a certifying body and others don't. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is advocating for a standard that means ingredients are both natural and safe for people.
What You Can Do
Encourage your favorite retailers and manufacturers of natural and organic products to clarify their use of the terms. Most importantly, be a critical consumer and remember that natural is a marketing term, not a legally binding description.
More Information
Science and health effects: 1,4-dioxane
Very few, if any, cosmetics or personal care products list 1,4-dioxane as an ingredient (i), even though an analysis by Campaign for Safe Cosmetics co-founder the Environmental Working Group suggests that it may be found in 22 percent of the more than 25,000 products in the Skin Deep database of cosmetics products (ii). That's because 1,4-dioxane is a frequent contaminant of common cosmetics ingredients (iii), but as a contaminant it is not listed among intentionally added ingredients.
Products That May Contain 1,4-dioxane
Because it is a contaminant produced during manufacturing, the FDA does not require 1,4-dioxane to be listed as an ingredient on product labels. Without labeling, there is no way to know for certain how many products contain 1,4-dioxane—and no guaranteed way for consumers to avoid it.
Most commonly, 1,4-dioxane is found in products that create suds, like shampoo, liquid soap and bubble bath. Environmental Working Group's analysis suggests that 97 percent of hair relaxers, 57 percent of baby soaps and 22 percent of all products in Skin Deep may be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane (iv). Independent lab tests co-released by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in 2007 showed that popular brands of children's bubble bath and body wash contained 1,4-dioxane.
Besides sodium laureth sulfate, other common ingredients that may be contaminated by 1,4-dioxane include PEG compounds and chemicals that include the clauses "xynol," "ceteareth" and "oleth."
Where It Comes From
1,4-dioxane is generated through a process called ethoxylation, in which ethylene oxide, a known breast carcinogen, is added to other chemicals to make them less harsh. This process creates 1,4-dioxane. For example, sodium laurel sulfate, a chemical that is harsh on the skin, is often converted to the less-harsh chemical sodium laureth sulfate (the “eth” denotes ethoxylation), which can contaminate this ingredient with 1,4-dioxane.
Alternatives do exist, but many companies don't take advantage of them. Vacuum-stripping can remove 1,4-dioxane from an ethoxylated product, or manufacturers can skip ethoxylation entirely by using less-harsh ingredients to begin with (v). Organic standards do not allow ethoxylation at all. A study by the Organic Consumers Association (vi) shows that 1,4-dioxane is nonexistent in a variety of cosmetics produced and certified under the USDA National Organic Program, as well as other products.
Health Concerns
Research shows that 1,4-dioxane readily penetrates the skin (vii). 1,4-dioxane is considered a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (viii) and listed as an animal carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program (ix). It is included on California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known or suspected by the state to cause cancer or birth defects (x). The California Environmental Protection Agency also lists 1,4-dioxane as a suspected kidney toxicant, neurotoxicant and respiratory toxicant.
It is highly unlikely that any one product containing 1,4-dioxane will cause harm on its own. However, repeated exposures from many different products add up. The same baby could be exposed to 1,4-dioxane from baby shampoo, bath bubbles and body wash in a single bath, as well as from other contaminated personal care products today, tomorrow and the next day. Repeated exposures to a single carcinogen, synergistic effects from exposures to multiple carcinogenic and mutagenic ingredients, and concerns about exposures at key points in development (such as pregnancy, infancy and puberty) are cause for concern even though little risk is evident from a single small exposure. Buy only natural, organic, non-toxic products.
Showing posts with label soaps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label soaps. Show all posts
Monday, May 24, 2010
Low-dose Exposures
Low-dose Exposures
Two decades of research indicate that very low-dose exposures to toxic chemicals can have profound health effects. This counters the long-held belief that “the dose makes the poison” – a rationale that underlies much chemical regulation, including the use of various chemicals in cosmetics (i). The inaccurate assumption that very small amounts of toxic chemicals are safe allows for the continued use of toxic chemicals in personal care products (ii). Buy only natural, organic, non-toxic products.
There are at least three key problems with this assumption. First, this assumes that low doses are truly safe, which may not be the case. Research on laboratory animals, cell cultures and wildlife suggests that in some cases low-dose exposures may have more profound effects than higher exposures (iii). Second, this assumption of safety at low doses overlooks the fact that many of the toxic chemicals that appear in cosmetics and personal care products tend to show up in several products an average person uses daily, and that many of these chemicals show up in other consumer products as well (iv). As a result, what seem like small exposures add up to larger doses.
Finally, a long-standing approach to chemical regulation looks at chemicals one at a time. However, daily life exposes individuals to a multitude of various ingredients. For instance, an Environmental Working Group report shows that women use 12 cosmetic products with 168 unique ingredients each day and men use 6 products with an average of 85 ingredients (v). These ingredients, in combination with exposures from other consumer products and pollutants in the air and water, add up to a phenomenal array of combined exposures, in effect adding up to hundreds of exposures every day (vi).
Research indicates that, in many cases, these exposures add up and work in combination to affect health in ways that may be more profound than single exposures. Taking in multiple chemicals can have an additive effect, whereby multiple small exposures add up to a lot (2+3=5), or a synergistic effect, whereby multiple exposures increase the toxic effects of one another (2+3=10) (vii). For instance, several studies have found that combinations of various chemicals with estrogenic properties may have additive (viii) or synergistic effects (ix).
In addition, the timing of exposure may moderate the effects of low doses, so that low doses at certain points in development – prenatally, during puberty, etc. – may have stronger or qualitatively different effects on health (x).
More Information
For more information about how small doses of chemicals impact our long-term health, visit The Endocrine Disruption Exchange.
i Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
ii Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
iii Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
iv Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
v Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
vi Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003). Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
vii Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
viii Ramamoorthy K, Wang F, Chen IC, Safe S, Norris JD, McDonnell DP, Gaido KW, Bocchinfuso WP, Korach KS (1997). Potency of combined estrogenic pesticides. Science 275: 405-6.
Foster WG, Younglai EV, Boutross- Tadross O, Hughes CL, Wade MG (2004). Mammary gland morphology in Sprague-Dawley rats following treatment with an organochlorine mixture in utero and neonatal genistein. Toxicological Sciences 77: 91-100.
ix Xie L, Thrippleton K, Irwin MA, Siemering GS, Mekebri A, Crane D, Berry K, Schlenk D (2005). Evaluation of estrogenic activities of aquatic herbicides and surfactants using a rainbow trout vitellogenin assay. Toxicological Sciences 77: 91-100.
Kortenkamp A (2006). Breast cancer, oestrogens and environmental pollutants: a re-evaluation from a mixture perspective. International Journal of Andrology 29: 193-198.
x Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
Two decades of research indicate that very low-dose exposures to toxic chemicals can have profound health effects. This counters the long-held belief that “the dose makes the poison” – a rationale that underlies much chemical regulation, including the use of various chemicals in cosmetics (i). The inaccurate assumption that very small amounts of toxic chemicals are safe allows for the continued use of toxic chemicals in personal care products (ii). Buy only natural, organic, non-toxic products.
There are at least three key problems with this assumption. First, this assumes that low doses are truly safe, which may not be the case. Research on laboratory animals, cell cultures and wildlife suggests that in some cases low-dose exposures may have more profound effects than higher exposures (iii). Second, this assumption of safety at low doses overlooks the fact that many of the toxic chemicals that appear in cosmetics and personal care products tend to show up in several products an average person uses daily, and that many of these chemicals show up in other consumer products as well (iv). As a result, what seem like small exposures add up to larger doses.
Finally, a long-standing approach to chemical regulation looks at chemicals one at a time. However, daily life exposes individuals to a multitude of various ingredients. For instance, an Environmental Working Group report shows that women use 12 cosmetic products with 168 unique ingredients each day and men use 6 products with an average of 85 ingredients (v). These ingredients, in combination with exposures from other consumer products and pollutants in the air and water, add up to a phenomenal array of combined exposures, in effect adding up to hundreds of exposures every day (vi).
Research indicates that, in many cases, these exposures add up and work in combination to affect health in ways that may be more profound than single exposures. Taking in multiple chemicals can have an additive effect, whereby multiple small exposures add up to a lot (2+3=5), or a synergistic effect, whereby multiple exposures increase the toxic effects of one another (2+3=10) (vii). For instance, several studies have found that combinations of various chemicals with estrogenic properties may have additive (viii) or synergistic effects (ix).
In addition, the timing of exposure may moderate the effects of low doses, so that low doses at certain points in development – prenatally, during puberty, etc. – may have stronger or qualitatively different effects on health (x).
More Information
For more information about how small doses of chemicals impact our long-term health, visit The Endocrine Disruption Exchange.
i Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
ii Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
iii Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
iv Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
v Environmental Working Group (2004). Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. Available online http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/research/exposures/php. Accessed August 19, 2008.
vi Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2003). Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
vii Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
viii Ramamoorthy K, Wang F, Chen IC, Safe S, Norris JD, McDonnell DP, Gaido KW, Bocchinfuso WP, Korach KS (1997). Potency of combined estrogenic pesticides. Science 275: 405-6.
Foster WG, Younglai EV, Boutross- Tadross O, Hughes CL, Wade MG (2004). Mammary gland morphology in Sprague-Dawley rats following treatment with an organochlorine mixture in utero and neonatal genistein. Toxicological Sciences 77: 91-100.
ix Xie L, Thrippleton K, Irwin MA, Siemering GS, Mekebri A, Crane D, Berry K, Schlenk D (2005). Evaluation of estrogenic activities of aquatic herbicides and surfactants using a rainbow trout vitellogenin assay. Toxicological Sciences 77: 91-100.
Kortenkamp A (2006). Breast cancer, oestrogens and environmental pollutants: a re-evaluation from a mixture perspective. International Journal of Andrology 29: 193-198.
x Gray, J (2008). State of the Evidence: The Connection between Breast Cancer and the Environment. San Francisco, CA: Breast Cancer Fund.
Measuring the Pollution in People
Toxic chemicals in personal care products have been proven to have an accumulative affect in our bodies. For those with chronic illnesses, that burden becomes even greater. It is so important to avoid toxic chemicals as much as possible and lighten the load. Buy only natural, organic non-toxic products.
Measuring the Pollution in People
A number of striking studies (i) have shown that the man-made chemicals in our environment and in consumer products—including cosmetics—make their way into our bodies. Many of the chemicals found in cosmetics are absorbed by the skin into the body, and can be detected in blood or urine.
The length of time chemicals remain in the body varies from chemical to chemical and ranges from hours to decades. For chemicals that are excreted quickly, the fact that we can so consistently measure them indicates continual exposures that may have long-term effects on health.
Body Burden and Biomonitoring
Body burden refers to the levels of man-made chemicals in an individual’s body, generally measured through blood or urine. Large-scale biomonitoring programs that assess the levels of chemicals in a population or subset of a population would greatly support the ability of researchers to explore the links between exposures and disease. A gap in determining the long-term effects of chemical exposures upon disease has long been a lack of knowledge about chemical exposures and the intake of environmental toxins into the body. Ongoing biomonitoring programs would fill this vital data gap.
The Pollution in People
The largest U.S. body burden study to date measured the levels of 148 chemicals in approximately 3,000 people of varying ages, ethnicities and geographical locations (ii). This study, by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, detected a common sunscreen ingredient, benzophenone-3 (BP-3) in 96.8 percent of individuals (iii), and triclosan, an antibacterial agent often used in antibacterial soaps, in 74.6 percent of individuals (iv). A CDC study found residues of four different phthalates in more than 75 percent of subjects (v). Phthalates are found in numerous cosmetics, often as a constituent ingredient of fragrances. A 2008 study of teen girls by the Environmental Working Group revealed 16 hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals in their young test subjects (vi).
The CDC tests of 148 chemicals represents a very small percentage of the over 80,000 chemicals manufactured and the approximately 10,000 chemicals used in cosmetic products. The next edition of the CDC report, anticipated in 2009, will include measurements of 250 chemicals, an increase that still doesn't approach the total number of chemicals in commerce. Nevertheless, this and other studies illustrate that chemicals we use in an array of consumer products make their way into our bodies (vii). This knowledge also furthers our understanding of the links between the chemicals we use, the absorption of these chemicals into our bodies, and the known and probable health effects of these chemicals.
i.Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center (2005). Taking It All In: Documenting Chemical Pollution in Californians through Biomonitoring. Available online at http://www.commonweal.org/programs/download/TIAI_1205.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2006). Across Generations: Industrial Chemicals in Mothers and Daughters: The pollution we share and inherit. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/generations/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2005). Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns. Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/node/17686. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2003). Body Burden: The Pollution in People. Available online at: http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden1/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
ii Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2005). Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. Accessed December 23, 2008.
iii Calafat AM, Wong LY, Ye X, Reidy JA, Needham LL. Concentrations of the Sunscreen Agent, Benzophenone-3, in Residents of the United States: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect 116:893–897 (2008).
iv Calafat AM, Ye X, Wong LY, Reidy JA, Needham LL. Urinary Concentrations of Triclosan in the U.S. Population: 2003–2004. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116:303–307 (2008).
v Silva MJ, Barr DB, Reidy JA, Malek NA, Hodge CC, Caudill SP, Brock JW, Needham LL, Calafat AM. “Urinary Levels of Seven Phthalate Metabolites in the U.S. Population from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2000,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(3): 331-338 (2004).
vi Sutton, R (2008). Teen Girls' Body Burden of Hormone-Altering Cosmetics Chemicals. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/teens. Accessed October 10, 2008.
vii Commonweal and Breast Cancer Fund (2005). Taking It All In: Documenting Chemical Pollution in Californians through Biomonitoring. Available online at http://www.commonweal.org/programs/download/TIAI_1205.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2006). Across Generations: Industrial Chemicals in Mothers and Daughters: The pollution we share and inherit. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/generations/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2005). Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns. Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/node/17686. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2003). Body Burden: The Pollution in People. Available online at: http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden1/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Measuring the Pollution in People
A number of striking studies (i) have shown that the man-made chemicals in our environment and in consumer products—including cosmetics—make their way into our bodies. Many of the chemicals found in cosmetics are absorbed by the skin into the body, and can be detected in blood or urine.
The length of time chemicals remain in the body varies from chemical to chemical and ranges from hours to decades. For chemicals that are excreted quickly, the fact that we can so consistently measure them indicates continual exposures that may have long-term effects on health.
Body Burden and Biomonitoring
Body burden refers to the levels of man-made chemicals in an individual’s body, generally measured through blood or urine. Large-scale biomonitoring programs that assess the levels of chemicals in a population or subset of a population would greatly support the ability of researchers to explore the links between exposures and disease. A gap in determining the long-term effects of chemical exposures upon disease has long been a lack of knowledge about chemical exposures and the intake of environmental toxins into the body. Ongoing biomonitoring programs would fill this vital data gap.
The Pollution in People
The largest U.S. body burden study to date measured the levels of 148 chemicals in approximately 3,000 people of varying ages, ethnicities and geographical locations (ii). This study, by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, detected a common sunscreen ingredient, benzophenone-3 (BP-3) in 96.8 percent of individuals (iii), and triclosan, an antibacterial agent often used in antibacterial soaps, in 74.6 percent of individuals (iv). A CDC study found residues of four different phthalates in more than 75 percent of subjects (v). Phthalates are found in numerous cosmetics, often as a constituent ingredient of fragrances. A 2008 study of teen girls by the Environmental Working Group revealed 16 hormone-altering cosmetics chemicals in their young test subjects (vi).
The CDC tests of 148 chemicals represents a very small percentage of the over 80,000 chemicals manufactured and the approximately 10,000 chemicals used in cosmetic products. The next edition of the CDC report, anticipated in 2009, will include measurements of 250 chemicals, an increase that still doesn't approach the total number of chemicals in commerce. Nevertheless, this and other studies illustrate that chemicals we use in an array of consumer products make their way into our bodies (vii). This knowledge also furthers our understanding of the links between the chemicals we use, the absorption of these chemicals into our bodies, and the known and probable health effects of these chemicals.
i.Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center (2005). Taking It All In: Documenting Chemical Pollution in Californians through Biomonitoring. Available online at http://www.commonweal.org/programs/download/TIAI_1205.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2006). Across Generations: Industrial Chemicals in Mothers and Daughters: The pollution we share and inherit. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/generations/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2005). Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns. Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/node/17686. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2003). Body Burden: The Pollution in People. Available online at: http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden1/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
ii Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2005). Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. Accessed December 23, 2008.
iii Calafat AM, Wong LY, Ye X, Reidy JA, Needham LL. Concentrations of the Sunscreen Agent, Benzophenone-3, in Residents of the United States: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect 116:893–897 (2008).
iv Calafat AM, Ye X, Wong LY, Reidy JA, Needham LL. Urinary Concentrations of Triclosan in the U.S. Population: 2003–2004. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116:303–307 (2008).
v Silva MJ, Barr DB, Reidy JA, Malek NA, Hodge CC, Caudill SP, Brock JW, Needham LL, Calafat AM. “Urinary Levels of Seven Phthalate Metabolites in the U.S. Population from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2000,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(3): 331-338 (2004).
vi Sutton, R (2008). Teen Girls' Body Burden of Hormone-Altering Cosmetics Chemicals. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/teens. Accessed October 10, 2008.
vii Commonweal and Breast Cancer Fund (2005). Taking It All In: Documenting Chemical Pollution in Californians through Biomonitoring. Available online at http://www.commonweal.org/programs/download/TIAI_1205.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2006). Across Generations: Industrial Chemicals in Mothers and Daughters: The pollution we share and inherit. Available online at http://www.ewg.org/reports/generations/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2005). Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns. Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/node/17686. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Environmental Working Group (2003). Body Burden: The Pollution in People. Available online at: http://archive.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden1/. Accessed August 19, 2008.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Hazardous Chemicals in Holiday Cosmetics Stink
The holidays are upon us and the scent of cosmetic gift baskets is in the air--especially at Bath & Body Works. The retailer's holiday Sugar & Spice, Glittery Gumdrop and Twisted Peppermint products contain a lot of "fragrance," a mystery ingredient often made from dozens--even hundreds--of individual chemicals that don't appear on ingredient labels and that may be more naughty than nice for your health.
The Skin Deep cosmetic safety database lists fragrance as a cosmetic ingredient to avoid whenever possible. Because of a giant loophole in federal law, companies are not required to list on product labels any of the chemicals in a fragrance mixture. Fragrances can contain neurotoxins, allergens and phthalates, chemicals that have been linked to reproductive problems, testicular cancer and early puberty in girls--which is, in turn, a risk factor for breast cancer.
Fragrance, as your nose knows, is a major ingredient in these Bath & Body Works holiday wares. But it's not the only ingredient we're checking twice: Sodium Laureth Sulfate, a main ingredient in the Sugar & Spice 3-in-1 Body Wash, is often contaminated with a hidden carcinogen called 1,4-Dioxane; and the Glittery Gumdrop lotion contains at least two parabens, chemicals that act like estrogen in the body and have been found in breast cancer tumors.
If young girls are on your holiday shopping list, steer clear of Bath & Body Works' American Girl line, marketed to tweens. The American Girl Truly Me Glistening Shower and Bath Wash warns on its back label: "Excessive use or prolonged exposure may cause irritation to skin and urinary tract." No surprise, then, that this bath wash and American Girl Shimmer roll-on fragrance contain skin irritants, organ sensitizers and suspected carcinogens. Exposure to these chemicals at critical windows of development, like pre-puberty, can be especially harmful.
The 1,500+ Bath & Body Works stores nationwide will be bustling this season with holiday shoppers buying fragrant lotion or soaps. Please tell Bath & Body Works that you don't want to give or receive toxic body products this holiday season »
Click here to buy chemically free products
The Skin Deep cosmetic safety database lists fragrance as a cosmetic ingredient to avoid whenever possible. Because of a giant loophole in federal law, companies are not required to list on product labels any of the chemicals in a fragrance mixture. Fragrances can contain neurotoxins, allergens and phthalates, chemicals that have been linked to reproductive problems, testicular cancer and early puberty in girls--which is, in turn, a risk factor for breast cancer.
Fragrance, as your nose knows, is a major ingredient in these Bath & Body Works holiday wares. But it's not the only ingredient we're checking twice: Sodium Laureth Sulfate, a main ingredient in the Sugar & Spice 3-in-1 Body Wash, is often contaminated with a hidden carcinogen called 1,4-Dioxane; and the Glittery Gumdrop lotion contains at least two parabens, chemicals that act like estrogen in the body and have been found in breast cancer tumors.
If young girls are on your holiday shopping list, steer clear of Bath & Body Works' American Girl line, marketed to tweens. The American Girl Truly Me Glistening Shower and Bath Wash warns on its back label: "Excessive use or prolonged exposure may cause irritation to skin and urinary tract." No surprise, then, that this bath wash and American Girl Shimmer roll-on fragrance contain skin irritants, organ sensitizers and suspected carcinogens. Exposure to these chemicals at critical windows of development, like pre-puberty, can be especially harmful.
The 1,500+ Bath & Body Works stores nationwide will be bustling this season with holiday shoppers buying fragrant lotion or soaps. Please tell Bath & Body Works that you don't want to give or receive toxic body products this holiday season »
Click here to buy chemically free products
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Toxic chemical triclosan commonly found in anti-bacterial soaps, toothpaste products
October 29 2007
Toxic chemical triclosan commonly found in anti-bacterial soaps, toothpaste products: by Mike Adams of NewsTarget.com
A chemical called triclosan poses a health risk, as it is a toxic compound which can promote cancer. The most shocking thing is that triclosan is commonly found in everyday consumer goods such as antibacterial soaps, deodorants, body washes, creams, lotions, cosmetics, cleaning supplies, detergents, dishwashing liquids, and yes, mouthwash and toothpaste.
Toothpaste is supposed to help clean your teeth, but what it actually does just might horrify you. When tap water meets toothpaste, the triclosan reacts freely with the chlorine in the tap water to become chloroform (a chlorinated aromatic) and is similar to the dioxins found in the compound Agent Orange. It's a chemical reaction occurring right in your mouth while you brush your teeth. And don't think you are safe once you rinse it all out of your mouth: research shows that it can remain in your mouth after brushing for up to 12 hours, and can be easily absorbed into the tongue and through mucus into the body. (Children are at the greatest risk, as they tend to swallow their toothpaste more while brushing their teeth.)
According to the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP), "Manufacturers of a number of triclosan-containing toothpaste and soap products claim that the active ingredient continues to work for as long as 12 hours after use. Thus, consumers are exposed to tricolosan for much longer than the 20 seconds it takes to wash their hands or brush their teeth."
These products produce low levels of chloroform, but that adds up over time. The amount of gas formed is very low but I think the key thing is that we just don't know what the effects are. However, manufacturers do have to list triclosan on their ingredients, so if consumers are worried the best advice is to avoid products with the chemical," said Giles Watson, a toxicology expert.
Triclosan is officially a probably human carcinogen. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Union currently regulate triclosan, and the Environmental Protection Agency classifies this substance as a probable human carcinogen.
Toothpaste manufacturers claim that triclosan is used because it helps to reduce plaque and kill bacteria, but it actually aids in gum damage and can cause mouth ulcers, say some health experts.
These companies like the chemical because it allows them to state the product is a "99.9% bacteria killer" and make claims about the product being a "medicated formula."
According to the chemical creator's website, Ciba Specialty Chemicals "invented triclosan more than 35 years ago and in this long time of application without any adverse effects it has proven itself as the 'aspirin' of the antibacterial actives -- helpful without side effects.
"The popularity of triclosan is a reflection of its unique combination of efficacy against almost all types of bacteria and safety to man and nature which with the currently known substances used cannot be surmounted.
"The toothpaste manufacturers haven't done any substantial studies that reach a decision on whether to take triclosan out of their products. They continue to say that it is safe and only harmful if ingested. Even then, they say it only affects the nervous system (as if that's something very minor to have harmed).
No good science supporting safety of triclosanAccording to the American Medical Association: "Despite their recent proliferation in consumer products, the use of antimicrobial agents such as triclosan in consumer products has not been studied extensively. No data exist to support their efficacy when used in such products or any need for them…it may be prudent to avoid the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products." The chemical company states: "Ciba supports the use of triclosan only if there is a benefit to human beings."So, what if it is shown to offer no benefit to humans? Will they pull it off the shelves now that evidence points to its danger from exposure?
Also found in toys, bedding, clothing and moreTriclosan is also used in plastics and fabrics, where it goes under the trade names Microban and Biofresh respectively. It is infused into or used as an additive in a number of consumer products like toys, bedding, trash bags, socks, kitchen utensils, textiles and plastics.
"Over 95% of the uses of triclosan are in consumer products that are disposed of in residential drains. In a U.S. Geological Survey study of 95 different organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, triclosan was one of the most frequently detected compounds, and in some of the highest concentrations," according to the NCAMP.
According to Worldwatch Institute: "In the United States, 75% of liquid soaps and nearly 30% of bar soaps now contain triclosan and other germ-fighting compounds whose prevalence can foster the growth of bacterial resistance.
"The widespread use of triclosan is now known to create the risk of breeding new, resistant superbugs that may be far more dangerous to human health than the original germs killed by triclosan in the first place. My advice to consumers is to avoid all products containing triclosan.
Action items
• Avoid all products that make "antibacterial" claims (unless they are using herbs to accomplish it).
• Be aware of the harmful environmental impact of consuming products containing triclosan. The ingredient is not only unhealthy for humans, it's also unhealthy for the environment.
• Read the ingredients labels of all consumer products in order to make sure they do not contain triclosan.
Healthy Toothpaste, Liquid Soap,Concentrated Household cleaner: (www.youngliving.org/jes)
Homemade Soap without toxic chemicals: (www.jescollection.com)
Toxic chemical triclosan commonly found in anti-bacterial soaps, toothpaste products: by Mike Adams of NewsTarget.com
A chemical called triclosan poses a health risk, as it is a toxic compound which can promote cancer. The most shocking thing is that triclosan is commonly found in everyday consumer goods such as antibacterial soaps, deodorants, body washes, creams, lotions, cosmetics, cleaning supplies, detergents, dishwashing liquids, and yes, mouthwash and toothpaste.
Toothpaste is supposed to help clean your teeth, but what it actually does just might horrify you. When tap water meets toothpaste, the triclosan reacts freely with the chlorine in the tap water to become chloroform (a chlorinated aromatic) and is similar to the dioxins found in the compound Agent Orange. It's a chemical reaction occurring right in your mouth while you brush your teeth. And don't think you are safe once you rinse it all out of your mouth: research shows that it can remain in your mouth after brushing for up to 12 hours, and can be easily absorbed into the tongue and through mucus into the body. (Children are at the greatest risk, as they tend to swallow their toothpaste more while brushing their teeth.)
According to the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP), "Manufacturers of a number of triclosan-containing toothpaste and soap products claim that the active ingredient continues to work for as long as 12 hours after use. Thus, consumers are exposed to tricolosan for much longer than the 20 seconds it takes to wash their hands or brush their teeth."
These products produce low levels of chloroform, but that adds up over time. The amount of gas formed is very low but I think the key thing is that we just don't know what the effects are. However, manufacturers do have to list triclosan on their ingredients, so if consumers are worried the best advice is to avoid products with the chemical," said Giles Watson, a toxicology expert.
Triclosan is officially a probably human carcinogen. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Union currently regulate triclosan, and the Environmental Protection Agency classifies this substance as a probable human carcinogen.
Toothpaste manufacturers claim that triclosan is used because it helps to reduce plaque and kill bacteria, but it actually aids in gum damage and can cause mouth ulcers, say some health experts.
These companies like the chemical because it allows them to state the product is a "99.9% bacteria killer" and make claims about the product being a "medicated formula."
According to the chemical creator's website, Ciba Specialty Chemicals "invented triclosan more than 35 years ago and in this long time of application without any adverse effects it has proven itself as the 'aspirin' of the antibacterial actives -- helpful without side effects.
"The popularity of triclosan is a reflection of its unique combination of efficacy against almost all types of bacteria and safety to man and nature which with the currently known substances used cannot be surmounted.
"The toothpaste manufacturers haven't done any substantial studies that reach a decision on whether to take triclosan out of their products. They continue to say that it is safe and only harmful if ingested. Even then, they say it only affects the nervous system (as if that's something very minor to have harmed).
No good science supporting safety of triclosanAccording to the American Medical Association: "Despite their recent proliferation in consumer products, the use of antimicrobial agents such as triclosan in consumer products has not been studied extensively. No data exist to support their efficacy when used in such products or any need for them…it may be prudent to avoid the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products." The chemical company states: "Ciba supports the use of triclosan only if there is a benefit to human beings."So, what if it is shown to offer no benefit to humans? Will they pull it off the shelves now that evidence points to its danger from exposure?
Also found in toys, bedding, clothing and moreTriclosan is also used in plastics and fabrics, where it goes under the trade names Microban and Biofresh respectively. It is infused into or used as an additive in a number of consumer products like toys, bedding, trash bags, socks, kitchen utensils, textiles and plastics.
"Over 95% of the uses of triclosan are in consumer products that are disposed of in residential drains. In a U.S. Geological Survey study of 95 different organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, triclosan was one of the most frequently detected compounds, and in some of the highest concentrations," according to the NCAMP.
According to Worldwatch Institute: "In the United States, 75% of liquid soaps and nearly 30% of bar soaps now contain triclosan and other germ-fighting compounds whose prevalence can foster the growth of bacterial resistance.
"The widespread use of triclosan is now known to create the risk of breeding new, resistant superbugs that may be far more dangerous to human health than the original germs killed by triclosan in the first place. My advice to consumers is to avoid all products containing triclosan.
Action items
• Avoid all products that make "antibacterial" claims (unless they are using herbs to accomplish it).
• Be aware of the harmful environmental impact of consuming products containing triclosan. The ingredient is not only unhealthy for humans, it's also unhealthy for the environment.
• Read the ingredients labels of all consumer products in order to make sure they do not contain triclosan.
Healthy Toothpaste, Liquid Soap,Concentrated Household cleaner: (www.youngliving.org/jes)
Homemade Soap without toxic chemicals: (www.jescollection.com)
Friday, August 31, 2007
The Health (and Beauty) Dangers of Common Soap
If you are like most people, you believe that bar soap -- the oldest cleanser around - is harmless. So you may be quite surprised to learn that today's popular commercial soaps contain synthetic compounds that are loaded with health risks.
These are some of the most common health symptoms that studies have linked to ingredients found in common commercial soaps and commercial personal care products:
These are some of the most common health symptoms that studies have linked to ingredients found in common commercial soaps and commercial personal care products:
- Sinus Problems
- Exacerbated Asthma Conditions
- Fatigue
- Dizziness
- Nausea
- Migraine Headaches
- "Unexplained" Sore Throats & Cough
Rashes, Hives, Dermatitis, Eczema
irritations to mouth, eyes, skin, lungs - Chest Tightness
- Shortness of Breath
You should know right away that the government does not regulate what "natural" means in soaps labeled natural, so commercial soaps can freely claim to be natural while still using the synthetic compounds discussed below - and they do. If you are already using a "natural" soap, or if you intend to seek a safe alternative, please keep this in mind.
Three Potentially Risky Synthetic Compounds
While there are a number of chemical concerns, there are three synthetic components in commercial soaps you need to be most concerned with: 1) Triclosan; 2) Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS); and 3) Fragrance. Most of the commercial bar soaps (and liquid and other forms) on the market today are composed of these and other chemicals.
Triclosan
The first antibacterial liquid hand soap exploded onto the market in 1995, claiming to be ten times more effective at eliminating disease carrying germs than regular liquid soap. In the eleven years since, antibacterial soaps have become a 16 billion dollar a year industry, adding shampoo, dishwashing detergent, toothpaste and various household cleaners to the "antibacterial" list.
Today, 75% of liquid soaps and over 30% of bar soaps in the US are antibacterial, all containing the synthetic chemical triclosan. Triclosan is the main ingredient in antibacterial products. The intention of triclosan is to prevent bacteria from reproducing, limiting the amount of bacteria on your skin, thereby decreasing illnesses.
Yet a study published in March 2004 found that people who used antibacterial soaps and cleaners developed cold and allergy symptoms as often as those who used regular soaps and cleaners, offering little more protection than ordinary soap against the most common germs.
Current research is showing us that if the widespread use of anti-bacterial soap continues in such an overused frenzy, we could be faced with super germs we can't get rid of.
What the Antibacterial Soap Makers Don't Tell Us
The triclosan in antibacterial soaps does NOT discriminate between good and bad bacteria. But we need good bacteria to survive, to help defend us against bad, harmful bacteria. Our immune systems are being left increasingly vulnerable with the use of antibacterial soaps. Children especially should be exposed to some bacteria in early childhood in order to strengthen their immune systems, but the primary marketing target of the commercial antibacterial soaps is parents with young children. Children who are not exposed to these common bacteria -- because they are being wiped out by antibacterial soap -- may be more prone to allergies and asthma.
Numerous studies have also found that the ongoing use of triclosan:
- Has been shown to kill your skin cells
- Dries your skin
- Can aggravate skin disorders such as eczema and psoriasis
- Does nothing to prevent most illnesses, since colds, flues and more are typically viral (and antibacterial only kills bacteria, not viruses)
- Dioxin, a highly carcinogenic may be formed during the manufacturing process of triclosan, making it a likely contaminant.
- Finally, triclosan has now been found in 3 out of 5 women's breast milk. It is also one of the most detected compounds in rivers, streams and other bodies of water, often in high concentrations, and is highly toxic to a number of different types of algae. This could have very destructive effects on aquatic ecosystems.
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS)
One of the most dangerous chemicals being added to virtually every personal care product you can imagine, including soap, shampoo, conditioner, and cosmetics, is Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS). SLS is an anionic surfactant and the most commonly used chemical in car soaps, garage floor cleaners, engine degreasers and personal care products.
SLS has been found to have many side effects:
- Eye, skin and mouth irritations
- Membrane alterations
- May be harmful for the brain, heart, spleen and liver
- Chronic irritant contact dermatitis
- Compromising the overall integrity of your skin barrier, rendering it open to exposure to bacteria
- May actually harm cell function
- Can corrode the hair follicle and cause hair loss
- Fragrance
95% of the chemicals used in fragrances are petroleum-based synthetic compounds. Most of these chemicals are not tested for safety. Manufacturers are only required to print "fragrance" on the label, nothing more. Additionally, a product labeled "unscented" may contain a masking fragrance. A product must be marked "without perfume" to indicate no fragrance has been added.
This is just one of the many reasons we do extensive research about ingredients and bring only safe products to our product store.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)