Canary Cosmetics Reading Room

This Risky Chemical in Air Fresheners Isn’t On the Ingredient List
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/air-fresheners-47061704
Three environmental and health groups have sued the federal government in an attempt to force it to label air fresheners that use a potentially harmful substance.

Phthalates, which in laboratory animal tests damage the reproductive system and interrupt normal development by mimicking the body’s hormones, were found in more than a dozen common household air fresheners that the Natural Resources Defense Council tested. The risk from low-dose exposure via air freshener isn’t known. People are also exposed to phthalates from a variety of other sources, primarily plastics. The Sierra Club and the Alliance for Healthy Homes have joined the lawsuit.

Phthalates were only one class of potentially harmful chemicals identified in the air fresheners. Others have been linked to cancer and asthma.As with exposure to any harmful substance, any risk is generally most acute for fetuses, babies and children whose organs are still developing.

About three out of four households use air fresheners, and the $1.72 billion industry has grown 50% since 2003.

Currently, those many consumers would find it hard to avoid chemicals they deem risky because the government does not require ingredients to be listed on air fresheners. Even some brands marked “all natural” or “unscented” contain the synthetic chemical linked to endocrine disruption, according to the NRDC study.

Of 14 brands tested, only two contained no detectable levels of phthalates in the NRDC testing. The three with the highest level of phthalates were Walgreens Air Freshener, Walgreens Scented Bouquet, and Ozium Glycolized Air Sanitizer.

“Consumers deserve to know that the products they bring into their homes are safe for use. Picking an air freshener off the store shelf shouldn’t be a guessing game.,” said NRDC attorney Mae Wu. “If manufacturers refuse to be up front about the chemicals in their products and the potential health risks they cause, then it is the government’s responsibility to demand that information for Americans. It’s impossible for consumers to make informed choices to protect the health of their families when basic information is being withheld.”

Read the NRDC study: http://www.nrdc.org/health/home/airfresheners/contents.asp
Find this article at: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/air-fresheners-47061704

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.

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.

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=67aa3b0c6ffc65ef&-session=TheDailyNews:42F946A70ccb8007D9VNG43A704D

By Leigh Jones
The Daily News
Published May 24, 2008

Advertisements for chemical fertilizer started airing on local television stations as soon as spring arrived.

Companies tempt gardeners to buy products that will get them rapid results, with promises to produce exponential growth, lush greenery and succulent fruits and vegetables.

But Bob Webster, a well-known gardening guru, radio host and horticulturist based in San Antonio, warns the short-term payoff is not worth the long-term cost of using chemicals.

Robing The Soil

Plants rely on bacteria in the soil to convert nutrients into a form that they can use, Webster said.

The microbes need an energy source to stay alive and do their work.

Chemical fertilizers do not include any energy source for the microbes, forcing the organisms to break down organic material in the soil to make use of the nutrients, he said.

Over time, using chemical fertilizers will rob the soil of virtually all of its organic material, making it hard-packed, crusted and incapable of holding water or oxygen, he said.

Organic fertilizers include micronutrients and an energy source to feed the microbes that convert the soil’s nutrients for the plant’s use, Webster said.

They also help reduce water use because they reduce the amount of water plants lose into the atmosphere, he said.

Growth Spurts

Gardeners usually love chemical fertilizers because they give fast results, but the growth they produce is not always the best, Webster said.

Rapid growth is usually week and susceptible to insects and disease, he said.

Chemical fertilizers also make plants thirsty, which leads to more water use, he said.

If chemical fertilizers aren’t used with lots of water, they will dehydrate the plant, a condition most often referred to as burning.

Organic fertilizers, on the other hand, contain nutrients that are released slowly into the soil, Webster said.

They do not promote rapid growth or excessive water consumption, he said.

The microbes need an energy source to stay alive and do their work.

Chemical fertilizers do not include any energy source for the microbes, forcing the organisms to break down organic material in the soil to make use of the nutrients, he said.

Over time, using chemical fertilizers will rob the soil of virtually all of its organic material, making it hard-packed, crusted and incapable of holding water or oxygen, he said.

Organic fertilizers include micronutrients and an energy source to feed the microbes that convert the soil’s nutrients for the plant’s use, Webster said.

They also help reduce water use because they reduce the amount of water plants lose into the atmosphere, he said.

Not To Worry

Although local extension agents recommend soil tests every few years to make sure the right products are used, Webster says the tests are only really necessary for farmers.

Most of the soil in the area contains similar levels of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium, especially if it’s been treated with chemical fertilizer, he said.

Switching to an organic gardening program will begin repairing damage immediately and boost the micro-organisms in the soil that will help the plant absorb whatever nutrients is has available.

Webster also tells gardeners not to worry about the numbers usually written prominently on fertilizer bags.

“It’s not how much of the material is in there, it’s how much is available to the plants,” he said.

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/04-29/stop-static-cling-fabric-softener-article.htm

Alternatives to the Toxic Components of Fabric Softener and Dryer Sheets

Our rich Aunt Regina’s clothes were always the latest things from the top fashion designers. She explained her philosophy as follows: “If it’s expensive and ugly, it’s for me.”

Most of us poorer folk wear more normal clothes, and whether they’re a sight to make eyes sore or not, when we’re done wearing them, they get washed and dried. We put the clothes in the washer, then we put the clothes in the dryer, then we throw a dryer sheet in after them. It’s the way it’s done. Some people also use liquid fabric softener in the wash cycle. All this softening and sweetening is part of Better Living Through Chemistry. Or is it?

PROBLEMS WITH DRYER SHEETS AND FABRIC SOFTENER

Your fabric softener or dryer sheets likely include some of the following not-so-snuggly ingredients:
alpha-terpineol, benzyl acetate, camphor, benzyl alcohol, limonene, ethyl acetate, pentane, and chloroform.

According to the manufacturers’ Material Safety Data Sheets, these chemicals have the potential to do things to you such as:
– cause central nervous system disorders, headaches, and loss of muscle coordination;
– irritate mucous membranes and impair respiratory function;
– cause nausea, vomiting, dizziness, or drowsiness;
– cause liver or kidney damage;
– cause skin disorders and allergic reactions;
– cause cancer.

One of these chemicals even contains the warning, “Do not flush into sewer system,” and another appears on the Environmental Protection Agency’s hazardous waste list.

People are exposed to the chemicals by breathing the aromatic molecules in the air near the clothes or by absorbing them through the skin via direct contact with the clothes (which, by design, retain some of the fabric softener/dryer sheet molecules).

You may now be thinking of several “buts” to our suggestion that dryer sheets and fabric softeners are not safe. Let’s explore them:

BUT #1: “If the product is allowed to be sold, it must be safe.”

RESPONSE: You’d think so, but it’s just not so. Most chemicals used in household products have not undergone in-depth testing to determine their effects on people, particularly long-term effects.

BUT #2: “I don’t feel ill when I use these products; in fact, I LIKE the smell.”

RESPONSE: Chronic chemical exposure usually takes years to catch up with you, and the negative effects are often subtle and emerge slowly. The connection between chronic chemical exposure and an emerging health
situation may not be obvious. Further, the chemicals used in fragrant products can induce a narcotic effect in humans, enticing you to crave more exposure at the same time you’re suffering the overall negative effects of
the exposure.

BUT #3: “The static cling! Aeeieieee!”

RESPONSE: Yes, while people may be willing to give up the cozy smell that dryer sheets impart to their clothes, static electricity in clothes that come out of the dryer is a problem. Some solutions are listed below.

ALTERNATIVES TO USING DRYER SHEETS AND FABRIC SOFTENER

TIP #1 - The easiest trick is to not dry clothes quite completely. The small amount of remaining moisture keeps static cling from getting a foothold. You can use drying racks to spread clothes out to do their last 10% of drying. If you’re a bit more industrious, you can hang a couple of pieces of pipe from the ceiling in your laundry area. You can then put the drying clothes on hangers and hang the hangers on the pipes.

TIP #2 - Wash and dry cottons and synthetic fabrics separately. It’s the synthetics that cause most of the static problems. Consider not using the dryer at all for nylon, rayon, and other synthetic fabrics. They usually dry quickly using the air-dry techniques in suggested in Tip 1.

TIP #3 - Tips 1 and 2 may not work so well for people without in-home washer/dryers, but there are more solutions to be had:

Vinegar is a natural fabric softener. Use 1/2 cup in the wash cycle. (But don’t use bleach at the same time-mixing vinegar and bleach may create toxic fumes.)

Try a natural laundry soap that has a built-in soy-based fabric softener. Check with your local natural foods store, or shop online. There are also several natural liquid fabric softeners on the market, some of them without fragrances.

Rumor has it that putting a piece of aluminum foil in with the clothes will dissipate static. Even so, you would not want to over-dry the clothes; doing so would still encourage static buildup. (And if your dryer starts picking up broadcasts from Jupiter, don’t blame us.)

You may be satisfied that your adult body will be OK even if you continue to use dryer sheets and fabric softeners, but you still might consider making a change if there are kids in your household. Children’s developing bodies are especially susceptible to the negative effects of chemical exposure.

We may not have been able to help you with your fashion sense, but at least your brain may emerge from its “fragrance fog”!

3 Ways to Build Green

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/yourhome/articles/hazards_at_home_-.html
Protecting yourself from environmental hazards can start with the home itself. The “building green” movement, best known for embracing sustainable materials and designs promoting high energy efficiency, also focuses on creating healthy dwellings, a concept used increasingly in the construction of senior housing.

“Providers are finding that young seniors are increasingly asking them how ‘green’ their projects are,” says Mark Hanson, director of sustainable services for Hoffman LLC, a planning, design and construction firm in Appleton, Wis.
Principles behind green construction include:

Materials: A variety of materials that avoid potentially hazardous chemicals are now available. Experienced green builders can help you choose what makes sense for your construction or remodeling project.

Better air circulation:  Proper venting, filtering and air circulation prevent stale air from building up in a home. In remodeling, says Hanson, fans that move air completely out of kitchens and bathrooms are important.

Maximizing natural light:  This is a plus both for energy efficiency—well-placed, properly insulated windows provide passive solar heating—and for health reasons. Getting enough natural light can help your body set its circadian rhythms.  —RK

——————————————————————————–

4 Air Fresheners
Indoor plants: Place at least two tropical houseplants per 12-by-12-foot area to absorb airborne toxicants, including formaldehyde. Air-purifying plants such as areca and lady palms, bamboo, ferns and spider plants ideally should be placed close to your bed, favorite chair or other “breathing zone.”

Air purifiers: Whole-house air-cleaning systems with good filtration do a better job than stand-alone, portable room purifiers, says John Spengler, an environmental health researcher at Harvard. For even cleaner air, he recommends locating the newer air-to-air heat exchangers—either built in or as window units—in the bedroom, living room or wherever people spend most of their time.

Open windows: Opening windows and doors for about 10 minutes each day—with the heat or air conditioning turned off—will help circulate away indoor pollutants, says Catherine Zandonella, who writes about environmental health for the Green Guide. It’s best to open all doors and windows at once for maximum cross-ventilation.

Air out new purchases: “Televisions, computers and laminate or particleboard furniture give off hundreds of chemicals, and the newer they are, the more out-gassing you get,” says Bill Wolverton, president of Wolverton Environmental Services in Picayune, Miss. “Before you bring these items inside your house, remove all wrappings and let them sit outdoors or in your garage for a few days to reduce your exposure to these vapors.” —Sid Kirchheimer
——————————————————————————–
5 Natural Pest Repellents
Here are safer alternatives to commercial pesticides:

Ants: Sprinkle cinnamon, bay leaves, cayenne pepper or baby powder in problem areas and along baseboards and windowsills.

Cockroaches: Sprinkle equal parts of baking soda and confectioners’ sugar in problem areas.

Mice: Place cotton dipped in peppermint oil near problem areas. Used kitty litter is another repellent.

Mosquitoes: Mix 2 teaspoons of apple cider vinegar in a glass of water placed on your deck or balcony or dab lavender oil on your wrists and elbows.

Flies: Small sachets of crushed mint placed around the home will discourage flies. So will a potted sweet basil plant. —Sid Kirchheimer

Could insecticides in pet shampoos trigger autism spectrum disorders? That’s the suggestion of one of the first large-scale population-based studies to look how environmental factors and their interactions with genes contribute to the condition.

Mothers of children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were twice as likely to have reported using pet shampoos containing a class of insecticide called pyrethrins as those of healthy children, according to survey results presented Thursday at the International Meeting for Autism Research in London. The risk was greatest if the shampoo was used during the second trimester of pregnancy.

Meanwhile, another study suggests that exposure to organophosphate insecticides double the risk of developmental disorders, including autism. Organophosphates have previously been linked to Gulf War syndrome.

While many chemicals have previously been blamed for triggering autism, there have been very few rigorous studies designed to investigate the link.

More at New Scientist.

Posted in household products |