President’s Cancer Panel report highlights threat from hormone-disrupting chemicals – many found in new fragrance study

San Francisco – A new analysis reveals that top-selling fragrance products – from Britney Spears Curious and Hannah Montana Secret Celebrity to Calvin Klein Eternity and Abercrombie & Fitch Fierce – contain a dozen or more secret chemicals not listed on labels, multiple chemicals that can trigger allergic reactions or disrupt hormones, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety by the cosmetics industry’s self-policing review panels.

The study of hidden toxic chemicals in perfumes comes on the heels of last week’s report by the President’s Cancer Panel, which sounded the alarm over the understudied and largely unregulated toxic chemicals used by millions of Americans in their daily lives. The President’s Cancer Panel report recommends that pregnant women and couples planning to become pregnant avoid exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals due to cancer concerns. Several fragrances analyzed for this study contained multiple chemicals with the potential to disrupt hormones.

“This monumental study reveals the hidden hazards of fragrances,” said Anne C. Steinemann, Ph.D., Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Professor of Public Affairs, University of Washington. “Secondhand scents are also a big concern. One person using a fragranced product can cause health problems for many others.”

For this study, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a national coalition of health and environmental groups, commissioned tests of 17 fragranced products at an independent laboratory. Campaign partner Environmental Working Group assessed data from the tests and the product labels. The analysis reveals that the 17 products contained, on average:

Fourteen secret chemicals not listed on labels due to a loophole in federal law that allows companies to claim fragrances as trade secrets. American Eagle Seventy Seven contained 24 hidden chemicals, the highest number of any product in the study.

Ten sensitizing chemicals associated with allergic reactions such as asthma, wheezing, headaches and contact dermatitis. Giorgio Armani Acqua Di Gio contained 19 different sensitizing chemicals, more than any other product in the study.

Four hormone-disrupting chemicals linked to a range of health effects including sperm damage, thyroid disruption and cancer. Halle by Halle Berry, Quicksilver and Glow by JLO each contained seven different chemicals with the potential to disrupt the hormone system.

The majority of chemicals found in the testing have never been assessed for safety by any publically accountable agency, or by the cosmetics industry’s self-policing review panels. Of the 91 ingredients identified in this study, only 19 have been reviewed by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), and 27 have been assessed by the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) and the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM), which develop voluntary standards for chemicals used in fragrance.

“Something doesn’t smell right—clearly the system is broken,” said Lisa Archer, national coordinator of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at the Breast Cancer Fund. “We urgently need updated laws that require full disclosure of cosmetics ingredients so consumers can make informed choices about what they are being exposed to.”

“Fragrance chemicals are inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and many of them end up inside people’s bodies, including pregnant women and newborn babies,” said Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for research at Environmental Working Group.

A recent EWG study found synthetic musk chemicals Galaxolide and Tonalide in the umbilical cord blood of newborn infants. The musk chemicals were found in nearly every fragrance analyzed for this study. Twelve of the 17 products also contained diethyl phthalate (DEP), a chemical linked to sperm damage and behavioral problems that has been found in the bodies of nearly all Americans tested.

Members of Congress who are working to develop safe cosmetics legislation reacted to the report:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.: “There’s no reason that people should be exposed to potentially harmful chemicals because they use perfume, cologne or body spray. But this report suggests that is exactly what’s happening. The chemicals detected in popular fragrances, which are often endorsed by celebrities, could have a range of adverse health effects and Americans are being exposed unknowingly. I think this is a clear sign of how woefully out of date our cosmetics laws are and how urgently the cosmetics safety legislation we’re developing is needed. The ingredients used in these products need to be tested for safety and the FDA must be empowered to fully protect the health of Americans by blocking chemicals deemed unsafe. Americans need to know that the fragrance products they buy don’t contain chemicals that could harm them.”

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.: “A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but in some cases sweet smelling fragrances may in fact be dangerous. I am happy to be joining with my colleagues to soon introduce legislation that will make disclosure of ingredients used in cosmetics and fragrances mandatory and ensure that toxic chemicals are kept out of colognes and perfumes. Consumers have a right to know just what is in the products they spray and rub on their body every day.”

Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.: “It’s alarming that cosmetics products we use every day contain hidden toxic chemicals. That’s why I’m working with colleagues in Congress on legislation that will overhaul our outdated cosmetics oversight and regulation. We all deserve to know our products are as safe as possible.”

# # #

Download the report: www.safecosmetics.org/notsosexy

Autor: Campain for Safe Cosmetics, Release: May 12th, 2010.

Postage stamps with aroma could affect the health of sensitive people

On January 7th, German Minister of Finance, Dr.Schaeuble, presented the new charity postage stamps to Federal President Horst Koehler and Ms. Donata Freifrau Schenck zu Schweinsberg, President of the Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege (a federal association of welfare organizations). The unique feature of these stamps for this year is: They are fruit scented – blueberry, strawberry, lemon and apple. The scenting agents are micro-encapsulated and are not supposed to be released until they are rubbed.

The perfumed stamps release a scent even without being rubbed

CSN wanted to know whether the stamps really do not smell until being rubbed and arranged to get samples of the scented stamps. As we asked to buy the new charity stamps, the lady behind the post office counter pulled out an extra folder and remarked almost devoutly, “Oh yes, this are the new perfumy stamps.” She took out a sheet of stamps which showed blueberries and delightedly announced: “Wow, these really can be smelled without rubbing!”

Two welfare stamps were purchased by CSN and examined carefully. Both stamps give off a smell without being rubbed with the finger. Strictly speaking, the strawberry-stamp emits the smell of a cheap toothpaste with strawberry flavor, and the odor of the lemon stamps are a reminder of a toilet cleaner with an artificial lemon aroma. It smells nothing like a natural fruit aroma. The lemon scent grew stronger after the stamp was left at room temperature for a short while. CSN refused to activate the odor by rubbing. It can be assumed that the smell of the stamps will grow by the inevitable friction of the letters during transport and by running them through the sorting system at the postal hubs. Therefore it is quite possible that the perfumed stamps will contaminate other mail.

CSN would like to know if the applied scents were tested for their health compatibility, and which safety criteria and methods they used for the tests. Was their safety criteria the tolerable toxic load for an average healthy adult or was it the tolerable toxic load for the weakest, i.e. for an embryo? Did they test the plain aroma agents or the printing ink equipped with the aroma? Has the material of the stamp an effect on the compatibility? The information of the Bundesdruckerei (German federal printing press) suggests that first amounts of the scents were emitted before even the printing process was completed.

People with asthma, allergy to scents, sensitivities to chemicals, and persons who respond severely to scents could be affected by this advertising stunt.

As an answer, at January 11, CSN wrote the following open letter:

Perfumed Postage Stamps Constrain People with Disabilities

Dear Mr. Federal President Dr. Horst Koehler,

Dear Ms. Frau Donata Freifrau Schenck zu Schweinsberg,

Dear Dr. Wolfgang Schaeuble,

On January 7th, you shared the presentation of the new charity stamps issued by the Ministry of Finance, which emit scents of apple, strawberry, blueberry and lemon when rubbed. We want you to think about that at first glance simpatico idea, and we politely request you Dr. Schaeuble, to withdraw these postage stamps from circulation as Minister of Finance, because there are groups of people with certain disabilities and health disorders, who would be at risk if exposed to these scents.

Wouldn’t it be ironic, if some of those people who should benefit from these charity stamps will be harmed, by putting them in circulation? Do you realize the critical position of the German Federal Environmental Agency (UBA/Umweltbundesamt) regarding scents? The UBA points out that scented products should be avoided in public areas. The German coalition for allergies and asthma the DAAB (Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund e.V.) assumes about 11 percent of general population, that was actually a good nine million cases, affected by olfactory hypersensitivity for scents (according to Meggs et al. 1996). They postulate warning signs for scented rooms.

Is it appropriate to characterize those as people with disabilities who respond to scents with health troubles?

According to the ‘Americans with Disabilities Act’ (ADA), an individual with a disability is defined as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.

The ‘Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (UN-convention) which was signed by the German government on March 30, 2007, defines persons with disabilities as those, who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

Perfumed postage stamps limit the lifestyle of allergic, asthmatic, chemically diseased and other sensitive persons in an unreasonable way. This violates the UN-convention and does not meet the protection criteria set out for people with disabilities as outlined by the ADA. Severe sensitive cases and those who suffer from contact allergies caused by scents don’t even need to smell traces of those contaminants. Unsuspecting they will contaminate their living space which often is prepared safe from toxins under difficult financial conditions.

Thus far, people with health impairments from scents were able to at least receive and open their mail without help from others. This autonomy and normality of life is taken away from them. If someone encounters physical reactions by being exposed to scents, he/she will become unable to receive mail any longer and has to depend on other people to sort this type of ‘mail bomb’ out. Possibly a whole delivery is lost because one single letter with a perfumed postage stamp has contaminated all other mail.

During the Christmas season of 2004 there was a similar campaign with perfumed scratch stickers. Contrary to the statement of a German mail service personnel, the scents are not securely locked in the ink. None can be sure that somebody rubs the stamps on the dispatch or mechanical interaction will release these substances. At that time when the mail arrived it was already fragrant and it will be again this time.

Potentially such deliveries could sensitize people who have not suffered from an allergy yet. Have the applied scents adequately been tested for that risk? Would you bet your life on their harmlessness? Did you know that most of the scents used in Germany are not tested for tolerance? According to the “Special Report on Allergies, 2000″ (“Spezialbericht Allergien, 2000″) by the German Federal Government, there are about 15 to 25 percent of general population affected by an atopic disease, that was over 20 million cases, and one-third are sensitized for allergies, that was about 27 million. Should not everything be done, to keep this data from growing?

Scents trigger a variety of physical reactions for people with this sensitivity. Depending on disease and state of health, they range from harmless irritations to life threatening conditions. The following troubles can be caused individually or in combinations:

Tiredness, sneezing, irritated eyes, redness, itching, blisters, inflammations, swelling and burning of the lips, nasal mucosa burning, burning of the tongue, toothache, cough, voice failure, labored breathing, vertigo, sickness, headache, migraine, speech disorder, disturbance of memory, permanent painful vomiting, cardialgia, tachycardia, state of shock, absence, coma.

Often, such an incident increases the sensitivity for other substances or undoes a recovery which was hardly achieved by a strategy of avoidance and healthy living over a long period.

If nothing else, artificial scents could disturb the aesthetic perception of healthy ones and never reach the sensuality of their prototypes. Lay some apples from an organic farmer in your bedroom and compare it with the odor from these stamps.

Considering all of the above, we request, that the health damage which may be expected for those people in the general population who are sensitized by scents be recognized and, as under the terms of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, that the circulation of these perfumed postage stamps be immediately stopped.

Kind regards,

Silvia K. Mueller, Bruno Zacke

CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network

—-

We thank Christi and Jim for translation help.

New York State (NYS) employees who responded to the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster on or after 11 September 2001 potentially experienced exposures that might have caused persistent respiratory effects. NYS responders represent a more moderately exposed population than typical first responders. 

To assess whether NYS employees who were WTC responders were more likely than controls to report lower respiratory symptoms (LRS) or a diagnosis of asthma 5 years post-9/11, persistence and severity of symptoms were also evaluated. 

Participants were initially mailed self-administered questionnaires (initial, Year 1, Year 2) and then completed a telephone interview in Year 3. Data were analysed using Poisson’s regression models. 

WTC exposure was associated with LRS, including cough symptoms suggestive of chronic bronchitis, 5 years post-9/11. When exposure was characterized using an exposure assessment method, the magnitude of effect was greater in those with exposure scores above the mean. WTC exposure was associated with persistence of LRS over the 3 year study period. Results also suggest that participants with the highest exposures were more likely to experience increased severity of their asthma condition and/or LRS. 

The findings suggest that even in a moderately exposed responder population, lower respiratory effects were a persistent problem 5 years post-9/11, indicating that some WTC responders require ongoing monitoring.  

Literature: Mauer MP, Cummings KR, Hoen R., Long-term respiratory symptoms in World Trade Center responders, Bureau of Occupational Health, Center for Environmental Health, New York State Department of Health, Occup Med (Lond). 2009 Dec 24.

The prevalence of allergic diseases such as asthma and pollinosis is steadily increasing and seems to be associated with modern lifestyle. Therefore, it has been hypothesized that high living standards and hygienic conditions reduce exposure to microbial components, and lead to an imbalance in the immune system, especially in the Thl and Th2 system, which increases the risk for the development of allergic diseases.

However, recent accumulated epidemiological evidences have demonstrated that air pollutants including diesel exhaust particulate (DEP) and NO2 are responsible for the increased prevalence of allergies. The effects of environmental chemicals have also been supported by the in vivo and in vitro studies. It is important to prevent allergy development in our life as early as possible (e.g., since our infancy). 

Reference: Nakamura H, Hitomi Y., Environmental factors in allergic diseases, Kanazawa University, Nippon Rinsho. 2009 Nov;67(11):2043-7.

Scientists have revealed how environmental irritants such as air pollution and cigarette smoke cause people to cough, in research published today in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The authors of the study, from Imperial College London and the University of Hull, have identified the reaction inside the lungs that can trigger coughing when a person is exposed to particular irritants in the air. They suggest that their findings may ultimately lead to the development of new treatments for chronic coughing. 

Coughing is the most common reason for people visiting a family doctor. Treatment options are limited for people with chronic coughing; a recent study concluded that over-the-counter remedies are ineffective and there is increasing concern about the safety of these therapies in children. 

Today’s study indicates, for the first time, how coughing can be triggered when a person is exposed to certain irritants in the air. It shows that the irritants can switch on receptor proteins called TRPA1 on the surface of nerve endings in the lungs. This switches on sensory nerves, which then trigger a cough reflex. The researchers say coughing could potentially be treated by blocking TRPA1 receptors, to stop irritants in the air from setting off this chain reaction. They hope that this could ultimately help millions of people whose lives are affected by chronic coughing. 

Professor Maria Belvisi, corresponding author of the study from the National Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College London, said: “For some people, chronic coughing can be annoying and uncomfortable, but for others it can be distressing and can have a severe impact on their quality of life. Many people say that certain things in the air can make them cough and we are very excited that we have shown, for the first time, exactly what is probably happening inside the lungs. Now that we think we have cracked the mechanism, we can start investigating whether we can stop people from coughing excessively by blocking the receptor protein that triggers it.” 

To reach their conclusions, the researchers first looked at sensory nerves from mice, guinea pigs and humans, and showed that the receptors on the sensory nerves were activated by a number of irritants, including a key compound in cigarette smoke (acrolein) and a chemical called cinnamaldehyde. The researchers then blocked the receptors and showed that these substances no longer activated the nerves. 

To establish whether activating the receptor causes coughing, the researchers looked at the effect of acrolein on guinea pigs, as they have a coughing reflex. The researchers assessed the guinea pigs’ coughing after inhaling acrolein. The compound caused coughing, and the higher the concentration, the more the guinea pigs coughed. The researchers then showed that blocking the receptor using a drug significantly reduced the guinea pigs’ coughing response to the compound.

Finally, researchers led by Professor Alyn Morice at the University of Hull looked at the effect of inhaling the chemical cinnamaldehyde in humans. Ten healthy, non-smoking volunteers inhaled the chemical, as well as control substances. The researchers measured their cough response on five occasions, 2-3 days apart. All of the volunteers coughed after inhaling the compound. 

Reference: Imperial College London, Research reveals exactly how coughing is triggered by environmental irritants, November 23, 2009