Ninety-nine percent of products (personal care products + cosmetics)
contain ingredients that have not been tested for safety. Cosmetic products are notorious.
Hair dyes with suspected cancer-causing ingredients are not required to carry warning labels.
Products often list fragrances, which can contain up to 600 different compounds, many carcinogenic or otherwise toxic, but the label only says they contain a "fragrance".
And while cosmetic makers are required to list ingredients, they are not required to conduct pre-market safety tests.
The Environmental Working Group's (EWG) study 'Skin Deep' studied 7500 brand name products. They found that 89% of chemicals had never been tested.
EWG Toxicologist Dr Tim Kropp says 'Even the ones that have been tested have shown concerns for cancer, developmental problems'.
14 yr old Tagh Malady from Queensland discovered the potential side effects for himself when he used a Clairol Nice and Easy Black Hair Dye. With 24 hours of application, he says 'There was blisters all over where the dye had been, they were itching like crazy. My head was huge'. His mother Paula says 'he looked like he was in so much pain... there were no warnings to give you an idea that that sort of reaction could happen.'
The US survey found that the average adult uses around 9 personal
care products daily - from soap to sunscreen - exposing yourself
to 126 chemicals every day.
Click on the links below
Q&A about the dangers of chemicals in cosmetics
Report from Breast Cancer Fund
Dangerous Chemicals in Personal Care Products Compromise Health
SAFE IN THE
SHOWER?
[The Unbelievable Story of Propylene Glycol (PG)]
What is Natural? and "organic" in advertising? Protect your family's health with this knowledge
Learn How to Read Ingredients on Product Labels
This research backs up what Environmental Scientist Dr Peter Dingle from Western Australia's Murdoch University, has been saying for years: 'We've got no idea what's actually in these products... these chemicals are a health hazard'
Cosmetic manufacturers are not supposed to claim that their products penetrate our skin.
If they did (the products would then be labelled a "drug" and hence-forth be governed by much stricter regulations.
This is both good and bad. Good because it means your skin can be nourished from the outside with some wonderful ingredients. Bad because it means some cosmetic manufacturer can put into their products what would never be allowed to be taken orally, but are still absorbed into our system, through our skin.
Sydney Hairdresser Wendy Shuar nearly gave up her profession 5
years ago when she felt that the chemically based dyes - especially
the ammonia in them - were making her and her clients ill. Wendy
says she witnessed '..burnt scalps, people suffering headaches...'
Wendy replaced these products with organic alternatives, believing
that many supermarket/pharmacy products are unsafe.
Dr Dingle says that 'about 90% of products out there have toxic
ingredients I'd like to get rid of.
Top of his 'hit list' are the same chemicals highlighted by the Skin Deep report - the potentially cancer causing contaminant triethylamine and substitute oestrogens known as methylparabens and propylparabens.
The companies which sell some of the products mentioned as potentially
harmful in the Skin Deep report have said that they 'stand by
the safety' of their products and comply with all relevant safety
standards.
NICNAS are the government body who regulate the chemicals used in these products.
They say that all new chemicals are tested for safety and that they continually test chemicals used. Margaret Hartley, Director of NICNAS, says that in Australia 'We normally rely on testing being done anywhere else in the world such as in Europe and maybe in America... It's an obligation under the regulatory act (in Australia) for industry to ensure they are safe'
However, they do admit that not all chemicals have been tested
due to the sheer numbers, but at the small levels used in products,
these chemicals are not toxic.
If a member of the public is concerned about any particular chemical they can contact NICNAS and nominate that that chemical be tested for safety.
From:Toxic
Cosmetics on Channel 7's Today Tonight Show.
For info on Australian Regulations and Testing requirements or
to nominate a chemical for testing contact: NICNAS (National Industrial
Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme)
Website: www.nicnas.gov.au
Tel: 02 8577 8800
If you are concerned about chemicals in your body products and cosmetics take a moment to visit the toxic chemical directory and do a simple test.
Home|Certified Organic Make-Up|Contact Us
Our definiton of Natural: existing in, or formed by nature; not artificial.
The Cosmetic Industry definition of Natural: Any ingredient "derived from" a natural substance.
With so many natural products now on the market, how can you tell what is the real thing?
We often see long chemical names followed by the phrase "derived from coconut oil".
For example, to create cocoamide DEA from coconut oil requires the use of the carcinogenic synthetic chemical diethanolamine (DEA). It is therefore no longer natural and to insinuate it is a natural substance by adding the phrase "from coconut oil" is at best misleading. Just because vodka can be derived from potatoes, doesn't mean it's good for you.
What is Organic?
Our definition of Organic: Grown, cultivated and processed without the use of synthetic chemicals such as insecticides, herbicides and fumigants.
The Cosmetic Industry definition of Organic: Any compound containing carbon.
This is the organic chemistry definition. Carbon is found in anything that ever lived. So by using this definition of organic we could say that the toxic petrochemical preservative methyl paraben is "organic" because it was formed by leaves that rotted over thousands of years to become the crude oil used to make this toxic preservative.
What is Certified Organic?
Certified organic is an independent third party guarantee of an "organic" claim. Certified organic products must comply with the stringent international standards that cover all aspects of the processing chain to ensure that the organic integrity is maintained from seed, growing, harvesting, storage, transporting and processing through to the finished product.
IS "NATURAL" REALLY BETTER?
Modern conventional farming methods employ the use of synthetic chemicals and fertilisers known as pesticides, which are sprayed or injected into the ground. Pesticides are hazardous to human health and the environment, undermine local and global food security and threaten agricultural biodiversity.
There are some people who really do think that there are "safe" synthetic chemicals which can be applied to the skin and eaten in food without doing any harm.
If we look at chemicals from a historic point of view we see a pattern of wonderful chemical and drug breakthroughs which are going to change life for the better. Subsequent disastrous side effects and countless deaths have been caused by some of these new wonder chemicals and drugs before they were withdrawn and banned - unfortunately long after the damage had already been done.
Remember the miracle of DDT? How it would revolutionise farming in the world and rid the crops of insect pests. The legacy left is all creatures now carry a burden of DDT stored in their fat cells with unknown long-term consequences Then there was thalidomide touted to ease women's "sickness" in pregnancy. Tens of thousands of children were born with defects from this wonder chemical.
I believe there are no safe synthetic chemicals. Mother Nature has everything we need. By avoiding unnecessary chemical exposure we are guarding ourselves against possible hazards of long-term exposure and accumulation over time. If we can seek out and find truly natural and organic products we can not only make a positive difference to our family's and our own health - but also to the general wellbeing of our environment by supporting ecologically sound agriculture and business ideals.
"from organic & natural living"issue 2
Consumers Deserve Strong Organic Standards for Cosmetics-Most 'Organic' Cosmetics Labels Mislead Public
Monday, August 18, 2003 Adam Eidinger 202-744-2671
WASHINGTON, DC -Scores of "natural" cosmetic companies will be in Washington, DC September 5-7 for the Natural Products Expo East, the largest natural products trade show on the East Coast.
While most companies that sell increasingly popular "natural" soaps, shampoos and skin creams in natural supermarkets such as Whole Foods and Trader Joes do not claim their products are "organic," an increasing number of these brands, such as Avalon Natural Products, JASON, and Nature's Gate, are misleading consumers into thinking up to 70% of such products are in fact "organic."
The body care companies in question claim that "organic floral waters" are somehow key functional components of their products. However, floral waters, that are also called "hydrosols," did not exist as an ingredient in body care formulations until companies started to use them to make fraudulent, inflated "organic" claims. Not only is the presence of these hydrosols largely inconsequential, their actual organic content is minimal since they are mostly ordinary distilled water. Nonetheless, various so-called "natural" body care manufacturers are using these waters to green-wash their products and make organic label claims, even though their formulations are in fact largely composed of the same conventional synthetic cleansers, conditioners and preservatives found in mainstream products. These companies assert "70% organic ingredients" on their labels and advertising to mislead consumers into thinking that they are buying mostly organic products when they assuredly are not. Back to Top
Similar to an infusion or tea, which is made by boiling botanical material in water, floral waters are made by steaming plants, and then cooling the steam back to water. Products made with infusions or teas cannot count the water in such teas or infusions as organic in calculating organic content under NOP food standards. However, it has become distressingly common practice to use "Steam Tea" as the main "organic" ingredient in many personal care products by misleadingly counting the ordinary water in such "Steam Teas" as organic.
The fraudulent practice of counting such water as "organic" in some major companies' body care products has been getting a lot of attention in mainstream press, from The New York Times and Los Angeles Times to Consumer Reports. The OCA has demanded that organic body care standards should mirror the standards for organic food products. This means that:
1. Certified organic agricultural
feed-stocks are utilized exclusively, versus petroleum or conventional
vegetable feed-stocks, in the manufacture of the key basic cleansing
and conditioning ingredients.
2. Manufacture of such ingredients is reasonably simple and ecological.
3. The toxicity of each ingredient is minimal.
4. Non-agricultural water is not counted in any shape or form
as contributing to organic content.
The OCA is a grassroots
nonprofit organization concerned with food safety, organic farming,
sustainable agriculture, fair trade and genetic engineering.
###
ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
o 6101 CLIFF ESTATE ROAD o LITTLE MARAIS, MN 55614 USA
Telephone: 218-226-4164 o Fax: 218-353-7652o email: info@organicconsumers.org
www.organicconsumers.org
The information on this page is adapted from Narelle Chenery's article in "Organic Natural Living". Narelle has produced a range of certified organics which are available worldwide.
Safe Certified Organic Body Products
"Stop the 21st Century killing you"exerpts from Dr Paula Baille-Hamilton (Vermillion, Random House UK 2005)
Health damaging chemicals are everywhere. Creation of widespread human synthesised chemicals are everywhere. In the polluted environment in which we now live these chemicals are everywhere and everyone of us is exposed to massive amounts of chemicals on a daily basis. The simple act of eating contaminated food or eating "treated" products are putting us at risk without being aware of it. we end up eating the chemicals in our food as pesticides, additives, pollutants and contaminants from food containers. Tap water can contains chemicals leached from contaminated soils, environmental pollutants and chemicals added deliberately such as fluoride. Cosmetics, body products, treated wood, pesticide sprayed plants, swimming pools all expose us to unnecessary and hazardous chemicals. We inhale solvents, car fumes, industrial waste and environmental pollutants. As a result each of us is now heavily contaminated with on average 300-500 industrial toxins, few of which have been properly tested for their harmful effects at low concentrtions in the short term in the long term, individually and when combined these chemicals together with the fact that we are at the top of the food chain, means humans are one of the most polluted species on Earth.
Chemically Induced diseases of the 21st Century
"Today we are witnessing
another medical anomaly - a unique pattern of illness involving
chemically exposed people who subsequently report multisystem
symptoms and new - onset chemical and food intolerances. These
intolerances may be the hallmark for anew disease process, just
as fever is the hallmark of infection."
Dr CS Miller,
Typical 21st Century Illnesses
Allergies
Arthritis and connective tissue disorders
Asthma
Attention deficit Hyperactivity disorder ADHD
Autoimmune diseases
Cancer
Chemical Sensitivities
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome CFS
Depression
Diabetes
Dyslexia
Eczema
Food Intolerances
Heart disease
High Cholesterol
Hypertension
Immune system suppression
Infertility
Inflammatory Bowel Disease IBD
Irritable Bowel Syndrome IBS
Low energy levels
Memory Loss
Multiple Sclerosis
Obesity
Parkinsons Disease
Stroke
Thyroid Disease
People have started to contract diseases at younger ages and the number of infants and children contracting diseases has never been higher. Most of the research by scientists has been going into finding treatments for these diseases rather than looking for the underlying causes. Consequently there are many more drugs coming onto the market to decrease symptoms but not necessarily cure the disease itself. The pharmaceutical companies are profiting while the general health of our populations are rapidly decreasing and will continue to do so unless we go back to basics and improve our efforts in the realm of prevention of illness in the main instance.
The chemicals that
are behind our health problems
can be divided into 2 main groups
1. toxic metals
2. man-made chemicals
Toxic metals include lead, cadmium and mercury. Due to explosive
levels of manufacturing these natural chemicals are present in
far higher levels than our bodies were ever designed to deal with.
Studies have shown that people with higher levels of metals in
their bodies bear a greater risk of developing all of the twenty-first
century illnesses listed above.
As scientists keep on
finding more uses for new kinds of chemicals quantities of production
keep on rising. In 1994 US production of chemicals equalled around
$101billion now in 1998 the value rose to $140billion.
Synthetic chemicals pose hazards primarily due to their being
easily assimilated into our vital body systems. Once there they
accumulate as they cannot be broken down or turned off - posing
long term health problems.
Chemical Poisoning can
occure in two ways.
Either by direct means when poisoning occurs when someone is exposed
to a relatively large quantity of chemicals leading to immediate/violent
symptoms. Or the second more subtle way follows long-term exposure
to much lower levels and can often go undetected in the person
for a long time so as not to cause direct relationship to the
health problems and the toxic build up.
Where you are exposed to damaging chemicals?
The more apply the greater
risk of developing a 21st century disease:
1. working with chemicals
2. using pesticides around your house/garden(flyspray, weed killers,
flea powder)
3.Using non-environmentally friendly cosmetics, toiletries and
houselhold cleaners
4. Exposure to chemicals in medicines (such as nit shampoo and
mercury preservatives in vaccines)
5. Eating mostly conventionally grown(non organic) foods, especially
the flavourings and other additives.
6. Eating contaminated seafood
7. drinking unfiltered tap water
8. Having mercury amalgam fillings in your teeth
9. Living in a major city (air pollution)
So What can we Do to Protect Ourselves and Family from the Toxic Onslaught?
We can make positive moves to significantly decrease our exposure to these chemicals and live a healthier lifestyle and adapt to the environment we now inhabit. Take it a step at a time. Tackle the internal chemical load first by detoxification and using quality nutritional supplements to kick out toxins and to soak up persistent toxins so they can be expelled from the body. We can also avoid further exposure. If you know where the problem lies you hold the key to the solution.
Basic daily detox supplement programme
key: mg=milligrams: g= grams
1. One good multivitamin and mineral supplement
2.magnesium 200-400mg
3. vitamin c 500-1000mg
4. omega 3 oils 3-5 g
5. soluble fibre supplement 3-10g such as ground psyllium seed
and water. Psyllium can occasionally trigger allergic reactions.
In that case, soluble fibre are also acceptable such as certain
gums.
6. MSM-Sulphur 750-1,500mg
7. Probiotic supplement click
here to go to recommended certified organic probiotic
Safe Certified Organic Body Products
SAFE
IN THE SHOWER?
[The Unbelievable Story of Propylene Glycol (PG)]
Fasten your seat belts folks, you won't believe what you are about to read:
Bob Folsom, a Field Hydrographer in the High Sierra Nevada mountains, has to work with propylene glycol on his job. Even though the PG is used in a solution of about 80% water, 20% PG and 1% mineral oil, there are rigid rules about how it must be disposed of, because it is considered so hazardous.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues "Material Safety Data Sheets" that must accompany all hazardous chemicals. The data sheet for propylene glycol warns of severe health consequences and reactions, because PG has systemic consequences such as brain, liver, and kidney abnormalities.
(1) If the solution makes contact with the skin, immediate action must be taken, and the incident should be reported to the supervisor.
(2) If the solution spills on the ground, it must be contained and the contaminated earth dug up and hauled to a toxic waste dump.
When Bob is finished using the solution, he is required to empty it into a 55-gallon drum labeled "Hazardous Waste."
While doing so, he must wear rubber gloves, goggles, and protective clothing. When the barrel is full, it must be transported to a special collection site, and the driver of the truck is required to maintain a commercial driver's license with a "hazardous material endorsement." Improper paperwork or mishandling of this toxic solution can result in severe fines and even imprisonment. It costs between $500-$1,000 to get rid of each 55-gallon drum.
Yet when Bob gets off work and goes home, he is free to shower with soaps and shampoos and then use a stick deodorant containing much higher concentrations of propylene glycol than the toxic solution he just shipped to the dump.
If it was so hazardous at work, why is it "safe" at home?
Used as a solvent, propylene glycol is probably THE most common ingredient found in personal-care items, such as make-up, hair products, lotions, after-shave, deodorants, mouthwashes, and toothpaste. (Check the labels of your favorite products!!) It is also the active component in antifreeze; and there is no difference between what's used in industry and what you apply to your skin! Industry uses it to break down protein and cellular structure (what the skin is made of); it's so strong that it can take barnacles off the bottom of boats.
But because it is so inexpensive, it is widely used in very high concentrations in most personal care formulations-even ones from "natural food" stores.
Questions and Answers about the dangers of chemicals in cosmetics from www.safecosmetics.com
Q. Aren't cosmetics regulated for dangerous chemicals?
A. Cosmetics are the least regulated products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The FFDCA does not require pre-market safety testing, review, or approval for cosmetics. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pursues enforcement action only after the cosmetic enters into the stream of commerce or sometimes after it is on the shelf. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health found that 884 of the chemicals available for use in cosmetics have been reported to the government as toxic substances. A U. S. General Accounting Office report notes that the FDA has committed no resources for assessing the safety problems of those chemicals which have been found to cause genetic damage, biological mutations, and cancer. Because of minimal regulation, products plainly dangerous to your health can be, and are being, sold.
Q. Doesn't the cosmetic industry regulate itself to make sure products are safe?
A. FDA officials have found that many cosmetic manufacturers lack adequate data on safety tests and have generally refused to disclose the results of these tests. The FDA estimates that only three percent of the 4,000 to 5,000 cosmetic distributors have filed reports with the government on injuries to consumers. In addition, it is estimated that less than 40 percent of the nation's 2,000 to 2,500 cosmetic manufacturers are even registered.
You can learn to read labels to find out what is really in the products your buy - see below
Q. What evidence is there that people are being directly injured by cosmetics?
A. In 1990, there were some 38,000 cosmetic related injuries that required medical treatment in the U.S. That figure does not include the many people who use cosmetics and suffer from allergies, irritation, and photosensitization yet accept these uncomfortable complications as the normal cost of grooming. They never visit their doctor or a hospital emergency room, and they rarely connect their allergies or irritated eyes to the cosmetics they use.
Q. Why are humans so vulnerable to chemicals in cosmetics?
A. The skin is extremely permeable. Cosmetic ingredients most certainly are absorbed through the skin. Some chemicals may penetrate the skin in significant amounts, especially when left on the skin for long periods, as in the case of facial makeup. One study showed that 13 percent of the cosmetic preservative butylate hydroxytoluene (BHT) and 49 percent of the carcinogenic pesticide DDT (which is found in some cosmetics containing lanolin) is absorbed through the skin.
Q. What can be done to guard against hazardous cosmetics?
A. Choose cosmetics that contain the fewest ingredients; these are still effective. As the list of a product's ingredients grows, so does the possibility that it will cause adverse reactions, including allergy, irritation, and cancer. Handle all cosmetics in a way that prevents bacterial contamination. Do not leave product containers uncapped. Do not share them. Do not use your fingers instead of applicators.
please click here to go to recommended certified organic cosmetic range
A new report on environmental links to breast cancer concludes that exposure to synthetic chemicals and radiation has contributed more than previously thought to the rising incidence of breast cancer. The report, "State of the Evidence 2004: What Is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer?" was jointly released today by the Breast Cancer Fund, a non-profit environmental health organization, and Breast Cancer Action, a non-profit national education and advocacy organization. It also offers policy recommendations to help reduce the risk of breast cancer. According to the report, fewer than one in 10 cases of breast cancer occurs in women born with a genetic predisposition for the disease. As many as 50 percent of breast cancer cases remain unexplained by personal characteristics and other traditionally-accepted risk factors; epidemiologists and other scientists increasingly believe many cases are linked to environmental factors. This third edition of the report amasses new evidence from 21 research studies published since February 2003, adding to existing evidence linking toxicants in the environment to breast cancer. This year, 40,000 women in the United States will die from breast cancer-one death every 13 minutes. The new report was peer-reviewed by six leading scientists, including a noted scientist from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization. Among the new research findings reported: * Chlorinated chemicals, found in drinking water and many industrial processes such as computer component manufacturing, were associated with an elevated risk of breast cancer in three new studies; * A solvent used in many varnishes, paints, dyes and fuel additives (ethylene glycol methyl ether) was found to sensitize breast tissue cells to the effects of estrogens and progestins, thereby increasing the risk of breast cancer and; * The Million Women Study in the United Kingdom revealed that all types of postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy significantly increased the risk of breast cancer, underscoring earlier findings from the Women's Health Initiative study in the United States. Another study found that use of HRT after previously being diagnosed with breast cancer tripled a woman's risk of recurrence or development of a new breast tumor. "Far too many chemicals are unleashed on our environment without first being tested for long-term effects," said Jeanne Rizzo, executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund. "We call on both government and industry to rethink the process by which new chemicals are authorized for use." Barbara Brenner, executive director of Breast Cancer Action, said, "We need to take action to promote public policy that will reduce and eventually eliminate our exposures to toxic chemicals in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat." In the past fifty years, a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer more than tripled in the United States, to one in seven today. This trend parallels a staggering increase of chemicals in the environment: the report says that "compelling scientific evidence" points to some of the 85,000 synthetic chemicals in use today as contributing to breast cancer by altering hormone function or gene expression. "This new report offers the clearest evidence yet that the rise in breast cancer incidence is linked to exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals," said Nancy Evans, a health science consultant for the Breast Cancer Fund and the editor of the report. "Medical X-rays, pesticides, household cleaning products, personal care products and some pharmaceuticals-these are just a few of the multiple and chronic exposures contributing to this epidemic." The report details how exposure to certain common chemicals known to increase the risk of breast cancer occurs often in the home and the workplace. These chemicals, known as xenoestrogens because they mimic or act like estrogens in the body, include: Bisphenol-A, used in plastic food containers and baby bottles; polyvinyl chloride (PVC), used extensively in food packaging, as well as in medical products, appliances, cars, toys, credit cards and rainwear; pesticides used on lawns and in commercial agriculture; and diethylstilbestrol, a drug prescribed for millions of pregnant women from 1941 to 1971 that doubled the risk of breast cancer for women who were exposed to it in the womb and who are now over 40. A 2003 U.S. study by the Centers for Disease Control revealed the presence of 116 chemicals-some of them banned for more than two decades because of toxicity-in people of all ages. In addition, the report also highlights the effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, the best-established cause of breast cancer. Paralleling the dramatic increase in exposures to toxic chemicals, an increase in radiation exposure from X-rays, CT scans, fluoroscopy, nuclear fallout and other sources may have contributed to a rising incidence of breast cancer between 1950 and 1991, the report says. During the same period, the incidence of breast cancer in the United States increased by 90 percent. The new report offers a "Six-point Plan to Help Reduce the Risk of Breast Cancer and Ultimately End the Epidemic." Among those recommendations: * Phase out chemicals known to cause cancer or genetic harm and test all others to determine the effects on human health and the environment; * Hold corporations accountable for hazardous practices and offer incentives for clean, green practices; * Educate the public about the health effects of radiation and on how to reduce their exposure and; * Establish a comprehensive biomonitoring program to measure the presence of chemicals in people and track resultant health outcomes. The Breast Cancer Fund is the only national non-profit organization whose sole focus is to identify-and advocate for elimination of-environmental and other preventable causes of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Action is a non-profit national education and advocacy organization devoted to ending the breast cancer epidemic. Ê Ê November 18, 2005, Los Angeles Times: European Parliament OKs Rules on Chemical Safety October 20, 2005, New York Times: Is It Organic? Well, Maybe October 1, 2005, San Jose Mercury News: Green bills await governor October 17, 2005, Oakland Tribune: New law puts focus on cosmetics ingredients October 11, 2005, Marin Independent Journal: Local teens see bill signed into law See All Press Coverage ÊÊÊWhat We Do | Events | Action Center | Giving | News | Resources | About Us |ÊMedia CenterÊ| Contact Us | Privacy Policy © Breast Cancer FundÊÊ All Rights Reserved Breast Cancer Fund 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94109-5400 Copyright 2004
Cancer Risks from Cosmetic and Personal Care Products
Knowledge Is Power
Have you ever bought a cosmetic that you were assured was natural,
only to get it home, read the label and wonder what on earth those
long names were? Isn't it about time consumers were given the
power to make informed choices regarding their personal care?
click here
to learn how to read labels,
read more below or
click here to go to dangerous chemical directory
· DIETHANOLAMINE (DEA) , TEA (Triethanolamine)
DEA and TEA can result in the formation of carcinogens in products containing nitrite preservatives. Chemical reactions between nitrites and DEA/ TEA occur during the manufacturing process and while products are stored in their containers. This reaction leads to the formation of nitrosamines. Most nitrosamines, including those formed from DEA or TEA, are carcinogenic.
· Bronopol (2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol) may break down in products into formaldehyde and also cause the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines under certain conditions. One of the most expensive lines of cosmetics, Chanel, often uses this chemical. So do many leading brands of baby products. As does the Body Shop, whose product sales are built on a reputation of containing natural ingredients.
· 1,2-Dioxane in Surfactants/detergents
A wide range of personal care products including shampoos, hair conditioners, cleansers, lotions, and creams, besides household products such as soaps and cleaning products, contain surfactants or detergents such as ethoxylated alcohols, polysorbates, and laureths. These ingredients are generally contaminated with high concentrations of the highly volatile 1,4 - dioxane, which is both readily inhaled and absorbed through the skin. The carcinogenicity of dioxane in rodents was first reported in 1965 and subsequently confirmed in other studies including by the National Cancer Institute in 1978; the predominant sites of cancer were nasal passages in rats and liver in mice. Epidemiological studies on dioxane-exposed furniture makers have reported suggestive evidence of excess nasal passage cancers. On the basis of such evidence, the Consumer Product Safety Commission concluded that "the presence of 1,4 - dioxane, even as a trace contaminant, is a cause of concern." These avoidable risks of cancer in numerous personal care, besides other consumer, products is inexcusable, particularly as the dioxane is readily removed from surfactants during their manufacture by a process known as "vacuum stripping."
The Neways Company is unique in certifying and labeling the surfactants in its personal care products as "dioxane-free," and thus sets an important precedent to the entire personal care products industry.
· Artificial Colors
Some artificial colors, such as Blue 1 and Green 3, are carcinogenic. Impurities found in commercial batches of other cosmetic colors such as D&C Red 33, FD&C Yellow 5, and FD&C yellow 6 have been shown to cause cancer not only when ingested, but also when applied to the skin. Some artificial coal tar colors contain heavy metal impurities, including arsenic and lead, which are carcinogenic.
· Hair Dyes
The use of permanent or semi permanent hair color products, particularly black and dark brown colors, is associated with increased incidence of human cancer including non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and Hodgkin's disease. There are several natural hair-coloring products which are relatively effective and safe.
· Lanolin
Lanolin itself is perfectly safe. But cosmetic-grade lanolin can be contaminated with carcinogenic pesticides such as DDT, dieldrin, and lindane, in addition to other neurotoxic pesticides.
· Talc
Cosmetic talc is carcinogenic. Inhaling talc and using it in the genital area, where its use is associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer, are the primary ways this substance poses a carcinogenic hazard.
· Silica
Some silica used in cosmetics, especially amorphous hydrated silica, may be contaminated with small amounts of crystalline quartz. Crystalline silica is carcinogenic.
Reference: Steinman, David and Epstein, Samuel, The Safe Shopper's Bible , MacMillan: New York, 1995.
for more information CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
c/o University of Illinois at Chicago
School of Public Health, M/C 922
2121 W. Taylor Street
Chicago, IL 60612
Learn How to Read Ingredients on Product Labels
Fortunately, there is a very simple way to differentiate between the hype and truth in what we buy and that is to read the ingredient list on the label.
It is a legal requirement that all skin care products must be labelled with the ingredients in descending order of their quantity in the product.
A good rule of thumb is to divide the ingredient list into thirds: the top third usually contains 90-95% of the product, the middle third usually contains 5-8% and the bottom third, 1-3%.
Here is the ingredient list of a so-called "natural" and "organic" body moisturiser from a well- known "natural" skin care company.
APRICOT
CREAM
Natural or Organic ingredients include
1 Water (deionised)
2 Isopropyl Palmitate (Palm Oil Derivative)
3 Apricot Kernel Oil
4 Bis-Digyceryl Caprylate/Caprate/Isosterate/Stearate/ Hydroxysterate
Adipate (vegetable Triglyceride)
5 Glyceryl Stearate SE (vegetable derived)
6 Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride (glycerin-derived emollient)
7 Ceteareth - 12 (Organic Emulsifier)
8 Tocopherol Oil (vitamin E)
9 Chamomile Extract
10 Sage Extract
11 Linden Extract (Lime Blossom Extract)
12 Balm Mint Extract
13 Shea Butter (From Karite)
14 Wheat Germ Oil
15 Carrot Oil
16 Cetyl Alcohol (organic Co-emulsifier)
17 Sodium Hydroxide (pH Adjuster)
18 Sorbic Acid (Organic Compound)
19 Tocopherol Acetate (vitamin E Derivative)
20 Methyl Paraben
21 Propyl Paraben
22 Imidazolidinyl Urea (Organic Compound)
23 Fragrance
24 FD & C Yellow No 5, D7C Red No. 33.
Content: Apricot oil (2.5%)
Take note of the last point that says "Content: Apricot Oil (2.5%). Notice Apricot Oil is No 3 on the list.
Because skin care and cosmetic manufacturers are required to list the ingredients in descending order this means everything AFTER Apricot Oil makes up less than 2.5% of the volume.
This effectively means that about 90% of the product is water and Isopropyl Palmitate.
Isopropyl Palmitate is derived from Isopropyl Alcohol, synthetic alcohol and Palmatic Acid, a fatty acid from palm oil. It is known to cause skin irritations and dermatitis and has been shown to have comedogenic (acne promoting) properties!
Nos 5 and 5 are all produced by chemical reactions between various fatty acids and glycerol (synthetic glycerine). They are largely synthetic and have been shown to cause allergies and dermatitis!
No 7 is a synthetic emulsifier that may contain dangerous levels of ethylene oxide and dioxane - both are known carcinogens.
Nos. 8 to 15 are natural ingredients used in tiny amounts merely to make the product look good. They may have been grown using toxic organo-phosphates, other pesticides and chemical herbicides.
No. 16 May be natural or synthetic and has been shown to cause contact dermatitis and eczema.
No. 17 Is otherwise known as caustic soda or lye - a powerful drain cleaner extremely alkaline and corrosive. A known sensitizer for many allergic people.
No. 18 Sorbic acid was once isolated from the Mountain Ash berry, but is now chemically synthesised and is a toxic preservative
No. 19 is synthetic Vitamin E.
Nos. 20-22 are toxic and allergenic preservatives which have been linked to increasing oestrogen levels in women and is implicated in the rising incidence of breast cancer
No. 23. Probably synthetic, may contain phthalates that have been linked to birth defects.
No. 24. Synthetic colours that could be potentially carcinogenic.
Now let's look at an ingredient list of a certified organic body lotion.
This ingredient list says
CERTIFIED
ORGANIC BODY INTENSIVE
1 Proprietary blend of organic native Australian distilled herbal
extracts,
2 Organic Safflower oil
3 Purified Water
4 Organic Avocado oil
5 Organic Cocoa butter
6 Non-GMO Lecithin
7 Organic Sugar-Cane Ethanol
8 Organic Unrefined Beeswax
9 Lime
10 D-Panthenol (pro-vit b5)
11 Olive extract
12 Grapefruit extract
13 Sclerotium gum
14 Organic orange
15 Vanilla extract
1. Is a proprietary blend
of organic native Australian distilled herbal extracts
2. Is cold-pressed from organic safflower seeds.
3. Purified Water.
4. Is cold-pressed from organic avocado fruit.
5. Is from organic cocoa beans.
6. Is from non-genetically modified soybean oil.
7. Is from organic sugar.
8. Is from organic beehives!
9. Is cold pressed from the skin of organic limes.
10. Is a precursor to vitamin B5.
11. Is from olive leaves.
12. Is from grapefruit seeds.
13. Is a natural gum.
14. Is cold-pressed from organic orange peel.
15. Is from natural vanilla beans.
*excerpt from Organic
and Natural Living by Narell Chenery
Home|Safe Certified Organic Body Products|Certified Organic Make-Up|Contact Us