BEAUTY ADDICTS: HOW TOXIC ARE YOU? Channel 4
Every year we splash out £6.4 billion on beauty products, but do we ever stop to think about what’s in them or what they could be doing to us? The beauty industry spends £600 million a year marketing its products as pure, simple, organic and natural, but what’s the truth behind the hype? Presenter Sarah Beeny wants to find out.
Thursday 11 October 2007
8:00pm
Bookmark & Share »
[...] show airs tonight at 8pm on Channel 4 so check it out and let us know what you [...]
I am just watching toxic beauty with Sarah Beeney… a bit shocked when she said the eco- friendly washing powder eco-ver was made with palm oil… is it sustainable?Most palm oil comes from countries like Sumatra where they rip down acres and acres of rain forest and kill all the wildlife etc(orangutangs for eg!!) in the process. Can anyone answer this?? I would hate to think that a product was being advertised as a chemically better product for the environment if its promoting tearing down rainforests to grow the natural product to use in he first place!!!!!!!!!
I agree with Firyal. Just finished watching BEAUTY ADDICTS: HOW TOXIC ARE YOU? and very disappointed to realise one of Ecover’s main ingredients is palm oil! I am trying to cut it due to environmmental concerns out but it’s difficult when it comes to washing as nothing seems very effective. Any other good recommendations?
It is difficult to make objective comments on this programme because it was so poorly researched and contained so many factual errors. At the beginning the presenter acknowledged that the concentration of a chemical is the most important factor in determining if it is a hazard or not. However at no point was any mention made of the significance of any concentrations of any of the chemicals found in the products or in the participants.
There was an obsession in the programme with “man made” chemicals,whereas in fact, many naturally occurring chemicals pose as many, (or as few) threats. Worse,the programme actually failed to distinguish man made from natural,since it claimed that (sodium) fluoride, formaldehyde, and limonene are man made where in fact they are all “natural” chemicals. Indeed the presence of limonene in a cosmetic is usually as a result of a natural plant oil being used,as limonene is a component of many essential oils. It along with 25 other natural chemicals have to be declared on cosmetic labels as potential allergens. Substituting “natural” chemicals for “man made” ones is absolutely no guarantee of reducing the very low risk that correct usage of these products poses. Additionally the comments above are correct in asserting that palm oil based products are from unsustainable sources. All in all the understanding of the programme makers was very poor and I’m disappointed that Alastair Hay would put his name to such a charade.
I am an independent scientist with no conflict of interest to declare.
surely the point of the show was to alert us to and to at least cut down the amount of chemichals we put in our bodys,.scientists will never agree! so less is best!
I have decided to e-mail ecover directly to ask them where their source of palm oil is from and what is any sacrifices have been made.. it is scary just how in the dark we are with the products we use.. for eg. palm oil doesnt need to be declared as being so.. vegetable oil suffices on the ingredients list.. this takes our consumer rights away from us.. as we cannot possible make informed decisions about anything if this is the case… again using palm oil as an eg, its in ice cream , beauty products.. detergents, food!!Is anything safe,friendly??ps thanks Emily.
In respect to palm oil, you would need to check whether it is being farmed sustainably in the Ecover products. While the growing of palm oil is a big ecological problem in many parts of the world, there are also growers who are growing it sustainably and it would be unfair on these people to cut it out completely. I know that organic certifiers like the Soil Association make sure that they only certify palm oil from sustainable sources.
I agree with the scientist regarding the lack of any real scientific rigour in the program but then again it was meant for mainstream TV rather than the Open University.
I am not sure that many people would regard sodium fluoride as being natural in the sense the scientist inferred.
What is clear is that more and more studies are questioning the chemicals we use regularly without knowing what the long term effects of usage are. In addition the interactions between these chemicals and also the different formulations we apply to our skin is little understood.
We have made assumptions about the safety of our products based upon the fact that they don’t seem to have harmed us in the past - the basis for EU chemical safety up to this year.
It is good that these assumptions are now being challenged and if the chemicals are as safe as the beauty manufacturers would have us believe then its about time that they released their research to back up their claims.
Thank you for making this programme; I think that it has helped to make people more aware of what are in the products they use. We are so led by advertisements and media that we forget to do our own research. We should question our products more and demand more from our suppliers. I hope that it is a wake-up call for many people.
If it just causes some people to change and become less toxic, then you have succeeded!
a non-scientist
The point I was making is that there is no guarantee that the alternatives suggested in the programme ARE any safer, for two main reasons. Firstly cosmetics ARE chemicals and in order to do their job must have some form of chemicals in them. Natural isn’t necessarily better because the research on them is even more scant than on “synthetics”. After all some of th most “toxic” chemicals are natural, (think nicotine, strychine, ricin, belladonna; the last of these was actually used in cosmetics in past times). Short term toxicity is not the issue; as one poster says, it’s potential long term effects that are of concern and those experiments cannot be easily done (certainly not on humans). So the only really safe advice is “don’t use cosmetics if you are concerned”.
Hi does anyone remember the make of the cosmetics they suggested and the skin care products? i only began to watch the programme helf way through but found it very interesting. I agree with the above that it wasn’t well presented at times, with a lack of clarity on what is considered harmful levels of substances. However I would like to start using products with less chemicals in and therefore appreciate if anyone could write in with the name of the beauty products.
Thanks
Hi
I wiould be really interested in knowing how you get on with finding out if ecover used sustainable methods.
Louise,
It depends what you mean by “less chemicals”. For example some of the products quoted as only having 3 natural ingredients, will have some natural essential oils from plants in them. These oils will have dozens of chemicals in them but are only stated on the label as for, example “citrus aurantium oil”, (orange peel oil), but it still contains a cocktail of largely untested chemicals. We just assume that because we may ingest orange peel with no ill effects, that we can spread it on our skin too, and we’re probably right but that doesn’t mean it’s better than products with synthetics and additives because we don’t know. “Natural” isn’t necessarily “good”.
How can I get in touch with the lady who presented the program as I make non-toxic products (Ayurvedic herbs and oils) for teens and have been working on this kind of awareness for children and teens for more than a decade.
I was very pleased and excited to watch the program as I hope it will create a huge awareness esp amongst parents. Although I’m concerned about the Ecover products which uses Palm oil??
I found the programme very interesting but quite shocking too!
It would be very easy to become paranoid about this whole topic and one could feel too scared to even use toothpaste!
The manufacturers of food, cleaning products, make-up etc seem to ‘hold our lives in their hands’!
We need to be better informed so as to make the right choices.
Profnick
Thanks for your reply. I would still be interested in which products they mentioned as alternatives so that I could explore them myself.
I was also somewhat disappointed. I was hoping for some new information but I didn’t learn anything that I didn’t know before. I was particularly surprised at using scientific tests and giving the test results for certain chemicals in people’s blood or urine, but not once did I hear the limit set for those chemicals at which they become detrimental to human health. One mother said she was shocked to hear she had 55 ‘toxins’ or ‘man-made chemicals’ (is that really the same) in her breast milk, but then the scientist reassures her by saying others have 10 times that. What does that mean? Is the 10 times more above or below the limit? It was all very superficial and just out for the ‘Oh… really?’ effect in my opinion. By the way, I have used the eco balls for laundry for a year now, and my washing never comes out as grubby as her t-shirt did in the test. And for really stubborn stains one can always use a stain remover.
Louise, some of the make-up was mineral make-up. There are several companies making that, the most well-known and also expensive is Bare Escentuals. However, google ‘mineral make-up’ and you should find plenty of cheaper suppliers with e-shops. Mineral make-up is good but I tend to use less make-up now as it is indeed rather messy as it is all in loose powder form.
An Irish company make a range of chemical safe skincare products called elave. Worth checking out. The range is free from sodium laureth sulfate, Parabens, Perfumes and triclosan which were all highlighted in the show.
My opinion would be, if there is doubt about parabens and perfumes, avoid using them as much as possible. I think the lack of clarity in the show was due to the lack of factual information on the effects of using a number of skincare products containing these ingredients. These products are on the market because they are safe to use on their own but we all know, we are showering more and using more products on our skin on a daily basis. It stands to reason that this is not good.
I have been using this range for a while now and i would recommend it (not too expensive either) and I order it online.
PS Just checked and they don’t contain Palm oil
My wife and I became very concerned when they mentioned the risk of hypospadiasy. My son was born with this condition and under no time before or during pregnacy did she indulge in anything which could of brought on this condition. I found the remander of the programme informative but went to bed in shock and slightly worried. My son now 21 had two operations to correct the condition as well as a circumcision and is a well adjusted and ‘ normal ‘person. This part of the programme was not addressed fully as I am aware that it alone could take the whole programme to fully debate. Was anybody else concerned at this ?
John,
As far as I’m aware there is absolutely no evidence linking exposure of any of the ingredients of any personal care products with hyperspadias. You’ll notice that the programme linked this to the presence of some compounds which have endocrine disrupting properties when applied in very high doses in laboratory “test tube assays”. These levels are thousands of times higher than you’d ever encounter in a lifetime of cosmetic application.
Incidentally, Elave have moderated out my comments on this programme from their blog on same. Interesting that they have a section of their site called “Have your say”; obviously not!
Became extremely aware and concerned of everyday cleaning products after watching this programme. Especially concerned with my use of Anti-bacterial sprays which I use everywhere and now notice contain formaldehyde amongst other chemicals. Have examined household and baby products and found even my baby lotion has 5 parabens - did some brief internet research and found most of what I use daily for cleaning is toxic and more worringly carcinogenic. Very unhappy that these products are sold as ’safe’to use, especially in relation to babies - creating a toxic free home is now extremely important to me and I am beginning to unravel the minefield of commercialism that I have been unwittingly drawn into for the past 20 or so years that doesn’t give a damn about my or my family’s health. Personal health issues have to come first - I have a 9 month old baby that I have been regularly exposing to formaldehyde many times a day in both sprays and wipes and other seemingly ’safe’ products. Come on manufacturers - wake up and do something about it - what we need is for manufacturers to adopt ‘green’ policies in their mainstream products and not for them to be some kind of sideline. I, and many others like me now need affordable, safe alternatives.
Can anybody tell me what make the salt and aubergine toothpaste is?/ i’d like to try it! thank you.
Maria,
Your reaction is understandable given the scaremongering nature of this programme. However, regulations ARE in place to ensure the chemical safety of consumer products. Read some of the posts in this thread but if you don’t believe my posts you could do worse than check out the unbiased guide to chemicals on the Sense About Science website.((http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/13/) Also beware who is putting information on to the internet and make sure the info you get is not from someone with a vested interest such as an industry body or a lobby group.
Good on you mum, just read your post. Spare a thought for us teenagers - surrounded in chemicals everywhere with no telling what it will all do to us in later life.
Mum has been hard at work making her own cleaning products but had difficulty finding any alternative personal products - does anyone know a safe bath recipe or name of an effective deodorant anti-perspirant?
Its really disgusting that there are so many dangerous products around - well done Sarah Beeny for enlightening us all - even my baby brother’s lost his wet wipes today and mum’s gone back to cotton wool and water - unbelievable that they contained dangerous stuff.
Does anyone know names of safe men’s hair products - thanks in advance
Josh
I thought the programme was very informative, as I am a asthma suffer and find everytime I use cleaning products, I have a major coughing fit - I realise now the impact this has on me, so therefore am on my way out today to find alternative products!
I am not surprised either by the amount of chemicals found in makeup.. it is sad to think that we live in such a society whereby girls/women are coating themselves in toxic substances because of the social/media pressure of looking younger!
Awareness is key on such an important issue, although one of my work colleagues said she wouldn’t watch on the basis that “she’d rather not know!”. An obvious case of burying her head in the sand.
I was made aware of the “nasties” lurking in products a year ago after reading a book bought from the Centre for Alternative Technology. Since then I’ve taken baby steps at making change, although my main focus has been to cut out parabens and sodium laureth sulfate.
Like others above, I made the switch to Ecover but lets not slate them for using palm oil until we know the facts - as someone said, they may have a sustainable source.
I came onto this site in the hope of finding a product list of what was used on the programme. I remember Pit Rok deodorant was used and have found that in my local Waitrose….am gonna give it a try as have tried loads and many have failed!!! Neils Yard Remedies and Barefoot Botanicals have my fave products thus far.
- Trying to make a change of Manchester
Me again. I’ve just been on Ecover’s website (assuringly very transparent) and can’t find palm oil listed under any of the ingredients for their laundry products…..phew
the ecover comments are interesting - I’ve been using their washing liquid for a while. Ms Beeney does say “palm oil based soap” yet ecover’s website say they use “rapeseed oil based surfactants”. Mind, most of that programme was sensationalist and misleading, so I’ll take the palm oil thing with a pinch of salt…
I must compliment the makers of this programme, Channel 4, Sarah Beeny and the participants for their part in conveying this vital information to the public. For years we have seen increases in a range of allergic related illnesses, asthma, cancers and other “lifestyle diseases” due to our highly chemically charged environment. These insidious man made ingredients were added to an already existing natural background range of chemicals that make up our abiotic and physical world. We have however, been living and adapting to these natural materials and using them to enhance our presence on the world for eons, all with very little consequences to our health.
In relation to the issues and the claims by manufacturers that the ingredients are approved by regulators etc.I want to highlight one particular ingredient. SLS (Sodium Laurel Sulfate) is one of the best examples. Here is what several experts including the United States FDA have to say about it.
SLS can damage the immune system; causing separation of skin layers and inflammation of skin.
-Journal of the American College of Toxicology; Vol. 2, No. 7, 1983
SLS penetrates into the skin and into the eyes, and is also held in the brain, heart and liver. A single drop stays in the brain and body for a few days - Doctor’s worry: Is your baby safe?
-By David L. Kern, New health and longevity
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 and Higuchi, school of medicine, Tohoku University: Sendai 980 Japan
SLS is a potent carcinogen when contaminated with a nitrosamines.
-FDA Report 1978
I hope this programme and others like it can get some rational public debate going, while helping people make informed choices as to their health and well being.
John Fitzgerald,
Kilkenny,
Ireland
John,
I agree with the idea of rational debate, but disinformation such as that presented in this programme does not help that process. Indeed even your own post does not present us with both sides. The 1983 study you cite along with others was the subject of OECD and WHO meta analyses which concluded:
“The human health hazard assessment for SLS shows that at present the substance is of no concern for the general public (consumers)
and for workers”
and
“Overall, there are no data in the OECD and CIR reports on SLS and their formulations
to indicate SLS to be a skin sensitiser, genotoxic, carcinogenic, or a reproductive toxicant.”
References: IPCS (1997) Sodium Lauryl Sulfate: International Chemical Safety Card 0502. Geneva,
International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organisation
OECD (1997) OECD Screening Information Data Set (SIDS), Initial Assessment Report Volume 4, Part 2:
Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate, Paris, OECD
I’d like to comment on the SLS debate. I *do* have a sensitivity to SLS (mouth ulcers, dermatitis/eczema etc) - the SLS used in the beauty industry is Sodium Laureth Sulphate - which as I understand it is a processed version of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate designed to be less sensitising. I did my own reading, and discovered that the American Cancer Society refuted the carcinogen claims completely. Incidentally, John, I’d be interested to know where you’re getting the FDA report link from, as I always understood the SLS-is-a-carcinogen thing came from a viral email that was circulated about ten years ago. While that misinformation is still being circulated, it makes it more difficult for my genuine sensitivity to be taken seriously.
The synthetic ingredients that are in personal/household products and toiletries have no “biological function” and many of them persist and remain active in our bodies and the environment. Many of them are just “target” ingredients and chemical helpers. They are ecologically incompatible when reaching surface and groundwaters and the soil and it is only now we are starting to see their insidious nature at micro level.
In the USA people can access the National Institute of Medicine website and get a comprehensive review of these products and their ingredients. It is amazing though the “no data available” on many suspect ingredients. As for the SLS debate here are some peer revieved excerpts to help the last two contributors.
Human Health Effects:
Human Toxicity Excerpts:
…SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE CAN PRODUCE ALLERGIC SENSITIVITY REACTIONS.
[American Medical Association, AMA Department of Drugs, AMA Drug Evaluations. 3rd ed. Littleton, Massachusetts: PSG Publishing Co., Inc., 1977., p. 896]**PEER REVIEWED**
/SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE/…MAY PRODUCE DRYING EFFECT ON SKIN.
[American Hospital Formulary Service. Volumes I and II. Washington, DC: American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, to 1984., p. 84:20]**PEER REVIEWED**
SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN COMMONEST CAUSE OF EYE IRRITATION BY COMMERCIAL SHAMPOOS.
[Grant, W. M. Toxicology of the Eye. 2nd ed. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1974., p. 964]**PEER REVIEWED**
AMONG 242 PATIENTS SUFFERING FROM ECZEMATOUS DERMATITIS, THE PERCENTAGE OF ALLERGIC REACTIONS REACHED 54.6%. GREAT NUMBER OF ALLERGIC REACTIONS TO SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE (6.4%) WAS OBSERVED.
[BLONDEEL A ET AL; CONTACT DERMATITIS 4(5) 270 (1978)]**PEER REVIEWED**
WIDELY USED ANIONIC DETERGENTS OF LOW ACUTE & CHRONIC TOXICITY. /ALKYL SODIUM SULFATES/
[Gosselin, R.E., H.C. Hodge, R.P. Smith, and M.N. Gleason. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1976., p. II-178]**PEER REVIEWED**
Poison by intravernous and intraperitoneal routes. Moderately toxic by ingestion and a human skin irritant.
[Lewis, R.J. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 9th ed. Volumes 1-3. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1996., p. 2974]**PEER REVIEWED**
John,
No dispute over the need to investigate potential hazards. My beef was with the way in which factoids were presented in the programme as facts.
I don’t understand your statement “The synthetic ingredients that are in personal/household products and toiletries have no “biological function” and many of them persist and remain active in our bodies and the environment.” Maybe you can explain or give some examples.
Have you noticed how most of your references are 20-30 years old? I would have assumed that the OECD/WHO meta analysis of 1997 have taken the earlier stuff into account?
In its simplest sense a substance having a “biological function” means it will totally decompose leaving only valuable nutrients that then form part of the global biogeochemical cycle. Macronutrients like calcium are taken up by plants and animals and returned to the cycle when they die. Micronutriets such as boron are also cycled in the same way. Synthetic ingredients do not have this beneficial function and serve only to contaminate and cause systemic dysfunction in most living matter. If the conatminant or toxin is taken up it bioaccumulates causing huge problems at the apex of the food chain. Seeing as I have limited space and time I will end the with the example of a substance in synthetic laundry detergents called nonylphenol etoxylates. Thes surfacants which detergent manufacturers say are 95% degradeable in septic tanks forget to state that the 95% degradeability are the etoxyalates but it is the 5% nonylphenols that persist as active surfacants in the system for a lenghty time, causing eventual failure and rendering the effluent more toxic than the influent.
On a helpful note, Smart Skin Care.com list a few ingredients which may be capable of causing skin damage with prolonged use, or are simply redundant. They also offer a direct service in the US or Canada, to a medical doctor who is a skin care specialist. I don’t know if there is a similar one in the UK or EU:
Imidazolidinyl Urea and Diazolidinyl Urea: Used as preservatives to prevent bacterial growth although ineffective against fungi. Known to be a relatively common cause of contact dermatitis. Two trade names for these chemicals are Germall II and Germall 115. Germall 115 may release formaldehyde, a potentially toxic chemical. Potential for low level skin damage in the long term is unproven but appears likely.
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate: A detergent common in shampoos and cleaners, where it is relatively safe due to short contact time. If exposure is prolonged is likely to cause skin irritation, dryness and other damage. In fact, sodium lauryl sulfate is sometimes used as a model skin irritant in the experiments where skin protectors are tested. Avoid products with sodium lauryl sulfate unless time of contact with the skin is very short. Even skin cleansers should rather be without it.
Mineral oil: petroleum derived hydrocarbons; used as inexpensive base in some products (less today than in the past). Is moderately comedogenic. Mineral oil may also interfere with normal perspiration and other skin functions.
Synthetic Colors: Whether synthetic colors are completely safe or mildly damaging in the long run is unknown. Since they serve no useful purpose, they are best avoided (except perhaps when avoiding them means foregoing an otherwise great product). They are labeled as FD&C or D&C, followed by a color and a number, e.g. FD&C Red No. 6 or D&C Green No. 6. Some are found to be mutagens in rodents.
Synthetic Fragrances: There are over 200 synthetic fragrances used in cosmetics. There is no way to know which particular ones are in your product, since on the label it will simply say “Fragrance.” Safety of most synthetic fragrances is an open question. Best to avoid them since they provide no skin benefits. True, it is good to have a nice smelling cream. However, apart from the questionable safety, frangrance may mask spoilage of your product, an effect you would want to avoid.
Ethanolamines (Monoethanolamine aka MEA, Diethanolamine aka DEA, Triethanolamine aka TEA): common pH stabilizers; when exposed to oxygen/air form nitrosoamines, which may be irritating and/or toxic. The amount of nitrosoamines formed during typical use of skin care products with ethanolamines is unclear.
Parabens (e.g. Methyl, Ethyl, Propyl and Butyl Paraben): Used as preservatives; inhibit microbial growth and extend shelf life of products. Methyl paraben may degrade releasing methanol, a potentially toxic chemical. However, the amounts of methanol that might be released from methyl paraben in skin care products are too small for any known systemic effects. Most people don’t have an obvious skin reaction to parabens. However, more research is needed to determine whether they are truly nontoxic or may cause low level skin damage in the long term.
With all this tiresome “to and fro” of chemically charged argument, it is the people in the end who will decide what is best for them. I just hope they will come out on the side of the natural and simple in all its incontestable benefits and the cult of “sorcorers apprentices” will not prevail.
John,
At the risk of further derailing this thread, I have to respond to your post.
“In its simplest sense a substance having a “biological function” means it will totally decompose leaving only valuable nutrients that then form part of the global biogeochemical cycle.”
This is not what biological functionality is. A compound is said to be biologically functional when it takes part in a metabolic pathway or other normal physiological event. What you describe is the ability of a compound to undergo catabolism, (breakdown) by biological systems.
“If the conatminant or toxin is taken up it bioaccumulates causing huge problems at the apex of the food chain. ” This is only true of a small number of compounds; the vast majority of chemicals are effectively catabolised by a range of enzymes such as cytochrome P450 mixed function oxidases, hydrolases, glutathione-S transferases and others.So bioaccumulation is very much the exception rather than the rule. We have evolved such enzyme systems to cope with the wide range of chemical types that occur in natural substances. Citrus peel for example contains over 120 chemicals. Some of which are potentially toxic and need to be broken down in our bodies.
The only issue with any chemical, natural or synthetic is the dose at which harm may be caused.
Why is natural “simple”?; I have already explained that essential oils contain hundred of chemicals that have never been tested. I suggest you look at the properties of some naturally occuring substance on the USDA Ethnobotanical and Phytochemical Database, (http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/duke/farmacy-scroll3.pl
For example try searching for lemon and have a look at some of the properties of the many constituents.
Your explanation of the leaving group of parabens metabolism is also inaccurate. For example you say “Methyl paraben may degrade releasing methanol, a potentially toxic chemical.”. Parabens are in fact very readily degraded in the body by esterases and the “leaving group” (the alcohol, methanol, propanol etc depending on the parabens) is further rapidly degraded by dehydrogenases. Thus even the tiny amount of methanol you acknowledge as being likely to be released will be rapidly broken down. I could use similar counter arguments for your other examples but it would be too tedious to contemplate. However your post does highlight the reason why we have this “tiresome “to and fro” of chemically charged argument,”; because it is important that the science is accurately reported and put into context, exactly why this programme, (to bring us back to the thread) was so irresponsible.
You say “it is the people in the end who will decide what is best for them.”, but I hope they do so with the best available evidence and not out of context nonsense. The two key factors to remember are:
1. Natural doesn’t necessarily mean simple or best
2. Dose is the only determinant of “toxicity”
There seems to be a lot of pride, predjudice and pathology getting into this exchange. It is obvious profnick your background is in chemistry. You can cease being pedantic. I was giving an ecological explaination of the biological functioning of a substance. Obviously if we ingest a substance its constituents follow many metabolic pathways in our bodies. The lead in petrol before it was banned, for example was known to follow the same metabolic pathway as calcium. Its replacement is also under scrutiny for its toxic threat. Forget about lethal dose and safe limits lark also. Long-term exposure to small doses can have deleterious effects on our health. Right now most responsible governments are just getting to grips with the toxic legacy of our synthetic environment. There is still a long way to go but the momentum is gaining strength and it nedds no artificial stimulus either. The only thing that is “out of context” is the notion that lab rats in a cloud of hubris can improve on nature. That is the “nonsense” that will condemn us all to toxic hell.
Hi John
You have made some interesting posts here that have been good to read.
I think this is also quiet relevant:
“Although the hormonal changes in the boys were linked to phthalate monoester levels in breast milk, we cannot exclude that fetal exposure may be a contributing factor to altered postnatal hormone levels. Levels of phthalate monoesters in breast milk may be a proxy of general maternal exposure: the women with high levels of phthalate monoesters in milk may also be among those with highest exposures during pregnancy. Phthalates can cross the placenta; DEHP and mEHP have been detected in maternal and cord blood (Latini et al. 2003) and their metabolites were found in amniotic fluid (Silva et al. 2004c). Sources of phthalate exposures in women can be inhalation (Adibi et al. 2003), contamination via building materials and furniture, use of consumer products including cosmetics (Koo and Lee 2004), and food items (Anderson et al. 2001). Thus, exposure to some phthalates such as DEHP and DiNP is likely to be constant rather than episodic, whereas others such as DMP and DEP, through their presence in cosmetics, are more influenced by personal habits.”
it comes from:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16451866
Human Breast Milk Contamination with Phthalates and Alterations of Endogenous Reproductive Hormones in Infants Three Months of Age
Katharina M. Main, Gerda K. Mortensen, Marko M. Kaleva, Kirsten A. Boisen, Ida N. Damgaard, Marla Chellakooty, Ida M. Schmidt, Anne-Maarit Suomi, Helena E. Virtanen, Jørgen H. Petersen, Anna-Maria Andersson, Jorma Toppari, and Niels E. Skakkebæk
Environ Health Perspect. 2006 February; 114(2): 270–276.
Dave
Hi Dave,
Thank you for the helpful info. It will add add to the growing documentation that man-made chemicals are out of control, threatening our health and environment.
Even the technology we are using to get the message across contains toxic chemicals and heavy metals that cannot be disposed of or recycled safely. We also have to pressure leading electronic companies for change to turn back the toxic tide of e-waste that is accumulating everywhere.
Stricter environmental regulations in developed countries have led to many polluting industries transferring their toxic technologies to the developing nations, starting the problem all over again elsewhere.
It is worth noting that U.S. companies released 38 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air and water that are known or suspected to cause reproductive disorders and that since the Bush administrations “watering down” of regulations, companies won’t have to self-report that data as thoroughly as before. (Colorado Public Interest Research Group (CoPIRG),2007. Furthermore, and even more alarming, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the basic toxicity of only seven percent of the most frequently manufactured chemicals in the US and we haven’t yet even got near to analysing the “cocktail effect” of these sinister synthetics.
It was heartening to see, after they stopped using the chemical “nasties”, how the toxins were eliminated from the two female volounteers in programme no 1 and from the female teenager in programme 2. Also they felt much better healthwise, had more self-confidence and were financially better off. What more proof is needed?
Keep the vigilence going.
“It is obvious profnick your background is in chemistry”
err… thought we were talking about chemicals John, that kinda gives my background some relevance. Actually my background (plus 30 years experience) is in environmental chemistry. The rest of your post is just hyperbole with no attempt to separate evidence from anecdote. The fact that we probably agree on much of this has obviously bypassed you but then if you don’t read the posts then what should we expect.
“The only thing that is “out of context” is the notion that lab rats in a cloud of hubris can improve on nature. That is the “nonsense” that will condemn us all to toxic hell.”
Sound and fury signifying nothing.
“Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the basic toxicity of only seven percent of the most frequently manufactured chemicals in the US and we haven’t yet even got near to analysing the “cocktail effect””
Close to the truth but if we have little evidence on the remaining 93% why do you have to add “sinister synthetics” because you can’t know can you? The “cocktail effects will never be studied directly because of the inherent problems in methodology so outright bans in the case of doubt is the best practice, and it’s called the precautionary principle and is the basis of OECD chemicals legislation).
“It was heartening to see, after they stopped using the chemical “nasties”, how the toxins were eliminated from the two female volounteers in programme no 1 and from the female teenager in programme 2. Also they felt much better healthwise, had more self-confidence and were financially better off. What more proof is needed?”
Do you know what proof is John? This is anecdote. when you’ve learned the difference maybe we can continue to debate.
I am fed up of all this vacous talk about whether this synthetic chemical or that synthetic chemical is not toxic or is wonderfully benign. All this nit picking is taking place while our world is going down the tubes. UNEP’s recently published Global Environment Outlook states clearly that “there is a risk that environmental damage could pass unknown points of no return.” Contaminated water is the greatest single cause of human disease and death the report says. The chemical industry has played major part in this toxic outcome and is still dragging its heels, frustrating international efforts to ban the use of priority chemicals and dangerous substances, as well as efforts to find more benign alternatives to them.
Profnick, I don’t need further proof that these concoctions interfere with the delicately balanced systems of our living planet. Their notoriety is a matter of global concern now. I am glad to see you consider yourself working in the field of environmental chemistry. I have heard of Phytochemistry and green chemistry but not “environmental chemistry” Like environmental engineering, bit of an oxymoron I’d say?
The irony of synthetic chemicals was outlined in Death By Medicine -Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD. Iatrogenesis, or death by healing, is a grotesque ironic examination of the medical professions. To qoute the paper “Medicine is not taking into consideration the following critically important aspects of a healthy human organism: (a) stress and how it adversely affects the immune system and life processes; (b) insufficient exercise; (c) excessive caloric intake; (d) highly processed and denatured foods grown in denatured and chemically damaged soil; and (e) exposure to tens of thousands of environmental toxins. Instead of minimizing these disease-causing factors, we cause more illness through medical technology, diagnostic testing, overuse of medical and surgical procedures, and overuse of pharmaceutical drugs. The huge disservice of this therapeutic strategy is the result of little effort or money being spent on preventing disease.”
To end, we have reached the point of saturation with prescription drugs. Every body of water tested contains measurable drug residues. The tons of antibiotics used in animal farming, which run off into the water table and surrounding bodies of water, are conferring antibiotic resistance to germs in sewage, and these germs also are found in our water supply. Flushed down our toilets are tons of drugs and drug metabolites that also find their way into our water supply. We have no way to know the long-term health consequences of ingesting a mixture of drugs and drug-breakdown products. These drugs represent another level of iatrogenic disease that we are unable to completely measure.
It is becoming clearer, that the blind faith in the varieties of “new alchemy” are not meeting the needs of our perceived vision of a desirable world and only represent a threat to the human project itself.
We need a massive paradigm shift pretty quickly
Hmm, How about this? I suspect that most of the people reading this thread only want to know one thing; erring on the side of caution, not wanting to cause harm to myself, my loved ones,or the environment, what products are SAFEST to use, in the home or on the person, regardless of whether they are natural, organic, manmade, or even alien!
I have done a huge amount of rescearch into this subject, ever scince my older borther started doing his PhD. on artificial estrogens and their effect on cancer growth, and the main body that does the reascearch tends to play down the actual impact they may have on human health, by looking at the best case scenarios and not counting people who might be extra sensitive (this is not exclusively the case)