Sep

30

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Chemical free skin care, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Phthalates, Toxic Contaminants, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Phthalates Exposure from Skin Care Products Continues to Impact Consumers.

 

After years of debate and little action, the risks of phthalate exposure, from skin care and environmental products such as household cleaners and air fresheners is again in the media.

 

Two democratic senators are pressuring the White House to release a list of chemicals the Environmental Protection Agency claims could be detrimental to the environment and human health. The ‘Chemicals of Concern’ include eight phthalates, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and bisphenol A.

 

Phthalates are known hormone disruptors and can even effect babies before they are born when their mothers are exposed to these chemicals. Phthalates are used as synthetic fragrances and colour fixers in skin care and cosmetic products. Some can be used to help the consistency of a cream or lotion and others are used in the manufacture of nail varnish.

 

The very strong fragrances in some laundry and dish wash detergents as well as air fresheners are fixed with phthalates.

 

At Mt. Sinai Medical Center recent studies have confirmed research carried out several years ago that consumers can have difficulty shedding fat because of the ‘chemical calories’ present in cosmetics such as lotions, shampoo and soap.

 

Chemical ingredients in 70% of cosmetics as well as many household-cleaning products are responsible for disrupting the delicate balance of hormones, throwing off balance the body’s natural weight control system.

 

The study suggests that once an individual is exposed to phthalates through the daily use of personal and skin care products in childhood, the chances of obesity and weight problems as adults becomes high.

 

The researchers obtained results from girls living in East Harlem, by analyzing the children’s urine and measuring their exposure to phthalates.

 

Renowned pediatrician, Professor Phillip Landrigan stated, “The heaviest girls have the highest levels of phthalates in their urine. It goes up as the children get heavier, but it’s most evident in the heaviest kids”.

 

This is just one effect phthalates may have on the human body. A study in Mexico in 2009, of 454 women, 233 who were breast cancer cases, found certain phthalates were associated with breast cancer rates. Lizabeth Lopez-Carrillo led the research at Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health and considers the results may be the ability of certain phthalate compounds to alter gene expression without altering the genetic code itself.

 

The largest concerns of exposure to phthalates are for unborn and young children. They are most at risk as their organs and brains are at crucial developmental stages. Scientists have documented prenatal exposure by measuring four phthalates in the urine of over 300 women to evaluate links to pre-birth exposures of these phthalates and the behavioral, mental and motor development of children when they were 3 years of age.

 

The results showed higher prenatal exposures to two of the phthalates significantly delayed the odds of motor development and the potential of future problems with fine and gross motor coordination. One of the phthalates appeared to cause significant decreases in mental development in girls, while exposure to three of the chemicals were associated with behavioral problems in both the sexes. These included anxiety, depression and withdrawal behavior.

 

Professor Niels Skakkebaek from Denmark, whose research was seconded by Professor Shauna Swan in the U.S., found phthalates responsible for a decrease of semen count and quality. The research also indicated phthalates were responsible for genital malformations in baby boys.

 

It appears that the risks are such that the EPA, who were granted the authority by congress in 1976, to create a list in the Toxic Substances Control Act, have not ever added to it until now.

 

Over the past year, the chemical industry has attempted to block the release of the EPA’s proposed list. The EPA maintains these chemicals present or may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment.

 

It would appear to the layperson; from the varied findings of eminent scientists that fact was well established.

 

.

 

Sep

6

By Karen

2 Comments

Categories: Anti-ageing cream deception, Chemical free cosmetics, Chemical free skin care, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Beauty Myths parts 2 & 3: More False Beliefs about Skin Care

 

Toners are needed after cleansing the skin.

When I started in the beauty industry 40 years ago, all cosmetic companies included a toner in their regime. The idea was to remove all traces of make-up after cleansing and to ‘close the pores’. Just about all formulations contained alcohol and we were encouraged to use generously, swiping the toner liquid over the face and neck.

I still get requests from customers as to what toner I can recommend. My answer is always the same: none!

There is absolutely no evidence that a toner will close pores. In fact, although advertising regulations for cosmetics are loose, this claim is avoided as it is seen to change the body in a physical way.  Only products classified as drugs that actually change the body’s’ physicality are permitted make such claims and they come under an entirely different set of governing rules.

The alcohol is extremely drying, dehydrating the outer layer of the skin, the epidermis. Only proper cleansing with a gentle cleanser will effectively remove make-up, pollution and dirt. Some cosmetic houses promote liquid serums as they are used as a ‘pre-moisturiser’ feeding the skin with essential nutrients. Always read the label to ensure the product you choose does not contain alcohol, which is often used to blend the emulsion.

A Skin Conditioner is a pre-moisturiser, often thought of as a toner as it is used after cleansing and before the creamy moisturiser. A good Skin Conditioner actually feeds the skin with water soluble nutrients and provides a base for the moisturiser to lock into.

Some chemicals in Skin Care are ok.

I really can’t see any redeeming features in a skin care product that is a concoction of synthetic chemicals.  89% of chemicals used in cosmetics and skin care have not been tested for safety. The 11% that have been tested and regarded safe to include in the lotions and creams we us on our bodies have been tested in isolation and not in combination with other substances.

The industry wants us to believe Paraben preservatives are safe even though they have been found in breast cancer tissue. Many companies are removing these chemicals and promoting the fact. Sighting propyl, methyl, butyl or ethyl in the ingredient word can identify Paraben preservatives.

Research has found numerous chemicals tested on lab animals have been found to be hormone disruptor, affect the immune system, risk birth defects, may contribute to sensitivities in the individual and have shown to cause cancer!

There are many choices of skin care and cosmetics products on the market that contain ingredients that will nourish and protect the skin without the risks that using untested chemicals may bring.

Ensure the products you use on your body does not contain chemicals be choosing Certified Organics. These products carry a third party independent guarantee promising no synthetic chemicals are used in the formulations.

Secret Ingredients in Skin Care products must be worthwhile because they are patented.

There are an increasing number of cosmetic companies promoting their skin care products containing a magic, secret ingredient. They patent the name and make a big deal that this wonderful new discovery that will bring exceptional benefits to their customers. The question is: how can the consumer evaluate the claims?

Because they are ‘secret’, the company is not required to divulge the ingredients. They cannot be peer reviewed or investigated by consumers concerned with the type of chemical they expose themselves to.

These products come and they go! Making way for another new discovery that is reported to improve lines and wrinkles or miraculously save us from the dreaded ageing process. And we fall for it every time, only to realize after months of dedicated use, the improvement was fleeting.

Be wary of products that sound too good to be true. They probably are. Consider skin care that informs the customer of the active ingredients and how they will work for them. Without the smoke and mirrors. It is highly unlikely a moisturising cream will deliver remarkable changes to they way a person looks. Only cosmetic surgery can make such a promise, and that is a bit drastic for most of us.

Look for products where the entire list of ingredients is visible. This is the only assurance you have of knowing what you are actually applying to our skin.

Part 3;

Chemicals in Cosmetics can’t absorb into the Body.

Our skin is the largest organ we have and often the most abused. We scrub the exposed skin, usually our face and neck, apply lotions, creams, pastes and ointments and then neglect the skin not seen by others.

Many people think the skin makes us air and water tight and don’t consider that what applied to the skin can, and is absorbed into the blood stream and then into the other organs. But that is how HRT and nicotine patches work. They deliver medication into the blood stream to remedy the ailment. A few years ago, experiments were started with dermal patches to deliver medication to the brain for people suffering dementia.

It is, therefore, reasonable to assume chemicals in cosmetics and skin care products do travel through the skin layers into the blood stream and are carried to the organs.

Scientists have documented an enormous amount of research results indicating the adverse effects of some chemicals that are included ingredients in cosmetics. Consumers are left in the dark about the results of such research unless a lobby group makes an effort to expose a potential problem with a particular chemical.

Phthalates are an example of toxins in skin care products that alter the hormones. Used as a fixer in synthetic fragrance and colour and a plasticizer in nail varnish. Phthalates are present in many consumer products and there is mounting evidence they have detrimental impact on the human body.

Scientific studies from researchers’ worldwide find absorption of some chemicals impact adversely on animals of many species, from mammals, fish and amphibians.

It is possible to find skin care and cosmetics without chemicals. By choosing certified organic products, you can completely avoid the risk of toxic ingredients that can absorb into the blood stream and be carried to the organs.

That Fine, Flaky Scalp is ‘Dandruff’

Like the skin, the scalp is shedding skin cells each day. Our hair makes it more difficult to remove the skin flakes from the scalp and, if left for a length of time, warmth and moisture from the head may cause bacteria to form a crust on the scalp that is known as dandruff.

The result is a yellowish, thick build up of scalp skin cells that take patience and several treatments to remove, sometimes loosening clumps of hair as well.

Fine, powdery flakes from the scalp are actually dry scalp, usually caused by an ingredient in shampoo, sodium lauryl sulphate. This chemical inflames the scalp skin cells causing them to lift and flake.

Clever marketing from shampoo companies promote dry scalp as dandruff, but they invariably contain the same foaming chemical that causes the problem. Shampoos with non-chemical based foaming agent are rare, but worth seeking as they are not as drying. Massage the scalp regularly to promote blood supply to the scalp and hair follicles as well as loosening the dead scalp skin.

By choosing a shampoo that does not contain sodium lauryl sulphate, sodium lauryth sulphate or cocoamideapropyl betaine you can avoid the chances of a flaky scalp. These chemicals can inflame and separate the scalp skin cells which lead to a flaky scalp, often diagnosed as dandruff.

 

‘Natural’ Skin Care products are Chemical-Free.

Worldwide, it is not illegal to advertise skin care products as ‘natural’ even if they contain chemicals.  As an example, Manufacturers will claim that coconut oil, synthesized to produce the foaming agent Cocomide DEA is a natural ingredient. But once the chemical reaction has taken place on the coconut oil it is no longer natural or even safe as the manufacturing process may produce a contaminant called nitrosamines. This will not be listed on the label, as a contaminant it is not an intended ingredient. Nitrosamines have shown to cause cancer in all species of laboratory animal including the primates, the closest relative to the human race.

Inspect the ingredients label closely of most ‘natural’ skin care products and you are likely to find the botanicals, usually marketed as the benefits of the product, are in the middle, if not the end of the list.

By choosing products with a certification logo, you are assured the entire product is certified organic and not just a few of the ingredients.

When you understand that the first 3 to 4 ingredients listed make up 90% to 95% of the entire product, the ‘natural botanical’ ingredients are in such small a proportion they will be of little benefit to the user. Many products are mainly water and chemicals with a few herbals thrown in so they can be promoted as ‘natural’

 

Aug

8

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Anti-ageing cream deception, DNA Damage, Green Skin Care Products, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Toxic Contaminants, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Anti ageing creams and lotions: Do they really work?

 

 

No one could escape the advertising blitz from the cosmetics industry over the past few years promoting anti-ageing skin care products.

There have been recent media articles reporting that even children have been swept up in the mania, attempting to prevent signs of facial ageing.

With just about all the major cosmetic companies vying for a market share, you may wonder if one product is any better than another. Many manufacturers claim a secret ingredient and because they are not required to divulge the elements in the secret formulation, it is very difficult for a consumer to know what is actually in the product.

There are a few tricks to finding out if the product you are interested in is worthy of your money.

1 Quality Ingredients:

Although the advertising laws are rather loose, it is mandatory for the ingredients to be listed in descending order, with the largest ingredient amounts at the top of the list. You will not fail to notice that water, or  ‘aqua’ for the up-market brands, is first on the list.

By the same token, if the product is marketed as using a special ‘magic’ ingredient or essential oil, primrose seems to the biggy at present, and that ingredient is more than half way down the list, it is in such a small amount, it will be of little benefit to you.

Another ‘ingredient’ to be aware of is an ‘Aqueous infusion’ of  … all sorts of herbs and oils … but it is only a weak tea with the main component being the water. I have seen products marketed using this way of bulking out an ingredient list. There is little to recommend it.

MIESSENCE Certified Organics contain 100% beneficial ingredients: Potent and Active products. EVERY ingredient in every Miessence product is beneficial to you and your body.

2 Magic Formulas:

Glycerine is more often than not an ingredient used in anti-ageing skin care and is in the first few on the list. This is because it will draw moisture from the atmosphere to the skin surface in humidity above 65%. The down side is that, in humidity below that, glycerine draws moisture from the deeper layers of the skin to the outer layers, to be held on the surface by a silicone or type of oil. The result is to puff out fine lines, but dehydrates the skin from the inside out.

One cannot fail to be confused by ingredients that have so many letters in the word that we are hard pressed to pronounce them let alone understand what they are.  Ingredients with methyl, propyl, butyl or ethylsomewhere in the word are paraben preservatives.

These chemicals have been found in breast cancer tissue and although the industry are at pains to claim there has not been enough studies to confirm their danger, you will notice many manufacturers are removing these chemicals and promoting the fact. Where there’s’ smoke … etc!

MIESSENCE Certified Organics are cold pressed formulations, ingredients are unaltered by heat or synthetic emulsions. Only cold formulation provides significant quantities of bio-available nutrients that literally feed your skin.

3 Same, Same:

If most products have the same ingredients, it is interesting that the prices charged are hugely different.  This is where the prestige of the brand influences the consumer to think they are buying a superior product. The marketing and advertising budget is likely to be the bigger factor rather than the quality of the ingredients.

That said, some of the cheaper brands are popular also because of the promotion budget available if a large corporation owns the product.

4. Natural, Non-Synthetic:

The best choices for quality skin care, including anti-ageing products are natural ingredients that will feed and nourish the skin. These have not been synthesised by a chemical process. Avoid ingredients that have a natural substance usually in brackets after a long chemical sounding ingredient name. An ingredient that has been derived from a natural substance, for example ‘from coconut’ has undergone a chemical reaction and is not longer natural. If it has been ‘ethoxylated’ there is also a chance the ingredient has been contaminated with the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane during manufacture.

MIESSENCE Certified Organics are shipped as soon as possible after manufacturing directly from the factory. This ensures their freshness and potency when you receive them

 

May

26

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Anti-ageing cream deception, Chemical free cosmetics, Chemical free skin care, Contaminants = Infertility?, Green Skin Care Products, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, No Chemical Cosmetics, Toxic Contaminants, Toxic Parabens, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Free Reports Explaining the Chemical Ingredients in Cosmetics and Skin Care Products.

 

Are you interested in chemical-free, natural and organic skin care? Would you like to reduce or even eliminate chemicals in the products you use on your body?

A little taste of the information in my email reports on Cosmetic Ingredients and Contaminants.

In the world of cosmetics and skin care products the choices are enormous. The most popular products seem to be the ones that are most heavily advertised and promoted.  They promise magical results almost instantly.

But what do they really contain? And are they safe for us?

This is the reason I compiled the reports, spaced a week apart, so you have the time to read and absorb the information.

The first report on Ingredients is delivered immediately … why wait around for bad news?!

We discuss:

  • The definitions such as “Clinically Proven” to find what this really means to you.
  • The way a label is listed is of importance if you are looking for potency in the active ingredients.
  • Beware of chemicals disguised as ‘natural’

The second report is delivered the next day. This subject is Contaminants, and maybe more important as Contamination of an ingredient is not intended, and as such is not listed on the label. Contamination often happens at the manufacturing stage where  the ingredient is contaminated with 1,4-dioxane.
There are also products that are contaminated during storage by the combination of 2 or more ingredients that react unfavourably with each other.
I will show you how to recognise them.

All the reports will now be delivered a day apart…  And in the 3rd report, we look closer at Cleansers, shampoo, body wash and personal care products that foam. Even the ‘natural’ ones contain chemicals that dehydrate the skin and scalp and lead to flakiness. Discover what chemicals to avoid in foaming and lathering products.

Moisturisers and Body Lotions are meant to improve the suppleness and smoothness of the skin. In this report I will examine the ingredients that can actually dehydrate and prematurely age the skin. You will be surprised how widely they are included in the most prestigious brands.

Sunscreens are email report number 5. There is a large amount of controversy, with skin cancer doctors and foundations advising us to avoid the sun or smear chemical laden creams onto our bodies, to the well documented findings that lack of sun causes vitamin D deficiency and why that can be a health problem. I research the chemicals found in the majority of sunscreen products, and discuss why they may be more dangerous than sun exposure.

Baby Care products are not exempt from chemical ingredients. This report highlights the type of toxins that are found in baby products. Small bodies are more susceptible to these toxins because of their weight ratio. Learn how to protect your children.

Cosmetic Products are a favourite report. Lead in lipstick? Mercury in mascara! Whether we want the full works of foundation, blush, shadow, liners: both eye and lip and lashings of mascara, or we are happy with just a little lipstick, the number of toxic chemicals in these products is enough to make your head spin! I help you to weed out the worst offenders and find safer alternatives.

Free reports from No Chemical Cosmetics will arm you with the knowledge to confidently shop for your skin care, personal care and cosmetics. You will be able to recognise and avoid toxic chemicals in the products you choose.
There are safer, more effective alternatives to the chemical concoctions on offer.
You will never again have to rely on the manufacturers claims that often fall short of the results you expect and deserve.

 

May

10

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Anti-ageing cream deception, Chemical free cosmetics, Chemical free skin care, Green Skin Care Products, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Toxic Contaminants, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , , , ,

Beauty Products’ Questionable Claims to Get You to Buy.

The advertised benefits some manufacturers of Cosmetics make can be a long way from the truth, confusing for shoppers of personal care, skin care and cosmetic products. People are led to expect unrealistic results, usually in a very short time of using the product.

Manufactures are not required to seek approval from authorities and can make claims as long as they do not include changes to the body’s function or its’ structure.

Labeling is not as regulated or controlled for the consumers’ benefit as we might think. These are some of the most common terms used to describe the proposed benefits of beauty products.

 

  • Hypoallergenic: There is no official definition for this term. It just means the ingredients are not known to cause allergies in the majority of people.  Some very sensitive users can still get a reaction from the chemicals included in products making this claim.
  • Dermatologist Tested: Rarely is there any information for what the products were tested for, or against.  This is also not an official term used by any governing body and most testing is done ‘in-house’ without the benefit of an independent critique.
  • Clinically Proven: Ditto for the above: no official definition, and ‘in-house’ trials. There are some cases where manufactures will employ outside research companies, providing them with the answers they want from the testing.
  • Anti-ageing: There are formulations that plump the skin in an attempt to minimize fine lines, with a combination of Glyceryl/glycerin to draw the moisture from the deeper layers of the skin to be held on the surface by an oil or silicone. This effect is temporary and will lead to dehydration of the skin in the long term.

True ANTI-AGEING products are potent with antioxidants from pure certified organic ingredients.

  • Natural: There maybe ‘natural’ ingredients in the product, but take a closer look at the label and you may just find ingredient names that you are unable to pronounce! They are probably chemicals! Beware of ‘derived from’ such as ‘from coconut’ as these natural substances have most likely undergone a chemical process that will not leave them ‘natural’ any longer.
  • Organic: Unless there is a Certification logo from a third party, independent governing body to state this product is organic … don’t believe it! Some manufactures do include genuine certified organic ingredients in their formulations, but, like the ‘natural’ products, read the label to see the other ingredients. If the ‘organic’ ingredients are listed towards the end of the list, they are in such small quantities; they probably won’t be of much benefit to you.

Beware of ‘organic infusions’ as these are just a weak tea of organic herbs so the main ingredient is water! … a great way of boosting an organic claim to make the product seem genuinely beneficial.

This link will take you to a wide range of skincare, personal care  products and cosmetics      CERTIFIED ORGANIC to FOOD STANDARDS

  • Not Tested on Animals: with that cute bunny symbol … means that the manufacturer or their agents have not tested their ingredients on animals in the past 5 years. Testing on animals continues regardless of the disclaimers on packaging.
  • Fragrance-free products may still contain synthetic fragrance just to mask ingredients that have an unpleasant smell. ‘No fragrance added’ on a label is usually genuinely free from synthetic fragrance.

The old adage ‘buyer beware’ could have been expressly written with the cosmetic industry in mind. Consumers have to be on their guard for misleading information and claims and not be seduced by promises that are likely to be unachievable.

From the worlds’ first range of Certified Organic skin care (2001) you are assured of 100% Beneficial ingredients: Potent and Active products
Cold formulation: Bio-Available Nutrients for Your Skin
Made Fresh: Products are shipped asap after manufacturing so you receive the maximum benefits of organic oils, extracts and other vital ingredients.

 

Apr

24

By Karen

2 Comments

Categories: Anti-ageing cream deception, Chemical free skin care, DNA Damage, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Moisturisers with Sunscreen, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , , , ,

Sunscreens May have Harmful Chemical Ingredients

 

 

We are all encouraged to use sunscreen and avoid harsh sunlight for fear of sun cancers. There has been a lot of media attention directed by the various cancer foundations as well as the manufacturers of the sunscreen products in the hope to gain a market share of the multi-million dollar industry.

Consider some of the chemicals in sunscreens, as many have not been sufficiently tested for safety.

Oxybenzone has been detected in human breast milk and in 97% of the 2,500 US citizens tested for the chemical by the US Centre for Disease Control & Prevention in 2005. This chemical is also known to be a hormone disruptor and can be found in over 600 sunscreens sold in the US.

Oxybenzone is a penetration enhancer; helps to deliver other chemicals in the product deeper into the skin layers where they may enter the bloodstream. Not only does this chemical cause cell damage, it is rapidly oxidised in light and inactivates the skins’ natural protection system.

It appears that females have the highest reading for this chemical, which stands to reason, as they are more likely to use a sunscreen to protect against the ageing effects of the sun.

In 2006, research teams from the University of California-Riverside found 2 coastal fish species had been feminized by oxybenzone with two thirds of the males carrying ovary tissue.

Octyl-methoxycinnamate is a hormone disruptor as well as a penetration enhancer. It produces free radicals. The ‘oxy’ in the word indicates the chemical has been ethoxylated during manufacture meaning it could be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane, a potent carcinogen.

Butyl-Methdiebenzoylmethane, also listed as Avobenzone degrades in sunlight within an hour to become ineffective as a sunscreen chemical. It rapidly converts light into chemical energy releasing free radicals into the body.

Titanium Dioxide has not had sufficient testing to be regarded as entirely safe. Studies have shown DNA damage from exposure to this chemical when exposed to light.

Nanoparticles are increasingly used in many cosmetics, including sunscreens where the relatively new technology has been used to create such ingredients as  ‘invisible zinc’.
This means the zinc loses it reflective property and could be absorbed into the skin and the blood stream. Scientists warn chemicals with a molecular size so small this type of absorption could result in the ‘next asbestos’.
There are no regulations to list nanoparticles on labels, so consumers may be unaware the products they choose may contain these type of ingredients..

As sales of sunscreen have risen, so have the rates of skin cancer. Caution should be used to avoid over exposure, but as an increasing number of people show vitamin D deficiency, it may be that the pendulum has swung to far the other way.
Recently, synthetic vitamin D supplements in the form of pills have been promoted.
Safe sun exposure, out side the middle of the day promotes the natural manufacture of Vitamin D within the body, without the need to pop a pill!

There are safer sunscreen products, when we learn to read labels and become discerning consumers rather than be taken in by the marketing hype and the scare mongers against natural, safe sun light exposure and who also promote synthetic chemical laden products.

 

Apr

3

By Karen

1 Comment

Categories: Chemical free skin care, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, No Chemical Cosmetics, Toxic Contaminants, Toxic Parabens, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , ,

Qantas Business Amenity Collection

 

 

The flight from Sydney to San Francisco, in business class, in February was a wonderful start to our holiday.

The cabin crew were brilliant and the food and service outstanding.

But then there was the toiletries bag! I used to love the cute little bottles, and looked forward to seeing what was in them. It reminded me of childhood lucky dips!

The bag itself was in a fabric designed by iconic Australian designer Florence Broadhurst. Regrettably, that is where the Australian content ended.

American company Malin+Goetz apothecary and lab. New York, supplied the toiletries contents. Although the enclosed leaflet boasted ‘natural ingredients’ the list read like a chemists laboratory.

The warning label advised the Vitamin E Face Moisturizer was for Adult use only; if irritation occurs, discontinue use; avoid contact with the eyes, if contact occurs, rinse eyes with water!

Surely a ‘natural’ moisturizer could be used around the eyes? I have highlighted the main ingredients: –

After purified water, came

Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, (1) a mixed triester of glycerin and caprylic and capric acid. This chemical has never been tested for safety in cosmetics by the industry panel. And although it is expected to be low hazard, there are data gaps and it is expected to be an environmental toxin.

Glycerin is a cheap humectant that draws moisture from the atmosphere to the skin in humidity over 65%. In humidity below that (such as in an aircraft at 35,000 ft!) glycerin actually draws moisture from the deeper layers of the skin (causing dehydration) to be held on the surface by a barrier cream.

In concentrated solutions it can be irritating to the mucous membranes, and if you consider the first 3 to 4 ingredients on the list usually make up 90% to 95% of the entire product, the glycerin in the moisturiser could be concentrated and the reason for the warning regarding the eyes.

Dimethicone is a silicone emollient and one of the barrier creams used in this product to trap the moisture on the surface of the skin. It coats like plastic wrap, preventing the skin from breathing or eliminating toxins. Some synthetic emollients are known to cause tumors in laboratory animals and accumulate in the liver and lymph nodes. As they are non-biodegradable, they also have a negative environmental impact.

Cyclopentasiloxane is the 2nd barrier cream, although considered to be a low to moderate hazard (2),  it has a 79% data gap meaning it has not been tested for safety by the industry panel for use in cosmetics. The Environment Canada Domestic Substance List classifies this chemical as expected to be harmful or toxic. Emerging concerns is that it is an endocrine disruptor at moderate doses.

Butylene Glycol is a petroleum derivative that penetrates the skin and can weaken the protein and cellular structure. It can irritate the eyes and cause dermatitis on the skin.

There are two PEGs, which are potentially carcinogenic petroleum ingredients. These ingredients can alter and reduce the skins’ natural moisture factor. This could increase the appearance of ageing and leave the skin more vulnerable to bacteria.

Methylisothiazolinone (3)   is a known human immune system toxicant with a moderate hazard warning.  It causes allergies and comes with restrictions on its’ use. The Cosmetic Ingredients Review Assessments sites it as strong evidence of a human skin toxicant.

Disodium EDTA is a penetration enhancer, allowing for deeper penetration of the other ingredients!

I haven’t listed the entire contents, and I have referenced just a few so as to assure you I have scientific backup on my findings and research. I am sure your patience would be severely tried if I got carried away.

The other products in the pack, Vitamin B5 Hand Treatment and the Lip Moisturizer listed the same type of synthetic chemicals that can be dangerous, as they have not been fully tested for their safety.

All the products carried the same warnings for use and the lip moisturizer contained several chemicals that had been ethoxylated.
They can be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane during the manufacturing process. Ingredients with ‘eth’ and ‘oxy’ in the name are an indication of this process.

Apart from the fact that our national carrier had gone outside the country for their passenger products, they are not doing our complexions or possibly our health any favors!

Consider an Australian range of Certified Organic skin care products such as those found at www.vieworganics.com and they would be promoting quality products from their home country as well as treating their passengers to far superior results.
(1)http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/701056/CAPRYLIC%3B%3B_CAPRIC_TRIGLYCERIDE/

(2)http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/701741/CYCLOPENTASILOXANE/

(3) http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient/703935/METHYLISOTHIAZOLINONE/

Mar

27

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: DNA Damage, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Moisturisers with Sunscreen, Toxic Contaminants, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , , , ,

L’Occitane Ingredients report … Ultra Moisturizing Cream with Sunscreen.

I was cleaning out the bathroom this weekend and right at the back of the cupboard I found a tube of L’Occitane Ultra Moisturizing Cream with Sunscreen.

I had forgot I had it as I haven’t used any chemical based cosmetics for more than 5 years, since I found out how detrimental many chemicals included in skin care products are.

So, lets’ take a closer look at the ingredients of the L’Occitane Ultra Moisturizing Cream with Sunscreen:

The packaging advertises the product contains 8% Shea butter. Great!

But what of the remaining 92% of ingredients? …

Along with the Shea butter the first 4 ingredients, making between 90% and 95% of the entire product are:

Aqua (water!);

Sunflower seed oil … both completely harmless but not extraordinary ingredients.

Ehylhexl Methoxycinnamate; this ingredient can cause allergic skin rashes.  An ingredient with ‘oxy’ in the name has been ethoxylated and can be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane, a potent carcinogen, during the manufacture process. You won’t find it listed on a label, as it is a contaminant, not an intended ingredient.  There strong evidence it is a human endocrine disruptor and concerns it interferes with cellular signaling, cause mutations and lead to cell death. (1)*

The remaining list consists of:

Isopropyl Myristate: A widely used fatty compound, which causes blackheads and is not included in many newer formulations. This chemical can react with others in the formulation during manufacture and storage to create nitrosamines (NDELA) the most powerful of all contaminants. Scientists have found nitrosamines cause cancer in all species tested including primates, our closest relatives in the animal world. (2)

Propylene Glycol: A petroleum derivative, it penetrates the skin and can weaken the protein and cellular structure.  It is cheap and has been linked to sensitivity reactions. Its use has been reduced in favor of “safer” glycols. (If there is such a thing!)

Dimethicone: A silicone emollient, it coats like plastic wrap preventing the skin from breathing and eliminating toxins. Some synthetic emollients are known tumor promoters and accumulate in the liver and lymph nodes. They are also non-biodegradable causing negative environmental impact.

Corn oil: Inexpensive oil that may cause skin reactions in the allergic.

Titanium Dioxide; used in sunscreen, limited safety data and studies have shown it causes DNA damage when exposed to light. Some researchers fear absorption into the blood stream particularly if the chemical is in nanoparticles form. (3)

PEG 100: derived from castor oil, Polyethylene glycol compounds are potentially carcinogenic petroleum ingredients that can alter and reduce the skins’ natural moisture factor. This could increase the appearance of ageing and leave you more vulnerable to bacteria. (6)

Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS): As part of good industrial and personal hygiene and safety procedure, avoid all unnecessary exposure to the chemical substance and ensure prompt removal from skin, eyes and clothing. (5)

Glyceryl Sterate; widely used synthetic emulsifier and skin conditioner that may cause allergies. Glycerin is a cheap humectant that will draw moisture from the atmosphere to the skin in humidity above 65%. In humidity below that, it actually draws moisture from the deeper layers of the skin to be held on the surface by a barrier (Dimethicone) the skin is dehydrated by this function.

Butylene Glycol: causes adverse reproductive and developmental effects if ingested. It can penetrate the skin and weaken protein and cellular structure. There are safety data gaps of around 78% but it is considered low hazard by the cosmetic database even though it is recognized as an irritant. (4)

Laureth 7: Again, as with the ‘oxy’ in the word, ‘eth means the ingredient has been ethoxylated. See above*

Methyl Paraben: there has been a lot in the press about this preservative ingredient as it is widely used even though it is known to be toxic. Beware of any ingredient with methyl, propyl, butyl or ethyl in the word, as these are paraben preservatives. They can cause allergic reactions and skin rashes.

Retinyl Palmitate: Although the CIR (Cosmetic Ingredient Review board – an industry regulated board) maintains this chemical is safe at low concentrations, it is on the Canadian Hotlist. This means the Canadian Product Safety Bureau considers it to have potentially adverse effects, or it could have been restricted or banned.

Benzyl Alcohol: A solvent in perfumes can be irritating and corrosive to the skin and Mucous membranes.

Hydroxyisohexeyl: A fragrance ingredient known as an alderhyde, most alderhydes are irritating to the skin and gastrointestinal tract.

Limonene: This preservative is from the petrochemical industry and is a skin irritant and sensitizer. It has the potential to be a carcinogen.

I have not covered the complete ingredients list, nor have I referenced all my findings, but I think you may see where this is going.
It is a shame such as wonderfully nourishing substance like the Shea butter is completely over-shadowed by the chemicals in this product.

What is a worry is the nitrosamine-promoting ingredient, Isopropyl Myristate, which has the ability of increasing the contamination the longer the product has been open. Researchers have found products with this class of contaminant have increased 4 fold over a 17-month period.

There are safer alternatives to your moisturising choice. Look for products with less (or no) chemicals and enjoy the benefits of healthy skin care without the risks.

(1)    http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient.php?ingred06=704203
(2)    A Consumer’s Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients by Ruth Winter
(3)    Mutat Res 2000 Mar 3; 466(1):1-7; Free Radic Biol Med 1999 Aug;27 (3-4); 294-300; FEBS Lett 1997 Nov 24; 418 (1-2); 87-90
(4)    http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient.php?ingred06=700861
(5)    http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/p5029.ht
(6)    http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient/721388/PEG-100_STEARATE/

Mar

18

By Karen

1 Comment

Categories: Hair Loss, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Toxic Contaminants, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , , , ,

Foaming and Lathering Personal Care Products May be Dangerous to Your Health.

There is something about a lather that usually makes people feel they have cleansed properly, whether it is for the hair or the body.

But do you know the chemical effects of using an ingredient that foams?

Surfactants, aka wetting agents lower the water’s surface tension allowing the product being used to spread and penetrate more easily.

The most commonly used surfactant for personal care products are Sodium Lauryl Sulphate and Sodium Laureth Sulphate.

Sodium Lauryl Sulphate can be absorbed into the skin where it degenerates, or ages the cell membranes as it effects the proteins. The skin layers may become inflamed and separate. These symptoms, when the ingredient is used in a shampoo, can give the effect of an itchy, flaky scalp. The consumer, convinced they have dandruff, chooses an anti-dandruff shampoo, which invariably contains the offending SLS.

Miessence shampoo does not contain SLS or SLES or any other toxic chemicals, only beneficial ingredients to totally cleanse and rejuvenate your hair.

Studies have found this chemical can have high levels of skin penetration even at low use concentration.  In animal trials, the chemical had an LD 50 (Lethal Dose for 50% of the animals tested) of 0.8 to 110 g/kg in rats.  A formulation containing 15% caused depression, laboured breathing, diarrhoea and death in 4 out of 20 animals.

SLS has been fed to animals to study the effects, and it has been found their skin suffers slight to moderate irritation in applications of a solution of 0.5% to 10%; skin corrosion and severe irritation in applications of 10% to 30%

In eye tests, 10% SLS caused corneal damage to rabbits’ eyes if the chemical was not flushed out or the flushing was delayed.

SLS is toxic to marine life, but it is flushed into the sea in many countries around the world, from the wide spread use of foaming personal care products containing these ingredients.

Many products carry the ‘not tested on animals’ bunny logo, but this only means the manufacture or their agents have not tested on animals in the past 5 years. Outside that time frame, and as revealed, animal testing is indeed a large part of company procedure so they are able to have their products approved for the market.

SLS can become carcinogenic during manufacture or when combined with other nitrogen bearing ingredients in a product. As this is a contamination, not an intended ingredient, there will be no warning on the label.

Research has indicated SLS may damage the skin’s immune system, allowing bacteria to breed.

Sodium Laureth Sulphate has been deemed to be a milder option, but the manufacturing process involves a process called ethoxylation. The resulting chemical can be contaminated with the potent carcinogen 1,4-dioxane.

Avoid all products containing these foaming agents and choose green chemistry options.

Body wash and soaps, including baby care products can be found at www.vieworganicas.com

Ref: http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/sls-JACT-report.html

Mar

14

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Toxic Contaminants, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , ,

Gisele and that Poison Sunscreen Outburst.

Unknown

While promoting the launch of her natural skin care range, the model Gisele Bundchen, in a statement regarding sunscreens was quoted as saying “I cannot put this poison on my body”

Gisele continued, “ I do not use anything synthetic”

And then the world of the ‘experts’ erupted; forcing the model to retract and qualify her comments, claiming the language barrier had caused her to be misquoted. In a further statement, Ms Bundchen stated she only uses products that don’t contain ‘harsh’ chemicals such as parabens, Oxybenzone, PABA and Retinyl Palmitate.

Choose sunscreen with out the toxic chemicals.

The head of Brazil’s National Cancer Institute claimed sunscreen is of “fundamental importance” for preventing cancer, even though there is no evidence or studies to support this statement.

Professor Ian Olver, head of Cancer Council Australia was less emotional when asked for a response on the topic. He said “The real message is that the damage that UV light can do to your skin is so great, not only the risk of cancer but also of premature ageing of the skin, that if you have enough exposure to cause a tan you’ve done the damage to trigger off skin cancer and to damage the skin that will later show up as premature ageing,”

Prof Olver went on to comment on nanoparticles in sunscreens by saying there hasn’t been evidence of harm, but there was a ‘good argument’ for labeling the products so consumers could make informed decisions.

The fact that nanoparticles in skin care products is a relatively new science means there have not been sufficient studies to qualify them as a safe ingredient. Some scientists warn against the technology as more products enter the market ahead of research results. One researcher fears nanoparticles could be the next asbestos disaster.

Then there is the subject of the chemical Oxybenzone.  The Center of Disease Control released a study in 2008 showing the majority of the American population (97%) was contaminated with oxybenzene, which is widely used in sunscreens. This chemical has been linked to cell damage, hormone disruption, allergies and low birth weight in baby girls whose mothers were exposed during pregnancy. Oxybenzone is also a penetration enhancer, which means it can deliver other chemicals deeper into the skin tissue.

Sunlight causes Oxybenzone to form free radical chemicals that may be linked to cell damage. Children are particularly vulnerable as their skin surface; relative to body weight is much greater. Because of this fact, the potential dose of the chemical following skin application is likely to be 1.4 times greater than in adults. Children have less ability to excrete toxins from their bodies and their developing organs put them at greater risk of developing later-in-life disease triggered by exposure to chemicals.

Yet the last safety review of oxybenzone undertaken by the FDA (or any other governing body) was in the 1970s. The use of sunscreens has increased, but so has the rate of skin cancers.

Consider a sunscreen with out oxybenzone at www.vieworganics.com

“Sunscreens were never developed to prevent skin cancer,” Zoe Diana Draelos, editor of the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology said in a 2010 report. “In fact, there is no evidence to recommend that sunscreens prevent skin cancer in humans.”

Vitamin D is essential to our bodies’ well being and a measured amount of sunlight, about 20 minutes, either before or after the hottest part of the day is a healthier option than taking a pill. The choice of a sunscreen with the sheen of a reflective barrier of zinc, avoiding all creams containing chemicals, is the best advise.

It is a pity Gisele Bundchen didn’t stick to the originally quoted statement.
She may be on to something.
If public opinion is stirred enough, the powers that be could be shamed into completing the long awaited research. After 30 years, the FDA released a draft in October  ’09, but continues to delay finalizing the safety standards.

Feb

15

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Toxic Contaminants

Tags: , , , ,

Lead Found In Many Lipsticks.

My grandmother used to say, “A lady is better dressed with her earrings and lippy on”

I love red lipstick and a touch of pink or nude completes my makeup and makes me feel brighter, but recent news regarding lead in lipsticks has added to the precautions of chemicals in the skin care products I use.

Tests conducted by the FDA on 22 lipsticks found unacceptable amounts of lead in every one of them. The brands were the ones you see advertised regularly and are most prominent in the stores selling cosmetics. The price of the lipsticks was no indication of whether or not they might be contaminated.

Health authorities recommend there are no ‘safe’ levels of consumption of lead yet cosmetic manufacturers claim the amounts in the lipsticks should be of little concern. They have not considered the accumulation of the heavy metal as most women who regularly use the product could consume up to 2 kilos per a year. We are literally eating the stuff.

Babies have been found to have lead, among other toxic chemicals in their cord blood; so pregnant women could be inadvertently affecting their unborn children. Lead is stored in the bones and during pregnancy, breast feeding and again at menopause, a woman’s blood levels of lead rise as stored calcium and bone lead are released. This can happen even if the woman has not been exposed to lead for years as the heavy metal accumulates.

The Mayo clinic states 10 micrograms (0.00001 of a gram) of lead per 100ml (approximately 3 ounces) can cause brain damage in children. Even small amounts of lead have been linked to developmental delays hyperactivity, irreversible brain damage and learning difficulties.
Florida’s Department of Health, in a report on lead poisoning is quoted “There are no safe levels of lead in blood”

Of interest is the lead amounts found in the individual lipsticks tested were vastly different. The product with the most lead contained 34 times more of the metal than the lipstick that contained the least amount. That implies that the contaminant could be controlled.

Building contractors and painters now need to be trained and certified in safe work practices under a new rule from the Environmental Protection Agency. Leaded fuel has been banned in many countries around the world for some time.

There is no governing body or agency to regulate lead in cosmetics.

Jan

14

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Anti-ageing cream deception, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Toxic Contaminants, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , , ,

Beauty Products for Anti-ageing – Tips for Achieving the Best Results.

The greatest interest in skin care these days is in the sphere of anti-ageing products. Both women and men are attempting to remain youthful looking. Many are prepared to pay any amount for skin care products with wild claims as the advertising industry probes deeper into our insecurities.

If you read the ingredients labels of most readily available products, you will find many contain the same substances. They will all contain preservatives and parben preservatives are widely used, even though they are known to be toxic.

I have some tips to help debunk some of the myths surrounding anti-aging skin care products.

DO … cleanse morning and night with a mild, natural ingredient based cleanser. Once in the morning, but use 2 applications at night if you wear makeup.

DON’T … use foaming cleansers that contain cocoamidopropyl betaine, some times seen with “(from coconut)” the oils are synthesised with ammonia and a toxic herbicide! May cause eye and skin irritation. Avoid sodium lauryl/laureth sulphate. These ingredients are chemical, they dehydrate the skin and inflame and separate the skin layers.

DO… exfoliate twice weekly for normal to oily skin, once weekly for delicate skin. A rough face cloth does a good job in between.

DON’T… use products containing almond or other nutshell. They have sharp edges that may tear the tissue.

DO… use a clay based mask: weekly or twice weekly for oily or troubled skin; every 10 days for normal skin, fortnightly for sensitive or delicate skin. Clay will gently draw toxins from the deeper layers of the skin. Masks brighten, lighten and smooth the skins texture.

DON’T … forget to moisturise after clay masks as they can be dehydrating. Use filtered water when mixing the paste.

DO… moisturise twice daily.

DON’T… use a moisturiser containing mineral oil (sorbolene!) it coats the skin like plastic wrap preventing elimination of toxins and from breathing. Or Glycerine, which is a cheap humectant that will draw moisture from the atmosphere to the skin in humidity above 65% but draws the skin’s natural moisture from the deeper layers in humidity below that, causing dehydration. The more of these type of moisturiser you use… the more you seem to need!
Lip balms containing paraffin (derived from mineral oil) is a good example of a product that needs constant reapplications, never improving the skin on the lips.

DO … use night serums and cream. Even if you have ‘oily’ skin, special treatments will add moisture, as oily skin can be dehydrated.

DON’T … confuse ‘oil’ and ‘moisture’ in the skin.

DO … avoid ingredients such as:
PEG (sometimes with numbers added);
(polyethylene glycol) alter the natural moisture content of the skin and leave it vulnerable to bacteria. Although common in lotions and moisturisers. PEGs have been connected with liver and kidney damage in scientific studies. During the manufacture process the contaminant 1-4,dioxane, a carcinogen.

Oxybenzone; (as in sunscreen products);
Achemical found in sunscreens & moisturizers containing sunscreen – this chemical claims the most common causes of photo contact allergy.

It is rapidly oxidized in the presence of light and inactivates important antioxidant systems in the skin (the skin’s natural protection system) Oxybenzone is a hormone disruptor blamed for the increased prospect that male babies will be feminized and low birth weight in baby girls whose mothers were exposed during pregnancy. Immediate and delayed hypersensitivity, it has been detected in human urine and milk. Potentially damages DNA under UV light. It is a skin sensitizer and a penetration enhancer. Used in many sunscreens!

Butylene Glycol;
Petro-chemical, potentially cause contact dermatitis. In animal studies to has been shown to produce mild skin and eye irritation, as well as endocrine system alterations.  There are also reproductive, brain and nervous system effects.

Retinal Palmitate; (in most anti-ageing products);
Vitamin A derivative, shown to improve tiny wrinkles. it decomposes under UVA into chemicals shown to cause mutations in mouse lymphoma cells. Is photo toxic- will cause skin ageing, educed DNA damage. Restricted in Canada.

Ceteryl alcohol;
Causes mild irritation and contact dermatitis in some users.

Alpha Hydroxy Acid (AHA);
The natural ones are glycolic acids from sugar cane, Lactic acid from soured milk (Cleopatra reputably bathed in it) and malic acid from grapes and apples. It has been suggested that AHAs may cause the skin to age more rapidly and elevate the risk of skin cancer, due to their ability to remove the outer layer of skin which can elevate sensitivity to sunlight, thereby increasing photo-ageing. In one study the AHA glycolic acid elevated the sensitivity of human skin to sunburn by as much as 50 per cent in some individuals

‘NICNAS: Priority Existing Chemical Assessment Report,’ Australian Government, Department of Health and Aging, National Indus Research carried out on guinea pigs found that the AHA glycolic acid caused skin damage, with higher doses altering the structure of the skin and destroying some parts of the epidermal layer, as well as increasing UVB-induced skin damage, to a far greater degree than either glycolic acid or UVB in isolation.
Park, K.S. et al, Effect of Glycolic Acid on UVB-Induced Skin Damage and Inflammation in Guinea Pigs, Skin Pharmacology and Applied Skin Physiology, July-August, 2002: 15 (4): 236-245.

Trial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), Marrickville, NSW, 2000 (12): 128;

Commercial glycolic acid is a by-product in the manufacturing of ethylene glycol, through the reaction of formaldehyde (a carcinogen) and carbon monoxide (a poison)!

DON’T … be misguided by confusing ingredients that have nothing to recommend them to give the results you seek and may even make your skin worse….

DO … Choose products Certified Organic to food standards. Ensure the best results for your skin to lessen the signs of ageing using skin care preparations to nourish and protect your skin.

Jan

12

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Contaminants = Infertility?, DNA Damage, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Toxic Contaminants, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fertility – Could Dads’ Cop Some of the Blame for Birth Defects and Infertility Problems?

As more research is done, it is becoming apparent that the roll of the father in the ‘production’ of a baby is more than obviously ‘fleeting’ involvement!
For some time now, pregnant women and those contemplating pregnancy, have been encouraged to avoid smoking and alcohol and take supplements such as folate to ensure a healthy baby.

Generally, no one has given much thought to the father’s health prior to conception or if it is of any consequence. It has been believed that damaged sperm would not be strong enough to fertilize an egg. In times gone by, a childless woman could be thought of as ‘barren’ without even considering the fact that her partner might be the one ‘firing blanks’
It was back in the 1960s when Professor Gladys Friedler, in the process of trials on female rats to determine e how morphine affected their off spring, discovered the impact of the fathers’ role.

Prof. Friedler injected male rodents with morphine and after a few days, mated them with healthy, unaffected females. The pups born to these pairings were under weight and missed all their developmental land-marks.

Shocked by the findings, the Professor spent the next few decades experimenting with alcohol, drugs (both therapeutic and prescription) as well as environmental toxins and found the male rodents affected by these substances produced defective off-spring.

Prof. Friedler claims she was naive to work in this field as she had difficulty publishing her findings and colleagues encouraged her to abandon her studies. She states she was “…initially not aware of the resistance –you were not supposed to look at the fathers’ roles in birth defects…”

Scientists have learnt how women can safe guard their developing babies but it is only relatively recently that research finds many things from paints to pesticides can result in men fathering children with abnormalities. Even not eating a balanced diet can influence the health of a man’s future babies.

Can you see the advertising warning men: “Thinking of fatherhood? … Give up the booze and fags!”

There has been evidence mounting for years through various scientific studies that Phthalates, known endocrine disruptors, found in many products, particularly personal care and cosmetics, fragrances and pacifiers are affecting semen quality, the male reproductive organs and have been found to cause genital malformations in baby boys

In 1996, Prof. Niels Skakkebaek, Research Director, Copenhagen University Hospital, found semen quality has reduced 50% in the past 50 years. There has been an increase of sterility and testicular cancer has risen by 400% in 60 years.
Professor Shanna Swan, Epidemiologist, Rochester University, USA is quoted in the documentary “Men in Danger” as saying “there are 85,000 chemicals in commerce, most of which we know nothing about …. Their effects on carcinogenic potential, metabolism, immune system and reproductive potential…”

Even when the science seems to be clear regarding the dangers of chemicals and toxins, little heed is taken. For decades, women were banned from the lead trade although evidence suggest the metal could cause fetal problems and still births regardless of which parent is exposed. Today, men are protected from lead in the work place but not other dangerous substances from environmental exposures in paints and pesticides, to chemicals included in the ingredients of personal and skincare products.

Employers, by law are required to outline the risks of any chemicals their workers may be exposed to in the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDA) It has been found that the sheets are 18 more times likely to mention risks to female than male reproduction.
.
The chemical BPA, (Bisphenol-A) used too make plastics more malleable, found in plastic bottles (including baby bottles) and containers, can lining for food and beverages and dental sealants has recently been high-lighted in research as an endocrine disruptor.
A five year study conducted in China and published late 2010, on more than 500 factory workers, comparing those with high urine BPA levels to those recruits with low BPA urine levels. It was found the former subjects had 2 to 4 times the risk of having poor sperm quality in concentration, vitality and mobility.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101028073741.htm

This study followed and supported findings done earlier by John Meeker, assistant Prof. of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Michigan school of Public Health, the leading author. The researchers were quick to point out more study was needed, but found urinary concentrations of BPA may be related to decreased sperm quality and concentration. Sperm concentration was around 23% lower in the men in the study who had the highest BPA in their urine samples. results also suggested a 10% sperm DNA damage.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100803175023.htm

BPA is said to mimic the body’s own hormones, according to critics of the chemical, which may lead to negative health effects.

Pesticides exposure is another area of concern. In 1996, the US congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act which required the EPA to initiate the ‘Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). The object was to screen pesticide chemicals and environmental contaminants for their potential to effect the hormone systems of animals and humans. Even so, there have been thousands of chemicals introduced onto the market that have only been tested in isolation and not in combination with each other.

The most powerful evidence that exposure to chemicals can disrupt the endocrine system comes from nature with fish changing sex from male to female, frogs developing defects (multiple testes or ovaries) and hermaphrodite bears.

The US Dept. Veterans Affairs has recognized Agent Orange exposure as contributing to the birth defects of children whose fathers are Vietnam & Korea Veterans. And as late as October 2010 Parkinson’s Disease was recognized as being related to herbicide exposure.

If we look at statistics, about 10% of reproductive-age couples in the US have fertility problems. 30% each attributed to both the sexes, the remaining 40% is a combination of factors involving both partners.

The UK has similar numbers, but men rate higher at 32% of cases with fertility issues and 25% to problems in the woman. 17% is a combination of problems in both partners and the rest to unexplained causes. In that country 1 in 7 couples have difficulty conceiving at some time.

It appears that more work needs to done on the scientific front as over the past decade patterns have emerged that show declining sperm counts, genital malformations in male babies, memory problems and lower IQ in children, increased number of certain hormone-sensitive types of cancer and early on-set puberty.

Ensure your health and that of your future children by choosing Certified Organic skin and personal care products. At vieworganics.com you can select from a range of personal care products that are certified organic to food standards, unrivalled for their purity, potency and freshness.

Jan

2

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Anti-ageing cream deception, DNA Damage, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Toxic Contaminants, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

My Beauty Products & Skin Care Routine – How I found out about Chemical Laden Cosmetics

Boy! I was scammed!!

Until a few years ago, I had a bathroom full of creams and lotions. Cosmetic companies promised all sorts of wonderful results:-

  • Younger looking skin in less than a month!
  • Refined pores, less wrinkles!
  • Uplifted features!

But when I came across some information that I will share with you, I sat on the bathroom floor armed with a garbage bin and my new found knowledge.

I read the ingredients labels on every cosmetic and skin care preparation I owned. Some of the information was in the packaging I had discarded. So I went to where I bought it and did my detective bit in the shop.

Can you believe it?!        I threw out absolutely every product!

My partner was aghast … I had paid good money for these creams … couldn’t I just use them up, or pass them on to some body else?

I’ll let you into a little secret, when I have the bull by the horns, I won’t let go!!

Anyway, why would I keep using skin care products that contained chemical ingredients, that not only would not do what they promised – but were toxic to boot!!
And if I wouldn’t use them on my body, how could I offer them to anyone else?

This new found knowledge had me reeling … surely there must be other women who care enough to want this information?
So I started to investigate, in books and on line and found that many companies who professed to be ‘natural’ and even ‘organic’ used these same undesirable chemicals in their formulations.
Some advertised the ‘not tested on animals’ bunny. That might be encouraging, but I discovered a loop hole that makes that claim worthless!

As I took notes, I decided to write some articles for people who, like me, wanted to protect themselves, their family and the environment from chemicals.
Research studies, in the thousands, have been published with evidence of the dangers of applying some chemicals to the skin as they can be absorbed into the blood stream.

It was some of these chemicals I discovered were in all the products I was slathering on my body every day!

This information brought to mind the Tobacco Industry fiasco. For years they denied that smoking was linked to lung cancer. Well, we all know the answer to that now!
A law has just been passed in Australia banning anyone smoking in a car with children passengers, because of the dangers of secondary inhalation.
Finally government is taking the threat seriously.

I might sound a little off track here … but my point is … if you have a look at the research studies, you might see parallels where cosmetic companies claim that a little of these chemicals applied to our skin is negligible!!

I encourage you to just take a look at the ingredients in the products you use every day. Some of these chemicals are in all of them. So it may not add up to a small amount after all!!

At vieworganics.com you will find skin and body care products certified organic to food standards. They are unrivelled for purity, potency and freshness. every ingredient is 100% beneficial.

Dec

2

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Contaminants = Infertility?, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals

Tags: , , ,

BPA May Inhibit Pregnancy

From an article by  Emily Sohn

http://news.discovery.com/human/bpa-pregnancy-hormones-health.html

images

THE GIST

  • BPA exposure could make pregnancy later in life more difficult.
  • In mice, BPA affected fertility at levels equivalent to what people are normally exposed to and also at much tinier doses.
  • Regulators need to recognize that hormones and hormone-like chemicals have different effects at different doses.

Even as women choose to have babies later in life, more are having trouble conceiving, and the chemical BPA might be partly to blame, suggests a new study…..read more..

Nov

21

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , , , ,

Hand Sanitizers; Are they Necessary or just Another Marketing Gimmick?

Avoid toxic chemicals in hand sanitizers.

I was lucky enough to go on a cruise, recently, and I was astounded by the number of hand sanitizers placed around the ship as well as the crew’s persistence in trying to persuade me to use the stuff.

I have been used to seeing the atomizer in hospitals and I guess, with so many people in close proximity to each other the last thing a liner needs to have a health crisis on board.

But let’s take a closer look at the burgeoning industry that I would like to call “Germ Warfare”

We are being frightened by graphic advertising from the manufacturers of these products to kill all germs, or rather 99.9% lest we fall for victim to colds, flu or any viral illness. We are encouraged to ‘protect’ our family against the marauding, unseen germs.

 

I would like you to consider how the over use of anti-bacterial products… from hand sanitizers to surface sprays and cleaners, might, in the long run affect our immune system and therefore general health. Many of the ingredients in the products have not been thoroughly tested for human safety, while others, through research, show toxicity even at low doses.

 

Interestingly, a study by the University of Virginia has shown that alcohol-based hand sanitizers didn’t significantly decrease the number of people infected with a cold or flu. Of 100 volunteers who used a hand sanitizer, 54 became sick with a cold or flu, while 66 of 100 people who didn’t use it suffered from a virus.

What is startling is that, while many people think hand sanitizers are effective and active for a long time after application, (call me suspicious, but that could be to do with advertising!) the fact is, according to Dr. Philip Tierno Jr from NYU Langone Medical Center “Alcohol sanitizers last only a minute or two and must be reapplied when recontamination occurs”

 

Even the U.S. Center for Disease Control admits that hand sanitizers will not kill all germs. And when reading the ingredients label of a hand sanitizer, the list includes several ingredients, not yet tested for safety in cosmetics. The remainder has been found to be irritants, toxins and carcinogens.

 

Add to that information is a study from researchers from the National University of Ireland that found a common disinfectant and antimicrobial agent used in hand sanitizers, benzalkonium chloride, has shown the ability to develop resistance to some antibiotics. The scientists found that by adding increasing amounts of the disinfectant to bacteria, not only does the bacteria survive the chemical, but also a commonly used antibiotic, ciprofloxacin, even when the tested bacteria has not been exposed to the antibiotic.

 

And there is more bad news for benzalkonium chloride, as the chemical is suspected human immune system toxicant, respiratory tract irritant, have reproduction & development effects, eye and skin irritant and can cause gastrointestinal distress if ingested. So just don’t use a product with this chemical as an ingredient if you plan to handle food or water, or touch your lips or eyes.

 

The chemical is yet to be determined safe for pregnant and nursing women or children under the age of 2. Benzalkonium chloride is the main cause of asthma and dermatitis in health care workers and professional cleaning staff.

 

Triclosan is another popular ingredient in sanitizers, both personal and household products. This chemical is toxic to humans, affecting the thyroid and other hormone systems. Research on a cross section of the American population detected triclosan in the urine of 75% of the more than 2500 people tested. In another study conducted by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine the chemical was detected in the urine of 61% of 90 girls aged from 6 to 8 years.

 

Triclosan contaminates the environment and the water ways it is flushed into from waste water treatment plants as it can not be entirely eliminated. It is toxic to wildlife and marine animals from algae to fish. Scientists have found traces of triclosan in 58% of 85 streams in the U.S.

Triclosan interacts with sunlight and microbes in surface water to form methyl triclosan, a chemical that may bioaccumulate in wild life and humans.

Triclosan and triclocarban have been linked to endocrine disruption, with potential adverse impacts on sexual and neurological development.

 

Alcohol, either ethyl or isopropyl is the main and active ingredient in hand sanitizers, making up more than 60% of the entire product. It is the alcohol that kills the bacteria and viruses.

However, ethyl alcohol is a penetration enhancer, taking the other chemicals deeper into the skin and into the blood stream. Not ideal if the other ingredients are toxic or even questionable.

Isopropyl alcohol, also known as rubbing alcohol, is from the petrochemical industry, is extremely drying and is toxic to the nervous system. It is absorbed through the skin and from inhalation of the vapors.

 

Fragrance is used in everything. We are even encouraged to purchase instruments that will deliver constant puffs of artificial fragrance into our home to make them smell ‘fresh’! But these fragrances can be made up of more than 4000 different chemicals, many of them toxic.  It is recognized that these chemicals can accumulate in the body. Phthalates, used to ensure the fragrance lingers longer are known hormone disruptors. Scientists have studied the effects of phthalates on baby boys and have evidence that they interrupt the babies’ sexual development.

 

These are just a few of the ingredients in hand sanitizers, you might be bored if I listed and explained them all. So, are we really waging a war against germs? Or are we being suckered into yet another product to add to the shopping list, fearful that we might be on the brink of a health risking epidemic.

It has been shown by numerous health studies that good old soap and water is more effective in cleaning hands than packaged hand sanitizers, without the possible dangers of adding yet more chemicals to our bodies and into the environment.

Add to that the positive effect on the immune system in building anti-bodies to naturally fight disease and I’d say we can well do with out these little bottles of poison that are rapidly multiplying through out the world.

Remember, even according to the manufactures, hand sanitizers only kill 99.9% of germs… what happens to the remaining .1%?

They mutate and become stronger, eventually resisting all methods of killing them.

 

Associate professor Rolf Halden, of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University, a biologist and engineer, and his team conducted a series of experiments aimed at tracking the environmental course of the active ingredients in personal care products. The disturbing results of their research indicate that triclosan and triclocarban first aggregate in wastewater sludge and are transferred to soils and natural water environments, where they were observed to persist for months or years.

 

Antimicrobials were first used in hand soaps in the 1980s, and by early 2000, more than 75% of liquid soaps contained triclosan and/or triclocarban in a billion dollar a year industry, heavily promoted by the manufacturers in what can only be described as scare mongering.   A disturbing statistic is 97% of American women tested were found to have antimicrobial in their breast milk.

 

Bioaccumulation of antimicrobial chemicals in animal species has been noted, this is where the reading of the harmful substance is far greater than the initial exposure.

 

The above excerpt of Prof. Halden from:-

http://asunews.asu.edu/20101112_antimicrobialresearch

 

Nov

17

By Karen

14 Comments

Categories: Anti-ageing cream deception, Contaminants = Infertility?, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, unassessed ingredients

Tags: , ,

ARBONNE Ingredients Report

Arbonne

Are Arbonne Ingredients really that special? Chemicals in Arbonne products will surprise you.

The big question for most women is : do anti-aging products really work?

Many cosmetic ingredients will draw natural moisture from deeper layers in the skin to hold on the top most layers if there is also a barrier such as a mineral oil to prevent evaporation. This gives the skin a temporary soft, smooth feel and often a ‘firming’ feel because the cells are plumped. (as in the eye cream testimonial)

Denatured alcohol and glycerin can dry the skin with repeated use.

Reported in the ‘Guardian’ … cosmetic companies request Laboratories to design a test that will allow them to make particular claims and with no regulatory bodies controlling the scientific studies conducted within the lab.

Cosmetic companies regularly trade mark their ‘secret’ ingredients to avoid peer review or criticism. (Bio-Hydra Complex, Stimu-Tex) This also means the consumer is unable to find information on what they are using!

Nothing can be found on the data bases for: Alpha Lipoic acid, Kojic Acid, these could be trade names to regular chemicals to disguise them (which is illegal) … I don’t know. Copper is also suspect.

At vieworganics.com find skin care products Certified Organic to food standards. All facial, body & oral, cosmetics and hair care products contain no chemicals.

Below is information on some of the features and ingredients…

Nanoparticles are increasingly being added to cosmetic products despite a lack of information about their safety. For example, nano-sized titanium dioxide and zinc oxide particles are used in sunscreens to protect against UV radiation without leaving a white tinge on the skin. Toothpastes contain biocomposites to promote tooth repair. Nanocapsules are used to transport active ingredients deeper into the skin (which is of concern because if the nanoparticles are absorbed into the bloodstream they may be transported around the body and cause damage to DNA). Fullerenes (football shaped molecules consisting of carbon atoms) are used for this purpose, but have been found to cause DNA damage and cell death in human tissues and brain damage in fish exposed to modest concentrations. Carbon nanotubes have been found to cause the same type of damage as asbestos.

What are pentapeptides? (Peptides)
In simple terms they are five amino acids linked in a chain. The overall term for linked amino acid chains is peptides. If there are two amino acids they are called dipeptides, if it is three – tripeptide etc. Peptides have numerous useful functions within the body but most studies on the skin benefits of peptides have been conducted in cell cultures not on human beings and a study conducted by Proctor & Gamble on human test subjects does little to support any anti-ageing claims. According to the ASA the majority of test subjects in the paper published by P&G in the peer reviewed International Journal of Cosmetic Science (2005), reported no effect.
Peptides cannot usually penetrate the skin and maintain stability due to their hydrophilic (water-loving) nature. In addition, when they are able to penetrate the skin enzymes can break them down, dramatically inhibiting their effects.

AHAs …It has been suggested that AHAs may cause the skin to age more rapidly and elevate the risk of skin cancer, due to their ability to remove the outer layer of skin which can elevate sensitivity to sunlight, thereby increasing photo-ageing. In one study the AHA glycolic acid elevated the sensitivity of human skin to sunburn by as much as 50 per cent in some individuals
‘NICNAS: Priority Existing Chemical Assessment Report,’ Australian Government, Department of Health and Aging, National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), Marrickville, NSW, 2000 (12): 128; online at: www.nicnas.gov.au.

Research carried out on guinea pigs found that the AHA glycolic acid caused skin damage, with higher doses altering the structure of the skin and destroying some parts of the epidermal layer, as well as increasing UVB-induced skin damage, to a far greater degree than either glycolic acid or UVB in isolation.
Park, K.S. et al, Effect of Glycolic Acid on UVB-Induced Skin Damage and Inflammation in Guinea Pigs, Skin Pharmacology and Applied Skin Physiology, July-August, 2002: 15 (4): 236-245.

Retinyl Palminate vitamin A derivative, shown to improve tiny wrinkles – it decomposes under UVA into chemicals shown to cause mutations in mouse lymphoma cells. Is photo toxic- will cause skin ageing, educed DNA damage. Restricted in Canada.

Vitamin C topically applied Vit.C improves sun damage and enhances production of collagen and elastin – commercially available products contain low concentrations that are not easily absorbed into the skin and are unstable when exposed to oxygen – oxidization may actually promote production of free radicals

Cocoamidopropyl Betaine, foaming agent, natural oil is synthesized with ammonia and a toxic herbicide.

Choose organic cleansers and shampoo to avoid chemicals.

PEG (polyethylene glycol) may be contaminated with 1’4dioxane along with other toxic impurities (ethylene oxide, PAHs & heavy metals)
A potentially carcinogenic petroleum derivative, it penetrates the skin and can weaken the skin’s natural moisture factor. This could increase the appearance of aging and leave you more vulnerable to bacteria.

Paraben Preservatives.Any ingredient containing ethyl, methyl, butyl, propyl are Paraben preservatives, often used as inhibitors to microbial growth and to extent shelf life, widely used even though they are known to be toxic. Have caused many allergic reactions and skin rashes.

Disodium EDTA irritates skin, eyes and respiratory tract. Penetration enhancer (allows deeper penetration of other chemicals) Animal studies show: seizers, gastrointestinal problems, liver, kidney and endocrine system effects and reproduction abnormalities. A weak mutagen in microbial systems. In a number of studies on mammalian cells in vitro, inhibits DNA synthesis.

Limonene from petrochemical industry can cause toxic effects, potent allergen when exposed to oxygen. Potential carcinogen.

Glycerin, very cheap, but effective humectant in environments over 65% humidity where it draws moisture from the atmosphere to the skin. In dry conditions (air conditioning) actually draws moisture out and away from the skin layers, causing dehydration and aging the skin.

Choose a moisturiser containing ingredients certified organic to food standards.

Ceteryl Alcohol: mild irritation, contact dermatitis in some.

Butylene Glycol: petro-chemical, potentially cause contact dermatitis. Animal studies: mild skin and eye irritation, endocrine system alterations. Reproductive, brain and nervous system effects.

Oxybenzone – most common causes of photo contact allergy. Immediate and delayed hypersensitivity. Detected in human urine and milk. Potentially damage DNA under UV light. Skin sensitization. Penetration enhancer. Used in many sunscreens!

Choose sunscreen that is devoid of nano particles, oxybenzone and other harmful chemicals.

Glycol Ethers (general – there are several listed) absorb into the skin – dissolve the skin’s protective oils. Liver and kidney damage (short term exposure) May damage red blood cells in bone marrow.

Phenoxyehtonal – moderate health concern on EWG.org. Organ system toxicity, brain and nervous systems. Linked to cancer and central nervous system depression. Strong concern for irritant of skin, eyes and lungs. Can cause allergies.

Biochemists’ Rule of Thumb:-

The first 3 or 4 ingredients make up 90% to 95% of the entire product. The mid section (but there is a lot of mid section here!) is roughly 5% to 8% and the last 5 or so ingredients make up the remainder 1% to 3%

Nov

12

By Karen

No Comments

Categories: Contaminants = Infertility?, DNA Damage, Hormone Disrupting Chemicals, Toxic Contaminants

Common cosmetics ingredient can harm sperm

By Nneka Leiba, EWG Research Analyst

Exposure to butylparaben, an ingredient common in personal care products, has been associated with DNA damage in men’s sperm, according to an important new study led by John Meeker of the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

The study, published Sept. 28 by the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, also found… read more…