Great Skin Foods – Stay Younger and Feel Good

===========================================

Everything you put into your body will be reflected in your skin. If you have a diet high in fat, processed foods and little fruit and vegetables your skin will surely reflect that. In our teens, and 20s we’re able to get away with a lot but once we hit 30 and beyond our skin isn’t so forgiving anymore.

Here are a few must have foods to incorporate into your daily diet.

Green tea – Not only is this drink loaded with health benefits, it will also help the look of your skin by reducing inflammation and fighting free radicals that cause skin damage. So drink up.

Water – You probably already know this one but we need approximately 8 glasses of clear water a day (no sodas, soups or other drinks are included in this quota). For maximum benefits clear water is best. It helps purify your body and eliminates toxins.

Selenium – This powerhouse nutrient is found in foods such as turkey, brazil nuts, tuna and whole grain breads. Include at least one of these foods in your daily diet.

Fatty Acids – These are found in oils such as walnut and flaxseed. Oily fish such as salmon, tuna and mackerel are also rich in essential fatty acids.

Dairy – Low fat dairy products are high in Vitamin A which is beneficial to the skin. Low fat yogurt is also good for the digestive system which in turn helps skin health.

Fruits and Vegetables – A variety of fruits and vegetables are good for overall healthy skin but there are some foods in particular which are very high in powerful antioxidants and promote good skin health. Berries, such as blueberries, strawberries and blackberries are great for fighting against free radicals which can cause skin cell damage. Vegetables that are brightly colored such as red peppers, yellow peppers and sweet potatoes are also great skin foods.

Now that you know what to eat there are some things that should be left out altogether if you want to look young longer:

White Flour Foods – White bread, rice, pasta and sugar are less nutritious than the whole grain types and will cause inflammation in the skin which can lead to aging. Try cutting these items from your diet for two weeks and look in the mirror. Your skin should look less inflamed and fine lines will be less apparent.

Alcohol – dehydrates the skin and speeds the aging process, try to only have it in moderation. A little red wine may have some health benefits whereas beer does not.

Smoking – This will age you, cutback or better yet cut it out altogether. Your skin and lungs will thank you for it.

Processed Foods – Processed foods are loaded with sugar and additives, these wreck havoc on the skin and are best left out of your diet altogether. Sodas and other sugary drinks are not only bad for your health but can also rob your skin of essential nutrients. They’re also not good for your waistline and have been known to cause cellulite (even the diet variety).

For truly glowing, young skin a balanced diet rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables and essential oils is best. And of course if you can do organic all the better.

Whatever you put in your body or on it is feeding the whole you.  Keep it pure, healthy and organic and your body, inside and out, will thank you.

---

• a product can have less than 1% natural ingredients
  and still put NATURAL on the label!
  It can even have just ONE ingredient that is natural
  and still use NATURAL on the label.
   

• Industrial chemicals are basic ingredients in personal care products.
  The 10,500 unique chemical ingredients in these products
   equate to about one of every seven of the 75,000 chemicals
   registered for use in the U.S. Personal care products contain
  carcinogens, pesticides, reproductive toxins,
  endocrine disruptors, plasticizers, degreasers,
  and surfactants.
   

• No pre-market safety testing required — this is a reality
  of both the personal care product industry
  and the broader chemical industry as a whole.
  For industrial chemicals, the government approves
   an average of seven new chemicals every day.
   

• Product use survey shows that more than a quarter of all women
   and one of every 100 men use at least 15 products daily.
   

• More than one-third of all personal care products
  contains at least one ingredient linked to cancer.
   

• 57 percent of all products contain "penetration enhancer" chemicals
   that can drive other ingredients faster and deeper
  into the skin to the blood vessels below.
   

• Scientists have found many common cosmetic ingredient in human tissues, including industrial plasticizers called phthalates in urine,
  preservatives called parabens in breast tumor tissue,
  and persistent fragrance components like musk xylene in human fat.
   

 

Natural Cosmetics Make Mainstream Push In 2007

by Christine Bittar, Thursday, Jan 4, 2007 5:00 AM ET

CONSUMER AWARENESS OF GLOBAL WARMING, the ozone layer and other environmental issues emerged front and center last year after Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" and its media tour. The beauty industry, which had already latched on to the natural and organic-ingredients bandwagon, shows no signs of slowing down the pace of activity in 2007--a year that may be ultimately more revealing of mainstream consumer acceptance levels.


"I think we're going to see an explosion [of organics, natural products, and more acquisitions] this year," says Candace Corlett, beauty and retail consultant at WSL Strategic Retail.

Estee Lauder's Aveda--positioned as an Earth-friendly producer of cosmetics with natural ingredients--has extended that green position all the way to the manufacturing floor. Since last fall, Aveda has been using 100% wind energy in the primary manufacturing facility in Blaine, Minn. that makes 60% of its products, according to The Daily Mail.

In just the past 12 months, beauty giant L'Oreal bought eco-friendly personal care/cosmetics chain The Body Shop, in addition to organic manufacturer Laboratoire Sanoflore, and Tom's of Maine was picked up by Colgate-Palmolive.

New entries in beauty aisles and behind cosmetic counters include wine and grape seed skin care products from Carlo Mondavi, an organic skin treatment line by Stella McCartney for YSL Beaute, and a slew of mineral-based color cosmetics and foundations from marketers including Neutrogena, L'Oreal, Jane, Physicians Formula and Avon, not to mention mineral-based cosmetics from Whole Foods Market.

But whether or not consumers on a larger scale--especially those who shop at the larger mass retailers--are willing to spend more on organic products is another story. "The jury is still out on organics ... there's confusion around organic, natural and homeopathic products," says Corlett.

Consumers were split 50/50 on whether organics were better for them and the environment, she says, citing WSL's October "How America Shops" survey focusing on organic products across the board. In addition, consumers surveyed were skeptical about organics, with 36% unsure whether products labeled organic are truly organic.

More people are becoming aware of natural and organics items, and many will pay more for them, says Corlett. Drug stores and specialty shops are a natural retail fit, she says. But people associate organics with being "precious," she adds, so warehouse club product sizing and Wal-Mart may not be the best places to merchandise these items.

Industry-wide, marketers positioning products as natural are more vulnerable to critics.

In fact, as Aveda is rising, Samuel Epstein, M.D.--chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, and one-time consultant to Aveda--questioned in a recent press release the use of several ingredients in some of the products under Estee Lauder's other nature-based brand, Origins.

Ingredients that Epstein challenged in his release include parabens--which CPC said may produce negative, possibly toxic hormonal effects--and certain surfactants, which can be carcinogenic if not purified.

Specifically, Epstein took issue with the brand's new line, Dr. Andrew Weil for Origins--products he said he looked into because he "respects Dr. Weil." Epstein says he was a consultant for Aveda for more than three years, starting around 1999 after Lauder purchased Aveda. Epstein said he was brought on "to help reformulate products" since the brand "was concerned with safety."

This time around, he says, Dr. Weil was unresponsive, and Estee Lauder executives "challenged his evidence."

Origins' story on the matter is vastly different.

"We had extensive conversations with [Epstein] and addressed every one of his points individually, so we're very disappointed he put out that release," says an Origins public relations rep.

"We don't formulate with parabens and haven't for three years," says Daria Myers, president of Organics.

However, there are trace amounts of parabens in some of the Weil line, which Myers said is due to minute amounts found in other ingredients purchased from suppliers. Those ingredients are being removed and will be completely phased out within nine months, even though the trace levels of parabens found in certain Weil SKUs were deemed safe for cosmetic use by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Board, Myers says.

As for the surfactants, Myers says surfactants used in Origins products are purified, but have not been labeled as such. However, the brand is "looking into re-labeling."  

---

2006-10-24 08:01:08

L'Oreal acquires French organic cosmetics maker Sanoflore

Back up to the top

---

Cognis targets natural cosmetic markets
with launch of new products.
 

By Louise Prance
 

18/10/2006 - Following the growing consumer need for products that are both kind to the environment and the user, Cognis, the global supplier of chemicals and nutritional ingredients, has introduced a number of new cosmetic ranges including Plantapon, a mild surfactant blend that is free of chemicals and preservatives.

full story

Back up to the top

---

Can you really eat this stuff?
 

By Simon Pitman
 

29/08/2006 - Once dismissed as a fad, edible cosmetics are starting to make their mark on the global market as an increasing number of launches hone in on consumer desires for natural ingredients that often happen to cross into the realms of the food world.

full story

Back up to the top

---

ARTICLE: The Beauty Industry's Ugly Secret
by Ngoc Nguyen

===================================================================

SAN FRANCISCO - When it comes to the 20-billion-dollar a year manicure industry in the United States, consumers are more likely to fear foot fungus, not the beauty products themselves.
 
That despite the fact that the nail industry uses 10,000 chemicals in its products, 89 percent of which have not been safety tested by any independent agency, according to a recent report by the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum.

That's got advocates worried not only for consumers, but nail salon workers.

"We are also very concerned about worker health -- typically, women of color, Asian immigrants and Asian American women," said Felicia Eaves, a national organizer with Women's Voices of the Earth. "They spend lots of time, 10 to 14 hours, working with these products. We know that many of these women have health effects, problems with spontaneous abortion and other health problems."

full story

Back up to the top

---

Cosmetics and Toiletries Industry Riding Five Year High
Yahoo! News (press release) - USA
============================================================================

Last year the U.S. cosmetics and toiletries industry experienced the highest level of growth in five years, indicating renewed vigor in an industry that had been lagging since 2001. Consumers are gravitating toward premium products, especially those with anti- aging properties. These trends likely signal a reversal of fortune for the industry's biggest players, according to a recently published market study by Kline & Company.

full story

Back up to the top

---

ARTICLE: Are Products that Say Organic Telling the Truth?
====================================================

Food started the first wave of consumer consciousness looking for terms such as "organic", the next wave looked for certification and real purity. The personal care and body care field is going through the same waves of consumer education as reflected by these sort of articles filling the news:

Are Products That Say Organic Telling The Truth?
By Sara Underwood from CBS4Boston

Now, there are all sorts of organic beauty products on the market, but are they worth the price you'll pay?

In the beauty aisle, the word "organic" appears on everything from body lotion to shampoo. And if you're like most people, you probably assume that means what's inside is... organic.

full story

Back up to the top

---

ARTICLE: Cosmetic Solutions: The Makeup Industry Gives Itself a
Health Hazard Makeover
 

Breast cancer. Genital abnormalities. Distortion and damage of genetic material.
Common ingredients in cosmetic products have been linked to these hazards. As further research is conducted into the long-term and cumulative effects on cosmetics users, their children and the water supply that products are washed off into, more questions arise. Not that you'd know it by listening to the cosmetics industry...

For the full article visit http://www.prwatch.org/node/4961

Back up to the top

---

 

Products Labeled 'Organic' May Not Be

Wayne Havrelly
KIRO 7 Consumer Investigator

UPDATED: 3:58 pm PDT August 4, 2006

Organic food is taking more and more grocery space these days, and plenty of other businesses are jumping on the organic bandwagon, including the cosmetic industry.

READ ARTICLE

BACK UP TO TOP

---

 

All is not well with antibiotics in the food chain
Posted on Fri, Aug. 11, 2006

By Julie Deardorff

Chicago Tribune

(MCT)

Vultures aren't the most endearing creatures on the planet, but we're lucky to have them around. The scavengers aren't just nature's cleaners; they hold a critical role in the food chain.

But three types of Asian vultures are teetering on extinction, primarily because of the use of antibiotics in cattle. Though recently banned in India, the livestock painkiller diclofenac often was given to treat inflammation. The vultures foraged on the carcasses, ingested the drugs and died.

The decline of South Asia's vultures is just the latest unintended side effect of what medical and consumer groups say is a growing global health threat: the unbridled use of antibiotics in food animals.

For the last 50 years, farmers have fed antibiotics to cows, poultry and pigs to prevent them from getting sick, in some cases to compensate for stressful, crowded and unhealthy living conditions. It's also common for farmers to provide "medicated feed" to their livestock to promote growth and increase profits.

The problem is that excessive and unnecessary use of the antibiotics, which are similar to what doctors prescribe for people's ear infections, strep throat and other illnesses, leads to super-resistant bugs that are hard to kill. Then, when we really need antibiotics to treat serious human illness, the drugs are useless.

The American Medical Association and the World Health Organization have recommended against the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture to protect public health. The American Nurses Association this year joined the chorus of voices calling for limited use.

But the Institute of Food Technologists recently released a report that said eliminating the use of antibiotics from food animals would be a mistake. The report found that elimination would have "little positive effect on resistant bacteria that threaten human health."

The institute also infuriated the rapidly growing organic-food industry by stating that "organic meat production may involve potentially higher safety risks due to prohibition of anti-microbial use; raising animals in an outdoor environment; longer growth periods; use of small slaughtering facilities."

Never mind that this is how animals used to be raised before factory farming. Organic, the institute suggests, isn't worth the extra money.

The Organic Trade Association, which called the institute's statement "erroneous," begs to differ. It said organic farmers and processors follow all federal, state and local health standards, using environmentally sustainable methods.

In addition to preserving the fertility of soil, organic practices prohibit the use of hormones, antibiotics and other animal drugs in animal feed for the purpose of stimulating the growth or production of livestock. This includes recumbent bovine growth hormone given to cows for increased milk production.

But if an animal on an organic farm is sick, antibiotics may be used to alleviate suffering or bring the animal back to health. If this happens, the animal can't be represented as organic. Instead, it is shipped to a conventional farmer, which is why organic farmers have an incentive to keep the environment healthy.

There isn't much of a debate about therapeutic use of antibiotics on sick or suffering animals. And the current practice of over prescribing antibiotics to humans contributes to drug resistance. (The institute charges that many time-pressured doctors write prescriptions simply to get people out of their offices.)

What is objectionable to people like Mark Kastel, senior farm-policy analyst at the Cornucopia Institute, which works to promote sustainable and organic agriculture, is that antibiotics often are used to facilitate factory farming of animals.

"The food-production system is economically driven almost to the exclusion of other factors," he said. "We don't farm in a way that promotes the health of soil or the environment." Meanwhile, the drugs are showing up in surprising places. They're in public waterways, raising concerns about the effect on fish, plants and drinking water.

Newer research shows antibiotic contamination of animal manure that is used for farm-soil fertilization. The drugs pass through the manure and are incorporated into the soil, where they reach plants.

Organic farming limits this possibility, but conventional farming typically doesn't.

It's true scientists are looking for ways to use food products to deliver medicine. But we're not quite ready for antibiotics to be turning up in random heads of broccoli.

---

© 2006, Chicago Tribune.

Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

BACK UP TO TOP

---

 

ECOnscious Announces Launch of Business-to-Business Organic Apparel and Accessories Collection

August 09, 2006 02:03 PM US Eastern Timezone
 

PETALUMA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 9, 2006--
Targeting Private Label and Promotional Industries, ECOnscious is the First Organic Manufacturer to Introduce a Full Inventoried Line of Sustainable Products

Today, ECOnscious, an eco-friendly business-to-business apparel manufacturer, announced the launch of their organic unbranded men's and women's clothing and accessories collection. ECOnscious, headquartered in Petaluma, CA, will focus on the multi-billion dollar promotional and private label industries, targeting both big and small businesses that want to do their part in protecting the planet.

The ECOnscious product line will include a complete range of inventoried tees, fleece, hats, beanies, and bags made with certified organic cotton fiber in a full range of colors, sizes and styles. All ECOnscious products can either be supplied blank or can be printed and shipped ready for use as a retail or promotional item. In addition to the inventoried product line, customers can also work with in-house production and design teams to create their own custom product.

"A seismic shift is occurring towards sustainable practices," says Dale Denkensohn, President, ECOnscious. "By purchasing organic cotton products everyone can be a part of this movement, make a positive statement about their brand and at the same time reduce their environmental impact on our planet. We created ECOnscious to make it easy and affordable for big and small businesses alike to act responsibly and help care for the planet."

"After years of being involved in the organic cotton industry, it became clear there was a need for a full service manufacturer to provide a comprehensive collection of sustainable apparel and accessories for private label and promotional use," says Stefan Bergill, VP of Sales, ECOnscious. "There is so much information available today concerning the detrimental effects of conventionally grown cotton. For example, if we converted all promotional tee shirts used per year to organic cotton we would reduce the use of toxic chemicals by an estimated 100 million pounds annually. Shifting to organic cotton is an easy and responsible decision for all businesses."

ECOnscious founders have decades of experience manufacturing for internationally successful clothing companies, and are amongst the pioneers of organic apparel. Drawing on this extensive experience in both conventional and organic manufacturing, ECOnscious has established a market-based approach to sustainable manufacturing, working closely with their supply chain, treating workers fairly, and eliminating the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers and other harmful chemicals. The result is an unparalleled product line made from carefully sourced organic and sustainable fibers.

ECOnscious is all about making an impact on the market, not the planet.

ECOnscious is headquartered in Petaluma, CA. For more information please visit www.econscious.net.

Contacts
ECOnscious
Regina Mandel, 310-770-4521
Regina@Econscious.net
Print this Release

BACK TO TOP

---

 

"Chemicals can make you fat
-the medical evidence"

"What is the cause of obesity? Why do current estimates suggest that women are gaining weight to the tune of 450g and men 225g each year despite the many diets they undertake? Could it be true that the chemicals is our food, skin care and detergents make us fat?"

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE

18 POINTS ON NATURAL SKIN HEALTH AND TRANSDERMAL TOXICITY
 

by Kyle Grimshaw-Jones, email: kyle@winshop.com.au
B.App.Sc.(TCM), Dip.App.Sc.(Nat), N.D., R.T.
Whitsunday S.A.F.E. Health Centre, 07 4948 1118
Ground Floor Cannonvale Court, 44 Coral Esplanade, Cannonvale, Qld,
4802 Australia.

Copyright August 15th 2005

BACK UP TO TOP

 
1. Skin cells are composed of stratified epithelial tissue, very similar to the human digestive tract.

2. Skin cells require nourishment with nutrients that are useful to the cells, either as fuel or as structural material.

3. Skin cells require the drainage/removal of waste products produced by
cellular metabolism or internal/external toxicity from food, water, air, or skin/scalp contact.

4. Therefore the absolute best way to achieve natural good healthy skin is to give it good nerve supply, lymphatic drainage, and a good clean nutrient-rich and healthy blood supply, while avoiding toxic chemical exposure.

5. The human skin is absorbent, just like the digestive tract, and therefore substances placed onto the human skin penetrate into the underlying tissues and eventually contact the blood where they circulate through vital
organs. Herbalists have used this to advantage in the form of foot and hand baths for many years. Nicotine patches also work for this reason, and can provoke acute toxicity effects in people when overused for the same reason.

6. Substances placed on the skin can be grouped into three broad categories:

(i) inert - not absorbable through the skin, not useful to human cells, non-toxic

(ii) nutritive - useful to human cells for either nourishment or fuel

(iii) toxic - not useful to human cells for either nourishment or fuel, and requiring either detoxification, or toxin-binding and static cellular storage to prevent them from circulating and causing ongoing damage.

The result of this static storage is localized intercellular toxicity, potentially predisposing to cellular changes like carcinogenesis, and teratrogenesis. Toxins that undergo this type of storage are cumulative and build up over the years.

7. Millions of years of human cell evolution, exposure, and natural selection, has produced cells with a certain set of biological processes and capacities. Hence, exposure to certain groups of natural chemicals for many generations of humans and human cells has resulted in an excellent capacity to deal competently with these natural chemicals. The comparatively new wave of toxic chemicals in recent millennia/centuries, very recently often derived from material leftover from the petrochemical industry (imagine the waste disposal fees they can save paying when they can sell it as a product ingredient instead of paying for sealed landfill space!), are foreign to human cells. Enzyme pathways, and detoxification mechanisms do not exist for many or perhaps any of these, and it has been reported that toxicity effects from simultaneous multiple toxin exposure seem to be greater and more complex than the sum of many single toxin exposures owing to interactive and other effects.

8. In short, natural health advocates often say, very simply:

"IF YOU WOULDN'T EAT IT, DON'T PUT IT ON YOUR SKIN."

Whilst this may be slightly oversimplified, it is correct in essence.

9. Extremely short-term exposures to pure simple soaps (fat + alkali salt, e.g. olive oil + salts in wood ashes = castille soap) seem harmless.

10. Your scalp is part of your skin, your digestive tract is your inner skin, and your mouth, gums, tongue, eyes, sexual organ membranes, and conjunctiva are all also absorbent tissues made of very similar cells.

11. The transit of toxic chemicals through the skin surface into the body has been dubbed TRANSDERMAL POISONING, causing TRANSDERMAL TOXICITY, and occurs in both acute and chronic/cumulative forms.

12. Toxicity is a primary causative factor of disease in humans. To recover from illness or aspire to health, it is prudent to remove wherever possible any known sources of toxicity and harm from one's environment/lifestyle.

13. It is therefore prudent as an act of personal responsibility to carefully scrutinise what substances the surfaces of your body come into contact with. This includes all dental materials, hard soaps, liquid soaps, massage oils, dishwashing detergents (residue on dishes and hands), clothes-washing powders/liquids/dyes (residues on clothes), synthetic fibres (clothes and other), paints, stains, wood finishes, cosmetics, shaving creams, deodorants, perfumes, shampoos, conditioners, lip balms, lip sticks, moisturizers, scrubs, toothpastes, tooth powders, mouthwashes, mascara, suncreams, skin creams, waxes, hair products, hair gels, body and footpowders, insect repellants, bathing water (can contain volatile chlorine and many other chemicals), bubble baths, bath salts, foot powders, body powders, foundation, make-up, spray/paste-on tans, bodywrap products, spa products, linaments, balms, poultices, compresses, tampons, sexual lubricants, sexual aids, Teflon cookware, food chemical additives, aluminum cookware, anti-caking agents in commercially produced salt, and all other products used in internal or external body applications or that come into contact with living human cells.

14. Practitioners of natural and traditional medicine should carefully consider the code of ethics of their membership organization. It usually contains a derivative of a sentiment from the Hippocratic Oath: "First do no harm." Practitioners should do their best to ensure that they do not breach this code of ethics by using toxic chemicals on their clients, or coercing clients to use them on themselves. Herbalists who make creams for their clients should avoid any petrochemicals or other toxic chemicals in the bases or other ingredients of their creams (Some say sorbalene fits into this category).

15. As a duty of care towards their customers and employees, all practitioners, employees, and businesses involved in marketing/producing/using/encouraging the use of products (and giving/encouraging treatments with these products), which contact human skin or tissue, would be wise to openly disclose to their customers and employees, and fellow employees, all the ingredients of these products, indicate anything reasonably known or suspected about their toxicity levels and cumulative toxicity effects, and obtain educated and informed consent from each and every customer and employee on each and every treatment/sale, with each and every product. Failure to do so could be viewed legally as a breach of duty of care or worse, and could incur significant legal liability. Class action suits are a possibility.

16. These toxins, after being applied to living human tissues, are washed into our sewers and water treatment facilities, and eventually leach and travel into the ground water and contaminate streams, estuaries, water catchments, the ocean and all its inhabitants, the polar ice cap and northern indigenous tribespeople, and eventually and potentially every being on the planet, cumulatively, through air and water movement patterns.

Perhaps the manufacturers and promoters of such products would like to ask permission of each and every planetary citizen and whether they mind?

17. If it be decided by a business or practitioner, after toxicity concerns are raised or toxicity information is offered, to continue using, promoting, and selling toxin-containing products and treatments with these toxin-containing products, this may be legally hazardous, and morally wrong. At the very least, it may be wise to obtain educated and informed consent, and offer an alternative completely non-toxic range of products as an option for each and every product known to contain toxins, for each and every employee, for each and every client, and for each and every treatment.

18. So what can you do?

BEWARE OF THOSE WHO WOULD PROFIT FROM YOUR IGNORANCE OR APATHY

Beware of false assurances in product advertising.

Avoid toxic chemicals as much as you can.

Don't assume anything is safe without first checking it thoroughly and assiduously. If someone wants you to buy or use a product, or wants you to buy a service from them that uses a product, and they haven't made this process of checking easy, ask them why they haven't. Ask to see the labels and ingredients of every product that anyone wants to use on you or sell you, and ask the salesperson, administration, and company owners what they are, where they come from, and how toxic they are. Read every product label, and every ingredient. Research every ingredient for yourself, if you don't know what it is, and find out why it is there, where it comes from, and how toxic it is.

Supply a copy of this information to the person who wanted you to buy or use their product.

BELIEVE YOU CAN DO ALL THIS FOR YOURSELF. TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND DON'T HAND OVER YOUR HEALTH TO THOSE WHO WOULD PROFIT FROM YOUR IGNORANCE, APATHY, OR SELF-DOUBT.

Make your blood, healthy, clean, and well-nourished.

Improve your blood circulation using natural techniques.

Help your body detoxify.

Write letters to companies asking why they are selling or producing toxic petrochemicals and other chemicals for people to use on their skin. Copy and distribute this document far and wide. Use it to teach friends, family, aquaintances, employees, employers, and other people about the dangers of transdermal poisoning.

Collect literature about this topic from health magazines and anywhere else, and spread awareness of this wherever you can. (Email it to me!)

Some companies justify their continued sale and production of these products by saying that it is legal and they are just supplying legitimate consumer demand. (Cigarettes carry warning stickers. Who cares about the environment or the consumers health!) Remove this consumer demand, vote with your money, and only support those companies which avoid toxic chemicals completely. There are a number of these companies in existence now, some with certified organic ingredients.

TRANSDERMAL POISONING MUST STOP!

Respectfully submitted,

Kyle Grimshaw-Jones

BACK TO TOP
 

Another Vote for Probiotics

Studies are being done on the trillions of microbial minions toiling away in our large intestine, that are performing crucial physiological functions that all our human cells wouldn't begin to do.

Here we have a fact, the knowledge of which is only emerging as DNA studies show, that human genome are but a small part of being human. In reality, the more appropriate view of a human being is a creature consisting of 10 percent human cells and 90 percent bacterial cells.

"The numbers might strike fear into people..." said Steven Gill, a microbial geneticist who helped lead the study.

A thorough understanding of the bacterial colonizing our gut, indeed our whole bodies including the nose, mouth, vagina, and the skin could have far-reaching medical implications. Subtle changes in the kinds of microbes in the gut could be early indications of disease. Doctors could be prescribing live bacterial supplements to bring physiological aspects of health back into what might be considered a normal range.

"These microbes are master physiological chemists," said Jeffrey I. Gordon Of Washington University in St. Louis.

Simply because of the huge size of the human cell in comparison to the bacterial cell we tend to overlook the 100 trillion or so bacteria living on the human organism. But the benefits of these mostly misunderstood occupants is now becoming clearer.

Many of these microbes perform functions that our own cells are unable to perform. Some of these bacteria have genetic machinery to make essential vitamins not found in the diet and human cells barely have the ability to manufacture on their own. These include B vitamins. Others make enzymes that can break chemical bonds in the food we eat that must be broken in order to feed us.

Some bacteria neutralize substances in the gut that could cause cancer or other illnesses. Other bacteria produce food for the cells that line the colon.

While we provide the bacteria the perfect environment for them the thrive, they in turn produce the mechanism and the food to help support our health.

"To ignore our microbial side would be to ignore an important contributor to our health and our biology," said Gordon.

With expanding information in hand doctors could prescribe "probiotic" foods or supplements to build a person's health.

We often think of microbes as being responsible for human disease. But they are most often associated with human health.

For a more complete informational article:  The Washington Post

 

Skin Deep: Is It Organic? Well, Maybe

By Jessica Merrill
Published in The New York Times
October 20, 2005

Hundreds of soaps, shampoos and skin creams call themselves organic, but their labels have long been confusing, even misleading. A moisturizing cream might be made with organic kiwi, strawberries, jojoba oil and aloe vera, but then mixed with synthetic preservatives. No government agency checked whether the ingredients were truly organic.

But now the Agriculture Department is applying its strict organic food standards to personal care products too. Two months ago, after years of wavering, the agency's National Organic Program declared that cosmetics can also be labeled with the familiar round, two-tone "U.S.D.A. Organic" seal.

Theoretically this is good news to the large and growing population of consumers who spent $4 billion last year for beauty products labeled natural or organic, often paying more for the satisfaction of buying products they consider pure or healthy. Megan Slate, 56, of Manhattan said that for her organic soaps and lotions were the third step in a progression away from synthetic substances that began with alternative medicines and organic foods.

"I also realize that it can be more labor-intensive, that you have to be careful about the source, that the shelf life might be a little shorter," Ms. Slate said. "I understand both sides, and I choose organic."

But much confusion is likely to remain over the Agriculture Department seal because so few organic beauty products are expected to qualify for it. Government licensed certifiers must examine the formulas of the products and determine that at least 95 percent of the ingredients are organic. Many more products will end up labeled "made with organic" ingredients, a murkier designation. Some products that do not meet even the lower standard could possibly still use "organic" in their trademark names. And the new regulations can do nothing to clear up whether an organic beauty product is always a good thing.

The government's extension of the organic seal was forced by a lawsuit brought by one of the oldest, most colorful makers of natural soaps, Dr. Bronner's, whose labels crammed with free adaptations of the wisdom of Longfellow, Chaucer and Confucius have amused bathers for years. "Enjoy sink body rub to stimulate body-mind-soul-spirit" is a typical label direction.

In June, Dr. Bronner's, based in Escondido, Calif., joined with the Organic Consumers Association, an advocacy group, in a suit against the Agriculture Department to include personal care products in the organic certification program, which was limited to food. Since 2002 foods both fresh and packaged - tree-ripened pears or bottled herbal salad dressings - can be labeled organic only if they are made of farm products grown without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, genetically engineered seeds or irradiation.

Dr. Bronner's argued that organic olive oil does not become nonagricultural just because it is used in massage oil rather than in salad dressing. On Aug. 23, the eve of a deadline for the agency to respond to the lawsuit, its National Organic Program issued a memo to organic certifiers that it would now include beauty products.

"The U.S.D.A. decided that the content is what matters in a product, not end use," said Joan Shaffer, speaking for the National Organic Program. "Any agricultural product, regardless of its end use, that meets the N.O.P. standards and is certified may be labeled according to its organic content."

David Bronner, the president of Dr. Bronner's, said that without the government's action the word "organic" on cosmetics would not be meaningful. "The cosmetic industry is so full of hype in a bottle," Mr. Bronner said. "It's such a marketing-driven industry, and it's just kind of a corrosive influence on the organic program."

Dr. Bronner's has already put the organic seal on its Sun Dog's lotions and balms. Two other brands already using the seal are the Nourish line of body and face washes, moisturizers and deodorant (made by Sensibility Soaps in Beaver Falls, Pa.) and Aubrey Organics, which makes organic "body polish," massage oils and lotions. Terressentials in Middletown, Md., which sells organic cleansers, shampoos and skin lotions, is having its skin and hair products certified.

Yet many organic products are less than 95 percent organic and will not get the seal. Dr. Bronner's soaps, for example, are labeled "made with organic oils," because their main ingredient is made, as soap has been for centuries, by mixing an alkali (sodium hydroxide) with oil and water. No alkali remains in the finished soaps, Mr. Bronner said, but because it is used in the production it must be counted as an ingredient.

Some products mix synthetic and organic ingredients because the synthetics do things that organics cannot. "It's really very hard to make a shampoo or a skin-care product that is 95 percent organic," said Morris Shriftman, the senior vice president of Avalon Organics. "There are ingredients in those products that are not organic, and those are the things that clean your skin or get under the grime that is in your hair."

In shampoos and soaps, rich lather, clean scent and long shelf life often come courtesy of synthetic surface-active substances, perfumes and preservatives. Moisturizers, for their part, often contain petrolatum, a gelatinous substance derived from petroleum, and emollients like dimethicone.

Synthetic ingredients used in cosmetics are generally considered safe. The Food and Drug Administration requires that cosmetics makers make sure that their products are safe. And because each synthetic ingredient is typically used in a small amount, product users experience very low levels of exposure. Some synthetic ingredients, however, can be irritating to extrasensitive skin. And some have been linked in preliminary studies on rodents and humans to possible health problems when used in large amounts.

Certain studies have suggested, for example, that phthalates, which are used in making fragrances, lotions, shampoos and nail polish, may be associated with changes in male reproductive development. Others have indicated that parabens, which are preservatives, mimic the activity of estrogen in cells, and that has led to the hypothesis that they may be associated with breast cancer. The research remains inconclusive and controversial.

Andrew Jacobson, the president of the personal care division of Hain Celestial, the maker of Jason Natural Personal Care products, said it is more important for products to be safe and effective than for them to be 95 to 100 percent organic. His company and Avalon are among some 200 that have joined the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which advocates the removal from beauty products of any ingredients suspected to be carcinogens, reproductive toxins or mutagens.
Whenever a product carries the label "made with organic" ingredients, said Ronnie Cummins, the national director of the Organic Consumers Association, "consumers have to dig a little deeper for information and look at the back of the bottle." The word "hydrosols" high on the list should raise suspicion about the amount of organic ingredients in a product, Mr. Cummins said, because it may in some cases be just a fancy word for water.

Water is not considered an organic ingredient, according to government standards, but hydrosols, the water collected when herbs or flowers are steam-distilled, are. A manufacturer could therefore bulk up on hydrosols made with certified organic ingredients to justify a 70 percent organic claim.

Aloe vera is likewise used in large amounts in some products to boost the organic content to 70 percent, Mr. Cummins said.

Brands that have the word "organic" as part of their name may also be confusing to consumers, especially if their products are not even 70 percent organic. The National Organic Program does not categorically forbid this practice. The preamble to its regulations states that the word "organic" in a brand name "does not inherently imply an organic production or handling claim and, thus, does not inherently constitute a false or misleading statement."

That bothers Mr. Cummins as well as purists in the natural products industry. Mr. Bronner said he hoped the organic industry itself would limit use of the word in the names of beauty products. If it does not, he said, he will consider challenging the practice in court.

Many consumers are confused about the virtues of organic products, dermatologists say, because they assume "organic" always means gentle, safe and healthy. But some organic substances can actually bother the skin. Bergamot oil, for example, can increase the skin's sensitivity to sunlight, said Dr. Leslie Baumann, the director of the University of Miami Cosmetic Center. Coconut oil can clog pores, and peppermint can irritate the skin.

"Just because something is organic doesn't mean it is better than something synthetic," said Dr. Bruce Katz, the director of the Cosmetic Surgery and Laser Clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan. "Poison ivy is natural, but that doesn't mean you want to rub it on your skin."

BACK TO TOP
 

Child Toxins

By Deborah Elaine Barrie
Feb.12 2003
Published in Vitality magazine March 2003

In a day and age where we increasingly seek a quick solution to our problems we find ourselves confronted by the cost that we are really paying for convenience. Health and environmental groups around the world are calling for bans and action on everything from pesticides, phthalates in perfumes, arsenic and chromium in CCA pressure treated wood to lead contamination in our homes. Medical groups such as the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment educate their members and lobby for change. Their president, Dr Warren Bell, has expressed his concern that doctors are not educated on the prevention and treatment of environmental illnesses and diseases in our institutions of learning so therefore those effected have little opportunity for treatment. Scientists are conducting studies on the effects of these chemicals and presence in the average person with alarming results. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) just released a study showing 116 chemicals in the blood and urine of subjects, chemicals stored in body fat were not taken into consideration and children showed the highest levels of pesticides. A special by Bill Moyers last year entitled Kids and Toxins dealt with many issues including the damage done to the DNA of babies from the chemicals their mothers breathed in while pregnant. Dr. Elizabeth A. Guillette, world renowned anthropologist, with the University of Florida has documented alarming differences in the Yaqui Valley Mexican children who have been exposed to pesticides compared to the children in the foothills who do not face the same contamination. These changes include premature breast formation and cognitive and motor difficulties. The Environmental Working Group, one of many organizations working to seek a ban on CCA pressure treated wood have recently released a study on toxins in the body as well. They tested the blood and urine of nine people who did not work with chemicals or live near industry for 210 pollutants and found traces of 167 of them. Since World War II there has been a huge increase in chemicals, some 750,000 have been introduced. Increases in many diseases have also risen since that time at alarming rates. In 1998, nearly 800 kids in Ontario, younger than 6 were newly diagnosed with the neurological disorder autism, a 53 per cent jump over the same period two years earlier, stated a study released at Queen's Park by Michael Gravelle in March 2000. Science magazine has reported that "As science progresses, large numbers of epidemiological studies continue to find evidence that short-term and long-term exposures to low concentrations of particles are associated with sizable numbers of morbidity and mortality events in developed urban areas around the world."

Hilary Stead of the Guelph Mercury staff published an article quoting Patrick Kehoe as stating that as owner of Halton lawn care company he sees first hand how pesticides caused illness in those who worked in the industry and that he supported a ban.

On Feb. 7 2003 the Consumer Product Safety Commission released it's Health risk assessment on the dangers of CCA treated wood to children. Among their findings were that children had a 2 to 100 chance in one million of developing cancer from playing on these structures. A one in a million risk is usually the cause for the government to take notice. As the CPSC meets in March to decide on whether to seek a total ban on CCA in playground equipment you might feel like sticking your head in the sand. Not a good idea. The warnings of Dr.Dieter Riedel of Health Canada and Dr David Stilwell of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station have been confirmed once again by a cross Canada study of playgrounds released in Jan.by Environmental Defence Canada, the sand is full of arsenic.


References
The entire Center for Disease Control (CDC) report is online at: www.cdc.gov/exposurereport

http://www.cape.ca/

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript117_full.html

www.ewg.org

Guelph mercury story
http://www.therecord.com/topstory_02112684549.html

http://www.caes.state.ct.us/FactSheetFiles/...

Residues of Arsenic, Chromium, and Copper on and Near Playground Structures Built of Wood Pressure -Treated with "CCA" Type Preservatives
An unpublished study by Dr Dieter Riedel
http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/




Common Toxic Ingredients
Knowledge Is Power
Have you ever bought a product that you were assured was natural, only to get it home, read the label and wonder what on earth those long names were? Miessence believes it's about time consumers were given the power to make informed choices regarding their personal care.

Please research the affects of the ingredients in the products you are currently using on yourself and your children using the House Hold Products Database maintained by the National Institutes of Health and National Library of Medicine.

The information below is compiled from Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) producted by manufacturers describing the chemical properties of a product. Material Safety Data Sheets include brand-specific information such as physical data (solid, liquid, color, melting point, flash point, etc.), health effects, first aid, reactivity, storage, handling, disposal, personal protection and spill/leak procedures. As required by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), the target audience for information in a MSDS is the occupation worker who may be exposed to chemicals at work. However, much of the information is also relevant to consumers.

Toxic Ingredient Directory
1,4-dioxane
A carcinogenic contaminant of cosmetic products. Almost 50% of cosmetics containing ethoxylated surfactants were found to contain dioxane. See Ethoxylated surfactants

From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
1,4-DIOXANE MAY EXERT ITS EFFECTS THROUGH INHALATION, SKIN ABSORPTION, AND INGESTION.
1,4-DIOXANE IS LISTED AS A CARCINOGEN.

EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE: 1,4-DIOXANE IS AN EYE AND MUCOUS MEMBRANE IRRITANT, PRIMARY SKIN IRRITANT, CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DEPRESSANT, NEPHROTOXIN, AND HEPATOTOXIN.

ACUTE EXPOSURE CAUSES IRRITATION, HEADACHE, DIZZINESS, AND NARCOSIS. CHRONIC INHALATION EXPOSURE CAN PRODUCE DAMAGE TO THE LIVER AND KIDNEYS, AND BLOOD DISORDERS.

MEDICAL CONDITION AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE PRECLUDE FROM EXPOSURE THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISEASE OF THE BLOOD, LIVER KIDNEYS, CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, AND THOSE SUSCEPTIBLE TO DERMATITIS.

2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (Bronopol)
Toxic, causes allergic contact dermatitis.
See Nitrosating agents

Alcohol, Isopropyl (SD-40)
A very drying and irritating solvent and dehydrator that strips your skin's natural acid mantle, making us more vulnerable to bacteria, moulds and viruses. It is made from propylene, a petroleum derivative. It may promote brown spots and premature aging of skin.

Ammonium Laureth Sulfate (ALES)
See Anionic Surfactants
See Sodium Laureth Sulfate
See Nitrosating Agents

Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate (ALS)
See Anionic Surfactants
See Sodium Laureth Sulfate
See Nitrosating Agents

Anionic Surfactants
Anionic refers to the negative charge these surfactants have. They may be contaminated with nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic. Surfactants can pose serious health threats. They are used in car washes, as garage floor cleaners and engine degreasers - and in 90% of personal-care products that foam.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS)
Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES)
Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate (ALS)
Ammonium Laureth Sulfate (ALES)
Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate
Sodium Lauroyl Sarcosinate
Sodium Cocoyl Sarcosinate
Potassium Coco Hydrolysed Collagen
TEA (Triethanolamine) Lauryl Sulfate
TEA (Triethanolamine) Laureth Sulfate
Lauryl or Cocoyl Sarcosine
Disodium Oleamide Sulfosuccinate
Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate
Disodium Dioctyl Sulfosuccinate etc



Benzalkonium Chloride
Highly toxic, primary skin irritant.
See Cationic surfactants

From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
MATERIAL IS HIGHLY TOXIC VIA ORAL ROUTE.

EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE: MISTS CAN CAUSE IRRITATION TO THE SKIN, EYES, NOSE, THROAT AND MUCOUS MEMBRANES. AVOID DIRECT CONTACT. SYMPTOMS: MUSCULAR PARALYSIS, LOW BLOOD PRESSURE, CNS DEPRESSION AND WEAKNESS.

EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES

EYES: CORROSIVE! IMMEDIATELY WASH EYES WITH PLENTY OF WATER.

INHALATION: REMOVE PERSON TO FRESH AIR. GIVE OXYGEN (IF BREATHING IS DIFFICULT). CALL PHYSICIAN.

INGESTION: IF CONSCIOUS, IMMEDIATELY DRINK LARGE QUANTITIES OF FLUID TO DILUTE AND INDUCE VOMITING. CALL PHYSICIAN.

Butylated Hudroxyanisole (BHA)
Causes allergic contact dermatitis.

Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)
Causes allergic contact dermatitis. Contains toluene.
See Toluene

Cationic surfactants
These chemicals have a positive electrical charge. They contain a quaternary ammonium group and are often called "quats". These are used in hair conditioners, but originated from the paper and fabric industries as softeners and anti-static agents. In the long run they cause the hair to become dry and brittle. They are synthetic, irritating, allergenic and toxic, and oral intake of them can be lethal.

Stearalkonium chloride
Benzalkonium chloride
Cetrimonium chloride
Cetalkonium chloride
Lauryl dimonium hydrolysed collagen



Cetalkonium chloride
See Cationic surfactants

Cetrimonium chloride
See Cationic surfactants

Chloromethylisothiazolinone and
Causes contact dermatitis

Isothiazolinone
Causes contact dermatitis

From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
EYE CONTACT: CORROSIVE TO THE EYES WITH POSSIBLE PERMANENT DAMAGE.

SKIN CONTACT: CORROSIVE TO THE SKIN, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN THIRD DEGREE BURNS. CAN BE HARMFUL IF ABSORBED. CAN CAUSE ALLERGIC CONTACT DERMATITIS IN SUSCEPTIBLE INDIVIDUALS.

INGESTION: CAN BE FATAL.

INHALATION: CAN BE CORROSIVE TO THE MUCOUS MEMBRANES AND THE LUNGS. CAN CAUSE AN ALLERGIC REACTION IN SUSCEPTIBLE INDIVIDUALS.

Cocoamidopropyl Betaine
From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
CAN CAUSE EYE AND SKIN IRRITATION.

Cocoyl Sarcosine
See Nitrosating agents

Cyclomethicone
See Silicone derived emollients

DEA (diethanolamine), MEA (Monoethanolamine), & TEA (triethanolamine)
Often used in cosmetics to adjust the pH, and used with many fatty acids to convert acid to salt (stearate), which then becomes the base for a cleanser. TEA causes allergic reactions including eye problems, dryness of hair and skin, and could be toxic if absorbed into the body over a long period of time.

These chemicals are already restricted in Europe due to known carcinogenic effects. Dr. Samuel Epstein (Professor of Environmental Health at the University of Illinois) says that repeated skin applications . . . of DEA-based detergents resulted in a major increase in the incidence of liver and kidney cancer.

See Nitrosating agents

From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
Health Hazard Acute And Chronic: Product is severely irritating to body tissues and possibly corrosive to the eyes.

Explanation Carcinogenicity: Amines react with nitrosating agents to form nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic.

Diazolidinyl urea
Established as a primary cause of contact dermatitis (American Academy of Dermatology). Contains formaldehyde, a carcinogenic chemical, is toxic by inhalation, a strong irritant, and causes contact dermatitis.

See Formaldehyde

From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
CAUSES SEVERE EYE IRRITATION. MAY CAUSE SKIN IRRITATION. SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE

SYMPTOMS OF INHALATION: IF MISTED, WILL CAUSE IRRITATION OF MUCOUS MEMBRANES, NOSE, EYES AND THROAT. COUGHING, DIFFICULTY IN BREATHING.

SYMPTOMS OF SKIN CONTACT: CONTACT CAUSES SMARTING AND BURNING SENSATIONS, INFLAMMATION, BURNS, PAINFUL BLISTERS. PROFOUND DAMAGE TO TISSUE.

SYMPTOMS OF EYE CONTACT: WILL CAUSE PAINFUL BURNING OR STINGING OF EYES AND LIDS, WATERING OF EYES, AND INFLAMMATION OF CONJUNCTIVA.

Dimethicone
See Silicone derived emollients

Dimethicone Copolyol
See Silicone derived emollients

Disodium Dioctyl Sulfosuccinate
See Anionic surfactants

Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate
See Anionic surfactants
See Ethoxylated surfactants

Disodium Oleamide Sulfosuccinate
See Anionic Surfactants

DMDM Hydantoin
Contains formaldehyde.
See Formaldehyde

Ethoxylated surfactants
Ethoxylated surfactants are widely used in cosmetics as foaming agents, emulsifiers and humectants. As part of the manufacturing process the toxic chemical 1,4-dioxane, a potent carcinogen, is generated.

On the label, they are identified by the prefix "PEG", "polyethylene", "polyethylene glycol", "polyoxyethylene", "-eth-", or "-oxynol-".

See 1,4-Dioxane

FD&C Colour Pigments
Synthetic colours made from coal tar. Contain heavy metal salts that deposit toxins onto the skin, causing skin sensitivity and irritation. Animal studies have shown almost all of them to be carcinogenic.

Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen (causes cancer). Causes allergic, irritant and contact dermatitis, headaches and chronic fatigue. The vapour is extremely irritating to the eyes, nose and throat (mucous membranes).

See Nitrosating agents

Fragrance
Fragrance on a label can indicate the presence of up to four thousand separate ingredients, many toxic or carcinogenic. Symptoms reported to the USA FDA include headaches, dizziness, allergic rashes, skin discoloration, violent coughing and vomiting, and skin irritation. Clinical observation proves fragrances can affect the central nervous system, causing depression, hyperactivity, and irritability.

Hydrolysed Animal Protein
See Nitrosating agents

Imidazolidinyl urea
The trade name for this chemical is Germall 115. Releases formaldehyde, a carcinogenic chemical, into cosmetics at over 10C. Toxic. See Formaldehyde

Imidazolidinyl Urea
See Nitrosating agents

Lanolin
Any chemicals used on sheep will contaminate the lanolin obtained from the wool. The majority of lanolin used in cosmetics is highly contaminated with chlorinated organo pesticides like DDT.

Lauryl dimonium hydrolysed collagen
See Cationic surfactants

Lauryl or Cocoyl Sarcosine
See Anionic Surfactants

Lauryl Sarcosine
See Nitrosating agents

Liquidum Paraffinum
Liquidum Paraffinum is an exotic sounding way to say mineral oil (!!) See Mineral Oil

MEA compounds
See Nitrosating agents

Methylisothiazolinone and Methylchloroisothiazolinone
Both cause cosmetic allergies

Mineral Oil
Petroleum by-product that coats the skin like plastic, clogging the pores. Interferes with skin's ability to eliminate toxins, promoting acne and other disorders. Slows down skin function and cell development, resulting in premature aging. Used in many products (baby oil is 100% mineral oil!) Any mineral oil derivative can be contaminated with cancer causing PAH's (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons). Manufacturers use petrolatum because it is unbelievably cheap.

Mineral oil
Liquidum paraffinum (also known as posh mineral oil!)
Paraffin oil
Paraffin wax
Petrolatum



Nitrosating Agents
The following chemicals can cause nitrosamine contamination, which have been determined to form cancer in laboratory animals. There are wide and repeated concerns in the USA and Europe about the contamination of cosmetics products with nitrosamines.

2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol
Cocoyl Sarcosine
DEA compounds
Imidazolidinyl Urea
Formaldehyde
Hydrolysed Animal Protein
Lauryl Sarcosine
MEA compounds
Quaternium-7, 15, 31, 60, etc
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate
Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate
Sodium Laureth Sulfate
Ammonium Laureth Sulfate
Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate
TEA compounds



Paraben preservatives (methyl, propyl, butyl, and ethyl)
Used as inhibitors of microbial growth and to extend shelf life of products. Widely used even though they are known to be toxic. Have caused many allergic reactions and skin rashes. Highly toxic.

From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
EMERGENCY OVERVIEW:
WARNING! HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC SKIN REACTION.

SKIN CONTACT: CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN. SYMPTOMS INCLUDE REDNESS, ITCHING, AND PAIN. MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC SKIN REACTIONS.

EYE CONTACT: CAUSES IRRITATION, REDNESS, AND PAIN.

Paraffin wax/oil
Paraffin Wax is mineral oil wax. See Mineral Oil

Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) compounds
Potentially carcinogenic petroleum ingredient that can alter and reduce the skin's natural moisture factor. This could increase the appearance of aging and leave you more vulnerable to bacteria. Used in cleansers to dissolve oil and grease. It adjusts the melting point and thickens products. Also used in caustic spray-on oven cleaners. See Ethoxylated surfactants

Potassium Coco Hydrolysed Collagen
See Anionic Surfactants

Propylene/Butylene Glycol
Propylene glycol (PG) is a petroleum derivative. It penetrates the skin and can weaken protein and cellular structure. Commonly used to make extracts from herbs. PG is strong enough to remove barnacles from boats! The EPA considers PG so toxic that it requires workers to wear protective gloves, clothing and goggles and to dispose of any PG solutions by burying them in the ground. Because PG penetrates the skin so quickly, the EPA warns against skin contact to prevent consequences such as brain, liver, and kidney abnormalities. But there isn't even a warning label on products such as stick deodorants, where the concentration is greater than in most industrial applications.

From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
Health Hazard Acute And Chronic

INHALATION: May cause respiratory and throat Irritation, central nervous system depression, blood and kidney disorders. May cause Nystagmus, Lymphocytosis.

SKIN: Irritation and dermatitis, absorption.

EYES: Irritation and conjunctivitis.

INGESTION: Pulmonary oedema, brain damage, hypoglycaemia, intravascular hemolysis. Death may occur.

PVP/VA Copolymer
A petroleum-derived chemical used in hairsprays, wavesets and other cosmetics. It can be considered toxic, since particles may contribute to foreign bodies in the lungs of sensitive persons.

Quaternium-7, 15, 31, 60, etc
Toxic, causes skin rashes and allergic reactions.

See Nitrosating agents

From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
SKIN: PROLONGED OR REPEATED EXPOSURE MAY CAUSE SKIN IRRITATION. MAY CAUSE MORE SEVERE RESPONSE IF SKIN IS DAMP.

MAY BE A WEAK SKIN SENSITIZER IN SUSCEPTIBLE INDIVIDUALS AT GREATER THAN 1% IN AQUEOUS SOLUTION.

Rancid Natural Emollients
Natural oils used in cosmetics should be cold pressed. The refined vegetable oils found on supermarket shelves and many health food stores which lack colour, odour and taste are devoid of nutrients, essential fatty acids, vitamins and unsaponifiables - all valuable skin conditioning agents! They also contain poisonous "trans" fatty acids as a result of the refining process.

Another important factor to consider with creams made from plant oil is the use-by date. The most beneficial plant oils (like rosehip, borage and evening primrose oils) are polyunsaturated, which means they oxidise and go rancid fairly quickly (about 6 months). Most off-the-shelf cosmetics have a shelf life of three years. Rancid oils are harmful, they form free-radicals, which damage and age your skin.

Silicone derived emollients
Silicone emollients are occlusive - that is they coat the skin, trapping anything beneath it, and do not allow the skin to breathe (much like plastic wrap would do.)

Recent studies have indicated that prolonged exposure of the skin to sweat, by occlusion, causes skin irritation. Some synthetic emollients are known tumour promoters and accumulate in the liver and lymph nodes. They are also non-biodegradable, causing negative environmental impact.

Dimethicone
Dimethicone Copolyol
Cyclomethicone



Sodium Cocoyl Sarcosinate
See Anionic Surfactants

Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) Ammonium Laureth Sulfate (ALES)
When combined with other chemicals, SLES and ALES can create nitrosamines, a potent class of carcinogens. It is frequently disguised in semi-natural cosmetics with the explanation "comes from coconut".

See Anionic Surfactants
See Ethoxylated surfactants
See Nitrosating agents

From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
WARNING! CAUSES SKIN AND EYE IRRITATION! AVOID CONTACT WITH EYES, SKIN AND CLOTHING. THE MATERIAL WAS CLASSIFIED AS A MODERATE TO SEVERE EYE IRRITANT.

Sodium Lauroyl Sarcosinate
See Anionic Surfactants

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate (ALS)
Used in car washes, garage floor cleaners and engine degreasers - and in 90% of products that foam.

Animals exposed to SLS and ALS experience eye damage, central nervous system depression, laboured breathing, diarrhoea, severe skin irritation, and even death.

Young eyes may not develop properly if exposed to SLS and ALS because proteins are dissolved. SLS and ALS may also damage the skin's immune system by causing layers to separate and inflame. It is frequently disguised in semi-natural cosmetics with the explanation "comes from coconut".

See Nitrosating agents
See Anionic Surfactants

From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
EYE CONTACT:

INSTILLATION OF A 29% SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE SOLUTION INTO THE EYES OF SIX ALBINO RABBITS PRODUCED SEVERE IRRITATION. THE MATERIAL WAS CLASSIFIED AS A SEVERE SKIN IRRITANT.

Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate
See Nitrosating agents
See Anionic Surfactants

Stearalkonium Chloride
A chemical used in hair conditioners and creams. Causes allergic reactions. Stearalkonium chloride was developed by the fabric industry as a fabric softener, and is a lot cheaper and easier to use in hair conditioning formulas than proteins or herbals, which do help hair health. Toxic.

See Cationic surfactants

Talc
Scientific studies have shown that routine application of talcum powder in the genital area is associated with a three-to-fourfold increase in the development of ovarian cancer.

TEA (Triethanolamine) Laureth Sulfate
Synthetic emulsifier. Highly acidic. Over 40% of cosmetics containing Triethanolamine (TEA), have been found to be contaminated with nitrosamines, which are potent carcinogens.

From Material Safety Data Sheet:
Special Hazard Precautions: PRODUCT IS SEVERELY IRRITATING TO BODY TISSUES AND POSSIBLY CORROSIVE TO THE EYES. HANDLE WITH CARE. AVOID EYE & SKIN CONTACT. AVOID BREATHING VAPORS IF GENERATED. IF THERE IS DANGER OF EYE CONTACT, WEAR A FACE SHIELD.

Explanation Carcinogenicity: AMINES REACT WITH NITROSATING AGENTS TO FORM NITROSOAMINES, WHICH ARE CARCINOGENIC.

See Anionic Surfactants
See Nitrosating agents

TEA compounds
See Nitrosating agents

Toluene
From Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
POISON! DANGER! HARMFUL OR FATAL IF SWALLOWED. HARMFUL IF INHALED OR ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN.

VAPOR HARMFUL. FLAMMABLE LIQUID AND VAPOR. MAY AFFECT LIVER, KIDNEYS, BLOOD SYSTEM, OR CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT.

INHALATION: INHALATION MAY CAUSE IRRITATION OF THE UPPER RESPIRATORY TRACT. SYMPTOMS OF OVEREXPOSURE MAY INCLUDE FATIGUE, CONFUSION, HEADACHE, DIZZINESS AND DROWSINESS. PECULIAR SKIN SENSATIONS (E. G. PINS AND NEEDLES) OR NUMBNESS MAY BE PRODUCED. VERY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS MAY CAUSE UNCONSCIOUSNESS AND DEATH.

INGESTION: SWALLOWING MAY CAUSE ABDOMINAL SPASMS AND OTHER SYMPTOMS THAT PARALLEL OVER-EXPOSURE FROM INHALATION. ASPIRATION OF MATERIAL INTO THE LUNGS CAN CAUSE CHEMICAL PNEUMONITIS, WHICH MAY BE FATAL. SKIN CONTACT: CAUSES IRRITATION. MAY BE ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN.

EYE CONTACT: CAUSES SEVERE EYE IRRITATION WITH REDNESS AND PAIN. CHRONIC EXPOSURE: REPORTS OF CHRONIC POISONING DESCRIBE ANEMIA, DECREASED BLOOD CELL COUNT AND BONE MARROW HYPOPLASIA. LIVER AND KIDNEY DAMAGE MAY OCCUR. REPEATED OR PROLONGED CONTACT HAS A DEFATTING ACTION, CAUSING DRYING, REDNESS, AND DERMATITIS.

EXPOSURE TO TOLUENE MAY AFFECT THE DEVELOPING FOETUS.

BACK TO TOP

What's In Your Nail Polish and Shampoo?

- the safety of cosmetics & personal care products -
by Katie Garrison

Chemicals enter our bodies through the air
we breathe, the soil, food, and through our skin.

As more and more of us are becoming aware of the chemicals in our lives, from air and water pollution, to the cleaning products used around our homes, to the amounts of pesticides and fertilizers used on our food, on cotton etc., we may be overlooking the very things we use on our bodies. The growing concern about the chemicals used in everyday products has been brought painfully to light. Studies by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) are clarifying the dangers.*

Chemicals enter our bodies through the air we breathe, the soil, food, and through our skin. These accumulate in our bodies, in our blood and fatty tissues… this chemical load is now called the “body burden.” This burden is revealing the causal connections between chemical exposure and health problems.

As a result, EWG, The Breast Cancer Fund and others have joined together to create “The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics” to raise awareness. They point to such chemicals as phthalates, commonly used in nail polish, perfumes, hairspray and their hormone disrupting effects. These “endocrine disruptors” can have damaging effects even in small doses, resulting in problems with reproductive health and fetal development. Women are at particular risk. According to a survey of more than 2,300 people, conducted by the EWG and five other public health and environmental organizations, the average adult who responded uses nine personal care products daily, exposing herself to 126 chemicals every day - the majority of which are not adequately tested for safety. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn't have authority over the chemical compilations used in cosmetics and body products. The FDA cannot require companies to do safety testing of ingredients or products before they are put on store shelves. The makers of these products are essentially in a selfregulating industry.

At a press conference this past June, Janet Nudelman, Director of Program at The Breast Cancer Fund, explained that “according to 2000 FDA statistics, 89% of the over 10,500 ingredients used in personal care products have not been evaluated for safety by the industry-appointed Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel (CIR) or anyone else.” She went on to say that the cosmetics industry alone uses more than 5,000 chemicals in products - from shampoo, shaving cream, lotions and lipstick - many of which “are also used in industrial manufacturing processes to grease gears, clean industrial equipment, stabilize pesticides and soften plastics.”

“It is particularly egregious that, in this time of a growing breast cancer epidemic, products marketed specifically to women contain [known and suspected] breast carcinogens.”

U.S. companies should be held accountable to their consumers, and these companies even have an exemplary policy to follow. The European Union has already passed legislation (the Cosmetics Directive) which bans chemicals, commonly found in cosmetics, known to or strongly suspected of causing cancer, mutation or birth defects. As a result, pressure on manufacturers is mounting, not just regarding the safety of products in Europe, but also in the U.S. and globally.

The reality is that this is an industry and social problem. It will take public education and empowerment to drive legislative policy to force changes in the industry and to greater protect our health. As consumers and investors, we can make cosmetic and personal care product companies listen. So speak up. We need your commitment to demand safer products, and your personal lifestyle choices will make a difference.



WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Go to the online interactive guide www.safecosmetics.org to find out what chemicals are in your favorite products and how to chose safer alternatives. (The website provides customized reports and product rankings of known and probable health hazards associated with ingredients in each of the 7,500 products assessed).

Ask your favorite cosmetic company to sign the Campaign for Safe Cosmetic's “Compact for the Global Production of Safe Health and Beauty Products.”
Read more at www.breastcancerfund.org

Write your elected officials; support legislative efforts to adopt policies regarding chemicals in cosmetics, similar to the European Union. Encourage your representatives to pass laws that will create widespread testing of breast milk, blood and urine - a “biomonitoring” program - to provide more proof that our body burden warrants significant changes in regulations and the need to foster solutions.

For more information about the important work of The Breast Cancer Fund: www.breastcancerfund.org

*Environmental Working Group: www.ewg.org/issues/cosmetics and www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep

*Centers for Disease Control: www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/2nd

BACK TO TOP