As toxicologists see it, our chemical world is neither as dangerous as portrayed by the mainstream media and environmental groups, nor as safe as the American Chemistry Council and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) would have us believe.

That’s according to a survey of 937 members of the Society of Toxicology in early 2009. The survey, released Thursday, was administered by Harris Interactive and conducted by the nonprofit Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University.

“This survey suggests that the public doesn’t get a full and balanced picture of chemical risk,” said Dr. Robert Lichter, the survey director.

While the toxicologists surveyed believed that certain chemicals portrayed as dangerous in media stories actually pose little risk — such as those used in Teflon and the Bisphenol A used in plastic – more than half of them said they believed that pesticides pose a “significant health risk” and that chemicals cause hormonal disruptions in humans.

Distortions occur when the media pay too much attention to individual cases and also to the agenda set by environmental groups, according to the survey findings. More than 90 percent said they felt media coverage of chemical-related issues lacked balance and failed to distinguish good studies from bad studies and also to explain that “the dose makes the poison” (that chemicals that are dangerous in high doses can be safe in small doses).

They also said that WebMD and Wikipedia offered more balanced coverage than more established media outlets.

A majority of toxicologists felt that most government agencies do a better job than the media, environmental groups or trade associations of accurately portraying chemical risks, though they rated the Environmental Protection Agency (40 % ) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (47%) lower.

The findings:

When asked to agree or disagree with statements about chemical safety and regulation:

• 26% believe cosmetics pose a significant health risk
• 33% believe food additives pose a significant health risk
• 55% believe pesticides pose a significant health risk
• 53% believe chemicals cause endocrine disruption
• Only 10% believe organic or “natural” products are inherently safer
• Only 6% believe that any exposure to a harmful chemical is unacceptable
• 69% say chemicals do not need to be regulated according to the precautionary principle
• Only 23% say the U.S. regulatory system is inferior to Europe’s
• 54% say U.S. regulators are not doing a good job explaining chemical risks

Despite recent controversies in the news over the safety of commonly used chemicals, few toxicologists believe they pose a high health risk:

• 3% see Teflon as having a high degree of risk
• 3% see genetically modified organisms as high risk
• 9% see Bisphenol A, a component of many plastics, as high risk
• 11% see phthalates, which make vinyl flexible, as high risk
• 12% see high fructose corn syrup, used in soft drinks, as high risk

The toxicologists overwhelmingly say that environmental activist groups overstate the health risks of chemicals. But they also say industry groups underplay the risks:

• 96% say Greenpeace overstates the health risks of chemicals
• 80% say the Environmental Defense Fund overstates chemical risks
• 79% say the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Center for Science in the Public Interest overstate the risks
• 57% say the American Chemistry Council understates chemical risks
• 60% say the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) understates chemical risks
• In contrast, majorities say that most U.S. governmental agencies accurately portray risk, with only the EPA (40%) and the CPSC (47%) falling below a majority

The study has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points, according to Harris Interactive, a survey research firm.

Today we’re all about fragrances. I’ve sampled some lovely new perfumes from the Demeter Fragrance Library, a homegrown company that has long been making mostly natural colognes and is now dipping into what it hopes will be a strong market for natural perfumes. It’s a pricier proposition and the company managers believe they’ve teased the numbers enough to bring natural scents to mainstream consumers.

These new Vintage Naturals are surprisingly good smelling stuff — you really can whiff the difference. With these, a rose is a rose; lavender is lavender. Each of the five scents has a true high note composed by Mother Nature, blended with undertones, also all from natural essential oils. Mimosa is accompanied by Ylang Ylang; Patchouli is spiced with orange and cardamom, and Lavender is leavened with orange, lemon and galbanum. They’re earthy, but feminine (and available this month at Sephora and online at Demeter).

The story is under our Food/Health and Shop sections. But let me tell you why I was excited to hear about these perfumes originally: They don’t contain phthalates. Phthalates are chemical compounds that are used as stabilizing agents in hundreds of beauty products and plastics, and are typically not on the label, but hidden under terms like “parfum” or “synthetic fragrance.” So we don’t really know which of our beauty products contains phthalates,  which are endocrine disruptors that have been found to interfere with male development in test animals, and also have been linked, by some studies, to certain cancers. (For more info see the Environmental Working Group website.)

Vintage Naturals joins other natural and organic beauty products that are swimming against the chemical tide by first, disclosing all their ingredients, and secondly, tossing out unnecessary additives, like phthalates that carry health risks. (Vintages Naturals relies on corn-derived alcohol, which serves as a sufficient preservative to maintain the fragrance, says Demeter CEO Mark Crames.)

I might not be able to pronounce phthalates (fay-lates, fye-lates, fee-lates, depending on who you’re talking with) and I can’t pronounce them definitively dangerous to adults. But I can read the warnings and celebrate another new product that shows less can be more in our inadvertent chemical diet.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

If you’ve been looking for a fragrance that’s true to nature’s aromas and also free of toxic phthalates and preservatives and dyes, get ready for an April treat.

Demeter Fragrance Library of New York is debuting a line of eau de parfums at Sephora this month called Vintage Naturals that aims to deliver quality natural fragrances at an affordable price.

If you’ve ever wondered why wonderful natural fragrances are so hard to find, or afford, listen to Demeter’s CEO Mark Crames.

Crames says that capturing and bottling Mother Nature’s olfactory achievements has long been a challenge for beauty product companies because the requisite raw material — rose petals, lavender buds, mimosa blooms – is pricey, plain and simple. So the perfume formulations that use natural oils have, for the most part, ended up on niche shelves at Neiman’s, Bergdorf’s, and other luxury stores, retailing for hundreds of dollars a dollop.

The prices are limiting. The natural palette is also limited. But the difference between a natural scent and the synthetic that mimics it “will just blow you away,” Crames says. (Having sampled Rosebush and Mimosa, we have to agree. While words cannot adequately describe smells, we would venture to say that these are crisp, full-bodied scents with impressive longevity.)

With the Vintage Naturals line, Demeter is trying to break the price barriers that have kept “naturals’ on a shelf out of reach of the mainstream market, where Crames believes there’s a demand for natural products. The company, whose existing line of colognes has been sold at Whole Foods Markets, is producing the new line at a narrower margin and has chosen ingredients carefully to keep the price at an accessible point ($68 for 1.7 oz.).

Aside from price, natural scents have encountered other market barriers. Big manufacturers have shied away because naturally derived aromas vary with the harvest and are difficult to replicate exactly from year to year. Paris Hilton’s and Calvin Klein’s signature scents must, after all, remain the same year in and year out to meet consumer expectations.

But in considering this “problem” Demeter, which already makes dozens of mostly natural colognes, asked a question that hadn’t been much asked before: Couldn’t a natural scent’s changeability be part of its charm?

The answer to that question became Demeter’s inspiration and five Vintage Naturals parfums were created with the idea that they, like fine wines, would vary a bit from year to year. The new scents, each organized around a single floral note, are proudly branded with their “vintage”: Patchouli 2009, Mimosa 2009, Rosebush 2009, Geranium 2009 and Lavender 2009 and sold in limited edition issues of 25,000 pieces each.

These fragrances will change over time. Over hours. Throughout the day. And year to year.

“That’s part of the wonderful experience that a natural gives you, it goes through all those permutations,” Crames said.

The new line will be available in Sephora stores starting on April 16, with more stores getting the fragrances in the fall. It is also available online at Demeter’s website.

Demeter, founded in 1996 (and yes named after the Greek Goddess), has a history of turning conventional wisdom upside down. At its factory in Sunbury, Pennsylvania it produces more than 250 fragrances, most of them single note colognes that march to their own drummers, fulfilling the founders’ ambitions to make colognes that “are about you, as opposed to most designer purchases that are about aspirations,” says Crames, who owns the company with his wife, Debra Janke, and other partners. “So choosing a Demeter scent is about the memories that a scent evokes for you, and that’s about personal choice.”

The Demeter library takes “personal choice” seriously offering up a quirky list of scents like Jolly Rancher Smooth Watermelon; Tootsie Roll; White Russian, and Egg Nog, both from the Happy Hour collection; Apple Pie (of course); Freesia; Earthworm (for gardeners?) and even Laundromat – definitely not a Paris Hilton hangout, but someone’s fond memory, somewhere.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

That old saw “Beauty at all costs” got flipped on its perfectly coiffed head at a salon convention in Chicago where some 60,000 beauty professionals gathered over the weekend at America’s Beauty Show. There, some organizers took a moment to ask, “Beauty at what cost?”

The question broadly encompassed the economic concerns facing salon workers, how to improve environmental sustainability, and also reduce the environmental risks of acute and chronic exposure to the chemicals in beauty products.

These concerns are still be working their way to the top of the industry, but the whiff of trouble is evident in any busy salon, where hairspray particles aggravate the nose and the pungent scents of bleaches and dyes can slice through the indoor atmosphere like chlorine at a chemical spill — at least on Saturdays.

In connection with the Chicago show, which ends today, Dr. Samuel Epstein, professor emeritus of Environmental & Occupational Medicine
at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, released a statement about these often smelly, but unvetted, “hidden dangers” wafting about most beauty establishments and coming home on our hair and in our lungs.

His list of concerns rivals the list of products stocked by your average hairdresser:

• Bulk containers that dispense products with the label no longer present, leaving practitioners and clients in the dark about ingredients

• Poor ventilation, especially in smaller salons; a serious concern for salon workers

• Hairspray aerosols that can settle into the lungs and may contain a carcinogen, vinyl chloride, a propellant linked to liver cancer

• Hair dyes, especially those containing phenylenediamines which have been shown to cause cancer

• Phthalates, compounds typically used as preservatives in scented products and known to be endocrine disruptors, linked to breast cancer and the hormonal health effects, especially on boys

In a press statement, Dr. Epstein warned that hair dyes pose special concerns. “About 35 percent of women and 10 percent of men are regularly exposed to these dyes in salons or by personal use,” he said in a statement. “Black and dark brown permanent and semi-permanent dyes contain carcinogens, particularly those known as phenylenediamines. These have been shown to cause cancers, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, and multiple myeloma, besides breast and bladder cancers.”

Europe has banned these types of dyes, but in the U.S. most hairdressers and clients remain blithely unaware of their potential dangers, he said.

The remedy to this toxic roulette? Epstein, who also is head of the Chicago-based Cancer Prevention Coalition, is calling for better ventilation of salons and also for a ban on pressurized sprays.

He also says that the government-produced Material Safety Data Sheets (known as MSDS reports) should be made available and kept on site at salons so employees can take precautions.

And for those of us who serve as client guinea pigs in the pursuit of a finished veneer – there’s Epstein’s new book (March 2009): Toxic Beauty: How Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Endanger Your Health…and What you Can Do About It.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Beauty and the Beastly Dangers

• Some beauty products pose significant dangers
• Color me natural: The search for good organic cosmetics
• Sugar and spice and toxins: teen girls exposed to chemicals in beauty products
• Consider natural beauty products and avoid hidden toxins
• Do ‘natural’ and ‘hair color’ ever go together?

See more in Personal Care/Medicine

Now you can follow us on Twitter

Last week was the start date of a ban, signed last summer by President George Bush, that targets the use of six phthalates in products made for children. Three of the phthalates are permanently forbidden, three are subject to later study, as noted here.

The chemicals, which are added to plastics to make them softer, have been linked to hormone malfunctions and reproductive effects, particularly in boys.  Because the substances’ softening quality makes it particularly likely that objects containing them will be chewed by young children, lawmakers have found risks compelling enough to institute the ban despite objections from the plastics industry. (The phthalate ban, which followed a previous ban applicable just in California, only applies to goods manufactured for use by children, which represents less than 5% of the reportedly $1.4 billion U.S. business.)

But those who started worrying about chewable plastics during the phthalate controversy might want to stay skeptical.

This notice from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission seems to tacitly acknowledge worries about implementation and enforcement of the rule. But equally worrisome is the question of what substances are performing the plastic-softening role now that these phthalates have been outlawed.

In this radio story for National Public Radio, journalist Sarah Varney takes a Mom’s-eye approach to the issue. She gets a few answers, but even the clout of NPR can’t get manufacturers to divulge trade secrets about their wares’ current chemical makeup — much less to reveal whether the new substances are any safer than the old ones.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

It’s the holiday season, and along with the many joys that are associated with this fun time of year – cooking, baking, parties with friends and family – comes a lurking environmental problem: Toxic chemicals in everyday plastics. Plastics that seem to be everywhere in our holiday midst — in the packaging of toys, the toys themselves, our food packaging, in our holiday leftover storage containers, in plastic wrap, in water bottles — and the list goes on.

Many valid health concerns have been raised about poisonous chemicals present in our everyday plastics, and the headlines about these toxins leaching into our food are frightening. A recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation found, for instance, that food containers labeled as “microwave safe” leached BPA when heated. (See our report, “BPA turns up in ‘microwave safe’ products“.)

Just this fall, a scientific advisory panel set up specifically to review the Food and Drug Administration’s assessment of Bisphenol A (BPA), a plastic additive, concluded that the agency had ignored scientific evidence and used flawed methods when determining that it was safe.

The FDA had long said that the plastic, widely used in making clear plastic polycarbonate baby bottles and in the epoxy lining of aluminum food cans, was not harmful to the public. But the panel of scientists from government and academic circles concluded that the FDA did not take into consideration the many studies that have linked the plastic to prostate cancer, diabetes and other major health problems, according to a Washington Post report.

With headlines like these, no doubt many people are mistrustful about plastics and their labeling. The findings raise many questions: Are the plastic containers that our food comes in leaching chemicals into our systems as they are frozen or cooked? What about storage containers being dishwasher and microwave safe; can they be heated up at all? And when I’m ready to toss plastics, where do they go? Do they get recycled?

These questions are legitimate. But slowdown. No need to panic. There are ways to decode the current numbering system used to label plastics, and experts with advice on how to safely use plastics.

Look for BPA-free

“The measured amounts of chemicals found in humans derived from plastics is found to be well below levels considered to be harmful,” says Steve Russell, the Managing Director of the Plastics Division of The American Chemistry Council. “Evidence shows it (chemicals in plastics) to be safe, but, should government change their stance, then we make changes and comply.”

The American Chemistry Council, founded in 1872, represents the many companies that make plastic products. The ACC’s primary concern is to research and steer initiatives that serve communities and customers, and an extensive list of member companies follow their guidelines and also meet federal regulations.

Many of these companies now offer BPA-free products and provide information on what toxins (if any) are in their plastics.

Rubbermaid and Tupperware, two popular plastics manufacturers in the market, are both a part of the American Chemistry Council.

Rubbermaid provides extensive listings of their products that contain BPA, as well as lists of those that are BPA-free, so buyers can make their own decisions. (The number of BPA-free products, like those pictured, left, exceed those with BPA. The bowls pictured at the top of the story contain BPA.)

Tupperware has taken an aggressive response to market concerns about BPA and also produced a line of BPA-Free products that are listed on their site.

Still, it wasn’t the ACC that sounded the alarm about BPA and brought about all this transparency, but a consortium of health watch groups. Early in 2008, the Environmental Health Fund called for a moratorium on using the plastic in baby products after studies showed that heating polycarbonate plastic caused it to release BPA into the food or liquid being contained. As reported in US News & World Report, BPA can affect the delicate hormonal systems of developing babies and children, with studies linking it to the feminization of boys and a potential higher risk of breast cancer for girls.

After the Environmental Working Group released research on toxins in beauty products showing that teen girls could be especially vulnerable (see our blog), we took a closer look at alternative beauty supplies. These products opt for botanicals and other natural and organic ingredients over the suspect synthetic chemicals — phthalates, parabens and made-made fragrances — that can lurk in your body butter and play games with your hormone or immune system.

The happy news: Natural products are gaining ground in stores. We found everything listed below at Main Street outlets like Target, Walgreens, Ulta, Drugstore.com, Amazon.com., and Whole Foods. And the labels are getting quite explicit, many note when they’re paraben- and phthalate-free. While we can’t scientifically endorse the samplings below, we can say we have used most of them and found them to be effective — and as pampering and great-smelling — as many of their conventional cousins.

Ready to transition to more natural stuff? Here are some ideas to get you started:

• Jason brand shampoos and conditioners. This company was founded in 1959) giving the brand solid cred with natural product users. Jason’s scented hair products derive their fragrance from natural extracts. Want, or need, to skip the fragrance? Jason’s Fragrance Free Daily Shampoo and Conditioner are fresh-smelling (probably the aloe vera), certified organic and can each be had for under $10 for a 16 oz. bottle. Want a little more smell-good in the luscious locks? Jason’s offers some naturally scented shampoos.

• Desert Essence Organics is another botanically infused line of body care goods with some strong contenders for your hair care. This relatively new line is owned by the 30-year-old company (Avalon Organics) that claims to have brought Tea Tree Oil products to the United States. The environmentally minded company pledges that the natural ingredients they use support sustainability around the world. We like the awesome smell of the Red Raspberry Shampoo and Conditioner, scented with raspberry leaf extract. Retail price: $8.99 per 8 oz. tube.

• Yes to Carrots facial moisturizer. We’ve only sampled this, but it looks promising, feels great and is popping up on shelves everywhere. The moisturizers come in three varieties aimed at dry, normal and oil skin: Yes To Carrots with carrot seed oil and carrot juice; Yes To Tomatoes with, yeah, you guessed it, and Yes To Cucumbers. All three have vitamins and antioxidants. Yes to That.

• Alba creams and moisturizers, such as the Aloe & Green Tea Moisturizer. This slinky light cream works for all skin types and all ages. Its perfect for teens needing a little relief from sun exposure or a daily skin protector. It comes with green tea to fight free radicals. You can feel good about Alba’s environmental attitude, which extends to how it runs its solar-powered shop, by recycling paper, planting trees and carbon counting. As for what’s inside the stuff, Alba follows the EU Safe Cosmetics guidelines, which are more stringent than those in the U.S., and has been transitioning over to become paraben-free this year.

• Burt’s Bees Replenishing Lip Balm. Still a leader in its field after a couple decades, Burt’s keeps churning out new stuff and improving standbys, like their lip balms, tints and glosses. We like the lip balms made with honey, especially the one with Pomegrante Oil. It’s so smooth and not greasy. Lips seeking color will find it in Burt’s lip shimmers. Veteran (if not beautifically named) Burt’s also features a guide to buying natural products on its website. Their Herbal Blemish Stick with tea tree leaf oil is worth a look. We’re not absolutely sure it works as well as its conventional competitors, but we think it comes close. Our sales helper at Ulta says it flies off the shelf (testament either to teen-age blemish angst or it’s effectiveness?). The label shows that it contains Willowbark, a natural salicylic acid.

We’ll save war paint for another day. There are some problematic ingredients, like aluminum, in items that involve colorants, though they’re not the highest toxicity. We don’t want to travel too far into toxic-land on this one trip.

In the meantime, you can check out how your mascara, eyeliner, blush and foundation measures up by checking the toxicity scale on EWG’s Skin Deep.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

My tweener daughter has often patiently explained to me that there are “girly girls” and “Tom Boys” and variations in between. I guess she figures that in the century when I grew up that wasn’t the case, or possibly that my girlhood is so far gone, it can’t even be imagined! I need to be brought up to speed.

As her tutorial goes, “girly girls” need to dress girlishly and primp with lip gloss, cologne and smell-nice body lotions. Tom Boys, not so much.

As her mom, I want her to be a Shiny Happy Female, but my green side ends up questioning all this girlish goop-la.

Scientists have been sounding alarms about suspicious ingredients in shampoo, lotions and cosmetics for many years and being an obsessive label reader, I’ve tended to agree that it might be worthwhile to deconstruct these labels with their gazillion unpronounceable preservatives, sudsing agents, flavorings and fragrances.

Can a product containing PPG-2 hydroxyethlcoco/isostearmide be completely safe? Not being a chemist, I really don’t know, and I imagine that’s where a lot of us land: wary of this onslaught of chemicals, but without sufficient knowledge to sort it out.

The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based watchdog organization concerned with toxins in our everyday lives, can help. You can gather info on the products you use by consulting the EWG database Skin Deep. The online tool – which includes some 25,000 products — can show you whether your body lotion, mascara or hair conditioner is rated as low, medium or high toxicity. It identifies the chemicals that are noxious; tells how they are potentially dangerous (carcinogen vs. skin irritant, say) and shows the level of research that’s been done.

Recently, the EWG took another stab at raising public awareness about toxins in personal products, conducting a unique study of teen girls in which researchers found 16 harmful chemicals, many traceable to beauty products, in the urine and blood samples of 20 volunteers, ages 14-20.

Chemist and EWG researcher Rebecca Sutton, who crafted the study, obligingly identified some of the key questionable ingredients to watch for:

Triclosan – This anti-microbial has been melded into a vast array of consumer goods. It’s common in “anti-bacterial” hand soaps, but also turns up in deodorants, acne washes, toothpaste, and in hard goods like shower curtains and pillows marketed as “anti-microbial.”

According to Sutton, manufacturers are doing us no great favors with this chemical, which has been associated with a higher risk of thyroid problems in humans, is a suspected hormone disrupter (especially of concern to growing kids) and is not environmentally friendly, persisting in groundwater. Triclosan also has been accused of fostering antibiotic-resistance in germs. In any event, studies with hand soaps show that Triclosan works no better than regular soap and water to fight germs, says Dr. Sutton (among others).

Phthalates – These chemicals, which are used as plasticizers (to make items more flexible) and as preservatives, are ominously present in many beauty products, concealed by the term “fragrance,” and not required to be disclosed on labels, Sutton says. They are used to make the fragrance in the product last longer, or absorb better, on the skin.

“Because these products are hidden by the term ‘fragrance’ (on the label), you don’t even know what you’re getting…And they are dangerous,” Dr. Sutton said.

One analysis of fragrances and scented body care products found that phthalates were present, but not listed, in 75 percent of the items tested.

Phthalates also are found in nail polishes containing dibutyl phthalate, used as an anti-chipping additive and in bendable plastic baby toys, prompting California to ban their use in plastic products starting in 2009.

Studies have found that phthalates interfere with the reproductive and endocrine systems and they’ve been implicated in diabetes and infertility. For more info see the EWG posting Cosmetic Chemicals of Concern.

The American Chemistry Council, the trade group representing manufacturers, disputes claims that phthalates pose any danger, even in baby toys, noting in a recent release that they are “among the most thoroughly studied products in the world, and have been reviewed by multiple regulatory bodies in the U.S. and overseas.

Musks – These synthetic scents added to personal care products – and household items like laundry detergent, also may act as endocrine disruptors. Like phthalates, they are not listed separately on items, but fall under the umbrella term “fragrance.”

Musks can build up in the body and may impair one’s defenses to toxins. Some studies have linked these synthetic fragrance additives to cancer development. “Nitromusks” have been banned by the European Union because of health concerns. Experts advise choosing fragrance-free products and avoid using air fresheners to minimize the risk, which is still under study.

Parabens – You’ve probably heard of parabens, preservatives that turn up in an array of body care products – moisturizers, lotions, shampoos and sunscreens. They can be a skin irritant, but of more concern is their tendency to mimic estrogen, causing researchers to look into their possible role in breast cancer and reproductive problems. Parabens are regulated as food additives, but not in cosmetics, by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration.

Fortunately, the problems posed by these chemicals, have some ready solutions.

Dr. Sutton, who found that the teen girls in her study used an average of 17 beauty products compared with the 12 used by adult women, advises young girls is to simply cut down on the number of beauty items in their feminine arsenal.

Girls (and guys for that matter) also can switch to alternative products that avoid the use of phthalates, parabens and Triclosan. Store shelves are becoming stocked with an array of natural, plant-based products that eschew these synthetic additives. Many proclaim on their labels that they are free of parabens and phthalates. Some eschew the use of sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium laureth sulfate, cleansing/sudsing agent used in industrial cleaning products but which can irritate the skin, according to some research.

What’s more, this niche market is growing. Many of these natural products are coming down in price and are more widely distributed than ever. We found several botanically scented, chemical-free (or nearly chemical free) choices at our local health food market, but also at Target, Ulta and Drugstore.com. For our next blog we’ll present a grab bag of natural products (can you say Yes to Carrots?) that we put to the home test, showing you a sampling of those we found to be sweet-smelling, affordable and effective.

Some not so pretty news out about cosmetics this week shows that teen girls tested for chemical exposure from beauty products had become human repositories of parabens, phthalates, triclosan and musks.

These chemicals, some of which are hormone disruptors or have been linked to cancer, turned up in the blood and urine of 20 teenage girls tested by the Environmental Working Group.

On average, the girls, ages 14-19, tested positive for 13 hormone-disrupting chemicals each. Parabens, commonly used as cosmetic preservatives, were detected in every girl tested.

While it remains unclear how dangerous these toxins, absorbed in minute amounts, really are, scientists worry that their effects could compound over time.

The study found that the participating teen girls used some 17 products every day, more than even adult women (who average 12 products in a day), raising their cumulative exposure to these potentially harmful substances at a time when their reproductive, immune, metabolic and adrenal systems are maturing.

“Emerging research suggest that teens may be particularly sensitive to exposures to trace levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals like the ones targeted in this study,” noted the EWG news release.

The EWG, a non-profit based in Washington, called for the federal government to set safety standards for cosmetics, which include many ingredients that are not tested by any independent agency. The group advised teens to:

• Reduce the number of beauty products they use

• Use paraben-free skin products, shampoos and sunscreens. Parabens can mimic estrogen, interfering with reproductive health and some studies have linked them to breast cancer.

• Seek out fragrance-free beauty products to reduce exposure to musks, which may disturb the body’s ability to fend off toxins; and to reduce exposure to phthalates, linked to a host of medical problems including infertility issues.

• Avoid products labeled “antibacterial” particularly hand soaps with triclosan listed as an active ingredient on the label. Switch to an alcohol hand rub or use regular soap and water instead. Triclosan has been found to disrupt the thyroid system, which can affect brain development in the young, and is suspected of contributing to the development super-strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

• Use the EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to inform your product choices. EWG also maintains the public Skin Deep database to help consumers find safer products.

To learn more about the uses and effects of the chemicals tested, see the EWG’s notes on phthalates, triclosan, parabens and musks, and the detailed report on the study.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media