Check out this great video on Certified Organic Products by ONE Group.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP68RWCQECM&mode=related&search=
Also Check out this great video on Why Choose Organic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2fHIRtkDVA&mode=related&search=
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Testimonial
A fellow Mom loaned me her Balancing Cleanser, Skin Conditioner and Moisturizer to try over a four day period. I loved them all, they felt so luxurious and smelled divine. When my little trial was up, I had to go back to my old supposedly “mild ultra soothing” cleanser while I waited for my Miessence order to arrive. It was then that I noticed what a difference the Miessence products made. My old cleanser, which I had always thought was excellent, left my skin dry with a reddish tint. I can't wait for my new products to arrive!
Kathleen Chamberlain, USA
Product Highlight
Purifying Blemish Gel
30ml/1.0 fl.oz
Customers with problem skin are often
looking for a solution to ease the pain,
appearance and sometimes embarrassment of
blemishes and acne. Miessence has a certified
organic solution which is fantastic for teenagers
in their hormonal years, as well as adults suffering from occasional trouble with their skin.
The Purifying Blemish Gel is a potent and powerful blend of healing and calming organic herbs and flowers, including purifying thyme, healing plantain, clarifying echinacea and soothing marshmallow. It contains the potent properties of organic lavender, lemon myrtle from country Queensland and tea tree from the forests in northern New South Wales.
The gel should be used twice daily (am/pm) after conditioning and before moisturising. Simply apply 1 to 2 pumps of the treatment to the fingertip and pat into affected areas.
Customer Testimonial – Lisa C, Burleigh Heads
"Blemish Gel" should be called "MIRACLE GEL". Whenever a spot appears, it gets zapped with the gel and within 12 hours it’s either gone or barely visible! The amazing product should be made available to all teenagers, to help them get through the difficult years without major outbreaks. Thanks for introducing me to my little "MIRACLE"!
Take Care
Jo
http://www.bayview.mionegroup.com
Purifying Blemish Gel
30ml/1.0 fl.oz
Customers with problem skin are often
looking for a solution to ease the pain,
appearance and sometimes embarrassment of
blemishes and acne. Miessence has a certified
organic solution which is fantastic for teenagers
in their hormonal years, as well as adults suffering from occasional trouble with their skin.
The Purifying Blemish Gel is a potent and powerful blend of healing and calming organic herbs and flowers, including purifying thyme, healing plantain, clarifying echinacea and soothing marshmallow. It contains the potent properties of organic lavender, lemon myrtle from country Queensland and tea tree from the forests in northern New South Wales.
The gel should be used twice daily (am/pm) after conditioning and before moisturising. Simply apply 1 to 2 pumps of the treatment to the fingertip and pat into affected areas.
Customer Testimonial – Lisa C, Burleigh Heads
"Blemish Gel" should be called "MIRACLE GEL". Whenever a spot appears, it gets zapped with the gel and within 12 hours it’s either gone or barely visible! The amazing product should be made available to all teenagers, to help them get through the difficult years without major outbreaks. Thanks for introducing me to my little "MIRACLE"!
Take Care
Jo
http://www.bayview.mionegroup.com
Organic food is healthier and safer, four-year EU investigation shows
By Emily Dugan
Published: 29 October 2007
A £12m EU-funded investigation into the difference between organic and ordinary farming has shown that organic foods have far more nutritional value.
Up to 40 per cent more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of heart disease and cancer, could be found in organic fruit and vegetables than in those conventionally farmed.
In the four-year Quality Low Input Food project, the biggest of its kind to date, a farm in north-east England grew conventional produce alongside organic varieties. Cattle were also farmed on the 725-acre plot, where it has been discovered that organic milk contains 60 per cent more antioxidants and desirable fatty acids than ordinary milk.
Professor Carlo Leifert, co-ordinator of the study said: "We have shown there are more of certain less nutritionally desirable compounds and less of the baddies in organic foods, or improved amounts of the fatty acids you want and less of those you don't want".
The study, whose overall findings will be published next year, is the first systematic comparison of farming techniques. Led by Newcastle University, 33 academic centres across Europe are analysing the information.
For the past seven years the organic food lobby has been trying unsuccessfully to persuade the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to acknowledge the benefits of organic food. The FSA says the "balance of current scientific evidence" does not support the view that organic food is safer or healthier.
The Soil Association, the UK's leading campaigning and certifying organisation on organic farming, said: "It is time the FSA caught up with the available science and adjusted its statements to reflect that science."
The FSA said: "We will be getting a consultancy to carry out a systematic review of the evidence, which will include this latest study."
The report's key findings
* Organic milk contains higher amounts of vitamin E, according to the EU study. The antioxidant contributes to a healthy circulatory system
* Potatoes, kiwi fruit and carrots were among the organic produce found to be higher in vitamin C than their chemically-farmed counterparts. The vitamin has been credited with boosting the immune system and helping to keep cancer and heart disease at bay
* Higher levels of minerals and antioxidants were found in organically- farmed lettuce, spinach and cabbage
Take Care
Jo
http://www.bayview.mionegroup.com
By Emily Dugan
Published: 29 October 2007
A £12m EU-funded investigation into the difference between organic and ordinary farming has shown that organic foods have far more nutritional value.
Up to 40 per cent more antioxidants, which scientists believe can cut the risk of heart disease and cancer, could be found in organic fruit and vegetables than in those conventionally farmed.
In the four-year Quality Low Input Food project, the biggest of its kind to date, a farm in north-east England grew conventional produce alongside organic varieties. Cattle were also farmed on the 725-acre plot, where it has been discovered that organic milk contains 60 per cent more antioxidants and desirable fatty acids than ordinary milk.
Professor Carlo Leifert, co-ordinator of the study said: "We have shown there are more of certain less nutritionally desirable compounds and less of the baddies in organic foods, or improved amounts of the fatty acids you want and less of those you don't want".
The study, whose overall findings will be published next year, is the first systematic comparison of farming techniques. Led by Newcastle University, 33 academic centres across Europe are analysing the information.
For the past seven years the organic food lobby has been trying unsuccessfully to persuade the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to acknowledge the benefits of organic food. The FSA says the "balance of current scientific evidence" does not support the view that organic food is safer or healthier.
The Soil Association, the UK's leading campaigning and certifying organisation on organic farming, said: "It is time the FSA caught up with the available science and adjusted its statements to reflect that science."
The FSA said: "We will be getting a consultancy to carry out a systematic review of the evidence, which will include this latest study."
The report's key findings
* Organic milk contains higher amounts of vitamin E, according to the EU study. The antioxidant contributes to a healthy circulatory system
* Potatoes, kiwi fruit and carrots were among the organic produce found to be higher in vitamin C than their chemically-farmed counterparts. The vitamin has been credited with boosting the immune system and helping to keep cancer and heart disease at bay
* Higher levels of minerals and antioxidants were found in organically- farmed lettuce, spinach and cabbage
Take Care
Jo
http://www.bayview.mionegroup.com
Organic Food To Fight Cancer
Health 24 . (Source)
The Journal of Agriculture study shows that pesticide free foods contain more phytochemicals.
Fresh fruit and vegetables that are not treated with pest-fighting chemicals may contain up to 60 percent more cancer-fighting phytochemicals, a recent study indicates.
After studying the effect on three different types of produce, the researchers found that food grown without pesticides and herbicides contained between 19 and 60 percent more flavonoids, a particular kind of phytochemical with certain cancer-fighting properties. These foods were compared to food produced in the conventional way.
The findings were published in a recent issue of the American Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
An added benefit
The researchers believe that this study might point to the anti-cancer benefits of organic produce. This could be an added benefit of buying organic food.
Flavonoids are antioxidants, which can be found in a wide variety of fruit, vegetables, tea and wine. Oxidation is associated with an increased risk of heart disease, stroke and several other diseases.
More research is, however, needed to determine whether flavonoid content stays elevated when food is transported from the field to the supermarket.
Methodology and results
During the study, the researchers compared flavonoid content in strawberries, corn and marionberries (a type of blackberry found in the US). Three different types of samples were compared: samples produced without the use of pesticides, herbicides or fertiliser; samples produced with fertiliser only; and samples produced by using all three of these chemicals (the conventional method).
The researchers found that the flavonoid levels were 59 percent higher in corn that have been produced with fertiliser only in comparison to corn raised with pesticides and herbicides as well. Marionberries and strawberries grown with or without fertilisers respectively had approximately 50 percent and 19 percent more flavonoids than berries grown in the conventional way.
The researchers believe they would find similar results in other types of fruit and vegetables.
Foods contain different amounts of flavonoid
Plants contain flavonoids to protect themselves from outside stresses, like pests and ultraviolet radiation. When pesticides are used, natural flavonoid levels are lowered.
The shortcomings of the study may be that the researchers didn't measure the different types of flavonoids present in the selected crops. Not all flavonoids are equally beneficial in humans and some might even be harmful, he said.
http://organic.com.au/news/2003.03.27/
Take Care
Jo
http://www.bayview.mionegroup.com
Health 24 . (Source)
The Journal of Agriculture study shows that pesticide free foods contain more phytochemicals.
Fresh fruit and vegetables that are not treated with pest-fighting chemicals may contain up to 60 percent more cancer-fighting phytochemicals, a recent study indicates.
After studying the effect on three different types of produce, the researchers found that food grown without pesticides and herbicides contained between 19 and 60 percent more flavonoids, a particular kind of phytochemical with certain cancer-fighting properties. These foods were compared to food produced in the conventional way.
The findings were published in a recent issue of the American Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
An added benefit
The researchers believe that this study might point to the anti-cancer benefits of organic produce. This could be an added benefit of buying organic food.
Flavonoids are antioxidants, which can be found in a wide variety of fruit, vegetables, tea and wine. Oxidation is associated with an increased risk of heart disease, stroke and several other diseases.
More research is, however, needed to determine whether flavonoid content stays elevated when food is transported from the field to the supermarket.
Methodology and results
During the study, the researchers compared flavonoid content in strawberries, corn and marionberries (a type of blackberry found in the US). Three different types of samples were compared: samples produced without the use of pesticides, herbicides or fertiliser; samples produced with fertiliser only; and samples produced by using all three of these chemicals (the conventional method).
The researchers found that the flavonoid levels were 59 percent higher in corn that have been produced with fertiliser only in comparison to corn raised with pesticides and herbicides as well. Marionberries and strawberries grown with or without fertilisers respectively had approximately 50 percent and 19 percent more flavonoids than berries grown in the conventional way.
The researchers believe they would find similar results in other types of fruit and vegetables.
Foods contain different amounts of flavonoid
Plants contain flavonoids to protect themselves from outside stresses, like pests and ultraviolet radiation. When pesticides are used, natural flavonoid levels are lowered.
The shortcomings of the study may be that the researchers didn't measure the different types of flavonoids present in the selected crops. Not all flavonoids are equally beneficial in humans and some might even be harmful, he said.
http://organic.com.au/news/2003.03.27/
Take Care
Jo
http://www.bayview.mionegroup.com
Sunday, October 28, 2007
I'll Have My Cosmetics With a Side of Infertility, Please
By Heather Gehlert, AlterNet. Posted October 25, 2007.
Carcinogens in cosmetics? Petrochemicals in perfume? If only this were an urban legend. Unfortunately, it's a toxic reality, and it's showing up in our bodies.
In 2004, scientists found pesticides in the blood of newborn babies. A year later, researchers discovered perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel, in human breast milk. Today, people are testing positive for a litany of hazardous substances from flame retardants to phthalates to lead.
In her new book, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, Stacy Malkan exposes the toxic chemicals that lurk, often unlabeled, in the personal care products that millions of American women, men and children use every day.
AlterNet spoke with Malkan about these toxins and her five-year effort with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to get the beauty industry to remove them from its products.
Heather Gehlert: There are so many environmental issues you could've written a book about. Why cosmetics?
Stacy Malkan: I think cosmetics is something that we're all intimately connected to. They're products that we use every day, and so I think it's a good first place to start asking questions. What kinds of products are we bringing into our homes? What kinds of companies are we giving our money to?
It has something pretty interesting in common with global warming too.
It does. I think of it as global poisoning. I think that the ubiquitous contamination of the human species with toxic chemicals is a symptom of the same problem (as global warming), which is an economy that's based on outdated technologies of petrochemicals -- petroleum. So many of the products we're applying to our faces and putting in our hair come from oil. They're byproducts of oil.
Many cosmetic products on the market right now claim they are pure, gentle, clean and healthy. But, as you reveal in this book, they're far from it. Toxic chemicals in these products are showing up in people. What were some of the most surprising toxins you discovered in cosmetics?
Lead in lipstick was pretty surprising. We (the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics) just released that report last week. Many personal care products have phthalates, which is a plasticizer and hormone disruptor. That's why we started the cosmetics campaign -- because we know that women have higher levels of phthalates in their bodies, and we thought that cosmetics might be a reason. But, I think overall, the most surprising thing was to know that there's so much that we don't know about these products. Many, many chemicals are hiding in fragrance. Companies aren't required to list the components of fragrance. Products also are contaminated with carcinogens like 1,4 dioxane and neurotoxins like lead that aren't listed on the label. So it's difficult for consumers to know what we're using.
As a consumer I just want to know what ingredients to avoid, but you say in the book, protecting myself is not as simple as that. Why not?
There are no standards or regulations like there are in, for example, the food industry, where if you buy organic food or food labeled "natural," there's a set of standards and legal definitions that go behind those words. We might like to see those be stronger, but nevertheless, there are meaningful legal definitions. That's not the case in the personal care product industry, where companies often use words like "organic" and "natural" to market products that are anything but. And some of the most toxic products we've found actually had the word "natural" in their name, like natural nail strengtheners that are made with formaldehyde.
Generally speaking, risk assessment involves two factors: a hazard and people's exposure to that hazard. Could you explain some of the unique challenges to assessing risks with cosmetics?
That's a good question. Risk assessment is an extremely oversimplified way of pretending we have enough information to know how much chemicals we can tolerate in our bodies. A risk assessment equation will say, "How hazardous is a chemical, how much are we exposed to it from this one product, and is that harmful?" There's a lot of information left out of that picture: studies that haven't been done to determine impacts on fetuses, the fact that we're exposed to so many of these chemicals in so many places every day, and the fact there have been no -- or very few -- studies about chemical mixtures.
In chapter 2, you say that toxic cosmetics should raise concern for men too, regardless of whether they use any themselves. How so?
Well, men do, first of all, use personal care products. When I ask a group of people what products they've used today, the men will be keeping their hands down and eventually, reluctantly, raising their hands because they're using shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, cologne, lotion.
So it's not just a makeup problem.
No, it's not just a makeup problem. It's all products. And we know that some chemicals in these products are particularly problematic for men. We're all exposed to phthalates, and phthalates interfere with the production of testosterone, and they're linked to health effects like lower sperm counts, birth defects of the penis, testicular tumors.
You've had to struggle with some scary health problems. Tell us about that.
Like many of us, I've had bizarre health problems that nobody can explain: benign lumps in my breasts and thyroid, which is quite common among young women to have thyroid problems. And then also infertility, which is something that's becoming an increasingly common experience for people. And so many of us have heard from our doctors, "Well, we don't know why; we can't tell you why." But I think that's an interesting disconnect that we're looking at how to treat disease, but we're not looking at how to prevent disease.
You admit in the book that you used to be addicted to makeup and so-called personal care products. Do you think that could be related to the health issues you've had?
Well, who knows, and we can never say what caused what and so that's why risk assessment is not a useful tool to -- how do I want to say this -- that's why, in my opinion, we need to get rid of toxins wherever we possibly can in makeup, shampoo and lipstick is obviously a place where they don't need to be. But, yes, I did use a lot of cosmetic products -- 200 chemicals a day just in those products. And I also grew up in a very industrialized neighborhood near one of the largest incinerators in Massachusetts, near oil refineries. And we really didn't talk about these issues at all.
Do you think part of the problem with creating awareness around this issue is that the effects from toxins are often not that immediate? People don't say, Oh, I've been to this toxic site and now I have a rash all over my body.
Right, and that's what we hear from the cosmetics companies when they say, "Well, my product is safe if used as directed, and you can't prove otherwise." Which is true. We can't say that use of X product led to X disease because we're talking about long-term diseases with contributing factors. Doctors usually can't tell us why we got cancer, because it could be due to multiple factors in our pasts. We also know that exposures during critical windows of development -- babies in the womb, even teenagers -- can lead to later-life diseases.
Can you give me an idea of how many chemicals one product can contain? Earlier you said you were exposed to 200 chemicals a day during your youth, but that's not all from one product.
No, I used about 20 products a day. The average woman in the U.S. according to our survey uses 12 products a day with about 180 chemicals. And men use about six products with 80 chemicals combined. But it depends on the product. Some products have dozens of chemicals -- fragrances can have dozens or even hundreds of chemicals that aren't listed on the label. And even fragrance-free products can have a masking fragrance.
Talk a little about the history of the cosmetics industry. When did it come about and why is it so unregulated?
The cosmetics industry has fought really hard to keep itself unregulated for the last 30 years. It was first regulated under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938. That is a 350-page law with about 1.5 pages that address cosmetics. But it didn't give the FDA the power to require testing (cosmetic) products before they go on the market. The FDA can't require follow-up health monitoring; they can't even recall products. Basically, the FDA has to prove in court that a product is harmful before it can take action. There were several attempts to regulate the industry over the years, and the most well-known was in the 1970s with Thomas Eagleton, a senator from Missouri. He proposed that cosmetics should be regulated more like drugs, where there's a rigorous testing protocol that has to happen before products go on the market, but that was shot down and co-opted. What the industry has done is propose voluntary regulations every time a regulatory threat arises. And so the system that we have now is an industry-sponsored and run panel called the Cosmetics Ingredients Review Board, which is in charge of determining the safety of ingredients in cosmetics. We found lots of problems with that panel. They rushed through ingredients quickly, they hadn't looked at most of the ingredients or actually used these products and, most of the time, they find things to be safe. Even when they do make recommendations to restrict or eliminate ingredients, the industry is free to ignore them and sometimes does.
You say in the book that some companies have different formulations of the same products. Some, with harmful toxins removed, go to Europe, and others, with toxins, go to the U.S. Why is that?
Well, it's outrageous, but Europe has much better health protection laws, and they really take a precautionary approach. The European Union has banned 1,100 chemicals from cosmetics that are thought to cause cancer or reproductive harm, and so they take a precautionary approach by saying, "We know these chemicals are hazardous." Nobody argues about that. Instead of arguing about at what level are they safe in products, we need to take them out of the products and figure out how to make products without them. The United States, on the other hand, says, "We need to be able to prove that an ingredient in this product causes harm before we're going to do anything about it. Consequently, there are lots of known toxins in consumer products. It's not just cosmetics. Another example is formaldehyde in kitchen cabinets -- perfectly legal in the United States. You can buy kitchen cabinets, and they're wafting the carcinogen formaldehyde into your kitchen. You can't sell those cabinets in Europe, in Japan, even in China.
Is it really expensive for companies to reformulate their products to remove toxic chemicals?
It's not expensive to reformulate; many companies have already done it because they had to do it if they want to sell in the European market.
When did you begin working on cosmetic issues? How has the industry changed since then? What's the future outlook?
Well, we started the cosmetics campaign in 2002, when we were concer
ned about phthalates and found out they were in the majority of cosmetic products. At that time, we started to contact companies to try to have a dialogue with them about the chemicals they were using. ... Overall, I would say the mainstream companies have been incredibly resistant to any kind of change, but we have seen a big change in some products in the last few years. Because Europe banned phthalates, we were able to use that to pressure companies to remove phthalates from some U.S. products, particularly nail products. So we've seen a major shift in the formulation of nail products in the last few years because of the campaign (formaldehyde, toluene, and dibutyl phthalates have been removed from most nail products). So, it's possible that companies can change. They are changing, but not enough and not fast enough.
One thing that struck me about this book is that it's not just a story about cosmetic hazards. It's a story about activism. What was the thinking behind that?
Well, activism is fun, first of all. I think it's the best job in the world. And the inspiring stories from so many people from moms to former models who are speaking out, to the teenagers who have lobbied in Sacramento to get bills passed and now realize they have a political voice that they want to keep using, to nurses who have come together to pressure companies to pass protective policies. I think that's all so positive, and I think that people are coming together in ways that we haven't before.
What practical advice can you give to people wanting to clean up their cosmetics bags?
My best advice is that simpler is better. Really, fewer ingredients, fewer products. For instance, hair color and bubble bath are two things that I've given up. But there are a lot good (nontoxic) products out there on the market, and I would say start by switching out the ones that you use the most frequently like shampoo and deodorant that we're putting by our breast tissue, experiment with different kinds of natural products and just make changes as you can. You can also use the skin deep database to research your products. ... The onus at this point is on consumers to do our own research.
Anything else you'd like to add?
I think it's really important, especially for women in this culture, to recognize that the beauty industry is all about profit and bottom-line thinking. It's not concerned about our health issues. It is not concerned with telling the truth about its products.
To learn more and take action, visit www.safecosmetics.org. To find out what toxins are in your personal care products, go to www.cosmeticdatabase.org.
Take Care
Jo
For 100% Organic Skin & Personal care
www.bayview.mionegroup.com
By Heather Gehlert, AlterNet. Posted October 25, 2007.
Carcinogens in cosmetics? Petrochemicals in perfume? If only this were an urban legend. Unfortunately, it's a toxic reality, and it's showing up in our bodies.
In 2004, scientists found pesticides in the blood of newborn babies. A year later, researchers discovered perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel, in human breast milk. Today, people are testing positive for a litany of hazardous substances from flame retardants to phthalates to lead.
In her new book, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, Stacy Malkan exposes the toxic chemicals that lurk, often unlabeled, in the personal care products that millions of American women, men and children use every day.
AlterNet spoke with Malkan about these toxins and her five-year effort with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to get the beauty industry to remove them from its products.
Heather Gehlert: There are so many environmental issues you could've written a book about. Why cosmetics?
Stacy Malkan: I think cosmetics is something that we're all intimately connected to. They're products that we use every day, and so I think it's a good first place to start asking questions. What kinds of products are we bringing into our homes? What kinds of companies are we giving our money to?
It has something pretty interesting in common with global warming too.
It does. I think of it as global poisoning. I think that the ubiquitous contamination of the human species with toxic chemicals is a symptom of the same problem (as global warming), which is an economy that's based on outdated technologies of petrochemicals -- petroleum. So many of the products we're applying to our faces and putting in our hair come from oil. They're byproducts of oil.
Many cosmetic products on the market right now claim they are pure, gentle, clean and healthy. But, as you reveal in this book, they're far from it. Toxic chemicals in these products are showing up in people. What were some of the most surprising toxins you discovered in cosmetics?
Lead in lipstick was pretty surprising. We (the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics) just released that report last week. Many personal care products have phthalates, which is a plasticizer and hormone disruptor. That's why we started the cosmetics campaign -- because we know that women have higher levels of phthalates in their bodies, and we thought that cosmetics might be a reason. But, I think overall, the most surprising thing was to know that there's so much that we don't know about these products. Many, many chemicals are hiding in fragrance. Companies aren't required to list the components of fragrance. Products also are contaminated with carcinogens like 1,4 dioxane and neurotoxins like lead that aren't listed on the label. So it's difficult for consumers to know what we're using.
As a consumer I just want to know what ingredients to avoid, but you say in the book, protecting myself is not as simple as that. Why not?
There are no standards or regulations like there are in, for example, the food industry, where if you buy organic food or food labeled "natural," there's a set of standards and legal definitions that go behind those words. We might like to see those be stronger, but nevertheless, there are meaningful legal definitions. That's not the case in the personal care product industry, where companies often use words like "organic" and "natural" to market products that are anything but. And some of the most toxic products we've found actually had the word "natural" in their name, like natural nail strengtheners that are made with formaldehyde.
Generally speaking, risk assessment involves two factors: a hazard and people's exposure to that hazard. Could you explain some of the unique challenges to assessing risks with cosmetics?
That's a good question. Risk assessment is an extremely oversimplified way of pretending we have enough information to know how much chemicals we can tolerate in our bodies. A risk assessment equation will say, "How hazardous is a chemical, how much are we exposed to it from this one product, and is that harmful?" There's a lot of information left out of that picture: studies that haven't been done to determine impacts on fetuses, the fact that we're exposed to so many of these chemicals in so many places every day, and the fact there have been no -- or very few -- studies about chemical mixtures.
In chapter 2, you say that toxic cosmetics should raise concern for men too, regardless of whether they use any themselves. How so?
Well, men do, first of all, use personal care products. When I ask a group of people what products they've used today, the men will be keeping their hands down and eventually, reluctantly, raising their hands because they're using shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, cologne, lotion.
So it's not just a makeup problem.
No, it's not just a makeup problem. It's all products. And we know that some chemicals in these products are particularly problematic for men. We're all exposed to phthalates, and phthalates interfere with the production of testosterone, and they're linked to health effects like lower sperm counts, birth defects of the penis, testicular tumors.
You've had to struggle with some scary health problems. Tell us about that.
Like many of us, I've had bizarre health problems that nobody can explain: benign lumps in my breasts and thyroid, which is quite common among young women to have thyroid problems. And then also infertility, which is something that's becoming an increasingly common experience for people. And so many of us have heard from our doctors, "Well, we don't know why; we can't tell you why." But I think that's an interesting disconnect that we're looking at how to treat disease, but we're not looking at how to prevent disease.
You admit in the book that you used to be addicted to makeup and so-called personal care products. Do you think that could be related to the health issues you've had?
Well, who knows, and we can never say what caused what and so that's why risk assessment is not a useful tool to -- how do I want to say this -- that's why, in my opinion, we need to get rid of toxins wherever we possibly can in makeup, shampoo and lipstick is obviously a place where they don't need to be. But, yes, I did use a lot of cosmetic products -- 200 chemicals a day just in those products. And I also grew up in a very industrialized neighborhood near one of the largest incinerators in Massachusetts, near oil refineries. And we really didn't talk about these issues at all.
Do you think part of the problem with creating awareness around this issue is that the effects from toxins are often not that immediate? People don't say, Oh, I've been to this toxic site and now I have a rash all over my body.
Right, and that's what we hear from the cosmetics companies when they say, "Well, my product is safe if used as directed, and you can't prove otherwise." Which is true. We can't say that use of X product led to X disease because we're talking about long-term diseases with contributing factors. Doctors usually can't tell us why we got cancer, because it could be due to multiple factors in our pasts. We also know that exposures during critical windows of development -- babies in the womb, even teenagers -- can lead to later-life diseases.
Can you give me an idea of how many chemicals one product can contain? Earlier you said you were exposed to 200 chemicals a day during your youth, but that's not all from one product.
No, I used about 20 products a day. The average woman in the U.S. according to our survey uses 12 products a day with about 180 chemicals. And men use about six products with 80 chemicals combined. But it depends on the product. Some products have dozens of chemicals -- fragrances can have dozens or even hundreds of chemicals that aren't listed on the label. And even fragrance-free products can have a masking fragrance.
Talk a little about the history of the cosmetics industry. When did it come about and why is it so unregulated?
The cosmetics industry has fought really hard to keep itself unregulated for the last 30 years. It was first regulated under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938. That is a 350-page law with about 1.5 pages that address cosmetics. But it didn't give the FDA the power to require testing (cosmetic) products before they go on the market. The FDA can't require follow-up health monitoring; they can't even recall products. Basically, the FDA has to prove in court that a product is harmful before it can take action. There were several attempts to regulate the industry over the years, and the most well-known was in the 1970s with Thomas Eagleton, a senator from Missouri. He proposed that cosmetics should be regulated more like drugs, where there's a rigorous testing protocol that has to happen before products go on the market, but that was shot down and co-opted. What the industry has done is propose voluntary regulations every time a regulatory threat arises. And so the system that we have now is an industry-sponsored and run panel called the Cosmetics Ingredients Review Board, which is in charge of determining the safety of ingredients in cosmetics. We found lots of problems with that panel. They rushed through ingredients quickly, they hadn't looked at most of the ingredients or actually used these products and, most of the time, they find things to be safe. Even when they do make recommendations to restrict or eliminate ingredients, the industry is free to ignore them and sometimes does.
You say in the book that some companies have different formulations of the same products. Some, with harmful toxins removed, go to Europe, and others, with toxins, go to the U.S. Why is that?
Well, it's outrageous, but Europe has much better health protection laws, and they really take a precautionary approach. The European Union has banned 1,100 chemicals from cosmetics that are thought to cause cancer or reproductive harm, and so they take a precautionary approach by saying, "We know these chemicals are hazardous." Nobody argues about that. Instead of arguing about at what level are they safe in products, we need to take them out of the products and figure out how to make products without them. The United States, on the other hand, says, "We need to be able to prove that an ingredient in this product causes harm before we're going to do anything about it. Consequently, there are lots of known toxins in consumer products. It's not just cosmetics. Another example is formaldehyde in kitchen cabinets -- perfectly legal in the United States. You can buy kitchen cabinets, and they're wafting the carcinogen formaldehyde into your kitchen. You can't sell those cabinets in Europe, in Japan, even in China.
Is it really expensive for companies to reformulate their products to remove toxic chemicals?
It's not expensive to reformulate; many companies have already done it because they had to do it if they want to sell in the European market.
When did you begin working on cosmetic issues? How has the industry changed since then? What's the future outlook?
Well, we started the cosmetics campaign in 2002, when we were concer
ned about phthalates and found out they were in the majority of cosmetic products. At that time, we started to contact companies to try to have a dialogue with them about the chemicals they were using. ... Overall, I would say the mainstream companies have been incredibly resistant to any kind of change, but we have seen a big change in some products in the last few years. Because Europe banned phthalates, we were able to use that to pressure companies to remove phthalates from some U.S. products, particularly nail products. So we've seen a major shift in the formulation of nail products in the last few years because of the campaign (formaldehyde, toluene, and dibutyl phthalates have been removed from most nail products). So, it's possible that companies can change. They are changing, but not enough and not fast enough.
One thing that struck me about this book is that it's not just a story about cosmetic hazards. It's a story about activism. What was the thinking behind that?
Well, activism is fun, first of all. I think it's the best job in the world. And the inspiring stories from so many people from moms to former models who are speaking out, to the teenagers who have lobbied in Sacramento to get bills passed and now realize they have a political voice that they want to keep using, to nurses who have come together to pressure companies to pass protective policies. I think that's all so positive, and I think that people are coming together in ways that we haven't before.
What practical advice can you give to people wanting to clean up their cosmetics bags?
My best advice is that simpler is better. Really, fewer ingredients, fewer products. For instance, hair color and bubble bath are two things that I've given up. But there are a lot good (nontoxic) products out there on the market, and I would say start by switching out the ones that you use the most frequently like shampoo and deodorant that we're putting by our breast tissue, experiment with different kinds of natural products and just make changes as you can. You can also use the skin deep database to research your products. ... The onus at this point is on consumers to do our own research.
Anything else you'd like to add?
I think it's really important, especially for women in this culture, to recognize that the beauty industry is all about profit and bottom-line thinking. It's not concerned about our health issues. It is not concerned with telling the truth about its products.
To learn more and take action, visit www.safecosmetics.org. To find out what toxins are in your personal care products, go to www.cosmeticdatabase.org.
Take Care
Jo
For 100% Organic Skin & Personal care
www.bayview.mionegroup.com
EPA APPROVES PESTICIDE KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER & MISCARRIAGES
On October 5, the EPA approved a new chemical fumigant for use onstrawberries and other food crops across the U.S. The pesticide,methyl iodide, vaporizes quickly, causing it to drift far distances.Although the state of California has categorized it as cancer causing,and the EPA admits it causes thyroid tumors, the Bush Administrationhas been advocating approval of the fumigant for the better part oftwo years. In a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson onSeptember 25, the nation's leading chemists asked EPA not to approvemethyl iodide without further scientific review. The chemical has beenused to induce cancer in laboratory experiments and causesneurological and thyroid problems, as well as miscarriages in studieswith laboratory animals. Farmworkers, families, rural workers, and thefood supply will now be subjected to exposure to the carcinogen unlessthe EPA revokes the approval immediately.
Please take action now: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7580.cfm
Take Care
Jo
http://www.bayview.mionegroup.com
On October 5, the EPA approved a new chemical fumigant for use onstrawberries and other food crops across the U.S. The pesticide,methyl iodide, vaporizes quickly, causing it to drift far distances.Although the state of California has categorized it as cancer causing,and the EPA admits it causes thyroid tumors, the Bush Administrationhas been advocating approval of the fumigant for the better part oftwo years. In a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson onSeptember 25, the nation's leading chemists asked EPA not to approvemethyl iodide without further scientific review. The chemical has beenused to induce cancer in laboratory experiments and causesneurological and thyroid problems, as well as miscarriages in studieswith laboratory animals. Farmworkers, families, rural workers, and thefood supply will now be subjected to exposure to the carcinogen unlessthe EPA revokes the approval immediately.
Please take action now: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7580.cfm
Take Care
Jo
http://www.bayview.mionegroup.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
