Canary Cosmetics Reading Room

March 24, 1999
BY MICHAEL WOODS
TOLEDO BLADE SCIENCE EDITOR
ANAHEIM, Calif. - Synthetic fragrances used in perfumes, soaps, laundry detergents, fabric softeners, cosmetics, and scores of other consumer products have become a new and unexpected group of environmental contaminants, scientists said.
The chemicals are accumulating in human fat tissue, blood, breast milk, drinking water supplies, lakes and streams, fish and wildlife, and elsewhere in the environment, according to scientists interviewed here. They are presenting scientific reports at a national meeting of the American Chemical Society.
“I think there is reason for public concern about possible effects of these fragrances,’’ said Dr. Sebastian Kevekordes of the University of Gottingen in Germany.
One compound, musk xylene, has carcinogenic, or cancer-causing, effects in laboratory mice, Dr. Kevekordes said. Another, musk ketone, damages genes in animal experiments and has other worrisome effects.
Many of the studies identifying synthetic musk compounds in human tissue and the environment have been done in Europe and Japan. Dr. Kevekordes said that synthetic musks are used just as widely, or more so, in the United States, where fragrances have been used even in trash bags and product packaging.
Dr. Gerhard G. Rimkus, another German expert interviewed at the meeting of scientists, estimated that 8,000 tons of synthetic musk fragrances are produced annually.
“Oh, absolutely they are used in the states,’’ said Dr. Rimkus, who is with the Official Food and Veterinary Institute in Neumuenster. “Use is probably more extensive than in Europe or Japan. These are high-volume global chemicals. It’s very hard to avoid them in consumer products.’’
Drs. Kevekordes and Rimkus said that American scientists generally are not as aware of the European findings. Dr. Rimkus said scientists and government regulators have lagged Europe and Japan in research on the synthetic musks.
Japan, he said, has banned musk xylene because of its ability to accumulate in fish and other aquatic life used as human food. Western European countries have agreed on a partial, voluntary phase-out of musk xylene, he said.
“On the basis of the precautionary principle, strong endeavors should be made by industry to move in the long term toward cessation of production and discharges of these synthetic musk compounds because of their poor degradability,’’ Dr. Rimkus said.
“It must be possible to do without these substances,’’ Dr. Kevekordes said. They are not essential chemicals, he said.
Dr. Kevekordes cited Dr. Herbert S. Rosenkranz, interim dean of the graduate school of public health at the University of Pittsburgh, as one of the American scientists most familiar with synthetic musks.
Dr. Rosenkranz said he is aware of the European research on musks, but has no direct knowledge of the findings and did not know of American scientists working intensively in the field.
Glenn Roberts, a spokesman for the Fragrance Manufacturers’ Association in Washington, said he has not read the new studies. The association is a trade group representing companies that supply fragrance materials.
He said the studies seem to report information that is well-known to fragrance industry scientists.
“We’re convinced as a result of a very extensive series of human health and environmental studies that there is no risk to human health or the environment from these materials,’’ Mr. Roberts said.
New studies in Canada have identified the same kind of environmental contamination with synthetic musks as detected in Europe, Dr. Rimkus said. He plans to do what may be the first independent tests of environmental samples from the United States, and believes that contamination will be widespread.
Natural musk fragrances from the male musk deer, muskrats, a “musk beetle,’’ and other animals are among the oldest ingredients in perfumes. The scarce, expensive natural musk extracts have been used in small amounts for thousands of years.
In the 20th century, chemists learned how to make synthetic compounds with a fragrance of musk. Use of musk fragrances skyrocketed, and the compounds are used in products that don’t even have the odor of musk.
The compounds can be absorbed through the skin and tend to build up in fat tissue. They get into the environment in sewage and wastewater. Dr. Rimkus said synthetic musk compounds are major chemical contaminants in many samples of water and fish.
Scientists know very little about the direct effects of synthetic musks, and even less about effects of the chemicals formed when musks eventually break down into other compounds.

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."

By Jane E. Allen
© 2002, Los Angeles Times
Antibacterial soaps, disinfectants and dust-free environments may be doing as much harm as good, we’re now learning. But for a nation that thinks the only good germ is a dead germ, going cold turkey on the microbe-killers is unlikely.
So scientists are trying to compensate for our obsession with cleanliness,even as they attempt to better understand how our allergy and asthma-wracked bodies may be the casualties of overkill.
Some researchers are trying to kick-start our immune systems by exposing them to microbes they wouldn’t otherwise encounter. Others are trying to help people who already suffer from allergy, asthma or autoimmune diseases.
"We are at a point where we know our original ideas - that germs were bad and dogs were bad for allergies - were oversimplified and not correct," said Dr. Marshall Plaut of the National Institute of Allergy and Infection Diseases.
But, he said, "we don’t know the right balance between bacterial exposure being harmful and bacterial exposure being beneficial."
What they suspect is that, by purging our environment of many germs and microbes, we’ve deprived our immune systems of the chance to recognize them as a natural part of the environment. When we do encounter such substances,in the form of bacteria, viruses, fungi, along with pet dander, dust, pollen and similar irritants, our bodies overreact. We wheeze and sneeze.
Asthma rates have soared in the last 20 years. Not only has the lung disorder become one of the most common diseases of childhood, it’s become increasingly fatal. At the same time, autoimmune illnesses such as Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease (a painful inflammation of the intestines) are all the rise.
Louise Varbanov, mother of a healthy 3-year-old, has been paying close attention to the recent reports on germs and illness. The Cresskill, N.J.,resident has taken a page from her Bulgarian-born husband, who was raised with a more casual attitude about dirt and germs.
"I keep my house clean, but I don’t keep it germ-free, and I purposely don’t use antibacterial cleansers," she said. "I think it will not allow him to develop immunity to things that we’re exposed to in the everyday world.
For thousands of years, men and women lived in a fairly contaminated environment, surrounded by a sea of bacteria and other microbes. Our bodies learned to sense their presence and respond appropriately. This ability, scientists have shown, becomes rooted in the first six to 24 months of life. By age 3, our bodies have learned all they need to know to unleash fighting cells against invaders.
But by insulating ourselves so well and interfering with early exposures that should set the body’s sensors correctly, we’ve disturbed the system.
Work from a growing number of research teams is reinforcing the hygiene hypothesis, which holds that exposure to microbes and getting infected with some of them strengthens the body’s natural immune system against allergies.
Without it, they contend, we’re more liable to see the part of our immune system responsible for wheezing, inflammation and other allergic symptoms run wild.
The theory has recently been expanded to incorporate autoimmune diseases too, in which the immune system goes into overdrive and begins attacking itself.
Most recently, European researchers, reporting in the Sept. 19 New England Journal of Medicine, showed that German, Swiss and Austrian children living on farms and exposed naturally to bacteria from animals had just half the allergies and less asthma than children of similar socioeconomic backgrounds living in villages.
Before that, U.S. researchers had shown in several studies that kids who are exposed to other children’s colds and infections in day-care have less asthma and fewer allergies later in life. Other studies have shown that kids who have a cat or dog from a very young age have less asthma and fewer
allergies than those who have grown up without pets.
However, Dr. Juan Celedon, a researcher into the genetics and epidemiology of asthma at the Channing Laboratory at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, says this doesn’t apply if your mother has asthma.
He recently co-authored a study in the medical journal Lancet showing that exposure to high levels of cat allergen protected against wheezing in the first five years of life only in those children whose mothers did not have asthma. Exposing kids with asthmatic moms to high levels of cat allergen "was associated with higher levels of wheezing in ages 3 to 5."
He predicted that within 10 years, "we’re going to be able to identify things that are going to be protective and make some recommendations."
Dr. Fernando D. Martinez of the University of Arizona’s Respiratory Sciences Center, is among those looking to harness the power of microbes for the prevention of allergy, asthma and autoimmune disorders. Instead of constantly trying to battle the things that make us scratch, sneeze or cough, he wants to find approaches that would let us live more harmoniously with the plethora of microbes and animals around us.
Of course, exposing a child to the bacteria that protected farm kids in Europe is a tricky proposition because it could make them sick.
Instead, Martinez says: "What I want to find is a product that imitates exposure without having to go to the farms."
While he’s focused on prevention, others, like Dr. Eyal Raz, a researcher at the University of California, San Diego, are trying to find ways to help asthma and allergy sufferers. Raz is using synthetic DNA that can provoke or stimulate the immune system the way bacterial DNA does, but without making the patient sicker.
In essence, he said, "we tried to domesticate the dirt, to purify the dirt."
So far, his work is being done in animals, where Raz said it has succeeded in inhibiting diseases such as Crohn’s.
But all the strides taking place in the laboratory don’t mean we shouldn’t wash our hands before we eat or that we should bring the livestock indoors.
Nor does it diminish the power of clean water, sterile operating rooms and vaccination against childhood diseases to help most of us, unlike our ancestors, survive well beyond our first birthdays. Martinez tells parents to get a pet if they’d like, unless their child already is allergic. If they want to place their children in day-care early on, he advises them not to feel guilty about it, unless the child has so many recurrent infections that the pediatrician says it’s unhealthy. And if a child drops some food on the floor, it’s probably just fine to pick it up, wipe it off and eat it because "children are perfectly capable of eating non-sterilized food."
"Don’t pay too much attention to the excessive protection we have set as a rule," said Martinez, noting that kids living in Eastern Europe, where the rules are much more lax, have few allergies and little asthma.
Varbanov, the New Jersey mom, even takes a laissez faire approach to the colds and viruses her son picks up in day-care and preschool. "You’re kind of toughening them up, so when they get into grade school, they’re less likely to take sick and fall behind."

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.

From Pesticide Action Network North America:

According to the Globe and Mail, Home Depot "will voluntarily stop selling traditional pesticides and herbicides by the end of the year and will replace these products with less environmentally harmful alternatives." The move coincides with the April 22 Earth Day announcement that Ontario will join Quebec as the second province to formally ban the use of so-called "cosmetic" pesticides on residential lawns, gardens and parks. "Now that we have Quebec and Ontario, there is huge pressure on the other provinces," said Gideon Forman, executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "The next obvious one would be British Columbia."

Comment: Wouldn’t it be nice if Home Depot did this in the USA, and our government banned pesticides, too?

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.

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.

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."

– 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.

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

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