Industrial Uses:  Many

Personal Care Products:  Mouthwashes

Purpose:  Solvent (primarily)

Mouthwashes with an alcohol content of 25% or higher have been implicated in mouth, tongue and throat cancer.  Alcohol acts as a solvent in the mouth making tissues more vulnerable to carcinogens

Men had a 60% higher risk and women a 90% higher risk of these cancers compared to those not using the mouthwash (http://theanswertocancer.com/avoidable-toxins.htm).

Industrial Uses:  None

Personal Care Products:  Acne Treatment/Medications, Skin Coloring Agents, Facial Cleansers, Exfoliators, Facial Moisturizers/Treatment, Foot Odor/Cream/Treatment, Other Skin Treatments, Anti-Aging Treatments, Pore Strips, Concealers, Eye Treatments, Foundations, Body Scrubs, Body Moisturizers, Anti-Itch/Rash Creams,

Sunscreens/Tanning Oils, Hair Regrowth Treatment, Liquid Hand Soap, Shampoo.

Purpose:  The acids are commonly used in products promoted as enhancing the youthful appearance of skin.

On May 21, 1992 FDA issued a consumer warning that commercial “skin peel” products, advertised to remove wrinkles, blemishes, blotches and acne scars, could destroy the upper layers of the skin, causing severe burns, swelling, and pain. FDA describes the following progression: “The skin initially reddens, as with a sunburn, then darkens and finally peels away revealing what manufacturers claim will be “new skin.” Treatments may be painful and leave permanent scars” (FDA 1992).

Since these initial warnings, the use of the active skin peel ingredients, alpha and beta hydroxy acids (AHAs and BHAs), has grown dramatically in the cosmetic industry. According to EWG’s assessment of ingredient labels for 7,500 personal care products, these acids are now added to one of every 17 products on the market, including nearly 10 percent of all moisturizers and six percent of all sunscreens.

Beginning with its initial burn warnings, FDA has now studied the safety of AHAs and BHAs for 14 years, driven in part by the increasing use of these acids in cosmetics, as well as by the agency’s estimate that AHAs and BHAs injure 1,000 people nationwide each year (FDA 1999).

Most recently, FDA’s Office of Women’s Health sponsored studies that have linked these ingredients to UV-induced skin damage and potential increased risks of skin cancer. The studies identified a doubling of UV damage to skin among people using AHA-containing products (FDA 2000b).

The studies also showed that after four weeks of AHA application, volunteers’ sensitivity to skin reddening produced by UV light increased by 18%. Similarly, the volunteers’ sensitivity to UV-induced cellular damage doubled, on average, with considerable differences among individuals. — FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Color, on new AHA safety studies (FDA 2000b)

FDA’s 14-year review process has culminated with the Agency issuing guidance on the need for product manufacturers to include sunburn warnings on their products (FDA 2002). The guidance is draft, set to be finalized in 2004 and is voluntary, highlighting the agency’s lack of meaningful authority over cosmetics, even on an issue that the Director of FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Color found “alarming” (FDA 1999). The suggested warnings, a rare request from an agency that has in its history tackled only a few cosmetic safety issues in such depth, include language-advising consumers to “Use a sunscreen and limit sun exposure while using this product and for a week afterwards” (FDA 2002).

The cosmetic industry’s efforts to preserve the use of these acids in products began with an industry-sponsored study that showed increased UV-induced skin damage for product testers. The cosmetic trade association CTFA presented this study to the industry’s safety panel in 1996. According to FDA, the panel approved the use of AHAs in cosmetics in June 1997 in spite of the study results and “in spite of serious safety questions submitted by a consumer group and a major manufacturer” (FDA 1997).

The industry panel found that AHAs are “safe for use in cosmetic products at concentrations less than or equal to 10 percent, at final formulation pHs greater than or equal to 3.5, when formulated to avoid increasing the skin’s sensitivity to the sun, or when directions for use include the daily use of sun protection.” For salon use, the panel found AHAs “safe for use at concentrations less than or equal to 30 percent, at final formulation pHs greater than or equal to 3.0, in products designed for brief, discontinuous use followed by thorough rinsing from the skin, when applied by trained professionals, and when application is accompanied by directions for the daily use of sun protection” (CIR 2003).

“AHA concentration and pH are generally not noted on all products. (FDA does not require it.)” The agency notes that consumers can request the information from the manufacturer (FDA 1997).

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, skin cancer in the U.S. has reached “epidemic proportions,” with more than one million new cases occurring each year. At current rates one in five Americans is expected to develop skin cancer over their lifetime, and one American dies every hour from the disease (EPA 2004).

The use of acids in cosmetics may be contributing to current skin cancer rates. The use of these acids in sunscreens, where they appear in six percent of all products we assessed, is perplexing and counterintuitive, and may detract from the cancer protection sunscreen products normally provide.

Comments on AHAs from FDA’s Director of the Office of Cosmetics and Color, Dr. John Bailey, coming several years prior to the agency’s issuance of suggested, voluntary warning language for cosmetic manufacturers, illustrate the problem inherent in a regulatory system that does not require premarket safety testing: “There are many unanswered questions in front of us… AHAs are unlike anything else ever introduced onto the cosmetic market on such a wide scale. They are not your traditional cosmetics” (FDA 1999).  He also stated that very little about the process restricts their sale. And it’s a somewhat alarming idea to put acids on the skin. It raises obvious safety questions. — Dr. John Bailey, Director of FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Color, on the use of alpha hydroxy acids (AHAs) in cosmetics (FDA 1999)

Industrial Uses: Processed Foods, Paper Products, Beverage Cans, Foil and Cookware

Personal Care Products: Deodorants, Antacids

Purpose:

Aluminum is a metal, the third most common element in the environment and a toxin in the body.

Dr. Daniel Perl, Director of Neuropathology at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, suggests “….avoid aerosol antiperspirants.  Aluminum in aerosol may be more readily absorbed into the brain through the nasal passages.”  [University of California, Berkeley Wellness Letter, April 1993 9(7) p.1(2)].

According to government sources from June 2003, “The FDA is concerned that people with renal dysfunction (20 million Americans, 1 in 9 adults) may not be aware that the daily use of antiperspirant drug products containing aluminum may put them at higher risk because of exposure to aluminum in the product.  The FDA considers it prudent to alert these people to consult a doctor before using or continuing to use these products on a regular basis”

However, there is a difference in opinion in the medical community over contraindication of aluminum-containing antiperspirants in kidney patients.  Dr. Sherrard is a national expert on the effect of aluminum on kidney function.  He has published over 40 papers on aluminum toxicity and kidneys and is Senior Research Advisor at the Northwest Kidney Centers.  He has been part of the scientific community’s quest to study aluminum toxicity since the 1970’s.  He states that the FDA warning is based on the false assumption that toxic amounts of aluminum may be absorbed through the skin.

His research group has studied several hundred patients with aluminum toxicity and they discovered that every patient became toxic from one of two sources: (1) they were getting aluminum from oral antacids containing aluminum or (2) from aluminum contaminated water used to prepare the dialysate fluid which flows through the artificial kidney to purify the blood.  They did not find aluminum containing antiperspirants as a problem in any patient.

He states that the FDA requires this alert on antacids containing aluminum as a reminder to kidney patients that aluminum should be avoided.

-Northwest Kidney Centers, Press Briefing, December 9, 2004.

Pesticides:

Breast cancer is associated with heredity (although this is disputed) and reproductive history (early menarche, no children, late menopause). The attempted association between breast cancer and a high-fat diet is now totally discredited by the Willits study at Harvard. However, there probably is a relationship with the contaminates concentrated in fats.

Organic chlorine pesticides are associated with breast cancers. These pesticides are specific for the location of the cancer on the breast, and they concentrate in breast fat. They also have an estrogenic effect, which is carcinogenic when in excess. DDT and PCB are present in increased levels in the blood of women with breast cancer. These data are not new; they have simply not been made available to the general public.

Meat Hormones:

Now, to meat hormones. The great majority of cattle are raised in feed lots where they receive high doses of estrogens before slaughter, so that the meat will be tender for market. The levels of estrogenic hormones present in meat are terrifyingly high. There is no effective regulation of feed additives, including antibiotics and hormones in meat. Women who eat meat are exposed from birth to death to high levels of estrogenic hormones because of feed additives. This goes on with the tacit approval of The FDA and the silence of the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute.

Industrial Carcinogens:

Polyvinyl chloride is manufactured from vinyl chloride. Women who work in factories where this is done have a greatly increased incidence of breast cancer. These studies have been “replicated.” (That means they have been repeated and are considered reliable). Despite the fact that over three million women are working in the petrochemical industry, there has been no serious attempt to look further into this matter. Electrical industry work also is an important risk factor in cancer.

Location:

Where you live also affects the incidence of breast cancer. People living near hazardous waste dumps are at high risk for cancer. Living in proximity to a nuclear plant results in major excesses of breast cancer.

Mammography:

There also are iatrogenic (doctor caused) breast cancers. In 1971, the National Academy of Science published a report revealing that for every rad of x-ray exposure, the risk of breast cancer increased by one percent. Nine months later the ACS and NCI promoted a mammography project in which 300,000 women were enrolled and were told that the dose of radiation would be perfectly safe, and that the procedure might pick up breast cancer and save their lives. The minimum dose women received in this procedure was two rads per mammogram. Some centers administered five rads and some ten rads. Think of that, an increase in cancer risk of two percent, five percent, or ten percent by a single test for cancer, without being informed of the risks!

The premenopausal breast is much more sensitive to radiation than the postmenopausal breast. If a premenopausal women gets an annual mammogram each year for five years, involving two rads each time, she will have an increased risk of breast cancer of ten percent! The NCI and ACS knew this. They chose to do it anyway for publicity and research money reasons. These women have never been followed up. Probably, part of the story in the increased incidence of breast cancer has been these studies back in the 1970s.

Even though in the 1980s the level of radiation given in mammography was lowered to the range of 200 millirads, there has never been a single published study showing the effectiveness of mammography in the premenopausal woman. There have been seven randomized, controlled trials showing no efficacy whatsoever. In contrast, these studies demonstrate increased mortality in premenopausal women for the three to five years after a mammogram. These data were presented to the ACS and NCI years ago, but they were dismissed and trivialized. Last year, however, the NCI reversed itself and stands against premenopausal mammography, but the ACS still persists, and radiologists who fear losing their “premenopausal market” support them. That is the language, the “premenopausal market!”

Breast Implants:

There are two types of breast implants, a straight silicon gel and a silicone gel implant surrounded by an industrial polyurethane. The object of polyurethane was to reduce contractures and prevent scarring and hardening of the breasts. About two million women have been implanted. From 1960 to 1964, Wilhelm Huper at the NCI — the greatest cancer authority of the age — published a series of research papers revealing that injection of polyurethane into animals resulted in a wide range of sarcomas and carcinomas. He warned that polyurethane would degrade in the body and that its degradation would be accompanied by the appearance of these cancers. There was no question in his mind these cancers were caused by polyurethane, and under no circumstances should polyurethane ever be implanted in the human body.

The chemicals from which polyurethane is made were proven to cause cancer, and these chemicals appear in the breast milk and urine of women with breast implants. Their appearance in breast milk obviously puts the nursing baby at risk as well. The chemical industry was well aware of this. The plastic surgery industry was well aware of this. Nevertheless, 400,000 women were implanted with polyurethane — despite the fact that evidence of its carcinogenicity goes back to the 60s.

The evidence of carcinogenicity was just as clear for the silicone gel. The scientists who were aware of this pushed for a medical alert. The FDA responded by firing those scientists and burying the documentation for years. This information was available to plastic surgeons. Records of a conference of plastic surgeons in 1985 show that  serious concern was expressed as to what might happen if the data became available to the general public. And yet they went on doing it!

The breast implant situation is even more shocking, because two million women are involved. The best FDA scientists recommended a medical alert to go out to these women in 1987. The recent 4.52 billion dollar settlement relates to autoimmune disease without a word regarding breast cancer.

Personal Care Products:  Hair dyes and treatment shampoos

Purpose:  Hair colorants and to treat scalp conditions

Coal tar hair dye ingredients are known to cause allergic reactions in some people, FDA’s Lambert says.  Some consumers have reported hair loss, burning, redness, and irritation from hair dyes. Allergic reactions to dyes include itching, swelling of the face, and even difficulty breathing.

Synthetic, organic chemicals, including hair dyes and other color additives, were originally manufactured from coal tar, but today manufacturers primarily use materials derived from petroleum. The use of the term “coal tar” continues because historically that language has been incorporated into the law and regulations.

The law does not require that coal tar hair dyes be approved by FDA, as is required for other uses of color additives. In addition, the law does not allow FDA to take action against coal tar hair dyes that are shown to be harmful, if the product is labeled with the prescribed caution statement indicating that the product may cause irritation in certain individuals, that a patch test for skin sensitivity should be done, and that the product must not be used for dyeing the eyelashes or eyebrows.

The patch test involves putting a dab of hair dye behind the ear or inside the elbow, leaving it there for two days, and looking for itching, burning, redness, or other reactions. The problem is that people can become sensitized–that is, develop an allergy–to these ingredients,” Lambert says. “They may do the patch test once, and then use the product for 10 years” before having an allergic reaction. “But you’re supposed to do the patch test every time,” he says, even in salons….

Hair Color and Cancer

Over the years, some studies have indicated a possible link between hair dye use and cancer, while others have not. In February 1994, FDA and the American Cancer Society released an epidemiologic study involving 573,000 women. Researchers found that women who had ever used permanent hair dyes showed decreased risk of all fatal cancers combined and also of urinary system cancers. The study also revealed that women who had ever used permanent hair dyes showed no increased risk of any type of hematopoietic cancer (cancer of the body’s blood-forming systems).

This research, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, did suggest that prolonged use (20 years or more of constant use) of black hair dye may slightly increase the occurrence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma, but these cases represented a small fraction of hair dye users. This study followed previous NCI studies that raised concern about the use of hair dyes and higher rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

In another study, published in the October 5, 1994, issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston followed 99,000 women and found no greater risk of cancers of the blood or lymph systems among women who had ever used permanent hair dyes.

Then in 1998, scientists at the University of California at San Francisco questioned 2,544 people about their use of hair-color products. After integrating the results of this study with those of animal and other epidemiologic studies, they concluded that there was little convincing evidence linking non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with normal use of hair-color products in humans. The study was published in the December 1998 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. (Meadows M.  2001 Jan-Feb.  Heading Off Hair-Care Disasters:  Use Caution With Relaxers and Dyes,  FDA Consumer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdahdye.html).

Industrial Uses:  Laundry Detergents, Dishwashing Liquid

Personal Care Products:  Shampoos, Body Gels, Hair Dyes, Facial Cleansers and Lotions, Baby Shampoos and Bubble Baths

Purpose:  Inexpensive, Makes Bubbles

DEA-based detergents are widely used in shampoos, lotions and creams.  Dr. Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Illinois School of Public Health states that DEA is readily absorbed through the skin and accumulates in organs, such as the brain, where it induces chronic toxic effects (http://theanswertocancer.com/avoidable-toxins.htm).  Animal tests show it damages the liver, kidneys and spinal cord (Better Nutrition February 2005).

Since 1976, workers exposed to NDEA in metal working fluids, at levels similar to those in cosmetics, have been warned of cancer risks and steps taken to protect them.

In a petition to the FDA, previously released, the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) urged the labeling or phasing out of DEA in cosmetic products.  DEA is a precursor of nitrosodiethanolamine (NDEA), a proven carcinogen as recognized by four Federal Agencies and Institutions and the World Health Organization. The proposed label would read, “Caution—This product may contain N-nitrosodiethanolamine, a known cancer-causing agent.”

In 1979, the FDA urged the cosmetics industry to take “immediate action to eliminate” NDEA in cosmetics.  However, the FDA has taken no subsequent action while industry remains unresponsive.  In striking contrast, the European Economic Community (EEC) has sharply reduced permissible uses of DEA.  German cosmetic industry has also resolved this problem by phasing out DEA detergents, thereby preventing the formation of NDEA.

Dr. William Lijinksy, leading international nitrosamine researcher, emphasized, “The continued use of DEA is unacceptable especially in view of the overwhelming scientific evidence of its cancer risks and the availability of safe alternatives.” (Cancer Prevention Coalition, 28 July 2002 <www.preventcancer.com>).

Dr. Samuel Epstein, M.D. of the Cancer Prevention Coalition states that lifelong use of these products (DEA) clearly poses avoidable cancer risks to the majority of U.S. consumers, particularly infants and young children.  For more information on nitrosamines see subheading below.

Industrial Uses:  Manufacturing of glues and resins and as a chemical intermediate.  Urea-formaldehyde and phenolformaldehyde resins are used in foam insulations, as adhesives in the production of particle board and plywood, and in the treating of textiles.

Personal Care Products:  Preservative in cosmetics, nail polish, vaccines and embalming bodies.  It is common to find formaldehyde in aqueous cosmetic formulations such as shampoo, conditioner, shower gels, liquid hand wash and bubble bath.  Even products designed for children such as bubble bath and baby shampoo have formaldehyde in them.

Purpose:  Preservative and Sterilizer

Formaldehyde causes cancer in test animals.  Some studies suggested that formaldehyde exposure could cause cancer of the lungs, sinuses, and nose in humans.  Cal/OSHA and Cal/EPA regulate formaldehyde as a carcinogen.

http://search.freeze.com/indexaspx

Formaldehyde can cause watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes, throat, nausea, and difficulty in breathing in some humans exposed at elevated levels (above 0.1 parts per million).  High concentrations of formaldehyde may trigger asthma attacks in susceptible people.  There is evidence that some people can develop sensitivity to formaldehyde.  It has also been shown to cause cancer in animals and is a known carcinogen.  Health effects from exposure to formaldehyde include, eye, nose, and throat irritation; wheezing and coughing; fatigue; skin rash; severe allergic reactions.

Formaldehyde is a cancer suspect and is banned from cosmetics and toiletries in both Sweden and Japan. Recently, however, Japan is beginning to bow to pressure from Western nations to relax this ban and accept exports from the West.

The safety of formaldehyde was reviewed in 1984, by a panel of scientific experts commissioned by the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA), a trade association representing the cosmetics industry. They concluded that there was insufficient data to show that cosmetics containing more than 0.2 percent of formaldehyde were safe. A different body, the European Union’s (EU’s) Scientific Committee on Cosmetics, decided that formaldehyde was safe if used “at low levels”. As a result, cosmetics and toiletries sold within the EU may contain formaldehyde as a preservative but, with restrictions to its use.

However, these restrictions only apply where formaldehyde is used as a preservative. Formaldehyde can also be added to antibacterial (antiseptic) hand wash to kill microbes on your hands, and it is an important ingredient in some types nail hardeners. EU regulations allow up to 5 percent of formaldehyde in nail hardeners (that’s 25 times more than the CTFA’s safe level) and there are no specific regulations concerning its use as an antibacterial. If a nail hardener contains more than 0.05 percent of formaldehyde the label must clearly display the following warnings: “Contains Formaldehyde” and “Protect cuticles with grease or oil.” But these warnings are not required on shampoo, shower gel or family bubble bath, all of which can legally contain four times as much formaldehyde. Why have the regulating authorities decided that 0.05 percent of formaldehyde in nail hardeners is sufficiently dangerous to warrant specific warnings while more than four times as much in antimicrobial hand wash is safe? Why not set a standard safety level for all products?

The answer is that there would be no point. Manufacturers are only required to list those ingredients that are added intentionally. They do not have to list any ingredients that are not intended to be part of the product. For example, they do not have to list any of the solvents they use to add fragrance chemicals. Nor do they have to list any impurities such as pesticide residues, any chemical contaminants introduced during the manufacture of the ingredients or any chemicals, such as formaldehyde, that were used to preserve the ingredients before they were used to make the cosmetic or toiletry.

In a Danish study of 285 shampoos, nearly 30 percent of them were found to contain formaldehyde but none of them listed it as an ingredient. The reason for this was the formaldehyde was present as an unintentional contaminant, because the raw materials used in the cosmetics had been preserved with it.

Perhaps the informed consumer should demand that cosmetics and toiletries carry labels that say, “Analysis shows that this product contains no formaldehyde.”

One of the cosmetic toxins that consumer advocates are most concerned about are nitrosamines, which contaminate a wide variety of cosmetic products.  In the 1970’s, nitrosamines contamination of cooked bacon and other nitrate-treated meats in the food industry became a public health issue.  But today, nitrosamines contaminate cosmetics at significantly higher levels than were once contained in bacon.”–Peter Phillips, Author Director “Project Censored 1997&1998”, “The News That Didn’t Make The News.”

What are Nitrosamines?  They are any class of organic compounds with the general formula (R2NNO or RNHNO) which is a nitrate combined with an amine.  They are present in various processed foods, shampoos/personal care and other products found on the market today.  They are also known to be carcinogenic.

Nitrosating agents are any of the following agents combined with sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium laureth sulfate, both of which are found in a myriad of shampoos and personal care products:

• 2-Bromo-2-Tropropane- 1,3-Diol
• Cocoyl Sarcosine
• Diethanolamine (DEA) Plus Any Chemical Listed  or NDEA
• Imidazolidinyl Urea
• Formaldehyde
• Hydrolyzed Animal Protein
• Lauryl Sarcosine
• Monethanolamine (MEA)
• Monethanolamine (MEA) Plus Any Chemical
• Quatemium-7, 15, 31, 60, Etc.
• Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS)
• Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES)
• Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate (SMCT)
• Triethanolamine (TEA) Plus Any Chemical Listed

Reputable manufacturers routinely test their ingredients for residues of nitrosamines and 1,4-dioxane,both of which are carcinogens, and if the levels are too high, the ingredients are rejected or they are purified before being used. But we cannot be certain that all manufacturers do this, especially those operating in less regulated parts of the world, and there is ample evidence to show that some manufacturers clearly don’t.

Research carried out in 1991 found up to 85,000 parts per billion of 1,4-dioxane residues in 40 percent of the cosmetics tested. In 1977 a study found that 93 percent of cosmetics tested contained nitrosamines in concentrations ranging from 10 to 50,000 parts per billion. A follow-up study in 1991-2 found up to 3,000 parts per billion of nitrosamines in 65 percent of the cosmetics tested – a slight improvement but still a cause for concern.  Just what are the safe levels of these contaminants? The truth is, no one knows.

Industrial Uses: As a food preservative in small quantities.

Personal Care Products:  Cosmetics and personal care products, such as shampoos, conditioners, hair styling gels, nail creams, foundations, facial masks, skin creams, and deodorants. Parabens can be an ingredient in baby lotions, shampoos, and other personal care products for children.

Purpose: Preservative.  Also found at low levels in nature.

The World Health Organization, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others consider this chemical an unclassifiable carcinogen.

British researchers have found that chemicals from underarm deodorants and other cosmetics can build up inside the body.

They have found traces of chemicals called parabens in tissue taken from women with breast cancer.  While there is no evidence parabens cause cancer, the scientists have called for the use of parabens to be reviewed.

The cosmetics industry insists the chemicals, which are used as preservatives and are approved for use by regulators, are safe.

Dr Philippa Darbre and colleagues at the University of Reading carried out tests on samples of 20 different human breast tumors.  Writing in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, they say they found parabens present in significant amounts in 18 out of 20 breast cancer tumors and traces of parabens in the other two tumors. (Darbre and others 2004).

Their tests suggested the chemicals had seeped into the tissue after being applied to the skin.  “This is the first study to show their accumulation in human tissues,” said Dr Darbre.  “It demonstrates that if people are exposed to these chemicals, then the chemicals will accumulate in their bodies.” (BBC News 01 November 2004).

It must be noted that the study by Darbre and others (2004) utilized a small sample of patients (n=20), no healthy breast tissue (or other tissues from affected women) was analyzed and the source(s) of the parabens found in the breast tumors and routes of exposure were not identified.  There is a need for further research to establish the significance of the presence of parabens in these tumors and to establish a link between parabens in underarm cosmetics and the development of breast cancer.

Researchers from the Department of Biology and Biochemistry of Brunel University in the United Kingdom have conducted a study and found that the parabens – alkyl hydroxy parabens — alpha hydroxy benzoate (methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, and butyl-paraben) are weakly estrogenic. In other words, these preservatives have the ability to mimic estrogen in the body with butylparaben being the most potent.

The study also stated that “…a surprisingly large number of chemicals in everyday use may possess weak estrogenic activity, at least in vitro. This contention is supported by a preliminary announcement by Tong and others of a very intelligent and thorough SAR-based modeling study of the 57,000 chemicals in the database of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The authors suggest that over 3,000 of the 57,000 chemicals probably possess weak estrogenic activity (at least in vitro)”

“Given their use in a wide range of commercially available topical preparations, it is suggested that the safety in use of these chemicals should be reassessed, with particular attention being paid to estimation of the actual levels of systemic exposure of humans exposed to these chemicals” (Toxicology of Applied Pharmacology, 1998:  153:12-19).

“Consumers believe that ‘if it’s on the market, it can’t hurt me’

and this belief is sometimes wrong”

-Director of FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors (FDA 1998)

The FDA classifies cosmetics and personal care products, but does not regulate them.  In 1938, the FDA granted self-regulation to the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrance Association (CTFA), a self-appointed industry organization.  With the exception of color additives and a few prohibited ingredients, a cosmetic manufacturer may use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product without an approval from the FDA” (“Prohibited Ingredients”, FDA Office of Cosmetics Fact Sheet, Dec. 19, 1994).

The absence of government oversight for the 35 billion dollar industry leads to companies routinely marketing products with ingredients that are poorly studied, not studied at all, or worse, known to pose potential serious health risks.  Little research is available to document the safety or health risks of low-dose, repeated exposure to chemical mixtures like those in personal care products, but the absence of data should never be mistaken for proof of safety.  The more we study low dose exposures, the more we understand that they can cause adverse effects ranging from the subtle and reversible, to effects that are more serious and permanent.

Did you know that:

One of every 120 products on the market contains ingredients certified by government authorities as known or probable human carcinogens, including shampoos, lotions, make-up foundations, and lip balms manufactured by Almay, Neutrogena, Grecian Formula, and others. An astonishing one-third of all products contain one or more ingredients classified as possible human carcinogens.

Seventy-one hair dye products contain ingredients derived from carcinogenic coal tar. These products have all been granted a specific exemption from federal rules that deem products to be adulterated when they contain ingredients that can harm human health. Coal tar containing products include dyes made by Clairol, Revlon, L’Oreal, and others. Coal tar hair dyes are one of the few products for which FDA has issued consumer advice on the benefits of reducing use, in this case as a way to potentially “reduce the risk of cancer” (FDA 1993).

Fifty-five percent of all products assessed contain “penetration enhancers,” ingredients that can increase a product’s penetration through the skin and into the bloodstream, increasing consumers’ exposures to other ingredients as well. We found 50 products containing penetration enhancers in combination with known or probable human carcinogens.

Nearly 70 percent of all products contain ingredients that can be contaminated with impurities linked to cancer and other health problems. Studies by FDA and European agencies show that these impurities are common, in some cases occurring in nearly half of all products tested (FDA 1996, DTI 1998). Some manufacturers buy ingredients certified by an independent organization called the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP). These ingredients may contain lower levels of harmful impurities, but the criteria for certification are not public. There are no federal standards for ingredient purity. While it seems likely that some companies purchase or manufacture refined, purified ingredients, it is equally likely that many do not. Consumers and government health officials have no way to know.

Fifty-four products violate recommendations for safe use set by the industry’s self-regulating Cosmetic Ingredient Review board. Most of these products contain ingredients found unsafe for the intended use of the product they are found in. Examples include ingredients found unsafe for use in baby products, but used in diaper cream, ingredients found unsafe for use on injured or damaged skin contained in products marketed specifically for use on chapped and injured skin, and ingredients not safe for sprays, but found in spray products. Brand name products found in violation of industry recommendations include Neutrogena, Desitin, Herbal Essences, and Rite Aid.

In its 67-year history of monitoring cosmetic safety, FDA has banned or restricted just nine personal care product ingredients (FDA 2000). In its review of 1,175 ingredients, the industry’s safety panel has found just nine ingredients (a different nine) unsafe for use in cosmetics (CIR 2003). By contrast, 450 ingredients are banned for use in cosmetics in the European Union, although the vast majority of these have never been used by the industry.

The regulatory vacuum in the U.S. gives cosmetic companies tremendous leeway in selecting ingredients, while it transfers potentially significant and largely unnecessary health risks to the users of the products.

In a systematic comparison of ingredients in 7,500 personal care products against government lists of cancer-causing chemicals, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has found that one of every 100 products on the market lists on the label a known or probable human carcinogen, and an astonishing one-third of all products contain one or more ingredients with at least some evidence of carcinogencity in laboratory studies or investigations of human populations.

EWG’s assessment of product ingredient labels and data on cancer-causing chemicals identified three common impurities in personal care products that are linked to mammary tumors in animal studies – ethylene oxide, PAHs, and 1,3-butadiene. The ingredients for which these impurities are of concern are used in one of every four personal care products on the market. http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/report/cancer.php

Overview Of Ingredients By Personal Product Class
Cosmetics

The number of chemicals in a simple lipstick is astounding.  In addition to phthalates (which can cause kidney and liver damage and harm developing fetus), lipstick may contain the possible human carcinogens butylated hydroxytoluene, polyethylene, dimethicone and a slew of artificial colors derived from coal tar. If you wear lipstick every day, you will ingest at least 4 pounds of it over your lifetime. (Better Nutrition February 2005).

Colognes and Perfumes

Excessive alcohol content may harm and/or kill a small child after a small amount of ingestion.  More children are poisoned every year in the home from toxic substances, including personal care products, than are accidentally killed playing with guns. http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/report/executive_summary.php

Other ingredients may include formaldehyde (a potential human carcinogen); petroleum distillates (a crude oil distillate); and toluene (a volatile, flammable liquid).  Overexposure to these ingredients may serve as a skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritant; may be a central nervous system depressant or a cardiac sensitizer.  Prolonged exposure may cause liver damage, kidney damage, anemia, or even cancer.  Consistent exposure during pregnancy may cause birth defects.

Deodorants and Aerosols

Most common spray deodorants contain ammonia, formaldehyde (a potential human carcinogen), isobutane, petroleum distillates, and propane.  Isobutane and propane are highly flammable propellants, which generate fumes that are irritating to the eyes and lungs.  These fumes may cause depression. After spraying, airborne residues may aggravate sinus cavities and cause migraine headaches.  Excessive spray may trigger asthma or other respiratory ailment.  Prolonged exposure may damage the lungs, liver, kidneys, and heart.  Label precautions read “DANGER!”

Hair Sprays, Aerosol

Isobutane and propane propellants are highly flammable. Under the right circumstances (like smoking a cigarette while spraying your hair), they can be ignited like a flame-throwing torch.  Direct contact may cause eye damage.  They can act as a skin irritant.  Fumes may cause chronic lung irritation, depression, dizziness, fatigue, headache, and stupor.  Label precautions read “DANGER!”

Mouthwash

These usually contain 20% ethyl alcohol.  May act as an eye, nose, and throat irritant.  Over-ingestion can lead to dizziness, sluggishness, and stupor.  Label precautions read “CAUTION”.

Toothpaste

Fluoride is found in nature in the form of calcium fluoride.  The active ingredient in toothpaste is sodium fluoride (0.15% w/v fluoride ion). Concentrated sodium fluoride is a toxic and corrosive chemical compound derived from fluorine gas.  Any effect that fluoride provides in preventing dental caries is topical rather than systemic.  Children should always be supervised when brushing their teeth.  They should be instructed to use only a pea-size amount of toothpaste and never be allowed to swallow it.  Adults and children should consider natural, non-fluoridated toothpastes considering our societies and environments increasing exposure to this highly toxic chemical. See Zone #3 for details.

Here are some safe alternatives for personal care products, listed by category:

Shampoo

Pure Essentials Fragrance-Free Shampoo – they also make a conditioner

Giovanni’s Tea Tree Shampoo (contains no sodium laurel sulfate or propylene glycol!)

Granny’s Old Fashioned Shampoo – they also make a conditioner

Dr. Bronner’s Unscented Baby Castile Liquid Soap

Soap

Sirena Pure Coconut Oil Soap

Kiss My Face Pure Olive Oil Soap

Dr. Bronner’s Baby Super mild Soap

Dr. Bronner’s Unscented Baby Castile Liquid Soap

Deodorant

Mineral crystal stones (or spray) – least toxic choice (HFS)

le Stick French Green Clay Deodorant (Unscented)

Baking soda

French clay powder

Corn starch (great for powder!) – in the baking section of your grocery store.

Toothpaste (Avoid fluoride – it’s toxic and doesn’t prevent cavities.)

Weleda

Tea Tree Oil Toothpaste – various brands

Jason’s (contains no sodium laurel sulfate or propylene glycol!)

Baking Soda, salt and peppermint oil mixed to a paste.

Face Creams and Body Lotions

(Avoid “Quaternium-15″, which releases formaldehyde!)

Plain almond oil or olive oil

Kiss My Face Fragrance-Free Olive and Aloe moisture lotion

Granny’s Old Fashioned Moisture Guard

Nature’s Plus Vitamin E Cream

Cocoa butter, plain or with almond oil only

Any fragrance-free moisturizer from regular stores would be better than scented moisturizers.

Cosmetics

“Most natural makeup bases use products such as jojoba oil and candelilla wax instead of petrochemicals such as mineral oil (a gasoline production by-product).  Colors are derived from naturally occurring earth pigments in lieu of artificial colors.” (Soref A.  2005 Feb. Beautiful You: Natural Makeup Goes High-End. Better Nutrition).”

“Shoppers will see breakthrough technology in natural makeup that rivals the big brands.  Brands like Borlind of Germany are made with tiny lecithin liposome’s (pouches) that melt over time, so that foundation maintains a dewy look.  “Some natural foundations tended to look gritty over time”, says Linda Upton, Borlind’s vice president of education and training. “This technology has changed that.”  Borlind also offers more than 20 eye shadow shades and 16 lipstick tints.”(Ibid).

“Some manufacturers are finding new ways to avoid using synthetic preservatives such as parabens.  At Logona USA, the makeup packaging is designed so that fingers do not make contact with the product, possibly introducing bacteria, says Michael Wrightson, president of Logona USA.  The products are preserved with essential oils, tocopherols, even salt.(Ibid).

Sunscreens

Aubrey Organics Ultra 15 Natural Herbal Sun block

Jojoba oil

Hair Spray

For the most part – AVOID!  Most hair sprays contain nerve gas and propane or butane (yes, the stuff that goes into your gas heater and lighters!) and are VERY toxic.  Cut hair in a style that does not require sprays.  You can also make a homemade gel by dissolving 1 package of unflavored vegetable gelatin in 2 cups of hot water.  Store in a glass jar in the refrigerator.

Plain aloe vera gel!

Feminine Hygiene

Glad Rags – organic cotton menstrual pads, tampons, and other non-toxic products.

(NOTE: FDA studies have shown commercially made pads and tampons to contain harmful substances.  The traditional cotton used in these products has been grown using as many as 35 different pesticides and chemicals and is then chlorine-bleached, creating dioxin in the process.)

Shaving Cream

Kiss My Face

Plain aloe vera gel can be used for aftershave – works great!

Homemade Recipe: 1/4 cup pure aloe vera gel, 1/4 cup pure coconut oil, 1/4 cup vegetable glycerin, 1/8 cup liquid Castille soap.  Stir gently together and either put in a spray bottle or apply by hand.  Apply a nice coating and then shave away!

Miscellaneous Tip: Plant mint around the house to keep mosquitoes away.  Rub some mint leaves on you to keep them from biting you.