Canary Cosmetics Reading Room

Archive for the 'cosmetics' Category

Too much perfume? Could be a zinc deficiency

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

http://blog.nutritiondata.com/ndblog/2007/10/too-much-perfum.html

Do you know someone who wears too much perfume or cologne? Although it’s extremely unpleasant for their co-workers and those sitting close to them at the movie theater or on the commuter train, these folks usually have no idea that their scent is over-powering to those around them. And in fact, it may be the result a nutritional deficiency.

At the recent annual conference of the American College of Nutrition, researchers presented results of an intriguing study that found that those who over-apply scents have dramatically lower zinc levels than normal. In addition to affecting your sense of taste and smell, zinc is critical for a healthy immune response and neurological function.

It can be touchy to approach someone about what seems like a personal grooming matter. But if anyone has ever hinted to you that your cologne might be a little over-the-top, consider the possibility that low zinc levels are rendering your sniffer unreliable.

Good food sources of zinc include meat, dairy products, shell-fish, nuts, and beans. (Here’s a more complete list of foods rich in zinc, generated with ND’s Nutrient Search Tool. The Recommended Daily Allowance is around 10mg per day.

Posted in cosmetics |

The FDA Still Ingores the Lethal Risks of Talcum Powder

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

http://world-wire.com/news/0803240001.html

Comment: Canary Cosmetics Body Powder does not contain talc.

CHICAGO, IL, MARCH 24, 2008 –/WORLD-WIRE/– Up to 20 percent of U.S.
pre-menopausal women regularly dust their genital area, sanitary pads
or contraceptive diaphragms with cosmetic grade talcum powder.

Manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, and widely distributed by Osco and
Walgreens, besides other drug stores, women have been persuaded by
advertisements to dust themselves to mask alleged genital odors. Not
surprisingly, talcum powder has become a symbol of freshness and
cleanliness for over five decades.

On November 17, 1994, the Chicago-based Cancer Prevention Coalition
and the New York Center for Constitutional Rights submitted a Citizen
Petition to the FDA, "Seeking Carcinogenic Labeling on all Cosmetic
Talc Products." The Petition was endorsed by Dr. Quentin Young,
Chairman of The Health and Medicine Policy Research Group, by the
Ovarian Cancer Early Detection and Prevention Foundation, and
subsequently by Senator Edward Kennedy. In a 1997 statement to the
Senate, he requested the FDA to place a cancer warning on the label of
talc products, besides other products containing known carcinogens.
However, over a decade later this warning remains ignored.

Based on 15 publications in leading scientific journals dating back to
the 1960’s, the Petition explicitly warned of "increased rates of
ovarian cancer resulting from frequent exposure to cosmetic grade
talc." After over a year’s delay, the Petition was rejected by Dr.
John Bailey, FDA’s past Director of the Office of Cosmetics and
Colors, and currently Director of the industry’s The Personal Care
Products Council. Since then, the strong relation between the genital
use of talc powder and ovarian cancer has been endorsed by over 40
further scientific publications. These have reported increased risks
ranging from 35% to 90%.

Of particular interest is a 1971 report on the identification of talc
particles in ovarian cancers, a finding contested by Dr. G.Y. Hildick
Smith, Johnson & Johnson’s medical Director. However, a subsequent
publication in the prestigious The Lancet warned that "The potentially
harmful effects of talc . . . in the ovary . . . should not be
ignored." This warning was further supported by a 2004 report on the
major risk of ovarian cancer in talc users. However, there was no such
risk in women whose fallopian tubes had been tied, blocking the access
of talc dust to the ovaries.

Not surprisingly, the mortality of ovarian cancer for women over the
age of 65, a relatively rare cancer at any age, has escalated
dramatically over the last three decades, by 12% for white, and 32%
for black women. It should further be noted that there are about
15,300 deaths from ovarian cancer each year. This makes it the fourth
most common fatal cancer in women, after breast, colon and lung.

Nevertheless, the industry and, worse still the FDA, remain recklessly
unresponsive to these dangers. The FDA has neither banned the genital
use of talcum powder, nor required industry to label it with explicit
warnings. This is all the more inexcusable since cosmetic grade starch
powder is a readily available safe alternative.

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chicago, Illinois
epstein@uic.edu

Quentin Young, M.D., MACP
Chairman, Health and Medicine Policy Research Group
Chicago, Illinois info@hmprg.org 24, 2008

Posted in cosmetics |

Soil Association bans nanomaterials from organic products

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

Comment: Canary Cosmetics products do not contain nanoparticles.

The Soil Association today said it had become the first organisation in the world to ban man-made nanomaterials from its certified organic products, claiming the new technology poses a serious threat to human health.

Cosmetics, food and clothing made with superfine particles called nanoparticles will be banned from carrying the pro-organic group’s logo, it announced today.

Nanotechnology involves manipulating material at the molecular level. At scales of a billionth of a metre, substances can behave in unpredictable ways and take on new properties. The technique is expected to lead to major breakthroughs in medicine and electronics.

But the Soil Association says there is insufficient evidence about the impact of nanotechnology on the environment and human health. It said in a statement: "Of the $9bn (£4.57bn) per year being invested globally in nanotechnology, much is going to the development of cosmetics and health products."

Many well-known companies such as L’Oréal, Unilever, Boots and Lancôme are already developing and introducing these superfine particles into their products and none of these products are required to have labelling to warn consumers.

Three years ago, scientists advised the government that the release of nanoparticles should be "avoided as far as possible". Though the government acknowledged the risks, no action has been taken to impose controls.

The association went on to say: "Following the precautionary approach, in line with organic principles, the Soil Association has banned manufactured nanoparticles as ingredients under our organic standards. We are the first organisation in the world to take regulatory action against the use of nanoparticles to safeguard the public. This initiative goes to the core of the organic movement’s values of protecting human health."

Gundula Azeez, Soil Association policy manager, said: "The Soil Association is the first organisation in the world to ban nanoparticles. There should be no place for nanoparticles in health and beauty products or food. We are deeply concerned at the government’s failure to follow scientific advice and regulate products.

"There should be an immediate freeze on the commercial release of nanomaterials until there is a sound body of scientific research into all the health impacts. As we saw with GM, the government is ignoring the initial indications of risk and giving the benefit of the doubt to commercial interest rather than the protection of human health."

Professor Vyvyan Howard, nanotechnology researcher at the University of Ulster, said: "The term nanotechnology covers a vast range of applications. Many are not threatening at all, such as nano-structured surfaces for self-cleaning glass. But in the areas of health and beauty and food, more research must be done. There is considerable evidence that nanoparticles are toxic and potentially hazardous."

The consumers’ organisation, Which? has recently launched a new campaign to highlight our lack of understanding of nanotechnology and the failure of the government to take a lead.

Which? chief policy officer Sue Davies said: "This announcement from the Soil Association reinforces the uncertainties around the health and environmental risks posed by some nanomaterials. Numerous organisations including the most eminent scientific bodies have called for action to address the uncertainties and regulatory gaps, but the government is failing to act.

"It needs to urgently take control of this issue and ensure that consumers can take advantage of the potential benefits nanotechnologies can offer without being put at unnecessary risk."

Posted in cosmetics |

Scents and Sensitivity

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

Scents and Sensitivity

Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 106, December 12, November 1998

http://members.aol.com/enviroknow/perfume/EHPscents.htm

Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 106, December 12, November 1998

Scents and Sensitivity

Fragrance is ubiquitous in nature and plays a major role in both helping animals and humans locate food and enticing them to reproduce. Throughout history, humans have drawn fragrances from the natural environment for a variety of purposes, including use in religious and burial rituals, in aphrodisiacs, and to cover foul odors. In the late 1800s, the first fragrance containing synthesized ingredients was introduced. Since then, people have used chemicals extensively to mimic scents from nature.

Consumers’ fascination with scent has increased with the manufacture of a multitude of scented "personal" products including cosmetics, lotions, soaps, oils, and perfumes. There are more than 1,000 body fragrances (including colognes, perfumes, and toilet waters) on the market today, according to The Fragrance Foundation, a non-profit educational arm of the fragrance industry. Furthermore, scents are now added to a slew of commercial products ranging from cleaning products to tissues, from candles to diapers.

While many people enjoy wearing perfumes and using scented products, there is a growing outcry from some people who claim that exposure to certain fragrances, including perfumes and scented products, adversely impacts their health. They report symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, difficulty with concentration, and allergy-like symptoms. It has been shown that many asthmatic patients have adverse reactions to perfumes and other fragrances, and some researchers hypothesize that exposure to fragrance may actually cause asthma. People who suffer from multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), a health condition in which exposure to one chemical is thought to lead to adverse reactions to other chemicals, claim that exposure to fragrance triggers various symptoms, often to the point that sufferers are incapacitated or must forgo many of their usual activities to avoid exposure.

As information continues to surface on the issue of indoor air pollution, it appears that fragrances may represent part of the problem. Some researchers believe that exposure to the types of chemicals found in many scented products may contribute to the development and exacerbation of sick building syndrome, a health condition allegedly caused by indoor air pollution. The chemicals in perfumes, colognes, and deodorants worn by employees add to the chemical mixtures in indoor air, as do fragrances in cleaning products. In addition, some building owners pump certain fragrances–believed to evoke an emotional response that results in increased work productivity--through office ventilation systems.

Claudia Miller, an associate professor of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, says that several studies indicate that 15-30% of the general population report some sensitivity to chemicals, including fragrances, and 4-6% report that chemical intolerance has a major impact on their quality of life. Of these people, more than 80% report that exposure to fragrances is bothersome. Miller, who has conducted extensive research on MCS and coauthored the book Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes, adds that many Gulf War veterans report new chemical intolerances since the war, including sensitivity to fragrances.

Gerald McEwen, vice president of science at the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, a Washington, DC-based trade association for the personal care products industry, says that fragrance materials in most products are at very low concentrations, and that people who claim to be adversely affected by scented products may actually be reacting to other chemicals in the products or in their environments. He says that affected people are more likely to identify fragrances as the offending agents because they are readily noticeable. McEwen further suggests that reactions to fragrance could be psychological. "This could be a conditioned response just as easily as an organic response," he says.

This theory has many proponents, including Sally Satel, a lecturer in psychiatry in Yale University School of Medicine’s department of psychiatry. In her article, published in the May 1997 issue of Psychiatric Times, Satel refers to MCS, sick building syndrome, and other chemical sensitivity illnesses as having "elements of paranoia and hypervigilance (directed toward the physical environment), somatization (as well as stress-induced psychosomatic symptoms), hypochondriasis, hysteria, and suggestibility."

Components of Fragrances

The process of developing fragrances is a complex mixture of chemistry and art. Not only must the chemicals used be compatible, the combination must also be aesthetically pleasing to the nose. Synthetic ingredients are less expensive than natural ingredients, and can be created year-round, while the supply of natural ingredients depends on season and availability. Once synthetic ingredients were introduced to the marketplace, perfumes and fragrance materials became more widespread as the demand and supply increased. It is estimated that there are more than 3,000 chemicals used in the manufacture of fragrances. Synthetic organic chemicals constitute more than 80-90% (by weight and value) of the raw materials used in flavor and fragrance formulations. A single fragrance may contain as few as 10 chemicals or as many as several hundred. Like many other chemicals and chemical mixtures in widespread use today, little is known about the impact fragrances have on human health.

Because of the complex and competitive nature of fragrance development, manufacturers were given the right to protect their products through state trade secret laws, which allow them to not disclose the ingredients to anyone. Due to the secrecy surrounding fragrance ingredients, claims of adverse reactions to fragrances may be difficult or impossible to link to particular fragrance chemicals. Such secrecy also makes it difficult for researchers to study the health effects of fragrances. "Because of the number of chemicals and their different volatilities, polarities, and other properties, analysis is expensive and technically sophisticated," says Lance Wallace, an environmental scientist in the EPA’s Office of Research and Development in Reston, Virginia.

The collective term "fragrance" on a label is often representative of a complex mixture of chemicals.

As part of efforts to identify substances that contribute to indoor air pollution, Wallace and colleagues conducted a study to identify volatile organic compounds emitted by fragranced products. These compounds can be both toxic and carcinogenic and have been associated with the symptoms of sick building syndrome.

The study, published in the proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association’s 84th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, held 16-21 June 1991, examined 31 selected scented products, including perfumes, soaps, and deodorants. The brand names were not revealed because only one semiquantitative analysis was made for each sample; therefore, the results could not be said to be indicative of that sample’s typical composition. The researchers identified a total of 150 unique chemicals in the 31 products. Chemicals that appeared in more than half of the products included ethanol, limonene, linalool, ß-phenethyl alcohol, and ß-myrcene. The authors point out that few of these chemicals have been tested for carcinogenicity, but say that some, such as -pinene, are known mutagens and others, such as camphor, have known toxic effects at high concentrations. Limonene has been tested for carcinogenicity and was observed to cause cancer in male rats, but not in mice or female rats. Wallace cautions that, while the chemicals have been identified as components of fragrances, health effects may occur at far higher doses than what may typically be found in fragrances.

Mary Lamielle, executive director of the National Center for Environmental Health Strategies, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to finding creative solutions for environmental health problems, points out that, even though the chemicals may be present at low levels in perfumes and products, people generally do not experience just a single exposure. "These same chemicals are cropping up in many different products," she says.

Self-regulated Industry

Currently, the fragrance industry is essentially self-regulated in the United States. The FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors has jurisdiction over perfumes and fragrances used in cosmetics, but does not require an approval process or premarket clearance for perfumes or cosmetics containing fragrance, says John Bailey, Jr., director of the office. Therefore, the FDA does not technically have jurisdiction over products until they are on the market. "It is up to the manufacturer to market a safe product," Bailey says. "If there’s an identifiable public health risk, then certainly the agency can step in and take action." However, he says, "People claim to be sensitive to fragrances, but in spite of efforts to try to characterize the risk, the issue has defied a concise identification of a public health risk [and has] defied a good solid scientific definition. Therefore, the agency is not in a position to propose a change in regulation."

Due to the trade secret rules, the FDA does not require manufacturers to reveal fragrance ingredients to the agency, nor does it require them to list the fragrance ingredients on the products themselves. The manufacturer is simply required to list the collective term "fragrance" in the ingredients, a term that is often representative of a complex mixture of chemicals, Bailey says. But Bailey also says the industry does regulate itself through a safety review process, and that the FDA has periodically monitored this process.

Many manufacturers of fragrance chemicals conduct their own safety tests. In addition, the fragrance industry developed the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM, pronounced "RIFF-um") in 1996 to conduct research on fragrance ingredients in order to ensure the safety of perfumery materials. According to Glenn Roberts, a spokesperson for RIFM, fragrance ingredients undergo a multistep testing process. "We are committed to developing safe products," Roberts says.

RIFM tests raw perfumery materials that are selected by an independent expert panel made up largely of academics, Roberts says. The ingredients are most commonly tested for allergenicity, phototoxicity, and general toxicity by oral and dermal routes. Some of the tests are conducted on animals while others, such as skin patch tests, are conducted on humans. To date, RIFM has tested more than 1,300 fragrance materials, and publishes test results in scientific journals such as Food and Chemical Toxicology, says Roberts. The National Toxicology Program has also conducted tests on many of these chemicals.

The results of the fragrance screenings are then submitted by RIFM to the International Fragrance Association (IFRA), an international organization composed of more than 100 fragrance manufacturers from 15 countries. IFRA reviews the data and establishes guidelines for the safe use of the materials. If a fragrance material is found to have neurotoxic, carcinogenic, phototoxic, or other adverse health effects, IFRA categorizes the material as restricted, and recommends amounts of the material for use in fragrance formulas. While many companies voluntarily adhere to the IFRA safety guidelines, they are not required by law to follow any of the group’s recommendations, or to limit the use of any fragrance materials. Roberts points out that, while RIFM tests only the raw materials, the manufacturers of the finished fragrance products also often conduct safety tests.

Research on Fragrances and the Sense of Smell

Extensive research has been conducted on the allergic effects of fragrances on skin, and many fragrance materials have been shown to cause dermal allergic reactions. RIFM conducts most of its research on the dermal effects of fragrances, rarely testing the effects of inhaling fragrance chemicals. Roberts says, "It has always been the scientific opinion of the industry that the skin is the primary route of exposure [for fragrances]." However, he says the industry "continues to think about and look at" the issue of respiratory testing.

brain

Mind-body connection. Some researchers believe the proximity of the olfactory bulb to the limbic system in the brain is responsible for the strong link between emotion and the sense of smell, and may contribute to chemical sensitivity illnesses.

Not only is it difficult for nonindustry researchers to identify and quantify the actual components of fragrances, it is also challenging to study how inhaling these chemicals impacts human health because very little is known about the olfactory system, and very little research has been conducted on the passage of fragrance molecules into the body via this system. There is a strong link between the sense of smell and emotion; many researchers believe this is due to the proximity of the olfactory bulb to the limbic system, which popular media have dubbed "emotion central." The nasal passage offers a unique route of exposure for chemicals, which can proceed directly into the brain because of the proximity of these systems. "The olfactory/limbic tract is the most direct connection between our brains and the air we breathe," says Miller. "There is no blood-brain barrier." Studies have shown that in rodents, chemical molecules can move through the nose directly into the brain, passing through only one or two synapses. Miller says research indicates that molecules follow this same route in humans.

Another problem in studying fragrances, according to Dennis Shusterman, an associate clinical professor in the division of occupational and environmental medicine and director of the Upper Airway Biology Lab at the University of California at San Francisco, is the assumption that the only property of a fragrance chemical is its ability to stimulate the olfactory nerve and produce the sensation of smell. "In fact, [such chemicals] can stimulate both the olfactory and the trigeminal nerve, which mediates irritation," Shusterman says. Stimulation of receptors in the trigeminal nerve results in the perception of irritancy or pungency, causing sensations such as stinging, burning, piquancy, prickling, freshness, and tingling. This process is referred to as sensory irritation and can result in a localized neurogenic inflammation.

Many researchers believe that exposure to fragrance and other chemicals can indeed cause irritation, which can mimic the symptoms of allergies. James Wells, a professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City, recounts that in his private practice as an allergist, he has encountered many patients who complain of reactions to specific perfumes or fragrances. He has observed that in a vast majority of the cases, the reaction to the fragrances is one of irritation, not allergy. Wells says the reactions to irritants are less responsive to treatment than allergies, and that avoiding the offending chemicals appears to be the only effective solution. Wells stresses that he has not conducted research, but that in his clinical experience, he has found that these patients also react to other irritants, such as detergents, cleansers, and deodorizers that emit volatile chemicals into the air.

Despite the similarity of the symptoms, though, Shusterman says existing studies indicate that the process behind chemical-induced irritation is a different phenomenon from allergies altogether. Shusterman adds that many studies have indicated that people who have preexisting nasal allergies such as hay fever either perceive or react more strongly to irritant chemicals.

William Cain, a professor of surgery, Enrique Cometto-Muniz, an associate research scientist, and colleagues at the Chemosensory Perception Laboratory at the University of California at San Diego are conducting extensive research on the sense of smell and sensory irritation from chemicals in the indoor environment. Cometto-Muniz says the goal of the research is to provide further insight into the sense of smell so that it can be as well understood as the visual and aural senses. "We know very well the electromagnetic spectrum to which the eye responds and the vibrational spectrum to which the ear responds, but we don’t know the chemical spectrum to which the nose responds," he says.

Cain says an important issue to consider in investigating the effects of fragrance on the body is differentiating between psychological irritation from unpleasant chemical odors and actual sensory irritation from chemicals. Because of the strong tie between the sense of smell and emotion, researchers say foul odors emitted by certain chemicals can provoke people to believe their health is being impacted when, in fact, the offending substance may be benign.

Table 1

Cain and Cometto-Muniz are working to establish the odor and irritant thresholds of chemicals–at what level a chemical first is an odorant and then becomes an irritant. Identifying such thresholds will aid in distinguishing the psychological response to odor from measurable nasal and eye irritation. The involvement of anosmics, or people who have no sense of smell, in the studies allows for the "perfect opportunity to differentiate what is a trigeminal response from an olfactory response," says Cometto-Muniz.

So far, the group has successfully established the threshold levels of physiological irritation for several chemical mixtures. Their research has indicated that the higher the number of chemicals being combined, the lower their individual levels need to be to cause sensory reactions. Areas they plan to further investigate include chemical mixtures, as well as the role of time in sensory irritation and sense of smell. Cometto-Muniz says that when a person is exposed to an odor, the sensation appears to diminish over time as the person seemingly adapts to the odor, while sensory irritation occurs in an opposite manner–as time passes, irritation increases. While there are still many questions about how long-term sensory irritation may affect health, Cometto-Muniz points out that "sensory irritation is there to warn us that continued exposure could potentially be dangerous."

One of the few studies that has looked at the effects of inhalation of specific fragrance chemicals and perfumes was conducted at the private Anderson Laboratory in West Hartford, Vermont, by Rosalind Anderson, founder and owner of the laboratory, and Julius Anderson, vice president. The goal of the study was to determine whether fragrance products can produce acute toxic effects in mammals. The Andersons exposed laboratory mice to five fragrance products–four colognes and one toilet water. The mice breathed the emissions of the products for 1 hour and then were tested using the ASTM-E-981 method to evaluate sensory irritation and pulmonary irritation, as well as a functional observational battery to look for changes in the nervous system function.

The study, published in the March-April 1998 issue of Archives of Environmental Health, showed that the emissions of the fragrances produced various combinations of sensory irritation, pulmonary irritation, decreases in expiratory airflow velocity, and alterations of the functional observational battery indicative of neurotoxicity. Neurotoxicity was more severe after mice were repeatedly exposed to the products.

The Andersons say the findings indicate that some fragrance products produce toxic effects in at least one mammalian species. In the study’s conclusions, they wrote, "Collectively, the experimental data and chemistry predict that some humans exposed to these fragrance products might experience some combination of eye, nose, and/or throat irritation; respiratory difficulty; possibly bronchoconstriction or asthma-like reaction; and central nervous system reactions (e.g., dizziness, incoordination, confusion, fatigue). The results of our study might help explain why some individuals report an intolerance to [fragrance products] and why some [fragrance products] can exacerbate airflow limitation in some asthmatics."

Miller says it’s important to recognize that many people who report sensitivities to fragrances also report sensitivities to other chemicals. Because fragrances are noticeable, they may be more commonly reported as causing symptoms than other chemicals. Miller conducted a study, published in the March-April 1995 issue of Archives of Environmental Health, that surveyed 112 people who reported onset of MCS following a well-documented exposure to either a pesticide exposure or remodeling of a building. Miller and colleagues hypothesize that MCS may be explained by what they call toxicant-induced loss of tolerance, a two-part process involving a single high-level chemical exposure followed by subsequent triggering of symptoms by everyday exposure to chemicals.

fragrance-free products

Scents-ing overload? Many manufacturers now offer fragrance-free versions of their products for consumers who prefer that not all personal products be scented.

Respondents were asked to identify possible trigger exposures via inhalation and ingestion and report symptoms. About 90% of respondents reported that perfumes triggered their symptoms, but Miller stresses that many other exposures triggered symptoms as well, including insecticides, traffic exhaust, new carpet, paint, and various foods. The most frequently reported symptoms included lethargy, memory difficulties, feelings of depression, dizziness, "spaciness," and shortness of breath.

One other issue to consider is that of the effect of fragrance exposure on children’s health. Today, many children’s products are scented, and there are many fragrances marketed specifically toward children. Betty Bridges, a registered nurse and founder of the Fragranced Products Information Network, a Web site containing information about chemicals used in scented products and their health effects, says that children may be more susceptible to the effects of such products because of their smaller size, their higher respiratory rate, and their thinner skin. However, little research has been done on this issue.

A Fragrance-free Future?

Some patient groups claim that in the next decade, the issue of fragrance will be as controversial as today’s tobacco smoke issue. They say the debate over people’s right to smoke versus others’ right to breathe clean air could also be applied to fragrance. McEwen calls the comparison between tobacco smoke and fragrances "absurd," saying, "Fragrances are scents that are basically taken from nature. They have been around forever. There is no process of combustion involved and they are not addictive."

However, many organizations are taking the fragrance sensitivity issue seriously. At an American Chemical Society meeting held in August 1998 in Boston, Massachusetts, attendees were asked not to wear fragrances due to the number of chemically sensitive people attending the meeting. Miller says that requests for people to refrain from wearing scented products are appearing with more frequency on social invitations, as well as in public meeting notices. At the University of Minnesota School of Social Work in Minneapolis, signs are posted at entrances to the department, stating, "Some persons employed or studying in the School of Social Work report sensitivities to various chemical-based or scented products. We ask for everyone’s cooperation in our efforts to accommodate their health concerns."

In recent years, perhaps in response to the abundance of fragrance encountered by people on a daily basis, the trend of scenting products has been somewhat reversed. Many manufacturers are now removing fragrance from products and touting "fragrance-free" and "unscented" versions of products such as laundry detergent and fabric softeners.

However, chemically sensitive patients warn that, even though a product is labeled unscented or fragrance-free, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it contains no fragrance chemicals. As studies have documented, manufacturers will often add masking chemicals to cover the scent of other chemicals in the product, resulting in a product that does not produce a detectable scent.

As for manufacturers that label their products as fragrance-free or unscented, Bailey says the FDA requires them to list the term "fragrance" in the ingredients when any fragrance materials are used–even masking ingredients. If the manufacturer fails to list fragrance ingredients, the FDA has the power to take regulatory action.

Whether the fragrance issue can and will be regulated remains to be seen. The U.S. Postal Service passed a regulation in April 1990 stating that "a fragrance advertising sample is nonmailable unless the sample meets the following requirement: It must be sealed, wrapped, treated, or otherwise prepared in a manner reasonably designed to prevent individuals from being unknowingly or involuntarily exposed to the sample." The California state government expanded the concept of that rule in 1992 by passing a regulation stating that "Any fragrance advertising insert contained in a newspaper, magazine, mailing, or other periodically printed material shall contain only microencapsulated oils. Glue tabs or binders shall be used to prevent premature activation of the fragrance advertising insert." In addition, several magazines now offer a "scent-free" version at the subscriber’s request.

Lamielle and others are working to raise awareness of the issue of fragrance sensitivity. "Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t realize that this is a serious issue, because it sounds so trivial," she says. "There’s a huge population who do get sick from these products." In order to help solve the problem, Lamielle says that people should use less-toxic, unscented products and be considerate of those who are affected by fragrance sensitivity.

The issue of the environmental health effects of fragrances is complex, controversial, and slowly garnering more public attention. While Lamielle and Bridges say the number of people claiming to be affected by fragrances seems to be growing, Roberts says the fragrance industry has not seen an increase in complaints from consumers. "Fragrance helps many people enjoy their lives, but if there is a problem, we hope that [consumers] will call the manufacturers and we’ll work to resolve it. We are always open to new ideas," says Roberts.

McEwen says it is important not to forget the many benefits of fragrances. They are used in the identification of different products, for instance by distinguishing a cough syrup from an emetic. They can also mask objectionable odors in certain products. "Fragrance really is like beautiful colors, beautiful music–a sensory phenomenon. It makes life better," McEwen says.

In the end, however, the only indisputable fact is that there is a lack of research on the issue. Says Miller, "It’s worrisome, and should be explored with good, careful scientific studies."

Brandy E. Fisher

Posted in cosmetics, fragrances |

If it’s hypoallergenic, it’s safe for sensitive skin, right?

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

If it’s hypoallergenic, it’s safe for sensitive skin, right?

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=161972

By Jolene Edgar | Prevention Magazine

Not necessarily. Here’s what cosmetic labels really mean

Are you looking for the best products for your skin? Then you probably rely on label claims like fragrance-free and hypoallergenic to help you in your hunt.

The hitch: Despite widespread use, there are no standard definitions for such terms, and no one regulates how they should be employed — some companies abide by their own strict interpretations, while others aren’t as careful. Still, you don’t want to discount them.

"Labels can give you a good starting point for picking the right products," says John Bailey, executive vice president of science at the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association. So learn precisely what the jargon on your tubes and jars means — and doesn’t mean. If information is power, this guide will make you queen of the beauty aisle.

Hypoallergenic

You think it means: Products labeled this way aren’t as likely to cause allergic reactions.

The reality: Cosmetics manufacturers aren’t required to substantiate this claim, so it can mean whatever a company wants it to. "Some marketers use it in a meaningless fashion, while others test their products on panels of people with allergic potential," says Mort Westman, a cosmetic chemist and industry consultant in Oak Brook.

When it’s done right: "No reputable company would ever release an allergenic product, which is why it’s best to purchase brands that you know and trust," says Dr. Leslie Baumann, a professor of dermatology at the University of Miami. Certain ones, such as Clinique and Dove, have built reputations on avoiding allergenic ingredients and testing for sensitivity. Clinique uses the term allergy tested in its tagline — and every Clinique product is, in fact, tested multiple times on 600 people. If even one person has a reaction, the product isn’t released.

Dermatologist tested

You think it means: A skin specialist found the product to be effective and nonirritating.

The reality: Testing can vary widely.

"A dermatologist may have given the product to staffers to try or she may have conducted a legitimate, controlled trial," says Dr. Ranella Hirsch, president-elect of the American Society of Cosmetic Dermatology & Aesthetic Surgery.

When it’s done right: A large-scale study on carefully selected, randomized volunteers will have been carried out. Such meaningful testing is the norm for big brands such as Olay, Neutrogena, L’Oreal and Vichy, which tested its Nutrilogie 2 Intensive Nourishing Moisturizer Cream on 114 women in four countries. Other tip-offs that the derm-tested claim is valid: The package insert may elaborate on the role the doctor played in testing, says Dr. Jeannette Graf, an assistant professor of dermatology at New York University Medical Center.

Fragrance-free

You think it means: The product is unscented and won’t irritate skin.

The reality: Fragrance-free usually means that no scents were added, and this does reduce the likelihood that women with sensitive skin will have a reaction. Don’t be surprised, though, if a fragrance-free product has an aroma. What you smell is the natural odor of the ingredients used to formulate the product, such as lavender (for its antiseptic properties) and grapefruit seed (a natural preservative). Products labeled unscented, on the other hand, do contain low levels — less than 1 percent — of fragrance, explains Yohini Appa, executive director of scientific affairs at Neutrogena.

When it’s done right: Companies are aware that it’s usually women prone to fragrance sensitivities who shop for these products, so those containing any form of fragrance will have undergone a battery of safety checks to ensure they don’t irritate or cause allergic reactions. One company that goes above and beyond this standard is Almay, which doesn’t use fragrances or masking agents in its skin care or makeup lines.

Noncomedogenic

You think it means: It won’t clog pores, which can lead to blackheads and whiteheads — comedones, in medical speak — and acne.

The reality: The pore-plugging powers of ingredients are often evaluated by applying them to a rabbit’s ear — a test that’s far from foolproof, given that our skin is different from rabbits’ skin.

When it’s done right: Reputable companies always test final products — not just individual ingredients — for comedogenicity in controlled trials, says Ni’kita Wilson, a cosmetic chemist in Fairfield, N.J. A trained technician will examine panelists’ skin and count their existing blemishes. After testers use the product as specified, their skin is re-examined. "If there’s a dramatic increase in pimples, the company either won’t release the product or won’t make the noncomedogenic claim," says Wilson.

Oil free

You think it means: There’s no oil in the product to make skin greasy or clog pores.

The reality: "Oil-free products don’t contain ingredients such as mineral oil or plant oils classified by the CTFA as oils," says Wilson. But they might still include oil-like emollients, such as silicones, waxes and vegetable fats, that can trigger outbreaks in susceptible people.

When it’s done right: It’s virtually impossible to formulate cosmetics without oil-like ingredients — they’re often used to give products a silky feel or to bind ingredients together. So if your skin is acne-prone, it’s wiser to choose a noncomedogenic product over one labeled oil free.

Posted in cosmetics |

Group links nail polish to birth defects

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

November 29, 2000

WASHINGTON (CNN) — An environmental group Tuesday warned women of childbearing age to avoid using nail polish that contains a chemical that has been shown to cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
A report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) said the chemical in question is called dibutyl phthalate or DBP. Phthalates are a class of industrial plasticizers that were invented in the 1930s. They are often used in cosmetics because they make nail polish flexible, help bleed the chemicals of fragrances, and help lotion better penetrate the skin. They aren’t always required to be labeled on the products.
Lab animals given dibutyl phthalate had higher numbers of offspring with birth defects, especially of the male reproductive system.
In September, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the results of a study that tested 289 adults aged 20-60 for seven metabolites associated with exposure to various phthalates and found it was present in all of those tested, with women of childbearing age having the highest levels.
Jane Houlihan, Senior Analyst at the EWG, said women between the ages of 15-45 are probably exposed to dibutyl phthalate through cosmetics and particularly nail polish.
"We think that women of childbearing are should avoid all exposures to dibutyl phthalate when they’re considering becoming pregnant, when they’re pregnant or when they’re nursing," Houlihan said.
But a spokesman for The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association said nail polishes and cosmetics are safe.
"The Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, Health Canada and other scientific bodies in Europe, North America, and Japan have examined phthalates and allow their use. Phthalates were also reviewed by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, an independent body that reviews the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics. CIR found them to be safe for use in cosmetics. Consumers can have confidence in their cosmetics given their oversight by FDA and a long history of safe use," said Dr. Jerry McEwen, vice-president of science at CTFA.
Still, there are several unanswered questions about the chemical, including what level of exposure causes illness.
"By directly measuring levels of phthalate metabolites in urine, we have markedly improved our understanding of human exposure to phthalates and also improved our ability to determine potential health risks from exposure," said John Brock, a senior chemist at CDC.
Meanwhile, the Environmental Working Group says male birth defects have been on the rise since the 1970s. In Puerto Rico, one study found girls who were experiencing premature puberty had high levels of a different phthalate in their bodies. The EWG said the last tests for safe close exposure were done in rats in 1953. They’re calling for more testing and clearer product labeling.
"We believe manufacturers should fully label their products and that the label should be legible for consumers," Houlihan said. "We’re also advising that pregnant women avoid exposures to dibutyl phthalate even while they’re trying to get pregnant, while they’re pregnant or while they’re nursing."
The CDC said additional studies are needed to examine possible sources of the exposures, as well as the need for more insight into the safety and health effects of these chemicals.

Posted in cosmetics |

Cosmetics and fragranced products pose high risks

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

by James W. Coleman, Ph.D.

About the author
I earned a Ph.D. degree in microbiology from the University of Louisville School of Medicine (USA). I was an adjunct assistant professor in the same medical school for several years. I have extensive laboratory experience working with ingredients used in the manufacturing of cosmetics and personal care products. I have worked as an epidemiologist for the United States Air Force. I am presently doing research on the epidemiology and surveillance of breast cancer as related to the causes and origins of this disease. My approach to reducing the high incidence of breast cancers has the support of elected officials, community leaders, faith-based organizations and University of Louisville professors, including a professor emeritus, University of Louisville School of Medicine.

INTRODUCTION

Some breast cancer patients experience changes in their physical appearance from the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation treatments. In the USA and several other countries, breast health advocates have formed partnerships with traditional hospitals, university hospitals, cancer treatment facilities and the cosmetic industry where free cosmetics are given to breast cancer survivors. These free cosmetics are provided by member organizations of the cosmetic industry.

In a hospital setting, free classes also are conducted by licensed cosmetologists on how to use makeup to improve the appearance and self esteem of the participating breast cancer survivors. Some breast cancer survivors are given free haircuts and free makeovers. During class, each participant is given a kit containing an assortment of various types of cosmetics. Because my interest in the subject is of a public health nature, all participating cosmetic industry partners steadfastly refused my repeated requests for cosmetic samples from their kits or a listing of the names of the items in any kit (letters of refusal on file from the respective principals).

Makeup kits in department stores typically contain, in varying combinations, the following products: foaming cleanser, body mist, body lotion, eau de toilette or parfum spray, lipstick, body cream, facial cream, body and shower gel, powder blusher, perfume spray, skin cream, hand lotion, eyebrow pencil, moisturizers, lip gloss and brushes. The cosmetic give-away initiative is very popular among breast cancer survivors. I have read reports of
some women driving over 100 miles one-way to attend the classes. Glorifying articles with testimony from the breast cancer survivors have appeared in the newspapers. On the surface, giving free cosmetics to breast cancer survivors may appear to the unsuspecting to be a grand and benevolent gesture.

For reasons of a compelling public health interest, I think it is prudent to review the literature published in the mainstream medical journals, including The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, on the carcinogenicity and potential health risks associated with the use of cosmetics and fragranced products in general.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To better understand and appreciate the information presented herein, I think a brief tutorial on how some breast cancers develop may be useful.

Estrogen and breast cancer. Estrogen is produced in various organs of a woman’s body. The role of estrogen in the development of some breast cancers is well documented in the medical literature. A graphic representation and text on the connection between estrogen and breast cancer are detailed on the Web site of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) ( Web site ).

Briefly, the breast cells of some women have what are known as estrogen receptors (ER). Estrogen binds to these receptors, and in the presence of coactivator substances, enters a breast cell. This estrogen-coactivator complex attaches to DNA. The DNA becomes modified and causes the breast cell to grow out of control and produce a malignant tumor. After chemotherapy and/or radiation treatment, breast cancer survivors who are ER+ are treated
with the drug Tamoxifen.

Like estrogen, Tamoxifen has the ability to bind competitively to ER, thereby blocking body estrogen from entering the breast cells. Hence, a recurrence of breast cancer is prevented or minimized. However, over time some breast cells may become resistant to Tamoxifen and this drug then becomes ineffective. Also, breast cells that were previously ER- may become ER+ with time. Or, test results may be a false negative. The ER status of a woman is determined by pathological laboratory tests used in connection with the definitive diagnosis of breast cancer.

For obvious reasons, it is desirable for ER+ women to maintain a low concentration of body estrogen. This is most especially true for breast cancer survivors who are strongly ER+. To give the Tamoxifen a competitive edge during treatment, some breast cancer survivors have opted for surgical removal of their ovaries, the major estrogen-producing organs.

Some carcinogens are dependent upon estrogen for entry into a breast cell where they can then cause a malignant tumor to develop. Other carcinogens are not dependent upon estrogen for malignancy to occur.

Cosmetics and breast cancer To retard microbial spoilage, cosmetics in makeup kits contain synthetic chemical
preservatives known as parabens (methyl-, ethyl-, benzyl-, propyl-, butyl- isopropyl- or isobutyl-). Studies have shown that parabens have estrogenic activity on ER+ breast cells. It is well known that cosmetic ingredients can enter the bloodstream through skin absorption. 1, 2

Antiperspirants - deodorants. Several years ago, information was circulated on the Internet about a causal link existing between antiperspirants - deodorants and breast cancer. Immediately thereafter, spokespersons for the major breast cancer organizations with financial ties to the cosmetic industry made statements aimed at debunking that information. However, they did not, and could not cite a single published report to support their
conclusion.

In 2002, the results of a study were published in an effort to answer the antiperspirants - deodorants question. The researchers found no link between antiperspirants - deodorants and breast cancer. 3 However, my review and in-depth analysis of that study revealed it was fatally flawed and wholly inadequate by any credible epidemiological standard. Only 1606 women were involved in that retrospective study. Hence, the confounding factors could not be adequately reconciled.

The results from that study are published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 3 It should be noted that the NCI reportedly received a multimillion dollar grant from Avon, even though Congress had appropriated millions of dollars more than the agency had requested. With all things considered, rational people would not rely on the results of that study. 3

Recent studies have shown that antiperspirants - deodorants contain paraben preservatives with estrogenic activity. Paraben preservatives promoted the growth of ER+ breast cells to the same extent as human estrogen. 4, 5 No increase in growth was observed with ER- breast cells. 4, 5 A 2003 scientific publication showed that benzylparaben caused an increase in the growth of two types of ER+ human breast cells but not in those that were ER-. 6 Most breast cancers develop in the upper outer quadrant of the left breast. The question arises,
why the left breast? A plausible explanation is that most women are right-handed and would, therefore, have a tendency to apply antiperspirants - deodorants more heavily on the left underarm.

Surely, the use of paraben-containing preseratives should be contraindicated, most especially for those breast cancer survivors who are strongly ER+. Note that the manufacturers may not always list a paraben preservative as one of the ingredient on an antiperspirants - deodorants product label. This ingredient could be unilaterally declared by the manufacturer as a proprietary trade secret and then hidden in the catch-all category of "fragrances." In such instance, the manufacturer would not be required by law to list the paraben on the product label.

It makes absolutely no sense at all to: (i) have your ovaries surgically removed for prophylactic purposes; (ii) take an estrogen suppressor drug (e.g., Lupron); and/or (iii) conscientiously avoid products high in soy content and then use an antiperspirant - deodorant containing parabens. This is the functional equivalent of wearing an underarm estrogen patch. It is noteworthy to mention that many companies have discontinued the use of paraben preservatives in foods for humans.

Having access to this information should enable clear thinking women to conclude that the use of paraben-containing antiperspirants - deodorants is a high risk factor for breast cancer. All too often, I have read sad stories by lumpectomy victims who said: "The breast cancer has come back in the same spot in my left breast." Such stories support the age-old adage: If you keep doing the same thing, you keep getting the same results."

In addition to paraben preservatives, antiperspirants - deodorants contain proprietary ingredients known collectively as fragrances. Fragrances can consist of any of over 2,000 different chemicals, including carcinogens and other toxins, according to published reports.

Other cosmetics. Parabens also are found in many other cosmetics that are in widespread use by girls and women. These include: foaming cleanser, body mist, body lotion, lipstick, body cream, facial cream, body and shower gel, skin cream, hand lotion, moisturizers, and lip gloss. These products also contain proprietary ingredients that are known estrogen producers.

Synthetic musk fragrances. One of the ingredients in many fragrances in widespread use by girls and women is synthetic musk. Synthetic musk and its metabolite caused the proliferation of one type of ER+ human breast cells but not of those that were ER-. 7 A naturally occurring fragrance also showed some estrogenic activity. 7 This is important to note because some cosmetic manufacturers advertise that their products contain all-natural
ingredients. This advertisement assertion could lead to the assumption that these products are, therefore, harmless.

Perfumes. It is has been shown with medical certainty that there is a direct correlation between the amount and frequency of beverage alcohol consumed and breast cancer. 8, 9, 10 Most perfumes consist of about 80 per cent alcohol. We have learned from our studies that many women spray perfumes directly on their breast above the nipple, the site of a large percentage of breast cancers. Certain carcinogens combine synergistically with alcohol and enhance the risk factors for breast cancer.

When perfume is sprayed or dabbed directly on the breast, some cells receive a dose of alcohol that is equivalent to ingesting over 30 glasses of table wine per day. This equivalency is increased when the woman goes to the powder room to "freshen up" where more perfume is applied to her body. Clearly, this could compound the assault on the breast tissue in conjunction with antiperspirants - deodorants mentioned above.

Perfumes also contain proprietary fragrances and other alcohols that are reported to cause breast cells to produce estrogen in excessive amounts (personal communication). Also, perfumes are known to cause other health problems. It is of interest to note the FDA in its March - April 2003 Consumer magazine listed perfume and hair spray as two of several triggers for asthma. ( Web site ) In addition to asthma, perfumes contain known neurotoxins and have a causal link to other aliments such as central nervous system disorders, allergic
respiratory reactions, skin and eye irritations, "double vision, sneezing, nasal congestion, sinusitis, tinnitus, ear pain, dizziness, vertigo, coughing, bronchitis, difficulty breathing, difficulty swallowing, anaphylaxis, headaches, seizures, fatigue, confusion, disorientation, incoherence, short-term memory loss, inability to concentrate, nausea, lethargy, anxiety, irritability, depression, mood swings, restlessness, rashes, hives, eczema, facial flushing, muscle and joint pain, muscle weakness, irregular heart beat, hypertension, swollen lymph glands and more." ( Web site )"

Many women experience some of these maladies during chemotherapy and preventative drug treatments, and may mistakenly attribute it to the anti-cancer drug. When women take anti-cancer drugs, there are often changes in their body biochemistry. Hence, the symptoms they experience may be due to the cosmetics alone or a combination of cosmetics and the anti-cancer drug.

Some fragrances are derived from the distillation of whiskeys (personal observations). These whiskey fragrances are used in the manufacturing of perfumes to give them their characteristic floral aroma. Ibid. These whiskey fragrances are present in perfumes at concentration thousands of times greater than that in the parent whiskey. 11 Whiskey fragrances enter the brain through inhalation or skin adsorption. Ibid. The receptors in the brain are then activated and cause mood changing addictions of euphoria in humans and experimental animals. 11, 12, 13

On a seasonal basis, the raw plant materials used in the manufacturing of whiskeys are contaminated with aflatoxin from mold growth (personal observations). The aflatoxin is present in the whiskey fragrance as a contaminant. Aflatoxin is a well known human carcinogen. 14 or Web site

Addictive ingredients and narcotizing properties of perfumes. A familiar scene at a cosmetic counter in a department store is a woman going through the ritual of spraying and sniffing perfume sprayed on her wrist or forearm. The process is repeated using another brand or type until she discovers the aroma that is most pleasant to her. Perfume aroma causes instant changes in the biochemistry of the brain at the pleasure center. Most perfumes contain a narcotic, and studies suggested that those cosmetics have other addictive ingredients. 11, 12, 13 Published reports revealed that perfume ingredients cause an addictive euphoric high similar to that experienced with nicotine or drinking alcohol. 12 This might explain why women go to the powder room to "freshen up" more than once daily, i.e., to seek another "high" just as the traditional addicts.

Wearing of perfumes and fragranced products banned in public facilities. Like secondhand cigarette smoke, perfumes and fragranced products are causing major health problems in high schools, workplaces and public buildings. Some schools, workplaces, public buildings and public facilities have adopted policies that ban the wearing of perfumes and fragranced products, according to published reports. Also, some restaurants are turning away customers wearing perfumes, and public meeting places for conferences are banning the wearing of
fragranced products in their facilities. Web site or 15

Legal action. An individual won a monetary judgments in trial court under the Americans with Disabilities Act because of illnesses sustained from secondhand exposure to fragranced products in the workplace. The case was upheld on appeal. ( Web site ) or Wilbert Bazert v. State of Louisiana, et al State of Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Cir. No. 99 CA 2115

Hair dyes. A study conducted by researchers for the American Cancer Society has shown a positive association between the use of black hair dyes and fatal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma. 16 Although some inconsistencies were seen, a meta-analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University showed a positive link between the use of permanent hair dyes and Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, unclassified lymphomas and multiple myeloma. 17

Free retreats for breast cancer survivors. In addition to the camaraderie and give-away of the free cosmetics mentioned above, breast cancer survivors were served table wines, funded with tax payers dollars, on their weekend retreats (information obtained through an Open Records Act). Table wine contains chemical components that are both estrogenic and that stimulate the body to produce human estrogen (personal communication). Moreover, beverage alcohol also contains a constituent that has a chemical structure very similar to diethylstilbestrol (DES) (proprietary report published in-house). The concentration of the DES-like constituent is very high in certain types of beverage alcohol. DES is a synthetic estrogen prescribed for pregnant women mainly from 1938 to 1971 to prevent miscarriage. The daughters of the women who took DES have a disproportionately
high incidence of cancer of the vagina or cervix known as clear cell adenocarcinoma. ( Web site ) The sons of women who took DES are at risk for developing testicular cancer and other health problems of the sex organs. ( Web site ) Researchers for the American Cancer Society conducted a study showing a positive association between DES and fatal breast cancer. 18 Heavy and frequent users of cosmetics and beverage alcohol during pregnancy and breast feeding might explain why "non genetic" breast cancer tends to run in certain families.

Carcinogen-free and all-natural cosmetics. Several new cosmetic companies have sprung up during the past decade claiming their products are carcinogen-free and contain all-natural ingredients. First, some of the most toxic and potent carcinogens are derived from natural sources. Second, some cosmetic ingredients are harmless singly but form carcinogens when combined with other chemicals in the body. Third, some cosmetic ingredients are harmless but their metabolic by-products are carcinogenic. Fourth, like the traditional cosmetic companies, these new companies do not make a full disclosure of the ingredients on their product labels. Fifth, the so-called carcinogen-free and all-natural cosmetics may contain preservatives with estrogenic activity. Therefore, women should be aware of advertisement hype.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of all the foregoing medical and scientific evidence, clear-thinking people should conclude that the potential for harm is great if breast cancer surviviors use cosmetics and personal care items that contain known human carcinogens or ingredients with proven estrogenic activity. The latter is especially true for those women who are ER+. Many breast cancer survivors are already debilitated and emaciated from the disease and treatments. Any
marketing strategy to promote the sale and use of cosmetics and fragranced products to this group of survivors is at least unduly exploitative.

Furthermore, such a marketing strategy sends a grossly mistaken message to the general public that cosmetics and fragrances are unconditionally safe. Giving these free products in a hospital setting contravenes the Hippocratic Oath: "first do no harm." Cosmetics and fragrances are potentially harmful because they contain the following elements: (i) known carcinogens that disable the growth regulator mechanism of breast cells; (ii) estrogenic activity to facilitate the entry of the carcinogens into breast cells that have receptors that are estrogen positive; and (iii) a narcotizing drug and ingredients with addictive properties to change the biochemistry of the brain and thus could urge the consumers to keep using the products.

Even if women cannot fully comprehend all the evidence presented herein or the significance of the medical literature cited, they still should be able to draw an adverse inference regarding the safety of cosmetics and fragranced products from the facts enumerated below.

– That all the principal parties refused my repeated requests for a listing of the items in any one cosmetic kit, even though tax payer dollars are being used to administer the program.

– That the wearing of perfumes and fragranced products is being banned in some high schools, public places, workplaces and public buildings.

– That an individual won monetary damages in a court judgment under the Americans with Disabilities Act because of secondhand exposure to fragranced products.

Closing commentary

The incidence of breast cancer is expected to continue to increase with time. Regrettably, it seems the desire for glamour and aromatic fragrances takes precedence over the potential for developing a life-threatening illness. Clearly for their financial gain, the principals are exploiting these facts to the potential detriment and demise of women. When all the scientific evidence is in and when women get sick and then get sick and tired of being sick
and tired, perhaps they will come together and seek some relief through court action. The medical and scientific evidence presented herein is clear, solid, persuasive and compelling. Therefore, breast cancer survivors should reject outright the gift-bearing marketing strategy of the principals.

Unfortunately, in spite of this evidence, many women are likely to continue to believe that cosmetics pose no breast cancer risk. With that kind of mindset, it is not likely that the principals will change their behavior.

Women will undoubtedly continue to clamor from every hill top and every mountain side for a cure. Unfortunately, they have no control over how research funding is spent, what type of research is done or when the research will be done. Further, women who participate in double blind clinical trials have no control over whether they receive the drug or the placebo. However, the individual woman does have a great measure of control over her behavior and lifestyle. Moreover, it is far more humane and doable to try to prevent breast cancer in the first place than to try to cure it once it is fully developed.

——————————————————————————–

LITERATURE CITED

1. Beckley-Kartey SA, Hotchkiss SA, Capel M. Comparative in vitro skin absorption and metabolism of coumarin (1,2-benzopyrone) in human, rat and mouse. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1997 Jul: 145(1): 34-42.

2. Yourick JJ, Bronaugh RL. Percutaneous absorption and metabolishm of courmarin in human and rat skin. J Appl Toxicol 1997 May-Jun; 17(3): 153-8.

3. Mirick DK, Davis S and Thomas DB. Antiperspirant use and the risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002 Oct 16; 94(20): 1578-80.

4. Barbre PD, Byford JR, Shaw LE, Horton RA, Pope GS and Sauer MJ. Oestrogenic activity of isobutylparaben in vitro and in vivo. J Appl Toxicol 2002 Jul-Aug; 22(4): 219-26.

5. Okubo T, Yokoyama Y, Kano K and Kano I. ER-dependent estrogenic activity of parabens assessed by proliferation of human breast cancer MCF-7 cells and expression of ERalpha and PR. Food Chem Toxicol 2001 Dec; 39(12): 1225-32.

6. Darbre PD, Byford JR, Shaw LE, Hall S, Coldham NG, Pope GS and Sauer MJ. Oestrogenic activity of benzylparaben. J Appl Toxicol 2003 Jan-Feb; 23(1): 43-51.

7. Bitsch N, Dudas, C, Korner W, Failing K, Biselle S, Rimkus G and Brunn H. Estrogenic activity of musk fragrances detected by the E-screen assay using human mcf-7 cells. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2002 Oct; 43(3): 257-64.

8. Smith -Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS, van den Brandt PA, Folson AR, Goldbohm A, Graham S, Holmberg L, Howe GR, Marshall JR, Miller AR, Potter JD, Speizer FE, Willett WC, Wolk A, Hunter DJ. Alcohol and Breast Cancer in Women. A pooled analysis of cohort studies. JAMA 1998; 279: 535-40.

9. Colditz GA. A prospective assessment of moderate alcohol intake and major chronic diseases. Ann Epidemiol 1990; 1: 167-77.

10. Garfinkel L, Boffetta P and Stellman SD. Alcohol and breast cancer: a cohort study. Prev Med 1988; 17: 686-93.

11. Hossain SJ, Aoshima H, Koda H and Kiso Y. Potentiation of the ionotropic GABA receptor response by whiskey fragrance. J Agric Food Chem 2002; Nov 6; 50(23); 6828-34.

12. Aoshima H and Hammamoto K. Potentiation of GABAA receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes by perfume and phytoncid. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 1999; Apr; 63(4): 743-8.

13. Whitten RJ, Maitra R and Reynolds JN. Modulation of GABAA receptor function by alcohols: effects of subunit composition and differential effects of ethanol. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1996; Oct 20(7) 1313-9.

14. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Vol. 56, Vol. 82; 2002

15. Anderson, R and Anderson, J Acute toxic effects of fragrance products. Archives of Environmental Health. 1997, 53: 138-45.

16. Thun MJ, Altekruse SF, Namboodiri MM, Calle EE, Myers DG and Heath CW Jr. Hair dye use and risk of fatal cancers in U.S. women. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994 Feb 2; 86(3): 210-5.

17. Correa A, Jackson L, Mohan A, Perry H and Helzlsouer K. Use of hair dyes, hematopoetic neoplasms, and lymphomas: a literature review. II. Lymphomas and muntiple myeloma. Cancer Invest 2000; 18(5): 467-79.

18. Calle EE, Mervis CA, Thun MJ, Rodriguez C, Wingo PA and Heath CW Jr. Diethylstilbestrol and risk of fatal breast cancer in a prospective cohort of US women. Am J Epidemiol 1996 Oct 1; 144(7): 645-52.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=531269&in_page_id=1770

By JENNY HOPE - 11th March 2008

High exposure to everyday cleaning products could cause asthma

Expectant mothers who use a lot of household cleaning products may increase the risk of their child developing asthma, claim researchers.

They found a link between high exposure to everyday products such as bleach and air freshener in women during pregnancy, or shortly after birth, and wheezing and asthma in their young children.

Children exposed to these products had up to a 41 per cent increase in the risk of persistent wheezing by the age of seven, and had slightly lower than normal lung function.

Experts behind the study, which looked at more than 7,000 families and is published in the European Respiratory Journal, are uncertain about which chemicals are to blame, although previous research suggests fumes called volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, could be responsible.

More than 1.4million British children have asthma. Rates have shot up four-fold since the 1970s.

The latest study was headed by Dr John Henderson, an expert in paediatric respiratory medicine at Bristol University.

He said small children coming from cleaner homes might be more likely to develop asthma.

"We think that is perhaps due to irritant effects of the chemicals on the child after birth, which may cause inflammation of the airways leading to development of asthma," he said.

"This research points to direct effects of chemical-exposure on lung development or irritation of the airways after birth."

Researchers found the most commonly used household chemicals included disinfectant and bleach - used by more than four in five mothers - and window cleaner, air fresheners and aerosols, found in two-thirds of homes.

Others included carpet cleaner and white spirit.

They found higher levels of VOCs in homes where there was greater use of products such as air fresheners and aerosols.

There was a link between higher exposure of expectant mothers to household chemicals for persistent wheezing in offspring, equivalent to a 41 per cent increase overall.

Lung function was also slightly worse among children of mothers with high exposure before birth.

Comment: Canary Cosmetics products contain no fragrance, pthalates, parabens, lead or petrolatum.

You wake up in the morning and plod into the shower. You massage shampoo and conditioner into your hair. You scrub soaps and gels across your skin. Emerging from the shower, you may rub on any number of potions, powders, and lotions: deodorant; hair de-frizzers or gels; moisturizers to apply on your face, under your eyes, and on your legs.

Many of you ladies will also apply makeup: foundations, powders, mascara, and colours across your eyelids, cheeks, and lips. Some women may spritz on perfume or some men, cologne. You should, of course, not forget to brush your teeth.

By the time you walk out of the bathroom, you may have sprayed, slathered, and coated your body with over a dozen different products. And if you’ve ever read the back of your shampoo bottle, you know that many products contain a long list of barely pronounceable ingredients. It’s not exactly light reading. Have you ever stopped to wonder about those lengthy, hyphenated chemical ingredients? What are they? What do they do? Are they healthy or dangerous?

Are beauty products only skin deep?
Only about 11% of personal care product ingredients have been tested for safety. That leaves about 9,000 untested ingredients lurking in the personal care and cosmetic products you use everyday. The list of some 10,000 ingredients includes allergens; irritants; and possibly human carcinogens, neurotoxins, and hormone disrupters. Others on the list are just plain puzzling.

Take nanoparticles, for example. These microscopic flecks of metal or ceramics go by compelling names like crystals, beads, or microspheres. Manufacturers have added nanoparticles to over 100 known products, including sunscreens, concealers, and lip pencils. Far from washable, nanoparticles have the ability to burrow deeply into body tissues and travel to the brain and into red blood cells. Long-term health impacts of these tiny metals are unknown and virtually untested. Sounds like something you’d want to steer clear of, right? Definitely, say some researchers.

This is not to say that cosmetics ingredients are an immediate threat to your health and safety, but you should stop and think about your own personal care and cosmetic habits. Remember: all of those cleansers, moisturizers, and perfumes don’t just wash away down the drain. Your body can absorb some of the chemicals, which may accumulate over time, and the long-term impact of many of the chemicals on the human body is still scientifically uncertain.

Until government regulating bodies are required to test the safety of all cosmetic products, you may wish to consider the following recommendations.

Overcome product addiction
Oh, how the cosmetic aisles tempt us. All of those colourful bottles, all those amazing scientific-sounding claims of ageless beauty, and those promising words of wonder - revitalizing, brightening, rejuvenating, enhancing, and contouring. Next time you feel the urge to snap up the latest and reputedly greatest new product, ask yourself, "Do I really need this?" Chances are you already have a half-used bottle of something like it sitting on the shelf at home.

Go to your bathroom and tally up the products you use on a regular basis. If you’re using more than 15 items in one day, you may be a product junkie. Think about scaling back your whole personal care routine. Do you really need to subject your hair to that intense leave-on conditioner everyday and follow it up with a shine treatment and a smoothing serum and a styling gel?

Become a label-scanner
Beauty buyers, beware. The scientists and cosmetic industry reps continue to argue about the health and safety impacts of cosmetic ingredients. While they duke it out, you as a consumer can decide for yourself if you want to use products with some of these hotly contested ingredients:

Organic: Pick up a product with the word "organic" on it, and you might feel comforted. Ah, you think, it must be made from the pure bark of some sapling tree from the rain forest. Organic is no assurance of purity in cosmetics, and currently no standards govern labels claiming "organic" benefits.
Fragrance: The word "fragrance" should give you pause, too. In the US, labels don’t have to list the ingredients of "fragrance," while in Canada, manufacturers can choose to list fragrance ingredients or to use the ambiguous term "parfum." Fragrances may mask the presence of phthalate, a suspected reproductive toxin. You may also consider freeing yourself from fragrances due to the high potential for allergic reactions and skin irritations.
Phthalates: Mentioned above, phthalates show up most often in nail polishes, perfumes, deodorants, and hair sprays. Phthalate compounds are sometimes listed by sneaky acronyms: DBP, DEP, DEHP, BBzP, and DMP.
Parabens: Thank goodness for preservatives! Without them, our makeup and lotions would go rancid. Some preservatives may do as much harm as good. Parabens, a common cosmetic preservative, can cause skin allergies and can mimic naturally produced estrogen, a fact which has perpetuated the fear of breast cancer with paraben use. There are studies that show the presence of paraben in breast cancer tissue, but the proof of the link between paraben and breast cancer is inconclusive. The research has sparked much heated debate. Still, there are many paraben-free alternatives if you’d like to dodge potential risks all together.
Lead: Lead is a known neurotoxin, meaning it can cause learning and behavioural disorders, and you may smear trace amounts of it onto your lips everyday. In a study of 33 randomly-selected brand name lipsticks, more than half contained lead. And these are big names you’d know. Though the amount of lead in each tube of lipstick is very low, think about how many times you apply and reapply lipsticks everyday. Unfortunately, this is one of those ingredients that don’t turn up on the ingredient labels. So, what’s a glamour puss to do? Seek out brands that note lead-free ingredients or visit the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics website to read more about the issue.
Petrolatum: Wow, this stuff is in a lot of products - everything from shampoos and conditioners to Styrofoam and gasoline. Yep, the stuff you put in your tank you may be rubbing into your scalp. Petrolatum (or petroleum, petroleum jelly) and its byproducts go by many names, and they have sparked contamination concerns and been linked to increasing the risk of developing skin cancer. In general, petrolatum is considered to be safe in humans.
http://chealth.canoe.ca/channel_section_details.asp?text_id=4437&channel_id=2003&relation_id=11995

Posted in cosmetics, fragrances |

Caution at the cosmetics counter

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

Comment: Canary Cosmetics products contain no fragrance, pthalates, parabens, lead or petrolatum.

Until government regulating bodies are required to test the safety of all cosmetic products, you may wish to consider the following recommendations.

Posted in cosmetics, fragrances |

Groups Seek Ban on the Use Of Phthalates in Cosmetics

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

July 10, 2002

By JILL CARROLL
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON — Three consumer and environmental groups released a study showing that certain chemicals linked to birth defects in animals are present in high levels in a number of toiletries, and called for banning their use in cosmetics.

The three organizations — the Environmental Working Group, Health Care Without Harm and Coming Clean — tested 72 products, including nail polish, hairspray, perfume and deodorant, for the chemicals, known as phthalates, and found that 52 products contained them at varying levels.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have said that there’s no evidence that phthalates in cosmetics present a health risk, but that more research needs to be done. In animals, phthalates (pronounced THA-layts) have been linked to birth defects of the male reproductive system.

The three advocacy groups called on the government to study the effects of exposure to phthalates , particularly in women. "We don’t have a regulatory system that has ever considered those cumulative exposures," said Charlotte Brody, a nurse and head of Health Care Without Harm, a Washington-based consumer-health advocacy group.

A panel of experts funded by the cosmetics industry is examining phthalates and will decide in about a year if they believe the chemicals pose a health hazard.

The cosmetics industry said it believes phthalates in cosmetics pose no problems. "There is no public-health concern [relating to] its use in cosmetics," said Gerald McEwen, vice president of science for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. "We think they are safe as we are using them in our products."

But if phthalates were found to be dangerous, companies would remove products containing them without government intervention, he said.

Phthalates have been used for decades in a wide variety of products from toys and medical equipment to making sure perfumes have the right smell. The biggest cosmetic product containing phthalates is nail polish. In the past phthalates were used extensively as plastics softeners in children’s toys and teethers. But manufacturers largely stopped using them for that purpose after pressure from consumer groups.

In 2000, a CDC report showed surprisingly high levels of certain types of phthalates in the population, despite the fact that the specific types aren’t used much in consumer products.

Posted in cosmetics |

Gender-bending chemicals that mimic estrogen are common in sunscreens, warn Swiss researchers

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

Exclusive from New Scientist magazine

Gender-bending chemicals that mimic the effect of estrogen are common in sunscreens, warns a team of Swiss researchers who have found that they trigger developmental abnormalities in rats.

"We need to do more tests to see how they might be affecting people," says Margaret Schlumpf from the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Zurich, Switzerland.

Researchers know that chemicals which behave like estrogen can cause health problems. They can have a dramatic effect on animals, for example turning fish into hermaphrodites.

Some researchers claim that hormonally active chemicals from the urine of women taking the birth control pill are already swamping the environment, and may be causing a decline in sperm counts.

Uterine growth

Schlumpf and her colleagues tested six common UV screening chemicals used in sunscreens, lipsticks and other cosmetics. All five UVB screens -benzophenone-3, homosalate, 4-methyl-benzylidene camphor (4-MBC), octyl-methoxycinnamate and octyl-dimethyl-PABA - behaved like estrogen in lab tests, making cancer cells grow more rapidly.

Three caused developmental effects in animals. Only one chemical - a UVA protector called butyl-methoxydibenzoylmethane (B-MDM) - showed no activity.

One of the most common sunscreen chemicals, 4-MBC, had a particularly strong effect. When the team mixed it with olive oil and applied it to rat skin, it doubled the rate of uterine growth well before puberty. "That was scary, because we used concentrations that are in the range allowed in sunscreens," Schlumpf says.

Nobody knows if doses are high enough to create problems for people, says Schlumpf.

Low levels

"Evidence that they’re a real health concern is still lacking," says Richard Sharpe from the Medical Research Council’s Reproductive Biology Unit in Edinburgh. But he adds, "It’s not good news that we are lathering ourselves with creams with hormonal activity."

The Cosmetic Toiletry & Perfumery Association, which represents sunscreen manufacturers in Britain, replies that the levels found by Schlumpf are well below anything that would cause an effect after a single application.

A study by the association, not yet published, shows no effect from these chemicals in rats. But, it adds, "If levels are increasing [in the environment] then we’re aware something would have to be done soon."

Breast milk

That day may be here since 4-MBC and other sunscreen chemicals have been shown to accumulate in fish from lakes where people swim.

More worryingly, they have been found in breast milk at levels of nanograms per kilogram of fat - about the same as other known environmental contaminants. Schlumpf worries that the large amount of sunscreen used by bathers, especially children, could dramatically increase this exposure.

Schlumpf says the other 25 or so chemicals used in sunscreens should also be tested for hormonal activity, and she will be looking more closely at 4-MBC to see if the offspring of exposed rats develop health problems.

For the moment, she isn’t advising people to ditch sunscreens completely, but suggests that sunblocks like zinc oxide might make a healthier alternative.

More at: Environmental Health Perspectives (vol 109, p 239)

Posted in cosmetics |

Canary Cosmetics Reading Room

Archive for the 'cosmetics' Category

Too much perfume? Could be a zinc deficiency

The FDA Still Ingores the Lethal Risks of Talcum Powder

Soil Association bans nanomaterials from organic products

Scents and Sensitivity

If it’s hypoallergenic, it’s safe for sensitive skin, right?

Group links nail polish to birth defects

Cosmetics and fragranced products pose high risks

Caution at the cosmetics counter

Groups Seek Ban on the Use Of Phthalates in Cosmetics

Gender-bending chemicals that mimic estrogen are common in sunscreens, warn Swiss researchers

Pages

Archives

Categories