CHEMICAL
GOOD LOOKS
BY Emily Yoffe, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, November
10, 1997, pp. 86, 91
Each day American women reach for shampoo and conditioner, deodorant,
moisturizer, and dusting powder. We apply blusher, eye shadow, mascara, and
lipstick, then maybe dab on a nail polish and perfume. We look good, we
smell good, and we have just exposed ourselves to 200 different chemicals.
As American consumers we have every confidence that someone in a lab coat in
a big government building has checked out these substances. Right? Not
exactly. "You know more about the ingredients in your dog’s collar
than you know about the toxicity of whatever you’re putting on your
skin.", argues David Wallinga, a senior scientist with the Natural
Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C. It turns out that
cosmetics—a group of products that includes makeup, skin creams, hair-care
products and dyes, baby lotions, and deodorants, on which Americans spend
about $22 billion a year—comes to us almost un-examined by the Federal
Government. And, as recent events on Capitol Hill indicate, the situation is
not about to change.
To get a prescription or even an over-the-counter drug on the market, a
manufacturer must first prove the drug’s safety and effectiveness to the
Food and Drug Administration. The burden of proof rests on industry.
That’s not the case for cosmetics, although the FDA regulates them, as
well. Except for a handful of banned chemicals, manufacturers can add almost
any ingredients to those revitalizing eye creams, vitamin-stuffed
conditioners, and kiss-resistant lipsticks, and if questions about the
safety of products arise, the burden is on the government to prove the
product is unsafe. With a budget of about $5.5 million—less than one per
cent of the FDA total—and around 30 employees, the cosmetics division is
rarely up to that challenge, say critics.
The law governing cosmetics says that they may not contain "harmful
substances". But how the tests for harmful or unsafe substances will be
conducted is left up to the companies themselves. The FDA doesn’t accept
standards for proper safety testing—and doesn’t require companies to do
any testing at all. If the company does tests, the FDA has no authority to
review the records. Companies test cosmetics for their tendency to cause
allergic reactions and irritate skin (protests over using animals for these
tests have led many companies to do them in test tubes and on human
subjects). But as for possible long-term effects of exposure to cosmetic
ingredients, says John Bailey, Director of FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and
Colors, "those kind of issues are not addressed very well".
State muscle. This summer, the cosmetics industry almost won an
even laxer regulatory set-up from Congress. Republican Sen. Judd Gregg
introduced an amendment to the FDA reform bill that would have prohibited
states from requiring warning labels on products containing suspect
chemicals, or otherwise filling the vacuum in the federal rules. Democratic
Senator Edward Kennedy, with the support of the Clinton administration,
managed to defeat the proposal. "The reason preserving the states’
ability to act is so important is that FDA’s regulation has been so
weak.". Kennedy says.
Ironically, the law that created the modern FDA in 1938 is itself partly
the product of public concern over cosmetics-caused injuries. An
eyelash-dyeing product called Lash Lure was damaging the eyesight of many
women, and after one woman died and another was blinded, Lash Lure became
the first product seized under the new FDA authority. Since then, the rules
governing the manufacture and distribution of foods and drugs have been
endlessly revised. But the cosmetics rules haven’t been changed much,
despite a revolution in the way scientists think about the skin.
In the 1930’s, skin was thought to be essentially an impermeable
barrier, a more attractive version of armadillo plate. But since at least
the 1960’s, it has been widely known that the barrier can be breached,
partly as a result of demonstrations that some pesticides could enter the
body through the skin. In the 1980’s, in particular, molecular biologists
began piecing together a new understanding of the skin as a reactive,
dynamic organ. This view led to the development of transdermal patches,
which deliver drugs into the body through the skin.
Not all chemicals can pass through the skin, however. Many ingredients in
cosmetic creams are designed to sit on the surface, helping to keep the skin
moist by holding in water, says Jim Riviere, Director of the Cutaneous
Pharmacology and Toxicology Center at North Carolina State University in
Raleigh. Many ingredients in these products, such as fatty acids, are
identical to chemicals that occur naturally in the human body. "Most
ingredients I’ve come across in cosmetics are fairly benign
compounds.", Riviere says.
But there is a controversial class of chemicals in cosmetics that may be
absorbed through the skin. These are the color additives, derived from
petroleum, known as coal tars. Coal tar colors (they are also found in
foods, like M&Ms) are the single group of ingredients in cosmetics
required to be tested for safety.
In 1960, there were about 200 on the market. But because so many have
been found to be carcinogenic, such as Red No. 2, which was banned in 1976,
today the list of approved colors numbers about 45.
Hair dyes derived from coal tars are mostly exempt from federal rules.
Women who use dark dye for many years might increase their risk of dying
from cancer. The FDA’s Bailey says these remaining dyes have been so
widely tested that he has "very high confidence that they’re
safe". Not everyone is so sure. Dr. Andrew Weil, the natural health
maven, advises avoiding the color additives whenever possible. "[Many]
are energetic molecules that can interact with DNA, potentially causing
mutations that lead to cancer", he writes.
There is an extraordinary loophole in the FDA regulations regarding
testing and approval of colors. In 1938, the industry managed to win an
exemption so that hair dyes derived from coal tars don’t have to meet the
standard that products not be harmful under normal use. As the FDA’s own
publication on hair dye points out, "Compounds suspected of causing
cancer are found in temporary, semi permanent, and permanent dyes."
Bad hair daze. Does that mean hair dyes cause cancer in people who
use them? The epidemiological studies are mostly reassuring. In 1994, a
large survey found that dye users had a slightly lower rate of fatal cancers
than women who didn’t color their hair. But there is one exception: Women
who used dark hair dye for two decades or more had a four times greater risk
of dying from two cancers of the immune system, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and
multiple myeloma.
The FDA itself is looking into Alpha Hydroxy Acids (AHA), which are added
to skin creams to help smooth out fine wrinkles. "We’ve demonstrated
that the use of AHAs increases sensitivity to sunlight", says Bailey.
He speculates that the chemicals may also make skin more susceptible to skin
cancer and perversely to even more wrinkling from sun damage.
Of course the question arises, how much do we really want to know about
the safety of our cosmetics? We face so many dangers in life, do we have to
live in fear of our moisturizers, too? As an experiment, I cross-checked the
ingredients in my Anti-Aging face cream with A Consumer’s Dictionary of
Cosmetic Ingredients. Most seemed fairly harmless. Until I got to zinc
sulfate, about which the dictionary noted that "injection under the
skin of 2.5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight caused tumors in
rabbits." That’s when I began to wonder if the Anti-Aging moniker was
a macabre joke. Is the idea that if I use it, I won’t live long enough to
get my full complement of wrinkles? But I’ve already paid good money for
it, and I’m still using it.
In 1978, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, did an analysis of how the laws should be changed to improve
cosmetics safety. The office suggested reforms like establishing
industry-wide standards for safety testing and reviewing data from countries
that have banned particular ingredients to see whether similar actions
should be taken here. Those are just the kinds of reforms industry critics
are seeking today—and will be seeking for a long time to come.
Back to top
SAFE
IN THE SHOWER?
(The Unbelievable Story of Propylene Glycol)
Fasten your seat belts folks, you won’t believe what you
are about to read:
Bob Folsom, a Field Hydrographer in the High Sierra Nevada mountains, has
to work with propylene glycol on his job. Even though the PG is used in a
solution of about 80% water, 20% PG and 1% mineral oil, there are rigid
rules about how it must be disposed of, because it is considered so
hazardous.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues "Material Safety
Data Sheets" that must accompany all hazardous chemicals. The data
sheet for propylene glycol warns of severe health consequences and
reactions, because PG has systemic consequences such as brain, liver, and
kidney abnormalities.
(1) If the solution makes contact with the skin, immediate action
must be taken, and the incident should be reported to the supervisor.
(2) If the solution spills on the ground, it must be contained and
the contaminated earth dug up and hauled to a toxic waste dump.
When Bob is finished using the solution, he is required to empty it into
a 55-gallon drum labeled "Hazardous Waste." While doing so, he
must wear rubber gloves, goggles, and protective clothing. When the barrel
is full, it must be transported to a special collection site, and the driver
of the truck is required to maintain a commercial driver’s license with a
"hazardous material endorsement." Improper paperwork or
mishandling of this toxic solution can result in severe fines and even
imprisonment. It costs between $500-$1,000 to get rid of each 55-gallon
drum.
Yet when Bob gets off work and goes home, he is free to shower with soaps
and shampoos and then use a stick deodorant containing much higher
concentrations of propylene glycol than the toxic solution he just shipped
to the dump. If it was so hazardous at work, why is it "safe"
at home?
Used as a solvent, propylene glycol is probably THE most common
ingredient found in personal-care items, such as make-up, hair products,
lotions, after-shave, deodorants, mouthwashes, and toothpaste. (Check the
labels of your favorite products!!) It is also the active component in
antifreeze; and there is no difference between what’s used in
industry and what you apply to your skin! Industry uses it to break down
protein and cellular structure (what the skin is made of); it’s so strong
that it can take barnacles off the bottom of boats.
But because it is so inexpensive, it is widely used in very high
concentrations in most personal care formulations—even ones from
"natural food" stores.
You CAN choose healthful alternatives:
Dare To Care What Touches Your Skin And Hair
Back to top
ARE
FOAM AND BUBBLES WORTH BAD HEALTH?
The Truth about Sodium Lauryl Sulfate
Do you enjoy a shampoo with a rich lather? A shaving cream that really
foams? How about relaxing in a tub full of bubbles? These may seem like some
of life’s simple, innocent pleasures…until you look at WHAT is causing
all that foam and lather. Once you find out, you may decide it’s not so
simple or pleasurable after all.
Check the labels of your shampoo, soap, facial cleanser, shaving cream,
body wash, or shower gel: Do you see either Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) or
Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) listed? Or one of their cousins: Ammonium
Lauryl Sulfate, Sodium Myreth Sulfate, etc.? Most manufacturers use these
anionic detergents because they produce a lot of foam very inexpensively.
But SLS is so strong that it’s also used to scrub garage floors. Worse, it
has been proven to cause cancer in the long run. And the American College of
Toxicology says SLS stays in the body up to five days. Other studies show it
easily penetrates the skin and enters and maintains residual levels in the
heart, liver, the lungs, and the brain. Yet SLS is found in most cleansing,
foaming products—even in some toothpastes! (Note: SLS may be disguised in
pseudo-natural cosmetics with the parenthetical explanation "comes from
coconut." Let's save the coconut from defamation of character!)
One woman who examined labels found that all the shampoos she
checked had SLS—even health food store brands. Many listed Sodium Laureth
Sulfate as the first ingredient on the label, meaning it’s the
single most prevalent ingredient. So this lady called one company to
complain that their product contains a substance that will cause people to
have cancer. Their response was, "Yeah, we knew about it, but there’s
nothing we can do about it because we need that substance to produce
foam."
Try contacting some manufacturers yourself: The typical responses might
be:
(1) Denial: "It’s completely safe."
(2) Avoidance: "You'll have to talk to someone else" or
"We can't talk
about that."
(3) Ignorance: "I've never heard about that."
Most people selling products with this and other harmful ingredients
really just don't know. The FDA has a GRAS list (Generally Regarded As
Safe), and almost everything is on there, so most people selling these
products just focus on the marketing hype and what the product is supposed
to do for skin (clean it, make it feel soft, etc.). Sadly, of the 7000
ingredients used on the skin, only 5-6 have been tested for LONG-TERM
safety, and none have been tested TOGETHER. Currently, 125 are strongly
suspected carcinogens, 20 cause adverse nervous system reactions, and 25 are
connected to birth defects.
So why exactly is SLS so bad?
Here are what tests show about Sodium Lauryl Sulfate:
(1) SLS PENETRATES EYES AND TISSUES. Tests show that SLS can penetrate
into the eyes as well as systemic tissues (brain, heart, liver, etc.) and
shows long-term retention in those tissues. Especially when used in soaps
and shampoos, there is an immediate concern relating to the penetration of
SLS into the eyes and other tissues. This is especially important in
infants, where considerable growth is occurring, because a much greater
uptake occurs by tissues of younger eyes, and SLS changes the amounts of
some proteins in cells from eye tissues. Tissues of young eyes may be more
susceptible to alteration by SLS[1]
(2) SLS FORMS NITRATES: When SLS is used in shampoos and cleansers
containing nitrogen-based ingredients, it can form carcinogenic nitrates
that can enter the blood stream in large numbers. They can cause eye
irritations, skin rashes, hair loss, scalp scurf similar to dandruff, and
allergic reactions.[2]
(3) SLS PRODUCES NITROSAMINES (potent carcinogens that cause the body to
absorb nitrates at higher levels than eating nitrate-contaminated food like
hot dogs or lunch meat): Dr. David H. Fine, the chemist who uncovered NDELA
contamination in cosmetics, estimates that a person would be applying 50 to
100 micrograms of nitrosamine to the skin each time he or she used a
nitrosamine-contaminated cosmetic. By comparison, a person consuming sodium
nitrate-preserved bacon is exposed to less than one microgram of
nitrosamine. [3]
(4) SLS STRIPS MOISTURE AND OIL FROM THE SKIN. According to the Journal
of Investigative Dermatology, SLS produced skin and hair damage, including
cracking and severe inflammation of the derma-epidermal tissue. Skin layers
may separate and inflame due to its protein-denaturing properties.[4]
(5) SLS IRRITATES SCALP AND MAY PROMOTE HAIR LOSS[5]
(6) SLS CAN DAMAGE DNA IN CELLS—according to Japanese studies.[6]
CONCLUSION:
SLS and all its cousins are very harsh detergents that strip the skin's
moisture barrier (which is linked to immunity and skin health) and causes
serious health problems during testing on animals. It is linked to harming
children's eyes, denaturing protein (thereby possibly contributing to hair
loss or thinning), and combines with DEA, MEA and TEA (often found in the
same shampoo) to form nitrosamines, a potent carcinogen. Since it is only
included in products because of its potent foaming action, the question you
must consider is:
What’s more important: the foam or your health?
You CAN choose healthful alternatives:
Dare To Care What Touches Your Skin and Hair!
References for above information:
[1] Green, Dr. Keith. Detergent Penetration into Young and Adult Eyes.
Department of Ophthalmology Medical College of GA, Augusta GA
[2] Hampton, Aubrey. Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients. Organica Press
Metarasso, or Hampton, Aubrey. Natural Organic Hair and Skin Care. Organica
Press, Tampa FL
[3] ibid.
[4] Journal of Invest. Dermatology, 32-581, 1959 "Denaturation of
Epidermal Keratin by Surface Active Agents"
[5]Wright, Camille S. Shampoo Report. Images International, Inc. 1989
[6]Vance, Judi. Beauty to Die For. Promotion Publishing, San Diego, CA 1998.
Page 23.
Back to top
DO
YOU USE THESE PRODUCTS
By David Steinman, Natural Health Magazine,
September/October, 1997 pp. 54 - 56
"If so, you may want to rethink how much you use them.
Studies point to their possible dangers."
"Ron Owens’ parents never imagined what would happen to their son
after they sent him to summer camp in 1972. Ron was like every other
teenager at this mountain camp in California: He swam, played sports, slept
in a cabin with other campers. Unlike the other boys, though, Ron slept a
few feet from a no-pest strip. Night after night, he was exposed to
dichlorvos (DDVP), a toxic pesticide. Not long after camp ended, the boy
died of a fatal blood disease—aplastic anemia—that the family’s
attorneys argued was caused by the boy’s exposure to chemicals in the
no-pest strip. (The manufacturer admitted no wrongdoing, but did give the
Owens family a small settlement.) Today, twenty five years after Ron’s
death, you can still buy no-pest strips containing the chemicals suspected
of having caused the boy’s death.
As a consumer advocate who has investigated the safety of thousands of
products over the past fifteen years, I’ve heard too many accounts of
people, often children, felled by dangerous products. Every day we use
products that we think are safe—we assume the product has been tested and
any dangerous ingredients labeled. The truth is, products are not always
safe and manufacturers don’t have to tell us so. (The warning statement on
the no-pest strip makes no mention of these health risks: bone marrow damage
and aplastic anemia, as reported in 1980 in Clinical Research; immune
system suppression, as determined by the World Health Organization in 1986;
and cancer and birth defects, as reported by Shirley A. Briggs and the
Rachel Carson Council in Basic Guide to Pesticides [Hemisphere,
1992].)
Cosmetic products are notorious. Hair dyes with suspected cancer-causing
ingredients are not required to carry warning labels. Products often list
fragrances, which can contain up to 600 different compounds, many
carcinogenic or otherwise toxic, but the label only says they contain a
"fragrance". And while cosmetic makers are required to list
ingredients, they are not required to conduct pre-market safety tests.
"Even if the [Food and Drug Administration] suspects that serious
adverse health effects are caused by a cosmetic product, they can’t
require the manufacturer to provide test data to prove the product
safety", says Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.
It should be said that products with even very toxic ingredients are not
likely to kill you—or even cause illness—with one-time or short-term
use. But when so many different products on the market contain toxic
ingredients, come claim that they may endanger the health of immunologically
vulnerable people who use them regularly. If you or your children frequently
use such products, the risks climb. Guarding yourself is simple: the less
you breathe, eat, or absorb a toxic chemical, the less chance there is that
it can harm your health. I recommend that people act on the side of safety
and simply not use—or radically reduce their use of—products whose
ingredients are proven to be dangerous, or even suspected of being dangerous
based on the available research.
In 1995, with the help of consumer advocate Ralph Nader and
Samuel
Epstein, M.D., the coauthor of my book The Safe Shopper’s Bible
(Macmillan, 1995), I compiled a list of those products that I personally
choose to avoid or use sparingly.
Personal Hygiene Products
1. CREST toothpaste lists saccharin and FD&C Blue No. 1 on its label.
A clear-cut bladder carcinogen in animal studies (with some evidence from
human studies), saccharin has been rated carcinogenic by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) for a decade. (Cancer warnings for
saccharin are required on artificial sweeteners.) Children and adults absorb
the saccharin by swallowing or through the tissue in their mouths. FD&C
Blue No. 1 has also caused tumors in experimental animals. Crest should not
be singled out. Many other brands, including Colgate, also contain these two
toxic substances.
2. The main ingredient in JOHNSON’S BABY POWDER is talc. In 1982,
Daniel Cramer, M.D., an obstetrician and gynecologist, found that women who
used talc for feminine hygiene had a three-fold increase in their risk of
ovarian cancer. Additional reports in Lancet (1979), Cancer
(1982), and Obstetrics & Gynecology (1992) confirm the risk
associated with frequent and prolonged use of talcum powder in the genital
area. In 1994 the Cancer Prevention Coalition in Chicago petitioned the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) to require a label warning on this product.
The FDA has not acted on this matter.
Household Products
3. ORTHO WEED-B-GON LAWN WEED KILLER contains 2,4-D Agricultural studies
by National Cancer Institute (NCI) researchers strongly link exposure to
this chemical with high cancer rates. Another NCI study found that dogs
whose owners use 2,4-D weed killers have higher rates of cancer.
4. LYSOL DISINFECTANT SPRAY may contain ortho-phenylphenol. This germ
killer is carcinogenic, according to both the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and IARC. Lyson’s manufacturer stopped using this ingredient
in 1995, but I still see cans of Lysol containing ortho-phenylphenol on
store shelves. Be sure to read the label when buying this product. The older
formula of Lysol, which does contain this chemical, is particularly
troubling because as a spray it can be inhaled deeply into the lungs.
Cosmetics
5. BONNE BELL GRAPE LIP SMACKER FLAVORED LIP GLOSS, which is marketed to
teenagers, contains saccharin and FD&C Blue No. 1 (both of which are
discussed on page 56). Although this product is not directly ingested, these
ingredients can be absorbed through the skin on the lips, or through the
mucous membrane in the mouth. This lip gloss also contains fragrances and
propylene glycol, two of the leading causes of contact dermatitis, an
allergic skin reaction.
6. COVER GIRL REPLENISHING NATURAL FINISH MAKE-UP contains several
potentially toxic ingredients, but no warnings. The first is butylated
hydroxyanisole (BHA), which is carcinogenic, according to IARC. The second,
triethanolamine, which keeps the makeup moist, can combine with nitrite
contaminants to form carcinogenic nitrosamines. An FDA report done in 1988
found 30 percent of cosmetic products contained these carcinogens. A third
ingredient, lanolin, is perfectly safe by itself; however, it may be
contaminated with pesticides. According to a 1993 report from the National
Research Council, some 16 pesticides were identified in lanolin; diazinon [sic],
a neurotoxin, was found in 21 of 25 samples.
7. CLAIROL NICE ‘N EASY hair dye contains par-phenylenediamine, a dye
that was recently shown to induce breast cancer in animals. It also contains
quaternium 15, a preservative that often causes allergic reactions.
One-fifth of cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among women are linked to
hair-dye use. Indeed, more than a dozen studies link hair dyes with cancer,
yet the FDA requires no warning of this hazard on product labels. Clairol is
not the only hair dye to pose these risks. Many other brands, including
L’Oreal, and Revlon, contain similar chemicals.
8. GRECIAN FORMULA for men contains lead acetate. Lead damages the
nervous, circulatory, and reproductive systems. And this particular form of
lead can penetrate skin. Recently, researchers at Xavier University found
that large amounts of lead are left on the fingers of adults and children
who rub their hands through the hair of men using lead-based anti-gray
products. The FDA has suggested it will "study" the situation,
according to a February 5, 1997 Associated Press report. While they do that,
Karen Filkins, M.D., director of reproductive genetics at West Penn Hospital
in Pittsburgh, says, "Avoid products that could contain lead,
especially if you are pregnant. And prevent exposure to young
children".
Pet Products
9. ZODIAC CAT & DOG FLEA COLLAR contains propoxur. This chemical is a
carcinogen, according to a 1989 report done by researchers at Cornell
University, University of California, and Michigan and Oregon State
Universities. It may also cause learning disabilities, according to Basic
Guide to Pesticides.
David Steinman, a former representative of the public interest at the
National Academy of Sciences, is co-author of the forthcoming Breast
Cancer Prevention Program (Macmillan, 1997). He is author of Diet for
a Poisoned Planet (Ballantine, 1992), and co-author of The Safe
Shopper’s Bible (Macmillan, 1995) and Living Healthy in a Toxic
World (Perigee, 1996)."
Back to top
TRICLOSAN
by M. Angela McGehee, Ph.D., Biology and Marine Sciences
Triclosan, a chemical used for its antibacterial properties, is an
ingredient in many detergents, dish-washing liquids, soaps, deodorants,
cosmetics, lotions, antimicrobial creams, at least one brand of toothpaste,
and an additive in various plastics and textiles. However, the safety of
triclosan has been questioned in regard to environmental and human health.
While the companies that manufacture products containing this chemical claim
that it is safe, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
registered it as a pesticide. The chemical formulation and molecular
structure of this compound are similar to some of the most toxic chemicals
on earth, relating it to dioxins and PCBs. The EPA gives triclosan high
scores both as a human health risk and as an environmental risk.
Triclosan is a chlorophenol, a class of chemicals which is suspected of
causing cancer in humans. Externally, phenol can cause a variety of skin
irritations, but since it can temporarily deactivate sensory nerve endings,
contact with it may cause little or no pain. Taken internally, even in small
amounts, phenol can lead to cold sweats, circulatory collapse, convulsions,
coma and death. Additionally, chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides can be
stored in body fat, sometimes accumulating to toxic levels. Long term
exposure to repeated use of many pesticide products can damage the liver,
kidneys, heart and lungs, suppress the immune system, and cause hormonal
disruption, paralysis, sterility and brain hemorrhages.
Dioxins, PCBs, chlorophenols and many pesticides are categorized as
persistent organic pollutants. In other words, they persist in the
environment and accumulate to higher and higher concentrations with each
step up the food chain. Virtually, every creature on earth has a measured
amount of these pollutants in its body fat. Once absorbed into the fat
cells, it is nearly impossible to eliminate these compounds. Triclosan is
among this class of chemicals, and humans are among the animals at the top
of the food chain. The health risks are considerable.
Employing a strong antibiotic agent such as triclosan for everyday use is
of questionable value. Many antimicrobial treatments are toxic and take a
shotgun approach to killing all microscopic organisms to which they are
applied. However, this approach includes the risk of toxicity to host
organisms, that is, the plants or animals (including humans) exposed to
treatment for microbial infections. Toxic exposure to living creatures can
also occur when food items and objects such as utensils or hard surfaces are
treated with disinfectants for microbial contamination. Additionally, the
shotgun approach destroys the beneficial bacteria which occur naturally in
the environment and in our bodies. These so-called friendly bacteria cause
no harm and often produce beneficial effects such as aiding metabolism and
inhibiting the invasion of harmful pathogens. Antimicrobials and
disinfectants can also cause genetic mutations resulting in drug-resistant
bacterial and mutant viruses, producing new strains of harmful microbes for
which the human immune system has no defense.
Triclosan has not been completely tested and analyzed for all health and
environmental risks, but since it occurs in the category of the chemicals
which are known to have the detrimental effects described here, do you want
it added to products you use every day?
Back to top
COMMON
DISINFECTANT COULD BREED SUPERBUGS
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent, Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
It sounds like a good idea -- put a germ-killing
disinfectant in toothpaste and soap to keep kids and adults safe from
infection -- right? Wrong, Boston-based microbiologist Laura McMurry and
colleagues at the Tufts University School of Medicine say.
McMurry said triclosan, a disinfectant widely used in products as diverse
as kitchen sponges, soap, fabrics and plastics, is capable of forcing the
emergence of ``superbugs'' that it cannot kill. And experiments have shown
that it may not be the all-out germ-killer scientists once thought it was.
Changing just one gene in the E. coli bacterium allowed it to resist
triclosan's effects, McMurry said in a telephone interview. ``We were able
to get resistance by simply changing an amino acid in the target.''
Triclosan is used so widely because it is what is known as a nonspecific
biocide -- it kills all microbes. Like bleach and alcohol it was believed to
interrupt so many cell processes there was no way any organism could develop
resistance to it. ``It was just kind of thought it dissolved the membranes.
If it does, then you are probably not going to get resistance. You would
have to have a totally different membrane that would be resistant,'' McMurry
said.
Most drugs used as antibiotics work on just a single process. For
instance, penicillin stops many bacteria from building a strong cell wall by
acting against one component, known as a mucopeptide. But this specific
action means many bacteria, including the very common staphylococcus, can
resist penicillin. That is why new generations of antibiotics have had to be
developed.
MORE USE MEANS MORE CHANCE OF RESISTANCE The more a drug is used, the
more chances bacteria have to evolve resistance. Unless all the bacteria in
an infection are killed, the ones that survive exposure to a drug will be
those that resist it in some way, while the weaker ones die first. Thus, a
species of bacteria can evolve resistance, especially if this happens over
and over again. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are becoming a bigger and
bigger problem. They range from penicillin-resistant gonorrhea to
super-strains of staphylococcus that cannot be killed by vancomycin, the
strongest antibiotic available.
For this reason, doctors are now being warned to cut back on frequent
prescriptions of antibiotics except for people who really need them, and
patients are being reminded to take their full course of drugs to make sure
no resistant bacteria survive to breed more resistant bacteria. But no one
had thought this evolutionary process was a problem with triclosan because
it was thought to kill all bacteria. Then McMurry and her colleagues put
this to the test, breeding bacteria that had various genetic mutations to
see if they would resist triclosan. Writing in the most recent edition of
the journal Nature, they said they had found one. It was a gene called fab1,
which is involved in the creation of fatty acids in cells. McMurry said this
could mean that bacteria could evolve resistance to triclosan, but she
stressed that there is no evidence so far that this has happened in nature.
DAILY USE OF TRICLOSAN MAY BE UNWISE ‘We did find those triclosan-resistant
mutants in the lab; we have not looked for them out in the real world. But
the point is not that we've proved that it's really happened out there in
the real world but that there is the potential.''
Considering this, she said, using triclosan daily in the home -- in
products ranging from children's soaps to toothpaste to ``germ-free''
cutting boards -- may be unwise. "As I understand it, washing hands
with soap, the goal of it is to wash off the bacteria. I think that unless
it's in a setting where you are in a hospital or you are in a home with a
really sick person, I think it is overkill,'' she said. "That's my
suspicion. It's putting a chemical in there that I'm not sure is
necessary.''
McMurry has not tested her mutant bacteria to see if they would resist
triclosan in a real-life setting. "The amounts of triclosan employed in
many of the hand soaps are quite high,'' she said. "I can't say with
those high amounts that even my mutant would survive.'' But there is more
than one way to fight off a drug. Sometimes bacteria evolve their own
resistance, but they also have a habit of meeting and exchanging genes with
one another. This means resistance to triclosan could be acquired, and not
simply evolved.
Back to top
"The glossy images
we're fed by the media hide a dangerous secret: Most of our
toiletries, even the "natural variety", are made from the same
harsh chemicals used for industry".
(What Doctors Don't Tell You Vol
10 No7 10/99)
What could be more healthy than a
refreshing body wash, a nourishing shampoo, a minty fresh toothpaste and a
moisturizing facial cream? Commercials, magazine advertisements and
billboards bombard us with the message that soaping and scrubbing,
exfoliating and moisturizing are only beneficial to our health.
Yet the glossy images
of well scrubbed individuals hide a dangerous secret:
Too many of the toiletries and cosmetics we
use are carcinogenic cocktails of hazardous waste. Most of the chemicals
which go into our toiletries are no different from the harsh toxic
chemicals used in industry. Far from enhancing health they pose a
daily threat to it. For example, propylene glycol (PG) is a wetting
agent and solvent used in make up, hair care products, deodorants
and after shave. Its also the main ingredient in antifreeze and
brake fluid. Similarly, polyethylene glycol (PEG), a related agent
found in most skin cleansers, is a caustic used to dissolve grease... the
same substance you find in oven cleaners. Isopropyl, an alcohol used
in hair rinses, hand lotions and fragrances, is also a solvent found in
shellac.
What to watch out for
When selecting kinder
cosmetics and toiletries, choose products which do not have
any of the following ingredients.
-
DEA, MEA, TEA, Cause allergic
reactions, irritate the eyes and dry the hair and skin.
Can be carcinogenic, especially to the kidneys and liver.
-
Petrolatum, also known as mineral
oil jelly, liquid vaseline, paraffinum, liquidum and baby
oil. Can cause photosensitivity and strips the
natural oils from the skin causing chapping and dryness,
also premature ageing. Prevents elimination of toxins, can
cause acne and other disorders.
-
Imidazolidinyl urea and DMDM hydantoin.
These formaldehyde-forming preservatives can cause joint
pain, allergies, depression, headaches, chest pain,
chronic fatigue, dizziness, insomnia and asthma. can
also weaken the immune system and even cause cancer.
Found in skin body and hair products, antiperspirants and
nail polish.
-
Alcohol, or isopropyl. A
poisonous solvent and denaturant (altering the structure
of other chemicals). Found in hair colour rinses, body
rubs, hand lotions, after shave lotions, fragrances. Can
cause nausea, vomiting headaches, flushing, depression.
Also, dries skin and hair, creates cracks and fissures in
the skin which encourage bacterial growth.
-
Sodium
lauryl sulphate (SLS) Found in shampoos, hair
conditioners, toothpaste, body washes. Strong
detergent which can cause eye irritation, permanent damage
to the
|
eyes, especially in children,
skin rashes, hair loss, flaking skin and mouth ulceration.
When combined with other ingredients, can form nitrosamines,
which are carcinogenic. Easily penetrates the skin and
can lodge itself in the heart, lungs, liver and brain.
-
PVP/VA copolymer, a petroleum
based ingredient used in hair sprays.
-
Padimate-O also known as octyl
dimethyl, PABA is found mostly in sunscreens. Like DEA, a
nitrosamine-forming agent. There
is concern that the energy absorbed by this sunscreen is
then turned into free radicals, which may actually
increase the risk of skin cancer!
-
Methyl, propyl, butyl and ethyl
paraben, used to extend a products shelf life and
inhibit microbial growth. Highly toxic. Can cause
rashes and other allergic reactions.
-
Synthetic colours: coal-tar dyes
are generally labelled as FD7C or D4C followed by a
number. CARCINOGENIC!
-
Talc, found in baby powders, face
powders and body powders as well as on some contraceptives
such as condoms. A known carcinogen. A major cause of
ovarian cancer when used in the genital area. Can
also lodge in the lungs, causing respiratory disorders.
-
Fragrance. Usually petroleum
based. Can cause headaches, dizziness, rashes,
respiratory problems vomiting, skin irritation and
multiple chemical sensitivity
|
Sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) used in
toothpastes, shampoos and just about every personal cleansing solution, is
a harsh detergent commonly used as an engine degreaser. Each of
these ingredients readily penetrates the skin with potentially adverse
consequences (see previous box)
Some of the most
dangerous chemicals we put on our bodies in the name of beauty belong to a
family of hormone-disrupting chemicals, which are water soluble ammonia
derivatives.
DEA (diethanolamine), TEA (Triethanolamine)
are almost always in products that foam: bubble bath, body washes,
shampoos, soaps and facial cleansers. They are used to thicken, wet,
alkalise and clean. While they are irritating to the skin, eyes and
respiratory tract (Rev Environ Contam Toxicol, 1997; 149: 1-86) DEA, MEA
and TEA are not considered particularly toxic in themselves. However
once added to the product these chemicals readily react with any nitrites
present to form potentially carcinogenic nitrosamines, such as NDEA (N-nitrosodiethanolamine).
Of the three, MEA and DEA pose the greatest risk to human health.
Prolonged exposure to these can alter liver and kidney function (J
Am Coll Toxicol, 1983; 2: 183- 235) and even lead to cancer (Rev Environ
Contam Toxicol, 1997; 149: 1-86).
Nitrites get into personal care products
in several ways. They can be added as anticorrosive agents, they can be
released as a result of the degradation of other chemicals, specifically
2-nitro-1,3-propanediol (BNDP), or they can be present as contaminants in
raw materials. Ingredients such as formaldehyde or
formaldehyde-forming chemicals, or 2-bromo-2-nitropropane (also known as
Bronopol) which can break down into formaldehyde.... can also produce
nitrosamines.
The long shelf life of most toiletries
also increases the risk of creating a carcinogenic reaction.
Stored for a long time at elevated temperatures, nitrates will continue to
form in a product, accelerated by the presence of other chemicals, such as
formaldehyde, paraformaldehyde, thiocyanate, nitrophenols and certain
metal salts (Science, 1973; 182: 1245-6; J Nat
Cancer Inst, 1977; 58:409;Nature, 1977; 266: 657-8; Fd Cosmet Toxicol,
1983; 21: 607-14)
Inadequate and confusing labelling
means that consumers may never know which products are most likely to be
contaminated. However, in a recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
report, approximately 42% of all cosmetics were contaminated with NDEA,
with shampoos having the highest concentrations
(National Toxicology Program, Seventh Annual Report on Carcinogens,
Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1994).
In Europe, where more safeguards are in
place regarding nitrosating agents, the picture is somewhat better.
For instance, in Germany, after the Federal Health Office issued a request
to eliminate all secondary amines (such as DEA) from cosmetics in 1987 a
report confirmed that only 15 per cent of products tested were
contaminated with NDEA (Eisenbrand,
G, et al in O'neill, IK, et al [Eds}; N-Nitrosoalknolamines in cosmetics,
Lyon: IARC, 1991).
Manufactures insist that DEA and its
relatives are "safe" in products designed for brief or
discontinuous use or those which wash off. However there is evidence
from both human and animal studies that NDEA can be quickly absorbed
through the skin (J Nat Cancer Inst, 1981; 66: 125-7; Toxicol Lett, 1979; 4: 217-22).
This argument also doesn't explain why
these chemicals crop up regularly in body lotions and facial moisturisers,
which are of course meant to stay on the skin for long periods of time.
As far back as 1978, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that "Although no
epidemiological data were available, nitrosodiethanolamine should
be regarded for practical purposes, as if it were carcinogenic to
humans" (IRAC, 1978;
17: 77-82). This position was reaffirmed
nearly 10 years later.
DYEING or DYING?????
Back to top
If you use
permanent or semi-permanent hair colours You are increasing your
risk of developing cancer.
Both animal and human studies show
that the body rapidly absorbs chemicals in permanent and
semi-permanent dyes through the skin during the more than 30 minutes
that dyes remain on the scalp.
In the late 1970s, several studies found links
between the use of hair dyes and breast cancers. A 1976 study
reported that 87 of 100 breast cancer patients had been long-term
dye users (NY State J Med, 1976; 76: 394-6).
In 1979, a US study found a significant
relationship between frequency and duration of hair dye use and
breast cancer (J Nat Cancer Inst, 1979; 62: 277-83). Those at
greatest risk were 50 to 79 year olds, suggesting that cancer takes
years to develop. |
Women who started dyeing their hair at
age 20 had twice the risk of those who'd started at 40.
Another study found women who dye their hair to
change its colour, rather than masking greyness, were at a threefold
risk (J Nat Cancer Inst, 1980; 64: 64: 23-8).
More recently, a jointly funded American Cancer
Society and FDA study admitted a fourfold increase in relatively
uncommon cancers, including non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple
myeloma in hair-dye users (J Nat Cancer Inst, 1994; 215-310).
The darker the
shades of permanent and semi-permanent
dyes, the higher the risks of
breast cancer; women who use black, dark brown or red dyes are at
the greatest risk! |
In America in 1994, the National Toxicology Program similarly concluded in
its Seventh Annual Report on Carcinogens that: "There is sufficient
evidence for the carcinogenicity of N-nitrodiethanolamine in experimental
animals." The report noted that of more than 44 different species in
which NDEA compounds have been tested all have been susceptible (Lijinsky,
W, Chemistry and Biology of N-Nitroso Comaounds, New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1992).
Humans were unlikely to be
the single exception said the paper.
The cosmetics industry's response to the problems of nitrosamine formation
has been to put even more chemicals in their products in an attempt to slow or
inhibit the formation of NDEA. These include ascorbic acid, sodium
bisulfite, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT),
sodium ascorbate, ascorbyl palmitate and a-tocopherol. None has proved
adequate to prevent nitrosamine formation (Cosmetics & Toiletries,
1994; 109: 53)
In 1996, the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrance Association
(Cosmetic
Ingredient Review, Washington DC; 1996 CIR Compendium) stated:
"These chemicals [Cocamide DEA, Lauramide DEA, Linoleamide DEA,
and Oleamide DEA] should not be used as ingredients in cosmetic products
containing nitrosating agents."
Nevertheless
DEA, TEA and MRA continue to be widely used in a staggering variety of
toiletries and cosmetics.
Back to top