Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40

Thread: Cancer and cosmetics

  1. #1
    Elite Member twitchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dancing on your grave!!!!
    Posts
    9,131

    Default Cancer and cosmetics

    Cancer and cosmetics


    MARGARET PHILP
    From Saturday's Globe and Mail



    Amy Robertson is about as natural as a Canadian can be.
    Without a trace of makeup, her blond hair usually cinched in a ponytail, the former organic farmer and health-food store clerk from Vancouver scrupulously avoids preservatives and pesticides in her food. She was also tested last year by researchers collecting proof of toxic chemicals in the body.

    But what she discovered shocked her -- her clean-living body was distressingly polluted with heavy metals and PCBs. If the 43-year-old is disciplined about what goes into her mouth, she is anything but when it comes to what she puts on her skin. Inspecting her herbal shampoo label for the first time, she finds cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine and methyl cocoyl taurate, the stuff of chemistry labs.

    "I've always said to the kids, 'If you can't pronounce an ingredient, we won't buy it,' " Ms. Robertson says. "But I have obviously not been that good with cosmetics."

    Few have. While Canadians have become savvy about chemicals in their food -- scanning package labels and paying premium prices for organic produce -- little mention has been made of the chemicals that clean our hair and moisturize our skin day in and day out.

    Yet some of the 10,000 ingredients in beauty products are suspected or confirmed carcinogens, hormone-mimicking chemicals or substances linked to birth defects. And in an age of increasing fear over chemical exposures, the $5.3-billion cosmetics industry is poised to become the new frontier for health and eco-minded consumers.

    Under new federal rules that came into force late last year, cosmetics companies selling products in Canada are compelled to list ingredients on their packages -- a move that has brought this country closer into line with Europe and the United States, where, for some, checking the label on a lipstick is as routine as reading a cereal box.

    Some cosmetics ingredients will also go under the microscope when Ottawa begins a massive safety review of thousands of chemicals in widespread use that was announced last winter.

    And later this month hearings will begin in Ontario on a private member's bill tabled by NDP environment critic Peter Tabuns that would slap warnings on all cosmetics and other products containing known and suspected carcinogens.

    Outside Canada, a law just passed in California placing the onus on cosmetics companies to disclose to health authorities the details of toxic ingredients linked to cancer or reproductive problems.

    "The fact is, we're using so many different cosmetics and we're putting them directly onto our skin," says Madeleine Bird, a Montreal health researcher who founded a Canadian counterpart to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a U.S. coalition of health and environmental activists, last year.

    "We use them on our babies. It's a very intimate part of our daily lives and we want that to be as safe as possible."

    But while even those in the Canadian cosmetics industry laud the move to list contents on packaging, many consumers are discovering that these labels are hardly founts of information. Ingredients are listed by unfamiliar Latin names that obscure even benign substances -- shea butter becomes butyrospermum parkii.

    Unless shoppers splurge on an $1,100 dictionary to cross-reference ingredients, they are left no wiser than they were before the new rules. This is why the Canadian Cancer Society is tossing around the idea of a colour-coded logo that would flag possible carcinogens. The Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control committee also has product labelling on their agenda.

    "When you pick up something at the grocery store, it should immediately tell you something about what's in that substance [so] you can make an informed decision," says Heather Logan, the director of cancer control policy at the Canadian Cancer Society. "We don't have that yet."

    Aside from labelling, Health Canada does maintain a hot list of more than 500 banned and restricted chemicals. Companies selling cosmetics here are also required to disclose the ingredients contained in their products to Ottawa.

    In the United States, ingredients have been listed on cosmetics for years. But there are loopholes that allow companies to conceal some suspect chemicals under the vague title of "fragrance" or refuse to name ingredients that are claimed to be trade secrets.

    "There are some ingredients that have benefits and some risk as well," says Carl Carter, director of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. "But our feeling is that under the Canadian regulatory system, we are very confident about the safety of the substances that are used."

    Some health and environmental activists don't agree. They want Health Canada to use warning labels to protect Canadians from questionable chemicals -- or to follow the aggressive stance of the European Union, where more than 1,100 chemicals in cosmetics have been banned outright.

    The battle comes back to science. Research on chemicals in cosmetics is spotty. Many compounds have never been studied. Others are linked to cancer or birth defects in animals but not people -- or show a link to cancer, but at far higher doses than the levels present in cosmetics. In fact, the studies making the airtight case connecting compounds to cancer are few.

    To the industry, these studies suggest that their products are safe. To activists, the science overlooks the fact these minute chemical exposures in cosmetics are repeated with successive products -- soap, deodorant, makeup -- every day.

    But even where conclusive scientific evidence exists, it has not swayed health authorities in Canada or the United States to ban the substances from widespread use.

    In the face of this, the Washington-based Environmental Working Group started an online listing called Skin Deep that ranks the safety of 14,000 cosmetics -- about half of those on the market -- according to their safety as determined by the research available.

    And for the past four years, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in the U.S. has been pushing 500 companies -- most of them small "green" producers -- to sign a pact to substitute toxic ingredients with safe alternatives. The Body Shop, recently purchased by L'Oréal, is the biggest convert to date.

    Meanwhile, growing unease about cosmetics is boosting sales of alternative products -- both at health-food stores and grocery chains. Some of these products have simply disguised suspect ingredients in earthy-looking packaging touting "natural" or "herbal" properties. But a growing number of companies are starting to sell chemical-free cosmetics. And a U.S. financial research firm recently published a report suggesting that those who ignore the push for healthier products risk a backlash.

    New cosmetics brands are also emerging. Alain Menard and his wife, Karen Clark, started the Green Beaver Company in Hawkesbury, near Ottawa, after the birth of their first child three years ago. At the time, he worked as a microbiologist in pharmaceuticals and she was a biochemist with a pesticide company. But neither wanted their son exposed to the chemicals in cosmetics and both saw a market niche for an all-natural Canadian cosmetics company.

    Mr. Menard welcomes the new labelling law in Canada, sure it will expose the pretenders marketing supposedly natural and organic products that are neither.

    But he, too, worries about the confounding Latin names, fearing that customers will feel threatened by natural ingredients that sound like chemicals. "There may be some confusion about what these terms mean," he says.

    Take Ms. Robertson. As she reads through the label on her shampoo, the names grow longer and more complicated. As hair-care products go, it ranks among the more benign. Still, it does contain methyl, ethyl, propyl and butyl parabens. In the bottle are ingredients considered to be toxic, endocrine disruptors and harmful to wildlife -- a rude shock to the Vancouverite, who buys her cosmetics at a health-food store.

    "To be quite honest, I'd never read down that whole ingredient list until now," she says. "I don't know what all the parabens are."

    Margaret Philp is a feature writer with The Globe and Mail.
    Pretty dangerous
    Some compounds in personal-care products are worth watching out for.
    Lead acetate: A known reproductive toxin banned in the European Union but found in some hair dyes and cleansers in North America.
    Formaldehyde: A known carcinogen found in some nail products.
    Toluene: A possible reproductive or developmental toxin found in some nail polishes.
    Petroleum distillates: Possible carcinogen prohibited in the EU, but found in some mascara, perfume and lipstick in North America.
    Ethyl acrylate: A possible carcinogen found in some mascara.
    Coal tar: A known carcinogen found in dandruff shampoos, anti-itch creams and hair dyes.
    Dibutyl phthalate: An endocrine disruptor and possible reproductive or developmental toxin found in some nail polish, perfume and hair spray.
    Sodium lauryl sulfate: A skin irritant prone to contamination by a probable carcinogen called 1,4-dioxane used in many soaps and shampoos for its foaming properties.
    Methyl, propyl, butyl and ethyl paraben: Endocrine disruptors and possible breast carcinogens used as a preservative in cosmetics such as lotions and shampoos.
    -- Margaret Philp
    Source: Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Environmental Working Group
    globeandmail.com: Cancer and cosmetics

    "The howling backwoods that is IMDB is where film criticism goes to die (and then have its corpse gang-raped, called a racist, and accused of supporting Al-Qaeda)" ----Sean O'Neal, The Onion AV Club

  2. #2
    Bronze Member Tierra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Good post Twitchy. It's amazing how many chemicals shampoo & conditioner have in them.

  3. #3
    Elite Member moomies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    pretending to be a lurker but I'm not quiet enough
    Posts
    15,515

    Default

    This makes me so scared I'm sure I'm using a lot of cosmetic products with carcinogens in them. But I think carcinogens are just everywhere, in our food, the air, the soil, water etc. We might do our best to avoid them but we could still get cancer.

    If you think it's crazy, you ain't seen a thing. Just wait until we're goin down in flames.

  4. #4
    Elite Member msdeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    in a van down by the river
    Posts
    39,431

    Default

    everything causes cancer anymore
    Basic rule of Gossip Rocks: Don't be a dick.Tati
    Lighten Up Francis WCG

  5. #5
    Hit By Ban Bus! WickedHo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NYC, baby!
    Posts
    9,249

    Default

    Cancer can kiss my ass.

  6. #6
    Gold Member khaebs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    851

    Default

    I think it's good to be aware of things like this because the FDA does not regulate cosmetics. However, I think it's harmful to make the generalization that natural = good and chemical = bad.
    (Like people that only buy things with ingredients they can pronounce.)

    True, I would not want to buy something that contained chemicals that interfere with my bodies hormones...(i.e. parabens)...but if not putting preservatives in my food means that it will most likely be contaminated with harmful bacteria and fungi, I might be willing to take that risk.
    The question shouldn't be is there a risk, it should be does the benefit outweigh the risk.

    Remember, some of the most toxic compounds that exist are naturally occurring, while most life saving compounds are synthetically produced in a lab.

  7. #7
    Elite Member Palermo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    9,540

    Default

    After I had my lumpectomy I got a lot more interested in breast cancer websites; they are now saying that many lumps that have been removed from women seem to contain parabens. So I started looking at different shampoos and it is very hard to find any that don't contain parabens. I am also very leery of antiperspirants, even though most studies are saying they don't cause breast cancer. I switched to just deoderants and they work fine, I never sweat under my arms anyway. So many things "they" said were fine later turn out not to be fine, so I still thnk it's better to avoid them if you can.

  8. #8
    Elite Member msdeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    in a van down by the river
    Posts
    39,431

    Default

    i found after my lumpectomy, chemo and radiation, that the internet has given me too much power. i think at times, i prefer to be in the dark.
    Basic rule of Gossip Rocks: Don't be a dick.Tati
    Lighten Up Francis WCG

  9. #9
    Elite Member moomies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    pretending to be a lurker but I'm not quiet enough
    Posts
    15,515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khaebs View Post
    I think it's good to be aware of things like this because the FDA does not regulate cosmetics. However, I think it's harmful to make the generalization that natural = good and chemical = bad.
    (Like people that only buy things with ingredients they can pronounce.)

    True, I would not want to buy something that contained chemicals that interfere with my bodies hormones...(i.e. parabens)...but if not putting preservatives in my food means that it will most likely be contaminated with harmful bacteria and fungi, I might be willing to take that risk.
    The question shouldn't be is there a risk, it should be does the benefit outweigh the risk.

    Remember, some of the most toxic compounds that exist are naturally occurring, while most life saving compounds are synthetically produced in a lab.
    You have a very good point. An example I can think of is radiation and ozonization they do to vegetables (radiation I think is used to make them last longer on the shelf) and water (ozonization to kill off bacteria in water, I believe), both can be toxic.

    Buying organic and natural/eco-friendly produce and products seems like the right solution though. But at the same time, we need to live and let live, can't avoid everything that is considered dangerous.

    If you think it's crazy, you ain't seen a thing. Just wait until we're goin down in flames.

  10. #10
    SVZ
    SVZ is offline
    Do fish have boogers? SVZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Venus
    Posts
    1,000,003,609

    Default

    Also remember the methodologies used in these studies.

    most of the time they use a 100% concentration of the chemical in question in vitro. which does NOT correlate to effects at a low concentration in vivo.

    Most of these chemicals are in 0.1% concentrations in the products you use, don't penetrate and are washed off.

  11. #11
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    101

    Default

    so what shampoos/cosmetics ARE ok?

  12. #12
    Elite Member ariesallover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    here, soon to be over there
    Posts
    2,641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hip_hip_renee View Post
    so what shampoos/cosmetics ARE ok?
    I was just wondering the same thing. I'm wondering if I should switch to buying some other shampoo, conditioner, facial cleanser and body soap from Trader Joe's or a health food store. I just bought an oatmeal soap from TJ that had only a few ingredients in it (now I forget what they were besides oatmeal) and was hypoallergenic.

  13. #13
    Elite Member McJag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    42,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palermo View Post
    After I had my lumpectomy I got a lot more interested in breast cancer websites; they are now saying that many lumps that have been removed from women seem to contain parabens. So I started looking at different shampoos and it is very hard to find any that don't contain parabens. I am also very leery of antiperspirants, even though most studies are saying they don't cause breast cancer. I switched to just deoderants and they work fine, I never sweat under my arms anyway. So many things "they" said were fine later turn out not to be fine, so I still thnk it's better to avoid them if you can.
    With a family history of breast cancer and several friend who have been through treatment, I have always read a lot about this. One of the best is by Barbra Delensky called "Uplift". Over and over women have to use Toms of Maine toothpaste and deodorant while undergoing chemo or radiation. All natural & safer. Take a look at the website-they have shampoo too. I figure they are best for everyone-not just patients. And get this: one friend I had not seen in a couple of months & I met for lunch. Her teeth were SO WHITE! Beautiful!
    I would have figured tooth whitening by dentist had it been anyone else, but she is just not the type! Guess how? Tom's of Maine toothpaste ONLY! She said her whole family switched-and it MUCH safer!
    I didn't start out to collect diamonds, but somehow they just kept piling up.-Mae West

  14. #14
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    11,682

    Default

    ^Is that still true now that Proctor & Gamble (or some other company) has bought Tom's of Maine?

  15. #15
    Super Moderator NoDayButToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    14,368

    Default

    I can't find anything through Google that says they did. Most of the sites are still putting out the line of boycott P&G, use Tom's of Maine instead, I'd think at least some would have been changed if there was a merger.

    I did find that the ToM COO was formerly w/P&G though. The guy's been with ToM for about 9 years, and was with P&G for 13 years before it.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Lush Cosmetics
    By Sharlott in forum Products and Reviews
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: December 20th, 2008, 06:32 PM
  2. How Cosmetics Advertising Misleads
    By NoDayButToday in forum Beauty and Skincare
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 24th, 2006, 05:15 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 18th, 2006, 09:39 AM
  4. ELF Cosmetics Helps Protect the Seals
    By miss_perfect in forum Pets and Animals
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 31st, 2006, 01:53 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: February 1st, 2006, 03:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •