On February 26, 2009 Congressman Bobby L. Rush from Illinois opened a hearing designed to revisit the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, otherwise known as TSCA. His opening statement read in part as follows:

“TSCA was enacted in 1976 and originally consisted of one title, which remains the heart of the statute. While Congress, over the years, has added additional titles to TSCA addressing individual chemicals and substances, Congress has done very little with regard to Title I. TSCA and Title I have never been reauthorized or reformed, and very little oversight has been conducted on the statute’s effectiveness. Today, I hope to start a deliberative process that reverses this Congressional inaction of the past. By most accounts, TSCA is badly in need of reform. While opinions may vary on the degree and nature of the reforms needed, there is a broad consensus among a diversity of stakeholders that TSCA needs to be reexamined.

The scope of TSCA is very broad, and its intent is ambitious. TSCA is meant to provide adequate data on the potential health and environmental risks of all chemical substances and mixtures in the United States. Furthermore, the statute is supposed to provide EPA with adequate regulatory tools to protect the public from unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Unfortunately, the statute has seemingly been a failure on both of these basic policy goals.”

It was learned from the hearing that over 80,000 chemicals are currently on the books and over 700 are added each year. The Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, has the authority to force companies to test their products for safety. The problem is twofold. What the agency must do to exercise their authority under the guidelines of TSCA have proven to be too burdensome. The rules take years to finalize, the costs are excessive and there just are too many legal loopholes for companies who do not wish to comply. Here are some results over 34 years.

• After 10 years of study and 45,000 pages of documentation, the known carcinogen Asbestos, that kills over 8,000 people per year, has not been banned by the EPA under TSCA, because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the EPA’s entire regulation to ban asbestos because the EPA did not meet its burden of proof that asbestos is an “unreasonable risk” to the public as defined by TSCA;

• since 1991 the EPA has not banned a single substance under TSCA;

• in 34 years only five chemicals have been banned;

• 80% of chemicals submitted to the EPA are approved within 3 weeks

Something must be done. The system is broken and it cannot be allowed to continue as more and more people are exposed to toxic substances daily. The system cannot allow environmental interests to interfere with business, but on the other hand, business cannot be allowed to continue to bring to market products that are known to be harmful to consumers. There has to be controllable governance of this health issue.

There were two panels at the hearing: one representing the environment and consumers and one representing industry. One of the more interesting points of discussion was when the chairman, Congressman Rush, asked this question of each individual on each panel and asked for a simple yes or no answer: do you believe that TSCA needs to be reformed? The answer from each individual on each panel was yes.

I have listed each member of the two panels, their current titles, and a summary of their beliefs regarding TSCA.

John Stephenson, Director of Natural Resources and the Environment

In summary, his opening statement focused on the following:

• TSCA is very cumbersome to manage as it takes the EPA 2 to 10 years to meet the requirements of TSCA;

• from the EPA’s point of view the evidentiary requirements under TSCA are too burdensome;

• the confidentiality requirements under TSCA prevent the EPA from divulging potentially damaging intelligence to the public, unlike the European Union that has greater authority to acknowledge these potentially hazardous materials and make the information public.

J. Clarence Davies, Senior Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future.

• Acknowledged that one of TSCA’s strengths is that it allows the EPA to control risks;

• the EPA must show that elimination of existing chemicals is less burdensome than if the chemicals are allowed;

• without knowledge and data indicating the chemical to be a hazard or risk, the EPA must presume no risk (in other words the burden of proof of risk is placed directly on the shoulders of the EPA when it should be placed on the companies using the chemicals)

• Mr. Davies also pointed out the confidentiality issue.

Maureen H. Swanson, Healthy Children Project Coordinator Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA);

• her work focuses on raising awareness of toxic chemicals that can harm brain development;

• the organization looks for ways to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals especially among pregnant women as these toxins will find their way into the fetus;

• their particular concern is with neurotoxins that interfere with brain development and function;

• LDA is also concerned with chemicals that interfere with the hormonal system with the thyroid gland as it is essential for brain development;

• one of these chemicals, known as an “endocrine disruptor” is a chemical known as Phthalates found in a high percent of cosmetic products;

• incidences of neurological disorders is increasing in children, especially for autism, asthma, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD);

• a January study by scientists at the University of California showed a direct increase in neurological problems linked to exposure to toxic chemicals and called for a national focus on exposure by infants to toxic chemicals in consumer products;

• the cost to educate a child with learning disabilities is twice the cost of education to a child without;

• lastly she emphasized that the US needs laws that require manufacturers to prove their ingredients are safe and non-toxic before it can be used in products – before it can put children at risk.

Cecil Corbin-Mark, Deputy Director of Policy Initiatives for Environmental Justice.

Mr. Corbin-Mark testified on how he has been personally impacted by toxic chemicals.

• his son plays basketball and has Asthma and was impacted by a pesticide smell while visiting a competitors locker room;

• he also revealed a study released by the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) several years ago that documented that the highest use of pesticides in the state occurred New York City;

• a study by the New York State Department of Health conducted in East Harlem found high levels of PERC, a toxic chemical compound, in apartments where dry cleaners were nearby that can penetrate walls and enter the bloodstream and has been found in mother’s breast milk.

Michael J. Wright, Director of Health, Safety and Environment United Steelworkers

• Mr. Wright was a member of an international team that traveled to Bhopal, India in 1984 to investigate the release of methyl isocyanate from a Union carbide plant that took the lives of several thousand people and continues to claim victims a quarter of a century later;

• he wears a lapel pin that shows a canary in a birdcage representing what miners would bring with them when going underground; if the canary lived the air was safe to breathe; today, he said, we are the canaries;

• he also touched on the European program known as REACH indicating that if we, in America, do not do something to control toxic chemicals, consumers will have more faith and trust in the safety of European products than of those manufactured in the US.

Other members of the panel included Kathy Gerwig, Vice President for Workplace Safety and Environmental Stewardship Officer Kaiser Permanente; Richard A. Denison, Ph. D, Senior Scientist Environmental Defense Fund; Cal Dooley, President of the American Chemistry Council; Jim DeLisi, President of Fanwood Chemical, Inc.; and Charles T. Drevna, President National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

All had similar stories and experiences about TSCA and the need for change. Probably the most interesting and problematic story came from Dr. Denison. He tells the story of Formaldehyde in plywood imported from China. Formaldehyde is known to cause cancer, exacerbate asthma, and other respiratory ailments, and yet the US imports this plywood. What is most interesting about this story is that Japan will not import it, nor will Europe. In fact, China itself will not allow this plywood to be used in China. Yet the US used the plywood in the FEMA trailers used to help the population of New Orleans after Katrina. Twenty five organizations and 5,000 citizens petitioned the EPA to adopt national legislation banning the importation of this plywood. The EPA denied the request, saying the available information on fFrmaldehyde, one of the most toxic chemicals produced today, was insufficient for the EPA to meet its burden of proof under TSCA.

Dr. Denison went on to say that foremost among its core structural flaws, TSCA:

• fails to provide EPA the authority to deliver the information needed to identify unsafe .

as well as safer chemicals;

• forbids EPA from sharing much of the limited information it does obtain;

• imposes an essentially unmeetable burden on EPA to prove actual harm in order to

control or replace a dangerous chemical; and

• thereby perpetuates the chemicals industry’s failure to innovate toward inherently safer

chemical and product design.

I could go on and on with more statements and details on this subject. The point in this article on TSCA, the EPA, and in previous articles on the FDA, is that in the past no one was paying any attention to the toxic chemicals being consumed by children and adults on a daily basis. If we do not fix this problem, more and more increases in diseases will surely occur over time. We are putting our children at greater risk. As a result of this timely hearing the following must take place:

• shift the burden of proof from the Government post market to the industry pre-market;

• learn the effects of exposure to multiple toxic chemicals versus studying the effects of chemicals one by one;

• risk models must be studied and changed to accommodate gender, color and age, with particular emphasis on our children who are defenseless;

• confidentiality needs reform;

• Nano and Neuro chemicals need study and we must learn what damage they may cause to infants brain development.

TSCA regulates toxic substances across many industries, including the Cosmetic Industry just as the FDA has governance over the food and drug industries and presumably cosmetics as well. We have shown, however, that the Cosmetic Industry is self-regulated and thereby is able to put anything they want on the market without any pretesting. They are also able to say anything they want on their products and packaging simply because no one is watching. Do not accept at face value products that claim to be natural and/or organic.

Toxic ingredients are hazards to our health and finally the US Government is standing up and taking notice. Yet, the way our government works it will take years, if not decades, to enact change. Meanwhile the only way the public can fight back what is happening to us and our children is to avoid all cosmetic products that do not carry the seals and logos of certified organic and/or natural organizations that have been clearly documented in the ebook Organic Skin Care Answers.

There is a serious problem that consumers live with everyday. It is the use of unsafe, toxic (poison) cosmetic products.

This article will focus on the governing bodies, at the federal, state, and private level, that presumably govern cosmetic regulation. Other articles have looked at these individually, but can be confusing. What we will do here is provide you with a clear cut summary of each agency’s authority, or the lack thereof. In the end you will have the intelligence necessary to conclude that the Cosmetic Industry is self-regulated, thereby having the ability to produce whatever they want and say whatever they want in their advertising and on their packaging, leaving the consumer to figure out for herself what is safe and what is not, what has toxic ingredients (poisons), and how to determine which products do not have toxic ingredients.

Before getting started. Let’s review what we know to be facts.

• Fact: there are over 10,500 chemicals used to manufacture cosmetic products;

• Fact: many of these ingredients are toxic (poisonous);

• Fact: the skin is the largest organ of the body;

• Fact: over 70% of what is placed on the skin manages to seep into the body and our bloodstreams;

• Fact: women, on average, apply over 5 pounds of lotions and creams to their skin annually;

• Fact: like tobacco, before regulation, no one currently knows the cumulative effect these toxic ingredients have on a person when used for decades;

• Fact: some of these toxic ingredients have been directly linked to cancer, birth defects, respiratory problems, liver and kidney disease, and much more;

• Fact: recent clinical studies on pregnant women have shown the same toxins at the same levels are in the bloodstreams of the fetuses and enter through the umbilical cord;

• Fact: the European Union (EU) has banned over 1,100 toxic ingredients in the manufacture of personal care products;

• Fact: the US has banned 10.

Perhaps now one can begin to see the potential problem of the daily use of products that are not regulated. Perhaps now one can appreciate the reasons cosmetic regulation is needed in this country. Instead of being leaders, however, we are simply ignoring the potential problem. Reason? The Cosmetic Industry is a 50 billion annual business with a very high profit margin. Could the industry be more concerned about their revenues and their profits than they are for consumers and their health and well being?

Here now is a summary of these different organizations and the role they play in managing the safety of cosmetics in the US.

FDA Regulations: this agency virtually has no authority over the Cosmetic Industry. It does no pre-market testing of products. It does not review nor does it regulate what goes into personal care products. In fact, close to 90% of ingredients have not even been tested for safety and daily use by consumers.

To prove this point, here is a direct quote from the FDA website that explains its limitations:

“FDA’s legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency …. Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA pre-market approval authority, with the exception of color additives.”

The bottom line is that the Cosmetic Industry has been voluntarily self-regulated since 1976 through the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel.

CIR Regulations: the Cosmetic Ingredients Review is presumably the self-policing panel for the Cosmetic Industry. According to its Web site, the CIR “thoroughly reviews and assesses the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics in an open, unbiased, and expert manner, and publishes the results in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” This is its claim. However, here are the facts:

• in their 30 year history it has reviewed only 11% of the 10,500 ingredients used in the manufacture of personal care products;

• through June of 2008 it has found only 9 products to be deemed unsafe to use as ingredients in cosmetic products.

  They work independently of the FDA and words like “organic”, “natural”, “safe”, since they have no definition in law, and do not apply necessarily to the ingredients, are used indiscriminately. They do not take into consideration, for example, the negative effects of multiple toxic ingredients, timing of use (infants vs. adults), cumulative use over time (decades of use). They do not even look at worker exposure, an aestitician at a spa or a worker in a manufacturing facility, both of which are exposed daily to these toxic chemicals.

Bottom line? This voluntary system of self-regulation simply is not working in the best interests of consumers, particularly when you consider what steps other countries have taken to control this situation. Consumers simply deserve better. They deserve a regulatory agency that controls cosmetic regulation and protects them from the daily use of unsafe, toxic chemicals in personal care products.

FDCA Regulation: the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act does protect consumers from the mis-branding of cosmetics in interstate commerce. Under this act, a product is considered adulterated or mis-branded if:

• “it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, or under conditions of use as are customary and usual” [hair dye is an exception];

• “it consists in whole or in part of any filthy putrid, or decomposed substance”;

• “it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health”;

• “its container is composed, in whole or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the contents injurious to health”; or

• except for hair dyes, “it is, or it bears or contains, color additives which are unsafe within the meaning of section 721(a)” of the FD&C Act. (FD&C Act, sec. 601)

Improperly labeled or deceptively packaged products are considered misbranded and subject to regulatory action. Under the FD&C Act, a cosmetic is considered misbranded if–

• “its labeling is false or misleading in any particular”;

• “its label does not include all required information”;

• “the required information is not adequately prominent and conspicuous”;

• “its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading”;

• “it is a color additive, other than a hair dye, that does not conform to applicable regulations issued under section 721 of the FD&C Act”; and

• “its packaging or labeling is in violation of an applicable regulation issued pursuant to section 3 or 4 of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.” (FD&C Act, sec. 602)

In order for consumers to make informed decisions the FDA also requires an ingredient declaration and this falls under the authority of the Fair Packaging and Label Act (FPLA).Cosmetics that fail the standards of the FPLA become in violation of the FD&C Act.

The problem here is that if no one is testing ingredients prior to placing them on the market, how does any of this become enforceable? The answer is it does not and so the cycle continues. Cosmetic manufacturers are not even required to register themselves, file lists of ingredients, or even report cosmetic-related problems (injuries, rashes, health issues) with the FDA.

This truly is a perfect example of “ignorance is bliss”.

State Legislation: as a last resort states have taken steps to protect consumers. The problem here is each state would create its own set of standards and become very difficult to adhere to by the cosmetic companies. They would have to possibly use different formulas for different states and this would become very costly. Having said that, numerous states have introduced legislation providing for the safety of consumers over the last four years. There have been only two successes:

• In 2008 Washington State banned the use of Pthalates (synthetic fragrances) in personal care products for children;

• In 2005 California became the first state to require the safety and reporting of ingredients. The California State Cosmetic Act has a list of ingredients that are known to cause cancer and birth defects and bans these ingredients in the manufacture of cosmetic products sold in California.

So, imagine this is where we are. A list of ingredients exists known to cause cancer, birth defects, and who knows what else and there is but one state, California, that bans those ingredients be used in the manufacture of personal care products. That is it. Nothing more. Nada, zip, zero, nothing more to control the safety of personal care products through cosmetic regulation.

This should be a wake up call to all consumers that the only way to be sure of the safety of the cosmetic products used daily is to purchase only certified organic and/or natural beauty products. This is the subject of other articles, the mini-course, and the ebook “Organic Skin Care Answers”.

There are several agencies around the world whose purpose is to certify organic and/or natural beauty products. These institutions have varying standards that they apply in their certification process. Here are the six European organizations that assure consumers the personal care products they buy are certified to be toxic-free. A brief description of several of these organizations will be provided. Each subscribes to the European cosmetics standards working group that is in the process of establishing a not-for-profit COSMOS-standard International Association. This association is seeking to obtain legal status on pronouncement of the Belgian Royal Decree expected to be finalized in April of 2010.

The COSMOS-standard, the cosmetics organic and natural standard, has been developed in Europe by BDIH (Germany), BIOFORUM (Belgium), COSMEBIO & ECOCERT (France), ICEA (Italy), and SOIL ASSOCIATION (UK). Through these companies the association will define minimum requirements and definitions for certified organic and/or natural beauty products.

This article cannot get into the details of the standard for several reasons. One, because the information is copyrighted and is prohibited from use without express written consent of the founding organizations. Two, it is not a legal document and not expected to be before April, 2010, and therefore, would be premature at this time. However, what can be done is introduce the measures by which Europe and these companies are taking this serious public issue, the production of safe, toxic-free personal care products.

So, let’s begin. Why, you might ask is this necessary? The answer is quite simple. It has been scientifically proven that there are over 10,500 chemicals used in the manufacture of personal care products. Although no one knows for sure how many of these chemicals are toxic (poisons), what we do know is that the European Union (EU) has banned over 1100 of these chemicals for cosmetic beauty products sold throughout Europe, while the US has banned a mere 10. We also know, through new scientific studies, that many of these toxic ingredients are directly linked to cancer, birth defects, respiratory problems, liver and kidney diseases, etc. In an article printed on December 9, 2009 in the San Francisco Chronicle, it started with this statement: “Chemicals from cosmetics, perfumes, and other fragrances were detected along with dozens of other industrial compounds in the umbilical cords of African American, Asian, and Latino infants in the United States…” It went on to say “laboratory tests, paid for by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Rachel’s Network, found 232 chemicals and pollutants in the umbilical cords of the 10 babies tested in five states between December 2007 and June of 2008.” This was the 11^th time the EWG has conducted these laboratory tests and cumulatively has found over 414 chemicals and pollutants in 186 people of all races and ages, including Caucasians.

Europe is taking a lead position on this subject starting with the EU. It is evidently determined to provide consumers certified organic and/or natural beauty products and is now moving to a non-government, not-for-profit Cosmos-standard International Association. Briefly, let’s look at several of these organizations’ standards, BDIH, ECOCERT, and the UK SOIL ASSOCIATION.

BDIH: any product that carries the BDIH “Certified Natural Cosmetic Seal” must use natural raw material, namely oils from plants, fats, waxes, extracts from herbs, and aromatic oils, collected from “controlled biological cultivation or controlled biological wild cultivation”. Further, there must be no animal testing, performed or commissioned, in end products. (Cleverly, in the US, a cosmetic company can claim their product was produced with no animal testing, without having to disclose if some of the ingredients were animal tested by the companies from which they purchased the said ingredients.) BDIH will reject any deliberate use of synthetic dyes or fragrances. To ensure biologically safe products, BDIH will use natural preservatives. They do allow some synthetic preservatives, but these are very limited and when used, BDIH requires the label states “preserved with…[name of preservative]. As a final precaution BDIH uses a third party neutral source to check that the above criteria is complied with.

BDIH has extended goals, probably the most important being ecological factors such as “environmentally-friendly manufacturing processes”; “optimal biodegradability of raw materials and finished products”; and “environmentally-friendly and recyclable packaging”.

ECOCERT: this standard is 38 pages long and reproduction is strictly prohibited. Therefore, I must emphasize that the following, although taken from their published site is this authors interpretation of their principles.

This is a voluntary partnership between ECOCERT and certain cosmetic companies and is conducted for the following reasons:

• there are no standards for the manufacture, packaging and labeling of certified organic and/or natural beauty products;

• it is impossible, or at best, difficult, for the consumer to recognize what is purported to be products manufactured from organic and/or natural substances with environmentally-friendly procedures.

There objectives are:

• link organic and/or natural agricultural products to cosmetic products;

• in doing so, to respect consumers and the environment.

In the certification process ECOCERT addresses the consumer, based on product labeling and usage; the manufacturer, based on ingredients; formulas to produce the final product; manufacturing rules; final inspection of products; and environmentally-friendly plant and processes.

UK SOIL ASSOCIATION: Certification is defined on their website as: “we offer an unrivaled service, value for money and robust organic standards through our not-for-profit, market leading certification body.” The following comes directly from their website.

“Our standards for organic beauty products are based on our food standards. This means if an ingredient is available organically, it must be used. The remaining ingredients must meet strict criteria to ensure that they are not damaging to our health or the environment.

To achieve organic certification, a company must:

• Have their manufacturing facility inspected annually by the Soil Association. This includes an audit of organic ingredients use and demonstration of ecologically sound production methods

• Submit all product formulae and labels to the Soil Association for approval

• Provide clear labeling so that the consumer can make an informed choice about the product they are purchasing

• For any non-organic ingredient, submit a declaration from the supplier that it is non-GM, plus declarations from 3 suppliers that the ingredient is not available in organic quality

• Use the maximum possible amount of organic ingredients; a product that carries the Soil Association symbol and is labeled organic, must contain at least 95% organic ingredients. In cases where the product contains more than 70% organic ingredients, it can still be certified by the Soil Association but the company must state on the packaging exactly what proportion of ingredients are organic

• Use minimal non-organic additives and only those from a restricted list. These must be non-GM and can only be used if the organic version of that ingredient is not yet available.

• Use ingredients that if processed, are processed by ecologically sound means.

Therefore, there can be a large difference between a beauty product that is certified organic and one that is merely described as ‘organic’ on the label. To ensure a product is guaranteed organic, look for a certification  logo, such as the Soil Association symbol.”

This should provide some idea of the lengths that Europe is taking this major issue. One must comprehend that the skin is the largest organ of the body and what you put on it, regardless of the amount, will be absorbed into our bodies. We are just now beginning to understand the long term effects of these toxic materials absorbed over decades and the benefits of the daily use of certified organic and/or natural beauty products.

The eBook covers this subject in much greater depth with documentation provided for each assertion.

]]> http://organicskincareanswers.com/certified-organic-or-natural-beauty-products/feed/ 23 http://organicskincareanswers.com/safe-skincare/ http://organicskincareanswers.com/safe-skincare/#comments Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:30:01 +0000 admin http://organicskincareanswers.com/?p=124

Almost everyone, including men, are interested in finding safe skincare products nowadays. Perhaps sagging skin and wrinkles, that are beginning to show, are the reasons for this skincare search. As these people hunt for good products, they have learned along the way, that the best skincare are the ones that are made from natural ingredients. But how can one get the best natural skincare?

On the other hand, the first question should be, why must one choose natural products? What exactly is meant by “natural?” Is there any difference between the ordinary products and these natural products?

To begin with, when it comes to skincare, even though there is a technical definition to the word “natural”, it is consistently misrepresented by the Cosmetic Industry. The end result is the consumer does not know if the “natural” product they are buying is, in fact, truly “natural”.  “Natural” should refer to safe skincare products, meaning they are safe to use and will not cause any ill-effects. However, in reality the term “natural”, used on so many products, may be just a marketing ploy.

But aren’t every single one of the skincare items safe, one might ask? These are products used by people every day, so why are they not safe?

Unfortunately, not all the beauty and health products that we are using today are risk-free. People these days are slowly becoming aware that most cosmetics, skin care and other beauty products used daily,  contain toxic ingredients that can be harmful to our skin, our health and general well being.

Many of these toxic ingredients, used to manufacture skincare products, are already being prohibited in many other countries due to the discovery of their toxicity. However, there are still some countries, including the US, that allow these hazardous ingredients. This is due to the fact that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), although it has the power to regulate, chooses not to regulate the products under the cosmetic and beauty products category.

This problem has reached such an alarming level that there are organizations who have gotten into the problem in order to encourage the manufacturing of safe skincare products and other cosmetics.

With the awareness raised by these concerned groups, an increasing number of people are now turning to natural skincare for safety reasons. They also want the best natural products they can find. So, where can one get them? You should know by now that the best natural skincare products are not produced by big well-known companies but rather, by smaller companies. With this said, one should choose these items not by the name that it carries but by the effectiveness and safety that the product offers.

In addition, keep in mind that the majority of the companies that produce natural skincare products have signed their name to the “Compact for Safe Cosmetics” as confirmation of their pledge that they will only manufacture safe skincare products. Thus, if you want to find a safe natural skincare, go over the list of companies who have signed the pact. It is readily available on the web.

In conclusion, remember that the best skincare consists of only ingredients that have originated from nature. The toxins that are being found in cosmetic products should not be taken lightly. Many are linked to cancer, respiratory issues, liver and kidney disease, and birth defects, just to name a few. The free 10 day mini-course gets into more detail and the eBook will provide detailed, documented intelligence and case studies on this delicate subject.

Did you know that cosmetics can be dangerous to use? Believe it or not, unsafe cosmetics are everywhere while the safer ones seem to be unreachable. But how can this happen? Why would cosmetics not be safe to use? Surely, there are cosmetic regulations to follow or perhaps the FDA regulates the Cosmetic Industry to ensure that what we use on our bodies are all safe?

Unfortunately, there are no actual cosmetic regulations out there. Though, there is the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), but it turns out they do not insist on pre-market safety review as they do with drugs. As a result, cosmetics belong to the list of least regulated goods on the market today.

In other words, the FDA does not assess nor have the power to regulate anything about cosmetics before they are sold in the market or salons. As a matter of fact, 89% of all the ingredients found in cosmetics have not been assessed for safety by any agency or institution that may be responsible for this.

Sure, drugs are being regulated and drug firms are required to follow some specified safety standards. However, those standards are not appropriate to companies that produce cosmetics or health and beauty products.

In this case, cosmetic companies feel free to use whatever ingredients they want to use even if those are not yet tested to be safe. What’s more, there are greedy companies who only think of the money that they will make, so they will use cheaper ingredients that may only increase the toxicity of the product as well as the likelihood of adverse side effects to users.

To support this claim, here is an example. In one of the most recent research studies carried out by an independent consumer advocate organization, it was discovered that lead is present in at least 50% of the popular branded lipsticks that they tested.

Maybe, you will find it hard to believe that there could be lead in the lipsticks that we normally use these days, but sadly, this is true. And because of this discovery, the legislature was prompted to pass laws against lead in lipsticks.

On the other hand, it is sad to say that there is lack of cosmetic regulations for safe ingredients in the US. As compared to the US, Europe has stricter standards when it comes to cosmetic ingredients of their products. With this, it can be said that the cosmetic products that you may be using right now more than likely have toxic ingredients that can do damage to your health.

This sticky situation is serious enough that concerned people who are raising awareness about the dangers of unregulated cosmetics have started to organize. These organizations campaign for safer cosmetics and continue to warn the public about the bad effects or dangers of using some popular cosmetic brands that have proven to be unsafe for use.

One example of these concerned organizations is the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics. The main objectives of this group are:

• To bring to light the numerous risks of using hazardous cosmetics

• To seek and press the government to control the whole cosmetic industry as well as the manufacturers to make safe cosmetics.

Moreover, the groups that had come together for safer cosmetics organized the “Compact for Safe Cosmetics.” In here, all the manufacturers of cosmetics, who are ready to commit themselves to produce just the safe products, can put their signature on the compact as proof of their support to safer cosmetics. Well over 600 companies have signed the “Compact for Safe Cosmetics.” However, not one major brand has signed it. In fact, most of the companies that have signed it were already using all natural ingredients in the manufacture of their products.

With the efforts of these concerned people, the FDA issued statements that the amendment of the FDA’s constitutional authority over cosmetics is only possible if the Congress will modify the law. Good luck, as in 1976, so as to deter any passing of new laws, the cosmetic industry just formed a system of voluntary self-regulation by way of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel (CIR).

The CIR is tasked to review cosmetic ingredients. They are a non-profit, independent scientific group that regularly conducts open public assemblies and then announces their findings through a journal.

]]> http://organicskincareanswers.com/cosmetic-regulations/feed/ 14 http://organicskincareanswers.com/guide-in-natural-cosmetic-products/ http://organicskincareanswers.com/guide-in-natural-cosmetic-products/#comments Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:06:12 +0000 admin http://organicskincareanswers.com/?p=107

“Organic,” “natural,” “green,” and “eco-friendly” are terms you frequently hear these days. They might have lost their meaning, and if they have for you, then just a reminder: they all basically mean nothing artificial, nothing animal-related (whether ingredient acquisition or product testing), and everything sustainable. If a product fails to meet those three standards, it’s not organic, natural, green, or eco-friendly at all and should not be used to identify natural cosmetic products..

Although public health laws have not been too strict in regulating cosmetic product manufacturing, concerned consumers and organizations have made motions to change this. For instance, in 2007, 33 popular lipstick brands were tested by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at an independent laboratory for lead content. 61% of the lipsticks contained lead, some of the brands including L’Oreal, Dior, and Cover Girl. The lead levels ranged up to 0.65 ppm (parts per million), but the levels do not matter as there is no safe level of lead exposure anyway, so the mere existence of lead in these products is already considered unsafe. Though it took 2 years for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to investigate this further, a follow-up study confirmed the truth to the urban legend that lipsticks do contain lead. And the public, or most of them, at least, are now aware of this.

But aside from shunning lead, what other things do you need to put into consideration in choosing natural cosmetic products?

Other ingredients you must avoid are mink and emu oil. If you didn’t know already, the mink and the emu are animals: the mink is a semi aquatic carnivore related to the weasel, and the emu is a large flightless bird, similar to the ostrich and in fact the largest of all birds if you exclude the ostrich. Minks are not extinct animals, but emus are, who only now exist in Australia. But regardless of rarity of species, the oil scraped from their hides is still sometimes used in manufacturing face creams. So beware of that the next time you pick up that night cream of yours when you’re browsing at your supermarket’s beauty section.

Petroleum byproducts such as coal tar should be avoided also, if not for the disgusting thought of applying on your skin what you use to fuel your car, then for the fact that they may cause cancer. Hydroquinone, a chemical for skin whitening, can cause irreversible blue-black skin lesions. Nanoparticles, though touted as a breakthrough in the green revolution, can travel to your brain via being absorbed through your skin and to the optic nerve or via burrowing in your red blood cells. Phthalates, which are plasticizer chemicals, cause damage especially to the male sex organs, but should still be avoided by women, especially nail polish users as they are usually found in those products. Phthalates may also be hidden as “fragrance” products, so it would be safe to simply avoid products with “fragrance” on the ingredient list. If natural cosmetic products really are all-natural, then they would not need artificial substances to create a wonderful smell in them, would they?

Many cosmetics companies these days harp about the fact that they use only organic materials in manufacturing their products. This means their products are not formulated with harsh and potentially harmful chemicals such as pesticides, fertilizers and fungicides. But these claims are not required to be backed up by any government agency or authorized organic certification. And therein lies the danger. In fact, since the beginning, the US Environmental Protection Agency has approved organic products which later researched have found to be risks for cancer and many other illnesses.

Because of the lack of government regulation and organic certification, there are cosmetics companies that can and will get away with misleading consumers with misleading labels. To date, there are no legal definitions for such cosmetic buzzwords as “organic,” or “natural,” which means companies can use them on their labels in whatever way they want them to mean. This concern has resulted in the battle between consumer groups and cosmetic products manufacturers. As of October 2009, cosmetics manufacturers have gained the upper hand with the court decision denying petitions to compel them to seek government certification that their organic products are safe for public use.

To counter the public danger that could be caused by this lack of regulation, many consumer groups are advocating voluntary organic certification by cosmetics companies. According to an independent research group, there are currently over 750 personal care and cosmetics products in the market today that do not adhere to cosmetic safety standards established in other countries. Most of the products available in the market are formulated with at least one ingredient that has not been publicly tested for safety, and over one-third has at least one chemical that has been found to increase the risk for cancer.

The numbers indicate the need for organic cosmetic certification, since it appears that “organic” and “natural” do not always mean safe and effective. Conscientious cosmetics companies that manufacture only safe products and who care about letting consumers know that they follow safety standards can seek certification from many private companies that offer to test products and certify them according to their organic standards.

Generally, to be granted organic certification, cosmetic companies have to file comprehensive records detailing mission-critical processes from the manufacturing, handling and packaging. They will also be required to provide access to their records to the certifying body, production sites and inventory of ingredients for testing purposes. At the end of the day, the certification that they are granted can serve as the public’s assurance that their products are safe to use.

Aside from checking the product for certification, consumers can also avail themselves of several useful resources if they want to make sure that they use only safe cosmetic products. The Environmental Working Group allows public access to Skin Deep, a database containing a comprehensive list of more than 50,000 cosmetics products ingredients and their corresponding data gap score and hazard rating score. The data gap score does not tell you how safe or harmful the ingredients are. What it tells you is how open the cosmetics companies are to providing information about their ingredients to the public, such that a high data gap score means the cosmetics company has disclosed little information. On the other hand, the hazard rating score indicates the correlation between the ingredients and the hazard potential, based on research.

The very first proof of global cosmetic history is found in Ancient Egypt at around 4000 BC. The Ancient Romans and Greeks used cosmetics, as well. The Ancient Egyptians and Romans used cosmetics consisting of white lead and mercury in the past, not aware of their hazardous properties. Fragrances were stated in the Christian Bible, particularly myrrh and frankincense. Ancient Egyptians had a broad range of make-up tools. Among them is called kohl, which functions to delineate the eyes. It consisted of copper, lead, soot, and burnt almonds. Eye make up was believed to have the ability to fend off bad spirits and develop the eyesight. Even the deprived put on eye make up in Ancient Egypt. The manufacture of cosmetics during the period of Ancient Rome was done by woman slaves who were called Cosmetae.

In the Middle East, cosmetics were used from ancient eras. According to Islamic Law, putting on cosmetics was not prohibited. However, wearing make up in order to hide the real appearance or to cause or mislead uninhibited desire, and was prohibited.

India also has cosmetic history around the fourth or fifth centuries. Henna has been used in this period as a hair dye, or in the Mehndi art, in which complicated designs are drawn onto the feet and hands, particularly prior to a Hindu wedding. Henna is used in various North African cultures, as well. Henna designs in Africa have a bolder characteristic, while the ones in India are more complicated.

The Chinese started to paint their fingernails with gelatin, gum Arabic, egg and beeswax from about 3000 BC. Colours were used to symbolize the corresponding social rank. In the Chou dynasty royals used silver and gold and later on used red or black. Meanwhile, the lower ranks were not allowed to use bright hues on their fingernails.

In Japan, lipstick, consisting of mashed safflower petals, were used by Geisha’s to paint the borders of the eyes, the eyebrows and the lips. As a make-up base, Geisha’s used bintsuke wax sticks, which is a milder alternative to the sumo wrestler’s hair wax. Rice powder was used to color the face and the back. Sometimes, Geisha’s also use bird droppings in order to accumulate a lighter hue.

In the Middle Age era, make-up was considered immoral and sinful by the Church, used by higher class ladies and prostitutes. However, in the Renaissance era until the Industrial Revolution, make-up was restored from the reintroduction and rediscovery of the Ancient World. Various kinds of products were used together with white lead paint that may have consisted of arsenic. This arsenic poisoned women and many were killed as a result. Queen Elizabeth I of England was the most popular user of white lead, with which she made an appearance called “The Mask of Youth”

Cosmetics history has significantly progressed up to the twentieth century. The most powerful new improvement of all was that of the film business in Hollywood. A few of those who met the chance for mass market cosmetics were Elizabeth Arden, Helena Rubinstein, and Max Factor, Sr. In the 1970s, cosmetics were split into a natural look for daytime and a more sexy look for evening.

]]> http://organicskincareanswers.com/global-cosmetic-history/feed/ 33 http://organicskincareanswers.com/toxic-free-cosmetics/ http://organicskincareanswers.com/toxic-free-cosmetics/#comments Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:13:07 +0000 admin http://organicskincareanswers.com/?p=36

Being beautiful is one thing that women really spend money on. They buy different kinds of beauty products even if it will cost them a huge amount of money, and, they don’t even spend time to research how these cosmetic products are made. Is it safe for them to apply these products to their body? Companies who sell cosmetic products often use this as a gimmick. In their advertisements, they say that what they sell are toxic free cosmetics. But in fact, they are not. And the consumers, on the other side, do not bother to learn if what they are using is safe for them and for their children. Yes, not only adults become victims of these beauty and personal care products but also children. There are personal care products such as baby shampoos that contain cancer-causing chemicals. Several of these are dioxane and formaldehyde. Both of them are known to be animal carcinogens and probable human carcinogens. Formaldehyde can also cause skin rashes to sensitive children.

Lipsticks are also an example of a beauty product that are widely-used by humans. But did you know that 61 percent of lipsticks around the world contain lead? Lead is a proven neurotoxin that can cause learning, language, and behavioural problems. Exposure to this chemical to pregnant women and children can interfere with normal development. And since there is no safe level of lead exposure, science believes it to be disturbing that companies continue to sell lipsticks.

Nail products can also be dangerous to one’s health. The bad smell coming from nail products are caused by chemicals which are suspected to cause cancer, reproductive harm, asthma, and other negative health effects. These health hazards are caused by the so-called “toxic trio”, which are dibutyl phthalate, formaldehyde and toluene. Consumers who are most affected by these are the workers and customers of nail salons. Some of these salons are not even well-ventilated and that makes the chances of them being sick higher. But according to recent updates, there are nail product manufacturers that have reformulated their products in order to remove the toxic trio ingredients. Although those chemicals add to the beautiful effects of the nail care products, they can also cause harm to humans if safety precautions are not considered. That is why people have to make sure that toxic free cosmetics are really toxic free before they purchase.

Unlike in the food industry, it is hard to tell whether beauty products are truly pure, organic and non-toxic. Companies describe their products wrongly just to sell. Their marketing strategy includes telling the consumers that their goods are toxic free cosmetics when in reality they are not. So it is up to consumers to be responsible enough to discover if they are always safe using cosmetic products that they purchase. This is not only a matter of how much they spend buying these beauty products but also how much they are going to spend if they become victims of these toxic cosmetics. It is never bad to spend money for us to look good. But we just have to make sure that we are doing it in a safe way.

When you see “organic” or “natural” on the label of your cosmetics product, should you sit back, relax, and trust that what you are putting on your skin is safe and effective? Not really. Remember that the cosmetics industry is self-regulated. This means that they are pretty much allowed to make organic and natural claims, despite the fact that their intention may be to mislead the public into buying their products. For example, a cosmetic manufacturer could put “organic” on its label, but could actually mean its scientific definition—that the product contains carbon—and not what we normally take the word “organic” to mean. Get the drift? To help you shop for cosmetics products wiser, we enumerate the top three in the toxic cosmetics list. These toxic cosmetic ingredients are formulated with and can cause anything from simple skin irritation to high risk for cancer.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate or Sodim Laureth Sulfate

They are more simply referred to as SLS and SLES. These chemicals are traditionally used in detergent products and as surfactants. Surfactants are chemicals that break up the surface tension, making liquid spread out across the area instead of concentrating in droplets. SLS an SLES are typically found in soaps and industrial cleaners, but is also often used as a primary ingredient for making cosmetics, especially those that are supposed to lather. How are they harmful? Studies have linked these chemicals to gastrointestinal and liver diseases.

Mineral Oils

Check your hand and body lotion or makeup remover brand to see if it is formulated with mineral oils, because it most probably is. Mineral oil is a clear liquid made from distilling crude oil to produce gasoline. Since it is only a by-product, it comes cheap. It fact, it might be cheaper to find some use for it than to throw it away. The problem is, mineral oil has been found to have hazardous effects on the body. When you put on a product containing mineral oil, it covers the body like a layer of cellophane, causing your pores to get clogged and preventing them from naturally disposing of toxins. This further hinders the process of cell reproduction, causing the skin to age prematurely.

Synthetic Scents

Did you know that a single synthetic scent, also known as fragrance or Phthalates, used in any cosmetic product could contain as much as 200 sub-ingredients? The number is disconcerting. But what is worse is the fact that consumers are not properly apprised of what these ingredients are. The label only says “fragrance” or “scent.” To be safe, stay away from any product that contains “fragrance” in their label. Some of the side-effects and health hazards that have been linked to these fragrance ingredients include headaches and migraine, allergy, vertigo and dizziness, skin rashes and pigmentation, as well as discoloration. This is because fragrances are likely to be formulated with petroleum derivatives that cause these effects.

So the next time you shop for your personal care or cosmetics kit, remember these top three toxic ingredients, and you’re three times safer than the next unwitting shopper.