Natural Communities Magazine A magazine devoted to the local natural wellness culture.

Many health-conscious consumers, who understand the value of organic food, might overlook the long list of chemicals found in personal care products. This is mainly because shoppers believe that the body care products they buy have been thoroughly tested for safety.

The truth is that the vast majority of personal care products on the market today have not been tested by any publicly accountable organization. The FDA loosely oversees the industry, but it allows individual companies to test their own products for safety. These companies are not even required to do any pre-market safety testing, even though they can use almost any ingredient they choose.

This total lack of regulation has led to companies using chemicals that have been linked to (or strongly suspected to cause) cancer, hormone imbalance, infertility, birth defects, learning disabilities, immune system toxicity, organ damage, asthma, skin irritations and other harmful effects.

Companies using such ingredients, like phthalates and parabens, state that they are safe because of the low levels used in their formulas. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), the U.S. cosmetic industry’s self-policing safety panel, agrees. This panel has banned a total of only eight chemicals and placed restrictions on three others.

The CIR allows any ingredient to be used in cosmetic formulas unless it can be proven hazardous beyond a shadow of a doubt. By comparison, the European Union has much stricter consumer protection laws that focus on precautionary health measures. They believe that chemicals linked to cancer and birth defects simply do not belong in any body care product, no matter how little might be present. This philosophy has led the E.U. to ban 1,100 chemicals.

U.S. consumers can better protect themselves by only buying cosmetics with ingredients they recognize as safe, as well as products labeled with the USDA organic seal. Selecting products labeled “all natural” or “organic” provides no guarantee of safety, as these generic terms are not regulated in personal care items. Only the USDA seal guarantees that a product has gone through the same rigorous testing as organic foods.

It can be argued that using safe personal care products is even more important than eating organic food. This is because conventionally grown fruits and vegetables generally only have trace amounts of pesticide residues. Conventional body care products frequently contain many different hazardous chemicals that make up a significant part of their overall formula.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031457_personal_care_products_chemicals.html#ixzz1EnR2GMVk

If you swim in a pool or drink water from your public water supply, you know the water has been disinfected by chemicals. But this process, which is often called “purifying” water, appears to not make water “pure” for the body. In fact, a recent study by University of Illinois scientists published in the scientific journal Mutation Research shows the chemicals used to treat water we drink and use in swimming pools causes a reaction with organic materials in the water that creates dangerous, cancer-causing toxins known as disinfection by-products (DBPs).

“The reason that you and I can go to a drinking fountain and not be fearful of getting cholera is because we disinfect water in the United States. But the process of disinfecting water with chlorine and chloramines and other types of disinfectants generates a class of compounds in the water that are called disinfection by-products. The disinfectant reacts with the organic material in the water and generates hundreds of different compounds. Some of these are toxic, some can cause birth defects, some are genotoxic, which damage DNA, and some we know are also carcinogenic,” University of Illinois geneticist Michael Plewa said in a statement to the media.

A 10-year, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded study headed by Dr. Plewa used specially developed mammalian cell lines to analyze the impact of these compounds. Specifically, the researchers analyzed the cytotoxicity (ability to cause cell death) and DNA genome damage caused by disinfection by-products.

“Our lab has assembled the largest toxicological data base on these emerging new DBPs. And from them we’ve made two fundamental discoveries that hopefully will aid the U.S. EPA in their regulatory decisions. The two discoveries are somewhat surprising,” Dr. Plewa stated.

The first discovery of the University of Illinois research team involved water with naturally high bromine and iodine in it, produced primarily from sea water or underground aquifers most likely linked to ancient sea beds in the past. When this type of water was disinfected with chemicals, DBPs were produced that had iodine atoms attached — creating a gene harming toxin.

The second discovery revealed a danger from nitrogen-containing DBPs. “Disinfectant by-products that have a nitrogen atom incorporated into the structure are far more toxic and genotoxic, and some even carcinogenic, than those DBPs that don’t have nitrogen. And there are no nitrogen-containing DBPs that are currently regulated,” Dr. Plewa said in the media statement.

And it isn’t only drinking water that can be loaded with danger. Swimming pools and hot tubs are hazardous, too. “You’ve got all of this organic material called ‘people’ — and people sweat and use sunscreen and wear cosmetics that come off in the water. People may urinate in a public pool. Hair falls into the water and then this water is chlorinated. But the water is recycled again and again so the levels of DBPs can be ten-fold higher than what you have in drinking water,” Dr. Plewa stated in the press release.

Swimming often results in longer exposure to toxic chemicals that are both absorbed through the skin and inhaled. This could explain previous studies that have revealed higher levels of bladder cancer and asthma in people who are frequent swimmers.

“The big concern that we have is babies in public pools because young children and especially babies are much more susceptible to DNA damage in agents because their bodies are growing and they’re replicating DNA like crazy,” Dr. Plewa warned.

As a researcher with a National Science Foundation Center called WaterCAMPWS at the University of Illinois, Dr. Plewa is currently working with engineers and chemists to develop new technologies that will disinfect and desalinate water and also remove pharmaceuticals from water without generating by-products that are even more toxic than the compounds trying to be removed. Until new technologies are created to safely disinfect the water in public pools especially, Dr. Plewa urges people to bathe or shower before jumping in for a swim. “It’s the organic material that gets in the pool that is disinfected and then recirculated over and over again. That’s why we call swimming pools disinfectant by-product reactors. But by public education, by personal behavior, there should be ways that we can reduce the levels of the dissolved organic material that should reduce the level of DBPs,” he stated.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/025996.html

A study to be published in the February 2008 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives finds that children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of organophosate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet. The study is entitled “Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children” (Chensheng Lu, Dana B. Barr, Melanie A. Pearson, and Lance A. Waller) and includes authors from Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, and the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.According to the authors, “The objective of this article is to present the data of assessing young urban/suburban children’s longitudinal exposure to OP [organophosphate] pesticides in a group [of] young children participating in the Children Pesticide Exposure Study (CPES). The results from this study identify not only the predominant source of OP pesticide exposure but also the profile of exposures in children that are vital in formulating the strategies, both from the regulatory policy and personal behavior change perspectives, in reducing children’s exposures to OP pesticides.”

The study design included 23 children, male and female, from the Seattle area, ages 3-11 years who only consumed conventional diets and were recruited for a one-year study conducted in 2003-2004. Of the 23, 19 completed the study. Children switched to organic diets for five consecutive days in the summer and fall sampling seasons. The authors measured specific urinary metabolites for malathion, chlorpyrifos and other OP pesticides in urine samples collected twice daily for a period of 7, 12, or 15 consecutive days during each of the four seasons. According to the authors, “By substituting organic fresh fruits and vegetables for corresponding conventional food items, the median urinary metabolite concentrations were reduced to non-detected or close to non-detected levels for malathion and chlorpyrifos at the end of 5-day organic diet intervention period in both summer and fall seasons. We also observed a seasonal effect on the OP urinary metabolite concentrations, and this seasonality is correspondent to the consumption of fresh produce throughout the year.” And, “Considering the lack of residential use of OP pesticides among the families of CPES-WA children, consumption of conventional diets is likely to be the sole contributing factor to the seasonality effect of pesticide exposures.”

The authors point out that few studies evaluate the longitudinal exposure to pesticides that all children experience. According to the authors, “Most of the studies published in the literature have either targeted children living in agricultural environments or have used a cross-sectional design with spot sample collection.”

The authors raise concerns about inadequate attention being given by regulators to chronic low-level exposures to pesticides, such as those found in their study. They point out that, “Using spot biomarkers [one-time measurement of urinary metabolites] of OP pesticide exposure to examine the link between adverse health outcomes and cumulative OP pesticide exposure is obviously an inadequate approach.”

Corresponding author: Chensheng Lu, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30322, (404)727-2131, (404)727-8744 (fax), clu2@sph.emory.edu.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=275

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has struck an arrangement with agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. that gives farmers in four states a break on federal crop insurance premiums if they plant a majority of Monsanto-brand seed corn this spring. Farmers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota need to plant 75-80% of their crops with Monsanto’s (and only Monsanto’s) GM seeds to receive the “premium rate discount”. The arrangement has raised some eyebrows, particularly among organic farm groups that argue the government agency should not be promoting corn that promotes herbicide use; the Monsanto brands are resistant to Roundup (main ingredient, glyphosate) and contain chemicals that kill insects and other plants.

Monsanto’s deal is legal, according to USDA officials, who point out that such arrangements were encouraged in a 2000 crop insurance passed by Congress. The idea is to give farmers a break on their insurance premiums if they use corn seeds that are higher yield and show resistance to insects and other threats. USDA officials said they are aware of the appearance of favoritism toward one of the nation’s largest agricultural companies. “We knew it would look that way,” said Shirley Pugh, a spokeswoman for USDA’s Risk Management Agency, which administers federal crop insurance. “But other companies can come and do the same thing. We are making the discount available because the corn has shown the traits necessary to reduce the risk.”

The deal with St. Louis-based Monsanto was approved September 12, 2007 under a provision called the Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE) program, which is part of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. No other companies have taken advantage of the program, Pugh said. The insurance premium benefit to farmers, according to USDA, will be about $2 per acre, or $2,000 for a typical 1,000-acre farm. Crop insurance prices have skyrocketed for farmers as corn prices have reached near-record highs in recent months. Today, corn trades at about $4 a bushel, double the price of about two years ago. Those prices have continued to stay high because of increased demand from the ethanol industry, which uses the grain to make fuel, as well as increased corn exports and demands from cattle-feeding businesses. Crop insurance rates can be as high as $50 an acre, according to Kurt Koester, a vice president and co-owner at AgriSource Inc., a crop insurance agency in West Des Moines, Iowa, involved in the pilot program. Several years ago, Koester said premiums were about $15 to $20 an acre. “Farmers are going to face some really tough decisions here,” Koester said. ‘They’ve got this high-value corn sitting out in their fields. When you take the cost of this crop insurance, even with government subsidies, there’s going to be sticker shock.”

The pilot program with Monsanto covers the country’s four most productive corn states. It involves corn that contains YieldGard Plus (which protects against corn borers and rootworms) with Roundup Ready Corn 2 (which tolerates the herbicide Roundup) or YieldGard VT Triple technology from Monsanto, the company said. The deal with the Agriculture Department was finalized this month. The corn grown is generally used as cattle feed and as raw material for ethanol plants. Monsanto won the BYE designation by providing three years’ worth of research that convinced the USDA’s Federal Crop Insurance Corporation board that its triple-stack corn variety produces higher yields under difficult conditions, such as weeds and corn borer.

“It really bore out what we’ve heard from our farmers, saying over and over again that these triple-stack technologies in the corn plant help protect against weeds and root worms,” said Darren Wallis, a Monsanto spokesman. “What this does is reduce the risk for the farmers.”

Monsanto, however, has earned the wrath of organic agriculture and environmental groups, mostly for promoting the growth of genetically altered crops. Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, characterized the USDA-Monsanto BYE arrangement as one of many examples in which the department has sided with big agribusinesses instead of smaller farmers and farm groups. He said the BYE program will leave farmers with little choice but to buy Monsanto seed. “We definitely have a problem with all the benefits that [Monsanto] gets,” Cummins said. “If you really look at our crop subsidy program and what’s given to farmers, you really see a lot of those subsidies going to purchase genetically engineered crops.”

Cummins also said that the USDA-Monsanto arrangement excludes organic farmers. Most of the corn acreage in the four states involved is insured, according to USDA figures. Of the 11 million acres planted in corn in 2006 in Illinois, about 9 million acres, or 79 percent, had federal crop insurance, according to USDA. In Indiana, 68 percent of corn acres were insured, in Iowa, 87 percent and in Minnesota, 89 percent.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=256

In a global first, over 300 crop safety and pesticide management officials and other experts met last week to discuss challenges associated with pesticide use on “specialty crops” like garlic, ginger and chilies. The Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organization and the Environmental Protection Agency organized the week-long Global Minor Use Summit, which took place at the FAO Headquarters in Rome, Italy. Unlike large-area, highly-traded crops such as corn, wheat, rice or cotton, specialty crops have traditionally been produced in relatively small amounts. As a result, studies on the use of pesticides in the cultivation of specialty crops have not been as systematic or widespread as they have been for major cash crops. Producers, many of them in the developing world, face barriers to export their goods to overseas markets with strong safety standards for imports.

International trade in specialty crops is booming, thanks in part to increased levels of human migration and modern preservation and transportation techniques. FAO data show that trade in non-traditional agricultural exports is worth more than US$30 billion a year. Developing countries have a 56 percent share of that trade. “For some countries and crops, like green beans in Kenya and exotic fruits in Malaysia, these ‘minor crops’ aren’t minor at all — national economies depend on them,” according to Gero Vaagt, a specialist with FAO’s Plant Production and Protection Division.

“There has been considerable interest in the opportunities which the fair trade and organic markets could offer to producers or exporters of non-traditional products, particularly those in developing countries,” according to the FAO technical paper, The market for non-traditional agricultural exports. “It is apparent, however, that the current market for fair trade and organic produce is still small relative to that for conventional produce and vulnerable to over-supply,” the FAO report continues, taking a cautious approach to organic agriculture.

The conference focused on how producers can more easily export non-traditional crops, as import standards aimed at protecting human health become increasingly strict, especially in developed countries. One major problem is that there are gaps at the international level in terms of registered uses for pesticides on specialty crops. Registration is the process through which national authorities evaluate which pesticides can be used by growers, and under what conditions. If a pesticide is permitted for use on certain crops, maximum residue limits (MRLs) are set that aim to quantify how much pesticide residue a product can safely contain. Prior to seeking approval, manufacturers typically conduct extensive field tests and other studies whose results are used by regulators when deciding to approve and register a pesticide. Since this involves a significant financial investment, they tend to focus on pesticides used on major crops only.

“There is little financial incentive for studies of pesticide use for minor crops, and as a result accepted MRLs are lacking, especially at the international level,” explained Shivaji Pandey, Director of FAO’s Plant Protection Division. “This means that when a specialty crop reaches an import market it can be rejected. The pesticide found on it might have been properly applied and existing in safe amounts, but because there’s no registered use for it on that crop, it fails the ‘zero tolerance’ litmus test.”

“What we’re trying to do is to look at ways to come up with more harmonized protection measures for these crops that are efficient, suit the needs of farmers, facilitate trade, ensure food and environmental safety, and benefit consumers,” Pandey said. In particular, he added, following the summit, FAO hopes to see more MRLs for pesticides used on specialty crops established at the international Codex Alimentarius level. Codex is a joint FAO-World Health Organization body that sets international standards for food safety, standards which are relied upon by the World Trade Organization when resolving trade disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=243

The Environmental Working Group is again sharing shocking news. After surveying 3,300 parents, comparing the baby products they use to lists of chemicals known to cause allergies, hormone disruption, damage to the nervous system, and cancer, the group found that children are exposed to 27 chemical ingredients on a daily basis that have never been assessed for safety. Not by the industry, nor by the government.

Dr. Rebecca Sutton, the environmental scientist who conducted the study, points out that:

1. 2 bromo, 2 nitropropane, and 3-DIOL create allergies and skin irritations, and in certain products can break down to form new cancer causing agents
2. Desitin diaper cream contains sodium borate, which can collect in your child’s brain and liver, causing detrimental health effects
3. Sunscreen with oxybenzone can trigger allergies, and disrupts your delicate hormone system

Surprisingly, 89 percent of products labeled “Recommended by doctor” are actually some of your worst offenders, containing what Dr. Sutton considers dangerous chemicals.

Manufacturers have responded with the following statement from the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association:

“Companies utilize a complex, multi-tiered scientific approach to extensively evaluate the safety of individual ingredients and finished products. These processes can take many months to several years to complete and utilize the expertise of leading chemists, toxicologists, biologists, dermatologists and experts from other scientific disciplines and medical specialty areas.”

Sources: Environmental Working Group October 31, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comments

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit public-interest research group known for making connections between chemical exposure and adverse health conditions.

Thankfully, this Washington-based organization has made it easy to calculate your risk of exposure to potentially harmful substances through the personal care products you use for yourself and your baby. Since 2004, their “Skin Deep” study has been assigning health-risk ratings to each of about 7,500 personal-care products.

Their rating system offers a means of quantifying the answer to a controversial question: Just what are you doing to yourself when you slather stuff on your body? And, what risks are you exposing your children to?

Please don’t shrug this issue off.

It is important to recognize that whatever you spread on your skin has a very real chance of being absorbed into your blood stream, with the potential to cause serious damage in your body.

The EWG’s “Skin Deep” report will tell you how many ingredients the products collectively contain. The calculator will rate the aggregate health threat those ingredients might pose to you.

Each product is ranked according to its ingredients’ potential to:

• Cause cancer
• Trigger allergic reactions
• Interfere with your endocrine (hormonal) system
• Impair reproduction or damage a developing fetus

Please. Do shield your children from as many of these dangerous chemicals as possible. It’s their future health – both physical and mental — at stake.

To keep yourself and your family safe:

• Only use natural cleaning products in your home. Most health food stores will have these available or you can search for them online
• Switch over to natural brands of toiletries, including children’s personal care products, and your own shampoos, toothpastes, antiperspirants, and cosmetics. You can usually find a good variety at either your local health food store, or by searching online.

Unfortunately, it’s not as easy as simply reading a label anymore, because not all products marked “natural” or “organic” are in fact natural or organic, so make sure you check them out on the Skin Deep site.

There is reason to be concerned about the numerous toxic chemicals you are exposed to on a daily basis. I strongly urge you to read Our Toxic World: A Wake Up Call. The author, Dr. Doris Rapp, is an early mentor of mine. She is one great lady and does a thorough job of uncovering the many ways you are exposed to toxic chemicals, and how they take a toll on your health, contributing to the many chronic diseases you see today.

www.mercola.com

On September 24, 2007, scientists across the country – including six Nobel prize winners, alarmed by the prospect of registering methyl iodide as a pesticide, issued a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson urging the Agency not to sanction the broad use of methyl iodide now or at any time.

“The gratifying thing is that EPA has been responsive to people who are really concerned about this,” Robert Bergman, a University of California at Berkeley professor who organized the scientists’ letter, told the Associated Press. The letter criticized EPA’s scientific analysis, calling for an independent scientific review of the agency’s assessment.

Methyl iodide and methyl bromide are injected into the soil at rates of 100-400 pounds per acre to kill soil-borne pests. Because of the high application rates and gaseous nature of these chemicals, they drift away from the application site to poison neighbors and farmworkers. EPA’s analysis evaluated possible buffer zones around fields and concluded that bystander exposure would not be significant. It said farmworkers could protect themselves sufficiently with respirators.

The Montreal Protocol, a 1992 commitment by the world’s nations that includes the phase out methyl bromide - one of the five deadly pesticides targeted by Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers - gave hope that farmworkers and others would finally stop being put at risk by this deadly pesticide. Unfortunately, EPA is not only backpedaling on this, but is also facilitating the chemical industry and agribusiness efforts to introduce methyl iodide, a fumigant that may be even more hazardous to human health than methyl bromide.

The state of California lists methyl iodide as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. EPA found that methyl iodide caused thyroid tumors–and introduced a previously unheard of cancer ranking of “Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis.” The EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee came to this conclusion using only a single study—in which 62-66% of the rats in both the control and the high dose group died during the experiment. In addition to thyroid tumors, the study showed significant changes in thyroid hormone levels, which are closely tied to metabolic disorders. Other animal studies evaluated by EPA also indicated that methyl iodide causes respiratory tract lesions, neurological effects, and miscarriages.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=200

A test of air freshener products recently conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that 12 out of 14 popular air freshener products contained a chemical known to be harmful to the health of humans. Phthalates, known to cause reproductive problems and hormone disruption in humans, were found in virtually all air freshener brands, including several Walgreens-branded air fresheners that the popular retailer has now pulled off its shelves.

Neither the FDA nor the EPA conducts any safety testing or spot checking of toxic chemicals in air freshener products. Essentially, consumers could be exposed to any number of toxic airborne chemicals from air freshener products, with no warning whatsoever. The safety of chemicals used in these products is utterly ignored by the FDA in much the same way that perfumes and cosmetic products containing cancer-causing chemicals are routinely ignored by the agency. The FDA makes virtually no effort to protect American consumers from cancer-causing or hormone-disrupting chemicals in tens of thousands of consumer products, and were it not for the efforts of consumer advocacy groups and environmental protection groups like the NRDC, no one would be protecting consumers at all. (U.S. government agencies usually have to be sued by groups like the CSPI or Public Citizen before they will take any pro-consumer action…)

Only two products tested by the NRDC — Febreze Air Effects and Renuzit Subtle Effects — contained virtually no detectable levels of phthalates, yet the twelve other products tested positive for the chemical even though some were labeled “unscented” and none of them listed phthalates as an ingredient. Some products were even labeled “All natural!” (Which just goes to demonstrate, yet again, that the “All natural” claim is meaningless.)

www.newstarget.com

On September 16, 2007, researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences presented findings to the European Respiratory Society Annual Congress in Stockholm showing that exposure to several commonly used pesticides increases the risk of asthma in farmers. Pesticide exposure is a “potential risk factor for asthma and respiratory symptoms among farmers,” lead author Dr. Jane A. Hoppin told Reuters Health. “Because grains and animals are more common exposures in agricultural settings, pesticides may be overlooked. Better education and training of farmers and pesticide handlers may help to reduce asthma risk.”The study consisted of 19,704 farmers, 441 of which had asthma. Farmers who have experienced high pesticide exposure were twice as likely to have asthma. Sixteen of the pesticides studied were associated with asthma. Coumaphos, EPTC, lindane, parathion, heptachlor, 2,4,5-TP, DDT, malathion, and phorate had the strongest effect.“This is the first study with sufficient power to evaluate individual pesticides and adult asthma among individuals who routinely apply pesticides,” Dr. Hoppin said.

Asthma is a serious chronic disorder of the lungs characterized by recurrent attacks of bronchial constriction, which cause breathlessness, wheezing, and coughing. Asthma is a dangerous, and in some cases life-threatening disease. Researchers have found that pesticide exposure can induce a poisoning effect linked to asthma in both adults and children.

In the U.S. alone, around 16 million people suffer from asthma. Since the mid-1980s, asthma rates in the United States have skyrocketed to epidemic levels, particularly in young children. Nearly 1 in 8 school-aged children have asthma and is the leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronic illness. Every year, asthma accounts for 14 million lost days of school. The rate is rising most rapidly in pre-school aged children.

The number of children dying from asthma increased almost threefold from 1979 to 1996. The estimated cost of treating asthma in those younger than 18 years is $3.2 billion per year. Low-income populations, minorities, and children living in inner-cities experience disproportionately high morbidity and mortality due to asthma.

www.beyondpesticides.org