Canary Cosmetics Reading Room

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/EnvironmentalHealth/tb/10269

By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: July 25, 2008

Reviewed by Dori F. Zaleznik, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

WASHINGTON — An environmental activist group believes that triclosan, an antimicrobial agent added to hundreds of everyday products, offers no  demonstrable benefits while threatening human health.

Best known as the active ingredient in antimicrobial hand soaps, triclosan is also used as an antibacterial agent in toothpaste, deodorants, laundry  detergent, facial tissues, antiseptics for wounds, and medical devices.

It is used as a material preservative to ward off bacteria, fungus, mildew, and odors in household items like toys, paints, mattresses, clothing, toilet  bowls, and furniture fabric.

Now the Environmental Working Group has called triclosan a toxic pesticide, with ominous hints of carcinogenicity, and has demanded that federal  agencies ban it from consumer goods.

“A toxic pesticide linked to serious health problems should not be in our soap or toothpastes,” contends EWG scientist Rebecca Sutton, Ph.D. “It’s  time to ban triclosan from all personal care and household products.” Scattered research supports some of EWG’s claims. Over the years, even the  American Medical Association has declared that antibacterial soap offers no  cleansing benefit over regular soap, and it cited the risk of antibiotic  resistance developing.

In 2005, an FDA advisory panel concluded that mass-marketed antiseptics are no more effective at preventing infections than washing hands with regular  soap.

But there has been little agreement with the claim that triclosan might foster cancer in humans.

“The facts and the science don’t back up their recommendations,” said a spokesperson for the Soap and Detergent Association, the trade group for  cleaning products. “It’s all hype and headlines, which is what we’ve come to  expect from them.”

The EWG is the same group that recently declared most sunscreen brands to be ineffective and said a common suncreen ingredient — oxybenzene — could be  harmful to humans. The EWG is funded by private conservation organizations  and most of its resources go toward work on purportedly toxic chemicals and  public health.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which shares triclosan regulation with the FDA, is conducting a review of the antimicrobial agent and recently  released its early findings. They dispute the EWG’s claims that triclosan  may cause cancer in humans. The EPA found, however, that triclosan’s  presence in streams and lakes has a harmful effect on marine plants.

The EWG denies being alarmist about triclosan. “Triclosan persists in the environment, breaks down into substances highly toxic to wildlife, pollutes  the human body, and poses health risks that are barely studied and poorly  understood,” the EWG asserted.

A review by epidemiologist Allison Aiello, Ph.D., of the University of Michigan School of Public Health, backed the contention that antibacterial  soap to wash one’s hands is no better than using regular soap and water. The  Michigan review also found that antibacterial soap can cause selective  antimicrobial resistance, at least in a laboratory setting.

The 2007 literature review of 27 antibacterial hand soap studies published in Clinical Infectious Diseases confirmed that regular handwashing in the  home is just as effective. That review determined that using antibacterial  soap did not reduce the amount of bacteria on a person’s hands, nor did it  prevent illness symptoms like cough, diarrhea or skin infections.

One of the studies reviewed found a reduction in hand bacteria levels when the participants used soaps containing triclosan, but that was only after 18  separate 30-second hand washes during five consecutive days.

Eleven of the studies Dr. Aiello reviewed found triclosan-tolerant species and cross-resistant to clinical antibiotics, suggesting that — at least at  the laboratory level — cleaning with triclosan products can lead to  antibacterial resistance.

But when the researchers examined four community-based studies to look for antimicrobial resistance associated with triclosan, it found none.

The Michigan researchers concluded that “further research is clearly needed to assess whether the emergence of antibiotic resistance in the community  setting is associated with the growing use of soaps containing triclosan.”

Triclosan was approved by the FDA in 1969 as a topical antimicrobial. However, until the past 15 years, its use was mostly confined to a hospital  setting.

“The recent entry of products containing antibacterial agents into healthy households has escalated from a few dozen products in the mid-1990s to more  than 700 today,” said Stuart Levy, M.D., of Tufts at a CDC Emerging  Infectious Disease Conference in 2000.

The EPA is examining claims of toxicity and carcinogenicity as part of a scheduled investigation into older pesticides on the market — including  triclosan — to make sure they meet current standards. Although the FDA  governs the non-pesticide used of triclosan — such as in soaps and  cosmetics — the EPA included those uses in its risk assessment. The agency won’t release its “Reregistration Eligibility Decision” until  September, but it issued a preliminary report that looked at various  residential and industrial risks of triclosan exposure.

Using available animal studies, the agency examined the risk of skin exposure as a result of wearing clothes treated with triclosan as well as  the effects of breathing it. The EPA also used data from National Health and  Nutrition Surveys, which looked at the effects that normal use of triclosan  products, such as toothpaste and soap, have on humans. It concluded that  household exposures are “not of concern.” Commercial risks are mostly  nonexistent, except for those who work around paper pulp as a material  preservative, like commercial painters.

To examine the carcinogenic effects of triclosan, the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee culled existing animal studies and found no link  between triclosan and cancer in mice or hamsters, but it detected an  increased risk for adenomas and carcinomas in rats (P<0.005).

“Based on the species chosen or the methods used in conducting the study, each of these studies raise questions as to the significance of the findings  and if there is real world association of the findings to humans and  animals,” triclosan manufacturer CIBA said in a public comment to the EPA.

But Anila Jacob, M.D., a senior scientist at EWG said the animal studies are still plenty of cause for concern.

“Do we know that it correlates to people?” she asked. “No, we don’t know that for sure, but why should we expose ourselves? We think there is enough  evidence out there to start phasing [it] out.”

In its letter to the EPA, the EWG criticized the agency’s preliminary report for completely omitting any assessment of the risk of children being exposed  to triclosan through breast milk and toys, as well as an assessment of  triclosan on endocrine system.

As for triclosan’s environmental impact, the EPA concluded that there are not enough acceptable studies addressing the toxicity of triclosan on  freshwater animals, but it did find triclosan in 36 U.S. streams, most  likely from trickle-down filtration, sewage overflow, or from sludge  wastewater from treatment plans. The presence of the antimicrobial in open  waters was found to pose a slight risk to aquatic plants.

http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080726/LIFESTYLES03/807260306/1059/lifestyles03
(Note: Canary Cosmetics products do not contain any of the harmful chemicals mentioned in this story.)

U.S. lax on banning ingredients that could be harmful to humans
By Maggie Downs • The Desert Sun • July 26, 2008

What’s in your makeup bag might not be so pretty.

Many of us scan the labels on our food to determine what’s healthy and what’s not.
Yet every day, we use multiple health and beauty products — from toothpaste to deodorant to hair spray — that are inhaled, absorbed through the skin or ingested. If you read the labels at all, they’re difficult to understand, filled with tiny type and hard-to-pronounce words.

But don’t be so quick to dismiss those ingredients.

Personal care products like shampoo, conditioner, lotion and makeup are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration — or any other government agency.

“Manufacturers may use any ingredient or raw material, except for color additives and a few prohibited substances, to market a product without a government review or approval,” says a statement on the FDA’s Web site.

The European Union has banned more than 1,100 chemicals from cosmetic products. In contrast, the United States has banned 10, according to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

For instance, it is currently legal in the United States for lipstick and other beauty products to contain unlimited amounts of lead. A ban to remove lead in lipsticks was defeated last month in California.

However, there is hope on the horizon.

Many consumers now recognize what you put on your body is just as important as what goes in it — and that is leading companies to follow suit.

The health and beauty aisles at major chains are slowly being taken over by healthier products.

For example, drugstore giant CVS announced in May the company will remove chemicals linked to adverse health outcomes from its house-branded products. They will replace them with safer alternatives.

If you’re wary of using beauty products with industrial ingredients, here are some items to avoid:

Lead and mercury: Lead is found in hair dyes and makeup. It is a toxin for the brain and nervous system and can cause infertility or miscarriage.

Mercury is found as a preservative in eye cosmetics. It is a toxin for the nervous system.

Parabens: Found in shampoos, commercial moisturizers, shaving gels, cleansing gels, personal lubricants, topical pharmaceuticals and toothpaste, parabens have been found in tissue samples from human breast tumors, according to one study.

Parabens come in many types, including methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, butyl-, isobutyl- and others and can mimic estrogen.

Phthalates: Found in fragrances, hair products, deodorants, lotions and much more, this chemical plastic has caused birth defects in lab animals.

Phthalates are often listed under the term “fragrance” on labels, so select fragrance-free products.

Petrochemicals: Found in anti-aging creams, lipsticks, baby creams, eye shadows, mascara, perfume, lip balm and more. Listed as petrolatum, paraffin and mineral oil, these products can cause allergic reactions and contain suspected carcinogens.

Placenta: Found in hair relaxers, moisturizers and toners. Placenta produces hormones that can disrupt the body’s normal hormone production and lead to serious problems.

Nanoparticles: Found in sunscreens, eye shadows, bronzers and lotions. These are extremely small particles that can be absorbed directly into the bloodstream and have not been tested for safety.

Diethanolamine (DEA): Used in shampoos, DEA is a suspected carcinogen. Also look for triethanolamine (TEA), which can be contaminated with nitrosamines, compounds shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Contamination is more likely if the product also contains Bronopol.

Formaldehyde: Found in eye makeup, mascara and other cosmetics, formaldehyde is classified as a probable human carcinogen.

In its liquid state, look for it listed as DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea and quaternium-15, which can be absorbed through the skin and nails.

Bronopol, often listed as 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, can contribute to the formation of cancer.

Glycol Ethers: Found in nail polish, deodorant, fragrances and other cosmetics, some glycol ethers are hazardous to the reproductive system and can cause irritation of the skin, eyes, nose and throat.

Avoid EGPE, EGME, EGEE, DEGBE, PGME, DPGME and those with “methyl” in their names.

Phenylenediamine (PPD): Found in hair dye, this is also called oxidation dyes, amino dyes, para dyes or peroxide dyes. PPD has been banned in Europe as a carcinogen.

Toluene: Found in nail polish. Can cause liver damage and irritate the respiratory tract.

Maggie Downs is a features reporter for The Desert Sun. She can be reached at 778-6435 or maggie.downs@thedesertsun.com.

http://www.physorg.com/news136035644.html

A University of Washington study of top-selling laundry products and air fresheners found the products emitted dozens of different chemicals. All six products tested gave off at least one chemical regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal laws, but none of those chemicals was listed on the product labels.

“I first got interested in this topic because people were telling me that the air fresheners in public restrooms and the scent from laundry products vented outdoors were making them sick,” said Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. “And I wanted to know, ‘What’s in these products that is causing these effects?’”
She analyzed the products to discover the chemicals’ identity.

“I was surprised by both the number and the potential toxicity of the chemicals that were found,” Steinemann said. Chemicals included acetone, the active ingredient in paint thinner and nail-polish remover; limonene, a molecule with a citrus scent; and acetaldehyde, chloromethane and 1,4-dioxane.

“Nearly 100 volatile organic compounds were emitted from these six products, and none were listed on any product label. Plus, five of the six products emitted one or more carcinogenic ‘hazardous air pollutants,’ which are considered by the Environmental Protection Agency to have no safe exposure level,” Steinemann said.

Her study was published online today by the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review. Steinemann chose not to disclose the brand names of the six products she tested. In a larger study of 25 cleaners, personal care products, air fresheners and laundry products, now submitted for publication, she found that many other brands contained similar chemicals.
Because manufacturers of consumer products are not required to disclose the ingredients, Steinemann analyzed the products to discover their contents. She studied three common air fresheners (a solid deodorizer disk, a liquid spray and a plug-in oil) and three laundry products (a dryer sheet, fabric softener and a detergent), selecting a top seller in each category. She bought household items at a grocery store and asked companies for samples of industrial products.

In the laboratory, each product was placed in an isolated space at room temperature and the surrounding air was analyzed for volatile organic compounds, small molecules that evaporate from the product’s surface into the air.

Results showed 58 different volatile organic compounds above a concentration of 300 micrograms per cubic meter, many of which were present in more than one of the six products. For instance, a plug-in air freshener contained more than 20 different volatile organic compounds. Of these, seven are regulated as toxic or hazardous under federal laws. The product label lists no ingredients, and information on the Material Safety Data Sheet, required for workplace handling of chemicals, lists the contents as “mixture of perfume oils.”

This study does not address links between exposure to chemicals and health effects. However, two national surveys published by Steinemann and a colleague in 2004 and 2005 found that about 20 percent of the population reported adverse health effects from air fresheners, and about 10 percent complained of adverse effects from laundry products vented to the outdoors. Among asthmatics such complaints were roughly twice as common.

Manufacturers are not required to list the ingredients used in laundry products and air fresheners. Personal-care products and cleaners often contain similar fragrance chemicals, Steinemann said. And although cosmetics are required by the Food and Drug Administration to list ingredients, no law requires products of any kind to list chemicals used in fragrances.

“Fragrance chemicals are of particular interest because of the potential for involuntary exposure, or second-hand scents,” Steinemann said.

“Be careful if you buy products with fragrance, because you really don’t know what’s in them,” she added. “I’d like to see better labeling. In the meantime, I’d recommend that instead of air fresheners people use ventilation, and with laundry products, choose fragrance-free versions.”

The European Union recently enacted legislation requiring products to list 26 fragrance chemicals when they are present above a certain concentration in cosmetic products and detergents. No similar laws exist in the United States.

“I hope this study will raise public awareness, and reduce exposures to potentially hazardous chemicals,” said Steinemann.

Source: University of Washington

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=40114

Class action against a top manufacturer of women’s perfumes and makeup has been given the green light to proceed in the United States.

The legal action is against the major luxury goods company giant LVMH and concerns lipstick produced for Dior which has been found to contain unacceptably high levels of lead.

Dior’s Addict Positive Red lipstick apparently contains double the safe level of lead and is at the centre of the case but is by no means the only  culprit.

The high lead levels were revealed following scientific investigations in October last year on behalf of the U.S. consumer group The Campaign for Safe  Cosmetics which tested 33 brand-name lipsticks and found two-thirds  contained detectable levels of lead; of those, half were above the lead  limit for lead in candy. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics says lead is a potent neurotoxin and is  linked to numerous health and reproductive problems and does not belong in  lipstick.

A call by LVMH that the lawsuit filed against it in November be thrown out, has been rejected by a Chicago court, which now allows the case to proceed.

Exposure to lead can cause learning and behavioural problems and is linked to infertility and miscarriage; it has also been linked to kidney damage;  pregnant women and young children are particularly vulnerable - lengthy  exposure can be fatal.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics says many in the beauty industry are reluctant to change their practice even though some are already making  lead-free lipstick and also says the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)  has been slow to advise the public.

Health Canada has also released a study of lead in lipstick, where 21 out of 26 lipsticks tested contained lead ranging from .07 to .84 ppm and one  product contained an alarmingly high lead level of 6.3 ppm.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which is a coalition of public health, environmental and women’s groups says it is possible to make lipsticks  without lead, and all companies should be doing that.

The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association trade group says that lead is a naturally occurring element that was not intentionally added to  cosmetics.

Two other class actions in the U.S. are also in the pipeline, against L’Oreal and Proctor & Gamble, the manufacturers of Covergirl cosmetics.

It is currently legal in the United States for lipstick and other beauty products to contain unlimited amounts of lead, while in Australia, it is  mandatory for cosmetics to list all ingredients on their labels and for  cosmetics containing lead to carry warning statements and safety directions.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/114795.php

A new study by UC Davis researchers calls into question the widespread use of two active ingredients — triclocarban and triclosan — in personal hygiene products, including anti-bacterial bar and liquid soaps. Using human and animal cell lines, researchers found that triclocarban disrupts reproductive hormone activity and triclosan interferes a type of cell signaling that occurs in brain, heart and other cells.

“Americans spend nearly one billion dollars a year on these products even though recent studies show that they are no better than regular soap and water at reducing the spread of illness. Now we have added evidence that, in some cases, the benefits may not be worth the risks,” said Dan Chang, professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering.

“Manufacturers of products containing triclosan and triclocarban should consider providing cautionary labels. There are new health-related data on these chemicals that consumers should know about, even if the research is in its early stages,” Chang said.

The current study was published online in Environmental Health Perspectives , a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in May.

The authors of the study are part of the UC Davis Superfund Basic Research Program. The group, part of a national network, is charged with assessing and understanding the effects that exposure to environmental substances have on human health.

“We decided to take a look at triclocarban and triclosan because these compounds appeared to be building up in the environment,” said Bruce Hammock, an Superfund Basic Research Program investigator and professor of entomology. The compounds are also increasingly being detected in human breast milk and urine, he said.

Triclosan and triclocarban were first introduced for use by surgeons and other operating room personnel to prevent bacterial infections. Today they are inexpensive and readily available, in part because the patents on them have expired. “We are not concerned about limited use in settings with clearly edvident high-value such as in surgical settings. It’s the widespread use that is of concern,” Hammock said.

Superfund researchers use bioassays to measure the kind of effects a substance might have on living organisms, using animal or human cell lines as proxies for human exposure. The four assays in this study looked at the effects of triclocarban and triclosan. One assay tests a second messenger system broadly used by cells in the peripheral and central nervous systems, a second examines another pathway important in protein synthesis and two assays evaluate the activity of male and female sex hormones (androgens and estrogens).

The first assay involved observing the impact of the chemicals on ryanodine receptors, proteins that serve to keep calcium levels in balance. Calcium is needed for proper cell signaling, especially in brain, heart and muscle cells where these receptors are found. Disrupting these levels could lead to alterations in cell function. Triclosan significantly increased resting calcium levels in the mouse cells used in the assay.

The second assay looked at the impact on aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AhR). Normally, this cell-surface receptor binds a protein that leads to changes in gene expression, the process by which information encoded in the DNA is translated into proteins. Binding of this receptor by the environmental toxin dioxin has been shown to cause everything from birth defects to tumor production. Triclosan exhibited weak activity in the AhR bioassay. Triclocarban exhibited no activity.

Triclocarban had been previously implicated as a new kind of endocrine disruptor in a paper published in December 2007 in Endocrinology by co-author Bill Lasley, professor of obstetrics and gynecology. Lasley’s group concluded that, unlike classical endocrine disrupters that bind to cell receptors, triclocarban amplifies the response of naturally occurring sex hormones.

Because of feedback loops in the body, amplification of these hormones could have the effect of depressing natural estrogen and androgen production, potentially impacting fertility and other hormone-dependent processes. In the current study, besides carrying out the AhR assays, co-author Michael Denison repeated Lasley’s experiments using a different human cell line. Denison, a professor of environmental toxicology, observed a similar amplification effect.

Given these results, the question for regulators is whether these compounds should be restricted until further testing can be done. To help answer that question, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency are sponsoring a scientific meeting for researchers, regulators and industry representatives in October at UC Davis. “We’re all getting together to explore where to go from here,” Chang said.

Chang said he feels strongly that consumers be provided information about potential hazards, though he is quick to point out that those who are not in high-risk groups may decide to continue their use of triclosan- and triclocarban-containing products. “I have not stopped using my gingivitis-fighting toothpaste. However, if I were a pregnant woman or the parent of a small child, I might check the labels of the products that I use and stop using any that contain those chemicals until we can work this out,” Chang said.

Other study authors, all of whom are at UC Davis, include Ki Chang Ahn, of the Departments of Entomology and Cancer Research Center; Bin Zhao, of the Department of Environmental Toxicology; Jiangang Chen, of the Department of Environmental Health; Gennady Cherednichenko, of the Department of Molecular Biosciences and Center for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention; Enio Sanmart, of the Department of Animal Science; Michael S. Denison of the Department of Environmental Toxicology; Bill Lasley, of the Department of Environmental Health; Isaac N. Pessah, of the Center for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention; Dietmar Kültz of the Department of Animal Science; Daniel P. Y. Chang, of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; and Shirley J. Gee1 and Bruce D. Hammock, of the Departments of Entomology and Cancer Research Center.

Funding for the research was provided by the NIEHS Superfund Basic Research Program, the NIEHS Center for Environmental Health Sciences, the UC Davis Center for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, and the Natinal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Center for Agricultural Disease and Research, Education and Prevention.

The Superfund Basic Research Program is a national network of university groups charged with finding solutions to the complex health and environmental problems associated with the nation’s hazardous waste sites. The research conducted by the SBRP is a coordinated effort with the Environmental Protection Agency.

UC Davis, which celebrates its centennial this year, is one of the nation’s top public research universities, with a tradition of service to the region, the nation and the world. UC Davis is a pioneer in interdisciplinary problem-solving, and its four colleges, five professional schools, more than 100 academic majors and 86 graduate programs provide a comprehensive, rigorous and research-based learning environment for students, faculty and researchers. The 30,000-student university has its main campus in the Sacramento Valley, near the state capital and San Francisco Bay Area. The UC Davis School of Medicine and UC Davis Medical Center are located on the Sacramento campus near downtown.

UC Davis Health System
www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20080711/HURBLOG/164347976/1224&title=Perfume_spraying_incident_leads_to_arrest
Published: Friday, July 11, 2008 at 3:27 p.m.
 
HOUMA, La. – The cologne-wafting woman local police believe caused at least two men to feel ill and light-headed was arrested Thursday, after being pulled over near the Hollywood Video parking lot on Martin Luther King Boulevard.

Patches Wegmann, 22, of 1449 Spanish Oaks Drive in Harvey, was charged with simple battery and unlawful solicitation after she sprayed perfume on a 26-year-old man’s arm outside a store in a Martin Luther King Boulevard shopping center, said Maj. Malcolm Wolfe, Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office spokesman. She was with three other men who were released and not charged.

The woman admitted to spraying cologne on a man Thursday and to spraying cologne under the nose of an 18-year-old last month in front of a Grand Caillou Road restaurant, Wolfe said.

But Wegmann also contends she did not intentionally hurt anyone.

“She claims she thought she was selling legitimate perfume and didn’t know it was harmful,” Wolfe said.

The June 9 victim told Houma Police officers an attractive woman approached him, asked if he was interested in buying some cologne and waived a sample under his nose. After the teen returned to his job, he passed out and was taken to Leonard Chabert Medical Center, where he underwent tests and observations. He was released later that day, Houma Police said, and no long-term effects are expected.

His symptoms included dizziness, shortness of breath and numbness in his extremities.

Thursday’s victim of the spraying, a 26-year-old man, reported that the perfume fumes made him feel light-headed and the perfume irritated his skin, Wolfe said. He was taken to Thibodaux Regional Medical Center.

“The case we had was nowhere near severe as the City Police had,” Wolfe said.

The woman was arrested by on-duty Louisiana State Trooper, who was flagged down near Radio Shack after eating lunch at Sicily’s.

Trooper Brian Harding said the victim’s girlfriend flagged him down and told him about the perfume incident. She described the perfume sellers’ car as a white Nissan Altima, which Harding said he’d previously seen when walking out of lunch.

“I think it was more I was in the right place at the right time,” Harding said.

When he went looking for the car, he turned north on Martin Luther King and saw it come out of a lot near Hollywood Video. He pulled the car over, told the driver to park at the video store’s lot and contacted the sheriff’s office.

The passengers said they sell the cologne in New Orleans all the time, Harding said.

Sheriff’s Office is still investigating the incident. At this time, it is unknown what, if any, noxious fumes are in the perfume mixtures.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=390
(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2008) Showing just how toxic common pesticides can be, six people in Gaithersburg, Maryland who ate potentially contaminated stew have been hospitalized with probable pesticide poisoning. Reports say that mint leaves from a backyard garden that were in a potato stew are suspected to have contained organophosphate pesticide residues.

Unfortunately, the media is reporting this as a case of failing to wash produce properly, which does not address the root of the pesticide poisoning problem—that pesticides are hazardous and their uses cause harm. In fact, when EPA registers pesticides for use in food production, whether in the garden or commercial agriculture, it does not disclose or warn the public about pesticide residues or require the washing of treated food commodities, and it does not point to the availability of nontoxic alternatives.

The Washington Post reports, “In a textbook illustration of the importance of thoroughly washing plants and vegetables before eating them, authorities said the people who ate the potato stew became nauseous and dizzy, in some cases suffering hallucinations and convulsions.” Washing produce may reduce residues and potential exposure to pesticides, however, pesticides are often systemic, either taken up into the plant through the root system or absorbed into the plant tissue after surface treatments. Organic gardening and eating organically grown food are the best solutions for stopping pesticide poisoning and contamination.

Organophosphate pesticides are extremely toxic to the nervous system. They act as cholinesterase inhibitors by binding irreversibly to the active site of acetylcholine esterase (AchE), an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission, thus inactivating the enzyme. Poisoning symptoms include numbness, tingling sensations, headache, dizziness, tremor, nausea, abdominal cramps, sweating, lack of coordination, blurred vision, difficulty breathing or respiratory depression, and slow heartbeat. Very high doses may result in unconsciousness, incontinence, and convulsions or fatality.

Despite numerous organophosphate poisonings of farmworkers, homeowners, and children, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has allowed the continued registration of these products. In some cases, such as those of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, household uses of the products have been cancelled because of the extreme health risks to children, but agricultural, golf course, and “public health” (mosquito control) uses remain. The cancellation of household uses does not restrict, however, the use of remaining stocks. That is to say, homeowners who purchased diazinon, for example, before the 2004 phase out, may still use this product.

Malathion, another common organophosphate, is still permitted for residential use as an insecticide and nematicide, even though all organophosphates have the same mode of action in damaging the nervous system. According to the EPA, approximately one million pounds of malathion is applied annually for residential uses.

Advocates argue that pesticide poisonings of this sort would not occur if the uses of these highly toxic pesticides were banned completely. Pesticide labels are ineffective in communicating the true toxic nature of products consumers falsely assume are safe. Beyond Pesticides advocates for the nontoxic care of lawns and gardens.

Source: Washington Post

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9746754?source=pop_section_news&_requestid=7058400
 
Is sunscreen essential body armor against cancer and aging? Or is it another assault on your skin? Here’s how to know what’s tops in the tube.

By Vicky Uhland
Special to The Denver Post

There was a time, not all that long ago, when the sun was fun and all you had to know about sunscreen was which one would make you more Baywatchable: the coconut-scented oil or the coconut-scented lotion?

Now we know the sun is full of death rays, and sunscreens are our body armor. Everyone from the Food and Drug Administration to the mom next door will tell you that if you go outside without a thick coating of white goo, you risk premature demise from skin cancer.

So you’ve adjusted your fun-in-the-sun routine to include slathering yourself in a protective layer of sunscreen.

But wait: New research has put a few chinks in that armor. Some clinical studies suggest sunscreens do not prevent basal-cell carcinoma and may not reduce the risk of developing the rarer, but more deadly, skin cancer melanoma.

Worse yet, the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit consumer watchdog agency, found in a 2007 study of nearly 1,100 sunscreens that 87 percent either don’t adequately protect you from the sun or have ingredients with significant safety concerns.

Short of spending your life in a darkened room like some character in a Tennessee Williams tale, is it possible to enjoy your summer days without fear of cancer or harmful sunscreen ingredients? Sure, if you keep the following tips in mind.

SLIP, SLOP, SLAP.

Australians came up with this slogan that encourages people to slip on a shirt, slop on some sunscreen and slap on a hat. Health agencies report that people rely too much on sunscreen when there are other forms of protection available.

But be careful what type of clothing you choose. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, a long-sleeved, white cotton T-shirt’s ultraviolet-protection factor is 7, whereas a long-sleeved dark denim shirt’s is 1,700, which amounts to a complete sunblock. A UPF of 15 or higher is considered sun-protective.

This doesn’t mean you have to wear a jean jacket when it’s 95 degrees. Unbleached cotton has a pigment that absorbs the sun’s ultraviolet rays, and silk or polyester with a sheen reflects rays, according to the Skin Cancer Foundation. You can also wash your clothes in SunGuard, a product from Rit dye that contains a built-in sunscreen.

KNOW YOUR CHEMICALS.

Sunscreens are regulated by the FDA, which allows only 17 active ingredients. Two of these are minerals — titanium dioxide and zinc oxide — which work by reflecting and scattering the sun’s rays away from your body. The rest are chemicals, which absorb the sun’s rays and keep them from causing damage.

According to the Environmental Working Group, not all these chemicals are created equal. The group analyzed nearly 400 studies and 60 government, academic and industry databases before issuing its report on sunscreens last summer. It found numerous studies showing that the most common sunscreen chemical, octinoxate, can act like estrogen in the body, increasing the risk of breast cancer and uterine damage.

But octinoxate is not as bad as oxybenzone, the second-most common sunscreen chemical, or PABA or its derivative, padimate O. Both of these ingredients may damage cells, disrupt hormones and cause allergic reactions, according to a variety of studies.

The least harmful active ingredients in sunscreens include titanium dioxide, zinc oxide and avobenzone, according to the Environmental Working Group.

Check out the group’s rankings at cosmeticsdatabase.com. You can type in the name of your sunscreen, scroll down and see how it ranks in terms of sun protection and potential chemical danger.

LEARN YOUR SUNSCREEN ALPHABET.

Sunscreens are rated by SPF, or sun protection factor, but that only tells half the story. According to the FDA, SPF measures the damage from UVB rays — the ones that cause sunburn. There is no measurement for UVA rays, which penetrate deeply into the skin, creating wrinkles. Both types of rays may cause skin cancer.

The FDA is considering a new sunscreen rule that would rate UVA protection using a system of stars, but that rule has been in the works for more than a year, and no implementation date has been set.

In the meantime, how can you tell if your sunscreen blocks UVA rays? Look for labels that say “broad spectrum,” or check the ingredients list for the four FDA-approved UVA blockers: titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, avobenzone (also known as Parsol 1789) and mexoryl.

SPF measures how long you can stay in the sun without burning. If you normally burn in 10 minutes, a sunscreen with a 15 SPF would protect you 15 times as long, or 150 minutes, assuming you don’t sweat or get wet. But that equation changes at 30 SPF. A sunscreen with an SPF of 50 blocks only about 1.3 percent more UVB rays than an SPF 30, according to the Environmental Working Group.

Even if the SPF promises a full-day frolic in the sun, the American Cancer Society recommends reapplying sunscreen every two hours or immediately after swimming or sweating heavily. The environmental group says water-resistant sunscreens buy you an extra 40 minutes after swimming, and “very water resistant” allows you to wait 80 minutes before slopping on more sunscreen.

NO-NO NANOS?

With their ability to block UVA rays and a lack of harmful chemicals, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide seem like wonder ingredients. But these sunblockers have a downside: They turn your skin clown white.

To get around this, many sunscreen makers either nanoize or micronize the minerals, which makes them so small they virtually disappear on the skin. Nanoparticles are defined as anything 100 nanometers or smaller; one nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. Micronized minerals are generally between 100 and 1,000 nanometers.

If nanoparticles penetrate the skin, research shows that they can create serious havoc, causing DNA damage and even killing cells. But the Environmental Working Group analyzed 15 studies on nanoparticles and found that nearly all showed no absorption of nanoized zinc oxide and titanium dioxide sunscreen ingredients through healthy skin.

Be careful, however, if you have scraped, sunburned, acne-prone or otherwise damaged skin, the group warns. Researchers also aren’t sure how nanos in sunscreens affect those with thinner skin, such as children or the elderly.

Although the FDA is considering regulating nanos in sunscreens, there is no way to tell whether your favorite brand has them. The nonprofit group Friends of the Earth lists some at foe.org/nano_sunscreens_guide/Nano_Sunscreens.pdf. A caveat about this document, though: Some products that do not use nanoparticles, such as Lavera’s German-made, nano-free, SPF 15 mineral sunscreen, are lumped into the caution category and labeled “Products may contain manufactured nanoparticles. Retailer will not provide information.”

Micronized minerals so far have escaped the scrutiny associated with nanoparticles and are considered safe sunscreen ingredients. But because they vary so much in size, they may not rub in well. If you don’t want to look Elizabethan, it’s essential to try any mineral sunscreen before you buy.

GO NATURAL?

Such stores as Whole Foods and Vitamin Cottage carry sunscreens that are labeled natural. But like any sunscreen, natural sunscreens have to use one or more of the FDA-approved active ingredients, so you’ll find the same chemicals in Alba Botanica as you will in in Banana Boat. But natural sunscreens may also contain ingredients such as black tea or broccoli extract, which have proven sun-fighting capabilities, and skin soothers like essential oils. They may also use less harsh preservatives.

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/20080627/n1

Cross-disciplinary research reveals low-level pesticide exposure linked to myriad of learning, behavioral and medical problems.

By Amanda Kimble-Evans

Rodale Institute’s researchers continue to work with a range of soil and crop scientists to evaluate the dynamics and benefits of regenerative organic farming. To extend our understanding of the benefits of organics for human health, we’re looking at the work of Dr. Warren P. Porter. Officially, Dr. Porter is professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. But the scope of his expertise includes environmental and molecular toxicology, conservation biology and engineering physics. Through a series of life events, a gift of intense curiosity and a willingness to follow the scientific evidence where it leads, he’s discovered disturbing scientific evidence of unacknowledged risks from non-organic farming products and techniques. His research interests include: impacts on organisms subjected to simultaneous changes in climate, topography and vegetation (as is happening due to global warming phenomena); impact of low-level contaminant/pesticide mixtures on organisms and biological communities in terms of reproduction, food-web interaction, developmental processes, neurological function (learning abilities and aggression levels), immune function and endocrine function. He addressed Rodale Institute staff and local health care professionals this week, laying out key research findings pointing to the need for a radical reconsideration of the impact of pesticides on human and wildlife populations. Here’s a bit of background and some of his major talking points.

In 1995, Warren P. Porter, Ph.D., read an article in the Wisconsin State Journal that reported skyrocketing remedial education costs due to an increase in children with disabilities in the Madison school district. The numbers were surprising: an 87-percent jump in children with emotional disturbances, a 70-percent increase in children with learning disabilities and 83 percent more children with physical disabilities between 1990 and 1995. What Dr. Porter noticed as he began to look at other communities, was that there was an epidemic change in these levels worldwide.

“My children are everything to me,” said Dr. Porter. And so he began to ask “Why?” Because he is a professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Dr. Porter attacked this nagging question scientifically. Because he is Dr. Warren Porter, he began to look into the advanced academic research from several disciplines to find the answer. In 1998, Elizabeth Guillette published her finding on the affects of agrichemicals on preschool children in the Yaqui Valley of Sonora, Mexico, the source of much of the U.S. supply of winter fruits and vegetables. Children regularly exposed to pesticides on the farms in the valley displayed classic signs of severe neurological devastation. They also expressed poor coordination, low stamina, poor memory and heightened aggression when compared to the children who lived just a few miles away in the mountains and were not exposed.

In the 10 years since Dr. Guillette published her shocking findings, Dr. Porter and a number of other researchers have begun to take a cross- disciplinary look at the effects common pesticides have on the health and well-being of our communities at levels considered “safe” by the current regulatory bodies in the U.S. According to Dr. Porter, “normal” exposures in food, water and air may be creating many of the serious long-term health problems emerging in humans and wildlife. National and international research projects show that pesticides contribute to an increase in aggressive behavior, birth defects, developmental roadblocks, failing immune function and sexual disorders. And evidence is just surfacing that our fundamental genetic constitution could be in jeopardy. There are no straight lines in nature Dr. Porter cites a number of problems with how the wider scientific community and the Environmental Protection Agency have underestimated the risks associated with pesticides, including herbicides and fungicides. “They assume a linear dose response. In toxicology the size of the dose is what is considered important in determining how poisonous something will be.” Meaning, the more to which you are exposed, the worse the effect. But, says Dr. Porter, a bell-shaped dose response is much more common in real life. “Physiologically, the timing of the dose is often more important than size.” Meaning, it is possible that a very low-level exposure during a particular period of development can have a dramatic affect, whereas the same exposure before or after that period may have no affect at all.

A study by Levin, et al. in 2002 found the learning ability of female rats was affected the most when exposed to the lowest dose of a pesticide called chlorpyrifos during in-utero development. Higher-dose exposure showed much less of a negative response. Another study by Agoos, et al. in 2007 found the very same “inverse dose response” in female mice. As mice are very different than rats physiologically, it was surprising to see a consistent response. The same inverse dose response pattern was seen in a 2002 study by Cavieres, et al. where researchers dosed the drinking water of pregnant mice with a common herbicide at high, intermediate, low and very low levels. The highest degree of fetal losses was at the very low level. And, again, in a 2005 study on another common pesticide’s ability to affect brain function, the inverse dose response appeared. Rodriguez, et al. found 5 mg of atrazine had more of an effect on neurotransmitters in the brain than 10 mg of the very same chemical. “It should be noted that the EPA only tests the effects of intermediate concentrations,” says Dr. Porter, “since the assumption is that there will be less of an effect the smaller the concentration.”

Porter also points to studies by Richard, et al. (2005) and Fan, et al. (2007) that show how two common herbicides effect the levels of testosterone and estrogen in the system at “environmentally relevant levels,” or levels currently found in the environment. They found that atrazine increases the levels of estrogen in the system and glyphosate increases the levels of testosterone. Changes in the levels of these sex hormones feed back to the brain and immune systems leading to other systemic problems, says Porter. “It’s like ripping up telephone cables. The signals get mixed and broken. You end up with serious long-term consequences that are very difficult to diagnose.”

Creating a successful poison

When confronted with these studies, Porter asked himself, “Why do pesticides and herbicides at low-levels have such devastating systemic affects on animals, including humans?” This lead him to the second assumption in our regulatory process that has created a toxic loophole. “It all goes back to the principles of creating a poison that effectively kills,” says Porter. “You want something that is quickly and easily absorbed through the ’skin’ or outer defense system and something that is water- and fat-soluble which gives it a ‘master entry key’ to every cell in the body, brain and/or fetus.” The “inactive” ingredients in Round-up make it twice as biologically active and, therefore, twice as potentially toxic as the potential of it’s “active” chemical parts.

Solvents (organic soaps) and surfactants (that diminish the surface tension of water) are added to pesticide and herbicide formulations to create a product that encourages effective uptake and allows access to all cells of the targeted organism. The problem is that they are also absorbed through our skin and lungs more effectively and they have a master entry key to our cells, says Porter.

Dr. Porter cites two independent studies that determined the “inactive” ingredients in Round-up make it twice as biologically active and, therefore, twice as potentially toxic as the potential of it’s “active” chemical parts. Unfortunately, solvents and surfactants are not tested as part of the EPA registration process. “For example,” says Porter, “the EPA registers glyphosate, the chemical considered an active ingredient in Round-up, not Round-up itself.”

Passing the damage on

Researchers at Washington State University studied DNA of male rats and discovered DNA sequences were altered through methylation (changes in the epigenic pattern) by exposure to the fungicide vinclozolin. “Methylation patterns reflect our environmental history,” says Dr. Porter. “It’s our genetic response to environmental insults.”

Porter points out that early-immune insults have also been linked to asthma, allergies, autoimmune diseases, cancer, cerebral palsy and male sterility. The expression of the NCAM1 gene, specifically, was blocked by exposure to the fungicide. Diseases related to this gene include Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, neural tube defects and various tumors, says Porter. The revealing piece of the Washington State University study was the fact that the DNA alterations caused by exposure to the fungicide were actually passed down four generations.

“The evidence is strong,” says Dr. Porter. “We are compromising our children and our children’s children.” The extent of our exposure Recent studies have begun to capture the true extent of our low-level exposure to pesticides that could be quietly causing serious health problems in our population. The toxins are nearly inescapable in the water we drink, the food we eat and the air we breathe. Lu, et al. (2006) measured organophosphates in the urine of Seattle children and discovered levels of chemical indicators up to 14 parts per billion

“Organophosphates are neurotoxins by design and we’re capable of responding to neurotoxins in the parts per trillion level,” says Porter, “especially during [fetal] development.” “The public has been slow awakening to the danger of low-level pesticide exposure. And the EPA regulatory process doesn’t capture the full and devastating risk of these chemical cocktails.”

And new work by Paul Winchester, et al. is taking a look at the correlation between the amount of atrazine in the water at the time of conception to the math and reading skills of Indiana children. “The public has been slow awakening to the danger of low-level pesticide exposure,” said Porter. “And the EPA regulatory process doesn’t capture the full and devastating risk of these chemical cocktails.”

Dr. Porter suggests we rework the way chemical products are registered to reflect discoveries related to non-linear dose responses, the effects of solvents and surfactants, the compound and synergistic affects of chemical mixtures, and the differences in hormonal and developmental responses between males and females.

In the meantime, the study by Lu, et al. offers a path to reducing our exposure. When the Seattle children were put on an organic food diet, concentrations of the chemical indicators in their urine were undetectable within five days. Porter agrees: “Buy organic or grow your own, and get a really good water filter for your drinking and washing water. It won’t eliminate all your exposure, but it will dramatically reduce your risk.”

Amanda Kimble-Evans is assistant editor at Rodale Institute. She specializes in nutrition issues, recently became a mom and enjoys her organic garden.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/577055
Laurie Barclay, MD
July 3, 2008 — Antibacterial product use may lead to decreased susceptibility to other antibacterial ingredients and antibiotic resistance in the home, according to the results of a study reported at the 2008 Annual Conference on Antimicrobial Resistance held in Bethesda, Maryland.

“Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), such as benzalkonium chloride [BZK], are broad-spectrum antimicrobials that have been widely used for decades to disinfect environmental surfaces in clinical and industrial settings,” presenter and lead author Allison Aiello, PhD, MS, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, told Medscape Infectious Diseases. “With increasing use of cleaning and hygiene products containing QACs in the home, there is a valid public health concern that biocide resistance may emerge in the community environment,” she said.

“Antibacterial consumer products leave residues on home surfaces, exposing bacterial species to low levels of the agent and creating conditions favorable for development of resistance to both biocides and antibiotics.” Dr. Aiello said. “Currently, reports examining the relationships between biocide use and bacterial resistance among isolates from the community setting are limited. The purposes of the present study were to assess the effect of antibacterial product usage in the home environment on the susceptibility to QACs and to examine the possible correlation between QACs and antibiotic resistance among bacterial isolates sampled from the hands of study participants.”

In this study, 238 households were randomly assigned to use either antibacterial or non-antibacterial cleaning products. At baseline and 1 year later, 645 bacterial isolates, including gram-negative and staphylococcal species, were isolated from hands of participants and tested for minimum inhibitory concentrations to BZK, triclosan, and several antibiotics.

Sensitivity testing was performed for all gram-negative bacteria against gentamicin, imipenem, and ciprofloxacin; for Acinetobacter baumannii and A lwoffii against amikacin and ticarcillin/clavulanate; for Enterobacter agglomerans and E cloacae against trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole; for Klebsiella pneumonia against trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, piperacillin/tazobactam, and ceftriaxone; for Pseudomonas fluorescens/putida against piperacillin/tazobactam and ceftazidime; and for staphylococcal species against oxacillin for methicillin resistance.

The relationship between BZK, triclosan, and antibiotic resistance among bacterial species was determined using logistic regressions with generalized estimating equations.

For all species combined, there were no significant differences between assigned product use and BZK susceptibility. After 1 year, however, for all species combined, there was an association between decreased susceptibility to BZK and triclosan (odds ratio [OR], 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44 – 3.29) and between decreased susceptibility to BZK and antibiotic resistance to a combination of several antibiotics (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.38 – 4.36).

“Our study reports, for the first time, a significant relationship between use of a common antibacterial cleaning agent ([BZK]) and cross-resistance with antibiotics and another antibacterial ingredient (triclosan) in the household setting,” Dr. Aiello said. “The results of our study suggest that the growing concern over the emergence of cross-resistance between biocides used in the household and clinically used antibiotics is warranted.”

A study limitation noted by Dr. Aiello is that the concentrations of biocide tested in the laboratory were much lower than concentrations recommended for home use. However, there have been reports in some clinical settings of diluting these products, although whether this practice occurs in the household setting is unclear.

“Diluting could lead to lower levels of the biocide, which may be an important factor in selecting for antibiotic resistance,” Dr. Aiello said. “There has been little research on how effective these surface and floor biocides are for reducing infectious illnesses in the home environment. Given that there may be a potential risk related to antibiotic resistance, we need to conduct further research on the potential benefits to accurately define the public health importance of these products.”

Medscape Infectious Diseases asked Elizabeth Scott, PhD, an assistant professor and codirector of the Simmons College Center for Hygiene and Health in Home and Community in Boston, Massachusetts, to review the strengths and limitations of this study. Dr. Scott was not involved with this research.

“This is an extensive study conducted over a substantial time period that adds another important piece of information to the growing body of knowledge on the relationship between BZK, triclosan and the potential for antibiotic resistance,” Dr. Scott said. “If the products tested are household cleaning products (as opposed to personal care products), it would have been useful to have tested bacterial cultures from household surfaces as well as from hands. Also, it is not clear whether or not other factors that can influence antibiotic resistance patterns were accounted for, such as skin condition and household antibiotic usage, as well as householder occupations, presence of pets, etc.”

In light of growing concerns about antibiotic resistance, and the need to balance these concerns against protection of an increasing population of vulnerable individuals from community-acquired infections, Dr. Scott recommends better education and dissemination of information on appropriate hygiene and cleaning practices for homes, daycares, schools, workplaces, and other settings.

“We need to be extremely vigilant in protecting the remaining, limited number of effective antibiotics,” Dr. Scott concluded. “This includes careful monitoring of antibacterial products, as well as practicing responsible antibiotic prescribing in both human and animal medicine and animal husbandry. At the same time, it is very important to encourage effective personal hygiene behaviors, as well as household and community cleaning and sanitation practices, as a means of preventing community-acquired infections and thus reducing the reliance on antibiotics — it’s the old adage of ‘prevention is better than cure.’ ”

Dr. Aiello and Dr. Scott have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

2008 Annual Conference on Antimicrobial Resistance: Abstract S5. June 23–25, 2008.