Conscious Cosmetics

A fond wrap-up - inspiration for the future

2010-09-05T07:20:00.000-04:00

Just letting you know that this blog has become historical, and the BCAM website is the place to visit for new blog posts. I've enjoyed helping while I could and I'll be leaving this here for a while as a reflection of what has been. It is clear to me that in the last year a blossoming of awareness has finally sprung forth, at least in North America, as to the importance of conscious beauty and personal care product choices. May this consciousness deepen, broaden, and become the norm! A big thanks to BCAM for the part of the journey I had a wonderful chance to share with you! Everyone - be inspired and make changes that you can make, to show others what is possible. Together we not only can, but are, making a huge difference.

Facing Up To Clean Faces: Young Girls and Cosmetics

2010-04-10T00:23:00.001-04:00

Photo courtesy of: Sidewalk Flying

As a child my mother made a rule very early on. She told me "You are not wearing makeup until you are 16." At the age of 5 or so, I thought that was a very weird thing to tell me because I'd never shown an interest in makeup since it "stank". Being a child highly sensitive to everything that smelled bad (from car exhaust to perfume), I wasn't exactly upset. However, as I grew older, it naturally turned to resentment for just being told that it was something I was "not allowed" to do when I could see my peers starting to do it. I didn't want to wear makeup and there are some hilarious episodes from my teens in trying it and finding out it wasn't for me, like the time my mother insisted I learn grooming from a modeling school. I left one afternoon with bright green witchy eyes after being told to lose a quarter stone despite already being underweight - needless to say, modeling wasn't for me, and nor was the makeup after my Nana took over a half hour with brutal toweling cloths to remove it. But what I didn't like most was being told what to do! The real issue for me was having things explained to me properly, not just being ordered about.

My experience as a bewildered teen is why I think it's really important that we talk openly and realistically to our young daughters, sisters, girlfriends, nieces, etc., about why makeup for girls when they're still growing up is not only strange in many respects but also potentially dangerous. It's strange because suggesting that it's OK to wear makeup to try and look older before girls even have a clue what that's all about, is just plain thoughtless. It's strange because healthy young bodies should be exploring painting on canvas, on sidewalks, on walls, on objets d'art, before they paint their eyelids and nails purposefully. While not averse to the occasional face-painted butterfly (provided I can verify the contents of that paint), regular use of nail polish, rouge, lipstick, even lip gloss at an early age are a window into a world of high pressured consuming, objectification and the beginning of conforming to styles that marketing moguls use to convince teen girls and adult women that we're somehow defective or deficient without these products. And it's dangerous because we just don't know what's in these products. The average perfume contains over 4000 ingredients. Somehow I don't think they make labels large enough to accommodate all those unknown ingredients in our cosmetics...

Girls need to grow strong, independent in their thinking, capable, and free. They don't need to be molded to conform to certain standards, well before they can make up their own minds. I see early usage of makeup as being a source of making up not only the face and body but also the mind. That isn't healthy. Yet, 9 out of 10 girls are regular wearers of makeup by the ages of 11-14 according to the Environmental Working Group. So what do we - as mothers, aunts, grandmothers, guardians, teachers, fathers, etc. - do? Do we ban this stuff outright and leave a wake of bewildered, resentful, angry girls in our wake? No, I think there is a much gentler and more sensible path:

For girls from birth: For starters, just don't introduce makeup into a young girl's world under any circumstances. If she is given a toy makeup kit, toss it away quietly. You can always explain it was "one-off use" like food and give her something else in place. Be very selective about the use of cosmetic products until your daughter has stopped developing. Often it is as simple as not having the items in the house, period.
For girls aged about 4 onward: Spend time talking to young girls about the impact of advertising. I have found that it's never too early to talk conscious consumption with children. You can find the words to explain that "ads are things some people earn a living from; they're not something to live our lives by though". You can ask young girls to think through advertising and to guess at what they're being asked to do and why. Make it into a game while they're young, and as they grow older, they'll be thinking consciously about marketing ploys.
For girls aged about 8 onward: Show by example that you are a conscious consumer too. Take curious young girls shopping with you when you buy your cosmetics and openly discuss the merits and bad points of the choices before you. Go to a pharmacy and a health food store for comparison. Show the girls the long list of ingredients with unpronounceable names on the back of them and tell them why you don't use that makeup, using the old adage that "if you can't pronounce it, you can't wear it". In the health food store, choose organic, known-ingredient products, again showing the girls why. Showing what you do right will have much more impact than anything else.
For girls aged about 8 onward: Explain why cosmetics are not needed for young people. Don't make it a preach-from-the-pulpit and avoid saying "because I say so". Both those approaches are guaranteed to cause rebellion. Instead, take the time to borrow books from the library that show industrial cosmetic making processes, that show the origins of makeup items in their natural form and the additions of chemicals to transform them, or search online. Read to them about the known problems of some chemicals. You can do this very effectively if you take the time to reduce the language and concepts to their level.
For girls aged 8 onward: Have girls research online and in the library about the realities of cosmetics for themselves. If they discover things for themselves, they are far more likely to respond positively to avoiding the use of makeup while young and they are far more likely to proactively seek out healthy products when they grow old enough to try cosmetics. Make it into a project - a poster, a blog, a letter-writing campaign, a leaflet, a class talk, whatever works best.

One final word: Don't forget that the word "cosmetic" is very broad. It's not just makeup - it's sunscreen, shampoo, deodorant, even toothpaste. Being vigilant about what the young girls in your life are putting on their skin, an organ that easily absorbs creams, fats, oils, etc., is vital. And explaining why is just part of the age-old tradition of passing on wisdom from those of us who have learned, to those who need to know.

Further resources:

The funny side of something very serious

2010-03-25T05:20:00.000-04:00

From BCAM's Facebook page.

Mineral Make Up - Is It a Good Alternative or Just Another Cover Up?

2010-03-20T21:22:00.000-04:00

We were curious about mineral makeup at a BCAM conscious cosmetics meeting some years back when discussing cosmetic alternatives. Not much was known about this "new wave" of cosmetics that were supposedly benign and did so many "amazing" things with "just minerals". The jury was out and we were left with very little information to go on. The hype around this makeup seemed so good. Was it too good to be true? Today I stumbled across a great blog post by Mindful Momma that has helped to sort some of the wheat from the chaff. While I still the think the jury is in need of some thorough discussion on this topic, it does seem that there are some clear problems arising out of seeing mineral makeup as a "safe alternative" to existing cosmetics.

Mindful Momma points out that the problems include nanoparticles (small enough to penetrate the skin barrier, and therefore enter our bloodstream), parabens, bismuth oxychloride, dimethicone, and talc. Each of these has carcinogenic potential and other possible health side effects. So, if these are in the big name mineral makeup compositions (and there is little to go on to suggest that large cosmetics companies wouldn't shove in these things if they're already doing so for their other cosmetics), then we cannot trust that mineral makeup is a healthy alternative at this stage, unless the labelling is so clear and so truthful as to rule out the addition of these problematic chemicals and techniques.

Check out Mindful Momma's alternatives for now. We're not vouching for these as we haven't tested them or examined them ourselves, but at least she's offering a possible solution to the dilemma at the moment and you're free to make up your own mind about makeup. And yeah, we think that's a fairly catchy phrase to be keeping in mind! I do like, however, that she suggests supporting smaller businesses is a good thing because that comes full circle to the idea that we keep our lives local, sustainable and as informed as possible.

There's Going To Be a Little Less Cancer in Your Shampoo

2010-03-18T23:20:00.000-04:00

Clairol's Herbal Essences line is making it nice and easy to avoid 1,4-dioxane.

By Virginia Sole-Smith, New Hamburg, NY, USA, Tue Mar 16, 2010

If you track toxins in personal care products like baseball fans track box scores, then you'll remember the hubbub last year when the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics announced results from lab tests finding a pesky little contaminant called 1,4-dioxane in a whole host of children's bath products.

Just in case you're saying "one, four, what?" let's review. 1,4-dioxane is a contaminant produced when manufacturers mix up batches of sodium laureth sulfate and other chemicals that give soaps and shampoos their foamy suds. The EPA considers it a "probably human carcinogen" and California includes it on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer or birth defects. This isn't to say that lathering up with your favorite bubble bath or shower gel is going to cause cancer. But using these products does add a teensy dose of potential carcinogens to your average bath, which is already something of a toxic soup.

Here's the rub: since sudsy product makers didn't intend to put 1,4-dioxane into their formulas, they've been having a heck of a time trying to get it out. Which is why it's such exciting news that Proctor & Gamble has said it's reformulating its entire Clairol Herbal Essences line to be lower levels of 1,4 to less than 10 parts per million by the end of 2010 in response to pressure from environmentalists. Herbal Essences has long been the scourge of the eco-beauty movement, since it sounds so green (remember those coy commercials about having a "totally organic" shower experience?) but actually wasn't. Even a little bit.

So, kudos P&G and let's not stop there. "We're glad Proctor & Gamble is reducing the levels of 1,4 dioxane in its Herbal Essences line, but the company clearly has a much bigger problem," says Lisa Archer, national coordinator of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics from the Breast Cancer Fund. "Proctor & Gamble needs to show it cares about all its customers by eliminating this carcinogen from all its brands." In fact, when environmentalists announced the P&G news at a press conference on Friday, they also released new testing that found several P&G brands of laundry detergent (Tide, Tide Free and Ivory Snow) still contain pretty high levels of 1,4-dioxane. Oops.

Meanwhile, if you want a truly green shower experience, check out our top green shampoo picks and learn how to make your own shampoo and conditioner at home.

From: http://planetgreen.discovery.com/fashion-beauty/cancer-shampoo-toxins.html

Cancer is a Disease, Not a Marketing Opportunity

2010-03-18T16:09:00.001-04:00

We loved this piece, so we're passing it on in its entirety, both French and English versions:

By Elsie Hambrook

The breast is not, in this society, just another part of the body. So we should have expected that breast disease such as cancer would be subject to different treatment than other diseases.

Still, some of the breast cancer related campaigns are surprising. Most are inspiring and rallying—but some are exploitative.

A few weeks ago, messages were flying around Facebook in-boxes, chain-mail style, urging women to post the color of their bra on their profiles to raise breast cancer awareness—and to confuse men who would get updates with just a name of a colour. No information, no explanation—just the bra colour. Many immediately criticized this “awareness raising” technique. Newsweek blogger Mary Carmichael pointed out that “At this point, there can't be a person in the world who isn't aware of breast cancer... This isn’t awareness or education; it’s titillation… It’s harmless, but also pointless.” A feminist blog at Salon.com was even more incisive: “This bra color movement seems a similarly desperate attempt to get guys to simply give a crap about breast cancer by making it sexy and flirtatious, which I find not only embarrassing to women but insulting to men.”

Last September, Canadian charity Rethink Breast Cancer released an ad to promote a “Boobyball” fundraiser that featured a buxom woman entering a pool party while being ogled by attendees. The camera cuts between close ups of her bouncing breasts and snippets of text that string together to say: “You know you like them. Now it’s time to save the boobs.”

Sexualized breast cancer awareness campaigns are a new thing, but more common is cause-related marketing - placing a pink ribbon on products and promising a portion of proceeds will go to research or awareness raising. Companies attract buyers to their products because of the charitable nature, but only pass on their customer’s money while they enjoy greater profits. Some companies will pledge to match the donation their customers’ purchases generate though many don’t advertise that they also cap their donations. One American consultancy firm found that 79% of consumers would switch to a product or brand that is identified with a cause, all other things being equal.

“Breast cancer is a disease. Not a marketing opportunity. This is wrong,” says breast cancer patient Jeanne Sather, author of the blog The Assertive Cancer Patient.

Companies may also be guilty of “pink washing.” American watchdog group Breast Cancer Action defines pinkwashing as a company manufacturing products that may cause breast cancer while simultaneously promoting breast cancer fundraising. These pinkwashing companies greatly benefit from the fact that much of the effort in combating breast cancer is focused on diagnosis and cure—not on prevention or inquiries into environmental causes of the disease.

The fact that prevention is not a main focus is part of why breast cancer appeals to companies looking to engage in cause-related marketing. If prevention were a focus, breast cancer campaigns would be partly about pollutants, additives and growth hormones in our food, inadequate research and inadequate labeling and consumer information, etc – not issues that attract sponsors.

Companies are also drawn to breast cancer related marketing because it is a disease in which there is no presumption that the sufferer somehow brought it on themselves, as there can be with some other diseases. The cause is not political—it allows for companies to communicate that they are women-friendly, without being labeled activist. And of course, breasts have an image linked to sex as well as motherhood.

In her book Pink Ribbons Inc., Samantha King points out that “it’s unlikely that the battle against breast cancer will be won so long as it is approached as a single-issue problem that is unrelated to other health conditions or to broader social issues. Large, corporate-funded, single-issue foundations have come to dominate health advocacy and, as a result, questions related to universal healthcare, discrimination, or the impact of the environment on disease have been pushed to the margins.”

Think Before You Pink says the Breast Cancer Action group, to make people aware of these goings on. It recommends that, before we buy a product with a pink ribbon on it, that we ask how much money actually goes toward breast cancer programs and what is the company doing to assure that its products are not contributing to the breast cancer epidemic. The campaign has succeeded in getting some companies to remove cancer-linked additives to some cosmetics and the cancer-linked synthetic growth hormone from some yogurts – including pink-lidded yogurt, which was being sold to raise money for breast cancer but was made with dairy stimulated with the carcinogenic hormone.

There are wonderful initiatives supporting the important work relating to breast cancer. But we need to examine how easily we buy into supporting the fight against breast cancer through consumer culture. We need to work to not only find a cure, but to work toward prevention and stop allowing companies to pinkwash their carcinogenic products. We need to include men who not only can develop the disease themselves – two men died of breast cancer in New Brunswick in 2007 - but who suffer with and support their mothers, partners, sisters who are battling it. We need to include men and not merely try to briefly capture their interest through condescending sexualized awareness.

To quote cancer survivor Barbara Ehrenreich, we can’t just “slap on a pink ribbon, call it a day.”

Elsie Hambrook is Chairperson of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women. She may be reached via e-mail at acswcccf@gnb.ca.

*****
LE CANCER DU SEIN EST UNE MALADIE – NON PAS UNE OCCASION DE MARKETING

ELSIE HAMBROOK

Dans la société d’aujourd’hui, puisque les seins ne sont plus simplement une autre partie du corps, nous aurions dû nous attendre à ce que les maladies du sein, comme le cancer, soient traitées différemment des autres maladies.

Pourtant, certaines campagnes de sensibilisation au cancer du sein sont étonnantes. La plupart sont inspirantes et rassembleuses—mais quelques-unes sont exploitantes.

Il y a quelques semaines, une avalanche de messages circulait dans les corbeilles d’arrivée sur Facebook et sous la forme d’une lettre faisant partie d’une chaîne, exhortant les femmes à afficher la couleur de leur soutien-gorge dans leurs profils afin d’accroître la sensibilisation au cancer du sein—et pour confondre les hommes qui, en consultant leur profil, tombent sur une couleur, sans la moindre information ni la moindre explication—simplement la couleur du soutien-gorge. Bon nombre de gens ont immédiatement critiqué cette technique de « sensibilisation ». La blogueuse de Newsweek, Mary Carmichael, mentionnait : « À l’heure actuelle, il est inconcevable qu’une personne n’ait pas entendu parler du cancer du sein... Ce n’est pas de la sensibilisation ni de l’éducation; c’est de la titillation… C’est inoffensif, mais aussi absurde. » Un bloque féministe à Salon.com était encore plus tranchant : « Ce mouvement d’affichage de la couleur des soutiens-gorge semble un autre effort désespéré visant à donner aux gars l’occasion de débiter des conneries sur le cancer du sein en le rendant accrocheur et séduisant, ce que je considère non seulement gênant pour les femmes mais aussi insultant pour les hommes. »

En septembre dernier, Rethink Breast Cancer, un organisme caritatif canadien, a publié une annonce visant à promouvoir l’activité de financement « Boobyball » qui montre une femme plantureuse qui arrive à un party au bord d’une piscine et qui est reluquée par les invités. La caméra va de plans serrés des seins bondissants de la jeune femme à des bribes de texte qui sont alignés pour dire : « Bien sûr que tu les aimes. Sauvons maintenant les nichons. »

Les campagnes de sensibilisation au cancer du sein à caractère sexuel sont une nouveauté, mais le marketing de la cause est plus courant – poser un ruban rose sur des produits dont une portion des ventes est destinée à la recherche ou à la sensibilisation. Les entreprises attirent l’attention des acheteurs sur leurs produits en raison de la nature caritative de la cause mais elles contribuent uniquement la portion des consommateurs pendant qu’elles font d’énormes profits. Certaines entreprises s’engagent à doubler le don généré par les achats des clients mais plusieurs d’entre elles n’indiquent pas qu’elles fixent aussi un plafond pour les dons. Une firme d’experts-conseils américaine a constaté que 79 % des consommateurs passeraient à un produit ou à une marque qui s’identifie à une cause, toutes autres choses étant égales.

« Le cancer du sein est une maladie, non pas une occasion de marketing. C’est répréhensible, » de dire Jeanne Sather, une patiente atteinte du cancer du sein et auteure du bloque The Assertive Cancer Patient.

Les entreprises peuvent aussi s’adonner au marketing de la « cause rose ». Le groupe de surveillance américain Breast Cancer Action définit la cause rose comme l’activité d’une entreprise qui fabrique des produits qui peuvent causer le cancer du sein tout en faisant la promotion d’activités de financement pour la lutte contre le cancer du sein. Ces entreprises profitent grandement du fait que les efforts visant à combattre le cancer du sein sont surtout axés sur le diagnostic et les traitements—non sur la prévention ou les études des causes exogènes de la maladie.

Le cancer du sein intéresse les entreprises qui veulent se lancer dans le marketing de la cause car l’accent n’est pas surtout mis sur la prévention. Si la prévention était un enjeu, les campagnes de lutte contre le cancer du sein porteraient en partie sur les polluants, les additifs et les hormones de croissance dans les aliments, la recherche insuffisante, l’étiquetage insuffisant et l’information insuffisante au consommateur, etc. – non sur des enjeux qui attirent les commanditaires.

Les entreprises sont aussi attirées par le marketing lié au cancer du sein car cette maladie ne comporte aucune présomption que la personne atteinte est en quelque sorte responsable de ce qui lui arrive, comme cela peut être le cas pour quelques autres maladies. La cause n’est pas d’ordre politique—elle permet aux entreprises de transmettre le message qu’elles sont soucieuses des femmes, sans être qualifiées d’activistes. Évidemment, l’image de seins est associée au sexe et à la maternité.

Dans son livre intitulé Pink Ribbons Inc., Samantha King souligne qu’il est peu probable que la lutte contre le cancer du sein sera gagnée tant qu’elle est perçue comme un problème à enjeu unique non lié à d’autres états de santé ou à des enjeux sociaux plus larges. Les grandes fondations à vocation unique qui sont financées par les sociétés jouent actuellement un rôle prépondérant dans la défense de la cause de la santé. Les questions ayant trait aux soins de santé, à la discrimination ou à l’impact de l’environnement sur la maladie ont été mises de côté.

Le groupe Breast Cancer Action demande de réfléchir avant d’utiliser le rose pour sensibiliser les gens. Il recommande de se renseigner sur la portion du montant qui sera versée aux programmes relatifs au cancer du sein et sur les efforts de l’entreprise pour s’assurer que ses produits ne contribuent pas à l’épidémie du cancer du sein, avant d’acheter un produit affichant un ruban rose. La campagne a incité des entreprises à retirer de certains produits cosmétiques les additifs associés au cancer et de certains yogourts, l’hormone de croissance synthétique liée au cancer – y compris un yogourt avec couvercle rose, qui était vendu pour recueillir des fonds pour la lutte contre le cancer du sein mais qui contenait du lait fortifié avec des hormones cancérogènes.

De merveilleuses initiatives appuient le travail important sur le cancer du sein. Nous devons toutefois examiner comment nous avons facilement recours à la culture de consommation pour appuyer la lutte contre le cancer du sein. Nous devons non seulement trouver une guérison mais aussi axer les efforts sur la prévention et empêcher les entreprises de promouvoir leurs produits cancérogènes en s’associant à la cause rose. Nous devons inclure les hommes qui, non seulement peuvent développer la maladie – deux hommes sont morts d’un cancer du sein au Nouveau-Brunswick en 2007 – mais qui appuient leur mère, leur partenaire ou leurs sœurs atteintes de la maladie et qui sont sensibles à leurs souffrances. Nous devons inclure les hommes et non simplement éveiller brièvement leur intérêt par une sensibilisation condescendante à caractère sexuel.

Pour reprendre les propos de Barbara Ehrenreich, une survivante du cancer, on ne peut pas simplement poser un ruban rose et s’arrêter là.

Elsie Hambrook est présidente du Conseil consultatif sur la condition de la femme du Nouveau-Brunswick. On peut la joindre par courrier électronique à l’adresse suivante : acswcccf@gnb.ca.

Low amount of BPA can increase cardiac risk by 45%, study finds

2010-02-23T23:36:00.000-05:00

Bisphenol A is in the plastic-like lining of tin cans that separates the food from metal. Health Canada has designated the compound as toxic and had it removed from baby bottles.

The widely used plastic-making compound has already been labelled toxic by Health Canada and removed from baby bottles.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/elevated-amount-of-bpa-can-increase-cardiac-risk-by-45-study-finds/article1428929/ Article in full

Push is on to improve U.S. chemical safety laws: Agencies lead drive

2010-02-23T23:30:00.000-05:00

An interesting article that indicates change is in the wind, at least in
the US.

In November, researchers released a startling finding: In pregnant women, a study found that developing babies are being exposed to toxic chemicals from consumer products even before they take their first breaths. The finding is yet another confirmation that U.S. chemical safety laws are failing to safeguard health.

See the rest of the article at:

http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org/content/39/10/1.2.full

Starting Again This Week

2010-02-23T23:28:00.002-05:00

Just a short note to say I've been away and then unfortunately I got sick. The story behind this sickness involves chemicals, so maybe I should tell it some day! Anyway, please be assured that we're back on and I'll be tweeting as well as of next week.

Musings on What We Don't Know

2009-12-15T20:14:00.000-05:00

It's almost Christmas. I had an interesting discussion with an architect yesterday. He said that New Zealand manufactures a lot of building products with low volatile organic compounds (VOCs)/chemical content that are exported but have little or no market here. It made me wince to think about how New Zealanders are allowing themselves to be exposed to high VOCs/chemicals from the items used to build kitchens, bathrooms, roofs, walls, garages, children's rooms, bedrooms, etc. I suggested to him that this was because of a lack of knowledge of the problems associated with VOCs and chemicals and he was in total agreement.

What you don't know can harm you.

We're trying to change that by bringing you more information. From early 2010, we will be aiming to bring regular informative updates on chemicals, the things you can do to help yourself avoid exposure to carcinogens and possible carcinogens and more. Keep watching and in the meantime, wishing you all a very safe and peaceful holiday season.

New National Health Nail Salon Alliance Launched

2009-12-09T22:25:00.000-05:00

The National Healthy Nail Salon Alliance is pleased to introduce to you our new website! The new website serves as a clearinghouse of information related to nail salon worker safety, a way to publicize our membership and featured press coverage, and allows us to advertise the work we do to reach a broader audience. We hope you find it to be a valuable resource!

We also wanted to take the opportunity to encourage you, if you haven’t already done so, to join the Alliance as a member. Information about joining, as well as membership agreement forms, can be found here. Please note that there are two possible agreements to sign: as a member and as an ally. Government agencies and industry representatives are eligible to join the Alliance as allies; all other groups may join as full members.

Some of the Alliance’s accomplishments in recent years include:

· Released a report, Phasing Out the Toxic Trio, in English and Vietnamese, which is a survey of nail product manufacturers and their use of toluene, DBP, and formaldehyde in their products.
· Released a wallet card that women can take to salons to ask for “toxic three-free” polishes;
· Published articles about worker exposure in nail salons in Women and Environments International Journal and in SisterSong’s newsletter, Collective Voices.
· Convened several national calls to bring concerned groups, advocates, researchers and allies in government agencies together and strategize next steps;
· Held a groundbreaking research-focused convening in Oakland, CA with over 120 scientists, researchers, community based organizations, government agencies, policy makers, industry members, nail salon workers and owners, and advocates, to jointly develop a proactive research agenda for the nail salon and cosmetology sectors.

Please take a moment to check out the website!

Warmly,

The National Healthy Nail Salon Alliance
Co-convened by:
California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative
National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum
Women’s Voices for the Earth

Common Weed Killer Changes Sex of Male Frogs

2009-12-09T16:31:00.000-05:00

A popular weed killer sprayed on cornfields across North America turns male frogs into females even at low levels, Ottawa biologists have found.

Vance Trudeau, a University of Ottawa biologist, and his Ph.D. student Valérie Langlois raised leopard frog tadpoles over a spring and summer in outdoor tanks containing the herbicide atrazine. The low levels of the herbicide were only 12.5 per cent higher (1.8 micrograms per litre) than the maximum levels (1.6 micrograms per litre) found in the Raisin River in Cornwall, Ont., where the tadpoles were captured.

The study, published in the Nov. 19 issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found that 20 per cent more frogs were female after being exposed to atrazine compared to frogs that weren't exposed to the herbicide. In addition, many male frogs exposed to atrazine had formed egg cells in their testicles.

"Animals were switching from male to female," Trudeau said Thursday.

Fewer of the animals had also transformed from tadpoles into frogs.

He said that is of great concern because frogs are a key species in the ecosystem. They are important for controlling insects and are a key source of food for fish and some birds.

Trudeau acknowledged that his findings are controversial since other studies have shown atrazine to be harmless to frogs, including some funded by the manufacturer of the herbicide.

However, he said he hoped his results would lead the Canadian government to re-evaluate its guidelines and lower the acceptable level of the herbicide. He would not go as far as to recommend banning it, as some European countries have already done.

(CBC News)

We're now on Twitter too - follow our lead

2009-11-29T20:44:00.007-05:00

We have a Twitter account finally! We're going to share news and links in brief on Twitter.

Please follow us!

We're at: BCA-International on Twitter.

(https://twitter.com/BCAMInt)

Tweens challenged by grown-up malady: Breast cancer at 10

2009-11-29T20:40:00.001-05:00

Here is a rather good and in-depth story about the important topic of young girls getting breast cancer, on CNN.com: Tweens challenged by grown-up malady: Breast cancer.

Plastic chemicals 'feminise boys'

2009-11-29T20:20:00.002-05:00

The research shows us yet again that plastics are not the best thing since sliced bread and that we would have done far better to find a lot of other ways to make containers, toys, bags, and trinkets. (Here in New Zealand, I have discovered that weaving flax is both therapeutic and beautiful...) While I am sure there are plastics out there that might be benign, too many of them are highly questionable, smell bad, warp in the wash, and look very foreign in my kitchen anyway... So judged by me, I'll let you do the reading on the next study showing that chemicals in plastics are again raising a concern that boy's brains are being altered to become "more feminine": BBC article.

A case for breast cancer prevention

2009-11-29T20:13:00.000-05:00

by Sarah Dunagan, from the Silent Spring Institute

“How do we know the gunshot killed the victim?” asked Julia Brody, Executive Director of Silent Spring Institute, during her testimony to the President’s Cancer Panel. “The gun was raised and fired, the bullet entered a vital organ, and the victim fell to the ground.” But how do we know environmental factors contribute to breast cancer? In this case, it’s much harder to establish a clear cause and effect relationship.

Each year, the President’s Cancer Panel—a watchdog group of advisors charged with monitoring the National Cancer Program—holds a series of meetings to gather input from experts and the public on a particular theme. While in past meetings the panel has focused on topics such as lifestyle and treatment, this year they are focusing, for the first time ever, on environmental factors. The panel will present a report with its recommendations to President Obama later this year.

At the panel’s meeting on Air Pollution and Water Contamination, Brody advocated a new strategy for environmental health sleuthing. Taking the traditional “innocent until proven guilty” approach—which requires waiting for definitive proof that a given chemical causes breast cancer before taking action—hasn’t been working. This is because it can take many years after an exposure for breast cancer to develop, women are exposed to a toxic soup of chemicals, and it’s difficult to untangle the many interwoven genetic and environmental factors that can contribute to the disease.

With medical research, we can dispel some of this ambiguity by using clinical trials to test, for example, the safety of a given drug. But we can’t apply this model to study the effects of pollutants on women’s health because it would be unethical to test a toxic chemical on a group of women and wait to see if they get sick. So what, then, are we to do?

We don’t have to throw up our hands in the face of this challenge. Instead, we can work to build the case for a “better safe than sorry” approach that would rely on animal and cell studies that illustrate how chemicals can contribute to breast cancer, and studies showing humans are exposed to those same chemicals. Taken together, this evidence would create the foundation for preventive action to reduce our exposures to harmful chemicals.

“We see substantial evidence of links between environmental pollutants and breast cancer, enormous knowledge gaps that we can fill immediately, and opportunities for precautionary action,” said Brody. “If we take steps to protect ourselves and our children from chemicals that cause cancer, we will also see benefits for numerous other health endpoints, including diabetes, obesity, neurological disease, and infertility.”

To read the full text of Brody’s testimony, visit the Silent Spring Institute homepage.

Less HRT, Fewer Cases of Possible Breast Cancer Precursor

2009-11-29T20:04:00.002-05:00

This story is very interesting. It reveals the findings of a study showing that as hormone use has declined, so has the incidence of abnormal cells in milk ducts. "This is the first time a link has been found between atypical ductal hyperplasia -- abnormal cells in the breast's milk ducts -- and hormone therapy, said Diana Miglioretti, senior author of a paper published in the November issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. " Read more at: Less HRT, Fewer Cases of Possible Breast Cancer Precursor.

Starting Afresh - BCAM - BCA-International

2009-11-29T19:47:00.005-05:00

Hello Everyone!

Happy autumn and happy spring, depending on where you are.

Starting up again! Carol and I are going to ramp up this blog again. For now I am going to remain with this blog page but I am working on the possible transference to a new blog down the track. You will be advised of changes as they occur. There are also plans to tweet and wiki our Conscious Cosmetics campaign, so you'll be informed of this as it grows.

Going international. In the meantime, BCAM's social media side is going international because I am going to do my best to contribute a more global perspective of what needs to be done counter breast cancer worldwide. This morning somebody sent me a very depressing look into the pollution in China. It was absolutely horrific to see people working in intensely polluted conditions, dying of cancer without the epidemic being acknowledged or linked to the dreadful living and working conditions. We are partially to blame in wanting the goods they are producing. It is in seeing things like this that I realise we can't just keep this issue to a single city or country; it's a worldwide concern that we must tackle together by disseminating more knowledge, more skills-building and activism that makes the politicians and manufacturers take note of our very real, very sound concerns.

BCA-Int. Hence, I'll start using the term "BCA-International" for Breast Cancer Action International, to account for my forays around the planet in search of answers, stories, exposés and more.

Help us with info and comments. Please feel free to send us information and to leave us comments on the blog. Your comments are valuable in guiding us as to what you want to hear more about.

Please bookmark us. We're back and we've made a commitment to update this blog at least once a week. If you're lucky, I might even get organised to do it more often but small steps at first!

Felicity

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.

New Women's Health & The Environment Website

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

At the April 20th Pittsburgh commemoration of Rachel Carson's 100th birthday, the Collaborative on Health and the Environment's (CHE) Women's Health and the Environment working group and the broader Women's Health and the Environment Initiative launched a new website at: Women's Health and Environment

The new website contains information about the science linking women's health and the environment and ideas for individual, community, state and national-level advocacy aimed at reducing everybody's exposures to contaminants. There is also a toolkit that anyone can download and share for free:

See: Toolkit

Both the website and toolkit were built based on many people's and organization's materials and wisdom.

Actions You Can Take

Visit this website

Make use of the Toolkit

Let us know what you think, thanks!

Six mois après le Règlement exigeant l'étiquetage des ingrédients sur les cosmétiques, sommes-nous mieux informés ?

2007-05-02T13:41:00.001-04:00

Et le français, bien sûr !

Qu'est ce qui a changé ? Nous avons toujours des produits chimiques toxiques dans nos cosmétiques !

Depuis le 16 novembre 2006, les fabricants de cosmétiques doivent divulguer les ingrédients sur les étiquettes de leurs produits. Malgré ce nouveau Règlement, Santé Canada tolère toujours la présence d'ingrédients chimiques toxiques dans nos cosmétiques et, pour la plupart d'entre nous, le nouvel étiquetage ne facilite pas la tâche pour identifier les toxines.

Le 16 mai 2007, soit 6 mois plus tard, les membres de Action Cancer du Sein de Montréal (ACSM) distribueront des fiches de renseignements format portefeuille décrivant les principaux obstacles à l'obtention d'information précise sur le contenu de nos cosmétiques et proposant des moyens de remédier à la situation. Notre but est d'avoir des cosmétiques exempts de produits toxiques à travers une prise de conscience, un meilleur accès à l'information, des étiquettes de mise en garde et une réglementation plus sévère.

SVP venez vous joindre à nous mercredi le 16 mai à midi, coin nord-ouest des rues Peel et Sainte-Catherine pour la distribution de fiches de renseignement.

Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez contacter :

Carol
cjsecter@vif.com

Cosmetic Labelling Laws 6 Months Later: Are we better informed? What’s changed? We still have toxic chemicals in our cosmetics!

2007-04-29T21:11:00.001-04:00

On November 16, 2006, cosmetic companies were required by law to list ingredients on labels. Despite the new labelling laws, Health Canada continues to allow toxic chemical ingredients in cosmetics, and for most people, the new ingredient labels don’t make screening products for toxins any easier.

May 16th, 2007, six months later, BCAM'ers are handing out wallet-sized information cards that highlight some of the problems we face accessing clear information on the contents of our cosmetics, and how to respond for change. We are aiming for toxic-free cosmetics through awareness, better access to information, warning labels, and tighter regulations.

For more information, contact BCAM or e-mail us!

Hello again and request for articles, info etc.

2007-04-29T21:05:00.000-04:00

Back again and hopefully in full swing now. We'd like to get your help with the blog. Please send us your thoughts, ideas, articles, information etc. that you think would make great reading here.

The e-mail addy is: consciouscosmetics@gmail.com

We are going to try and post more regularly from now on, so please check back at least once a week to see new items.

And thanks to everyone who is visiting - we are getting visitor traffic now - yay!

Jeanne Rizzo - Cosmetics, Chemicals & Breast Cancer

2007-03-20T23:56:00.000-04:00

Full report and photos on this amazing lecture will be available mid-April as the author is off to Argentina first to assist in a women's human rights conference. Best excuse for being slow I could come up with!

In the meantime, you can view the lecture here:

McGill - Jeanne Rizzo Lecture

(CLICK ON LIVE STREAM)

Also - coming up in April, more information, more news & some information on websites where you can add your own heirloom cosmetics recipes to assist others in avoiding the less desirable ingredients in our commercially available ones. Keep watching this space!

Lanie Melamed Memorial Lecture: “Cosmetics, Chemicals & Breast Cancer” - March 13 Mars 2007

2007-02-15T19:28:00.000-05:00

(Version francaise à suivre.)

Dear Members,

We hope you will be able to join us Tuesday March 13 at 6:00 pm for the Lanie Melamed Memorial Lecture, “Cosmetics, Chemicals & Breast Cancer”. See below for the details. With the collaboration of two McGill groups, we have invited Jeanne Rizzo, Executive Director of the Breast Cancer Fund in San Francisco. Jeanne has been integrally involved with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

In view of the 6:00 pm start of the lecture, some of you may find it convenient to grab a bite to eat downtown before or after the lecture.

* * *

Breast Cancer Action Montreal, the McGill Women’s Alumnae Association and The McGill Centre for Research and Teaching on Women present The Lanie Melamed - Muriel V. Roscoe Memorial Lecture

Cosmetics, Chemicals & Breast Cancer

Speaker: Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., Executive Director of the Breast Cancer Fund, San Francisco
Date & Time: Tuesday March 13, 2007 at 6 p.m.
Place: New Residence Hall Ballroom A, McGill University (Wheelchair Accessible)
Address: 3625 Parc (at Prince Arthur)
Métro Place-des-Arts

Free admission
Presented in English with simultaneous French translation
Underground parking
Call BCAM at (514) 483-1846

* * * * *

À nos membres,

Soyez des nôtres le mardi 13 mars à 18 h lors de la Conférence à la mémoire de Lanie Melamed, « Les produits de beauté, les produits chimiques et le cancer du sein ». (Présentée en anglais avec traduction française simultanée). Voir détails ci-dessous. En collaboration avec deux groupes de McGill, nous avons invité Jeanne Rizzo, directrice générale du Breast Cancer fund de San Francisco. Jeanne s’est pleinement investie dans la campagne Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

Veuillez s’il vous plaît prendre note que la conférence débute à 18 h. Ceux qui le désirent pourront prendre une bouchée au centre-ville avant ou après la conférence.

******

Action cancer du sein de Montréal, l'Association des femmes diplômées de McGill et le Centre McGill de recherche et d'enseignement sur les femmes presentent la Conférence à la mémoire de Lanie Melamed – Muriel V. Roscoe

Les produits de beauté, les produits chimiques et le cancer du sein

Jeanne Rizzo, infirmière, Directrice exécutive de l'organisme Breast Cancer Fund (San Francisco)
Date: Mardi 13 mars 2007 à 18 h
Lieu: New Residence Hall, Ballroom A, Université McGill (accessible aux chaises roulantes)
Adresse: 3625, avenue du Parc (coin rue Prince-Arthur)
Métro Place-des-Arts

Entrée gratuite
Présentée en anglais avec traduction française simultanée
Stationnement souterrain
Pour de plus amples renseignements, appelez l’ACSM au 514 483-1846

Testing Finds Traces of Carcinogen in Bath Products

2007-02-12T17:33:00.000-05:00

The chemical mentioned in it is on Health Canada's Hot list— that is, not permitted here. However, this story serves as an interesting reminder of the things that do end up in our cosmetics...

By Marla Cone
Times Staff Writer

February 9, 2007

Some shampoos and other bath products still contain traces of a cancer-causing petrochemical that federal health officials have expressed concerns about for more than 20 years, according to test results announced Thursday by environmental activists.

All 18 children's and adult products tested in a laboratory contained 1,4-dioxane, and three had concentrations that exceeded the Food and Drug Administration's recommended limit, says the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a San Francisco-based coalition of eight national environmental and health advocacy organizations.

The chemical is not an additive, but an unintended byproduct during manufacture of some formulations.

The tests, conducted by a Santa Fe Springs laboratory, were commissioned by David Steinman of Topanga, publisher of Healthy Living magazine, and included in his new book outlining steps that consumers can take to protect the environment.

According to the environmental group, the highest concentrations, 23 parts per million, were detected in Clairol Herbal Essences Rainforest Flowers Shampoo and Olay Complete Body Wash With Vitamins, both made by Procter & Gamble. The highest in a children's product was 12 ppm, in Hello Kitty Bubble Bath, sold by Kid Care, a division of Cosmetic Essence Inc.

In 1985, the FDA asked the cosmetics industry to voluntarily limit the chemical to 10 ppm. But there are no standards governing it and no testing requirements.

Fifteen of the 18 were at or under the 10 ppm recommendation, with the lowest amount, in Mr. Bubble Bubble Bath Gentle Formula, reaching 1.5 ppm.

A probable human carcinogen, 1,4-dioxane penetrates skin, although much of it evaporates when used, according to FDA documents.

Cosmetics industry representatives say the amounts of the chemical detected in the products are safe, especially since they are mainly in shampoos and other products that are quickly washed off.

"Consumers should not be concerned about the levels in this data," said John Bailey, science director of the Cosmetics, Toiletry & Fragrance Assn., an industry trade group.

The levels are lower than they were historically, Bailey said, so "it shows the manufacturers are doing their job" and removing the petrochemical.

The FDA says in its cosmetics handbook that the problem was first reported in 1978 and that companies can strip the petrochemical from products "without an unreasonable increase in raw material cost."

"However, some cosmetics, detergents and shampoos may contain levels higher than recommended by FDA," says a report by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agency advises consumers to avoid products listing the surfactants PEG, polyethylene, polyethylene glycol, polyoxyethylene, polyethoxyethylene or polyoxynolethylene as ingredients unless the company has shown that they are not tainted with 1,4-dioxane.

The chemical was declared a carcinogen under California's Proposition 65, which requires warnings on products that pose a certain cancer risk. But state officials have not reviewed whether any products contain enough to trigger such warnings.

marla.cone@latimes.com

16 November 2006: BCAM hands out ingredients cards

2007-01-31T23:45:00.000-05:00

Is Breast Cancer Awareness a Marketing Sham?

2007-01-29T12:44:00.000-05:00

By Lucinda Marshall, AlterNet
Posted on January 23, 2007, Printed on January 24, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/46813/
[An earlier version of this piece appeared in In These Times]

After 24 years of shocking pink ribbons, it has become impossible not to be aware of breast cancer. But does all that thinking pink really contribute to "The Cure," or is it actually designed to keep us from seeing red?

Breast cancer is clearly the poster child disease for cause marketing. It doesn't kill as many women as lung cancer or heart disease, but breast cancer attacks the most visible symbol of female sexuality, and as the porn industry has amply proven, sex sells.

There is no other disease that we try to eradicate by going shopping. We are bombarded with all manner of wonderful pink things we can buy to raise money to help fight breast cancer. Everything from makeup to a line of clothing from the Ford Motor Company. Never mind that the makeup contains ingredients linked to cancer and auto exhaust contains known carcinogens, it's all for a good cause.

But in the opinion of Jaynse Ashley, who has undergone three surgeries for breast cancer, "We don't see little penis trinkets being sold to 'support prostrate cancer awareness,' now do we? I cannot adequately articulate how disgusting I find the marketing of trinkets, appliances, etc. on the backs of those of us in this battle. The contribution percentage is negligible compared to mark-up on the product. How dare they use women in this battle to line their pockets? There will be a reckoning and I hope I live to see it."

Much of the information that is spewed out in the name of awareness focuses on personal risk factors that we can't change, such as genetics and family history. The American Cancer Society (ACS) devotes its entire explanation about what causes breast cancer to genetic factors, despite the fact that by their own admission, only 5-10 percent of breast cancer is hereditary.

Only one paragraph in their discussion of risk factors is devoted to environmental pollutants, which it terms an unproven connection. Yet according to Breast Cancer Action (BCA), there are over 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use in the U.S., more than 90 percent of which have never been tested for their impact on people.

A new study by the World Wildlife Fund links pollutants to breast cancer because of what researcher Andreas Kortenkamp calls a "cocktail effect" of exposure to multiple chemicals that mimic estrogenic effects. In light of recent research that suggests a link between the recent dramatic drop in breast cancer rates and the decreased use of hormone therapy, it is urgently important to continue research into these effects.

As BCA points out in State of the Evidence 2006, "Considerable resources continue to be spent to encourage women to make changes in their personal lives that might reduce their risk of breast cancer. But many factors that contribute to the disease lied far beyond an individual's personal control and can only be addressed by government policy and private sector changes."

BCA urges the use of the precautionary principle in addressing the dangers of pollutants where an "indication of harm, rather than definitive proof of harm, triggers policy actions."

Yet despite all the ribbons and races, instead of a cure, we are left with many unanswered questions, not just about what causes cancer but also how we detect and treat it. Almost 10 percent of breast cancer deaths worldwide are in the U.S. despite our aggressive detection and treatment protocols. Women are advised by organizations such as the American Cancer Society and the Komen Foundation to get annual mammograms starting at the age of 40.

By contrast England, Canada and Australia only recommend routine mammograms every few years after the age of 50 and not at all for younger women unless there is a specific cause for concern. According to Breast Cancer Australia, the national organization that administers mammograms in Australia, "At this point in time, available scientific evidence does not justify a national mammographic screening program which would actively recruit women ages 40-49 years."

Recent research by the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark also raises questions about the effectiveness of mammography. In a study of 2000 women, they found that one woman would have her life prolonged but 10 would undergo unnecessary treatment and 200 women would experience unnecessary anxiety because of false positive results. According to the authors of the study, it is "not clear whether screening does more good than harm."

Why then are American women still being advised to get so many mammograms? While we would like to believe that the medical advice we get is based solely on good medical practice, it is important to note that companies such as General Electric and DuPont, both of which manufacture mammography equipment, are also large donors to organizations such as Komen and ACS and also make products that have been linked to cancer. In addition, General Electric owns NBC, which leaves the potential of a conflict of interest in news reporting about breast cancer by NBC News.

The standards for treatment of breast cancer also raise many questions. Until recently, virtually all women with breast cancer underwent chemotherapy despite the fact that of those who receive chemo, 15 percent will benefit, 25 percent will get worse and 60 percent didn't need it in the first place.

Recent research has also found that the side effects of chemo are much greater than previously known. And for all the hoopla about drugs such as Reloxifene and Tamoxifen, we still don't know whether either drug actually prevents cancer or just delays its occurrence. AstraZeneca, which makes Tamoxifen, is the the primary corporate sponsor of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Like many other pharmaceutical companies, they are supporters of the American Cancer Society and the Komen Foundation. Clearly from the point of view of these companies, it is much more beneficial to fund 'cures' than to eradicate the disease in the first place or to support non-medical treatments such as exercise which has been shown in numerous studies to lower hormone levels and can reduce the chance of getting or dying from breast cancer by as much as 60 percent.

There is an inherent conflict of interest when organizations that provide guidelines for treating a disease also receive funding from corporations that benefit financially from the recommended treatment.

Breast cancer patients deserve a national policy where further research into the causes of breast cancer is paramount, and where standards of treatment and diagnosis are based on the health of patients, not corporations. This many years later, we need to move beyond awareness and start demanding answers.

Lucinda Marshall is a feminist artist, writer and activist. She is the founder of the Feminist Peace Network. Her work has been published in numerous publications in the United States and abroad, including Counterpunch, In These Times, Dissident Voice, Off Our Backs, The Progressive, Countercurrents, Z Magazine , Common Dreams and Information Clearinghouse. She blogs at WIMN Online and at Sheroes.

C 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/46813/

PVC - The Killer Plastic Online Cartoon - A Must Watch!

2007-01-21T22:38:00.002-05:00

This is great fun to watch but carries a very serious message about the "killer plastic" that lurks in everyone's home: PVC (vinyl). It is the Recycle #3. Watch this cartoon and you'll be tossing it out every time you clean the house from now on...

Video: Sam Suds & the Case of PVC

(You may need to scroll down to it if you have a smaller screen - it is currently the second video link, the first being the site's internal TV link).

"70% of PVC is used in construction, but it is also found in everyday plastics, including some children’s toys. Vinyl chloride, the chemical used to make PVC, is a known human carcinogen. Also, additives, such as lead and cadmium, are sometimes added to PVC to keep it from breaking down; these additives can be particularly dangerous in children’s toys. PVC is also the least recycled plastic.

Alternative: Avoid plastics that are labeled as “PVC” or “#3.” Look for #1 and #2 plastics, which are easier to recycle and don’t produce as many toxins. Use sustainable construction materials.

Best option: Take action to tell manufacturers to stop using PVC plastics, especially in children’s toys."

Quoted from: Coop America: 10 Things You Should Never Buy Again

Chlorine puts us at risk of cancer...

2007-01-21T10:45:00.000-05:00

This brief article discusses the latest findings that chlorinated water may present us with yet another cancer risk (oh, these chemicals are good aren't they?). Alarmingly, the chlorine appears to be worse when absorbed through the skin as the liver and kidneys haven't had a chance to have a go at it. So, chlorine in pools is suspect, any absorption through skin/minor inhalation.

Article: Chlorinated Water a Cancer Risk

ACTIONS YOU CAN DO:

1. Learn more - keep following this story. Does anyone want to become our "Chlorine Detective" and help us to continue following this story? If so, please e-mail us.
2. Look for salt water swimming alternatives; demand these (they are kinder to your hair & skin anyway)
3. Avoid chlorine where possible. Please leave comments of ways you think this is possible.

Chemical Exposure May Trigger Puberty in Young Kids

2007-01-10T17:42:00.000-05:00

October 17, 2006

Disturbing findings about exposure to hormone-like chemicals in today’s NY Times science section: it can cause early puberty in children. A preschool-age girl and her kindergarten-age brother each developed pubic hair after their father used a testosterone cream he purchased from the Internet. Apparently excess testosterone seeped into the kid’s system through ordinary skin-to-skin contact with their dad. And four school girls developed breast enlargement after using a shampoo containing placental extract and estrogen. Scientists worry that we may be seeing more incidents like these as exposure to hormones and hormone-like chemicals occurs via cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and even some manufacturing processes. In 1996, Congress told the EPA to develop a screening program to address the issue, but, according to one EPA scientist, the program has been stalled due to stonewalling by chemical industry reps who sit on the advisory committee.

Source: Plenty - Chemical Exposure May Trigger Puberty in Young Kids

Plastic: What's In It and Is It Safe?

2007-01-10T17:16:00.000-05:00

January 2, 2007

By Romana King, CBC News

We bathe with it, clean with it, play with it and eat off it. Plastic. It's a petroleum engineer's dream and a product manufacturer's best friend. It allows for lighter, tougher and better packaging and provides cheaper options for gifts and merchandise.

Yet, the very substance that revolutionized consumer goods may actually be harming us.

Plastic is raising concerns among researchers that in some forms it may be toxic and dangerous — not only to the environment but also to human health. While it's everywhere in modern society, there are options for those who want to minimize the use of plastic.

Toxins

While plastics haven't been definitively linked with health problems, studies show the prevalence in our bodies of chemicals used in plastic and the correlation between these chemicals and health issues.

One study, released in June by Environmental Defence, a national advocacy group, tested a sample of Canadian children and parents for the preponderance of 68 chemicals, all found in consumer products. The findings showed that on average the participants' bodies contained levels of 70 per cent of these contaminants. What's worse is that children had higher levels than their parents.

According to Kathleen Cooper, senior researcher at the Toronto-based Environmental Law Association, plastic itself is not the problem. It's some of the material used to make plastic that is harmful.

"Manufacturers all over the world use chemicals that soften, stabilize and create malleable plastic products. These chemicals contain phthalates and other dioxins that are known endocrine disruptors," Cooper said.

Add in toxic metals, such as lead, which is used for colour, stabilization and as a flame-retardant.

Lax regulations

"The use of these chemicals is totally unregulated internationally," Cooper said. "So even if there is a voluntary agreement in domestic markets, the cheap stuff from developing countries or export processing zones makes it on to our shelves and into our homes."

Among the more worrying materials for contaminate leaching is PVC (polyvinyl chloride), commonly referred to as vinyl. The chemicals leached during the PVC lifecycle include mercury, dioxins and phthalates. PVC is used in numerous consumer products, including adhesives, detergents, lubricating oils, solvents, automotive plastics, plastic clothing, personal-care products (such as soap, shampoo, deodorants, fragrances, hair spray, nail polish), as well as toys and building materials.

Organizations including the U.S.-based National Toxicology Program, the Environmental Protection Agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health agree that vinyl is one of only 52 chemicals/compounds designated as a confirmed human carcinogen. As a result, many groups, including Greenpeace, Children's Health and Environmental Coalition (CHEC) and the US-based Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) advocate a restriction or prohibition of PVC in all consumer products including toys, building materials and packaging.

Even though numerous studies, including a 2003 Center for Disease Control research report that documented human exposure to 116 chemicals, show heightened levels of toxins in people linked to PVC exposure, governmental and industry regulation in North America is minimal at best.

In the past decade there has been only one voluntary withdrawal issued in North America for toys containing one specific phthalate. In contrast is the European Union's response: Seven years ago the EU banned six separate phthalates in children's toys, and it continues to review and amend its list.

"Ultimately, governments have a responsibility to regulate things that impact people's health," says Brian McCarry, department head of chemistry at McMaster University and an expert on environmental contaminants. "The European Union is by far ahead in this capacity; they are more prepared to step in and use precautionary principles."

Consumer responsibility

In the absence of government controls, many advocacy groups are calling on consumers to get involved. Particularly, Cooper said, since the current method of regulation allows trade to trump health.

"People need to get upset about this. It has to be consumers voting with their wallets; consumers expressing concern," Cooper said.

By demanding alternatives — through letter-writing campaigns and purchasing power — consumers are creating a market for less toxic, more sustainable products. While the number of products made of toxic PVC can seem overwhelming, there are alternatives as the number of viable, natural and non-chlorinated plastic substitutes in the market grows.

Labels and packaging

At present, labelling laws do not require manufacturers to list all toxins used in the creation of their product. However, there are easy ways to recognize a PVC-based toy or product: Look for the three-arrow "recycling" symbol with the number 3 or the initials PVC, which indicates polyvinyl chloride. If neither symbol is present, then call the manufacturer's question/comment line (usually a toll-free 800 number) listed on the package or label.

Another clue to look for is the use of malleable or soft plastic. This can be found in toys, but also on clothing, bed linens and packaging. Read the labels and when in doubt, opt for a different product.

Toys

For those concerned about what's in toys but unable to do extensive research on what they contain due to the holiday-buying rush, pick toy manufacturers who opt for non-PVC-based plastic. These brands include: Chicco, Evenflo, Gerber, International Playthings (including Primetime and Early Start), Lego, Sassy, Thomas and Tiny Love. According to Greenpeace's Toy Report Card, Discovery Toys and Manhattan Baby also provide an extensive selection of PVC-free toys, but some products do still contain it.

Another alternative is to purchase toys made from organic cotton or certified sustainable wood. Companies that specialize in these fibres include: Brio, Lamaze, Melissa & Doug, Thomas and Woodkits, to name a few.

Alternatives to PVC

While avoiding all plastics is advised by some, it is not always practical. Thankfully, not all plastics are created equal.

Look for other plastics that are considered less harmful, such as #1 PETE, #2 HDPE, #4 LDPE and #5 PP. While these plastics also leach chemicals, studies suggest that their level of toxicity is not as great as with PVC products.

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE:

Ways to avoid plastic:

Packaging

Choose refillable containers. Glass, for example, can be re-used for food storage.
Choose packaging that's made from truly recyclable materials: paper, glass, metal cans. (Purchasing recycled paper products completes the recycling loop, too.)
Buy in bulk, whenever possible. It's the least-packaged option.
For wrapped foods, choose butcher paper, waxed paper or cellulose bags.
Bring cloth bags when you go shopping, rather than using PVC-based plastic bags.
Choose things made from #1 (PETE) or #2 (HDPE) whenever plastic cannot be avoided. These are the most commonly recycled plastics.
Avoid plastics that aren't readily recyclable: #3 (PVC), #4 (LDPE), #5 (PP), #6 (PS), #7 (often polycarbonate).
Avoid single-use, disposable packaging.

Other tips

Bring your own non-plastic container to salad bars, yogurt shops, etc. — any place you'd otherwise be served food in plastic containers.
Avoid plastic cutlery and dinnerware. Use stainless steel utensils and look for recycled paper products.
Microwave foods and drinks in oven-proof glass or ceramic dishes with lids. Never let plastic wrap touch food while in the microwave, as this is one way chemicals are suspected of leaching from plastic into food.
When purchasing cling-wrapped foods from the supermarket or deli, slice off a thin layer where the food came into contact with the plastic and store the rest in a glass or ceramic container, or in non-PVC cling wrap.

Pretty Ugly: Cosmetics Ingredients Linked to Breast Cancer?

2007-01-10T17:11:00.000-05:00

by Karen Barrow, ©2007 Healthology, Inc.

Even at the youngest ages, little girls find their way into their mother’s makeup kit, making a mess of lipstick, eye shadow and mascara on their face. And as girls grow older, they begin the delicate debate with their parents over what type of makeup they can wear and when. However, mothers and fathers everywhere may have one more tool in their arsenal for convincing their daughters to delay that trip to the cosmetics counter.

A new study suggests that women who begin using makeup at an earlier age and in greater amounts may have an increased risk of developing breast cancer later in life.

“There is growing evidence that we should be particularly concerned about the use of makeup by teenagers and children,” says Dr. Janet Gray, professor at Vassar College and creator of a new CD that outlines the evidence linking certain products and materials to breast cancer risk.

Don’t worry, you don’t have to toss out your entire makeup bag, says Gray. The results of her compilation of previous research indicate a strong association between some common ingredients in cosmetics, but not all. So, a smart cosmetics consumer can try to make smarter choices when it comes to picking out particular products.

The worst offenders, it seems, are shampoos and other hair care products marketed to the African American community. Many of these products have placenta extracts inside, which contain adult hormones, like estrogen. And for many years, estrogens have been known to increase breast cancer risk. Manufacturers claim that these placenta extracts are used in shampoos to help strengthen hair and reduce breakage. “You can go to any drug store and find shampoos that advertise placenta extracts,” said Gray.

These estrogen-laden products, when used in high amounts by young girls may also cause early puberty, which is a separate factor that can influence breast cancer risk.

But even avoiding these particular hair care products may not be enough. Besides estrogens, there are two chemicals commonly found in many personal care products that may also be putting you at risk—and they aren’t always clearly labeled.
Parabens are a group of chemicals used as a preservative in many personal-care products, such as lotions, shampoo, sunscreen, skin foundation and bath gels. They are used to prevent the growth of bacteria and other organisms in the bottle, but they also acts like a weak estrogen. In some studies, exposure to environmental estrogens, like parabens, has been linked to a higher risk of breast cancer.

The other indicated chemical group, phthalates, can be found in nail and hair products, including gels, mousses and hair sprays, as well as skin creams and lotions. These chemicals are used to help the skin absorb the product, but they have been linked to certain birth defects and cancer. Like parabens, they also seem to disrupt the natural hormones in the body, which in turn, may increase the risk of breast cancer.

Estrogens, phthaltates and parabens may collect in the tissue over time and slowly alter healthy cells. Gray suggests that this is why teens and adolescents may be the most susceptible to their ill effects as, over years of use, there may be cumulative damage.

“Adolescence is the time when breasts are developing, so this is clearly a time when exposure matters for developing breast cancer 20 to 30 years later,” says Gray.

Fortunately, some companies have begun making strides in removing these chemicals from their products. OPI, Orly and Sally Hansen, for example, have removed phthalates from all of their nail products. And other major cosmetics companies are following their lead.

“Reformulating to remove dangerous chemicals is so much better than arguing about how much of these chemicals is OK to use in nail polishes,” said Jeanne Rizzo, a registered nurse and executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Fund.

Gray suggests doing a little homework to figure out which products are safest to use. Some websites, such as www.safecosmetics.org, list those companies who have promised to remove these chemicals from their products. Also, try to use less makeup and lotion to reduce exposure and perhaps lower the amount of chemicals that will collect in your body overt time.

“Each time you put on lipstick isn’t going to cause cancer,” says Gray. “But it’s the additive effect of years of lipstick, lotion and other environmental risks.”

Also, educate teens and children about why wearing too much makeup or using too many hair care products may be harmful to them. “Makeup is a part of our culture,” says Gray. “But if you are going to use it, realize that you are putting chemicals on your body.”

Progress of REACH Legislation as at October 2006

2006-12-27T16:34:00.000-05:00

Latest news on the progress of the REACH legislation in Europe, from Rachel's:

BUSINESS ANXIOUS AFTER REACH VOTE

Background:

The draft REACH regulation (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) proposes that manufacturers and importers of chemicals produce health and safety tests for around 30,000 chemical substances currently on the EU market over an 11-year period.

The bill is now entering a crucial second-reading phase in the European Parliament with a final endorsement by EU ministers likely before the end of the year.

Issues:

The Parliament's chief negotiator on REACH, the Italian socialist Guido Sacconi MEP, received a massive show of support in the Parliament's Environment Committee on 10 October, winning 42 votes out of 63.

Here are the main elements agreed by the Committee:

** Mandatory substitution of the most toxic substances whenever this is economically and socially acceptable;

** a review of authorisations granted to these chemicals every five years in order that they are eventually replaced;

** a 'Duty of care' principle to ensure that producers and importers of chemicals take responsibility for the safety of their products when the risks can be "reasonably foreseen";

** the introduction of a European 'REACH quality label', to be proposed by the Commission after REACH is approved, so that products complying with the EU law can be easily identified by consumers;

** the promotion of alternatives to animal testing, and;

** support measures for small businesses.

Positions:

The European Chemicals Industry Council (CEFIC) said that the substitution of toxic chemicals as voted by the Committee would "lead to the banning of certain substances even though there are clear socio-economic benefits and no alternative is available". "This situation could encourage a lot of producers to move out of Europe," CEFIC warned. However, it also believes it is now "time that the regulation finally gets adopted", and joined the socialists' calls for the Council and Parliament to "avoid conciliation".

UNICE, the European employers' union, said that it was "disappointed" that the Committee disregarded the Council's views on substitution which are "based on the concept of adequate control of risk". It also called on EU lawmakers to sit down at the negotiating table. "The European Parliament, Council and Commission must continue their efforts to achieve a cost-effective and workable REACH before the plenary," said UNICE President Ernest-Antoine Seilliere.

Unilever, the Dutch company with well-known brands in the detergents, soap and food sector, welcomed the vote, saying REACH "constitutes a unique opportunity to simplify existing chemical legislation while enhancing consumer confidence in chemicals". Unilever now urges EU lawmakers in the Parliament and Council to move on and "find consensus" on a final version of REACH "that truly serves the interests of European Consumers".

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) said it supported the Committee's vote, saying the substitution principle is "wholly in line with European Carcinogens Directive 2004/37/EC which requires employers to replace these dangerous substances where a safer alternative is available".

Environmental groups WWF and Greenpeace -- together with women's, health and consumer organisations, welcomed the vote was "a vital step towards protecting health and the environment from chemical contamination". For them, the vote "sends a strong message back to the [EU Council of Ministers] that MEPs remain determined that chemicals of very high concern should be replaced with safer alternatives whenever possible". They said a legal obligation to do so would only "drive innovation" in safer chemicals, not hamper industrial activity.

WWF also welcomed the inclusion of a "duty of care" principle to make chemical producers responsible for the safety of their products, as well as the Committee's backing for more information for consumers about chemicals in everyday products.

Latest & next steps:

14 November 2006: Expected vote in Parliament plenary.

4 December 2006: Probable vote in Council (Competitiveness) and final approval of REACH.

If the Parliament and Council fail to agree, a special Conciliation
Committee will be convened to iron out remaining differences.

Rachel's Precaution Reporter #59
"Foresight and Precaution, in the News and in the World"
Wednesday, October 11, 2006.

Bisphenol A May Trigger Human Breast Cancer

2006-12-27T16:26:00.001-05:00

Report: December 6, 2006

Toxicology
Bisphenol A May Trigger Human Breast Cancer
Study in rats provides strongest case yet against common environmental chemical
by: Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News

A new study finds the strongest evidence yet for the hypothesis that widespread environmental exposure to bisphenol A during fetal life causes breast cancer in adult women. The research, led by Ana M. Soto, professor of anatomy and cellular biology at Tufts University School of Medicine, in Boston, was published Dec. 6 in the online edition of Reproductive Toxicology (DOI: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2006.10.002).

Soto and her colleagues exposed pregnant rats to bisphenol A at doses ranging from 2.5 to 1,000 µg per kg of body weight per day. By the time the pups exposed at the lowest dose reached the equivalent of puberty (50 days old), about 25% of their mammary ducts had precancerous lesions, a proportion three to four times higher than among the nonexposed controls. Mammary ducts from all other exposure groups showed elevated levels of lesions. Cancerous lesions were found in the mammary glands of one-third of the rats exposed to 250 µg/kg/day.

Bisphenol A, a known estrogenic compound, is ubiquitous in the environment. Many people receive exposures of about 2.5 µg/kg/day, and mammary gland development in rats and humans is very similar. Therefore, Soto says, "bisphenol A could be one factor causing the increase in breast cancer incidence over the past 50 years."

Bisphenol A is used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. It is found in many food and beverage containers, including baby bottles. It is also found in canned food linings and dental composites, and it leaches from all of these products. In one study, Soto notes, urine samples from 95% of the human subjects contained the chemical.

According to Soto, a large body of previous research suggests bisphenol A might cause breast cancer. One study shows that the daughters of women who took the potent synthetic nonsteroidal estrogen diethylstilbestrol (DES) during their pregnancies between 1948 and 1971 have 2.5 times the normal incidence of breast cancer. Bisphenol A, which is structurally similar to DES, may act by a similar mechanism, she explains.

"What is important to note is that Soto's research is not a one-shot finding," says Frederick vom Saal, professor of biology at the University of Missouri. "It follows five years of research demonstrating precancerous changes in the mammary glands of mice with prenatal bisphenol A exposure. Now, Soto has switched to the rat, which is considered a much better animal model for studying human carcinogenesis."

The Environmental Protection Agency has set a safe human intake dose of 50 µg/kg/day for bisphenol A. "On the basis of the effects observed in recent studies, this seems to be an unsafe level," Soto says.

Chemical & Engineering News
ISSN 0009-2347
Copyright © 2006 American Chemical Society

BCAM's "Prevention is the Cure" March & Toxic Dump

2006-09-17T10:36:00.001-04:00

Participants marching

On September 16th (Saturday), at 2 pm, BCAM members gathered at Norman Bethune Square, Montreal, to commence our march and toxic dump. The march was entitled "Prevention is the Cure", reflecting our belief that preventing the release of carcinogenic ingredients in the first place is the real cure for cancer.

Participants marching

Participants in the march carried signs and banners with such messages as "Breast Cancer Doesn't Have to Happen", "Breast Cancer Prevention is for Everyone", "Use Toxin-Free Cosmetics", "Arrêtez le cancer du sein avant qu'il ne commence", Le cancer du sein ne doit pas nécessairement se manifester", etc.

Our signs lined up after the march

The march went from place Norman Bethune, down Guy, along Ste-Catherine and finished at the YWCA (Y des femmes) on Rene-Levesque and Crescent. On the way, participants handed out leaflets to people on the streets, spoke to people and rattled little prescription bottles with beans inside to make a pleasant cacophony as we walked along. People on the street and in cars were taking notice, commenting on the messages on the signs and many were happy to take the leaflets handed out.

Signing the letters to cosmetics companies

Once assembled in the Y, everyone was encouraged to sign letters asking Avon, Estée Lauder, Unilver and Johnson & Johnson to remove carcinogenic chemicals from their cosmetics. This was highly successful, with the participants waiting in lines to sign up.

De Anne Smith's performance

De Anne Smith treated everyone to some spirit-raising humour with her wonderful performance which was well received by the participants. Following this performance, Abby Lippman gave a rousing speech on prevention as the cure, bringing cheers and clapping from the audience with her succinct and pointed commentary on the chemicals that we shouldn't have to be subjected to.

Abby Lipman

In addition to the march, we had a toxic dump. This was a bin with larger-than-life sized cosmetic art pieces placed into it, followed by a ceremonial dumping of the real stuff - meaning: Deodorants, lipsticks, shampoos, perfumes, hand and face creams, eye shadows, mascara, hair dyes, toothpaste etc. Participants threw these products into the bin to dispose of them in a demonstration of our willingness to stamp out carcinogenic chemical contaminants in our cosmetics.

Our larger-than-life cosmetics

Just some of the chemicals targeted in cosmetics included: parabens, pthalates, benzyl violet and formadelhyde.

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE:

1. Check out our march:.

And:

2. Think about the following facts, which were handed out on a leaflet at the march:

One in 9 Canadian women will be diagnosed with cancer in her lifetime

Some cosmetic ingredients may increase the risk for breast cancer

Less than 5% of money raised for breast cancer research goes towards research for prevention

Demand that we change these terrible facts!

3. Think about what you can do to make a difference:

Read our blog and contribute to it.

Check your ingredients. If you can't pronounce them, they're probably not worth using. If you don't know what the ingredient is, either find out or choose not to use it. See Safe Cosmetics for a complete ingredients list for thousands of common cosmetic products.

Write to Avon, Unilver, Johnson & Johnson, Estée Lauder and other cosmetics companies and demand that they remove known and suspected carcinogenic ingredients from their products.

Attend our future events focused on making a change to the ingredients we put on and in our bodies.

The famous bin

What's Happening with this Blog? And what do you want from it?

2006-08-02T18:31:00.001-04:00

We are receiving a few hits on this blog. We want you to come back, so we'd like to let you know that this blog will be functioning fully from the end of September 2006. Until then, summer break is intervening, so please be patient! :-)

If you have any ideas, suggestions or comments to contribute in the meantime, please do so on this post. It will help guide us in the sorts of things you are seeking out of this blog. Please see our Information/FAQs page for an idea of how we see this blog evolving.

Please also let your family, friends and colleagues know about this blog. The more people participating in its evolution, the better.

Health Canada to Review 22 Chemicals in Cosmetics in Canada - August 1st 2006

2006-08-02T18:31:00.000-04:00

Health Canada is launching a review of 22 chemicals found in cosmetics in Canada that were recently banned by the European Union because they're considered unsafe to humans and may increase the risk of cancer.

Several of these chemicals are widely used in cosmetics sold in Canada, including one ingredient, Acid Orange 24, that is found in 130 cosmetics.

Emily Felisatti, senior regulatory officer in the cosmetics division at Health Canada's Consumer Product Safety Bureau said: "We don't have a mandatory requirement for all cosmetic ingredients to be reviewed by us. It's a self-regulated industry for the most part." That's reassuring, not!

It also means that the federal government is not doing enough to protect citizens from unsafe chemicals that may cause cancer, according to Rick Smith of Environmental Defence, a national advocacy group. He believes that "We have some of the laxest laws in this area in the world. One of the major sources of pollution and human-health impacts is pollutants in consumer products, like hair dye and many other consumer products."

Recent bans on certain chemicals in the EU shows that Canada is tending to fall behind other countries, to the detriment of the health of Canadians. Products or ingredients are only being reviewed after a consumer complains or if another country bans them.

This is why our action campain on personal care products is vital!

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE:

1. View Health Canada's sites: Canada's Consumer Product Safety Bureau site
Cosmetics and Your Health
Health Canada's Cosmetics Program

2. See Articles on this News Item:
Health Canada to Review Cosmetic Chemicals Banned by EU

3. Check out what does exist in law so far: Food and Drugs Act

4. Other Pertinent Information:
CBC Marketplace: Cosmetics and the cancer connection

Interesting quote

2006-07-23T11:54:00.000-04:00

"In the factory we make cosmetics. In the store we sell hope." (Charles Revson, 1906-75, founder of the Revlon corporation, as quoted by his biographer Andrew Tobias in the 1976 book Fire and Ice. While Revson is not a great model for responsible and compassionate leadership, this quote illustrates well an essential aspect of business and selling and communications, ie., that people need to know what something means to them, beyond what something merely is.)

Finding Cancer Hotspots

2006-07-23T10:27:00.000-04:00

Finding cancer hotspots is not easy. For years rumours abounded that insurance companies held cancer hotspot maps detailing continuous and larger than usual areas with cancer. But what about us, the average people? How can we find out this information?

Well, here are some ideas:

Use the CEC data. While not specifically about cancer, there is a good report detailing the impacts on children's health of toxins and correlations can be made from this data to the possibilities of cancer clusters as well:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-02-26-hotspots.htm
http://healthyamericans.org/
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/prorep99/9899g_e.html
http://www.cbcn.ca/en/

This is unfinished. It will be completed as more information comes to light. If you have suggestions for other means of finding information, please leave comments. These will be moderated. Thanks!

Canada's New Labelling Laws & Personal Care Products - Will You Have Sufficient Information?

2006-06-30T13:10:00.000-04:00

In November 2006, there will be a new requirement in Canada to label the ingredients in cosmetics. Mandatory labelling will enable you to see what ingredients are on your personal care products. However, this is merely a first step. How will you know whether or not those products are safe? This is our great concern and we are going to launch a campaign to help the consumer unravel the meanings behind mysterious ingredient labels. More than that though, we want government to ensure that labelling is transparent to the consumer, perhaps in a way similar to medication drugs, so that you are aware of the known and suspected carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins.

And most importantly, we want companies that manufacture cosmetics and personal care products to stop using harmful ingredients, both known and suspected. We are not guinea pigs. Unless the ingredient is safe, it shouldn't be sitting on our skin, going in our mouth or seeping through our pores. Babies and infants shouldn't be subjected to any chemical ingredient that isn't 100% safe. Women shouldn't be in fear of their make-up. And men shouldn't have to worry about their deodorant or shaving cream. All of us have a right to know what is in our products. We also have a right to know what those ingredients mean.

We'll keep you posted on our intended activities.

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE:

1. Join & support our campaign - either in person or via the internet.

2. To read in more detail about the upcoming changes, see further information on the government's implementation of the new labelling laws, see Health Canada's information: Mandatory Ingredient Labelling for Cosmetics in Canada - November 2006

Cosmetics specifically: FAQs on Cosmetics

3. See the progress of Europe on chemicals legislation under its REACH (registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals) program:

REACH: Current progress on European chemicals legislation

4. Check our the cosmetics industry's take on all this: Cosmetic Industry Supports Health Canada's New Law to Require Ingredient Labelling on Cosmetics

5. Further articles:
LEAS article: Cosmetic Ingredients to be Labelled under new Health Canada regulations

Talcum Powder: Like having asbestos in your bathroom

2006-05-25T14:12:00.000-04:00

Do you or anyone in your family use talcum powder on a regular basis? Known as talc for short, this powder is used primarily for its supposed ability to freshen parts of the body, from babies to the elderly. Refined from talc rocks, talc is a mineral. Processing leaves minute particles similar to asbestos. It is found in a wide variety of products from powders to pesticides. Most common uses are baby powder, medicated powders, perfumed powders, flea & tick powders and some antacids. It is also used in a wide range of other products in smaller amounts.

Talc is closely related to the carcinogen asbestos. Scientists have found evidence of talc particles causing tumours in the ovaries and lungs of cancer victims. Frequent use of talc in the genital area has been strongly linked to ovarian cancer. Inhalation of talc has caused lung cancer and death and illness has occurred in infants accidentally inhaling baby powder.

Do you really need that talcum powder? There are other ways to keep yourself clean and fresh-smelling. There is no need for more than warm water and a face cloth to clean a baby satisfactorily.

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE:

1. Stop using talc. It is harmful to your health. There are better alternatives like warm water, clean clothing and good personal hygiene.

2. Women should not apply talc to underwear or sanitary products under any circumstances.

3. Do not use talc on babies or infants. Buy a set of dedicated face cloths for their diaper-cleaning regime. Use warm water and gentle strokes to clean baby. Air dry or pat gently with dry face cloth. Babies are much less likely to suffer diaper-rash when no added products are placed near their sensitive skin. Wash all used cloths in hot water to control germs.

4. For further information, see Risks of talcum powder.

Sunscreen - sun damage or ingredient damage? Weighing up the options

2006-05-25T00:26:00.000-04:00

Sunscreen is one part of our arsenal against increasing UV levels from the sun and the impact of these on our skin. But a lot of controversy exists over the use of sunscreen. Beyond the current spate of claims that sunscreens are not adequately protecting us anyway, and are promoting poor sun habits, there are the ingredients themselves. In many cases, the ingredients, such as parabens, are implicated in causing cancer. We will discuss this issue in greater detail later.

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE:

For now, see a well-known article by Michael Castleman in Mother Jones, May/June 1998:

Think Sunscreen Protects Against Cancer? Think Again

Blaming our genes for cancer is over-rated

2006-05-24T23:42:00.000-04:00

A news story published in New Scientist this week reveals that research into finding common genes that might increase a person's susceptibility to cancer is a "wild gene chase". Demonstrating that even the commonly cited BRCA2 gene variant linked to breast cancer is relatively rare in the general population, the story states that "[m]ost cancer is thought to be linked to more common low-risk mutations that may slightly increase sensitivity to environmental and lifestyle factors that cause cancer." It is further stated that studies trying to capture the elusive genes will likely fail and be hugely expensive in the process. Ultimately, the story concludes that it is not a good idea to raise people's hopes that there will be a holy grail of identifiable cancer genes, "since environmental factors are likely to play a far more critical role".

Think of the research money that could be better put towards prevention measures!

For the exact article, go to New Scientist Is hunt for 'cancer genes' a wild goose chase? - 22 May 2006