Welcome [fname] to the June issue of Advanced Health & Wellness!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cosmetic Industry on Notice
Toxic Chemicals Found In Many Common Products
Why You Don't Want PEG In Your Cosmetics
Are These Toxic Chemicals In Your Products?
Ten Ways To Look Ten Years Younger In Three Months!
Study Finds Genital Abnormalities In Boys
The Top 10 Places To Start Turning Your Life Around
School is out, vacations are planned, the beaches and lakes are crowded and the weather is hot! Yes, summer has officially arrived. With this arrival comes the importance of taking care of your skin while enjoying your outside activities. This issue of Advanced Health & Wellness is dedicated to properly taking care of your skin, not only during the summer months but all through the year.
The skin is the largest organ of your body. It literally drinks up what is put on it whether it be water or personal care products. The average person from the age of 12 years and up uses 6 or more personal care products daily. Our body is usually in water (showers and baths) at least one time a day and during warm months this could be much more when swimming is added.
Many people are presenting symptoms that are indicative of chemical/toxin overload. While much of this is from eating the SAD (Standard American Diet) I believe that a very real portion is from the chemicals that the body absorbs from personal care products. The next time you are ready to shampoo your hair or smooth on body lotion, turn the bottle around and read the ingredient list...you may need to get a magnifying glass. How many can you pronounce? What's even more concerning is that many of the chemicals allowed in these products have never been tested for the long-term effects they have on the human body.
When shopping for skin care products we need to remember what has been happening with certain drugs that were once considered safe but are now being pulled off the market after years of use because of their toxicity to the body. Find products that are as natural and excipient-free as possible. Remember there is no better way to achieve healthy and young looking skin than a healthy diet, exercise and a consumption of clean, pure water. Parfait Visage and Oxy-Skin are two products that are not only "all natural and organic" but also will work in keeping the outside of the skin healthy and glowing.
Sunscreen lotion is the #1 selling personal care product during the spring and summer months. It is slathered on when the skin is hot and moist and the pores are open---a time when the skin will readily absorb the ingredients. Despite decades of sunscreen use in this country, melanoma and other skin cancers are on the rise. Recent medical research indicates this increase is due more to the increased use of traditional sunscreens (with all their toxic chemicals) than to the depletion of the ozone layer. We have done a lot of research on sunscreen products and have found UV Natural to be the safest and most natural on the market and are pleased to be able to offer it to our readers in time to stock up for the summer.
The sun is not our enemy and can play a huge part in our health or lack of it. 15-30 minutes of sun every day before 10:00 a.m and after 2:00 p.m. is essential for good health and well-being. Obviously, though, there will be days when our exposure will be longer than this and we will need to protect ourselves from burning. Be wise about choosing your sunscreen products and insist on products that are all-natural and chemical-free. Do your homework and be as particular about your skin products as you are about your health.
Enjoy this first month of summer. Have fun and be safe...
Until next month...
Take Care & Be Well,
Oasis Advanced Wellness
|Cosmetic Industry On Notice: FDA Issues Warning on Untested Products
March 7, 2005
FDA calls industry's bluff on product safety. Acting on a petition filed June 14, 2004 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), on February 3, 2005 the Food and Drug Administration issued an unprecedented warning to the cosmetics industry stating that the Agency is serious about enforcing the law requiring companies to inform consumers that personal care products have not been safety tested.
Such an enforcement action could ultimately require companies to issue consumer warnings for the more than 99 percent of personal care products on the market that have not been publicly assessed for safety, as documented in a 2004 EWG assessment of ingredients in nearly 7,500 products (EWG 2004a).
The implications of this warning penetrate deep into an industry that has for years hidden behind the findings of their internally-funded safety panel, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, or CIR. Despite industry's control of the panel, the FDA regards the CIR's yearly series of ingredient safety reviews as a core component of the public health safety net, and calls CIR assessments an "important element in ensuring the safety of the cosmetic supply in the United States" (Brackett 2005).
In its near 30-year history, however, the industry's panel has reviewed just 11 percent of the 10,500 cosmetic ingredients cataloged by FDA (FDA 2000). The 89 percent of ingredients that remain unassessed are used in more than 99 percent of all products on the market (EWG 2004a).
By law, companies are required to post a warning label on products that have not been assessed for safety stating, "Warning: The safety of this product has not been determined." With its February 3rd letter, FDA is putting industry on notice that it is serious about enforcing consumer laws. At the top of the list are 356 products identified by EWG (EWG 2004b) as containing ingredients that the industry's safety panel attempted to review, but instead found lacked basic testing data. The panel could not substantiate the safety of these ingredients. Ultimately under threat of enforcement are the more than 99 percent of all products that contain one or more ingredients that have never been assessed for either data adequacy or basic safety by the industry's panel, the FDA, or any other publicly accountable institution.
Buyer beware. Surveys show that many consumers believe that companies are required to test personal care products for safety before they're sold. It's not the case. According to FDA, "...a cosmetic manufacturer may use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product without an approval from FDA" (FDA 1995).
While some companies make products that would be safe enough to eat, other companies choose to use known human carcinogens or developmental toxins like coal tar and lead acetate. In a competitive marketplace progressive companies with health as their top priority may lose market shares to companies willing to use cheaper commodity chemicals with ill-defined or even known risks. Some companies may assess the safety of their products rigorously and independently, but other companies may not assess at all. That's legal. This unequal footing comes from a safety net not just of a loose weave but full of gaping holes, leaving consumers at potential risk.
When risky chemicals are used in cosmetics, the stakes are high. These compounds are not trace contaminants. They are the base ingredients of the product, just as flour is an ingredient in bread. Many of these chemicals are found in percent levels in personal care products, nearly all easily penetrate the skin, and some are ingested directly after they are applied to lips or hands. And increasingly, companies are adding customized, futuristic "penetration enhancers" to drive ingredients even deeper into the skin, like Loreal's new nanoparticle technology — a miniscule, fluid-filled sack designed to burrow deep into the skin to deliver its "active ingredients." No safety testing required.
Scientists find common cosmetic ingredients in human tissues, like industrial plasticizers called phthalates in urine, preservatives called parabens in breast tumor tissue, and persistent fragrance components like musk xylene in human fat. Do the levels at which they are found pose risks? Those studies have not been done. They are not required.
Consumer health in the hands of industry. Grossly under-funded and encumbered by a cosmetic safety law that renders the Agency nearly impotent, FDA's cosmetic office has no standing cosmetic review safety committee, cannot require testing of products or ingredients, cannot require companies to report injuries or even deaths from the use of their products, and cannot force companies to recall harmful products (FDA 1995). Instead, the Agency sends a liaison to the industry's safety panel meetings to observe and comment.
Eighty percent of the industry panel's reviews are limited to advice to industry on ingredient levels that will minimize risk of skin rashes and other allergic reactions (EWG 2004a). And 89 percent of ingredients used in cosmetics have not even received a rash and allergy review from the industry panel, let alone a serious assessment of the ingredients' potential to cause cancer or harm the development of a baby in the womb.
When EWG cross-linked ingredient listings in 7,500 products with seven government or industry toxicity databases, we found that one-third of all products contain ingredients linked to cancer, 70 percent of products may be contaminated with harmful impurities, and more than half of all products contain "penetration enhancers" that drive ingredients deeper into the skin to the blood vessels below (EWG 2004a). For the vast majority of these products and ingredients, the exact health risks from consumer exposures are unknown.
Our 2004 survey of 2,300 people conducted with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics shows that on average people use nine products a day with 126 unique ingredients. These exposures may add up to health problems, but neither industry nor the FDA is doing the work to define and reduce the risks. The products are untested; the risks are unknown.
At industry's discretion are not only the range of ingredients used in products (only nine chemicals are banned from cosmetics), but also the full breadth of imaginable marketing claims, none of which are subject to review or required to be true. The word "organic" could just as easily — and just as legally — be printed on the label of a product made entirely of plants grown to strict USDA organic standards, or on the package of a mixture of industrial solvents and polymers derived from petrochemicals. Likewise, no legal definition exists for "dermatologist tested," "cruelty free," "fragrance free," or "hypoallergenic." The claims could have substantial scientific backing, or could mean nothing at all.
As of March 2, 2005, 68 progressive companies with health as a top priority have signed a pledge with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to produce products free of ingredients linked to cancer and birth defects (www.safecosmetics.org). The Campaign, a coalition of environmental and public health groups working in partnership with these companies, is taking action to help move companies voluntarily toward safety within the current vacuum of mandatory health protections. And now FDA is turning up the heat on the entire industry.
FDA turns up the heat. Although FDA cannot require companies to safety test their products, and cannot require that marketing claims be true, the Agency can require that companies print a warning on the label of products that have not been assessed for safety. And this is what the Agency has indicated they plan to do in their letter of February 3rd. The Agency also writes that it will develop definitive guidelines for industry on what must be done to substantiate the safety of a product, to absolve companies of the responsibility to print warnings. EWG has written to FDA applauding the Agency for the actions they have proposed in their February 3rd letter, and requesting that FDA convene a panel of independent experts, free of financial ties to the cosmetics industry, to develop this critical guidance that will define, for the first time, what is safe enough to be sold as a personal care product in the U.S.
It's time for the cosmetics industry to be honest with consumers about what is known and what remains unknown about the safety of the products Americans use every day. Americans deserve safe products. Short of that, consumers deserve, and the law requires, at least a warning label, to help people make informed decisions about the products they buy and use each day.
Brackett, Robert E. 2005. Letter to Mr. Edward Kavanaugh, President, Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association from Dr. Robert E. Brackett, Director, FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. February 3, 2005.
Environmental Working Group (EWG). 2004a. Skin Deep: A Safety Assessment of Ingredients in Personal Care Products. www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep.
Environmental Working Group (EWG). 2004b. Citizen Petition to Cease Unlawful Sale of Misbranded & Adulterated Cosmetics. http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/petition/petition.php.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 1995. FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Cosmetics and Colors. Fact Sheet. FDA Authority Over Cosmetics. February 3, 1995. Accessed March 2, 2005 at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2000. Center for Food Safety Applied Nutrition. Cosmetics Compliance Program. Domestic Cosmetics Program. Issued July 31, 2000. Accessed online March 1, 2005 at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/cp29001.html.
Text of the response sent by EWG to FDA:
March 7, 2005
Robert E. Brackett, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Food and Drug Administration
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740-3835
Dear Dr. Brackett:
We recently received a copy of your February 3rd letter to Mr. Kavanaugh of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA) noting that your 2005 Program Priorities include responding to and acting on issues raised in a petition the Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed with your Agency on June 14, 2004. As you know, our petition documented 356 products being sold in apparent violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: these products contain ingredients that have not been substantiated for safety, and they fail to bear the warning label required by law, "Warning — The safety of this product has not been determined."
We are writing to express our full support of the actions you outlined in your letter, and of your Agency's efforts to ensure that cosmetics sold in this country are safe and comply with the law. To that end we request that the Agency convene a panel of independent experts comprised of individuals free of financial ties to the cosmetic industry, to aid in developing guidance for industry on the requirements for substantiating the safety of ingredients, a task you note in your February 3rd letter that you are undertaking. Such a panel of experts will help ensure that this guidance, if followed, would protect human health to the fullest extent possible.
We believe that the safety issues raised in our petition are of utmost importance to public health:
Our 2004 survey of 2,300 people shows that on average, American consumers use nine personal care products every day, with 126 unique ingredients, some of which are linked to cancer and other serious health concerns.
But what is not known about the health risks of ingredients also raises concerns. The FDA has documented the use of 10,500 ingredients in personal care products . In its near 30-year history the industry's safety panel had assessed just 1,175 ingredients — or 11 percent of the total — as of the end of 2003 . Therefore, fully 89 percent of ingredients used in cosmetics have not been assessed for safety by the CIR, the FDA, or any other publicly accountable institution.
These unassessed ingredients are used in more than 99 percent of all products on the market, according to our comprehensive assessment of ingredient prevalence in nearly 7,500 products . In the course of our research on ingredients in cosmetics we have not identified a single product bearing the required label, warning consumers that the product's safety has not been determined.
Consumers have a right to know, under the law, whether or not the ingredients in a product have been assessed for safety. We support FDA's efforts to ensure that untested cosmetics bear the warning label required by law.
In addition to notifying the industry trade organization that you are investigating their compliance with warning label requirements, you also note in your February 3rd letter that you plan to issue guidance on another issue central to our petition — the requirements for adequately substantiating the safety of cosmetic ingredients. In our petition we note that the Agency has not provided to the industry a definition of the term "safe" with respect to cosmetics sold in the U.S.; in the absence of Agency guidance, the cosmetics industry currently decides what is safe and what is not. We support your efforts to develop this critical guidance, and repeat below the language we proposed in our petition as an appropriate definition for "adequately substantiated for safety" that would protect public health and absolve a company of the requirement to place warnings on products:
Substantiation, through peer-reviewed scientific publications or publicly available industry studies, of a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposures to the product and its component ingredients including impurities, taking into account chemicals that may increase penetration of the product or its component chemicals through the skin, and including all anticipated cosmetic exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information, taking into consideration vulnerable populations such as infants and pregnant women.
Any finding of safety for a cosmetic product must explicitly account for risks posed by impurities until such time as impurities are removed from the component ingredients or the product is reformulated in such a way as to preclude the formation of impurities by the component ingredients in the product.
As you develop guidance for industry on the requirements for safety substantiation, we urge you to convene a panel of outside experts free of financial ties to the cosmetics industry, to aid in the development and review of such guidance. These experts should collectively represent a broad array of applicable areas of expertise, including toxicology, human health risk assessment, and children's health, for example.
The creation of an expert panel to develop this guidance falls squarely within your Agency's discretion. The FDA has a long history of effectively utilizing advisory panels, and has broad discretion to appoint and consult expert panels under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and FDA regulations [4,5]. FACA provides that the Commissioner may establish an advisory committee if it is in the public interest and in furtherance of the Agency's mission . FDA has developed detailed guidelines in accordance with FACA governing the development and operation of these committees . In the case of developing a clear standard for the safety of cosmetic ingredients, which Americans are exposed to an average of nine times each day, the public interest would be well served by the advice of a panel of truly independent experts.
Again, we support all your efforts to ensure that cosmetics are safe for consumers. We look forward to your response to our petition and to this letter. Please contact us if we can provide any assistance or clarify information we provided in our petition.
Vice President for Research
References (for March 7 2005 Letter from EWG to FDA)
 Cosmetics Ingredient Review (CIR) (2003). 2003 CIR Compendium, containing abstracts, discussions, and conclusions of CIR cosmetic ingredient safety assessments. Washington DC.
 Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2000. Center for Food Safety Applied Nutrition. Cosmetics Compliance Program. Domestic Cosmetics Program. Issued July 31, 2000. Accessed online March 1, 2005 at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/cp29001.html.
 Environmental Working Group (EWG). 2004a. Skin Deep: A Safety Assessment of Ingredients in Personal Care Products. Available online at www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep.
 Federal Advisory Committee Act, (FACA). 5 U.S.C. Appx § 9(a)(2). "No advisory committee shall be established unless such establishment is ... determined ... to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on that agency by law."
 21 C.F.R. §§ 14.1 et seq. Authorizing FDA advisory committees where "the Commissioner concludes, as a matter of discretion, that it is in the public interest for a standing or ad hoc policy or technical public advisory committee (advisory committee or committee) to hold a public hearing and to review and make recommendations on any matter before FDA and for interested persons to present information and views at an oral public hearing before the advisory committee."
Copy: Dr. Linda Katz, Director, Office of Cosmetics and Colors
FINALLY A SAFE and NATURAL SUNSCREEN...Only From OAW
UV Natural Sunscreen SPF 30+
Imagine a sunscreen that is completely different from the rest...
One That is consistent from a natural health concern...
Blended with extracts that nourish the skin, UV Natural assists repair of damaged skin, while its oils enhance the skin's texture and moisture. We incorporate the cutting edge in zinc oxide formulations and believe our zinc absorbs the essential rays of the sun required to stimulate the skin cells to produce Vitamin D.
UV Natural Broad Spectrum delivers uncompromising gentleness. Like all the others in our range, it is fragrance free to it can be worn in all situations, whether you are on your way to the beach, just walking around, or basically spending time outdoors. The Broad Spectrum formula is a one-size-fits-all in that it is
safe and effective for the whole family--babies thru adult!
No Reason To Limit Your Outside Activities---Natural Protection For The Whole Family!
You Are Invited to Visit
Oasis Advanced Wellness Health Forums
Featuring: "Ask The Doctor" Forum
We Welcome Your Participation and Insight!
|Toxic Chemicals Found In Many Common Products
There's a growing segment of the population who are shopping for natural, chemical-free products, out of concern that long term exposure to small traces of common chemicals, can be dangerous. The leader of an advocacy group says the problem is real and probably more dangerous than people think. These are products we all use every day to clean, wash, deodorize, and moisturize.
Just check out the ingredient list on any of the products and you'll see a whole slew of chemical substances for sudsing, softening, preserving, coloring, smell. Some of these active ingredients are known to be harmful, but manufacturers say they are there in very small trace amounts.
Linda Chae, Toxic Free Foundation: "The skin absorbs these toxins and poisons. And we rub them in every day. So if we just shampooed once, the trace amounts wouldn't be so bad, but the problem is we shampoo every day for how many years? We start as a baby."
Linda Chae is a researcher who lectures on what she believes are the harmful ingredients in common products. She says skin absorbs easily, doctors use transdermal patches to deliver medicine for pain, hormones, or motion sickness. She thinks we are poisoning ourselves with nice smelling products.
Linda Chae, Toxic Free Foundation: "If the word fragrance is listed, there’s probably up to 6,000 chemical synthetics including thalates, which are known to increase asthma, absolutely cause birth defects, and sterility in young men, and weight gain."
Chae has a list of chemicals to look out for and avoid. Among them is "propylene glycol,” found in most deodorants.
Linda Chae, Toxic Free Foundation: "Propylene glycol is the strong enough o dissolve the barnacles off a boat. That’s pretty hard substance, the skin under our arm is pretty delicate."
Those same chemicals, called PEGS, are used in toothpaste for adults and children, and are said to cause brain, liver and kidney damage in high doses.
Chae says there are many ingredients that contain a dangerous by-product called Dioxin, which is linked to a long list of health problems, also in high doses. There is little government research on their effects as a result of small, but frequent exposure. Things like "Tryclosan," the ingredient that makes anti-bacterial soaps effective, is also a commonly used bactericide or pesticide. And don’t forget "Sodium laureate sulfate."
Linda Chae, Toxic Free Foundation: "In baby care products that is supposed to make it nice and mild, that’s sodium lareth sulfate, when in fact the government in 1994 found that it contained dioxin and dioxins are carcinogenic and hormone disruptive."
The amounts of these ingredients are usually not listed on labels, and Chae says nearly all products contain what she calls dangerous ingredients, including those that say they are natural. So she and others have formed a non-profit group of researchers and scientists, which will independently test and certify if products are what they called Toxic free.
Other researchers disagree with Chae, saying that many of these chemicals are in small amounts and do not accumulate because the body breaks them down, detoxifies and eliminates them.
|Why You Don't Want Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) In Your Cosmetics
An ingredient that is widely used, yet seldom spoken of, is polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG-6, PEG-150 and other similar names are all close relatives of the PEG family.
PEG compounds are synthetic chemicals used in cosmetics as surfactants, cleansing agents, emulsifiers, skin conditioners and humectants that many believe could increase the risk of a variety of cancers, including breast cancer.
They contain various harmful impurities, according to a report by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) committee that was published in the International Journal of Toxicology, including:
Ethylene oxide: Ethylene oxide increases the incidences of uterine and breast cancers and of leukemia and brain cancer, according to experimental results reported by the National Toxicology Program.
1,4-dioxane: According to the National Toxicology Program, "1,4-dioxane is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen."
Polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAHs): Known to increase the risk of breast cancer.
Unfortunately, the risks associated with PEG compounds are widely underexposed. Even the CIR concluded that many PEG compounds "are safe for use" in cosmetics, yet they added that PEG compounds should “not be used on damaged skin."
Things do appear to be moving in the right direction, though, as some 23 PEG compounds have been named by the CIR Expert Panel as “high priority” for initiation of safety reviews in 2005.
Do My Cosmetics Contain PEG Compounds?
According to the Environmental Working Group, the following percentages
of common toiletries contain PEG compounds and other impurities that are
linked to breast cancer.
Hair Dye 79.5%
Baby Bath Wash 73.8%
Douche/Personal Cleanser 58.3%
Menopause Cream 54.5%
Depilatory Cream/Hair Remover 48.2%
Baby Lotion/Oil 46.4%
Anti-Itch/Rash Cream 46.3%
After Sun Products 45.5%
Lip Balm/Treatment 43.6%
Facial Moisturizer/Treatment 42.0%
Shaving Products 41.3%
Anti-Aging Treatment 41.0%
Styling Product 39.6%
Eye Treatment 38.8%
Foot Odor/Cream/Treatment 37.3%
|Are These Toxic Chemicals In Your Products?
By: Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, PhD, ND, DACBN
How can you tell when a product that claims to be natural, really is? You might try reading the label, but unless you are a chemist, this may get a little confusing. Ingredients in skin care and beauty products are listed by the chemical names. An all-natural product should stand out from the rest because it should contain more easily recognizable ingredients. But if you want to be sure, you should carefully scrutinize the label and research any ingredients that you are unsure about. Here are a few in particular to avoid:
1,4-dioxane: This carcinogen is found in many cosmetics as a by-product of other chemical combinations. Products that use Ethoxylated surfactants as foaming agents or emulsifiers often produce 1,4-doixane in the manufacturing process. This chemical is considered toxic if it is inhaled, absorbed through the skin or ingested.
Alcohol, Isopropyl (SD-40): This drying agent is a common ingredient in many cosmetic products. When used directly on the skin, it strips off the outer most protective layer, exposing the body to bacteria, fungus, molds, and other toxins. It is derived from petroleum and may promote brown spots or premature aging.
Anionic Surfactants: surfactants are used in about 90% of foaming personal care products. They are also used in car washes, garage floor cleaners, and as engine degreasers. Common anionic surfactants include: Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS), Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES), Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate (ALS), Ammonium Laureth Sulfate (ALES), Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate, Sodium Lauroyl Sarcosinate, Sodium Cocoyl Sarcosinate, Potassium Coco Hydrolysed Collagen, TEA (Triethanolamine) Lauryl Sulfate, TEA (Triethanolamine) Laureth Sulfate, Lauryl or Cocoyl Sarcosine, Disodium Oleamide Sulfosuccinate, Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate, and Disodium Dioctyl Sulfosuccinate. Avoid all of these ingredients if they are on the label.
Cationic Surfactants: These surfactants are commonly used in hair conditioning products as they have anti-static properties. However, they are synthetic, irritating to hair follicles, and toxic. Long-term use can cause hair to become dry and brittle. Common cationic surfactants include Stearalkonium chloride, Benzalkonium chloride, Cetrimonium chloride, Cetalkonium chloride, and Lauryl dimonium hydrolysed collagen.
Chloromethylisothiazolinone and Isothiazolinone: These two harmful chemicals can be corrosive to the eyes and skin. Long term exposure can cause permanent eye damage and third degree burns to skin. They can be fatal if ingested and they can cause damage to the mucous membranes of the lungs if inhaled.
DEA (diethanolamine), MEA (Monoethanolamine), & TEA (triethanolamine): These chemicals are often used in personal care cleansers to adjust the pH of the formula. They can cause allergic reactions, eye irritation, dryness, and toxicity if used over long periods. These known carcinogens are already restricted in Europe but they may still be found in the formulas of American and Asian cosmetics.
Diazolidinyl urea and DMDM Hydantoin: These chemicals contain formaldehyde, a toxic carcinogen, and it can cause dermatitis, burning, irritation of the mucous membranes, inflammation, and watering of the eyes.
Ethoxylated surfactants: These surfactants are commonly used in cosmetic formulas as foaming agents, emulsifiers, and humectants. They may be listed on the ingredient label as "PEG", "polyethylene", "polyethylene glycol", "polyoxyethylene", "-eth-", or "-oxynol." These chemicals form 1,4-dioxane (a known carcinogen) as a byproduct in the manufacturing process.
FD&C Color Pigments: These synthetic color pigments are made from coal tar. They contain heavy metal salts that leave toxic byproducts on the skin. These chemicals have been tested on animals and found to cause cancer.
Formaldehyde: This is another cancer causing agent that is commonly found in commercial make-up products. It can cause allergic reactions, headaches, and chronic fatigue.
Imidazolidinyl urea: This chemical releases another harmful chemical, formaldehyde, as a byproduct in the manufacturing process. It may be listed under the trade name Germall 115.
Lanolin: Lanolin is used in many commercial cosmetic formulas, and it is often considered harmless. However, it is obtained from the wool of sheep and is therefore contaminated with the pesticide DDT unless it is obtained from organic sources.
Mineral Oil: Also called liquid parrafinum, mineral oil is a byproduct of petroleum that coats the skin like plastic. It disrupts the skin's natural ability to purge itself of toxins, slows down cell function and can cause premature aging. Mineral oil can also be found in paraffin wax, paraffin oil and petrolatum.
Nitrosating Agents: Chemicals that cause nitrosamine contamination have been found in laboratory tests to cause cancer. Nitrosamines can be found in the following chemical ingredients: 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, Cocoyl Sarcosine, DEA compounds, Imidazolidinyl Urea, Formaldehyde, Hydrolysed Animal Protein, Lauryl Sarcosine, MEA compounds, Quaternium-7, 15, 31, 60, etc, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Ammonium Laureth Sulfate, Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate, and TEA compounds.
Paraben preservatives (methyl, propyl, butyl, and ethyl): These chemicals are often used in cosmetic formulas to inhibit microbial formation and extend the shelf life of the make-up products. They are commonly used in commercial applications even though they are known to be highly toxic and to cause allergic reactions and skin rashes.
Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) compounds: This petroleum product is used in commercial cleaners to break up grease and in spray on oven cleaners. Over time, this chemical can cause premature aging when used in personal care products.
Propylene/Butylene Glycol: This chemical compound is considered so toxic by the EPA that it mandates that its workers wear protective equipment when handling it. It is a petroleum product that penetrates the skin easily and can cause brain, liver, and kidney malfunctions. This ingredient is often found in stick deodorants where it can cause acute and chronic health hazards.
Rancid Natural Emollients: Creams and other commercial cosmetics made from refined vegetable oils contain harmful transfatty acids. Polyunsaturated oils can also oxidize quickly, causing free-radical damage to the skin and premature aging. They are also missing the essential nutrients, fatty acids, and vitamins that help protect and moisturize the skin.
Silicone derived emollients: Like other emollients, these products coat the skin like plastic wrap, and disrupt the skin's ability to breathe and release toxins. They can accumulate in the liver and lymph nodes and promote the development of tumors. Common silicone derived emollients include Dimethicone, Dimethicone Copolyol, and Cyclomethicone.
Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) Ammonium Laureth Sulfate (ALES): When combined with other ingredients, these chemicals form nitrosating agents and have a carcinogenic effect on the body. Be especially wary of semi-natural products that claim to be derived from coconut oil.
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate (ALS): These chemicals can alter the immune system and cause damage to the eyes, digestive system, nervous system, lungs, and skin. They are commonly found in foaming personal care products. And may be listed as ingredients on semi-natural products that claim to come from coconut oil.
Stearalkonium Chloride: Originally developed as a fabric softener, this chemical is often found in hair conditioners and creams. They are toxic chemicals that can cause allergic reactions on contact.
Toluene: This chemical can be particularly dangerous if inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Aspiration can cause chemical pneumonitis, a fatal disorder. It is highly flammable in both liquid and vapor form and it may affect the liver, kidneys, nervous system, and blood. Overexposure can cause fatigue, confusion, headache, dizziness, or numbness. Severe overexposure can cause coma and death. Exposure to toulene can also affect the proper development of a growing fetus.
|Ten Ways To Look Ten Years Younger in Three Months!
Dr. Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP
A wonderful benefit of getting the body healthy is clear, radiant skin. We are continually promised through TV, radio, magazines and newspapers that if we will buy XYZ cream or cosmetic our skin will return to its youthful glow. All you have to do is apply it morning and night and almost if by magic you will regain that youthful appearance. How many of us have been caught in that trap by believing that just maybe that have something here only to find out that we wasted our money on yet another so-called "magic bullet"?
There are ways to obtain youthful looking skin and while natural and organic creams may aid in the process, the beauty must begin with lifestyle. How we take care of ourselves---diet, exercise, sleep, water consumption and stress---will show on the skin. I can usually tell how healthy a person is both physically and emotionally by their skin.
Below are some ways to make sure that your skin is youthful looking and glows. Implement them and you will be surprised at the comments you get about how healthy your skin looks.
1) Keep the digestive tract and liver clean. Perform a total digestive tract cleanse two times a year (Spring & Fall). This will help with digestion and keep everything moving in the digestive tract. It will also make sure that your digestive tract is clean so that nutrients can be absorbed properly. If you have less than 2-3 daily bowel movement then you are constipated. The liver is the main filter in the body and must be kept clean. The first thing that many people notice after a liver/gallbladder cleanse is how clear their skin looks.
2) Water. Your body is 75% water. If you wait until you are thirsty to drink water, you are already dehydrated. Drink half of your body weight in ounces of water every day, up to 126 ounces of water. Water hydrates the cells and facilitates the body in eliminating toxins efficiently. Make sure that you are drinking filtered water or distilled water with added minerals. It is also advised to purchase a shower filter. Chlorine is carcinogenic and will age the skin. A 15 minute hot shower is the equivalent of drinking 7 glasses of tap water. Supplement with MegaHydrate to help with body hydration. It is also anti-aging!
3) Diet. Yo yo dieting is one of the worse things you can do to your body. Get on a healthy diet (not a fad diet) and get your weight at a level that is healthy and one that you can maintain. Organic, raw fresh fruits and vegetables should make up the biggest part of your eating plan. Add organic raw nuts and seeds, organic butter and eggs, organic oils (coconut, hemp, olive) and free-range, organic meats. Eliminate eating after 7:30 p.m. Include an organic, multi-vitamin/mineral complex, green food, calcium and extra B vitamins for supplementation.
4) Exercise. Try to do 30 minutes of some type of exercise daily. Walking is the cheapest, most convenient and easiest way to exercise. You may also want to incorporate Pilate's, Yoga, strength training and/or aerobics. The main thing is to get moving and do it every single day. Like other organs of the body, the skin gets its nourishment from the bloodstream. Exercise increases the circulation of blood to the skin. Lymphatic drainage techniques will keep the lymph system moving which will aid in toxin removal. Sweating is good for you and a way for the skin to release toxins. For those who sit at a computer most of the day, I recommend the Sitting Fit Anytime CD.
5)Essential Fatty Acids. Good fats are very important and very necessary to young looking skin. They are needed to make cell membranes, hormones, and other body chemicals.
Essential fatty acids help you live longer, keep your heart healthy, fight
inflammation, and might even prevent cancer. Most cancer patients are deficient in EFA's. They are also particularly important
to people with inflammatory conditions such as eczema and acne, and also for
people with dry skin. Include in your diet ground flaxseed or flaxseed oil, unrefined coconut oil, cold-water fish and/or fish oil supplements. Avoid saturated and animal fats. Your skin will thank-you.
6) Eliminate sugar and pre-packaged foods. I call white refined sugar the "legal" drug of America. It is a main culprit of disease and causes mood swings. It is implicated in most diseases and we see clinical evidence that when it is removed from the diet, over-all health improves considerably. It has no nutritional benefit and contributes to premature aging and disease. For those times when you need a sweetener consider using stevia, xylitol or agave nectar.
7) Natural skin care products. Use all-natural products on your face and skin. Be aware that some "natural" products contain parabens (may have estrogenic effects) and some contain titanium dioxide of which we are not completely sure of its safety. We should not have to be concerned with harmful chemicals in skin care products, unfortunately, we must be willing to do our research. Read labels and let companies know of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction concerning their product ingredients. Avoid using harsh soaps or solid cleansing creams such as cold cream on your face. Use natural oils such as avocado oil instead to remove dirt and old makeup. Apply it gently to your face and rinse it off with warm distilled water. Tap water contains chlorine and fluoride, which kill skin cells. I recommend Oxy-Skin, Parfait Visage, Oxy-Zap and UV Natural Sunscreen as some of the finest all-natural skin-care products available. For a great oxygenated facial apply Oxy-Zap on the face at bedtime two times weekly. Your skin will be soft and smooth in the morning plus will get the benefit of the added oxygen.
8) Stress. Stress is a killer and can wreck havoc on the whole body, including the skin. Eliminate stress by implementing the following: meditation, listening to good music, yoga, Pilate's, walking and healthy diet. Sometimes the source of stress must be dealt with such as a stressful job, boss, spouse, etc. Enjoy life and make time for fun and relaxation.
9) Eliminate smoking. Not only does smoking put you in a very real danger of lung cancer, it also causes premature wrinkling of the skin around the mouth area. People who smoke often have dull skin and hair. You inhale hundreds of toxins into the body every time you light up.
10) Hormone Imbalance. Because of the environment, hormone-laden foods, chemicals in water, over consumption of soy and thousands of prescription med's getting into the water table hormone imbalance is showing up in children as young as 8 years old. A main cause of acne, both teen and adult, is hormone imbalance. Natural progesterone cream is the preferred method of getting hormones in balance. For more ideas see my e-book Balancing Your Hormones Without Drugs...You Can Feel Good Again.
Youthful-looking skin is attainable. Keep your body in good health and it will reward you through outward appearance. The help that you get from a jar is only temporary and with most over-the-counter products you will be adding chemicals to the body. Employ these suggestions and in three months, people will be commenting not only on your healthy skin, but on your youthful appearance. Guaranteed!
|Study Finds Genital Abnormalities In Boys
Scientists studying the effects of hormone-mimicking chemicals on humans have reported that compounds called phthalates, used in plastics and beauty products and widely found in people, seem to alter the reproductive organs of baby boys.
In the first study of humans exposed in the womb to phthalates, the researchers, who examined the genitalia of male babies and toddlers, found a strong relationship between the chemicals and subtle changes in the size and anatomy of the children's genitals. Phthalates are ubiquitous compounds used as softeners in plastics and to maintain color and fragrance in beauty products such as nail polish and perfume, among other uses.
It is the first time that scientists have shown that any industrial compound measured in mothers' bodies seems to disrupt the reproductive systems of their babies.
But many experts, including the authors of the report published today in the online version of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, say that more research must be done to determine if the genital abnormalities in the boys lead to fertility or health problems and to prove that they are caused by phthalates.
The findings were based on tests of 85 mothers and sons, averaging nearly 13 months of age, born in Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Columbia, Mo. Mothers with the highest levels of chemicals in their urine late in their pregnancies had babies with a cluster of effects. The span between anus and penis, called anogenital distance, was comparatively short, and the infants had smaller penises and scrotums and more instances of incomplete descent of testicles.
Medical experts do not know whether babies with those physical characteristics will later develop reproductive problems. But in newborn animals, laboratory studies show that that combination of effects can lead to lower sperm counts, infertility, reduced testosterone and testicular abnormalities when they mature.
"In rats, it's called the phthalate syndrome. What we found for the first time is evidence for this syndrome in humans," said Dr. Shanna Swan, the study's lead researcher and a professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. "Animals [exposed to phthalates] definitely have decreased testosterone, so it is likely that this is happening in humans too."
The study is the strongest evidence yet that man-made chemicals in the environment can feminize male babies in the womb.
Yet scientists say a larger study of babies should be conducted, and that they should be followed into adulthood to see whether they develop low sperm counts or any other reproductive problems.
"It's such an important observation, you'd like to see this done again with more children and another population," said Earl Gray, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reproductive toxicologist whose research has found that phthalates feminize male rodents.
"And we would like to see what the consequences are when they reach adulthood," Gray said. "We don't know the significance of this effect on the children later in life, but we do know the effect on rats."
"The main thing is this is a very small group of subjects. It is too early to say whether there are long-term effects, and whether this [anogenital] measure is important or not in humans," said Dr. Catherine Mao, a co-author and pediatric endocrinologist at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.
Reproductive biologists say that a shorter anogenital distance is a female-like effect in animals, a telltale sign of decreased male hormones, and that it is likely that the human effects are similar, because hormones function the same in animals and people.
If a child has a shorter anogenital distance, "you are very likely going to see changes in every other aspect of masculinization as well," said Frederick vom Saal, a reproductive toxicologist at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Toxicologists have known since the early 1990s that some pesticides and industrial compounds, including phthalates, can mimic estrogen or block testosterone, the female and male sex hormones that control reproductive development. While they have found effects on the genitalia of laboratory animals and wildlife, they have been uncertain whether exposure to the fake hormones affects humans.
Some medical experts suspect that chemicals are responsible for reduced sperm counts that have been reported in much of the developed world, as well as increases in testicular cancer and cryptorchidism, or undescended testes. Three previous studies of men, two in the Boston area and one in India, linked phthalates to low sperm quality.
Swan, who is among the world's foremost experts on the effects of contaminants on the male reproductive system, reported in the late 1990s that a review of sperm counts in developed nations showed a substantial decline since World War II, when many synthetic pesticides and industrial compounds were produced. Also, in 2003, she found lower sperm quality in men exposed to widely used agricultural herbicides.
Swan said her team found "a cluster of small genital changes" associated with low-dose exposure to four phthalates.
One of the most important findings was that the phthalate levels associated with the genital changes "were not unusually high" for the general population, according to the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the EPA.
Nearly everyone in a 1999-2000 survey of 2,500 people throughout the United States had phthalates in their urine, and the effects in the babies were seen at concentrations below those detected in the urine of 25% of them, according to the results of the testing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Some scientists specializing in reproductive health say that finding anatomical changes in infants related to a chemical is disturbing, even if their health is not shown to be affected.
But Marian Stanley, manager of a phthalates panel at the American Chemistry Council, said the authors did not report any negative health effect on the babies, and that the differences in their genitalia have "no known significance" and could be caused by natural variability, not chemical exposure.
"As of now, the authors have yet to demonstrate that their data are solid, or that they are meaningful," Stanley said.
Several scientists ruled out the Chemistry Council's assertion that the results could be due to natural variations in boys. Kim Boekelheide, a professor at Brown University's department of pathology, who studies the testicular effects of phthalates on animals, said the associations between the chemicals and the babies' genital effects "are strikingly strong. Overall, this is a very important study."
Boys exposed to the highest levels of the chemicals were 4 to 10 times more likely to have the genital changes. The Los Angeles-area mothers were patients of prenatal clinics at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.
Swan emphasized that none of the abnormalities was serious enough to be considered birth defects.
Dr. Larry Lipshultz, a professor of urology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said there is no "normal" anogenital length for boys. It is measured often in lab animals, and sometimes in girls, but rarely in boys.
"Is the effect really a significant effect?" Lipshultz said. "The difference is in millimeters. The problem is that no one has ever done this before. It is interesting and suggestive, but until larger populations are studied, it does not prove that phthalates are causing these effects in male genitalia." The boys were not all the same age, varying from 3 to 26 months, and even though the researchers tried to correct for that, it could have made the comparisons of genitalia imprecise, said Dr. Rebecca Z. Sokol, a professor of gynecology and medicine at the Keck School of Medicine at USC.
"The importance [of this study] is there is an anatomic abnormality which might be associated with in utero exposure to phthalates.... But there are a lot of unanswered questions in this study," Sokol said.
The Food and Drug Administration has said there is no evidence phthalates are unsafe. Manufacturers are not required to notify consumers when phthalates are in their products, and their use is unregulated in the United States. Europe, however, has banned them in baby toys and cosmetics.
The California Senate is expected next week to hear a bill that would require cosmetics manufacturers to disclose to state health officials whether their product contained carcinogens or reproductive toxins. Another bill to ban phthalates and another compound called bisphenol A in children's products is pending in the Assembly's Appropriations Committee.
Mao said she feared overreaction by the public in seeking a ban on phthalates. "What we need to have is more data," she said. "I don't think we should remove these products yet. Some things we use to substitute for them may be worse."
|The Top 10 Places To Start Turning Your Life Around
Sometimes the changes we would like to make in our lives are so
far-reaching that the mere thought of them overwhelms us. We become frozen
with fear and are unable to make a start. Remember, though, that one thing
leads to another. If you start to change just one area of your life, the
next will be easier, and then the next and the next. Here are ten possible
places to start:
1. You as a person.
What do you like about yourself? Not like? How can you change it? (Hint,
if you're not sure what needs to be changed, take a look at what you try
to keep hidden from others.)
2. Your thinking.
Your unconscious takes orders from the programming you give it. Do you
limit yourself? Talk negatively to yourself? Find all the reasons why not?
Instead, become self-aware so that you catch your negative self-messages
and refuse them. Then turn them around and make them into positives.
This is often an outward manifestation of our thinking. It is what others
see. Would you want to be on the receiving end of what you offer to the
rest of the world? If not, why should other people? Perhaps, instead of
waiting for the world to change, you could try making the first move.
Who do you spend your time with? Are they people you are proud to know? Do
you justify your choice of friends by praising how non-judgmental they
are, when actually they just have no standards? Are they people you would
be glad to see your family or your work associates spend time with? If
not, what are you getting out of the relationships? Is it time for a
5. Spare time.
How do you spend it? Does it enrich you or numb you? Do you use it to
contribute or to consume? When did you last do something just because
doing it made you feel joyous, proud, excited, and just plain GOOD?
Are you proud of what you do? Do you enjoy it? Or do you dread going to
work and spend the weekdays counting the time to the next weekend?
Do your surroundings make you smile when you walk into a room? Do they
reflect how good you feel about yourself? Have you added flowers, frills,
colors, or whatever lifts your spirit when you look at it? Or are you
surrounded by piles and stacks of stuff just waiting to be sorted, folded
or put away? How much energy does just thinking about this stuff take from
you every day?
8. Eating habits.
Do you use food to contribute to your health and wellness or to numb
yourself? Have you tried keeping a food diary for just one week? Anyone
who reads, or watches TV has to know by now what is good for us. How can
we disrespect ourselves by not making good use of that knowledge?
Ditto. Do you put more effort into maintaining your car or other
transportation than into maintaining your body? We don't have to run a
marathon or win an Olympic gold in order to work at maintaining the
machine that we expect to carry us throughout our lives. There are so many
ways to keep fit today that anyone can find something they can do, even if
it is just(!) running up and down stairs instead of using the elevator.
As we look at the fragility of the earth, and the limited sources of what
we consume, are we doing the best we can for what our grandchildren will
inherit? Or are we selfishly choosing to make our own temporary
convenience more important than the quality of future lives?
Diana Robinson, Ph.D., Personal &
Career Coach, can be reached at Diana@ChoiceCoach.com, or visited on
the Web at www.choicecoach.com
Editor: Dr. Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP
Published monthly by:
Oasis Advanced Wellness
Natural Medicine At Its Best...
Questions or Comments? firstname.lastname@example.org
out our websites for more advice and information on improving your health
www.oasisadvancedwellness.com; www.menopause-pms-progesterone.org; www.oasisserene.com
Required disclaimer: The news and other items in this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only. Nothing in this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice. Any statements in this newsletter have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Our products are not intended to diagnose, cure, treat, or prevent any disease. If you have a health concern see your physician of choice.