A new analysis of lead in lipstick conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reveals that the problem of lead in lipstick is worse and more widespread than previously reported. The new study found lead in 400 lipsticks tested by the agency, at widely varying levels of up to 7.19 parts per million (ppm) — more than twice the levels reported in a previous FDA study.

February 6th 2012, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics sent FDA a letter asking them to correct misleading statements on their website about the supposed safety of lead in lipstick. The agency has studied only the levels of lead in lipstick, and has conducted no health studies or safety assessments.

In January, an advisory committee to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a new report asserting that there is no safe level of lead for children, and stressing the importance of preventing lead exposure for children and pregnant women.

“Lead builds up in the body over time and lead-containing lipstick applied several times a day, every day, can add up to significant exposure levels,” said Mark Mitchell, M.D., MPH, policy advisor of the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice and co-chair of the Environmental Health Task Force for the National Medical Association.

“Lead is a proven neurotoxin that can cause learning, language and behavioral problems. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, because lead easily crosses the placenta and enters the fetal brain where it can interfere with normal development,” said Sean Palfrey, M.D., a professor of pediatrics and public health at Boston University and the medical director of Boston’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.

The FDA study of 400 lipsticks was quietly posted on the agency’s website in December. The most contaminated brand in the study, Maybelline Color Sensation by L’Oreal USA, contained more than 275 times the amount of lead found in the least contaminated, and least expensive, brand, Wet & Wild Mega Mixers Lip Balm — demonstrating that price is not an indicator of good manufacturing practices.

“How many millions of women have applied and reapplied lead-containing lipsticks since we first raised concerns about this problem five years ago? How many kids have played with their mom’s lipstick?” said Janet Nudelman, interim director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and policy director at the Breast Cancer Fund. “It’s time for L’Oreal to get the lead out of its products, and for FDA to set a safety standard for lead in lipstick.”

The FDA said it is currently evaluating whether to recommend an upper limit for lead in lipstick. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is urging FDA to set a maximum limit for lead in lipstick based on the lowest lead levels cosmetic manufacturers can feasibly achieve. U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and Dianne Feinstein have also urged FDA to take action to reduce lead in lipstick.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is also calling on L’Oreal to make a public commitment to reformulate its lipsticks to ensure the lowest possible levels of lead. L’Oreal makes five of the 10 most lead-contaminated brands in the FDA study.

Author:

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Hundreds of lipsticks contaminated with lead, reports new FDA study, February 7th, 2012

Related Articles:

• Toxic Beauty – What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You . . . In Fact, It Already Is
• Since when do Fish use Perfume?
• The Reckless Self-Interest of the Fragrance Industry
• Aromatherapy Can Produce Harmful Indoor Air Pollutants

PFCs may be more toxic to the immune system than current dioxin exposures

Boston, MA—A new study finds that perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), widely used in manufactured products such as non-stick cookware, waterproof clothing, and fast-food packaging, were associated with lowered immune response to vaccinations in children. It is the first study to document how PFCs, which can be transferred to children prenatally (via the mother) and postnatally from exposure in the environment, can adversely affect vaccine response.

The study appears in the January 25, 2012 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

“Routine childhood immunizations are a mainstay of modern disease prevention. The negative impact on childhood vaccinations from PFCs should be viewed as a potential threat to public health,” said study lead author Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at Harvard School of Public Health.

PFCs have thousands of industrial and manufacturing uses. Most Americans have the chemical compounds in their bodies. Prior studies have shown that PFC concentrations in mice similar to those found in people suppressed immune response, but the adverse effects on people had been poorly documented.

The researchers analyzed data on children recruited at birth at National Hospital in Torshavn, Faroe Islands during 1999-2001. A total of 587 participated in follow-up examinations. Children were tested for immune response to tetanus and diphtheria vaccinations at ages 5 and 7 years. PFCs were measured in maternal pregnancy serum and in the serum of children at age 5 to determine prenatal and postnatal exposure.

The results showed that PFC exposure was associated with lower antibody responses to immunizations and an increased risk of antibody levels in children lower than those needed to provide long-term protection. (Antibody concentrations in serum are a good indicator of overall immune functions in children.) A two-fold greater concentration of three major PFCs was associated with a 49% lower level of serum antibodies in children at age 7 years.

“We were surprised by the steep negative associations, which suggest that PFCs may be more toxic to the immune system than current dioxin exposures,” said Grandjean.

The PFC concentrations are similar to or slightly below those reported in U.S. women, and most serum PFC levels in Faroese children at age 5 were lower than those measured in U.S. children aged 3 to 5 years in 2001-2002.

Literature:

Harvard School of Public Health, PFCs, chemicals in environment, linked to lowered immune response to childhood vaccinations, Jan, 24, 2012

Related Articles:

• DuPont agreed to pay $8.3 Million to install water filters
• Norway proposes to prohibit four hazardous substances in consumer products
• Compounds in non-stick cookware may be associated with elevated cholesterol in children and teens

Why do smells make some people sick?

Do you get a headache from the perfume of the lady next to you at the table? Do cleaning solutions at work make your nose itch? If you have symptoms prompted by everyday smells, it does not necessarily mean you are allergic but rather that you suffer from chemical intolerance. According to Linus Andersson at Umeå University, this hypersensitivity can be the result of an inability to get used to smells.

Normally your smell perceptions diminish rapidly, as when you enter a friend’s apartment. Even though you clearly notice smells just inside the door, you don’t think about them for long. For people with chemical intolerance, on the other hand, smells seem always to be present. Psychology researcher Linus Andersson has exposed both intolerant and non-intolerant individuals to smells and compared their reactions.

“The hypersensitive individuals felt that the smell was getting stronger even though its concentration had not changed. Their brain activity images also differed from those in the other group,” he says.

The results were observed using methods based on both electroencephalography (EEG) and functional brain imaging technology (fMRI). The EEG method involved placing electrodes on the heads of trial subjects and registering the minute changes in tension in the brain that arise following exposure to smells. Unlike the people in the normal group, Linus Andersson explains, the intolerant people did not evince a lessening of brain activity during the period of more than an hour they were exposed to a smell. The inability to grow accustomed to smells is thus matched by unchanging brain activity over time.

“These individuals also have a different pattern in the blood flow in their brains, compared with those who perceive that a smell diminishes. A similar change can be found in patients with pain disorders, for example.”

Sensitivity to smell impacts the entire body. A further finding in the dissertation is that chemical intolerant people also react strongly to substances that irritate the mucous linings of their nose and mouth. People who cough more when they inhale capsaicin, the hot compound in chili peppers, also have heightened reactions in the brain to other smells. Besides the fact that intolerant individuals perceive that smells grow stronger, effects are also seen in mucous linings and in the brain.

Chemical intolerance is surprisingly common – up to ten percent of the Swedish population report they are bothered by everyday smells, whereas roughly two percent experience severe symptoms. Yet, in contrast to the situation regarding allergies and asthma, there is very little research about what causes this condition. Linus Andersson maintains that if it were possible to identify what characterizes this hypersensitivity then it would be possible to develop methods for diagnosis and treatment. But research can also provide new knowledge about how we should think about our work and everyday environments.

“Some co-workers are bothered more than others by the smell of the printer — what should we do to make our working conditions acceptable to as many people as possible?”

Author:

UMEA University, Why do smells make some people sick?, 20. Januar 2012 Expertanswer (Expertsvar in Swedish

Linus Andersson, Sick of smells: Empirical findings and a theoretical framework for chemical intolerance, Umeå, 2011-12-02

Related Articles:

• Ministry of Health presents Consensus Document on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
• Experts says: MCS is a physiological disease with clear manifestations
• Environmental diseases are not unexplained mysteries
• MCS registered as physical disease at ICD-10 in Germany

UCLA reported about a patient with severe bromine intoxication from drinking orange soda

Patented as a flame retardant for plastics, and banned in food throughout Europe and Japan, a brominated chemical called BVO has been added to sodas for decades in North America. Now some scientists have a renewed interest in this little-known ingredient, found in 10 percent of sodas in the United States. Research on its toxicity dates back to the 1970s, and some experts now urge a reassessment. After a few extreme soda binges – not too far from what many video gamers regularly consume – a few patients have needed medical attention for skin lesions, memory loss and nerve disorders, all symptoms of overexposure to bromine. Other studies suggest that BVO could be building up in human tissues. In mouse studies, big doses caused reproductive and behavioral problems.

By Brett Israel, Environmental Health News, Dec. 12, 2011

MARIETTA, Ga. – It’s Monday night at the Battle & Brew, a gamer hangout in this Atlanta suburb. The crowd is slumping in chairs, ears entombed in headphones, eyes locked on flat-screen monitors and minds lost in tonight’s video game of choice: “The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.”

To help stay alert all night, each man has an open can of “gamer fuel” inches from his keyboard. “I’ve seen some of these dudes plow through six sodas in six hours,” said Brian Smawley, a regular at the gamer bar.

Gamers say they chug their fuel for the sugar and caffeine, but drinkers of Mountain Dew and some other citrus-flavored drinks are also getting a dose of a synthetic chemical called brominated vegetable oil, or BVO.

Patented by chemical companies as a flame retardant, and banned in food throughout Europe and Japan, BVO has been added to sodas for decades in North America. Now some scientists have a renewed interest in this little-known ingredient, found in 10 percent of sodas in the United States.

After a few extreme soda binges — not too far from what many gamers regularly consume – a few patients have needed medical attention for skin lesions, memory loss and nerve disorders, all symptoms of overexposure to bromine. Other studies suggest that BVO could be building up in human tissues, just like other brominated compounds such as flame retardants. In mouse studies, big doses caused reproductive and behavioral problems.

Reports from an industry group helped the U.S. Food and Drug Administration establish in 1977 what it considers a safe limit for BVO in sodas. But some scientists say that limit is based on thin, outdated data, so they insist that the chemical deserves a fresh look.

“Aside from these reports, the scientific data is scarce,” said Walter Vetter, a food chemist at Germany’s University of Hohenheim and author of a recent, but unpublished, study on BVO in European soda imports.

Flame retardant soda?

The next time you grab a Mountain Dew, Squirt, Fanta Orange, Sunkist Pineapple, Gatorade Thirst Quencher Orange, Powerade Strawberry Lemonade or Fresca Original Citrus, take a look at the drink’s ingredients. In Mountain Dew, brominated vegetable oil is listed next-to-last, between disodium EDTA and Yellow 5. These are just a sampling of drinks with BVO listed in their ingredients, which is required by the FDA. The most popular sodas – Coca-Cola and Pepsi – do not contain BVO.

You don’t have to be a gamer to drink these fruit-flavored sodas. In the United States, 85 percent of kids drink a beverage containing sugar or artificial sweetener at least once per week, according to a study published last month. Sodas are the largest source of calories for teenagers between the ages of 14 to 18, according to a National Cancer Institute study. For adults, soda, energy and sports drinks are the fourth largest (PDF) source of calories, a federal study found.

Hold a bottle of Mountain Dew to a light. It’s cloudy. Brominated vegetable oil creates the cloudy look by keeping the fruity flavor mixed into the drink. Without an emulsifier such as BVO, the flavoring would float to the surface. The FDA limits the use of BVO to 15 parts per million in fruit-flavored beverages.

Brominated vegetable oil, which is derived from soybean or corn, contains bromine atoms, which weigh down the citrus flavoring (PDF) so it mixes with sugar water, or in the case of flame retardants, slows down chemical reactions that cause a fire.

Brominated flame retardants lately are under intense scrutiny because research has shown that they are building up in people’s bodies, including breast milk, around the world. Designed to slow the spread of flames, they are added to polystyrene foam cushions used in upholstered furniture and children’s products, as well as plastics used in electronics. Research in animals as well as some human studies have found links to impaired neurological development, reduced fertility, early onset of puberty and altered thyroid hormones.

BVO may not be in use today as a flame retardant in furniture foam, but patents in Europe — granted earlier this year to Dow Global Technologies — and in the United States — granted in 1967 to Koppers Inc. — keep that possibility alive.

“There are some concerns [about BVO] because people are worried that maybe it has the behavior, [and] potential health effects similar to brominated flame retardants,” said Heather Stapleton, an environmental chemist at Duke University who specializes in studying brominated compounds.

Soda makers and industry groups say they are not concerned about the safety of brominated vegetable oil, saying their products meet all government standards.

“This is a safe ingredient approved by the FDA, which is used in some citrus-based beverages,” said Christopher Gindlesperger of the American Beverage Association, which represents PepsiCo, maker of Mountain Dew. “Importantly, consumers can rest assured that our products are safe and our industry adheres to all government regulations.”

Chris Barnes of the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, makers of Squirt and other drinks that contain BVO, echoed that response.

“All ingredients in Dr. Pepper Snapple Group products meet FDA and other regulator requirements,” Barnes said.

Dated data

Some experts are unconvinced, saying that the FDA standards are based on decades-old data.

“Compounds like these that are in widespread use probably should be reexamined periodically with newer technologies to ensure that there aren’t effects that would have been missed by prior methods,” said Charles Vorhees, a toxicologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, who studied BVO’s neurological effects in the early 1980s. “I think BVO is the kind of compound that probably warrants some reexamination.”

Toxicity testing has changed dramatically in the past few decades. Multiple generations of animals now can be tested for neurodevelopmental, hormonal and reproductive changes that weren’t imagined in the 1970s and early 1980s.

“I am no toxicologist, but I think that the toxic evaluation of chemicals has been improved since then,” Vetter added.food chemist.

In 1970, scientists in England found that rats on a six-week diet containing 0.8 percent brominated maize oil had stockpiles of bromine in their fat tissue. The bromine stayed there even after the rats returned to a control diet for two weeks.

Around the same time, a study confirmed that bromine was building up in humans. Researchers measured the serum levels of people in the United Kingdom – where BVO was in use – and in their counterparts in the Netherlands and Germany, where BVO was not used.

“During this time UK citizens had higher bromine serum levels compared to the inhabitants of Germany and the Netherlands,” Vetter said. The largest amounts of lipid-bound bromine were found in tissues from children in the UK, according to the study.

The study authors wrote that “it seems highly probable that the intake of brominated vegetable oil is the cause of the tissue bromine residues in children.”

Data in rats show that BVO could be toxic. A 1971 study by Canadian researchers found that rats fed a diet containing 0.5 percent brominated oils grew heavy hearts and developed lesions in their heart muscle. In a later study, in 1983, rats fed the same oils had behavioral problems, and those fed 1 percent BVO had trouble conceiving. At 2 percent, they were unable to reproduce.

The diets in that study had “whopping doses” of BVO, about 100-times higher than today’s allowable limit, said Vorhees, lead author of the 1983 study.

But two case studies in the past 15 years show that whopping doses also can occur in people – with unhealthy consequences.

Epic binges

On MMO nights at the Battle & Brew, some gamers play 12 straight hours. In these Massively Multiplayer Online games, thousands of players from around the world compete. During these epic battles, a soda every hour is not uncommon. A gamer chugging a 20-ounce bottle of soda every hour will finish 3.5 liters in six hours.

“They’re just sitting for 12 hours, just pounding sodas,” Smawley said.

Virtually every teen in America plays video games, according to the Pew Research Center. The $110-billion-a-year soft drink industry and the $74-billion-a-year video game industry have noticed. Activision, the makers of “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3,” the latest edition in this popular video game series, paired with Mountain Dew in a promotion that rewards gamers with bonus points for drinking more Mountain Dew.

In 1997, emergency room doctors at University of California, Davis reported a patient with severe bromine intoxication from drinking two to four liters of orange soda every day. He developed headaches, fatigue, ataxia (loss of muscle coordination) and memory loss.

In a 2003 case reported in Ohio, a 63-year-old man developed ulcers on his swollen hands after drinking eight liters of Red Rudy Squirt every day for several months. The man was diagnosed with bromoderma, a rare skin hypersensitivity to bromine exposure. The patient quit drinking the brominated soft drink and months later recovered.

Reactions this severe may not be a concern in the general population, the study’s doctors said.

“Any normal level of consumption of BVO would not cause any health problems — except the risk of diabetes and obesity from drinking that much sugar water,” said Zane Horowitz, medical director of the Oregon Poison Center and author of the 1997 case study.

But in the gamer scene, a normal level of consumption is not normal. Everyone, it seems, knows someone habitually needing a fuel fix, and consuming enough to up his or her risk.

“I’ve seen hard core guys, after every game they’ll just grab another one,” said Sean Hyatt, the assistant manager at the Battle & Brew.

And it’s not just the “stinkies” – Smawley’s derogatory term for the stereotypical gamer slobs – who pound gamer fuel. Vorhees, of the Cincinnati children’s hospital, said his son stays up all night when playing a new game with his friends.

“They use Mountain Dew specifically as a beverage to keep them awake – and they hardly eat anything,” Vorhees said.

When a person doesn’t eat during one of these binges, his or her body is absorbing the entire beverage. It’s even worse in kids, Vorhees said, because they have less body mass.

“In kids, the total dosage effect tends to be greater,” Vorhees said. “I actually think there are people that get these high exposures.”

Banned bromine returns

Based on data from the early studies, the FDA yanked brominated vegetable oil from its Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list for flavor additives in 1970, said Douglas Karas, a spokesman for the FDA. BVO bounced back after studies from an industry group from 1971 to 1974 demonstrated a level of safety.

The Flavor Extract Manufacturers’ Association petitioned the FDA to get BVO back in fruit-flavored beverages, this time as a stabilizer, which is its role today. After evaluating the petition and other data, the FDA in 1977 approved the interim use of BVO at 15 ppm in fruit-flavored beverages, pending the outcome of additional studies.

“This decision was based on the highest No Observed Effect Levels from the existing safety studies and the estimated daily intake,” Karas said in an email. “Although there were doses that showed adverse effects in the animal studies, there also were lower doses in which there were no adverse effects observed.”

As a condition of interim approval, the industry group submitted additional safety studies to the FDA.

The FDA determined that a 2-year feeding study in pigs established a no-effect level of 1,200 ppm. A 2-year feeding study in beagle dogs also was conducted. Although there were concerns about quality control with that particular study, Karas said, no cardiovascular effects were observed in the dogs fed BVO at levels as high as 3,600 ppm for two years. After an independent audit of the data to address the quality concerns, the FDA decided to allow BVO in fruit-flavored beverages.

“The findings from these studies supported the safety of BVO in beverages at a level of 15 ppm in fruit-flavored beverages,” Karas said. “Its use as a flame retardant does not preclude its use as a food ingredient so long as the food use is safe.”

More than 30 years later, brominated vegetable oil’s approval status is still listed as interim. Changing the status would be costly and “is not a public health priority for the agency at this time,” Karas said.

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, was involved with the petition to remove BVO from the “safe” list in 1970. He said it’s time for the FDA to make a decision, one way or the other.

“Is it harmful at the amounts consumed? Probably not,” Jacobson said. “But it would be nice if the FDA did a thorough review of the literature and finalized an approval or a ban.”

A safer switch?

BVO has seeped into Europe, mostly forbidden territory for this additive, according to an analysis (PDF) of imported sodas presented at an international symposium on halogenated persistent organic pollutants in 2010.

“We found products with no label although BVO was present in the soda,” said Vetter, lead author of the study.

He said soda makers in North America could easily replace BVO with alternatives such as hydrocolloids – chemicals that are used in many sodas in Europe. Natural hydrocolloids form small droplets on water into which non-water soluble compounds can be stored and stabilized for as long as necessary. They are almost exclusively natural products, Vetter said.

Barnes, of the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, said that BVO and hydrocolloids “do not provide the same functionality and cannot be substituted for one another.”

Vetter disagreed, saying that countries in Europe and elsewhere have used natural hydrocolloids for decades in the soda brands that rely on BVO in North America.

“There are many options to substitute BVO with safe chemicals,” Vetter said. “I am not aware of significant disadvantages of BVO over hydrocolloids or vice versa.”

With natural alternatives already in use in other countries, why not switch in North America too?

Wim Thielemans, a chemical engineer at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom, said since the alternatives are already used in Europe “their performance must be acceptable, if not comparable, to the U.S.-used brominated systems.” That means “the main driver for not replacing them may be cost,” he said.

“It is a North American problem,” Vetter added. “In the E.U., BVO will never be permitted.”

Source: EHN, Brominated Battle in Sodas, Dec. 12, 2011

CC: by-nc-nd

Related Articles:

• Flame retardant linked to altered thyroid hormone levels during pregnancy
• Scented laundry products emit hazardous chemicals through dryer vents
• Secret Chemicals Revaled in Celebrity Perfumes, Teen Body Sprays
• Since when do Fish use Perfume?

THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH IN SPAIN PRESENTS THE CONSENSUS DOCUMENT ON MULTIPLE CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY (MCS) – NOVEMBER 30, 2011

On November 30, the Ministry of Health in Spain has finally submitted the consensus document on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (pdf).

Two years ago, José Luís Aparicio, a MCS sufferer, and I were interviewed at the Spanish radio program Carne Cruda. They were so shocked by MCS that decided to contact the Ministry of Health because they wanted to interview them in their show to explain to them the terrible situation of the MCS sufferers.

After a lot of calls to the Ministry of Health without receiving any response, they did a live phone call during the radio show and the Ministry had finally to accept. On January 2010, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Health, was interviewed on “Carne Cruda”, in a special show devoted to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity with Miguel Jara, Dr. Pablo Arnold, José Luís Aparicio and David Palma on behalf of me. He made the public commitment to meet with associations that deal with MCS. On February 2010 was held the meeting with Ministry of Health to state the situation of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity sufferers in Spain and they committed to create a Scientific Committee to elaborate the consensus document on MCS that has now finally been released. The document, that has 128 pages, will be translated into English by Ministry of Health and it will be reviewed within two years to include the new scientific knowledge.

David and I want to thank everyone who has been part of this long process. From the doctors members of the Scientific Committee to the 13 MCS associations that set up the “Comité para el Reconocimiento de la Sensibilidad Química Múltiple” (committee for the recognition of MCS in Spain) to have an unanimous voice for this process, including Jaume Cortés, lawyer of the Colectivo Ronda, because his disinterested participation has been crucial for this achievement. And we want to specially thank to Javier Gallego, the director of Carne Cruda, and all his team because without their courageous attitude this day would have never come.

David has remained as observer during the process and we greatly appreciate it to the Committee, and from now he split with the Committee because we don’t belong to any MCS association and we believe that our work is complete.

Today is a great day for all the MCS sufferers in Spain. The consensus document on MCS, albeit imperfect, lays the foundation for future recognition of this disease and it finally does recognize that the MCS patients exist.

Author: Eva Caballé, No Fun Blog, The Ministry of Health in Spain presents the Consensus Document on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) – November 30, 2011

Related articles:

• Environmental Illnesses: Petition received the support from 26 countries more than 200 Health experts and more than 240 NGOs
• The Spanish Professional Association of Naturopathy has given an honorary title to Eva Caballé for her work, courage, and dedication to face Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
• One of the most popular TV Channels started the News with a report about Chemical Sensitivity
• First meeting of the working group to create a Consensus Document about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in Spain

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Reflections by Dr. L. Christine Oliver and Alison Johnson

Dr. Oliver and Alison Johnson present an excellent overview of the multi-symptom disease known as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, or MCS. During Dr. Oliver’s twenty years of experience, she can attest to MCS being a physiological disease with clear visual manifestations, such as flushing of skin, increased heart rate, and blood pressure problems in patients exposed to chemicals.

As MCS is ever increasing, Dr. Oliver (Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Co-Director of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Massacsetts General Hospital) advocates for more research dollars dedicated to finding modalities to treat MCS. Medical students and physicians are still not trained about MCS even though it affects the respiratory, neurological, gastrointestinal systems, and even the skin. Pulmonologists, gastroenterologists, and allergists, just to name a few, are the physicians who must receive appropriate training.

Currently, most physicians cannot give a correct diagnosis which leaves patients feeling more isolated and thus many chemically injured seek alternative treatments, some which may do more harm than good. According to Dr. Oliver there are no miracle cures for MCS and currently the most reliable treatment is avoidance of exposures.

The disabling symptoms do much to interfere with a MCS person’s life. It interferes with using public transportation, living in multi-housing units, and gaining/keeping employment. Dr. Oliver advocates for every workplace to maintain perfume free environments. Public health policies are needed to accommodate people with MCS so they are not forced to turn to social security disability for a reduced income.

Housing is a big issue for the chemically injured. Multi-family housing is a problem due to the neighbors using scented chemical products. Many people with MCS can no longer work and thus don’t have the finances to rent or buy single family housing.

The lack of safe housing, lack of safe workplaces, and medical issues can be overwhelming for those with chemical injury. The despair associated with lack of the above, plus the disbelief that the illness is real, leads many to contemplate and actually commit suicide.

Alison Johnson has witnessed the real devastation of this disease which has destroyed far too many lives. So many MCS people have seen their former lives slip away. This is hardly a “rare” condition with an estimated seven million Americans suffering from MCS. More accurate educating of the public is needed.

The tobacco industry succeeded for years in their funding attempts to keep the public in the dark regarding the negative health risks of tobacco. The chemical industry is also doing a good job preventing the public from realizing the harm from the chemically laden products on the market. In the meantime people on every continent are suffering great devastation, isolation, and compromised lives due to the chemical injuries they have suffered and must endure.

Have a look at this excellent film overview…

For further information vistit: The Chemical Sensitivity Foundation

Related Articles:

• An Icon of Environmental Medicine visits Germany
• Environmental diseases are not unexplained mysteries
• Canada: Envirionmental Sensitivities in Quebec
• MCS – Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, a disease caused by toxic chemical exposure
• Martin Pall about genetic evidence and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Fragrant essential oils may release various VOCs into the air

Spas that offer massage therapy using fragrant essential oils, called aromatherapy, may have elevated levels of potentially harmful indoor air pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ultrafine particles, according to an article in Environmental Engineering Science, a peer-reviewed journal published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. . The article is available free online

Fragrant essential oils, derived from plants, may release various VOCs into the air. VOC degradation caused by the reaction of these compounds with ozone present in the air can produce small, ultrafine byproducts called secondary organic aerosols (SOAs), which may cause eye and airway irritation.

Taiwanese researchers Der-Jen Hsu (National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology), Hsiao-Lin Huang (Chia-Nan University of Pharmacy and Science, Tainan), and Shiann-Cherng Sheu (Chang-Jung Christian University, Tainan) tested both fragrant and Chinese herbal essential oils for SOA formation in a controlled-environment study chamber under different test conditions. They also performed air sampling and analysis in spa centers that offer massage therapy using essential oils.

The authors compared SOA levels associated for the various fragrant and herbal essential oils tested and present their results in the article, “Characteristics of Air Pollutants and Assessment of Potential Exposure in Spa Centers during Aromatherapy.” They conclude that the layout and ventilation within a particular spa may affect the level of indoor air pollutants produced during massage with aromatherapy.

“Dr. Der-Jen Hsu and his colleagues have done a very nice job in bringing attention to often overlooked health risks associated with luxuries intended to enhance our sense of well-being,” says Domenico Grasso, PhD Editor-in-Chief and Vice President for Research, Dean of the Graduate College, University of Vermont (Burlington).

Author:

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., Publishers, Can Aromatherapy Produce Harmful Indoor Air Pollutants?, 20. Oktober 2011

Related Articles:

• New discovery on the causes of contact allergy
• Scented laundry products emit hazardous chemicals through dryer vents
• Reckless Self-Interest Of The Fragrance Industry
• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals

Children in rural communities get a “double-dose” of the pesticide chlorpyrifos from food and drift from neighboring fields

Washington, DC — As children settle into the new school year, health professionals are demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ban the neurotoxic chemical chlorpyrifos, a pesticide used on farms throughout the country and the same chemical that the agency banned some ten years ago for use in homes.

In a letter to be submitted to EPA tomorrow, over two dozen health professionals cite new science showing the health impacts of chlorpyrifos, including lowering IQs and increasing the risk of ADHD and learning disabilities among children.

“EPA should follow the science and take this brain toxin completely off the market” said Dr. David Carpenter, MD, Director Institute for Health & The Environment, University at Albany. “Chlorpyrifos poses serious threats to children’s health and doesn’t belong in our homes, on our farms, or on our cafeteria trays.”

The recent studies show that exposure to chlorpyrifos in the womb and in early childhood, during critical development “windows,” can lead to lasting effects on the brain. Researchers now say that as many as 25% of all U.S. children may have IQs several points lower due to eating foods treated with chlorpyrifos and similar pesticides.

“Fruits and vegetables are essential for healthy children but shouldn’t be grown with chlorpyrifos,”said Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science Director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, and one of the letter’s signatories. “Children in rural communities face a double dose of this brain poison. They are exposed to chlorpyrifos drifting from neighboring fields, and again when the pesticide is on their food.”

Chlorpyrifos was banned for use in homes over ten years ago because of it’s potential harm to children. But ten million pounds of chlorpyrifos are still used on agricultural fields each year. Air monitoring, biomonitoringand poisoning data confirm that extensive human exposure to chlorpyrifos is linked to its continued use in agriculture. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control,the vast majority of us — including children — carry breakdown products of the chemical in our bodies.

Children living in farm communities are at especially high risk. In addition to exposure from food they may also be breathing in particles that drift into their classrooms and homes from nearby farms. Farmworker children are exposed even more, as parents sometimes carry residues of the pesticide home at the end of the day on clothing and shoes.

“Chlorpyrifos drift poses serious threats to communities like mine,” said Luis Medellin, of the community organization El Quinto Sol de America. Luis grew up in homes next to farms using chlorpyrifos in California’s San Joaquin Valley. “The realities on the ground show that this brain toxin can’t be used safely and should not be used in the fields.”

At age 17, Luis began using Pesticide Action Network’s Drift Catcher to document chemical drift from neighboring citrus fields, finding that a majority of samples contained chlorpyrifos. Residents also sampled chlorpyrifos in their urine, and all but one had levels above what EPA considers “acceptable.”

In their letter to EPA (pdf), health professionals are demanding that EPA ban all uses of chlorpyrifos. In their letter they state:

We urge EPA to act now on the weight of scientific evidence of health harms of chlorpyrifos for children and fetuses. It is time that EPA take action to protect the public health and provide a healthy legacy for our children and for future generations. We call on EPA to cancel all uses of pesticide chlorpyrifos.

Other letters with a similar demand were delivered to EPA from environmental health groups nationwide, including a petition signed by more than 6,000 concerned citizens across the country.

Author:

PAN, Toxic Brain Chemical Must Be Banned: Health Professionals Demand EPA Take Action, October 5, 2011

Related articles:

• Chemical Threat: Groups call for Pesticide Ban
• Prenatal exposure to Pesticides linked to ADHD
• Anxiety in adult female mice following perinatal exposure to Chlorpyrifos
• Children susceptible to pesticides longer than expected, Berkeley study finds

The results of a study published this week by environmental health researchers evaluates the types of toxic exposure faced by Veterans with Gulf War illness, and it will hopefully encourage other medical experts to do similar research, West Virginia Veterans’ benefits attorney Jan Dils said today.

The article appears in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives and reports that troops were exposed to different toxins depending on if they served in the front lines or in support roles during the 1991 Gulf War.

Forward-deployed troops were exposed to anti-nerve agent pills and Scud missiles, whereas those behind the scenes were commonly in contact with pesticides, according to the study.

Around 25 percent of the 700,000 Veterans with Gulf War illness are plagued by symptoms including chronic headaches, widespread pain, memory and concentration problems, persistent fatigue, gastrointestinal problems, skin abnormalities and mood disturbances, Dils said.

“Gulf War illness can be a truly disabling disease,” said Dils, whose law firm helps Veterans with disability claims in West Virginia and across the country. “Veterans manage these symptoms as best as they can, but more research into the nature of the disease and its causes could create better treatment opportunities for sufferers.

“It could also provide insight into the most dangerous toxins used in chemical warfare so that other avenues could be explored to protect soldiers who continue to serve in the Gulf War,” the Parkersburg attorney added.

Over 110,000 Gulf War Veterans – which the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs classifies as those who participated in Operations Desert Storm, Desert Shield, and a subsequent stabilization period during the early 1990s – are currently receiving VA health care, according to a February report from the VA. That includes treatment for the symptoms of Gulf War illness and other related conditions.

“Unfortunately, those numbers continue to grow, and the VA program is overloaded with Veterans’ claims,” said Dils. “That can make it very difficult for Veterans to receive disability benefits they deserve, so they don’t get the treatment and services they are entitled to.”

But the administrative backlog is only one of the problems Veterans face. It’s not easy to apply for disability benefits in the first place, and many times Veterans must go through a lengthy appeals process, Dils said.

“That’s not to mention that these men and women, who have chosen to serve the country at great personal peril, are often very sick,” she said. “Many times their families cannot take up the cause on their own. That’s where a Veterans’ benefits attorney and claims representatives can step up and help, particularly because egregious cases may end up in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Environmental health results like the ones published this week have the potential to provide vital information about how toxins affect soldiers’ bodies. Previous research has focused on exposure to anthrax shots, depleted uranium and psychological issues, but less so on exposure to anti-nerve-agent pills and insecticides.

“The important thing is to build a body of knowledge that examines the medical consequences of military service,” Dils said. “That can educate all of the interested parties – the disabled Veterans and their families, doctors, scientists, the federal government and even lawyers – to provide services that will benefit the country and honor Veterans for their contributions.”

Author: Jan Dils, Attorneys at Law, L.C., Parkersburg, WV (PRWEB), September 26, 2011

Related Articles:

• Environmental Diseases are not unexplained Illnesses
• Research on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS)
• International Conference: Environmental and chemical Pollution cause health injuries and disabilities
• Sick Building Syndrome: research shows Illness is real and treatable

We have nothing left to fear anymore

Fear is a very useful coercive intimidating tool to silence and control people. A silent threat subtly reminds you that you can lose what you have. Do not complain, do not make any noise, because this might make your life even worse and turn it into a nightmare. They frighten the masses so that they don’t dare to revolt. They censor and distort reality.

But fear is a double-edged sword when used on people who have little to lose. When your day consists on struggling to survive, when you live in a parallel reality that no one around you can even imagine, you lose the fear of this abstract fear that they want to instill in you.

The harsh and heartbreaking reality prevails. The conditional and future tenses disappear against a present that overwhelms and leaves no room for anything else. The here and now is all that matters and the fear of the fear is simply ridiculous against the real problems that force you to push on tirelessly, to carry on and just survive. When every day is a real battle that tests your physical and mental strength, the fear of fear is nothing more than a fallacy, a ridiculous threat compared to the undeniable obstacles of the underworld in which you have been doomed to live.

Sometimes you dare to lean out the window, in a risky game to see how the supposedly fortunate people live, and you are impressed to see that they are paralyzed by an unreal fear that keeps them lethargic and living without feeling. It’s almost tragic to see how they tiptoe through their lives, afraid, anesthetized and controlled, and without even being aware of it.

Those of us who live extreme situations every day, such as those of us affected by Multiple Chemical Sensitivity; those of us who have been relegated overnight to being second class citizens without rights but still with all the responsibilities; those of us who have become nomads because a poisoned and dying world steals our health, our life, our dreams… we are not afraid of fear, because there is no room for cowardice when you face a reality that exceeds any fear that they want to instill in us to intimidate us, to dominate us and simply to destroy us. What we feared has come true. We have nothing left to fear anymore.

Author: Eva Caballé, No Fun Blog, Delirio, 12. September 2011

Photo: David Palma

More articles written by Eva Caballé:

• Naked Truth about MCS
  
• Metamorphosis insinde Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
• Dreams that kill
• MANIFESTO – We know they are lying to us
• Without Mask
• Environmental Diseases: To understand or to ignore