http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/channel_section_details.asp?text_id=4437&channel_id=2003&relation_id=11580

(Note: Canary Cosmetics products don’t contain nanoparticles, fragrance, pthalates, petroleum, parabens or lead.)

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.
 
(*remember…phthalates found in fragrances are NOT labeled… )

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.

– By Amy Toffelmire

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-10-093.asp

(Note: Canary Cosmetics does not use 1,4-dioxane or ethylene oxide in any of its products.)

SACRAMENTO, California, June 10, 2008 (ENS) - California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has filed a lawsuit against companies that manufacture or distribute body care and household cleaning products that have tested highest for the carcinogenic chemical 1,4-dioxane. The lawsuit was filed May 29 in the Alameda County Superior Court.

Named as defendants are Avalon Natural Products, which makes the Alba brand products; Beaumont Products which makes VeggieWash and Clearly Natural brands; Nutribiotic, which makes grapefruit seed extract personal care products; and Whole Foods Market California, Inc., which sells the Whole Foods 365 brand.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction and civil penalties to remedy defendants’ failure to warn consumers that cleaning products such as body washes and gels and liquid dish soaps containing l,4-dioxane sold by defendants expose consumers to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer.

Some natural personal care products contain a known human carcinogen, California alleges. (Photo credit unknown)
Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code section 25249.6, usually called “Proposition 65,” businesses must provide persons with a “clear and reasonable warning” before exposing them to such chemicals.

The chemical 1,4-dioxane was listed under Proposition 65 as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer on January 1, 1988.

The California attorney general alleges that each defendant has known since at least May 29, 2004 that the body washes and gels and liquid dish soaps contain l ,4-dioxane and that persons using these products are exposed to the chemical.

In addition to violating Proposition 65, the lawsuit alleges that each defendant has engaged in unlawful business practices which constitute unfair competition.

The defendant companies face maximum fines of $2,500 per day for each violation.

The defendants’ products were tested in a study commissioned by the Organic Consumers Association, OCA, and released in March. The study analyzed “natural” and “organic” brand shampoos, body washes, lotions and other personal care products for the presence of 1,4-dioxane.

Results for all products tested is online here. http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/DioxaneResults08.cfm

A reputable third-party laboratory known for rigorous testing and chain-of-custody protocols, performed the testing, the Organic Consumers Association says.

The chemical at issue in the lawsuit, 1,4-dioxane, is typically produced as a byproduct when ingredients are processed with the petrochemical ethylene oxide, which has become standard practice for many cleansing and moisturizing products.

“The OCA’s 1,4-dioxane study elevated the issue of fake ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ brands that utilize petrochemicals in their formulas in March, and now we are seeing labeling enforcement on a scale never seen before,” says the association’s National Director Ronnie Cummins.

“We used an independent laboratory and found that numerous ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ brands tested positive for 1,4-dioxane, a cancer-causing contaminant resulting from the petrochemical ethylene oxide being attached to one or more ingredients,” Cummins said.

Last week, the Organic Consumers Association sent a letter to the four companies named in the lawsuit asking if they are planning changes to their labeling or product formulations. Only one company responded.

In a letter to the association Beaumont Products of Kennesaw, Georgia wrote, “Upon being notified that there was a problem with our product, we verified that the problem existed, then took immediate action.”

Beaumont says they have reformulated their products to remove the problem ingredient.

“These companies need to stop treating the inclusion of cancer causing chemicals in their products as business as usual and reformulate before consumer confidence in the natural products and organics industry is permanently damaged,” says consumer activist David Steinman, who conducted the OCA study and exposed the presence of 1,4-dioxane in baby bubble bath products in his book “Safe Trip to Eden.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers 1,4-dioxane as “reasonably anticipated” to be a human carcinogen.

Few studies are available that provide information about the effects of 1,4-dioxane in humans. Exposure to very high levels of 1,4-dioxane can result in liver and kidney damage and death. Eye and nose irritation was reported by people inhaling low levels of 1,4-dioxane vapors for short periods up to several hours.

Studies in animals have shown that breathing, ingesting, or skin contact with 1,4-dioxane can result in liver and kidney damage.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved.

(Note: Canary Cosmetics products do not contain nanoparticles.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527091910.htm

ScienceDaily (May 27, 2008) — A new study into the potential health hazards of the revolutionary nano-sized particles known as ‘buckyballs’ predicts that the molecules are easily absorbed into animal cells, providing a possible explanation for how the molecules could be toxic to humans and other organisms.

Using computer simulations, University of Calgary biochemist Peter Tieleman, post-doctoral fellow Luca Monticelli and colleagues modeled the interaction between carbon-60 molecules and cell membranes and found that the particles are able to enter cells by permeating their membranes without causing mechanical damage.

“Buckyballs are already being made on a commercial scale for use in coatings and materials but we have not determined their toxicity,” said Tieleman, a Senior Scholar of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research who specializes in membrane biophysics and biocomputing. “There are studies showing that they can cross the blood-brain barrier and alter cell functions, which raises a lot of questions about their toxicity and what impact they may have if released into the environment.”

Tieleman’s team used the high-powered computing resources of WestGrid, a partnership between 14 Western Canadian institutions, to run some of the cell behaviour simulations. The resulting model showed that buckyball particles are able to dissolve in cell membranes, pass into cells and re-form particles on the other side where they can cause damage to cells.

Spherical carbon-60 molecules were discovered in 1985, leading to the Nobel Prize in physics for researchers from the University of Sussex and Rice University who named the round, hollow molecules Buckminsterfullerene after renowned American architect Richard Buckminster Fuller, the inventor of the geodesic dome.

Popularly known as buckyballs, carbon-60 molecules form naturally in minute quantities under extreme conditions such as lightning strikes. They can also be produced artificially as spheres or oblong-shaped balls, known as fullerenes, and can be used to produce hollow fibers known as carbon nanotubes. Both substances are considered to be promising materials in the field of nanotechnology because of their incredible strength and heat resistance. Potential applications include the production of industrial materials, drug delivery systems, fuel cells and even cosmetics.

In recent years, much research has focused on the potential health and environmental impacts of buckyballs and carbon nanotubes. Fullerenes have been shown to cause brain damage in fish and inhaling carbon nanotubes results in lung damage similar to that caused by asbestos.

“Buckyballs commonly form into clumps that could easily be inhaled by a person as dust particles,” Tieleman said. “How they enter cells and cause damage is still poorly understood but our model shows a possible mechanism for how this might occur.”

http://www.coopamerica.org/pubs/caq/articles/Spring2008/TheCaseforPrecaution.cfm

Some time ago, Co-op America published an article called “The Ugly Side of Cosmetics,” in which we detailed why many experts are concerned about the vast number of potential toxins in body care products.

That article, printed in our Real Money newsletter, cited studies showing that many of the body care products we use on a daily basis—from make-up and hair care products to soaps and baby wipes—contain known or probable carcinogens, hormone disrupters, and other potentially harmful substances. We recommended consumers exercise extra caution and purchase their body care items from companies that pledged to phase out the most harmful chemicals and use organic and truly natural ingredients.

Not too long after we printed that piece, a group of individuals started discussing the article on an Internet message board. At first, they were concerned—until a young woman popped in and reassured everyone that “I’m a chemistry major, and all of these products are safe. The government wouldn’t let them be on store shelves if they weren’t.”

Like that student, many people have considerable faith in the government to protect them, assuming that if a product of any type is sold in the US, it must be safe for human health and the environment.

That faith is misplaced. As evidenced by the recent news reports about lead in children’s toys made in China, toxic products can and do make it onto US store shelves. For example, mainstream newspapers backed up our cosmetics story this year, when in October 2007, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics discovered lead in several trusted brands of lipsticks still sold today in US stores, from drugstore stalwart L’Oreal to the more exclusive Dior brand.

(Note: Canary Cosmetics is an original signer of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics compact. Our products contain no lead.)

“How is lead getting into children’s toys and my make-up?” asks a shocked Suzanne Anich, mother to an 18-month-old daughter in Eagan, MN. “I thought lead was completely banned from use in the US.”

So did a lot of people. But lead—a potent, known neurotoxicant—is only banned in paint at levels over 600 parts per million, and it can legally be mixed into other products, like the vinyl shower curtain in Anich’s bathroom, the vinyl bib her toddler sometimes uses, the computer in her home office, the cell phone in her purse, and the mainstream-brand makeup she used to use before discovering green products. And yes, even in her daughter’s toys.

“Some of the toxic toys we’re hearing about now did have illegal lead levels, but some of them were probably perfectly legal, especially the children’s jewelry, where the lead can be mixed into the product,” notes Dr. Steven Gilbert, a toxicologist with the University of Washington and author of A Small Dose of Toxicology (Informa Press, 2004).

And we have more than just lead to worry about. There are now some 80,000 chemicals registered for use in the US, and more than 2,000 new chemicals are introduced each year, according to the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center and the Body Burden Work Group.

“While the government does require health studies and pre-market testing on prescription drugs, it does not do so for most other chemicals,” says Gilbert. In other words, when you take a close look at the cleaners we use in our homes; the pesticides that we spray on our food; the hormones ingested by our meat or dairy animals; the paints and stains and finishes we use on our cars, furniture, mattresses, or walls; the body and hair care products we use on ourselves, you’ll find that very few of them are independently tested to ensure they won’t harm human health or the environment before they hit store shelves.

And while corporations may save money by not conducting health and safety tests on the ingredients they use, it’s consumers who pay the price. Time and again, it falls to consumers, university scientists, or nonprofit watchdog groups to prove that a given chemical or product is unsafe—which generally happens only after several people have been harmed or killed, after our air and water and soil becomes poisoned, after entire populations are burdened with more than their share of birth defects, systemic illnesses, cancer.

“So much of public health and environmental policy relies on what I call the ‘dead body’ principle,” says Carolyn Raffensperger, executive director of the Science and Health Environmental Network (SEHN). “When you wait for proof before you take action, the proof is usually in the dead bodies and the sick bodies. When you let the chemical out and haven’t tested it, you’re using our bodies as lab rats.” But we don’t have to rely on the dead body principle, say Raffensperger and others, who are calling for a better way to protect ourselves and future generations. It’s called the Precautionary Principle, and it’s something we embrace here at Co-op America, whenever we recommend a green product or service over a conventional one or screen a company for membership in our Green Business Network™. It’s why when industry assures us that something is “safe,” we don’t take that for granted. It’s why we champion the cleanest, greenest way of doing business over business as usual.
The Precautionary Principle
When Carolyn Raffensperger was a young girl, her father, a pediatric surgeon, came home from work and made an announcement that would reverberate throughout her life.

“He said he believed the birth defects and childhood tumors that he was a world expert on were caused by pollution,” says Raffensperger. “And when he told me he couldn’t do anything about it because he couldn’t prove it, I was stunned. He was seeing suffering in babies, and they hadn’t done anything to deserve it. Why, I wondered, did he need proof before he could take action?”

It was a question that ultimately led her to SEHN, where she and her colleagues worked to determine how the world could go beyond what’s called “risk assessment.” The way we currently calculate the risk of a chemical is to determine the level at which lab animals get sick from it. Then, we plug it into a formula that basically says, “If we use this much less than what makes animals sick, we should be okay.”

But sometimes, Raffensperger knew, even those low doses of a chemical could cause harm, alone or in combination with other substances in the environment. So she and her colleagues wondered how they could get governments around the world to take action to protect human health and the Earth before having definitive proof.

The answer came in 1998, when a graduate student named Joel Tickner wrote and asked her to participate in his dissertation work on an idea he called the Precautionary Principle.

“I knew this was an answer to the question we’d been asking. Within minutes of seeing the student’s request, I decided to convene the Wingspread Conference,” she says.

And so, ten years ago, Raffensperger, Tickner, and a group of scientists, philosophers, lawyers, and activists gathered at the Wingspread Conference Center in Racine, WI, to take a stand against the harm we are doing to ourselves, the environment, and future generations. The group reached an historic consensus that “corporations, government entities, organizations, communities, scientists and other individuals must adopt a precautionary approach to all human endeavors.”

The group released the Wingspread Statement elaborating on their consensus, which defines the heart of the Precautionary Principle as follows: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

“Risk assessment embodies the idea that we can measure and manage or control risk and harm—and we can decide that some risk is acceptable,” says Raffensperger. “The Precautionary Principle is a very different idea that says that as an ethical matter, we are going to prevent all the harm we can.”

To illustrate how things would change if we adopted the Precautionary Principle as the backbone of US chemical policy, Raffensperger cites the example of mercury used as a preservative in vaccines. “Risk assessment science says it doesn’t look like mercury in vaccines causes damage, but there’s still a raging debate going on about whether it causes autism in children. And whether it does or not, mercury just isn’t good for children. We don’t have to wait for definitive proof that we’re harming kids before we take action, especially if we have alternatives. The Precautionary Principle says that if you’ve got safer alternatives, why not use them?”
A decade of hope
As we celebrate ten years of the Precautionary Principle, it’s important to also celebrate the considerable impact it’s had. While there hasn’t yet been much in the way of federal action in the US, some states and several countries are moving toward a more precautionary approach:

• The state of California recently banned phthalates, plastic softeners linked to endocrine disruption, in cosmetics and in toys. Last December, Minnesota banned toxic mercury in cosmetics sold in the state. In Washington state, some communities have decided that hospitals and schools must be cleaned with non-chemical-based products. And in Massachusetts, proposed legislation would require using only nontoxic cleaners in day cares, schools, and other public buildings.

• The European Union (EU) recently passed the groundbreaking Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals law, or REACH. Under REACH, more than 60,000 chemicals will have to be registered with the EU and, for the first time, evaluated for toxicity to human health and the environment. Substances of high concern will be removed from the market unless the manufacturers can prove their safety.

• Businesses like green household products company Seventh Generation and organic body care company Aubrey Organics are going the extra mile to protect human health and the environment, workers and communities. They’re using the safest ingredients they can find, and they’re fully disclosing those ingredients on product labels or Web sites, even though they’re not legally obligated to do so. And consumers are taking a stand by purchasing these cleaner, greener products.

(Note: Canary Cosmetics uses the safest ingredients possible and fully discloses all ingredients on our labels and Web site.)

“The green marketplace is booming in every sector—from nontoxic body care to organic food to green cleaners,” says Denise Hamler, director of Co-op America’s Green Business Network™. “People are letting manufacturers know that they don’t want hidden toxins in their products.”

• These green businesses and consumers are influencing mainstream industry, as well-known brands launch green product lines to keep up with consumer demand. Target has pledged to phase out PVC (vinyl) products, which contain phthalates. In cooperation with none other than the Sierra Club, Clorox is introducing “Green Works,” a line of less-toxic household cleaners. Home Depot is now selling several brands of environmentally friendly home improvement products, flagging them in stores with an “Eco-Options” sign.

Then there are the efforts of people like Co-op America members, who are working to keep toxins out of their homes, workplaces, and communities. Use our Healthy Home Guide to take the most important steps to clear the air in your household.

We are creating change when it comes to toxic chemical products and processes, and we can keep creating change together, until no one has to worry about being exposed to something that will make them or their children sick.

“Do we want to leave a toxic legacy? Or do we want to leave the blessings of a healthy world?” asks Raffensperger.

We can do either one.

Canary Cosmetics does not use nanoparticles in our products.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080521.wnano21/BNStory/National/

Tiny substances should be banned in foods, clearly labelled in personal-care products, environmental law group says

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Wednesday’s Globe and Mail

May 21, 2008 at 4:53 AM EDT

Nanomaterials should be banned in foods and some packaging, and there should be mandatory labelling for these novel compounds in cosmetics, personal-care products and cleaning agents, says the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy.

The institute says the food ban should be in place by November of 2009 and the labelling requirement by May of 2010. It contends that the “extremely rapid commercialization” of consumer products containing nanomaterials “requires an unprecedented sense of urgency by government in the creation of policy for this area.”

Nanomaterials are extremely small, engineered substances that many environmentalists worry could be the next frontier for hazardous chemicals in consumer goods. They’re currently being added to many products, including wrinkle- and stain-resistant fabrics, sunscreens and sports equipment, such as tennis racquets, among other items.

CIELAP, a Toronto-based environmental policy think tank, is issuing the timelines and recommendations in a report being released today.

Although the health or environmental threats, if any, posed by nanomaterials are not known, Susan Holtz, a senior policy analyst at the institute, said “this is an emerging issue” driven by the fast growth in commercial applications for the new technology.
The regulatory framework for ensuring the safety of these novel materials isn’t well developed in Canada or elsewhere around the world, Ms. Holtz said. She said the labelling requirement would give consumers more information with which to decide whether to buy a product.

The report, written by Ms. Holtz, also recommends that the federal government create a Canadian inventory of products containing these compounds, a record of research activities on them, and a worker safety program for those involved in their manufacture.

More than 500 consumer items incorporate nanomaterials, according to a non-governmental tally maintained by the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, with three of them made by Canadian firms. One industry estimate projected that about $1-trillion worth of products incorporating nanotechnology will be on the world market by 2015.

Nanomaterials are very minute - ranging in size from one to 100 nanometres. One nanometre equals a billionth of a metre, and it would take about 100,000 particles the size of one nanometre to equal the diameter of a human hair.

Scientists make nanomaterials by arranging metals and other compounds at the level of the atom in unique ways, often into shapes resembling rods or spheres, creating new substances with more strength, conductivity or durability than the original materials from which they are constructed.

Because of their small size, there are fears that when products using nanomaterials break down, some of the tiny particles will be able to cross into cell membranes or become embedded in tissues in a way that is similar to such carcinogens as asbestos or such health hazards as the small particulates, or soot, contained in air pollution.

Ms. Holtz said nanomaterials are also being used in medical applications. She is worried that nanomaterials containing silver as an anti-bacteriological agent in wound dressing, for instance, could get into the environment and harm wildlife. She said there is “beginning to be an accumulation of evidence that things like this have ecological impacts.” Environment Canada and Health Canada issued a proposed regulatory framework for nanomaterials last year in September.

The government wants to regulate nanomaterials in the same way as new chemicals, if they have a unique structure or molecular arrangement. The requirement would expose nanomaterials to additional safety testing, but Ms. Holtz said the scientific protocols for evaluating these substances have not yet been determined.

Mom is ageless, but should she wish to pamper her skin, we want her lotions and potions to be safe.

Avon’s Mother’s Day gift bag contains two creams, ANEW Alternative Intensive Age Treatment SPF 25 and ANEW Alternative Intensive Eye Cream. If Mom were to use both of these creams, she would be exposed to:

• diazolidinyl urea (which may be derived from urine and contaminated with formaldehyde, a cancer-causing chemical);
• propylene glycol (an ingredient with strong contamination concerns);
• oxybenzone (dangers associated with enhanced skin penetration; linked to cancer, hormone disruption);
• undisclosed ingredients in “fragrance” (may include phthalates, linked to birth defects and cancer);
• four different parabens (which have been found in breast tumors and linked to endocrine disruption); and
• dozens of other ingredients with health concerns or that have never been tested for safety.

These aren’t the only Avon products that we hope mom will avoid. The Skin Deep database contains 356 Avon products, 84 of which score in the highest hazard range (between 7 and 10 on a scale of 1 to 10) due to ingredients linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, developmental or reproductive toxicity, allergies and contamination concerns (impurities linked to cancer, for example).

Why is the “company for women,” the company behind the famous Avon Walk for Breast Cancer, putting unsafe and untested ingredients in products moms use daily? If Avon really wants to support women, it should support their long-term health.

Here’s the heartening news: On May 1, a full 25 percent of Avon shareholders voted in favor of a resolution that requested the company report on policies regarding potentially dangerous, unlabeled nanomaterials in products. The vote shows that Avon shareholders are open to improvement - so let’s push them to make more commitments to women’s health!