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

For three decades Mary has dedicated herself to promoting the public health and improving the lives of people sick or disabled by environmental exposures. She has served on dozens of federal and state advisory committees including the recently concluded CDC National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures. She is a member of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Public Interest Partners and HUD’s Disability Task Force.

Mary was nominated for the Freedom Medal by Diane Reibel, Assistant Professor of Physiology at Thomas Jefferson Medical School in Philadelphia. In nominating Mary, Dr. Reibel noted that “I met Mary twenty-five years ago when I became ill from chemicals in my research laboratory. Mary’s knowledge, support, and advocacy were a life saver for me. What Mary did for me, she has done for thousands of people across New Jersey and tens of thousands nationwide.”

Mary was recently honored with the 2011 New Jersey Governor’s Jefferson Award for Public Service, PSEG Environmental Stewardship Award, and a 2010 US EPA Region 2 Environmental Quality Award, the highest civilian award given by the EPA.

The Camden County Freedom Medal award was created in 2001 to honor the ideals indicative of the slain civil rights leader. According to Camden County Freeholder Director Louis Cappelli Jr., “This is Camden County’s way of honoring Dr. King.”

Medals will be presented during an evening ceremony at the Camden County Boathouse at Cooper River on January 20.

Author: National Center for Environmental Health Strategies, Press Release, January 2012

Congratulation Mary, this is so, so well deserved!

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?

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

More than two years after leading health and parents’ groups asked Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) to reformulate its flagship baby shampoo to remove a chemical that releases formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, the company is still using the formaldehyde-releasing ingredient in Johnson’s Baby Shampoo in the United States, Canada and China, while making formaldehyde-free versions of the shampoo in several other countries, according to a new analysis conducted by the Campaign for Safe Cos- metics.

“Clearly there is no need for Johnson & Johnson to expose babies to a known carcinogen when the company is already making safer alternatives. All babies deserve safer products,” said Lisa Archer, director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at the Breast Cancer Fund.

Yesterday, after Johnson & Johnson received word of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics report, the company released a statement saying it is no longer introducing new products with formaldehyde-releasing preservatives and has reduced its use of the chemical by 60 percent in the U.S. market and 33 percent globally over the past few years.

“We know that some consumers are concerned about formaldehyde, which is why we offer many products without formaldehyde releasing preservatives, and are phasing out these types of preservatives in our baby products worldwide,” said the statement.

Archer commented, “We’re glad to see that the Johnson & Johnson is taking this seriously. This commitment is a big step in the right direction. We look forward to the day when we can tell consumers the company’s entire product line is free of carcinogens and other chemicals of concern.”

For the new analysis, entitled Baby’s Tub Is Still Toxic, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics purchased and reviewed labels of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo sold in 13 countries to see if the products contained quaternium-15, a chemical preservative that kills bacteria by releasing formaldehyde.

Formaldehyde was recently added to the U.S. government list of known human carcinogens by the National Toxicology Program, under the Department of Health and Human Services. Formaldehyde and quaternium-15 are also potent allergens that can trigger rashes and other skin inflammation problems. According to a peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of the Dermatology Nurses’ Association, quaternium-15 is “the most sensitizing formaldehyde-releasing preservative and has been repeatedly shown to be a strong allergen that can cause contact dermatitis.”

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics analysis reveals that Johnson’s Baby Shampoo sold in the United States, Australia, Canada, China and Indonesia contains quaternium-15, while Johnson’s Baby Shampoo formulas sold in Denmark, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the U.K. contain non-formaldehyde preservatives.

“The American Nurses Association has adopted a precautionary approach based on the Precautionary Principle. In this application, even in the face of scientific uncertainty, if a chemical is strongly suspected of potential harm, it should be exchanged for a safer substitute,” said Amy Garcia M.S.N., R.N., C.A.E., Chief Programs Officer, Executive Office, American Nurses Association.

“Preventing toxic chemical exposures before they happen is the keystone of corporate responsibility. We call on Johnson & Johnson to remove carcinogenic formaldehyde from its products. It’s time to protect all children, regardless of their nationality,” said Peter Wilk, M.D., executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

In May 2009, ANA and PSR joined the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and many other health and environmental groups in formally asking Johnson & Johnson to reformulate its baby products after lab tests revealed that Johnson’s Baby Shampoo contained two carcinogens—formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane—that were not listed on labels.

In September 2009, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics wrote again to Johnson & Johnson, asking the company to immediately remove the formaldehyde-releasing chemical quaternium-15 from its baby products in light of new research linking the chemical to increased rates of allergic contact dermatitis.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and ANA have since met several times with Johnson & Johnson executives to discuss these concerns.

In response to consumer demand, the company launched a new “natural” version of baby shampoo that does not contain chemicals associated with formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane. However, the original Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, which is priced at about one-half the cost of the new “natural” shampoo, has not been reformulated in the U.S. market.

Yesterday, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics—along with the American Nurses Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility and more than 20 other parents’ and health groups representing more than 3 million people—sent another letter to Johnson & Johnson, asking the company to remove formaldehyde-releasing chemicals from all its children’s products in all markets worldwide and replace them with safer alternatives. The letter asked for the company to make a commitment by November 15.

“While it is encouraging to see that Johnson & Johnson has made progress in formulating a safer ‘natural’ version of its iconic baby shampoo, now is the time for the company to rise to the occasion and make the safer products the world market is demanding for all its customers.” said Archer.

Author:

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Toxic Baby Shampoo: Johnson & Johnson Agrees to Global Reformulation Under Pressure from Health Groups, November 1st, 2011

-

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is a coalition of more than 150 nonprofit organizations working to protect the health of consumers and workers by eliminating dangerous chemicals from cosmetics. Core members include: Clean Water Action, the Breast Cancer Fund, Commonweal, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition and Women’s Voices for the Earth.

Related Articles:

• Since when do fish use perfume?
• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals
• Baby Bathwater contains Fragrance Allergens and Chemicals
• Household detergents, Shampoos may harmful substance in wastewater
• Toxic Beauty – What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You . . . In Fact, It Already Is

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

Top-selling scented liquid laundry detergent and scented dryer sheet contains hazardous chemicals, including two that are classified as carcinogens

The same University of Washington researcher who used chemical sleuthing to deduce what’s in fragranced consumer products now has turned her attention to the scented air wafting from household laundry vents.

Findings, published online this week in the journal Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health, show that air vented from machines using the top-selling scented liquid laundry detergent and scented dryer sheet contains hazardous chemicals, including two that are classified as carcinogens.

“This is an interesting source of pollution because emissions from dryer vents are essentially unregulated and unmonitored,” said lead author Anne Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and environmental engineering and of public affairs. “If they’re coming out of a smokestack or tail pipe, they’re regulated, but if they’re coming out of a dryer vent, they’re not.”

The research builds on earlier work that looked at what chemicals are released by laundry products, air fresheners, cleaners, lotions and other fragranced consumer products. Manufacturers are not required to disclose the ingredients used in fragrances, or in laundry products.

For the new study, which focuses on chemicals emitted through laundry vents, researchers first purchased and pre-rinsed new, organic cotton towels. They asked two homeowners to volunteer their washers and dryers, cleaned the inside of the machines with vinegar, and ran full cycles using only water to eliminate as much residue as possible.

At the first home, they ran a regular laundry cycle and analyzed the vent fumes for three cases: once with no products, once with the leading brand of scented liquid laundry detergent, and finally with both the detergent and a leading brand of scented dryer sheets. A canister placed inside the dryer vent opening captured the exhaust 15 minutes into each drying cycle. Researchers then repeated the procedure with a different washer and dryer at a second home.

Analysis of the captured gases found more than 25 volatile organic compounds, including seven hazardous air pollutants, coming out of the vents. Of those, two chemicals – acetaldehyde and benzene – are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, for which the agency has established no safe exposure level.

“These products can affect not only personal health, but also public and environmental health. The chemicals can go into the air, down the drain and into water bodies,” Steinemann said.

The researchers estimate that in the Seattle area, where the study was conducted, acetaldehyde emissions from this brand of laundry detergent would be equivalent to 3 percent of the total acetaldehyde emissions coming from automobiles. Emissions from the top five brands, they estimate, would constitute about 6 percent of automobiles’ acetaldehyde emissions.

“We focus a lot of attention on how to reduce emissions of pollutants from automobiles,” Steinemann said. “And here’s one source of pollutants that could be reduced.”

The project’s website also includes letters from the public reporting health effects from scented consumer products. Steinemann says that people’s reports of adverse reactions to fragranced air coming from laundry vents motivated her to conduct this study.

Steinemann recommends using laundry products without any fragrance or scent.

Co-authors are Lisa Gallagher and Amy Davis at the UW, and Ian MacGregor at Battelle Memorial Institute.

Literature:

Ann Steinemann, Lisa Gallagher, Amy Davis, Ian MacGregor, University of Washington, Scented laundry products emit hazardous chemicals through dryer vents, Aug. 24, 2011

Professor Ann C. Steinemann: Reduce Exposures Resource Assessment

Related Environmental Medicine Matters Articles:

• Since when do fish use perfume?
• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals
• The Reckless Self-Interest of the Fragrance Industry
• Secret Chemicals Revaled in Celebrity Perfumes, Teen Body Sprays

A local report has revealed that 90% of vinegar in the market is produced by glacial acetic acid rather than grain.

According to the report [zh] in the First Financial Daily, the annual consumption of vinegar on average is up to 3.3 million tons and 90% is a chemical combination of glacial acetic acid, water and other addictives. The term “Vinegar Mixture” has become another hot search term in the past few days.

Egugu forum user, Bean Eyes warns [zh] other consumers about the chemical vinegar mixture:

According to the law, they have to use edible glacial acetic acid, but some small individual enterprises use industrial glacial acetic acid. (The price of a barrel of edible glacial acetic acid is equal to 2.5 barrels of industrial glacial acetic acid). The combination is very simple, just mix glacial acetic acid with water and it is done.

The edible glacial acetic acid has gone through the distillation process and is harmless. But it does no good to the human body, it is just acidic water, not vinegar. The industrial glacial acetic acid has heavy metals and methanol, which will result in polyneuritis and can cause blindness, blood intoxication, stomach and intestinal adhesion. A prolonged period of consumption would lead to lung and stomach cancer.

In Sina Weibo, the problem of “vinegar mixture” appears in a number of news threads today. Below is a translation [zh] of selected comments from the Global Entrepreneur Magazine news threads:

Searching for happiness: This is nothing new. In a system with no quality check, in a society where money is its only aspiration, what else can we expect? If we can’t change the above conditions, we will only have more and more extreme phenomena.

Li Jinli: This is not a business secret at all. The problem is no one steps up to manage the situation. Our tax money is spent on feeding dogs.

Spiritual mountain: There isn’t a single food we can eat with confidence. What kind of world are we living in? Probably we should turn our kitchen into a chemical laboratory and test the food before we cook it.

Cao-min: How come we have so much chemical food? I wonder if other countries are the same? Expecting enlightenment…

Zou Xiaobing: A reversed question: Can you tell us what else we can eat with confidence?

Author: Oiwan Lam for Global Voices, 2 August 2011 7:06 GMT

Original report: “China: Chemical Vinegar”

License: CC-by

Related Articles:

• Ant Poison in the Health Food Store?
• Global Food and Farming Futures report creates panic to push GM crops
• Scented consumer products shown to emit many unlisted chemicals
• Compounds in non-stick cookware may be associated with elevated cholesterol in children and teens