A Holistic Living Guide - 13 common poison zones in your life
Smashwords edition
Text by Richard DeAndrea, MD & John Wood
for information call (310) 289-5697
eISBN 978-616-222-048-7
Ebook published by www.bangkokbooks.com
E-mail: info@bangkokbooks.com
Text Copyright© Richard DeAndrea, MD & John Wood
All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be reproduced, copied, stored or transmitted in any form without prior written permission from the publisher.
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to bangkokbooks.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Interested in publishing your manuscript or selling your ebook on iTunes,iBooks, Amazon, Google, Barnes & Noble, Borders and bangkokbooks.com?
Contact us at info@bangkokbooks.com or www.bangkokbooks.com
Disclaimer
The ideas discussed in this manual do not require a physician’s prescription. The remedies and/or treatments discussed here are common knowledge and very effective, although the results may vary. We urge the use of common sense in every situation that involves personal health. Serious injury, persistent problems, or conditions that are urgent require a physician’s supervision. If you are pregnant or nursing always consult a health practitioner before trying new remedies.
These recommendations and remedies are not substitutes for a doctor’s prescribed treatments. The publisher, retailers, mail order sources, distributors or manufacturers of any of the products described in this book accept no liability for their effects.
Introduction
There is little doubt that the industrial revolution has gifted us with its fair share of innovations. Some have been life affirming while others seem insidiously harmful. We may never again be able to see how life was once possible without time released air fresheners and microwave ovens. Ironically, on one level many of these modern conveniences have made life easier, but on another level they have exposed us to an array of toxins that are more than problematic.
In a study led by Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, in collaboration with the Environmental Working Group and Commonwealth, researchers at two major laboratories found 167 chemicals, pollutants, and pesticides in the blood and urine of nine adult Americans. Like most of us, the people tested do not work with chemicals on the job and do not live near an industrial facility. Scientists refer to this contamination as a person’s body burden. Of the 167 chemicals found, 76 cause cancer in humans or animals, 94 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 79 cause birth defects or abnormal development. The danger of exposure to these chemicals in combination has never been studied. Study results appear in the Journal of Public Health Reports (Thornton and others 2002).
This is the first publicly available, comprehensive look at the chemical burden we carry in our bodies. Even so, many chemicals were not included in the analysis that are known to contaminate virtually the entire U.S. population. Two examples are Scotchgard and the related family of perfluorinated chemicals, and a group of compounds known collectively as brominated flame-retardants.
A more precise picture of human contamination with industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides is not possible because chemical companies are not required to tell the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) how their compounds are used or monitor where their products end up in the environment. Neither does U.S. law require chemical companies to conduct basic health and safety testing of their products either before or after they are commercialized. Eighty percent of all applications to produce a new chemical are approved by the U.S. EPA with no health and safety data. Eighty percent of these are approved in three weeks.
The toxic load in our personal living spaces may be as much as 100 times greater than that we encounter in the outside world. As part of a thorough detoxification it may be in your best interest to re-evaluate the sanctity of your personal space. This guide was put together to make available the information needed to uncover the most common poison zones in your home.
It is understandable that not everyone will have the incentive to make all the changes covered in this manual. However, every small shift will make an invaluable difference. The effort put toward creating a non-toxic life is rewarding. It is much healthier and safer, while simultaneously better for the planet. Non-toxic living can be a very pleasant experience. Imagine yourself as a pioneer that is gradually making their way back to the pristine reality in which our ancestors lived.
Many of the alternative solutions for toxins found in our homes predate the era of the cleverly marketed idea of convenience through modern chemistry. We have paid dearly for this “convenient” life style by trading in the clean air, food, and water that our ancestors cherished. For those that value their health and safety making these changes and using the alternatives will require facing some challenges. As we venture into a new way of living from a bygone era it will become clear that some of these ideas, concoctions, and folk remedies may take some time to get used to before they become common place in our lives.
It will take tolerance, a bit more “elbow grease” and some persistence to live with the alternatives, but in the end these things will promote health and vitality. There is nothing less convenient than cancer! In any case, you can make major inroads to cleaning up your environment and protecting yourself and your family by following these simple suggestions.
Simple Suggestions:
1. Avoid ALL scented products that list “fragrance” as an ingredient. This includes all perfumes, colognes, after-shaves, personal-care products, air fresheners, potpourri, etc. Be careful about certain “unscented” products that use “masking fragrance” to cover up the original fragrance – these are extremely toxic!
2. Avoid ALL fabric softeners, dryer sheets, Clorox, scented detergents, etc. These products are VERY toxic and harmful to the environment as well.
3. Avoid ALL pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Pesticides are neuro-toxins, meaning they affect your brain, and they don’t know the difference between BUGS and PEOPLE!
4. Use only non-toxic cleaning products and personal-care products.
5. Drink and bathe in filtered water. Your skin drinks almost everything that comes in contact with it. Purchase a shower filter and avoid swimming in chlorinated pools and Jacuzzis.
6. Eat organic food (food grown without pesticides or fertilizers) as often as possible. Avoid processed foods, foods with colors and dyes, preservatives, etc. NEVER consume products containing “NutraSweet” (aspartame). It breaks down into formic acid (“poison”) and methanol (wood alcohol) in your system!
7. Wear only natural-fiber clothing (100% cotton, linen or wool). Make sure the clothes are NOT “permanent press” or “wrinkle resistant” – these clothes have been treated with formaldehyde and it does NOT wash out!
8. Use only 100% cotton and wool bed linens and blankets. Avoid “no-iron” or “wrinkle-resistant.” We spend the largest part of our lives sleeping in our beds.
9. As much as possible, avoid plastics (store food in glass jars), particle-board, plywood, glues, inks, paints, foam rubber, vinyl, carpet, synthetic rugs, varnishes, solvents, etc.
10. Open your windows as often as possible! Even in the most polluted cities, the outdoor air has been found to be less toxic than the indoor air!
11. Certain houseplants are beneficial for removing toxins from the air, such as formaldehyde, benzene etc. The best plants for removing these and other toxins are philodendrons, spider plants, aloe vera, English ivy, golden pathos, and Boston fern.
If you are at all intrigued by these suggestions and find them a bit alarming or extreme, it might be in your best interest to continue reading. The information that follows is believed by many authorities in the fields of medicine and ecology to be the most common reason for the plague of chronic conditions that are now afflicting our society. Brace yourself and be courageous for you are about to embark on a curious journey that may save you and your family some serious suffering.
Zone # 1: Personal Care Products
“Consumers believe that ‘if it’s on the market, it can’t hurt me’
and this belief is sometimes wrong”
-Director of FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors (FDA 1998)
The FDA classifies cosmetics and personal care products, but does not regulate them. In 1938, the FDA granted self-regulation to the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrance Association (CTFA), a self-appointed industry organization. With the exception of color additives and a few prohibited ingredients, a cosmetic manufacturer may use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product without an approval from the FDA” (“Prohibited Ingredients”, FDA Office of Cosmetics Fact Sheet, Dec. 19, 1994).
The absence of government oversight for the 35 billion dollar industry leads to companies routinely marketing products with ingredients that are poorly studied, not studied at all, or worse, known to pose potential serious health risks. Little research is available to document the safety or health risks of low-dose, repeated exposure to chemical mixtures like those in personal care products, but the absence of data should never be mistaken for proof of safety. The more we study low dose exposures, the more we understand that they can cause adverse effects ranging from the subtle and reversible, to effects that are more serious and permanent.
Did you know that:
One of every 120 products on the market contains ingredients certified by government authorities as known or probable human carcinogens, including shampoos, lotions, make-up foundations, and lip balms manufactured by Almay, Neutrogena, Grecian Formula, and others. An astonishing one-third of all products contain one or more ingredients classified as possible human carcinogens.
Seventy-one hair dye products contain ingredients derived from carcinogenic coal tar. These products have all been granted a specific exemption from federal rules that deem products to be adulterated when they contain ingredients that can harm human health. Coal tar containing products include dyes made by Clairol, Revlon, L’Oreal, and others. Coal tar hair dyes are one of the few products for which FDA has issued consumer advice on the benefits of reducing use, in this case as a way to potentially “reduce the risk of cancer” (FDA 1993).
Fifty-five percent of all products assessed contain “penetration enhancers,” ingredients that can increase a product’s penetration through the skin and into the bloodstream, increasing consumers’ exposures to other ingredients as well. We found 50 products containing penetration enhancers in combination with known or probable human carcinogens.
Nearly 70 percent of all products contain ingredients that can be contaminated with impurities linked to cancer and other health problems. Studies by FDA and European agencies show that these impurities are common, in some cases occurring in nearly half of all products tested (FDA 1996, DTI 1998). Some manufacturers buy ingredients certified by an independent organization called the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP). These ingredients may contain lower levels of harmful impurities, but the criteria for certification are not public. There are no federal standards for ingredient purity. While it seems likely that some companies purchase or manufacture refined, purified ingredients, it is equally likely that many do not. Consumers and government health officials have no way to know.
Fifty-four products violate recommendations for safe use set by the industry’s self-regulating Cosmetic Ingredient Review board. Most of these products contain ingredients found unsafe for the intended use of the product they are found in. Examples include ingredients found unsafe for use in baby products, but used in diaper cream, ingredients found unsafe for use on injured or damaged skin contained in products marketed specifically for use on chapped and injured skin, and ingredients not safe for sprays, but found in spray products. Brand name products found in violation of industry recommendations include Neutrogena, Desitin, Herbal Essences, and Rite Aid.
In its 67-year history of monitoring cosmetic safety, FDA has banned or restricted just nine personal care product ingredients (FDA 2000). In its review of 1,175 ingredients, the industry’s safety panel has found just nine ingredients (a different nine) unsafe for use in cosmetics (CIR 2003). By contrast, 450 ingredients are banned for use in cosmetics in the European Union, although the vast majority of these have never been used by the industry.
The regulatory vacuum in the U.S. gives cosmetic companies tremendous leeway in selecting ingredients, while it transfers potentially significant and largely unnecessary health risks to the users of the products.
In a systematic comparison of ingredients in 7,500 personal care products against government lists of cancer-causing chemicals, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has found that one of every 100 products on the market lists on the label a known or probable human carcinogen, and an astonishing one-third of all products contain one or more ingredients with at least some evidence of carcinogencity in laboratory studies or investigations of human populations.
EWG’s assessment of product ingredient labels and data on cancer-causing chemicals identified three common impurities in personal care products that are linked to mammary tumors in animal studies - ethylene oxide, PAHs, and 1,3-butadiene. The ingredients for which these impurities are of concern are used in one of every four personal care products on the market. http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/report/cancer.php
Alcohol
Industrial Uses: Many
Personal Care Products: Mouthwashes
Purpose: Solvent (primarily)
Mouthwashes with an alcohol content of 25% or higher have been implicated in mouth, tongue and throat cancer. Alcohol acts as a solvent in the mouth making tissues more vulnerable to carcinogens
Men had a 60% higher risk and women a 90% higher risk of these cancers compared to those not using the mouthwash (http://theanswertocancer.com/avoidable-toxins.htm).
Alpha Hydroxy Acids (AHAs), Beta Hydroxy Acids (BHAs)
Industrial Uses: None
Personal Care Products: Acne Treatment/Medications, Skin Coloring Agents, Facial Cleansers, Exfoliators, Facial Moisturizers/Treatment, Foot Odor/Cream/Treatment, Other Skin Treatments, Anti-Aging Treatments, Pore Strips, Concealers, Eye Treatments, Foundations, Body Scrubs, Body Moisturizers, Anti-Itch/Rash Creams,
Sunscreens/Tanning Oils, Hair Regrowth Treatment, Liquid Hand Soap, Shampoo.
Purpose: The acids are commonly used in products promoted as enhancing the youthful appearance of skin.
On May 21, 1992 FDA issued a consumer warning that commercial “skin peel” products, advertised to remove wrinkles, blemishes, blotches and acne scars, could destroy the upper layers of the skin, causing severe burns, swelling, and pain. FDA describes the following progression: “The skin initially reddens, as with a sunburn, then darkens and finally peels away revealing what manufacturers claim will be “new skin.” Treatments may be painful and leave permanent scars” (FDA 1992).
Since these initial warnings, the use of the active skin peel ingredients, alpha and beta hydroxy acids (AHAs and BHAs), has grown dramatically in the cosmetic industry. According to EWG’s assessment of ingredient labels for 7,500 personal care products, these acids are now added to one of every 17 products on the market, including nearly 10 percent of all moisturizers and six percent of all sunscreens.
Beginning with its initial burn warnings, FDA has now studied the safety of AHAs and BHAs for 14 years, driven in part by the increasing use of these acids in cosmetics, as well as by the agency’s estimate that AHAs and BHAs injure 1,000 people nationwide each year (FDA 1999).
Most recently, FDA’s Office of Women’s Health sponsored studies that have linked these ingredients to UV-induced skin damage and potential increased risks of skin cancer. The studies identified a doubling of UV damage to skin among people using AHA-containing products (FDA 2000b).
The studies also showed that after four weeks of AHA application, volunteers’ sensitivity to skin reddening produced by UV light increased by 18%. Similarly, the volunteers’ sensitivity to UV-induced cellular damage doubled, on average, with considerable differences among individuals. — FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Color, on new AHA safety studies (FDA 2000b)
FDA’s 14-year review process has culminated with the Agency issuing guidance on the need for product manufacturers to include sunburn warnings on their products (FDA 2002). The guidance is draft, set to be finalized in 2004 and is voluntary, highlighting the agency’s lack of meaningful authority over cosmetics, even on an issue that the Director of FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Color found “alarming” (FDA 1999). The suggested warnings, a rare request from an agency that has in its history tackled only a few cosmetic safety issues in such depth, include language-advising consumers to “Use a sunscreen and limit sun exposure while using this product and for a week afterwards” (FDA 2002).
The cosmetic industry’s efforts to preserve the use of these acids in products began with an industry-sponsored study that showed increased UV-induced skin damage for product testers. The cosmetic trade association CTFA presented this study to the industry’s safety panel in 1996. According to FDA, the panel approved the use of AHAs in cosmetics in June 1997 in spite of the study results and “in spite of serious safety questions submitted by a consumer group and a major manufacturer” (FDA 1997).
The industry panel found that AHAs are “safe for use in cosmetic products at concentrations less than or equal to 10 percent, at final formulation pHs greater than or equal to 3.5, when formulated to avoid increasing the skin’s sensitivity to the sun, or when directions for use include the daily use of sun protection.” For salon use, the panel found AHAs “safe for use at concentrations less than or equal to 30 percent, at final formulation pHs greater than or equal to 3.0, in products designed for brief, discontinuous use followed by thorough rinsing from the skin, when applied by trained professionals, and when application is accompanied by directions for the daily use of sun protection” (CIR 2003).
“AHA concentration and pH are generally not noted on all products. (FDA does not require it.)” The agency notes that consumers can request the information from the manufacturer (FDA 1997).
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, skin cancer in the U.S. has reached “epidemic proportions,” with more than one million new cases occurring each year. At current rates one in five Americans is expected to develop skin cancer over their lifetime, and one American dies every hour from the disease (EPA 2004).
The use of acids in cosmetics may be contributing to current skin cancer rates. The use of these acids in sunscreens, where they appear in six percent of all products we assessed, is perplexing and counterintuitive, and may detract from the cancer protection sunscreen products normally provide.
Comments on AHAs from FDA’s Director of the Office of Cosmetics and Color, Dr. John Bailey, coming several years prior to the agency’s issuance of suggested, voluntary warning language for cosmetic manufacturers, illustrate the problem inherent in a regulatory system that does not require premarket safety testing: “There are many unanswered questions in front of us... AHAs are unlike anything else ever introduced onto the cosmetic market on such a wide scale. They are not your traditional cosmetics” (FDA 1999). He also stated that very little about the process restricts their sale. And it’s a somewhat alarming idea to put acids on the skin. It raises obvious safety questions. — Dr. John Bailey, Director of FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Color, on the use of alpha hydroxy acids (AHAs) in cosmetics (FDA 1999)
Aluminum
Industrial Uses: Processed Foods, Paper Products, Beverage Cans, Foil and Cookware
Personal Care Products: Deodorants, Antacids
Purpose:
Aluminum is a metal, the third most common element in the environment and a toxin in the body.
Alzheimer’s disease is now the 4th leading cause of death among the elderly, behind heart disease, cancer and stroke. A half century ago it was virtually unheard of!
Dr. Daniel Perl, Director of Neuropathology at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, suggests “….avoid aerosol antiperspirants. Aluminum in aerosol may be more readily absorbed into the brain through the nasal passages.” [University of California, Berkeley Wellness Letter, April 1993 9(7) p.1(2)].
According to government sources from June 2003, “The FDA is concerned that people with renal dysfunction (20 million Americans, 1 in 9 adults) may not be aware that the daily use of antiperspirant drug products containing aluminum may put them at higher risk because of exposure to aluminum in the product. The FDA considers it prudent to alert these people to consult a doctor before using or continuing to use these products on a regular basis”
However, there is a difference in opinion in the medical community over contraindication of aluminum-containing antiperspirants in kidney patients. Dr. Sherrard is a national expert on the effect of aluminum on kidney function. He has published over 40 papers on aluminum toxicity and kidneys and is Senior Research Advisor at the Northwest Kidney Centers. He has been part of the scientific community’s quest to study aluminum toxicity since the 1970’s. He states that the FDA warning is based on the false assumption that toxic amounts of aluminum may be absorbed through the skin.
His research group has studied several hundred patients with aluminum toxicity and they discovered that every patient became toxic from one of two sources: (1) they were getting aluminum from oral antacids containing aluminum or (2) from aluminum contaminated water used to prepare the dialysate fluid which flows through the artificial kidney to purify the blood. They did not find aluminum containing antiperspirants as a problem in any patient.
He states that the FDA requires this alert on antacids containing aluminum as a reminder to kidney patients that aluminum should be avoided.
-Northwest Kidney Centers, Press Briefing, December 9, 2004.
Coal Tar Colors
Personal Care Products: Hair dyes and treatment shampoos
Purpose: Hair colorants and to treat scalp conditions
Coal tar hair dye ingredients are known to cause allergic reactions in some people, FDA’s Lambert says. Some consumers have reported hair loss, burning, redness, and irritation from hair dyes. Allergic reactions to dyes include itching, swelling of the face, and even difficulty breathing.
Synthetic, organic chemicals, including hair dyes and other color additives, were originally manufactured from coal tar, but today manufacturers primarily use materials derived from petroleum. The use of the term “coal tar” continues because historically that language has been incorporated into the law and regulations.
The law does not require that coal tar hair dyes be approved by FDA, as is required for other uses of color additives. In addition, the law does not allow FDA to take action against coal tar hair dyes that are shown to be harmful, if the product is labeled with the prescribed caution statement indicating that the product may cause irritation in certain individuals, that a patch test for skin sensitivity should be done, and that the product must not be used for dyeing the eyelashes or eyebrows.
The patch test involves putting a dab of hair dye behind the ear or inside the elbow, leaving it there for two days, and looking for itching, burning, redness, or other reactions. The problem is that people can become sensitized--that is, develop an allergy--to these ingredients,” Lambert says. “They may do the patch test once, and then use the product for 10 years” before having an allergic reaction. “But you’re supposed to do the patch test every time,” he says, even in salons….
Hair Color and Cancer
Over the years, some studies have indicated a possible link between hair dye use and cancer, while others have not. In February 1994, FDA and the American Cancer Society released an epidemiologic study involving 573,000 women. Researchers found that women who had ever used permanent hair dyes showed decreased risk of all fatal cancers combined and also of urinary system cancers. The study also revealed that women who had ever used permanent hair dyes showed no increased risk of any type of hematopoietic cancer (cancer of the body’s blood-forming systems).
This research, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, did suggest that prolonged use (20 years or more of constant use) of black hair dye may slightly increase the occurrence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma, but these cases represented a small fraction of hair dye users. This study followed previous NCI studies that raised concern about the use of hair dyes and higher rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
In another study, published in the October 5, 1994, issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston followed 99,000 women and found no greater risk of cancers of the blood or lymph systems among women who had ever used permanent hair dyes.
Then in 1998, scientists at the University of California at San Francisco questioned 2,544 people about their use of hair-color products. After integrating the results of this study with those of animal and other epidemiologic studies, they concluded that there was little convincing evidence linking non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with normal use of hair-color products in humans. The study was published in the December 1998 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. (Meadows M. 2001 Jan-Feb. Heading Off Hair-Care Disasters: Use Caution With Relaxers and Dyes, FDA Consumer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdahdye.html).
Diethanolamine (DEA)
Industrial Uses: Laundry Detergents, Dishwashing Liquid
Personal Care Products: Shampoos, Body Gels, Hair Dyes, Facial Cleansers and Lotions, Baby Shampoos and Bubble Baths
Purpose: Inexpensive, Makes Bubbles
DEA-based detergents are widely used in shampoos, lotions and creams. Dr. Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Illinois School of Public Health states that DEA is readily absorbed through the skin and accumulates in organs, such as the brain, where it induces chronic toxic effects (http://theanswertocancer.com/avoidable-toxins.htm). Animal tests show it damages the liver, kidneys and spinal cord (Better Nutrition February 2005).
Since 1976, workers exposed to NDEA in metal working fluids, at levels similar to those in cosmetics, have been warned of cancer risks and steps taken to protect them.
In a petition to the FDA, previously released, the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) urged the labeling or phasing out of DEA in cosmetic products. DEA is a precursor of nitrosodiethanolamine (NDEA), a proven carcinogen as recognized by four Federal Agencies and Institutions and the World Health Organization. The proposed label would read, “Caution—This product may contain N-nitrosodiethanolamine, a known cancer-causing agent.”
In 1979, the FDA urged the cosmetics industry to take “immediate action to eliminate” NDEA in cosmetics. However, the FDA has taken no subsequent action while industry remains unresponsive. In striking contrast, the European Economic Community (EEC) has sharply reduced permissible uses of DEA. German cosmetic industry has also resolved this problem by phasing out DEA detergents, thereby preventing the formation of NDEA.
Dr. William Lijinksy, leading international nitrosamine researcher, emphasized, “The continued use of DEA is unacceptable especially in view of the overwhelming scientific evidence of its cancer risks and the availability of safe alternatives.” (Cancer Prevention Coalition, 28 July 2002 <www.preventcancer.com>).
Dr. Samuel Epstein, M.D. of the Cancer Prevention Coalition states that lifelong use of these products (DEA) clearly poses avoidable cancer risks to the majority of U.S. consumers, particularly infants and young children. For more information on nitrosamines see subheading below.
Formaldehyde (aka. Formalin, methaldehyde, methanal, methyl aldehyde, methylene glycol, methylene oxide, oxomethane, oxymethylene, paraform, paraformaldehyde)
Industrial Uses: Manufacturing of glues and resins and as a chemical intermediate. Urea-formaldehyde and phenolformaldehyde resins are used in foam insulations, as adhesives in the production of particle board and plywood, and in the treating of textiles.
Personal Care Products: Preservative in cosmetics, nail polish, vaccines and embalming bodies. It is common to find formaldehyde in aqueous cosmetic formulations such as shampoo, conditioner, shower gels, liquid hand wash and bubble bath. Even products designed for children such as bubble bath and baby shampoo have formaldehyde in them.
Purpose: Preservative and Sterilizer
Formaldehyde causes cancer in test animals. Some studies suggested that formaldehyde exposure could cause cancer of the lungs, sinuses, and nose in humans. Cal/OSHA and Cal/EPA regulate formaldehyde as a carcinogen.
http://search.freeze.com/indexaspx
Formaldehyde can cause watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes, throat, nausea, and difficulty in breathing in some humans exposed at elevated levels (above 0.1 parts per million). High concentrations of formaldehyde may trigger asthma attacks in susceptible people. There is evidence that some people can develop sensitivity to formaldehyde. It has also been shown to cause cancer in animals and is a known carcinogen. Health effects from exposure to formaldehyde include, eye, nose, and throat irritation; wheezing and coughing; fatigue; skin rash; severe allergic reactions.
Formaldehyde is a cancer suspect and is banned from cosmetics and toiletries in both Sweden and Japan. Recently, however, Japan is beginning to bow to pressure from Western nations to relax this ban and accept exports from the West.
The safety of formaldehyde was reviewed in 1984, by a panel of scientific experts commissioned by the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA), a trade association representing the cosmetics industry. They concluded that there was insufficient data to show that cosmetics containing more than 0.2 percent of formaldehyde were safe. A different body, the European Union’s (EU’s) Scientific Committee on Cosmetics, decided that formaldehyde was safe if used “at low levels”. As a result, cosmetics and toiletries sold within the EU may contain formaldehyde as a preservative but, with restrictions to its use.
However, these restrictions only apply where formaldehyde is used as a preservative. Formaldehyde can also be added to antibacterial (antiseptic) hand wash to kill microbes on your hands, and it is an important ingredient in some types nail hardeners. EU regulations allow up to 5 percent of formaldehyde in nail hardeners (that’s 25 times more than the CTFA’s safe level) and there are no specific regulations concerning its use as an antibacterial. If a nail hardener contains more than 0.05 percent of formaldehyde the label must clearly display the following warnings: “Contains Formaldehyde” and “Protect cuticles with grease or oil.” But these warnings are not required on shampoo, shower gel or family bubble bath, all of which can legally contain four times as much formaldehyde. Why have the regulating authorities decided that 0.05 percent of formaldehyde in nail hardeners is sufficiently dangerous to warrant specific warnings while more than four times as much in antimicrobial hand wash is safe? Why not set a standard safety level for all products?
The answer is that there would be no point. Manufacturers are only required to list those ingredients that are added intentionally. They do not have to list any ingredients that are not intended to be part of the product. For example, they do not have to list any of the solvents they use to add fragrance chemicals. Nor do they have to list any impurities such as pesticide residues, any chemical contaminants introduced during the manufacture of the ingredients or any chemicals, such as formaldehyde, that were used to preserve the ingredients before they were used to make the cosmetic or toiletry.
In a Danish study of 285 shampoos, nearly 30 percent of them were found to contain formaldehyde but none of them listed it as an ingredient. The reason for this was the formaldehyde was present as an unintentional contaminant, because the raw materials used in the cosmetics had been preserved with it.
Perhaps the informed consumer should demand that cosmetics and toiletries carry labels that say, “Analysis shows that this product contains no formaldehyde.”
Lead Acetate:
Personal Care Products: Grecian Formula 16 hair dye
Although the most notorious health hazard associated with lead acetate is potential harm to a developing brain in babies and young children, it is also considered a carcinogen by the E.U. and the U.S. government’s National Toxicology Program (NTP 2002, UNECE 2004).
Nitrosamines:
One of the cosmetic toxins that consumer advocates are most concerned about are nitrosamines, which contaminate a wide variety of cosmetic products. In the 1970’s, nitrosamines contamination of cooked bacon and other nitrate-treated meats in the food industry became a public health issue. But today, nitrosamines contaminate cosmetics at significantly higher levels than were once contained in bacon.”--Peter Phillips, Author Director “Project Censored 1997&1998”, “The News That Didn’t Make The News.”
What are Nitrosamines? They are any class of organic compounds with the general formula (R2NNO or RNHNO) which is a nitrate combined with an amine. They are present in various processed foods, shampoos/personal care and other products found on the market today. They are also known to be carcinogenic.
Nitrosating agents are any of the following agents combined with sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium laureth sulfate, both of which are found in a myriad of shampoos and personal care products:
2-Bromo-2-Tropropane- 1,3-Diol
Cocoyl Sarcosine
Diethanolamine (DEA) Plus Any Chemical Listed or NDEA
Imidazolidinyl Urea
Formaldehyde
Hydrolyzed Animal Protein
Lauryl Sarcosine
Monethanolamine (MEA)
Monethanolamine (MEA) Plus Any Chemical
Quatemium-7, 15, 31, 60, Etc.
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS)
Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES)
Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate (SMCT)
Triethanolamine (TEA) Plus Any Chemical Listed
Reputable manufacturers routinely test their ingredients for residues of nitrosamines and 1,4-dioxane,both of which are carcinogens, and if the levels are too high, the ingredients are rejected or they are purified before being used. But we cannot be certain that all manufacturers do this, especially those operating in less regulated parts of the world, and there is ample evidence to show that some manufacturers clearly don’t.
Research carried out in 1991 found up to 85,000 parts per billion of 1,4-dioxane residues in 40 percent of the cosmetics tested. In 1977 a study found that 93 percent of cosmetics tested contained nitrosamines in concentrations ranging from 10 to 50,000 parts per billion. A follow-up study in 1991-2 found up to 3,000 parts per billion of nitrosamines in 65 percent of the cosmetics tested - a slight improvement but still a cause for concern. Just what are the safe levels of these contaminants? The truth is, no one knows.
Parabens (Benzyl, isobutyl, butyl,n-propyl, ethyl and methylparabens, aka. Benzoic acid and many others)
Industrial Uses: As a food preservative in small quantities.
Personal Care Products: Cosmetics and personal care products, such as shampoos, conditioners, hair styling gels, nail creams, foundations, facial masks, skin creams, and deodorants. Parabens can be an ingredient in baby lotions, shampoos, and other personal care products for children.
Purpose: Preservative. Also found at low levels in nature.
The World Health Organization, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others consider this chemical an unclassifiable carcinogen.
British researchers have found that chemicals from underarm deodorants and other cosmetics can build up inside the body.
They have found traces of chemicals called parabens in tissue taken from women with breast cancer. While there is no evidence parabens cause cancer, the scientists have called for the use of parabens to be reviewed.
The cosmetics industry insists the chemicals, which are used as preservatives and are approved for use by regulators, are safe.
Dr Philippa Darbre and colleagues at the University of Reading carried out tests on samples of 20 different human breast tumors. Writing in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, they say they found parabens present in significant amounts in 18 out of 20 breast cancer tumors and traces of parabens in the other two tumors. (Darbre and others 2004).
Their tests suggested the chemicals had seeped into the tissue after being applied to the skin. “This is the first study to show their accumulation in human tissues,” said Dr Darbre. “It demonstrates that if people are exposed to these chemicals, then the chemicals will accumulate in their bodies.” (BBC News 01 November 2004).
It must be noted that the study by Darbre and others (2004) utilized a small sample of patients (n=20), no healthy breast tissue (or other tissues from affected women) was analyzed and the source(s) of the parabens found in the breast tumors and routes of exposure were not identified. There is a need for further research to establish the significance of the presence of parabens in these tumors and to establish a link between parabens in underarm cosmetics and the development of breast cancer.
Researchers from the Department of Biology and Biochemistry of Brunel University in the United Kingdom have conducted a study and found that the parabens – alkyl hydroxy parabens — alpha hydroxy benzoate (methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, and butyl-paraben) are weakly estrogenic. In other words, these preservatives have the ability to mimic estrogen in the body with butylparaben being the most potent.
The study also stated that “…a surprisingly large number of chemicals in everyday use may possess weak estrogenic activity, at least in vitro. This contention is supported by a preliminary announcement by Tong and others of a very intelligent and thorough SAR-based modeling study of the 57,000 chemicals in the database of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The authors suggest that over 3,000 of the 57,000 chemicals probably possess weak estrogenic activity (at least in vitro)”
“Given their use in a wide range of commercially available topical preparations, it is suggested that the safety in use of these chemicals should be reassessed, with particular attention being paid to estimation of the actual levels of systemic exposure of humans exposed to these chemicals” (Toxicology of Applied Pharmacology, 1998: 153:12-19).
Phthalates
Industrial Uses: Household cleaners, deodorizers, baby toys, garden hoses, shower curtains, insect repellants, food packaging, clothes, gum and candy
Personal Care Products: Especially nail polish, perfumes, hair sprays, and skin lotions, as well as, toothbrushes, aspirin, medical tubing and fluid bags, biodegradable tampon injectors, and prescription medications.
In the recent CDC study, (“National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals”; Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga.) the CDC’s John Brock, the head researcher on the phthalate study, said that his “biggest concern was that the highest levels of exposure were in women of child-bearing age.” (“Concerns over chemicals in cosmetics”, Francesca Lyman, October 4, 2000)
Phthalates are regulated as toxic substances under environmental laws that limit their discharge into air, land, and water, but there are NO limitations on the amount of phthalates used in consumer products, including cosmetics. Health effects of phthalates include damage to the liver and kidneys, birth defects, decreased sperm counts, testicular cancer, early puberty onset in girls, early breast development in girls and boys, and other reproductive disorders.
Phthalates are suspected in being at fault in reduced fertility in males. (“Identification of phthalate esters in the serum of young Puerto Rican Girls with premature breast development”, Colon et al, Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 108, No. 9, Sept, 2000).
Miller and others (2001) stated that some phthalates possessed weak estrogenic activity in vitro, which stimulated several research groups to investigate the possible endocrine activity of such chemicals in vivo. Although it is currently difficult to draw firm conclusions, the general message seems to be that chemicals are less active, but nevertheless are often still active, in vivo than in vitro, when the chemicals are administered orally).
“Metabolites of diethyl phthalate, used in volatile components of cosmetics like perfumes, nail polishes and hairsprays were found at levels about 70 times higher than metabolites of (one of) the chemicals banned in soft plastic toys....” (http://www.choicesforhealth.net/toxic_ingredients.htm).
Propolene Glycol (PG):
Industrial Uses: Antifreeze, brake fluid and airplane de-icers
Personal Care Products: Widely used moisture-carrying ingredient in cosmetics and cleansers. It is also found in medications.
Purpose: Delivery vehicle and solvent for cosmetics and medications
When you purchase a drum of propylene glycol from a supplier, that supplier is required to furnish an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet). The MSDS for propylene glycol says “Avoid Skin Contact.” We are amazed to find this same product in most skin creams on the market.
Studies suggest that propylene glycol has severe adverse health effects, and has been found to cause contact dermatitis, ototoxicity, kidney damage, and liver abnormalities in various clinical human and animal studies. The effects of propylene glycol are clearly more than skin deep. Propylene glycol has shown measurable toxicity to human cells in culture (Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 1987 Jan). It has been shown to inhibit skin cell growth in human tests, and cell respiration in animal tests (J. Pharm Belg 1989 Nov-Dec).
When tested in guinea pigs and chinchillas, eardrops containing propylene glycol cause irreversible deafness (Am J Otolaryngol 1990 jan-feb; Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1989 Jul-Aug), tissue and bone degradation, and morphological changes to the middle ear.
Propylene glycol caused mytotoxic (skeletal muscular damage) effects in rats (Pharm Res 1989 Sep 21; J Parenter Sci technol 1989 Jul-Aug) and rabbits (Pharm Res 1989 Sep). PG is reported to directly alter cell membranes ( Hum Reprod 1990 Feb) to cause contact allergies and dermatitis (Dermatol Clin 1990 Jan).
It also causes skin thickening (Contact Dermatitis) and skin dehydration and chronic surface damage ( Derm Beruf Umwelt 1988 Jul-Aug).
Propylene glycol poisoning has been reported to induce seizures in epileptics (Postgrad Med J 1988 Aug; Pediatrics 1987 Apr. 1979) and cardio respiratory arrest (Pediatrics 1987 Apr. 1979; Postgrad Med J 1988 Aug). One study “advises caution when propylene glycol is employed as a vehicle in clinical use” (Pharmacology 1989).
In another study on PG ingestion in cats, researchers reported encephalopathy, depression, and ataxia. The similarities of PG consumption in cats and humans was noted, and the report stated: “These findings are significant not only for animals ingesting diets which contain propylene glycol, but for humans who receive propylene glycol-containing medications” (Lab Invest 1990 Jan).
PG and Premature Skin Aging
The science of skin biology has advanced substantially since propylene glycol was first introduced to cosmetics over 30 years ago, and yet PG is still the major ingredient in most skin creams, regardless of cost, market share, or “natural” claims. New findings suggest that using PG and other occlusive (filming) ingredients on the skin actually ages the skin prematurely. Estimates are that skin ages at least 13 years for every 10 years these type products are used.
Fortunately, products are now being developed based on scientific breakthroughs to reverse environmental and aging damage to the skin, and to support the biology of the skin as a living organ. This approach is returning rapid results in skin healing, wrinkle diminishment, and other problems of aging skin (sagging skin, eye bags, etc.).
You won’t find these products in department stores any time soon, however. Many formulas with these new and often exotic ingredients are exclusive to a single manufacturer, and the expense of these breakthroughs are prohibitive for the major manufacturers. Fortunately, there are independent manufacturers beginning to bring these advances to market. http://www.seektheanswer.com/dangerous_beauty.htm
Sodium Laurel Sulfate or Sodium Dodecyl (SLS, SLSF)
Industrial Uses: Harsh Floor Cleaners, Engine Degreasers, Car Wash Detergents, Laundry Detergents
Personal Care Products: Toothpaste, Shampoos, Body Gels, Bubble Baths, Facial Cleansers, Baby Wipes, Baby Shampoos, Bubble Baths, Liquid Hand Soaps and Body Gels, Sunblock, Cosmetic Products
Purpose: Inexpensive, Makes Foam, Thickens with Salt, found in 90% of commercial shampoos even many so called “natural products”. It is very important to read a products ingredients prior to purchase.
SLS Toxicity and Cancer:
A serious health concern with SLS is its tendency to react with other ingredients to form NDEA, a nitrosamine and potent carcinogen. According to a 1978 FDA report, shampooing the hair with a product contaminated with this nitrosamine can lead to its absorption into the body at levels much higher than eating nitrate-contaminated foods. (Researchers estimate the nitrate absorption from one shampoo is equal to eating a pound of bacon.) The FDA has recently warned shampoo manufacturers of unacceptable levels of dioxin formation in products containing sodium laurel sulfates SLFS (dioxins are also dangerous carcinogenic compounds). Only laboratory testing can determine if a shampoo is contaminated with these powerful carcinogenic compounds. .http://www.seektheanswer.com/dangerous_beauty.htm
Damage to Your Skin:
Researchers have known for years that SLS is a skin irritant. SLS is used as a laboratory standard for irritating skin and inducing contact dermatitis. SLS is useful to lab testing “because of its ability to penetrate and impair the skin barrier.” SLS damages the skin barrier functions, enhances allergic response to other toxins and allergens, damages and alters skin cells, causes substantial roughness to the skin, results in severe modification of skin recombinant structure.
SLS is listed as toxic to skin in many studies. In patients with seborrhea and eczema, SLS increases irritant reactions and susceptibility. SLS is indicated in migration of Langerhans cells to regional lymph sites in contact dermatitis, explaining lymph node inflammation in some cases. A systemic response is clearly evident. Research also found that fair skin is more susceptible to SLS irritations, as is skin with existing eczema even where the eczema is not local to the SLS contact.http://www.seektheanswer.com/dangerous_beauty.htm.
SLS and Eye Damage in Young Children:
“The greatest concern of many scientists is SLS, it has been shown to damage protein formation in eye tissue in young animals, raising serious concerns about the possibility of ocular tissue malformation, blindness in infants and young children. In animal studies, SLS penetration and uptake is much greater in neonatal and young animal eye tissue, compared to adult animals, showing “penetration into the eye, as well as systemic tissues (brain, heart, liver, etc.)” SLS also showed long-term retention in tissues, up to 5 days after a single drop”
“Researcher Keith Green, Ph.D., D. Sc., of the Medical College of Georgia, also reports that SLS extends the healing of corneal tissue by a factor of 5, from 2 days (normal) to more than 10 days. He also has concerns about cataract formation from SLS. Writing for Research to prevent blindness, Inc., Dr. Green states in part: “ There is immediate concern relating to the penetration of these chemicals into the eye and other tissues. This is especially important in infants…exposure to SLS results in accumulation in eye tissues, a process that could retard healing and possible have long-term effects.” He concludes that exposure to SLS causes improper eye development in children and that since SLS is absorbed systemically through the skin, it doesn’t have to enter the eye directly. (Green K., Medical College of Georgia). http://www.seektheanswer.com/dangerous_beauty.htm
SLS and Premature Hair Loss:
SLS is implicated in premature hair loss in men and women, and may be one reason for wide-spread incidence of thinning hair. Because SLS is such a caustic cleanser, it actually corrodes the hair follicle and impairs its ability to grow hair. SLES (Sodium Laurel Ether Sulfate) causes dramatic decline in the hair growth cycle, and prolongs the hair loss phase (normally 3 months) by a factor of eight. Simply removing this ingredient, and its corrosive and irritating effects, begins to restore the natural, healthy function of the follicle.
SLS is also implicated in scalp irritation, eczema, dandruff, and other scalp conditions. Many shampoos designed to alleviate dandruff, itching, and other scalp disorders may actually be causing the toxicity of SLS-containing formulas to the skin and scalp. Avoiding contact with this cytotoxic (cell-killing) chemical is all that many people require to completely alleviate scalp disorders.
http://www.seektheanswer.com/dangerous_beauty.htm
Toxic Toothpaste
With the volumes of scientific information regarding the toxic, carcinogenic, and other harmful effects of sodium lauryl sulfate presented (we have listed only a fraction here), it should be clear that this chemical does not belong on the skin. Unfortunately, SLS is as common as it is dangerous. A review of commercial toothpastes revealed only one major brand that does not contain this ingredient (Sensodyne). All other major toothpaste brands reviewed have SLS as a major ingredient.
The health risk this represents can be easily understood when several factors are taken into account: the rapid uptake and systematic penetration of SLS, the long-term tissue retention in the heart, liver, and brain, and the fact that the gums are one of the quickest ways to introduce substances into the bloodstream, bypassing the digestive tract. The only thing that is difficult to understand is why the chemical is still used as an ingredient in any product designed for skin contact.
“Natural” Brands Offer No Protection
Ingredient reviews of shampoos sold in health food stores under “natural” brands and labels have turned up many formulas containing SLS. The cost, reputation, or market position of a shampoo apparently has little to do with its contents. Some of the most reputable and exclusive brands contain SLS. Don’t be fooled by high prices or marketing hype. You must check the ingredients on each product if you want to avoid the harmful effects of SLS
(http://www.seektheanswer.com/dangerous_beauty.htm).
SLS can damage the immune system; causing separation of skin layers and inflammation of the skin. (Journal of the American College of Toxicology; Vol. 2, No. 7, 1998) SLS is a potent carcinogen when contaminated with nitrosamines. (FDA Report 1978).
SLS is a mutagen. It is capable of changing the information in genetic material found in cells. SLS has been used in studies to induce mutagen in bacteria.
(Higuchi, Araya, School of Medicine, Tohoku University: Sendai 980 Japan).
Sodium Flouride
Industrial Use: Insecticides
Personal Care Products: Toothpastes, Mouthwashes, Tap Water, and as a Disinfectant and Preservative in Cosmetics
Purpose: To provide an exogenous source of Fluoride in tap water, toothpastes and mouthwashes. It is also used as a disinfectant and preservative in cosmetics.
Most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, think that fluoride’s only effects are beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc., however, they are wrong.
For an eye-opening discussion on the effects of fluoride on health and the environment please see “the fluoride myth” in Zone #3 under Drinking Water. “The effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental caries” is discussed under this sub-heading.
Talc
Industrial Uses:
Personal Care Products: Baby Powders, Body Powders, Feminine Hygiene Products, Cosmetics, Condom Lubricant
Purpose: Dry Lubricant
Talc’s harmful effect on human tissues has been known for quite some time. Long ago, its dry lubricating properties were used as a glove-donning powder (easy to slide on) for surgical gloves. As early as the 1930’s talc was linked to post-operative granulomatous peritonitis and fibrous adhesions.
Talc…(on condoms) …may result in fallopian tube fibrosis with resultant infertility. Questions raised by Drs. Kasper and Chandler in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 15 March 1995).
“A possible tie between talcum powder and ovarian cancer, long suspected because of talc’s chemical similarity to asbestos, was strongly implicated several years ago when a study found a higher risk of the cancer among women who used feminine deodorant sprays. The study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found that women who used talcum powder in the genital area had an increased ovarian cancer risk of 60% and women who used feminine deodorant sprays had a 90% increased risk.” (Nutrition Health Review, Summer 1995 1(73):8).
In 1994, the FDA conducted a scientific workshop on the issue and did not find enough of a causal link to justify even a consumer warning. -from the University of California, Berkeley Wellness Letter, April 1993 v9n7p1(2) Here is what the FDA had to say about the issue in 2000.
Regardless of the cancer risk, consumers may want to avoid the use of powders, even those that do not contain silica, because of potential risks for other kinds of lung damage. In consumer education materials, FDA notes that “powders may cause lung damage if inhaled regularly” (FDA 2000a).
The general rule for personal care products is to use nothing on your skin that you would be afraid to eat! Many personal care products are more readily absorbed through the skin into the blood stream than just plain water. Often this industry uses chemicals derived from petroleum, because they produce a softening effect on the skin. OSHA discovered 884 toxic chemicals in common personal care products (USA Today, April 1990). Fragrances and alcohols are also common themes in the beauty product industry, because they produce desired effects that consumers demand.
“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 nail polish and perfume. We have just exposed ourselves to 200 different chemicals.” (Yoffe E. 1997 Nov. Chemical good looks. U.S. News & World Report).
Overview Of Ingredients By Personal Product Class
Cosmetics
The number of chemicals in a simple lipstick is astounding. In addition to phthalates (which can cause kidney and liver damage and harm developing fetus), lipstick may contain the possible human carcinogens butylated hydroxytoluene, polyethylene, dimethicone and a slew of artificial colors derived from coal tar. If you wear lipstick every day, you will ingest at least 4 pounds of it over your lifetime. (Better Nutrition February 2005).
Colognes and Perfumes
Excessive alcohol content may harm and/or kill a small child after a small amount of ingestion. More children are poisoned every year in the home from toxic substances, including personal care products, than are accidentally killed playing with guns. http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/report/executive_summary.php
Other ingredients may include formaldehyde (a potential human carcinogen); petroleum distillates (a crude oil distillate); and toluene (a volatile, flammable liquid). Overexposure to these ingredients may serve as a skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritant; may be a central nervous system depressant or a cardiac sensitizer. Prolonged exposure may cause liver damage, kidney damage, anemia, or even cancer. Consistent exposure during pregnancy may cause birth defects.
Deodorants and Aerosols
Most common spray deodorants contain ammonia, formaldehyde (a potential human carcinogen), isobutane, petroleum distillates, and propane. Isobutane and propane are highly flammable propellants, which generate fumes that are irritating to the eyes and lungs. These fumes may cause depression. After spraying, airborne residues may aggravate sinus cavities and cause migraine headaches. Excessive spray may trigger asthma or other respiratory ailment. Prolonged exposure may damage the lungs, liver, kidneys, and heart. Label precautions read “DANGER!”
Hair Sprays, Aerosol
Isobutane and propane propellants are highly flammable. Under the right circumstances (like smoking a cigarette while spraying your hair), they can be ignited like a flame-throwing torch. Direct contact may cause eye damage. They can act as a skin irritant. Fumes may cause chronic lung irritation, depression, dizziness, fatigue, headache, and stupor.Label precautions read “DANGER!”
Mouthwash
These usually contain 20% ethyl alcohol. May act as an eye, nose, and throat irritant. Over-ingestion can lead to dizziness, sluggishness, and stupor. Label precautions read “CAUTION”.
Toothpaste
Fluoride is found in nature in the form of calcium fluoride. The active ingredient in toothpaste is sodium fluoride (0.15% w/v fluoride ion). Concentrated sodium fluoride is a toxic and corrosive chemical compound derived from fluorine gas. Any effect that fluoride provides in preventing dental caries is topical rather than systemic. Children should always be supervised when brushing their teeth. They should be instructed to use only a pea-size amount of toothpaste and never be allowed to swallow it. Adults and children should consider natural, non-fluoridated toothpastes considering our societies and environments increasing exposure to this highly toxic chemical. See Zone #3 for details.
Here are some safe alternatives for personal care products, listed by category:
Shampoo
Pure Essentials Fragrance-Free Shampoo – they also make a conditioner
Giovanni’s Tea Tree Shampoo (contains no sodium laurel sulfate or propylene glycol!)
Granny’s Old Fashioned Shampoo – they also make a conditioner
Dr. Bronner’s Unscented Baby Castile Liquid Soap
Soap
Sirena Pure Coconut Oil Soap
Kiss My Face Pure Olive Oil Soap
Dr. Bronner’s Baby Super mild Soap
Dr. Bronner’s Unscented Baby Castile Liquid Soap
Deodorant
Mineral crystal stones (or spray) – least toxic choice (HFS)
le Stick French Green Clay Deodorant (Unscented)
Baking soda
French clay powder
Corn starch (great for powder!) – in the baking section of your grocery store.
Toothpaste (Avoid fluoride – it’s toxic and doesn’t prevent cavities.)
Weleda
Tea Tree Oil Toothpaste – various brands
Jason’s (contains no sodium laurel sulfate or propylene glycol!)
Baking Soda, salt and peppermint oil mixed to a paste.
Face Creams and Body Lotions
(Avoid “Quaternium-15”, which releases formaldehyde!)
Plain almond oil or olive oil
Kiss My Face Fragrance-Free Olive and Aloe moisture lotion
Granny’s Old Fashioned Moisture Guard
Nature’s Plus Vitamin E Cream
Cocoa butter, plain or with almond oil only
Any fragrance-free moisturizer from regular stores would be better than scented moisturizers.
Cosmetics
“Most natural makeup bases use products such as jojoba oil and candelilla wax instead of petrochemicals such as mineral oil (a gasoline production by-product). Colors are derived from naturally occurring earth pigments in lieu of artificial colors.” (Soref A. 2005 Feb. Beautiful You: Natural Makeup Goes High-End. Better Nutrition).”
“Shoppers will see breakthrough technology in natural makeup that rivals the big brands. Brands like Borlind of Germany are made with tiny lecithin liposome’s (pouches) that melt over time, so that foundation maintains a dewy look. “Some natural foundations tended to look gritty over time”, says Linda Upton, Borlind’s vice president of education and training. “This technology has changed that.” Borlind also offers more than 20 eye shadow shades and 16 lipstick tints.”(Ibid).
“Some manufacturers are finding new ways to avoid using synthetic preservatives such as parabens. At Logona USA, the makeup packaging is designed so that fingers do not make contact with the product, possibly introducing bacteria, says Michael Wrightson, president of Logona USA. The products are preserved with essential oils, tocopherols, even salt.(Ibid).
Sunscreens
Aubrey Organics Ultra 15 Natural Herbal Sun block
Jojoba oil
Hair Spray
For the most part – AVOID! Most hair sprays contain nerve gas and propane or butane (yes, the stuff that goes into your gas heater and lighters!) and are VERY toxic. Cut hair in a style that does not require sprays. You can also make a homemade gel by dissolving 1 package of unflavored vegetable gelatin in 2 cups of hot water. Store in a glass jar in the refrigerator.
Plain aloe vera gel!
Feminine Hygiene
Glad Rags – organic cotton menstrual pads, tampons, and other non-toxic products.
(NOTE: FDA studies have shown commercially made pads and tampons to contain harmful substances. The traditional cotton used in these products has been grown using as many as 35 different pesticides and chemicals and is then chlorine-bleached, creating dioxin in the process.)
Shaving Cream
Kiss My Face
Plain aloe vera gel can be used for aftershave – works great!
Homemade Recipe: 1/4 cup pure aloe vera gel, 1/4 cup pure coconut oil, 1/4 cup vegetable glycerin, 1/8 cup liquid Castille soap. Stir gently together and either put in a spray bottle or apply by hand. Apply a nice coating and then shave away!
Miscellaneous Tip: Plant mint around the house to keep mosquitoes away. Rub some mint leaves on you to keep them from biting you.
Zone # 2: Food
Red Meat and the Risk of Colon CA: