 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
 |
Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:24 pm  |
i just want to share this information with all forum members 
i have did my search,if this thread is already post ,please forgive me !
TOXIC TIMEBOMB
HOW SAFE IS YOUR BATHROOM?
Bathrooms are dangerous places, everyone knows that!!
Many accidents occur such as slipping, drowning, electrocution …. BUT there's another more insidious problem involving the Personal Care/ cosmetics you and your family use every day, and these are no accident.
Are you concerned about your family's health?
•Would you let them use potentially harmful ingredients on their skin?
•What about motor vehicle engine degreasers, brake fluid and anti-freeze solution?
Do they sound like the sort of things that belong in your personal care and skin care products?
Like most people your answer is going to be NO!
Brake fluid and anti-freeze are definitely not things we want on our family's skin, especially our children's Yet you may inadvertently be doing that very thing.
In fact, unless you are aware of these issues, you most probably are!
THE FACTS ARE SIMPLE
Many shampoos, conditioners, toothpastes, deodorants, cosmetics, in fact most personal care products in your bathroom, contain ingredients that pose potential health hazards as they contain known carcinogens ( cancer causing substances).
If you are concerned read on to learn more about how to protect your family's health .
THE TOXIC TWELVE CHALLENGE
1.SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE: ( SLS): one of the most commonly used foaming agents found in most cosmetics , shampoos, personal care products and bubble baths. Also used in car washes, garage floor cleaners and engine degreaser. (See below for toxicity/health dangers, a known carcinogen)
2.PROPYLENE GLYCOL: petrochemical solvent used as a humectant. A humectant is a substance that helps retain moisture content. It prevents things from drying out. Used in anti-freeze, brake and hydraulic fluid and pet food. Also in many cosmetics and personal care items ( See below for toxicity/health dangers, a known carcinogen)
3.ALCOHOL: High alcohol content particularly in mouthwashes, should be avoided. A 1991 survey of people with mouth, tongue, or throat cancers suggests the use of high-alcohol ( more than 25%) mouthwash contributes to increased risk of these tumours. Alcohol in high % is also found in most French and American branded perfumes and fragrances.
4.FLUORIDE: found in toothpaste and dental care products. Poison to humans when ingested over long periods, as it accumulates in our body tissues. If a child swallows a tube of fluoride toothpaste, it is so toxic they will have to pump his/her stomach.
5.TALC: is associated with increase in ovarian cancer and respiratory illness. Talc should never be used on babies both because of it's carcinogen and acute respiratory distress it can cause from inhalation
6. FORMALDEHYDE: used mainly as a preservative in thousands of cosmetics. It is known to cause eye, nose and throat irritation, coughing, asthma attacks, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, skin rashes, nose bleeds, headaches dizziness and most likely cancer.
7.DIETHANOLAMINE( DEA) TRIETHEOLAMINE(TEA) MONOETANOLAMINE(MEA) are readily absorbed through the skin and accumulate in organs. DEA, TEA & MEA are skin and eye irritants. When found in products containing nitrates they can chemically convert to form nitrosamines which are known carcinogens ( Samuel S Epstein MD Co- Author of the Safe Shoppers Bible one of the world's renowned experts on the causes and prevention of cancer.
8.TOLUENE: A very common solvent found in nail enamels, spray cans, hair sprays, hair gels, perfumes and fragrances. It triggers asthma attacks and can cause asthma in previously healthy people. Is also a neurotoxin ( adverse nervous system effects). Can cause liver damage and be an endocrine disrupter.
9.ALUMINIUM: Found in antiperspirants. Links to alzheimer's disease continue to be explored and debated. It was been identified as a neurotoxin which can actively interfere with many chemical reactions in the brain.
10.PEG: LAURETH ( ethoxylated) may contain dioxane which are known carcinogens , estrogen mimic, and endocrine disrupter.
11.HAIR DYES (Hydroxyanisole and Phenylenediamine)"DY(E)ING YOUNG" Regular and long-term use of hair dyes can cause cancer. A report published in the January 2 1994 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute shows that women who used black hair dyes for more then 20 years had a significantly increased risk of dying from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma.
The study was carried out by M J Thun M.D. and colleagues at the American Cancer Society and the F.D.A. Another report published as a abstract in the October 15,1993 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, showed that men and women who used permanent or semi-permanent hair dyes for 16 or more years had an increased risk for leukaemia.
Dale Sandler, Ph.D., and colleagues at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences( NIEHS) compared hair dye use among 615 leukaemia patients and 630 without the disease.
The researchers found that those who had used any type of hair dye had a 50% increased risk of developing leukaemia compared with people who never dyed their hair. Most of the risk shown in the NIEHS study was associated with permanent and semi-permanent dyes, which increased risk by 60% and 40 % respectively.
According to the study, long-term users who used hair dyes for 16 or more years, were 2.5 times more likely to develop leukaemia than those who never used hair dyes. Another study from Italy published in 1994 in the American Journal of Epidemiology, also suggested that leukaemia might be associated with the use of hair dyes.
The investigators obtained information on hair dye use from 634 individuals with leukaemia and 1161 controls. For both men and women, relative risks were slightly elevated for users of dark dyes. Among men, the greatest risk ( about 2 fold) was for a 90% risk for acute lymphomatic leukaemia and 70% risk for acute myeloid leukaemia.
Women who used hair dyes more frequently had greater risks for these types of leukaemia than less frequent users. A Greek study, published in 1994 as an abstract in the American Journal of Epidemiology, reported a 2 fold increase in the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma associated with the use of hair-colouring products.
Long-term users of black hair-colouring products had an almost 5-fold increase in risk. A study by Anastasia Tzonou. D.M. Sc., and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Athens Medical School, reported in the Sept 30 1993 issue of the International Journal of Cancer, suggested that regular use of hair dyes might increase the risk of ovarian cancer.
12. AHAs ( Alpha Hydroxy Acid): are used in most Anti-Ageing Creams Many users suffer severe allergic reactions or skin irritations The independent (15.11.95) quoted Graham Ross solicitor for claimants in a proposed case against leading cosmetic companies.
That certain Anti-aging creams made by Clinique and Elizabeth Arden have been prominent among the treatments alleged to have produced irritation. In 1994, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received more than 35 adverse reaction reports for AHA-containing products, and this represented 44% of adverse reactions to skincare products reported to the FDA for that year. AHAs are actually chemical acids.
Some, such as glycolic, lactic, citric and malic, occur naturally in fruits and other foods hence the term " fruit acids". The acids used most often in cosmetics are glycolic and lactic acids. Cream containing AHAs are used to "exfoliate the skin" and are generally said to be able to increase the skin's cell turnover rate, reducing the depth of fine lines and promote water retention in the newly emerging cells.
They work by sloughing off the top layer of the dead skin cells to expose brighter, fresher new cells beneath. According to the FDA , little is known about the overall safety of AHAs when used as chemical exfoliants because this is a relatively new application.
" But since chemical exfoliation exerts an effect on the skin, by causing the outer layer to come off, AHA containing cosmetics have the potential to cause adverse reactions in some users, and sometimes these reactions can be quite serious" warns the FDA in a recent report transmitted through the internet.
CANCER THREAT?
The latest news is that the FDA is now gathering experts to evaluate lingering concerns about the acids- including whether they increase sensitivity to sun rays that can cause wrinkles and even cancer ( Malay Mail 27.12.96) The cancer threat is reportedly an issue which has been a concern to dermatologists.
According to the Here's Health article, " if a cream can stimulate skin to replicate and replace old cells by new, it could also potentially create cancerous cells" These concerns have also been expressed by a leading New Zealand trichologist .
MORE DETAILS
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate( SLS)
This ingredient causes a major concern because it is so widely used. It is found in over 90% of all foam producing products ie cosmetics, shampoos, personal care products and bubble baths.
There is a great deal of controversy about how toxic it actually is. Yet there are literally hundreds of scientific studies highlighting its toxicity. The reason it is so widely used, is because it is a cheap foaming agent.
These concerns are made repeatedly in the information on SLS: Readily penetrates the skin. SLS can accumulate in our body tissue. It can penetrate into the eyes, brain, kidneys etc, through our skin. SLS can damage the immune system causing separation of skin layers and severe irritation of the skin.
On the scalp, long term exposure to SLS can cause hair loss due to corrosion of hair follicles. Animal studies show SLS could retard healing and children's eyes from developing properly. Children under six are particularly vulnerable to improper eye development.
Associated with development of cataracts even with indirect contact. In toothpaste SLS causes microscopic damage to the mouth tissues, which can lead to an increase in gum disease.
It is also linked to reoccurring mouth ulcers. Carcinogenic nitrates can form when SLS interacts with nitrogen bearing agents which are common in personal care products. SLS is actually used in clinical studies to irritate and sensitise skin tissue.
Do you find this disturbing ?
Why take the unnecessary risk?
Propylene Glycol
Once again a very common ingredient in personal care products with no therapeutic benefits and some very real concerns surrounding it. Why is it used?
Because it makes the skin feel smooth. Readily absorbed through the skin and scalp. Propylene Glycol accumulates in the heart, liver and kidneys ( causing abnormalities and damage) and weakens the immune system.
Studies show Propylene Glycol is capable of producing both primary irritant skin reactions and allergic sensitisation including contact dermatitis. It inhibits skin cell growth in human tests and can damage cell membranes causing rashes, dry skin and surface damage.
Significant number of reactions and primary irritant to the skin, even in LOW levels of concentration. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) warn users to avoid contact with skin. There are literally hundreds of ingredients which have concerns, both major and minor, surrounding them.
Below is a list of 20 ingredients often referred to as
DANGEROUS or HARMFUL.
Most can easily be replaced with safe alternatives.
These ingredients have the potential to be carcinogenic to humans
and have often proved to have been so to animals:
•BHA* Butalayted Hydroxianisole: preservative .
•BHT* Butalayted Hydroxytoluene: preservative.
•2-bromo 2-nitrpropane-1,3 diol ( Bronopel or BNDP)* in cosmetics
•Hydroxyanisole * used in permanent hair dyes.
•Methylene Chloride * ( hairsprays) Nervous system poison.
•Phenylenediamine * ( hair dyes) can cause blindness
•Saccharin * sweetener found in toothpastes etc may cause brain tumours
•Phenol * disinfectant in cosmetics
The following ingredients block the pores and tend to suffocate the skin contributing to acne:
•Animal Fat ( tallow) found in soap. May cause eczema and can be breeding ground for bacteria.
•Bentonite /Koalin
•Collagen
•Petrolatum
•Mineral oil
Ironically , these ingredients can damage and irritate the skin,the very thing they are supposed to be improving:
•AHA Alpha Hydroxy Acid
•Lanolin, pesticide contaminants
•Lye
•SLES Sodium Laureth Sulfate
•Ethyl & Methyl methacrylate* found in sculptured nail applications and can cause severe nerve damage.
•Ether* used as solvent. Skin irritant, inhaling can cause nervous system damage.
•Quatenium* preservative releases formaldehyde.
These items taken with permission from " Dangerous Beauty, Cosmetics and Personal Care", Peter Dingle and Toni Brown. (1999) Dr Dingle states that these ingredients are some of the ones which should be totally avoided, because they have the potential to cause multiple and serious adverse effects to your health.
· Don't make the mistake of judging the safety of the product by the price tag. Both the cheapest and the most expensive products may contain harmful ingredients.
Basically we can say, it it's in your bathroom CHECK IT!! Especially where children are involved.
The best thing you can do for you and your family is to find a Manufacturer genuinely committed to making safe products and avoid all known toxic ingredients.
We have the power to make informed choices.
Why are cancer rates soaring to one in three?
There are so many harmful chemicals in our present environment that we can not realistically hope to eliminate them all, but we have control over some.
We don't as yet have all the information regarding many of these chemicals. But we do have sufficient information about ingredients such as Sodium Lauryl Sulfate and Propylene Glycol, from animal and human studies, to conclude that they are not good for us.
It is important to remember that these chemicals accumulate in the body. Exposure today may not result in health problems for years.
-Why expose yourself and family needlessly, day after day, year after year?
-How many symptoms have to appear for you to do something?
Take preventative Action NOW!
Testimonials
These people have experienced first hand the damaging effect of our personal CARE PRODUCTS.
I had experienced psoriasis for 20 years, receiving relief only with cortisone cream. When I went to visit Australia I left my toiletry bag at home.
I had to use my nephew's products. I was amazed that my skin felt clean and free from itching for the first time in years. I later found that their products were free from some very potentially harmful ingredients.
I used to think I was using the best and safest product, but now I know better. Now that I know that there's an alternative available from companies committed to making products free of these damaging ingredients, I'll never change and also have not needed to use cortisone treatment again.
Rosemary, New Zealand
Having a dermatologist in the family I knew that bubble baths could cause problems. I gave in one day and bought some for my young daughter.
Her skin became itchy and she developed some eczema. I have learnt my lesson and avoid those products now that I know irritate her, and her skins stays fine. Sally, Brisbane Australia
I always had thick, luxuriant hair that people were often complimenting me on. I was dismayed to find it was gradually thinning, losing its lustre and becoming burnt out.
When I found out about the harsh ingredients, some even dangerous to our health, in even very expensive shampoos etc, I changed brands. My hair is now back to its former state and I am getting the compliments again.
I look back at old photos and feel angry that my hair looked so terrible for such an unnecessary reason. I am extremely grateful I found an alternative .My hair is manageable at all times.
The health of my family and myself is very important to me . I now have peace of mind.
Gordana, Melbourne Australia
For many years I suffered with extreme dermatitis on my arms, legs and face. My hands were so bad that the knuckles would bleed when I made a fist. After trying many creams, lotions, pills and diets to no avail, I had really lost hope.
About 2 months ago I was made aware that ordinary shampoos, soaps etc that I had been using may actually contain ingredients that were toxic. I switched brands and was amazed at the results.
Within weeks my skin and, in particular, my hands were better than they had been in many years. Now my skin looks fine, but I am very careful about the things I use on my skin. I will always be grateful for that information.
Scott, New Zealand.
For many years my gums had been deteriorating. They were receding quite dramatically and bleeding a lot. The roots of my teeth were becoming exposed and I had resigned myself to losing my teeth at an early age.
I found out that products were available that did not contain SLS or other potentially harmful ingredients. When I began using these personal products the change in my gums was dramatic.
The bleeding has stopped and the gums have changed from red to a healthy pink. I also feel the gums are gradually growing back. It seems incredible that other toothpastes were actually contributing to the problem. I'm very grateful I've found an alternative.
Paul, Caboolture Australia.
How is it possible THAT this is happening?
Trusting in authorities ' looking after us' is not going to help us in the long run it's like believing in the tooth fairy. We need to WAKE UP and take personal responsibility for your own health.
Look at how the authorities worldwide have looked after us with Tobacco and Asbestos and how they are looking after us with AIDs and Cancer Drugs .
The legislation regarding these products is incomplete and does not protect you from the use or misuse of these chemicals.
The public does not have access to basic information on the health effects of these chemicals ( most adverse health reports are hidden for decades, while thousands or millions die from the damaging effects of these chemicals as did with tobacco/asbestos reports for decades )
Big multinationals and consequently governments are driven by self interest :
Profits , Greed and Ego.
They will do what they can get away with legally to maximise profits They use these harmful ingredients because they're cheap and they can, and will until legislators either ban them or require honest labelling.
In the USA labelling regulations are stricter than the joint Australian / New Zealand labelling laws.
Here is what is required in the USA on a typical label for toothpaste you can buy in Australia/ New Zealand.
TOOTHPASTE WARNING LABEL:
Children 2-6 years; use only a pea sized amount and supervise child's brushing and rinsing ( to minimize swallowing) Under 2 yrs ask your dentist or physician. WARNING; Keep out of reach of children under 6 yrs of age. In case of accidental ingestion seek professional assistance or contact a poison control center immediately
You have to wonder why such a product is allowed to be sold at all in the U.S.A or any where in the world , It doesn't sound a very safe thing to put into your mouth does it?
THE CHOICE IS YOURS...
•BECOME A WISE CONSUMER
•AVOID UNNECESSARY PRODUCTS
•VOTE WITH YOUR SHOPPING DOLLARS
•ENCOURAGE COMPANIES TO MAKE SAFER PRODUCTS
•READ LABELS & BECOME EMPOWERED TO MAKE SAFE CHOICES
•MAKE SURE INGREDIENTS ARE LISTED ON THE ITEMS YOU BUY
•LOOK AROUND FOR MANUFACTURERS THAT ARE CONSIOUSLY MAKING AN EFFORT TO MAKE SAFE PRODUCTS
Check your bathroom with the above lists Now, and when you find any product containing the above mentioned ingredients THROW them OUT NOW .
TAKE ACTION NOW!
Today is the day to improve your health and find alternative products
THAT USE SAFE INGREDIENTS .
Email Jim
at HEALTH SOLUTIONS DIRECT
info@health-search.com for more information on Safe alternatives.
The above was taken from the following books and for Further Information read them:
"TOXIC TIMEBOMB Bathroom Secrets Exposed"
Beinformed Production P/L
www.beinformed.com.au
"Exposed " and the Consumer Association of Penang, Malaysia "Cosmetics & Personal Care Products More Dangers & Side-Effects" Guide ISBN 983-104-093-7
Bathrooms The Inside Story. Beinformed Productions.2000.video.
Dingle P & Brown T. 99 Dangerous Beauty , Cosmetics and Personal Care.
Steinman,David & Epstein, Samuel S. 1995. MacMillan. The SAFE Shoppers Bible.www.preventcancer.com
Winter, Ruth.M.S 1994 Consumer Dictionary of Cosmetics Ingredients .
Beinformed productions Books , News-letters, Health Brochures
Tapes and Videos'
are available from HEALTH SOLUTIONS DIRECT - CLICK HERE
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S.A. or the Ministry of Health in New Zealand. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
Disclaimer: This information is intended for educational purposes only. No information or product described herein should be relied upon implicitly to diagnose , treat, cure or prevent diseases . Please make your own conclusion or consult your health profession
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:31 pm |
| Interesting info, but are you also promoting an MLM? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:57 pm |
| marci65 wrote: |
| Interesting info, but are you also promoting an MLM? |
no,i just find it at one of health food website. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:04 pm |
| lotus003 wrote: |
| marci65 wrote: |
| Interesting info, but are you also promoting an MLM? |
no,i just find it at one of health food website. |
Sorry if I sound silly, but what the heck is an "MLM"????  |
_________________
moi: Fair skin, green eyes, dark brown hair, 20's |
|
|
|
|
Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:07 pm |
| Multi-Level Marketing? I think like Amway or Mary Kay. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:34 pm |
| That sure doesn't leave a lot that isn't bad for you. Thank you for sharing the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:48 am |
I think I commented on a similar post a long time ago.
(Regarding ewg.org)
Same comments apply. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:57 am |
| I plan to never get out of bed;problem solved! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:06 am |
Alarmist.
Breathing air can be bad for you.
Spring pollen causes allergic reactions.
Living in today's world causes cancer.
And there are smoking, drinking, stubborn old miners who die disease=free.
Please stop trying to scare people. Life is hard enough. |
_________________
tenderlovingwork.com, astonishing handmade gifts |
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:11 am |
| My contractor is 65, has smoked pall malls since he was 11. He is amazingly strong! Never been to the doctor....go figure. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:14 am |
| THANKS!I aprreciate your share! |
_________________
shen bei |
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:13 am |
More food for thought. (I will post a few links/articles)
Propylene Glycol
Propylene glycol (along with other glycols and glycerol) is a humectant or humidifying and delivery ingredient used in cosmetics. You can find Web sites and spam emails stating that propylene glycol is really industrial antifreeze and the major ingredient in brake and hydraulic fluids. These sites also state that tests show it to be a strong skin irritant. They further point out that the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on propylene glycol warns users to avoid skin contact because systemically (in the body) it can cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage.
As ominous as this sounds, it is so far from the reality of cosmetic formulations that almost none of it holds any water or poses real concern. It is important to realize that the MSDS sheets are talking about 100% concentrations of a substance. Even water and salt have frightening comments regarding their safety according to the MSDS. It is true that propylene glycol in 100% concentration is used as antifreeze, but—and this is a very big but—in cosmetics it is used in only the smallest amounts to keep products from melting in high heat or freezing when it is cold. It also helps active ingredients penetrate the skin. In the minute amounts used in cosmetics, propylene glycol is not a concern in the least. Women are not suffering from liver problems because of propylene glycol in cosmetics.
And finally, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, within the Public Health Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "studies have not shown these chemicals [propylene or the other glycols as used in cosmetics] to be carcinogens" (Source: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov).
Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is another ingredient "natural" Web sites have attempted to make notorious. They gain a great deal of attention by attributing horror stories to PEG. For example, several Web sites state the following: "Because of their effectiveness, PEGs are often used in caustic spray-on oven cleaners, yet are also found in many personal care products. Not only are they potentially carcinogenic, but they contribute to stripping the skin's Natural Moisture Factor, leaving the immune system vulnerable." There is no research substantiating any of this. Quite the contrary: PEGs have no known skin toxicity. The only negative research results for this ingredient group indicate that large quantities given orally to rats can cause tumors. How that got related to skin-care products is a mystery to me.
Paula Begoun
http://www.paulaschoice.com/learn/art.asp?ID=180
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate & Sodium Laureth Sulfate
Are sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) serious problems in cosmetics? I have received more emails and letters than I care to count about this concern. I believe that this entire mania was generated by several Neways Web sites, and has been carried over as if it were fact into other so-called "all natural" cosmetics lines.
It seems that most of this issue is based on the incorrect reporting about a study at the Medical College of Georgia. As a reminder, here is what is being quoted: "A study from the Medical College of Georgia indicates that SLS is a systemic, and can penetrate and be retained in the eye, brain, heart, liver, etc., with potentially harmful long-term effects. It could retard healing and cause cataracts in adults, and can keep children's eyes from developing properly." This is supposedly quoted from a report given to the Research to Prevent Blindness conference. While the report on animal models extrapolates concerns about the use SLS, it draws no hard conclusions stating that the amount of SLS used was 10% greater than that used in shampoos and done on animals, not people. The doctor who conducted the study and delivered the final report is Dr. Keith Green, Regents Professor of Ophthalmology at the Medical College of Georgia, who received his doctorate of science from St. Andrews University in Scotland. I had an opportunity to talk with Dr. Green who stated that he was completely embarrassed by all this. He told me in a telephone interview back in 1997 that his "work was completely misquoted. There is no part of my study that indicated any [eye] development or cataract problems from SLS or SLES and the body does not retain those ingredients at all. We did not even look at the issue of children, so that conclusion is completely false because it never existed. The Neways people took my research completely out of context and probably never read the study at all." He continued in a perturbed voice, saying, "The statement like 'SLS is a systemic' has no meaning. No ingredient can be a systemic unless you drink the stuff and that's not what we did with it. Another incredible comment was that my study was 'clinical,' meaning I tested the substance on people, [but] these were strictly animal tests. Furthermore, the eyes showed no irritation with the 10-dilution substance used! If anything, the animal studies indicated no risk of irritation whatsoever!" That lack of outcome is in fact why, as of 1987, Green no longer pursued this research. When I asked if anyone has done any follow-up studies looking at SLS and SLES in this regard, Dr. Green said, "No one has done this because the findings were so insignificant."
Resulting mass emails continued for some time, carrying on the SLS and SLES myth with a slightly different bent. Yet, according to Health Canada, in a press release, February 12, 1999 (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/), "A letter has been circulating the Internet which claims that there is a link between cancer and sodium laureth (or lauryl) sulphate (SLS), an ingredient used in [cosmetics]. Health Canada has looked into the matter and has found no scientific evidence to suggest that SLS causes cancer. It has a history of safe use in Canada. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that this email warning is a hoax. The letter is signed by a person at the University of Pennsylvania Health System and includes a phone number. Health Canada contacted the University of Pennsylvania Health System and found that it is not the author of the sodium laureth sulphate warning and does not endorse any link between SLS and cancer. Health Canada considers SLS safe for use in cosmetics. Therefore, you can continue to use cosmetics containing SLS without worry."
Further, according to the American Cancer Society's Web site, "Contrary to popular rumors on the Internet, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) and Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) do not cause cancer. Emails have been flying through cyberspace claiming SLS [and SLES] causes cancer... and is proven to cause cancer. ...[Yet] A search of recognized medical journals yielded no published articles relating this substance to cancer in humans."
That's not to say that sodium lauryl sulfate isn't a potent skin irritant, because it is (but sodium laureth sulfate is not because it has a different chemical structure that results in a gentler cleansing agent), and it's considered a standing comparison substance for measuring skin irritancy of other ingredients. In scientific studies when they want to establish whether or not an ingredient is problematic for skin, they compare its effect to the results of SLS. In amounts of 2% to 5% it can cause irritating or sensitizing reactions in lots of people (Sources: European Journal of Dermatology, September-October 2001, pages 416-419; American Journal of Contact Dermatitis, March 2001, pages 28–32). But irritancy is not the same as the other dire, erroneous warnings floating around the Web about this ingredient!
Paula Begoun
http://www.paulaschoice.com/learn/art.asp?ID=181 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:18 am |
Is Talc Bad For You?
Andrea Asks:
Is talc bad for you?
The Right Brain Replies:
No Andrea, talk is not bad for you. In fact there is no research at all showing any correlation between speech and the health of your skin and hair, therefore we believe that…what? Oh, TALC, not talk. Sorry, let’s start over…
Talc causes cancer.
Or at least that’s what some people say. It doesn’t take much web-searching to find an article like this one that claims talc cause ovarian cancer. This article sites a scientific study and then concludes, and we quote:
Researchers have found talc particles in ovarian tumors and have found that women with ovarian cancer have used talcum powder in their genital area more frequently than healthy women.
That sounds pretty scary! But we looked up the journal that this article referenced and when we read it carefully it’s easy to see that that’s not exactly the conclusion of the researchers. Let’s examine it to see what the researchers REALLY did in the study and what their results were*:
1) First, how was talc applied in this study?
Either by direct application to the perineal area after bathing, application to sanitary napkin, or application to a diaphram before storage. This study was NOT concerned with talc applied to the legs, arms, etc.
2) What kind of talc products were studied?
There were three types of talc containing powders in this study: a) regular baby powder (which contains just talc and fragrance), b) deodorant powders (which contain talc, deodorizing ingredients, and other minerals including silica, and c) “other” talc containing powders.
3) What did their results show?
The study showed that the dedorant powders had the highest correlation to ovarian cancer. Why? They theorize that perhaps it’s related to the deodorizing ingredients or to the silica which has been shown to contain mineral fibers like HAVE been linked to cancer.
5) What was the researchers’ conclusion?
The authors state that more tests are necessary before drawing a final conclusion.
The Beauty Brains Bottom Line:
Is talc bad for you? In the researcher’s own words, the evidence that suggests it can contribute to ovarian cancer is inconclusive. So, there are two key things to learn from today’s post:
1) Testing is inconclusive, but if you’re worried about getting cancer from talc containing products, don’t apply them to your “private parts.”
2) Be very, very careful when interpreting any article that makes a scientific conculsion unless you’ve read the source article yourself and you fully understand it. It’s very easy to for someone else to misinterpret scientific studies of this type and twist the results to make their own point.
*Source: Harlow BL, Cramer DW, Bell DA, Welch WR. “Perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer risk.” Obstetrics & Gynecology, 80: 19-26, 1992.
Two final comments:
At one time talc contained traces of asbestos fibers that have been linked to cancer. So any study involving talc should note if it involves the non-asbestiform talc or not.
There is also concern that talc causes lung cancer but we can deal with that in a future post.
http://thebeautybrains.com/2006/09/18/is-talc-bad-for-you/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:20 am |
DEA—Diethanolamine
In 1999 the National Toxicology Program (NTP) completed a study that found an association between cancer in laboratory animals and the application of diethanolamine (DEA) and certain DEA-related ingredients to their skin (Source: Study #TR-478, Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Diethanolamine (CAS No. 111-42-2) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Dermal Studies), July 1999, http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/). For the DEA-related ingredients, the NTP study suggested that the carcinogenic response is linked to possible residual levels of DEA. However, the NTP study did not establish a link between DEA and the risk of cancer in humans.
This study "found that repeated skin application to mouse skin of the cosmetic ingredient diethanolamine (DEA), or its fatty acid derivative cocamide-DEA, induced liver and kidney cancer." Besides this "clear evidence of carcinogenicity [only to mouse skin in high concentrations]," the NTP also emphasized that DEA is readily absorbed through the skin and accumulates in organs, such as the brain, where it induces chronic toxic effects. The report went on to explain that high concentrations of DEA-based detergents are commonly used in a wide range of cosmetics and toiletries, including shampoos, hair dyes, hair conditioners, lotions, creams, and bubble baths, plus liquid dishwashing and laundry soaps. "Lifelong use of these products thus clearly poses major avoidable cancer risks to the great majority of U.S. consumers, particularly infants and young children," the report stated.
It is important to note that this conclusion was a stretch. Taking results from high concentrations used on mice and extending them to long-term topical use by humans is not exactly scientific.
According to the FDA (Source: Office of Cosmetics and Colors Fact Sheet, December 9, 1999), "Although DEA itself is used in very few cosmetics, DEA-related ingredients (e.g., oleamide DEA, lauramide DEA, cocamide DEA) are widely used in a variety of cosmetic products. These ingredients function as emulsifiers or foaming agents and are generally used at levels of 1% to 5%. The FDA takes these NTP findings very seriously and is in the process of carefully evaluating the studies and test data to determine the real risk, if any, to consumers. The Agency believes that at the present time there is no reason for consumers to be alarmed based on the usage of these ingredients in cosmetics. Consumers wishing to avoid cosmetics containing DEA or its conjugates may do so by reviewing the ingredient statement required to appear on the outer container label of cosmetics offered for retail sale to consumers.
"If FDA's evaluation of the NTP data indicates that a health hazard exists, FDA will advise the industry and the public and will consider its legal options under the authority of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in protecting the health and welfare of consumers."
I can see why some people may want to avoid DEA in cosmetics, and it is easy enough to do so, but given the specific research data, the entire issue of risk seems rather alarmist. In essence, there is as yet no real evidence demonstrating that people using cosmetics with DEA are anymore prone to cancers than those not using them.
Paula Begoun
http://www.paulaschoice.com/learn/art.asp?ID=193 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:24 am |
Of Mice and Mandates
Animal Experiments, Human Cancer Risk, and Regulatory Policies
Executive Summary
Laboratory animals have been used for many years to determine whether chemicals in foods, pharmaceuticals, and other products might cause cancer and other health problems in human beings; and animal testing continues to play a role in determining the safety of products for human use. Yet an increasingly sophisticated understanding of cancer formation (carcinogenesis) — along with growing doubts about how confidently we can infer human health effects from test results in quite different animal species — has begun to change both scientific assessment practices and the legal and regulatory requirements based on them.
In the real world people constantly encounter many known carcinogens, both synthetic and natural, without developing cancer. These substances appear in air, water, and foods; indeed, some are generated naturally within the human body itself. Five hundred years ago the Swiss physician Paracelsus introduced the basic toxicological concept that a substance's poisonous capacity depends on the dose. Vitamin A, for example, is necessary in small quantities for vision but at much higher doses is toxic to the liver and heart.
This concept is often lost sight of in the interpretation of results from animal tests involving very high doses of a single test agent. A new perspective is warranted in light of the huge cost of animal testing and in light of the all-too-common misinterpretations of the results of animal tests with respect to their predicting of human health risk. In developing that new perspective, we should consider the following points:
Toxicity testing using animals plays an essential role in the development of drugs, industrial and agricultural chemicals, consumer products, food additives, and cosmetics. When properly conducted and interpreted, animal testing will continue to be a valuable source of information on the potential toxicity of chemicals to humans.
Differences in physiology and anatomy between humans and mice, rats, and other species often make it difficult to apply animal results confidently and directly to human health. Animal testing should not be viewed as sufficient, in the absence of additional supporting data, to predict risk to humans.
Some products have been labeled carcinogenic solely as a result of unrealistically high doses having been force fed to laboratory animals. Excessive focus on unrealistic, theoretical carcinogenicity risks of some products diverts resources and attention from documented threats to human health.
Improved means of interpreting animal test data — along with emerging testing alternatives, increasing understanding of the process of cancer causation, and changes in risk-assessment methodology — will permit a more critical, real-world view of risks to human health.
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.153/pub_detail.asp |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:26 am |
Facts Versus Fears (Fourth Edition)
A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times
By Adam J. Lieberman (1967-1997), Simona C. Kwon, M.P.H., with new chapters by Tiffany Dovey, Sagine Gousse, and Aubrey Stimola
Introduction
H. L. Mencken once said that “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Unfounded health scares, for instance.
Since its founding in 1978 the American Council on Science and Health has been dedicated to separating real, proven health risks—such as cigarettes—from unfounded health “scares” based on questionable, hypothetical, or even nonexistent scientific evidence. This report summarizes the most noteworthy scares of the past half-century.
In each case we review the charges made against a given product or substance—or even against an entire community. We discuss the basis for the charges, the reactions of the public and the media, and the actual facts as to what risk (if any) ever existed. We describe what the most credible scientific studies had to say on each topic. The scares are presented in chronological order, arranged according to the year in which each became a major public issue.
We have chosen these scares because each received widespread public attention in its day—and each followed its own course to closure in terms of public and regulatory response. For the same reason we have decided not to discuss certain current scares, such as the furor over breast implants, for which the final chapter has yet to be written. Some of the scares examined here led to products or substances being banned.
Some led to financial and economic disasters for the producers and processors of the falsely accused products. In other cases, after an initial panic, consumers shrugged off their fears.
It is interesting to note that the decisions to ban or to forget generally depended not on the relative magnitude of the risk but on the perceived role the products in question played in consumers’ daily lives. In some cases a very small risk was exaggerated, or the risk was not compared with the benefits to be derived from the substance in question. In other cases the available evidence showed no risk to human health, and the people making the charges knew—or should have known—this all along.
Widespread public fears and concerns over matters of health and safety are not new to our era, of course. But what makes these particular scares unique in comparison with the panics of earlier times is that these specifically involved the products of technology, rather than the natural plagues that claimed so many lives in the past. Often initiated by “environmental” or “consumer” organizations and fueled by modern mass media, these scares emerged at a time when Americans enjoyed better health, an ever-increasing life span, a higher standard of living, and a greater scientific understanding of the causes of human death and disease than ever before.
As you read this report, you will see common themes and patterns emerge in the accounts of the scares:
• The indiscriminate presumption that the results of laboratory tests involving rodents force-fed (usually via stomach tubes) huge doses of a given substance can be extrapolated to show that the tested substance causes cancer in humans.
• Ignorance of the basic principle of toxicology, “the dose makes the poison,” as consumers fret over the presence of even a single molecule of a substance that is not hazardous to humans unless it is consumed in large amounts.
• The acceptance—implicit or explicit—of the United Nations-conceived “precautionary principle,” which states, “where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent degradation.” 1 In other words, all that matters is whether a substance or a technology may do harm. If the risk of harm cannot be ruled out, then the risky product or activity should not be permitted.
• The fear of “synthetic” chemicals, even when some of those same substances exist abundantly, without causing harm, in nature.
These themes and patterns were all present in the first of our scares, the infamous “cranberry scare” of 1959. And they continued to pop up in almost every scare of the next three decades, reaching their zenith with the great Alar scare of 1989.
The response to scares in the post-Alar era has been more muted. This may be due to public “overload” and to growing skepticism in the face of regular frontpage health warnings, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s periodic admonitions against Chinese food, movie-theater popcorn, and other popular gustatory diversions.
The purpose of this report is not, of course, merely to reflect on modern society’s propensity to fear the unfamiliar. This collection of scare stories is meant to serve as a cautionary tale of a different kind. Scares that focus on trivial or nonexistent risks—and the media blitzes and public panics that follow—may serve to divert scarce resources away from real, significant public health risks. In this report we intend to show just how the American public has been manipulated by certain segments of the media, by a handful of scientists outside the scientific mainstream, and by a larger coterie of activists and government regulators, all of whom have, whether intentionally or not, frightened the public with hypothetical risks.
What we need is responsible, balanced, scientific reporting. Journalists must become more knowledgeable about science (and scientific reporting) so that they—and we—can avoid the sort of media blitzes and scares discussed in this report. In short, if we are to achieve the goal of providing consumers with an understanding of science—and of the real health risks they can incur—we need to bridge the gap between journalism and science.
It is ACSH’s hope that after reading this report, you, as a consumer, will carefully consider the next headlined scare that comes along—that you will stop to determine critically whether the headline describes a real or a trivial risk.
Remember that the worries such headlines can cause may be more dangerous than the “risks” themselves. Remember, too, that contrary to the assertions of hobgoblins, technology is making our world safer.
This article address many specific "Scares" - to long to post. See this link for further reading.
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.154/pub_detail.asp |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:27 am |
EWG Fears Toxic Toiletries
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.381/news_detail.asp
By Deborah Gopstein
That's toxic toothpaste you're using, or so says a consumer health advisory recently issued by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). The study claims that one out of every hundred popular cosmetic products contains ingredients identified by the government as toxins and/or carcinogens. This information, while meant to "heighten consumer awareness," actually exploits a fallacy and accomplishes little more than unnecessarily frightening the public.
The EWG, an alarmist group, constantly puts fourth empty claims to the media, lacking any scientific or medical basis, creating phony health scares. When collecting data, rather than relying on peer-reviewed research, EWG tends toward hyperbole. In the case of this report for example, information is taken from the EPA and other regulatory agencies about chemicals that cause cancer in laboratory animals.
As always, it is important to note that "the dose makes the poison." The "carcinogens" that the EWG states are hazardous are administered to animals in extremely high, nearly lethal doses. Now, unlike the EWG, let us consider the amounts of these chemicals in soaps, shampoos, foundations, and all-natural skin peels. The quantity of chemicals found in these products is minuscule, nowhere near an amount shown to be toxic to people. As explained in the American Council on Science and Health's peer-reviewed literature (see, for example, http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.195/pub_detail.asp ), rapidly improving technology enables scientists to detect infinitesimal amounts of chemicals in the environment. The same is true of cosmetics. There is no scientific evidence to indicate that trace amounts of these chemicals in cosmetics are detrimental to a consumer's health.
The EWG proposes introducing new regulations in the cosmetic industry. There is no need. Even naturally occurring chemicals can cause cancer in laboratory animals in tremendous quantities. However, this doesn't mean that foods containing these chemicals are laced with poison. Nor is your mascara.
Olivia James, a model for sixteen years, thinks that her son's medical condition, hypospadias, might be linked to the demands of her profession. Claiming that excessive make-up application caused her son's birth defect is quite a stretch, but the EWG sees it as perfect material for their report.
A report like this one from the EWG diverts America's attention from real health concerns like smoking. On EWG's website, http://www.ewg.org/ , consumers can get a rating of their favorite cosmetic products and see how dangerous each one's ingredients are. The ratings, a series of check marks indicating safety violations, cancer fears, and unstudied ingredients, are missing a crucial category: legitimate health risks. But then again, if real health threats were the purpose of this report...there wouldn't have been any report at all.
Deborah Gopstein is a research intern at the American Council on Science and Health.
Visitor Responses
Peter (June 21, 2004)
Great article. I ran across that EWG page the other day. As I was looking at the list of "Unstudied Chemical" list (I suppose a list of chemicals that might be harmful) I noticed: Sodium Chloride. Yup, nothing needs more study than good ol' table salt. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:36 am |
I can add many many many more articles and links but I am sure the point is clear.
All stories have two or more sides. Sadly the media often tends to focus on one – the side that drums up the most dollar sales, or attention.
This is not always the truth however.
I have no problem with anyone choosing to avoid certain ingredients. And I strongly support informed choices. But I do feel one should avoid products (if they choose) for valid reasons.
Not Scare Tactics that provide inaccurate misinformation. Or companys using incomplete information to make "fear" sales.
If one reads all the info as it applies and clearly understands why specific claims are made and the legitimacy of those claims as they apply in real world use, and still feels that they would prefer to avoid an ingredient. I support that choice 100% percent.
I do not under any circumstances support companys or organizations who use Scare Tactic Sales policies to scare customers into buying their product, that is not proven to be any "safer".
Just because an ingredient is natural not synthetic does not make it “safe”, good, or better.
You will find good and bad products both as naturals and synthetics. And many “Natural” ingredients can have more possible issues with quality control, consistancy, contamination and much less long term usage testing, not normally an issue in synthetics. Not that I don't love natural ingrediants also, I like many as well. I think you will find a number of great products in both camps, and bad in both.
More info on that here.
http://www.paulaschoice.com/learn/art.asp?ID=259 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:41 am |
Have you ever heard the true story of the two guys stranded in the jungle together, with nothing to eat but toxic berries?
For the longest while they just starved.
Then they decided they may as well eat the berries.
One guy died, the other was fine.
The guy who was fine ate them slowly, chewing them really really thoroughly.
The dead guy did the gulping it down approach.
The guy who chewed and chewed, activated his bodies enzymes and immunity that were able to neutralise the berry toxins.
We all have health and strength within us to deal with toxins, so long as we look after ourselves, and are not constantly compromised by stress, which lowers the immuns system terribly.
This world we live in, we have to do the best we can and love one another and chill out. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:05 am |
| catski wrote: |
Have you ever heard the true story of the two guys stranded in the jungle together, with nothing to eat but toxic berries?
For the longest while they just starved.
Then they decided they may as well eat the berries.
One guy died, the other was fine.
The guy who was fine ate them slowly, chewing them really really thoroughly.
The dead guy did the gulping it down approach.
The guy who chewed and chewed, activated his bodies enzymes and immunity that were able to neutralise the berry toxins.
We all have health and strength within us to deal with toxins, so long as we look after ourselves, and are not constantly compromised by stress, which lowers the immuns system terribly.
This world we live in, we have to do the best we can and love one another and chill out. |
Well said. A bottle of shampoo is never going to kill anyone. There are other, greater problems to worry about. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:49 am |
Tangal-thanks for providing the "other side". I didn't read all your posts since I am familiar with some of the sources you quoted but you did a great job.
BTW thanks for the link to the BeautyBrains! It looks like a good source of infromation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:45 am |
you guys, we also have to be on high alert about pickles, they are also carcinogenic. I'm going to stop going to delis where pickles are served because my health is paramount.
oh sh*t, smoked salmon is carcinogenic too. there goes my jewish heritage. I'm going to go lock myself in my bubble that is not polyvinyl chloride, because that's a toxic chemical. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:00 am |
| TheresaL wrote: |
Tangal-thanks for providing the "other side". I didn't read all your posts since I am familiar with some of the sources you quoted but you did a great job.
BTW thanks for the link to the BeautyBrains! It looks like a good source of infromation. |
Me too! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:03 am |
| Thank you Tangal, for posting the other side. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:24 am |
Beauty Brains is a fun site. 
Yes, I did not post all sources, to much. And I figured many probably would not read them - But just wanted to direct people on other places to look as well.
Good options for those who need a bit more to understand the issues. |
|
|
|
|
| Sat Apr 20, 2024 12:46 am |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
