Conscious Cosmetics

Stacy Malkan's Lecture

2009-05-01T02:22:00.000-04:00

Breast Cancer Action Montreal’s 5^th Annual Lanie Melamed Memorial Lecture, featuring Stacy Malkan on her topic, The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry: and Hopeful Solutions for a Healthier Future, you can listen to the full presentation posted on our website by following this link:

http://www.bcam.qc.ca/index1.html and clicking on “Listen” on the Recent and Past Events Section

Live Interview with Dawn Mellowship

2009-04-17T02:43:00.003-04:00

Dawn Mellowship talks on NZ TV about the toxic ingredients we don't know so much about:

Video link

"The average woman spends 450 days in a lifetime of applying makeup." So you need to know this!

126 different chemicals applied to our bodies daily...

Lipstick to mascara, nailpolish to hairspray are potent when combined and are toxic to our bloodstream.

Industry isn't going to announce the ingredients nor will they accept that there are harmful effects.

This is happening in YOUR world, your home, on your body, no matter where you are in this world.

Is Your Skincare Harming You? What Toxics Lurk in the Beauty Products You Use?

2009-04-17T02:34:00.003-04:00

The lack of regulation of what goes into the products that go onto our porous and fragile skin is not only astounding but worldwide. If you're concerned about this, learn what you can and start making informed choices about the products you place onto your skin and the skin of your family.

New Zealand is an example of a country that doesn't regulate the ingredients of skincare products. We should care what we put on our skin, in our hair, on our nails and lashes as much as what we put in our mouths.

See this story for a kiwi perspective: Is Your Skincare Harming You?

And yes, I am sort of back. I am hoping to get this blog going but it has been hard to stay in touch with people on the other side of the world. Any ideas for how we can do this better will be greatly appreciated. It is only with a worldwide approach that we're going to clean up the environmental toxins that are harming us regardless of borders.

Update for 2008

2008-03-17T19:40:00.002-04:00

Well, it seems like forever since I saw the snows of Montreal. I've exchanged these for the balmy climate of New Zealand. Here the sea is never far away, the penguins and dolphins swim close to city dwellers and the sun shines wonderfully even if a bit fiercely.

Now that I am down under, I am going to be actively developing a down under linkage between BCAM and Australia/NZ. We think that the message about cosmetics needs to be taken worldwide and what better way than developing a network through which we can share our stories, spread the message and update one another on events, initiatives and ideas. So watch this space as we continue to expand our network and increase the volume on our message!

Household exposure to pesticides and risk of childhood haematopoietic malignancies: the ESCALE study (SFCE)

2008-03-17T19:33:00.002-04:00

Synopsis by Michael Laiosa, Ph.D. and Wendy Hessler

Pregnant women exposed to household pesticides may increase the risk of their children developing leukemia, according to a recent study conducted in France. These findings add more weight to the idea that pesticides play a role in childhood blood cancers and may shed light on the actual causes of the diseases.

In the study, parents of leukemia patients were more likely to have used pesticides and insecticides either at home or at work. Exposure to these chemicals is a risk factor for blood cancers, particularly if children are exposed in the womb, the authors' conclude.

What did they do? This study looked at mothers' exposure to household pesticides during pregnancy and the child's risk of developing leukemia or lymphoma. Using the French National Registry of Childhood Blood Malignancies, the authors identified 1,316 cases of childhood leukemia. Of these, only French speaking parents whose children survived and are currently healthy were contacted for the study. This left a study population of 764 volunteers who were surveyed by telephone about pesticide exposure and use for both mother and father during the pregnancy.

Controls were selected randomly from the French population using a quota sampling method of phone numbers equally distributed within 22 geographic regions in France. Of 60,000 phone numbers dialed, 1,682 mothers were interviewed for the study.

Identical surveys were given by the same trained staff to both control and study subjects. Mothers classified their exposure to pesticides during pregnancy as “ever used,” “never used” or “do not know.” They also reported the type of pesticide exposure (insecticide, herbicide, fungicide), if it was household or occupational exposure and whether the father was exposed during the pregnancy.

Other personal and family history, such as socioeconomic status, degree of urbanization, housing type (flat or house) and a child’s contact with pets, were also determined by the survey and controlled for during analysis.

Using these data, the authors' performed a statistical analysis to determine if there was a higher exposure to pesticides during pregnancy among the mothers whose children had cancer. They also asked if the exposures could implicate pesticides as a contributing environmental risk factor for developing leukemia.

What did they find? The use of household pesticides by mothers during their pregnancies was higher in the leukemia group than the randomly chosen controls. More than half of the mothers whose children had acute leukemia or non Hodgkins lymphoma used pesticides at lease once during their pregnancy compared with a little more than a third of the control group mothers.

There were significant associations between maternal pesticide use and acute leukemia (AL) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), but not with Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL). Paternal use of household pesticides was significantly associated with AL and NHL, but the associations were slightly weaker.

The authors further broke down their analysis based on the type of pesticides used (insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide). When breaking down the analysis by pesticide type, the strongest association found was between insecticide use and AL and NHL, with weaker associations with herbicides and no association with fungicides.

What does it mean? Children exposed to household pesticides before birth may have an increased risk of developing certain types of leukemia. The results reinforce findings from other studies that also identified associations between pesticide exposure before birth and the risk of developing a blood cancer. The authors' conclude that "the consistency of the findings with those of previous studies on AL raises the question of the advisability of preventing pesticide use by pregnant women."

Human epidemiology studies try to pinpoint factors that may be associated with a particular disease. Epidemiological studies, however, cannot prove causation. While the current study demonstrates a strong association between the use of pesticides and several types of childhood leukemia, it cannot determine whether pesticide exposure in the womb actually caused these particular children to develop the disease.

Due to their complex nature, assumptions made during independent epidemiology studies may overestimate - or underestimate - the relative risk of a particular event and the disease in question. In this study, one of the assumptions made could underestimate the pesticide-leukemia association, while another assumption could over estimate it.

The first assumption, about pesticide exposure, was based on women reporting if they ever used or never used pesticides during pregnancy. More specific information about the frequency of pesticide exposure and/or the amounts of prenatal pesticide exposure could have strengthened the associations with leukemia.

The second assumption, about recall bias, was that mothers whose children were healthy would as clearly recall their activities during pregnancy (particularly as it pertains to pesticide use) as the mothers whose children had leukemia would. Recall bias is the strong probability that some groups of people remember past details better than others do. In this case, parents of children with serious diseases worry and think about why their children are sick and suffering. The authors did not fully account for potential recall bias of the control mothers, which could influence the findings.

Despite the potential limitations of this study, several important conclusions can be made, particularly if the study is taken in the context of other related studies in the field. First, the associations between pesticide use during pregnancy and childhood leukemia are strong enough that limiting or eliminating their use during pregnancy is advisable, according to the authors.

Second, the findings add to a growing body of literature that has identified associations between childhood leukemias and exposure during pregnancy to a growing number of household chemicals. This list includes, but is not limited to, paints, glues and solvents, cigarette smoke and pesticides. The broad class of compounds that may increase risk of developing leukemia indicates that there may be common features associated with these compounds. Alternatively, and perhaps more importantly, it confirms that children and babies in particular, with their growing and developing organs and tissues, are especially sensitive to chemicals in the environment.

Studies: Many Breast Cancer Patients Can Skip Chemo Or Take Gentler Versions

2008-03-17T19:24:00.000-04:00

SAN ANTONIO (AP) - Thousands of breast cancer patients each year could be spared chemotherapy or get gentler versions of it without harming their odds of beating the disease, new research suggests.

One study found that certain women did better - were less likely to die or have a relapse - if given a less harsh drug than Adriamycin, a mainstay of treatment for decades.

Another study found that a gene test can help predict whether some women need chemo at all - even among those whose cancer has spread to their lymph nodes, which typically brings full treatment now.

The findings are sure to speed the growing trend away from chemo for many breast cancer patients and targeting it to a smaller group of women who truly need it, doctors said Thursday at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, where the studies were reported.

"We are backing off on chemotherapy and using chemotherapy more selectively" in certain women, said Dr. Eric Winer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

The gene test in particular "will start changing practice nearly immediately," said Dr. Peter Ravdin of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. "The results are compelling that this test ... helps select patients who will most benefit from chemotherapy."

Breast cancer is the most common major cancer in American women. More than 178,000 new cases are expected this year. Most are helped to grow by estrogen, and hormone-blocking medicines like tamoxifen are used to treat those.

Chemo usually is added if the disease has spread to lymph nodes - a situation faced by about 45,000 U.S. women each year. Doctors know that chemo won't help most of these women, but they have had no good way to tell who can safely skip its cost and misery.

Here's where Oncotype DX, a test that measures the activity of 21 genes and gives a score to predict a woman's risk of recurrence, comes in. Doctors have used it for several years to guide treatment for certain women with early breast cancers, especially those that not spread.

The new study, led by Dr. Kathy Albain of Loyola University, looked at whether it accurately predicted chemo's benefit in 367 women whose hormone-driven cancer had spread to lymph nodes.

A decade after these women were treated, those who had low scores on the gene test were found to have had no benefit from chemo. Conversely, chemo did a lot of good for those with high scores.

Because 40 percent of the women scored low, it means that as many as 18,000 women each year might safely skip chemo.

The National Cancer Institute and the test's maker, Genomic Health of Redwood City, Calif., sponsored the study. Albain, Winer and Ravdin have consulted or been paid speakers for the company in the past.

Dr. Kelly Marcom, a Duke University cancer expert with no ties to the company, said the test would give valuable information to guide treatment for more patients in the future. He has used it on about 50 women in the last year.

"I've had it cut both ways" - ruling chemo in and out, Marcom said.

The test is expensive - $3,400 - though many insurers are paying for it because it can avoid even more costly chemo.

Albain plans to discuss using it with Andrea DeRosier, a 49-year-old health care administrator from suburban Chicago whose cancer has spread to a single lymph node.

When a surgeon said she likely would need chemo, "I remember thinking, 'Oh, that's terrible,"' DeRosier said. "I want whatever protocol is going to keep me alive," but not futile treatment, she said.

Chemo's side effects are getting greater attention. One drug commonly used for early breast cancer - doxorubicin, sold as Adriamycin and generic brands - is known to cut the risk of having a recurrence or dying, but raises the risk of heart problems and even leukemia.

Dr. Stephen Jones of Baylor-Sammons Cancer Center tested using Taxotere, a drug not linked to heart problems, in its place in more than 1,000 women with early breast cancer. After seven years, 87 percent of those given Taxotere survived, compared with 82 percent of those given Adriamycin. In addition, those given Taxotere were less likely to have had a recurrence.

The study was sponsored by Taxotere's maker, Sanofi-Aventis SA, a French company with U.S. offices in Bridgewater, N.J. Jones consults for the company.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine in October showed that another drug, Taxol, does not work for the most common form of breast cancer.

These new studies should lead to less use of chemo, but there has been "intense" pushback from doctors, who fear giving up on a treatment that might help some patients, said Barbara Brenner, head of the advocacy group Breast Cancer Action.

"It's very hard to turn a ship like this," she said. "Adding things never takes much, but removing things takes a mountain of data from the medical community."

What Chemicals Are You Absorbing as You Sleep?

2007-12-14T21:04:00.001-05:00

Jason Wright from Essentiadirect.com contacted Conscious Cosmetics about the things that lurk in our mattresses. The news is not good...

Chemicals in Mattresses

Health agencies deem exposure to some of the chemicals below safe in small amounts. These small amounts are now in every product we buy from carpets to microwaves, couches and furniture etc. Many accumulate in our bodies. Prolonged exposure when your body is at its most vulnerable (sleeping) should not be taken lightly.

As people have come to understand the relationship between a fit body and a good night's sleep, they have begun to take responsibility for their own well-being through education and by making healthy lifestyle choices.

About Glues in Mattresses

Water based Adhesives Mattress manufacturers use glues to bond the inner layers of mattresses together, and to bond the fabric cover to the core.

Water based adhesives use water as a carrier fluid, with the adhesive particles suspended in water. Evaporation of the carrier fluid occurs during the set and cure stages.

Long-term health effects may occur after repeated exposure, including cancers, damage to heart, liver, central nervous system, and kidneys from Volatile Organic Content (VOC) found in a number of products including Adhesives/Glues.

For an excellent detailed list of the components found in mattresses (toxic, non-toxic and natural), see: http://www.essentiadirect.com/research/glues-toxic-components. There are also details there on how to get a mattress that you can sleep a little more easily on. That's one of his healthier versions in the photo accompanying this article.

8 Skin Moisturizer Ingredients You'd Best Avoid

2007-12-14T20:48:00.000-05:00

"if you can’t read or pronounce the ingredient, there is a high likelihood it should not be in your lotion or other skin care product." -- Dr Mercola

Why don’t you run and get a bottle of any of the skin moisturizers that you are currently using. You might find that your personal care products contain one or probably more of many possibly dangerous ingredients.

Here are a few of the most common suspicious ingredients:

Mineral Oil, Paraffin, and Petrolatum – Petroleum products that coat the skin like plastic, clogging pores and creating a build-up of toxins, which in turn accumulate and can lead to dermatologic issues. Slows cellular development, which can cause you to show earlier signs of aging. Suspected cause of cancer. Disruptive of hormonal activity. By the way, when there’s an oil spill in the ocean, don’t they rush to clean it up – fast? Why put that stuff on your skin?
Parabens – Widely used as preservatives in the cosmetic industry (including moisturizers). An estimated 13,200 cosmetic and skin care products contain parabens. Studies implicate their connection with cancer. They have hormone-disrupting qualities – mimicking estrogen – and interfere with the body’s endocrine system.
Phenol carbolic acid– Found in many lotions and skin creams. Can cause circulatory collapse, paralysis, convulsions, coma and even death from respiratory failure.
Propylene glycol – Used as a moisturizer in cosmetics and as a carrier in fragrance oils. Shown to cause dermatitis, kidney or liver abnormalities, and may inhibit skin cell growth or cause skin irritation.
Acrylamide– Found in many hand and face creams. Linked to mammary tumors in lab research.
Sodium laurel or lauryl sulfate (SLS), also known as sodium laureth sulfate (SLES)– Found in car washes, engine degreasers, garage floor cleaners… and in over 90% of personal care products! SLS breaks down the skin’s moisture barrier, easily penetrates the skin, and allows other chemicals to easily penetrate. Combined with other chemicals, SLS becomes a “nitrosamine”, a potent class of carcinogen. It can also cause hair loss. SLES is sometimes disguised with the labeling “comes from coconut” or “coconut-derived”.
Toluene – Poison! Danger! Harmful or fatal if swallowed! Harmful if inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Made from petroleum or coal tar, and found in most synthetic fragrances. Chronic exposure linked to anemia, lowered blood cell count, liver or kidney damage, and may affect a developing fetus. Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) contains toluene. Other names may include benzoic and benzyl.
Dioxane– Found in compounds known as PEG, Polysorbates, Laureth, ethoxylated alcohols. Common in a wide range of personal care products. The compounds are usually contaminated with high concentrations of highly volatile 1,4-dioxane, easily absorbed through the skin.

Dioxane’s carcinogenicity was first reported in 1965 and later confirmed in studies including one from the National Cancer Institute in 1978. Nasal passages and liver are the most vulnerable. Dioxane is easily removed during the manufacturing process by “vacuum stripping”. Warning: It is a synthetic derivative of coconut. Watch for hidden language on labels, such as “comes from coconut”.

So, do you want to put these chemicals on your skin? Hopefully not...

You’d be better served by switching to skin care products made of plant names you recognize, can pronounce, and could even eat (if you had to).

Taken from: Dr. Mercola, "Danger: What in the World Are You Putting On Your Skin?" at http://products.mercola.com/natural-body-butter/

MEC Stops Selling Products with Bisphenol-A

2007-12-14T20:37:00.000-05:00

Jennifer Foulds, Environmental Defence, Dec 7th 2007

Mountain Equipment Co-op has stopped selling most products that contain bisphenol A.

The company said it decided to remove products from its shelves until the federal government completes its safety review of the chemical (expected to be done in spring 2008).

Bisphenol A is found in hard plastic reusable bottles (including baby bottles) and the linings of food cans. Peer-reviewed scientific studies show bisphenol A is associated with adverse health effects.

Read more about MEC’s decision in this news release.

If you have children going to a daycare centre, check out this campaign to get daycare centres across Canada to stop using products with bisphenol A.

Let MEC know you support its decision to stop selling products that contain bisphenol A!

Selecting Your Plastics - A Breakdown

2007-12-14T20:32:00.000-05:00

Selecting your Plastics: A Break-down

Over the past month Toxic Nation has received a slew of phone calls and emails requesting information on the different plastics we use daily and their relative safety. The following is a description of each recycling number, its use and some potential hazards.

#1 PETE: Polyethylene terephthalate ethylene, used for soft drink, juice, water, detergent, cleaner and peanut butter containers. Scientists advise against the repeated use of plastic water bottles made from plastic type #1 PETE as there is evidence to suggest that such bottles leach a compound known as DEHA, which is classified by the EPA as a possible human carcinogen, as well as acetaldehyde, which has received the same designation from the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

#2 HDPE: High density polyethylene, used in opaque plastic milk and water jugs, bleach, detergent and shampoo bottles and some plastic bags.

#3 PVC or V: Polyvinyl chloride, used for cling wrap, some plastic squeeze bottles, cooking oil and peanut butter jars, detergent and window cleaner bottles.

#4 LDPE: Low density polyethylene, used in grocery store bags, most plastic wraps and some bottles.

#5 PP: Polypropylene, used in most Rubbermaid, deli soup, syrup and yogurt containers, straws and other clouded plastic containers, including some baby bottles.

#6 PS: Polystyrene, used in Styrofoam food trays, egg cartons, disposable cups and bowls, carryout containers and opaque plastic cutlery.

#7 Other: Usually polycarbonate plastic, used in most plastic baby bottles, 5-gallon water bottles, “sport” water bottles, some metal food can liners, clear plastic “sippy” cups and some clear plastic cutlery. New bio-based and bio-degradable plastics may also be labeled as #7.

Plastic with bisphenol A is labeled in the #7 category, which also includes a wide variety of plastics and plastic mixtures that fall into the 'other' category. Unless this #7 is followed by the letters 'PC' (polycarbonate) there's no sure way to tell if the container contains bisphenol A or not.

Avoid using #7 plastics altogether and opt for safer choices for food and beverage storage. These better options include polypropylene (#5 PP), high density polyethylene (#2 HDPE), and low density polyethylene (#4 LDPE).

(Information provided from various sources, including the Smart Plastics Guide of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in the U.S.).

Toxic Nation E-News: The December 2007 issue from Environmental Defence

Are Your Products Safe?

2007-12-14T20:30:00.000-05:00

ARE YOUR PRODUCTS SAFE? YOU CAN'T TELL.

Labels often fail to list compounds that can disrupt biological
development

By Susanne Rust, Meg Kissinger and Cary Spivak

Take a look at your shoes, your shampoo, your carpet.

Your baby's bottles, even the dental sealants in your mouth.

These products contain chemicals that disrupt the natural way hormones
work inside of you.

The chemicals known as endocrine disruptors are all over your house,
your clothing, your car.

The chemicals are even in you.

They promise to make skin softer, clothes smell fresher and food keep
longer.

The problem is, neither the companies that make these products nor
federal regulators are telling you that some of these substances may
be dangerous. Many have been found to cause life-threatening illnesses
in laboratory animals.

Chemical makers maintain that their products are safe. They point to
government assurances and the millions of dollars they have spent on
their own research as proof.

But a growing number of scientists are convinced the chemicals
interfere with the body's reproductive, developmental and behavioral
systems.

Hundreds of studies have shown that these compounds cause a host of
problems in lab animals. They include cancers of the breast, brain and
testicles; lowered sperm counts, early puberty, miscarriages and other
defects of the reproductive system; diabetes; attention deficit
disorder, asthma and autism -- all of which have spiked in people in
recent decades since many of these chemicals saturated the
marketplace.

A Journal Sentinel investigation found that the government has failed
to regulate these chemicals, despite repeated promises to do so. The
regulatory effort has been marked by wasted time, wasted money and
influence from chemical manufacturers.

The newspaper reviewed more than 250 scientific studies written over
the past 20 years; examined thousands of pages of regulatory documents
and industry correspondence; and interviewed more than 100 scientists,
physicians, and industry and government officials.

Among the findings:

** U.S. regulators promised a decade ago to screen more than 15,000
chemicals for their effects on the endocrine system. They've spent
tens of millions of dollars on the testing program. As yet, not a
single screen has been done.

** Dozens of chemicals the government wants to screen first have
already been tested over and over, even while thousands of untested
chemicals are waiting to be screened.

** By the time the government gets around to doing the testing,
chances are the results will be outdated and inconclusive. The
government's proposed tests lack new, more sensitive measures that
would identify dangerous chemicals that older screens could miss.

** As the U.S. testing process remains grounded, hundreds of products
have been banned in countries around the world. Children's products --
including some baby toys and teething rings -- outlawed as dangerous
by the European Union, Japan and Canada, are available here without
warning.

** Lacking any regulation in the U.S., it's impossible for consumers
to know which products are made with the dangerous compounds. Many
companies don't list chemicals known to disrupt the endocrine system
on product labels.

The government's efforts have been "an abject failure, a disaster,"
said Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician and chairman of the department
of community and preventive medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine
in New York.

Landrigan was at the White House ceremony in 1996 when President
Clinton signed laws requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to screen chemicals for their effects on the endocrine system.

Because the effects of endocrine disruptors may take years to reveal
themselves, it is almost impossible to say that a particular chemical
caused a certain disease. There also is a lot of uncertainty about how
these chemicals work inside your body. So, scientists extrapolate.
They can't test their theories on humans. Instead, they have to rely
on animal studies and try to figure out the implications for people.

By mimicking or blocking the body's hormones, endocrine disruptors can
trigger faulty messages that disrupt development. That makes them
particularly dangerous to fetuses and young children, scientists say.
These chemicals can be ingested, inhaled and absorbed through the
skin.

Michael E. Mitchell, chief of pediatric urology at Children's Hospital
of Wisconsin, has seen the consequences he attributes to these
unregulated chemicals.

He has witnessed a dramatic spike in the number of genital birth
defects in the last 30 years. And it breaks his heart, he said, to see
the damage done to so many children who must undergo painful surgery
to correct birth deformities.

Considering the number of chemicals that developing fetuses are
exposed to, "it's amazing that anyone turns out OK," he said.

Anxiety is rising over the growing number of cancer cases and other
diseases linked to these chemicals. But few answers are forthcoming.

"People should know what they're being exposed to and be given the
option to choose alternatives," said Shanna Swan, director of the
Center for Reproductive Epidemiology at the University of Rochester
School of Medicine and Dentistry. "And that is not happening very
fast."

EPA officials blame their lack of progress on the complexity of the
undertaking.

"Clearly, we would have liked to have been a lot further along," said
Elaine Francis, national program director of the EPA's endocrine
disruptors research program. "But science tends to move at its own
pace."

To find how pervasive these compounds are in everyday use, the Journal
Sentinel asked Frederick vom Saal, an internationally known expert in
endocrine disruption, to perform a chemical audit of the Greendale
home of Dean and Ellen Lang Roder and their four children, ages 3 to
10.

As the University of Missouri biologist went through each room in the
house, vom Saal found hundreds of reasons for the Roder family to
worry -- from the bathtub rubber duck to the plastic pipes that bring
water into their home.

"Anything that goes in your child's mouth is a factor for you to be
concerned about," vom Saal told Ellen Roder as he held one of her
children's dolls. "Particularly, dolls made from a plastic called
polyvinyl chloride that 10 years from now just won't exist. It will be
looked at like cigarettes. It is that dangerous."

Industry scientists dispute that.

"Science supports our side," said Marty Durbin, federal affairs
managing director for the American Chemistry Council, the trade group
representing the plastics industry.

They say there is no reason to fear the toys, baby bottles and other
products containing the chemicals because none of their studies has
proved that the chemicals cause harm to people. Chemists for the
industry say you would have to consume 1,300 pounds of canned and
bottled foods each day to notice any effects from the chemicals those
products contain.

"I'm very comfortable with my kids and grandkids using these products,
and that's really my bottom line," said James Lamb, an industry
consultant and former EPA regulator. "And it is because I believe the
industry has done the studies that need to be done and that they're
interpreting them properly."

Lack of screening

There are roughly 100,000 chemicals on the market today. Yet, lacking
a coordinated screening program, there is no way to know how many of
these chemicals interfere with the human endocrine system.

The chemicals at issue are used as additives in plastics, fragrances,
creams and as flame retardants.

Some of the more controversial compounds include bisphenol A and
certain phthalates.

Six billion pounds of bisphenol A, the raw material of polycarbonate
plastic and epoxy resins, are produced each year in the United States.

Phthalates (pronounced "THAL-ates") are the chemicals that make
plastic flexible and allow creams and personal-care products to hold
their smell. U.S. chemical companies produce more than 2 billion
pounds of these compounds a year. They are commonly found in nail
polishes and hair sprays, shower curtains and even Halloween costumes.

For more than a decade, government agencies have said that several of
these chemicals are safe at levels that people are exposed to every
day.

Chemical makers have relied on these assurances as proof that their
products are safe. They bolster these conclusions with millions of
dollars of research and testing.

But the newspaper's review of 258 studies of bisphenol A, a common
ingredient in baby bottles, reusable water bottles, eyeglass lenses
and DVDs, shows otherwise.

More than 80% of studies analyzed by the Journal Sentinel show that
the chemical adversely affects animals, causing cancer and other
diseases.

Developing embryos exposed to endocrine disruptors through their
mothers are most at risk, said Theo Colborn, a scientist trained at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison whose book on the explosion of
dangerous chemicals in the environment, titled "Our Stolen Future,"
stirred passionate calls for reform and regulation when it was
published in 1996.

"You need the right hormones in the right place at the right time
sending out the right signals," Colborn said. "If that's fouled up
prenatally, you're in trouble."

Colborn, like many of her colleagues, has changed the way she deals
with these compounds, refusing to store her food in plastic or use
certain creams and lotions that contain chemicals suspected of causing
harm.

Wildlife abnormalities

Scientists first suspected that endocrine disruptors were wreaking
havoc decades ago when they began observing freakish abnormalities in
wild animals, particularly along the Great Lakes with its legacy of
industrial pollution.

They were seeing female gulls nesting together, birds with twisted
bills and frogs with severe deformities, including one with an eye
growing inside its mouth. Elsewhere across the country, scientists
reported finding male fish with sacks of eggs and alligators with
withered penises.

In 1991, Colborn, then a zoologist working for the World Wildlife
Fund, convened a conference of some of the country's leading wildlife
biologists, toxicologists and endocrinologists at Wingspread
Conference Center in Racine to discuss the emerging science.

It was there that the term "endocrine disruptor" was coined. The 21
scientists signed a consensus statement, expressing concern about the
dangers that these new chemicals posed and calling for them to be
tested immediately.

Five years later, Colborn and two colleagues chronicled the bizarre
spectacles of nature and their theories about the causes.

The authors wondered that if the toxins in the environment could cause
these effects in animals, what were they doing to people? Just as with
lead and tobacco decades before, these chemicals are all around us,
ravaging nature's delicate design, the authors said.

Their book stirred controversy in the scientific community, and many
dismissed the claims as "junk science" because there was no direct
link between specific chemicals and illnesses in people.

Within days of the book's publication, the chemical industry's trade
group issued an alert to its members, warning them to expect a swarm
of calls about the book's claims. The memo predicted the fallout could
be fierce.

It was.

Later that year, Congress unanimously passed two laws ordering the EPA
to begin screening and testing chemicals and pesticides for endocrine
disrupting effects by 1999.

The EPA convened a committee of scientists from academia, the
government and the chemical industry to lay the groundwork for testing
these chemicals. They came up with a way to identify and test
chemicals for the risks and get the information to the public.

In the beginning, there was a groundswell of enthusiasm. Then-EPA
administrator Carol Browner said in 1998 that her agency would begin
fast-tracking efforts to screen these compounds by the end of that
year.

"Some 15,000 chemicals used in thousands of common products, ranging
from pesticides to plastics," would be screened, Browner said.

Officials identified the program as a top priority. Browner appointed
the first panel of scientists to build a framework for how to screen
the chemicals. She left the agency after the presidential election in
2000.

More than $80 million later, the government program has yet to screen
its first chemical.

That has left Browner, and others, concerned about the lack of any
results.

"It doesn't take nine years," she said with a sigh. "You adjust as you
go. You don't have to build a Cadillac when a Model T will do."

Promise unfulfilled

Frustrated at the lack of action, a consortium of environmental,
patient advocacy and labor groups filed a federal lawsuit, prompting
the EPA to promise that screening would begin by the end of 2003.

But the agency repeatedly has missed its self-imposed deadlines as
well as those set by law.

Agency administrators testified twice before Congress, first in August
2000 and again two years later, pledging that the screening would be
in place soon. Three separate committees of academic and industry
scientists, including the one Browner formed, have been appointed by
the EPA to take up the issue.

"A lot of bureaucratic foot-stomping and dust-raising," was the
observation of Peter DeFur, a researcher at the Center for
Environmental Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University who served
on all three of the committees.

"To delay is to win on the part of the industrial community," DeFur
said.

Industry, he said, tried mightily to slow the effort. He was
particularly critical of one test pushed by chemical makers that
involved studying mature male rats to see the chemicals' effects on
the development of the reproductive system.

"What does the old white rat have to do with development?" DeFur said.
"By the time he gets to be mature, or even nearly mature, all the
organs are developed."

Industry and other groups have flooded the EPA and the committees with
research, said L. Earl Gray Jr., an EPA research biologist.

The industry's lobbying efforts are led by the American Chemistry
Council. The group has a $75 million budget and includes some of the
biggest names in commerce -- Dow Chemical Corp., Procter & Gamble Co.
and DuPont.

Chemical makers have "in some sense learned that if you play on the
uncertainty of danger, you're going to be able to stop regulatory
action especially in an anti-regulatory era," said David Rosner,
professor of history and public health at Columbia University. That's
particularly true "in a time when so many of our regulatory agencies
have been neutered politically and socially," he added.

Durbin, of the trade group, denied any stall tactics.

"If it was our interest to delay things around here, we'd just sit on
our hands and see whether or not EPA gets any funding," said Durbin,
noting that the trade group frequently lobbies for increases in the
EPA's budget.

Annual federal funding for the endocrine disruptor screening program
peaked at $12.6 million in 2000 and has dropped by about one-third.

Critics have charged that the White House has cut back on efforts to
regulate a wide array of industries. DeFur, among others, felt that
frustration while serving on the endocrine disruptor committees.

Clifford Gabriel, director of the EPA's Office of Science Coordination
and Policy, countered that budgetary constraints have not hurt the
progress.

Stephen L. Johnson, Browner's successor as head of the EPA, declined
requests to be interviewed.

Whatever the reason, the committees met less frequently as time went
by.

By April 2006, 10 years after the congressional order to begin the
screening, progress stalled altogether.

Gerald LeBlanc, chairman of the committee charged with developing the
screens, got a call from an EPA administrator, assuming that the two
would be setting the committee's next meeting. Instead, LeBlanc was
told the committee was being terminated.

"They were not going to allow me to take this job to completion," said
LeBlanc, toxicology professor at North Carolina State University.

Edward Orlando, a biology professor at Florida Atlantic University and
a member of the last committee, said its abrupt dissolution came as a
disappointment -- not to mention a waste of public money.

"How long will this take? Another five years? Another 10?" Orlando
said.

The EPA's Francis said that LeBlanc's committee had a set term, and
the agency felt it was more efficient to turn the work over to an
advisory panel, where it remains today. But committee members say the
effort was doomed for the past several years.

"Frankly, there was not enough political oomph behind it," said Gina
Solomon, a member of the first EPA committee and senior scientist for
the National Resources Defense Council.

Those with ties to industry say they, too, wish the process moved
faster.

"Everyone is disappointed that you can't make quicker progress, but it
does take time," said Thomas Osimitz, an industry consultant who sat
on two of the three EPA committees. "It's frustrating, but, on the
other hand, I don't know what could be quicker."

Outdated testing

By the time the government gets around to the tests, they likely will
be of little value. Under the current model, government tests do not
screen for the chemicals' effects at low doses.

Instead, government researchers follow standard toxicology testing
practices, feeding animals such as rats huge doses of the chemical.

Then they record the damage to the animal, most often cancer,
behavioral or reproductive failures. The researchers then test the
rats at lower and lower doses until they no longer find those
problems.

But bisphenol A and phthalates don't work that way, many scientists
say. They can elicit different effects in animals at extremely low
doses.

Two groups of scientists, one from the National Academy of Science and
the other from the National Toxicology Program, have called for a
radical reform in the way that government screens these chemicals.
But, so far, the government hasn't budged from its original formula.

"The EPA is lumbering along trying to clumsily incorporate the science
of a couple of decades ago," Solomon said.

The list of chemicals scheduled to be screened is also being
questioned.

The EPA will first screen 73 chemicals -- all pesticides, none of the
chemicals found in household products. The tests aren't set to happen
until sometime next year.

EPA officials declined to say exactly when the screening would occur,
explaining that the agency must finish its study of the tests before
shipping them to another panel for review. But most of the pesticides
have already been tested, and many have been established as endocrine
disruptors.

Francis, of the EPA, says her agency chose to screen that relatively
small batch of chemicals as a way to test the reliability of the
process. But even scientists hired by the chemical industry question
the value of screening chemicals that have been studied thoroughly.

"Most of those on the list have already been tested, so why are we
doing this?" asked Lamb, the toxicologist who works as a consultant to
the chemistry council.

The EPA hopes to conclude the first round of tests by 2010, said
Enesta Jones, an agency spokeswoman. Only then will the agency have an
idea when the next group of chemicals will be screened.

Buyer beware

For as slow as the process of screening chemicals has been in the
U.S., concern about the safety of endocrine disruptors has caught on
in Europe, Japan, South America, the Middle East, Mexico and even
Fiji.

Reports of declining sperm counts, birth defects and fertility
problems have sparked widespread concern there. The European Union has
banned 1,100 chemicals from cosmetics that are thought to cause cancer
or reproductive harm.

"When we go to Europe, I breathe a sigh of relief because of all of
the things I'm not exposed to over there," said Rochester's Swan, an
epidemiologist and biostatistician.

Earlier this year, the European Union passed a law that requires
chemical companies to prove their products are safe before they are
put on the market.

The U.S. has no such protocol, known as the precautionary principle,
and the chemical industry has argued against it.

"The problem with the precautionary principle is that you have a
moving target," said Tim Shestek, a chemistry council lobbyist. "You
need to prove that something is safe -- safe is never really defined
by anybody."

Lacking testing or regulation by the U.S. government, it falls to
consumers to watch out for themselves.

Buyers must know the names of specific chemicals -- such as dibutyl
phthalate and diethyl phthalate -- if they want to find out if a
bottle of nail polish or a jar of hand lotion contains endocrine
disruptors.

Even then, if the chemical is not considered a key ingredient, the
company is not required to include it on the label.

There is nothing listed on a bottle of Chanel Precision Energising
Radiance Lotion, for example, to let you know that it contains at
least six chemicals that have been linked in laboratory studies to
cancer in animals. Nor can you know by looking at the label for Avon's
Anew Ultimate Skin Transforming Cream that it contains chemicals
linked to cancer and endocrine disruption, according to a review by
the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.

A spokeswoman for Chanel declined comment, and officials from Avon
Products Inc. referred questions to the Cosmetic, Toiletry and
Fragrance Association, which dismissed the claims as unfounded.

Consumer groups

Consumer interest groups are trying to answer some of the questions
that the government is not. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a
coalition of groups concerned with women's health, labor, consumer
rights and the environment, offers a Web site run by the Environmental
Working Group that enables shoppers to check the safety of cosmetics
and personal-care products. The site identifies more than 450 products
that are banned as dangerous in other countries but are widely
available here.

As consumers learn more about these chemicals, more firms are taking
steps to remove them from product lines.

Cosmetics giant Revlon Inc., for example, stopped using phthalates 15
years ago. A company spokeswoman said its products, including those
sold in the U.S., comply with the stricter rules of the European
governments.

Other companies following similar policies include the L'Oreal Group,
Hasbro Inc. and McDonald's Corp. In 1998, the fast-food giant stopped
using phthalates in its Happy Meal toys designed for children age 3
and younger.

Retailers, including Target Corp. and Whole Foods Market Inc., have
removed items and are looking at ways to eliminate products that
contain some endocrine disruptors.

"We are committed to reducing PVC in our products and packaging," said
Susan Kahn, a vice president at Target, referring to polyvinyl
chloride, the plastic that contains phthalates and is found in shower
curtains, children's toys and packaging materials.

Some companies, such as Born Free LLC, a Florida-based baby bottle-
maker, are promoting goods that do not contain bisphenol A. Ron
Vigdor, Born Free president, said his small company is experiencing
rapid sales growth.

Most consumers remain unaware of the potential dangers they are
bringing into their homes, said Jane Adams, a neurotoxicologist at the
University of Massachusetts.

"Most of the population would not be well-informed and necessarily
know what steps to take," Adams said.

Roder, the Greendale mother who volunteered to have her house checked
for endocrine disruptors, is grateful for the information she got.

Since the audit, Roder filled a garbage bin full of items that she'll
no longer use -- waxed paper, plastic wrap, old plastic cups, toys and
containers.

She says her husband teases her for whacking bugs with shoes now,
refusing to use bug spray. Instead of giving in to anxiety, Roder says
her newfound awareness has brought peace of mind.

"It made me feel safe," she said.

But few people have the luxury of knowing what in their house is safe
because few products contain any labeling of these compounds. Even the
government scientists charged with alerting the public to the
chemicals' dangers say information is sorely lacking.

"The real problem is that we don't know where all the different
phthalates are coming from in our environment," said Gray, the EPA
biologist whose lab has examined effects of endocrine disruptors for
two decades. "I can't tell them what products to specifically avoid.
The information isn't there."

From: Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee, Wisc.), Nov. 25, 2007

November 16th 2007 Safe Cosmetics Awareness Raising

2007-11-16T17:20:00.000-05:00

Today a group of BCAM Safe Cosmetics supporters braved cold weather (but not as cold as 6 months ago!) to stand on the four corners of Peel and St Catherine, Montreal. Again we were set for the six monthly awareness raising campaign we have performed regularly for the past year, armed with BCAM safe cosmetics awareness cards and a petition to the Health Minister to make labelling of cosmetics clearer and to prevent toxic chemicals from continuing to infest our cosmetics.

We held our signs high, we handed out many, many cards and we collected dozens of signatures (at the time of writing, I sincerely hope that I will need to update this to 100s!). We also had a secret weapon in the form of one very enthusiastic young lady, Lauren, who engaged the lunchtime members of the Montreal community with grace, friendliness, style and incredible enthusiasm. She will give us her own account soon of the day but for now, let's tell the world that young Lauren's super-energetic, exuberant confidence made today an enormous success and brightened up a bleak day for many a passer-by. And she certainly enthused me to abandon shyness and start yelling out "Want to know what's bad for you in your cosmetics? Stay as beautiful as you are now by demanding the right to know!" And most certainly not to forget every single other participant today either - Deena, Max, Susan, Avis, Carole, Eva, Jo (and Lauren) - every single one of you handed out many cards, discussed the issues in detail with numerous passers-by and gleaned pages worth of signatures for our cause. Each one of your contributions is highly valued and very much appreciated by BCAM and our safe cosmetics cause - so thank you!

As with last time, we noticed young women and men were more inclined to stop and discuss, take a card and sign the petition. They are genuinely interested in finding out more information and hopefully we can build on that momentum. Also, I found personally that mothers with babies also stopped to listen and take a card. Looks like we still have quite a few members of the community to reach in terms of convincing them that this is an issue concerning them also but we have been doing our best!

So all in all, despite the cold and the need for people to huddle under gloves, hats and with hands shielded in pockets, we had another successful day of raising awareness about our campaign to ensure that consumers are given the chance to be aware of what our cosmetics contain. Quite a number of people stopped to discuss the issue and many of them looked curiously at the card to try and learn more.

Next time (May 16th 2008), maybe someone can think up a warming exercise skit for the team to act out, with some catchy tune. That way we can all jump up and down and catch everyone's attention at the same time as keeping warm! And anyone up for stitching up a few toxic cosmetic costumes for us to wear?! I quite fancy the thought of a lopsided green lipstick oozing muck...

Tracking Industrial Pollutants

2007-10-05T00:53:00.000-04:00

For those of you who are keen to find cancer hotspots, the evidence can sometimes be hard to uncover. However, there are some interesting tools around that can help you to analyse the bigger picture.

The CEC's new map layer for Google Earth lets users explore pollution data from over 30,000 industrial facilities in North America.

This mapping tool allows anyone in the three North American countries — whether in Manitoba, Mississippi, or Michoacán — to find industrial facilities located near their homes, their workplaces, or their schools. You can learn about the pollution profile of each facility, including which pollutants are generated and how the facility handles them. Users can also compare the performance of facilities in their community to similar facilities locally, nationally, and, now, across North America.

Tracking Tool

Try it and let us know your thoughts.

Bisphenol A - Scientists Warn of Its Dangers

2007-08-25T11:19:00.000-04:00

An estrogen-like compound widely used in plastic products is thought to be causing serious reproductive disorders, according to a statement by several dozen scientists, including four from federal health agencies.

The compound, bisphenol A (BPA), is one of the most-produced chemicals in the world, and almost everyone has traces of it -- or more -- in their bodies.

After reviewing about 700 studies, the scientists concluded that people are exposed to levels of BPA in excess of those that have harmed lab animals. Among the most vulnerable are infants and fetuses, who are still developing.

BPA is used to make hard plastic that’s used in numerous products including:

* Polycarbonate plastic baby bottles
* Large water-cooler containers and sports bottles
* Microwave-oven dishes
* Canned-food liners
* Some dental sealants for children

The statement appeared alongside five accompanying scientific reviews and a new study by the National Institutes of Health that found newborn animals exposed to BPA suffered from uterine damage. The damage could indicate that the chemical causes reproductive disorders in women ranging from fibroids to endometriosis to cancer.

While studies have yet to be conducted to directly examine BPA’s influence on humans, past animal studies have found low doses of the chemical to be associated with early-stage prostate and *** cancers and decreased sperm count.

No governmental agency worldwide has restricted the use of BPA, but a U.S. expert panel is meeting to discuss whether the chemical should be declared a human reproductive toxin, which could lead to regulatory action.

The chemical industry maintains that BPA is safe, and has called the scientists’ statement “alarmist and biased.”

Reproductive Toxicology July 2007

Seattle Times August 3, 2007

Common chemicals are linked to breast cancer

2007-06-12T09:16:00.001-04:00

Of the 216 compounds, many in the air, food or everyday items.
By Marla Cone, Times Staff Writer
May 14, 2007

More than 200 chemicals — many found in urban air and everyday consumer products — cause breast cancer in animal tests, according to a compilation of scientific reports published today.

Writing in a publication of the American Cancer Society, researchers concluded that reducing exposure to the compounds could prevent many women from developing the disease.

The research team from five institutions analyzed a growing body of evidence linking environmental contaminants to breast cancer, the leading killer of U.S. women in their late 30s to early 50s.

Experts say that family history and genes are responsible for a small percentage of breast cancer cases but that environmental or lifestyle factors such as diet are probably involved in the vast majority.

"Overall, exposure to mammary gland carcinogens is widespread," the researchers wrote in a special supplement to the journal Cancer. "These compounds are widely detected in human tissues and in environments, such as homes, where women spend time."

The scientists said data were too incomplete to estimate how many breast cancer cases might be linked to chemical exposures.

But because the disease is so common and the chemicals so widespread, "the public health impacts of reducing exposures would be profound even if the true relative risks are modest," they wrote. "If even a small percentage is due to preventable environmental factors, modifying these factors would spare thousands of women."

The three reports and a commentary were compiled by researchers from the Silent Spring Institute, a women's environmental health organization in Newton, Mass.; Harvard's Medical School and School of Public Health in Boston; the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.; and USC's Keck School of Medicine. Silent Spring Institute Executive Director Julia Brody led the team.

In response to the findings, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a breast cancer prevention group that funded the work, pledged an additional $5 million for developing research tools to root out environmental causes.

Reviewing hundreds of existing studies and databases, the team produced what it called "the most comprehensive compilation to date of chemicals identified as mammary carcinogens." No new chemical testing was conducted for the reports.

The researchers named 216 chemicals that induce breast tumors in animals. Of those, people are highly exposed to 97, including industrial solvents, pesticides, dyes, gasoline and diesel exhaust compounds, cosmetics ingredients, hormones, pharmaceuticals, radiation, and a chemical in chlorinated drinking water.

"Almost all of the chemicals were mutagenic, and most caused tumors in multiple organs and species; these characteristics are generally thought to indicate likely carcinogenicity in humans, even at lower exposure levels," they reported.

For many of the compounds, the federal government has not used animal breast cancer data when conducting human risk assessments, which are the first step toward regulating chemicals or in setting occupational standards to protect workers. Companies are not required to screen women who work with the chemicals for breast cancer.

"Regulators have not paid much attention to potential mammary carcinogens," the researchers wrote.

Toxicologists say that other mammals, such as rats and mice, often develop the same tumors as humans do, and that animal tests are efficient means of testing the effects of chemicals. Environmental regulators, however, often want conclusive human data before taking action.

Animal studies generally use high doses of a substance to simulate a lifetime of exposure, and then the results are extrapolated to the lower levels that people are exposed to.

Ana Soto, a Tufts University professor of cell biology who specializes in cellular origins of cancer and effects of hormone-disrupting contaminants, said there probably was a link between breast cancer and exposures to chemicals in the environment, particularly early in life.

"I cannot say I'm convinced, but what I can say is that it's a very likely, very plausible hypothesis," said Soto, who did not participate in the new research. "More and more, cancer looks like an environmental disease."

Twenty-nine of the chemicals are produced in volumes exceeding 1 million pounds annually in the United States.

Seventy-three are present in consumer products or are food contaminants — 1,4-dioxane in shampoos, for example, or acrylamide in French fries. Thirty-five are common air pollutants, 25 are in workplaces where at least 5,000 women are employed, and 10 are food additives, according to the reports.

There are probably many more than 216, the research team said, because only about 1,000 of the 80,000 chemicals registered for use in the United States have been tested on animals to see whether they induce cancerous tumors or mutate DNA. Such tests cost $2 million each.

Because epidemiological studies are difficult to conduct and full of uncertainties, human data are "still relatively sparse," the researchers wrote. Only 152 studies worldwide have examined whether women exposed to contaminants are more likely to have breast cancer — compared with nearly 1,500 that have explored the links between diet and the disease — and most of the 216 carcinogens were not included.

"Despite this large remaining gap, research in the last five years has strengthened the human evidence that environmental pollutants play a role in breast cancer risk," the researchers wrote. They said the existing studies suggested "substantial public health impact."

Human evidence is particularly strong for PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls — compounds widely used in the 1940s to late 1970s that still contaminate fish and other foods — and for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, found in diesel and gasoline exhaust.

Solvents in dry cleaning, aircraft maintenance and other jobs also may increase breast cancer risk.

Some of the chemicals named as breast carcinogens already are regulated to protect public health, but some, particularly those in consumer products, are not.

The scientists conducted the review hoping to lay the groundwork for new human studies, as well as to persuade regulators to use existing animal data to strengthen regulations and require more testing of chemicals.

"Animal models are the primary means of understanding and anticipating effects of chemicals in humans," they wrote. "All known human carcinogens … are also carcinogenic in animals."

Emerging evidence suggests that the roots of breast cancer are in infancy or the womb. More animal and human research should focus on such early exposure, said Patricia Hunt, a Washington State University School of Molecular Biosciences professor.

But Hunt and Soto urged society not to wait for scientific proof to reduce exposure to the chemicals.

"When you look at their list of chemicals, we are exposed to all of it," Soto said. "We know humans are exposed to mixtures, and studying mixtures is very difficult. We will never have the whole picture, and it will take many, many years to collect epidemiological evidence, so we should take some preventive measures now."

Although virtually all women are exposed to the chemicals, some may be more susceptible because of differing metabolism or ability to repair DNA.

Breast cancer is probably triggered by an interaction of multiple environmental and genetic factors.

Experts have long suspected diet plays a role. But the new research found "no association that is consistent, strong and statistically significant" for any particular foods raising or reducing breast cancer risk. There is substantial evidence, however, that regularly consuming alcohol, being obese and being sedentary increase risk.

About 178,000 new cases will be diagnosed this year in the United States.

The reports are at http://www.silentspring.org/sciencereview .

marla.cone@latimes.com

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Chemical carcinogens
Researchers name 216 chemicals that cause breast cancer in animal tests. Here are some of the most widespread:

Chemical Source/use
1,4-dioxane Detergents, shampoos, soaps
1,3-butadiene Common air pollutant; found in vehicle exhaust
Acrylamide Fried foods
Benzene Common air pollutant; found in vehicle exhaust
Perfluorooctanoic acid Used in manufacture of Teflon
Styrene Used in manufacture of plastics; found in carpets, adhesives, hobby supplies and other consumer products
Vinyl chloride Used almost exclusively by the plastics industry to make vinyl
1,1-dichloroethane Industrial solvent; also found in some consumer products such as paint removers
Toluene diisocyanate Used in foam cushions, furnishings, bedding
Methylene chloride Used in furniture polish, fabric cleaners, wood sealants and many other consumer products
PAHs Diesel and gasoline exhaust
PCBs Electrical transformers; banned but still in environment
Atrazine Widely used herbicide, particularly for corn

Source: Silent Spring Institute

Skin Deep Has Updated its Site

2007-06-12T09:10:00.000-04:00

Recently Skin Deep released a dramatically expanded and improved version of its popular cosmetics and personal care products database, Skin Deep. The site has been redesigned top to bottom, and they've added ratings for nearly 10,000 more products.

Now in its fourth year and third major update, the Skin Deep product safety database provides safety ratings for nearly 25,000 personal care products - almost a quarter of all products on the market - and the 7,000 ingredients they contain. Due to gaping loopholes in federal law, companies can put virtually any ingredient into personal care products. Even worse, the US government does not require pre-market safety tests for any of them. The aim is to fill in where companies and the government left off.

[Ed: This site is wonderfully PROACTIVE!!]

Skin Deep is the only tool available to consumers to assess and compare the safety of personal care products.

Looking for safer sunscreen to protect the kids this summer? Or shampoos without dangerous preservatives? Skin Deep helps you learn what not to buy, and helps you find safer options for you and your family.

And along with adding thousands of products and a dozen new toxicity databases, Skin Deep has an overhauled the look and feel. You'll find it easier to search for products and find answers about how chemicals affect our health.

While we believe that making informed shopping decisions matters, the lack of safety testing reveals major gaps in many systems of public health protections. So how can you make a difference?

• Please visit Skin Deep and make use of it to make informed decisions. Skin Deep: The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
• Lobby your local politician to make this an issue of urgency.

At about one million page views per month and growing, Skin Deep is the world's most popular online product safety guide.

Don't Buy The Hype: Big Pharma Targets Women For Drugs They Don't Need

2007-06-12T08:47:00.000-04:00

By Judy Norsigian, Women's Media Center

Posted on May 25, 2007, Printed on May 25, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/52230/

Selling anxiety sells medicine. Drug companies know this and profit by
it. But are women benefiting as much as the industry's bottom line?

The pharmaceutical industry spent much of its $4.2 billion
direct-to-consumer advertising budget in 2005 on ads targeting healthy
upper-income, middle-aged people. A common underlying message was this:
you appear to be healthy, but a deadly heart attack, hip fracture, or
other medical catastrophe could occur at any time. Therefore, you should
take a prescription drug to prevent such problems.

For example, a long-running Merck ad featured an older woman with this
message: "See how beautiful 60 can look? See how invisible osteoporosis
can be?" and recommended that women ask their doctors about bone density
screening. As a result, many women started taking Merck's drug Fosamax,
even though the benefit may not outweigh the harm.

With such direct-to-consumer ad campaigns, which highlight risk factors
and promote screening tests, drug companies move beyond promoting
certain pills for treatment of diagnosed conditions to expanding their
use in healthy people. And selling prevention through prescription drugs
certainly does fill pharmaceutical industry coffers. Healthy people,
preferably in early middle age, who can be persuaded to take a drug
daily for the rest of their lives, are clearly the industry's most
desirable customer base. But as a category, these people who are at low
risk of having the problem the drug is meant to treat may still suffer a
serious adverse reaction.

For example, Fosamax cuts the risk of hip fracture from 2 percent to 1
percent, but that small benefit may not be worth the 1.5 percent risk of
suffering an esophageal ulcer. In addition, in a small percentage of
women using Fosamax over the long term, the jawbone will start to
crumble. And some research now suggests that the type of new bone
created by Fosamax is more brittle and more prone to fracturing over
time.=20

The over-selling of postmenopausal hormones, supported by the depiction
of natural menopause as a hormone deficiency disease, was the forerunner
to this type of sales pitch, which now permeates the media. Aging,
social anxiety disorder, heartburn, restless leg syndrome, and
overactive bladder are all examples of symptoms or normal physiological
events that are now presented to consumers as being in need of long-term
drug treatment.=20

Prescription drugs used to be advertised mainly in medical journals
aimed at health care providers. But since 1997, when the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) loosened the restrictions on direct-to-consumer
advertising, pharmaceutical companies have taken their messages directly
to the people. They claim these ads are good for consumers because they
educate and encourage individuals to be more involved in their medical
choices. But whatever the industry's philanthropic motives, the more
direct interest is the bottom line.

As Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of
Medicine, once put it, "They are no more in the business of educating
the public than a beer company is in the business of educating people
about alcoholism."

Because of direct-to-consumer advertising, more people request
prescription drugs from their doctors, and most doctors comply. Most lay
people -- and even many physicians -- are not aware that drug ads are
not checked by the FDA for accuracy beforehand, and are pulled only
after complaints are made and verified. This usually takes about six
months, and the drug company is given a grace period of several
additional months, by which time most ads would have been changed
anyway. A company is rarely required to run a corrective ad, and there
is no other penalty for misleading the public. Thus, while the FDA sends
hundreds of letters each year requiring drug companies to retract their
ads, most people don't hear about them.=20

Women need to recognize misleading pharmaceutical marketing practices
and base drug treatment decisions on scientifically accurate evidence.
Be most skeptical of heavily advertised drugs and those that come with
coupons. They are the newest, most expensive drugs with the shortest
track records of safety.

The FDA does not require new drugs to be proven better than competing,
often cheaper, drugs already on the market. Though many drugs for
chronic conditions like arthritis are taken every day for years,
pre-approval trials typically last no more than a few months and
long-term safety studies are almost never done. Life-threatening effects
may come to light only after the drug is approved and used widely.

To reduce unnecessary risk, women should seek independent sources of
evidence about medicines, particularly new ones. The FDA's web site
offers extensive information about medicines, herbal supplements, and
vitamins, including safety alerts about the latest recalls and warnings
for specific drugs.

The international nonprofit group Healthy Skepticism counters misleading
drug promotion and maintains a regular "AdWatch" section on its website.
Consumers should be cautious when looking for information on other
websites. Many are substantially sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
Being skeptical about drug ads and promotions is smart: it can protect
both our health and our wallets.=20

Judy Norsigian is the executive director of Our Bodies Ourselves, a
nonprofit women's health advocacy organization that also maintains a
daily health blog. A co-author of every edition of the book Our Bodies,
Ourselves, she is also part of the editorial team that has produced Our
Bodies, Ourselves: Menopause (2006) and Our Bodies, Ourselves: Pregnancy
and Birth (forthcoming, 2008).=20

(c) 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/52230/=20

BCAM Blog is One Year Old!

2007-06-02T11:17:00.000-04:00

We are officially one year old now - wow! And to celebrate, Felicity is going to take a little time to learn how to improve this blog and its searchability, readability etc. for our readers. That from one who dislikes reading instruction manuals!

From you, our readers, we'd like to know what ideas you have and what you'd like to see as part of our blog. Don't be shy - send us the info either via e-mail or leave comments here for us to read and implement.

Thanks!

PS To begin with, I have added a counter. Not sure if it will be the one we stick with yet but for now, it's there to help us gauge readership.

In the News - Lobbying to Improve Cosmetics Labeling

2007-06-02T11:15:00.000-04:00

Canadian lobby groups increase pressure over labeling

By Simon Pitman

http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=76827

5/24/2007- Mirroring campaigns run by lobby groups in the US, cancer groups in Canada are putting pressure on industry to update the labeling of personal care products in a bid to bring to consumers attention ingredients that might be potentially dangerous.

In November of last year Health Canada updated cosmetics regulations, outlining that all cosmetics sold in Canada should be labeled with a list of ingredients in descending order of content, similar to that already adopted by the food industry.

Although the regulations do not come into full force until November of this year, a number of lobby groups in Canadahave been trying to orchestrate a campaign that takes this regulation one step further by actually stating which ingredients may be potentially harmful.

Lobby groups, such as Breast Cancer Action Montreal (BCAM), which is affiliated to the US Campaign For Safe Cosmetics, believe that a number of ingredients widely used in personal care products are potential carcinogens.

Currently BCAM is running a highly publicized campaign in Montreal to bring about greater awareness of labeling regulations for personal care products. There are a number of serious shortfalls in the labeling of potentially dangerous ingredients.

The lobby group wants things to be in line with those currently enforced in the EU, where regulations are tighter and many potentially dangerous ingredients, known to be hormonal disrupters, carcinogens or have effects on reproduction, are outlawed for use in personal care products.

BCAM advocates describe current Canadian labeling regulations, even the recently updated one, as being light years from that currently in force in Europe, which is why the organization is mounting a campaign, six months after the new labeling regulations were first announced.

This move is being backed nationwide by the Canadian Cancer Society (CAC) which has an on-going campaign based on right to know principals.

The principals follow that any known carcinogenic ingredient should be clearly indicated on the ingredients label, suggestions that are backed up by a number of lobby groups represented by the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control's National Committee on Environmental and Occupational Exposures, of which CAC is a member

Ultimately the efforts by the lobby groups are mirroring those made by groups in California, where successful lobbying led to the adoption of the Californian Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005.

This law actually binds manufacturers to label ingredients that are known to be carcinogens or else have been linked to birth defects such as reproductive problems.

Welcome Prevent Cancer Now!

2007-05-26T22:56:00.000-04:00

A big hello to everyone from the Prevent Cancer Now Conference who has come to see our blog! We welcome you to our blog and would love your suggestions, comments and info. We have got some great ideas from this conference, from many of you attending as to ways to take the Safe Cosmetics Campaign forward and to improve the blog site. So please drop us a line or leave a comment here to keep giving us this great feedback!

Please watch this space, as there are many more things to come in the next weeks and months to follow.

Thanks!
Felicity & the Conscious Cosmetics Team

Photo Inhabitants Top: Elizabeth May (Green Party), Felicity, Carol & Deena (BCAM)
Photo Inhabitants Below: Angela Rickman, Mae Burrows (Labour Environmental Alliance) & Heather Logan (Canadian Cancer Society)

May 16th Cosmetics Rally Quick Round-Up!

2007-05-16T15:07:00.000-04:00

Brrrrr! It was sooooo cold out there today! But a few of us brave souls rugged up and dug out the winter gear - scarves, hats, gloves and at least one thermal I'm aware of... And we stood there to spread the message far and wide, telling everyone that even though we've had cosmetics labelling regulations for 6 months, there is still a long way to go before we're properly informed about the ingredients in our cosmetics.

Despite the wind, the pelting rain and the not-so-spring-like temps, we managed to enthuse a lot of people. The day started well with The Gazette publishing an article (see Gazette Article). Quite a number of people who stopped to talk to us mentioned that they saw this and on several occasions, this great fore-event publicity had some people seeking us out on purpose! One lady crossed the road from her workplace to ask for 5 of everything and one man asked for at least 5 in English and 5 in French to hand out to his family members. While we saw many bleak faces and there was a preponderance of cold hands firmly ensconced in pockets to keep warm, we still had quite a lot of people happy to briefly draw a hand out from this warmth to take a card and information sheet from us. We gave our smiles to them - if the day couldn't be bright, at least we made up for it. And we happily engaged those who were interested in our cause in conversations, some lasting 5 - 10 minutes easily!

The media arrived in the form of CBC and The Suburban newspaper, interviewing Carol, Madeleine and Maychai. They came with film and still cameras in tow, so there'll be news items tonight and later this week no doubt. Thanks to those who talked to the media. This great publicity is an important ally.

At one stage, a high school group passed us and we took the opportunity to engage as many of the students as possible as they waited for the change of lights. Several of the girls seemed very, very interested and we'd love it if they go on to take up the challenge of spreading the information through their school environment and amongst friends.

We also asked workmen going back to their car to take home the information to their families and we asked a policeman to also do the same. Everyone - women, men, girls and boys - was fair game because this impacts all of us! It was always such a thrill to watch people's eyes light up with interest and to see them walking away with the information - our little cards seem to be a big hit and there was no evidence of them littering the walkway anyway - they are so easy to slip into a pocket or a bag!

One woman pulled her car over and asked for information as she was turning the corner. This excited the newspaper photographer no end, but you can also imagine it really thrilled us too because it was clear that our signs, our gathering and our cause had hit a chord even as far as from a car. Here's to crossing our fingers that people on those buses passing by also took it in and will check out the news items and our websites! :)

We also had a Coal Tar Dyes poster listing over 200 different names that fall under the one title of "Coal Tar Dyes". Unfortunately, we were not able to display this as prominently as originally intended because the wind was rather unco-operative but we did hold it up for the media and it is expected to be one of the pictures we'll post here. (And we'll also add the list here for your better knowledge).

All in all, the event felt extremely positive in spite of the injection of winter in spring - we distributed a lot of cards and information, we got media coverage, we talked to a lot of people, we caught the eye of many more.

So, there'll be photos of today posted here soon - they'll show you how grey and blustery the day was but hopefully you'll see past that to the smiles, the willingness of our volunteers to give of their time and the willingness of members of the community to take a brief moment to pause and take in a very important issue of health. If you read this today, watch the news this evening! Otherwise, we'll try and get a copy of it and post it here soon-ish...

Reminder of our May 16 Rally - Please Come!

2007-05-07T18:58:00.000-04:00

Breast Cancer Action Montreal supporters will rally in the downtown core on May 16 to demand the elimination of toxic chemicals in cosmetics. The date is significant because it is exactly 6 months after Canada’s cosmetics labeling regulations took effect - laws that don’t truly protect consumers. BCAM’s Safe Cosmetics Campaign Canada will raise awareness about toxic chemical ingredients in cosmetics and their health risks on Wednesday May 16th at 12 noon on the south-east corner of Peel and Ste-Catherine.

BCAM’s Safe Cosmetics Campaign Canada will distribute wallet-sized information cards that explain why labeling is not enough. Even though ingredients are now listed, it’s hard to access information on the safety of the labeled ingredients. As a matter of fact, the Canadian government still allows some carcinogenic, mutagenic, reproduction-toxic and hormonally disruptive ingredients, such as formaldehyde and phthalates, in cosmetics. The cards have information resources , including Health Canada’s cosmetics division.

This event is endorsed by Réseau québécois d’action pour la santé des femmes (RQASF), the Allergy and Environmental Health Association of Quebec (AEHA), and Option consommateurs.

On November 16th, 2006, companies were required to list ingredients on cosmetic packages. Companies do not have to reveal which ingredients are known or suspected carcinogens. Many of the known toxic chemicals still permissible in Canada have been banned by the European Union.

Some companies that have eliminated toxic chemicals from their products sold in Europe can still include these toxins in their Canadian products. BCAM has 3 basic demands:
Global reformulation of products to meet the EU REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of CHemicals) standards;
Warning labels on cosmetics that contain ingredients not tested for their long-term safety, and;
Clear warning labels on cosmetics that contain carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins.
Join Breast Cancer Action Montreal on:
Wednesday, May 16th at the south-east corner of Peel and Ste-Catherine from 12 noon to 2 p.m., rain or shine.

Vitamin D casts cancer prevention in new light

2007-05-06T20:38:00.001-04:00

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

The Globe and Mail. Saturday April 28, 2007

For decades, researchers have puzzled over why rich northern countries have cancer rates many times higher than those in developing countries — and many have laid the blame on dangerous pollutants spewed out by industry. But research into vitamin D is suggesting both a plausible answer to this medical puzzle and a heretical notion: that cancers and other disorders in rich countries aren't caused mainly by pollutants but by a vitamin deficiency known to be less acute or even non-existent in poor nations.

Those trying to brand contaminants as the key factor behind cancer in the West are "looking for a bogeyman that doesn't exist," argues Reinhold Vieth, professor at the Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Toronto and one of the world's top vitamin D experts. Instead, he says, the critical factor "is more likely a lack of vitamin D." What's more, researchers are linking low vitamin D status to a host of other serious ailments, including multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes, influenza, osteoporosis and bone fractures among the elderly.
The main way humans achieve healthy levels of vitamin D is not through diet but through sun exposure.

Not everyone is willing to jump on the vitamin D bandwagon just yet. Smoking and some pollutants, such as benzene and asbestos, irrefutably cause many cancers.
But perhaps the biggest bombshell about vitamin D's effects is about to go off. In June, U.S. researchers will announce the first direct link between cancer prevention and the sunshine vitamin. Their results are nothing short of astounding.

A four-year clinical trial involving 1,200 women found those taking the vitamin had about a 60-per-cent reduction in cancer incidence, compared with those who didn't take it, a drop so large — twice the impact on cancer attributed to smoking — it almost looks like a typographical error. And in an era of pricey medical advances, the reduction seems even more remarkable because it was achieved with an over-the-counter supplement costing pennies a day.

One of the researchers who made the discovery, professor of medicine Robert Heaney of Creighton University in Nebraska, says vitamin D deficiency is showing up in so many illnesses besides cancer that nearly all disease figures in Canada and the U.S. will need to be re-evaluated. "We don't really know what the status of chronic disease is in the North American population," he said, "until we normalize vitamin D status."

Sunshine vitamin
For decades, vitamin D has been the Rodney Dangerfield of the supplement world. It's the vitamin most Canadians never give a second thought to because it was assumed the only thing it did was prevent childhood rickets, a debilitating bone disease. But the days of no respect could be numbered. If vitamin D deficiency becomes accepted as the major cause of cancer and other serious illnesses, it will ignite the medical equivalent of a five-alarm blaze on the Canadian health front.

For many reasons, Canadians are among the people most at risk of not having enough vitamin D. This is due to a quirk of geography, to modern lifestyles and to the country's health authorities, who have unwittingly, if with the best of intentions, played a role in creating the vitamin deficiency.

Authorities are implicated because the main way humans achieve healthy levels of vitamin D isn't through diet but through sun exposure. People make vitamin D whenever naked skin is exposed to bright sunshine. By an unfortunate coincidence, the strong sunshine able to produce vitamin D is the same ultraviolet B light that can also causes sunburns and, eventually, skin cancer.

Only brief full-body exposures to bright summer sunshine — of 10 or 15 minutes a day — are needed to make high amounts of the vitamin. But most authorities, including Health Canada, have urged a total avoidance of strong sunlight or, alternatively, heavy use of sunscreen. Both recommendations will block almost all vitamin D synthesis.

Those studying the vitamin say the hide-from-sunlight advice has amounted to the health equivalent of a foolish poker trade. Anyone practising sun avoidance has traded the benefit of a reduced risk of skin cancer — which is easy to detect and treat and seldom fatal — for an increased risk of the scary, high-body-count cancers, such as breast, prostate and colon, that appear linked to vitamin D shortages.

The sun advice has been misguided information "of just breathtaking proportions," said John Cannell, head of the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit, California-based organization.
"Fifteen hundred Americans die every year from [skin cancers]. Fifteen hundred Americans die every day from the serious cancers."

Health Canada denies its advice might be dangerous. In an e-mailed statement, it said that most people don't apply sunscreen thoroughly, leaving some skin exposed, and that people spend enough time outside without skin protection to make adequate amounts of vitamin D. However, the Canadian Cancer Society last year quietly tweaked its recommendation to recognize that limited amounts of sun exposure are essential for vitamin D levels.

Avoiding most bright sunlight wouldn't be so serious if it weren't for a second factor: The main determinant of whether sunshine is strong enough to make vitamin D is latitude. Living in the north is bad, the south is better, and near the equator is best of all.

Canadians have drawn the short straw on the world's latitude lottery: From October to March, sunlight is too feeble for vitamin D production. During this time, our bodies draw down stores built by summer sunshine, and whatever is acquired from supplements or diet.

Government regulations require foods such as milk and margarine to have small amounts of added vitamin D to prevent rickets. Other foods, such as salmon, naturally contain some, as does the cod liver oil once commonly given to children in the days before milk fortification. But the amounts from food are minuscule compared to what is needed for cancer prevention and what humans naturally can make in their skin.

Vitamin D levels in Canada are also being compromised by a lifestyle change. Unlike previous generations that farmed or otherwise worked outside, most people now spend little time outdoors.
One survey published in 2001 estimated office- and homebound Canadians and Americans spend 93 per cent of waking time in buildings or cars, both of which block ultraviolet light.

Consequently, by mid-winter most Canadians have depleted vitamin D status. "We're all a bit abnormal in terms of our vitamin D," said Dr. Vieth, who has tested scores of Canadians, something done with a simple blood test.

How much is enough?
Just how much vitamin D is required for optimum health is the subject of intense scientific inquiry.

Dr. Vieth has approached the matter by asking: What vitamin D level would humans have if they were still living outside, in the wild, near the equator, with its attendant year-round bright sunshine? "Picture the natural human as a nudist in environments south of Florida," he says.

He estimates humans in a state of nature probably had about 125 to 150 nanomoles/litre of vitamin D in their blood all year long — levels now achieved for only a few months a year by the minority of adult Canadians who spend a lot of time in the sun, such as lifeguards or farmers.

For the rest of the population, vitamin D levels tend to be lower, and crash in winter. In testing office workers in Toronto in winter, Dr. Vieth found the average was only about 40 nanomoles/L, or about one-quarter to one-third of what humans would have in the wild.

The avalanche of surprising research on the beneficial effects of vitamin D could affect dietary recommendations as well. Health Canada says that, in light of the findings, it intends to study whether recommended dietary levels need to be revised, although the review is likely to be years away.

A joint Canadian-U.S. health panel last studied vitamin D levels in 1997, concluding the relatively low amounts in people's blood were normal. At the time, there was speculation vitamin D had an anti-cancer effect, but more conclusive evidence has only emerged since.

"There needs to be a comprehensive review undertaken and that is planned," says Mary Bush, director general of Health Canada's office of nutrition policy and promotion. But Ms. Bush said the government doesn't want to move hastily, out of concern that there may be unknown risks associated with taking more of the vitamin.

Those who worry about low vitamin D, however, say this stand is too conservative — that the government's caution may itself be a health hazard. To achieve the vitamin D doses used for cancer prevention through foods, people would need to drink about three litres of milk a day, which is unrealistic.

If health authorities accept the new research, they would have to order a substantial increase in food fortification or supplement-taking to affect disease trends. As it is, the 400 IU dosage included in most multivitamins is too low to be an effective cancer fighter.

Dr. Vieth said any new recommendations will also have to reflect the racial and cultural factors connected to vitamin D. Blacks, South Asians and women who wear veils are at far higher risks of vitamin D deficiencies than are whites.

Although humans carry a lot of cultural baggage on the subject of skin hue, colour is the way nature dealt with the vagaries of high or low vitamin D production by latitude.

Those with very dark skins, whose ancestors originated in tropical, light-rich environments, have pigmentation that filters out more of the sunshine responsible for vitamin D; in northern latitudes, they need more sun exposure — often 10 times as much — to produce the same amount of the vitamin as whites.

Dr. Vieth says it is urgent to provide information about the need for extra vitamin D in Canada's growing non-white population to avoid a future of high illness rates in this group.

Researchers suspect vitamin D plays such a crucial role in diseases as unrelated as cancer and osteoporosis because the chemical originated in the early days of animal evolution as a way for cells to signal that they were being exposed to daylight.

Even though living things have evolved since then, almost all cells, even those deep in our bodies, have kept this primitive light-signalling system.

In the body, vitamin D is converted into a steroid hormone, and genes responding to it play a crucial role in fixing damaged cells and maintaining good cell health. "There is no better anti-cancer agent than activated vitamin D. I mean, it does everything you'd want," said Dr. Cannell of the Vitamin D Council.

Some may view the sunshine-vitamin story as too good to be true, particularly given that the number of previous claims of vitamin cure-alls that subsequently flopped. "The floor of modern medicine is littered with the claims of vitamins that didn't turn out," Dr. Cannell allowed. But the big difference is that vitamin D, unlike other vitamins, is turned into a hormone, making it far more biologically active. As well, it is "operating independently in hundreds of tissues in your body," Dr. Cannell said.

Referring to Linus Pauling, the famous U.S. advocate of vitamin C use as a cure for many illnesses, he said: "Basically, Linus Pauling was right, but he was off by one letter."

Natural & Hypoallergenic - Beyond Advertising Jargon

2007-05-06T20:30:00.002-04:00

"It's Natural!"
"It's Hypoallergenic"

So it must be good for you right?

Wrong. Sharks are natural and they're not necessarily good for us to swim with! And hypoallergenic - just whose allergy, what allergy and which trigger is such a term meant to cover?!

These terms are commonly used to reassure the customer into thinking a product has Mother Nature's blessing. In a way, everything is natural if you want to be very reductionist. Even the computer I am writing with is natural because a human made it and humans are natural and the products that make the computer are natural and it is a natural result of a natural being doing a natural activity - making something. So let's get serious about using 'natural'. Natural is a cover-all term that sounds safe.

What natural and hypoallergenic are not: they are not a term of art, they are not a legal term, and they are not a legislative term; nor are they a scientific term. They are simply two concocted jargons that get over-used in a context that makes people mistakenly feel comfortable about a product's origins and promises. Most importantly, they are NOT a term that is defined by regulatory authorities, which means you can't rely on it as a standard by which anything has been measured. And just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's good for you... :)

Actions You Can Take

Be alert and look beyond that reassuring "natural" label. Use the resources gathered here to help you to sort the wheat from the chaff.

(Views expressed here are Felicity's.)

MPs recommend monitoring Canadians for toxic contamination

2007-05-06T20:24:00.001-04:00

Canadian Press
Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007

OTTAWA (CP) - The Commons environment committee is calling for major changes to the environmental protection act, and biomonitoring programs to measure toxic chemicals in the bodies of Canadians.

In a rare unanimous report Wednesday, the all-party committee slammed the lack of information about the toxicity of chemicals used in Canada and Canadians' exposure to them.

"Nowhere is the information gap more evident than with respect to the quantities and trends in body-burden of synthetic chemicals," says the report.

The committee also recommends a return to regular state-of-the-environment reports which were introduced by former prime minister Brian Mulroney but subsequently abandoned.

Witnesses told the committee that Canada is unusual among developed countries in lacking systematic biomonitoring programs to track contaminant trends through the study of blood and urine samples.

Environmental Defence and Pollution Watch, non-government groups, recently conducted small biomonitoring studies, one of which found that a number of prominent politicians were carrying chemical cocktails in their veins.

Health Canada recently announced a one-time biomonitoring study of 5,000 people but the committee says that's not good enough.

"Studies such as this must be ongoing to establish trends in the body-burden of Canadians."

The committee's report, based on months of hearings involving 70 witnesses, makes 31 recommendations to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a complex federal bill which is intended to regulate toxic chemicals.

When the act was introduced in the late 1980s it was hailed as world-leading legislation, but critics say it has proven largely ineffective.

For example, the bill requires the virtual elimination of proven toxic chemicals. But in its history, only one chemical has been designated for elimination, and that product was no longer being used anyway.

Similarly, the bill provides heavy maximum penalties for polluters, including jail terms, but those have never been applied.

Critics say the act has been hobbled by the scientific difficulty of screening tens of thousands of chemicals and proving toxicity beyond doubt.

The committee proposes that the onus be shifted to manufacturers to prove the products are safe.

The law should state "that industry has the responsibility of demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the minister, that the risks of new and existing substances of concern are acceptable."

Aaron Freeman, policy director at Environmental Defence, welcomed the proposed revisions, saying he hopes they will be implemented by the government.

"It's encouraging to see such multipartisan support for strengthening Canada's national pollution law," he said.

In a development that would have been startling a year ago, Conservatives on the committee supported inclusion of greenhouse gases as "toxic substances" listed under the act. When they were in opposition they fiercely opposed that move.

Other recommended changes would make it easier for citizens to legally challenge the marketing and use of toxic chemicals, even before there is evidence of damage to health or the environment. Those who make a complaint that is upheld by the courts would be entitled a share of the fine imposed on the polluter.

At a news conference, Chairman Bob Mills and members of all parties praised the collegiality of the committee, which overcame partisan differences to produce a unanimous report.