Family walking in creek

This month’s Green Moms Carnival is focused on the environment and cancer. At first, I was so excited to post about this issue. But then I started to get overwhelmed.

Should I talk about radon? Radon is a leading cause of lung cancer. Elevated levels of radon in the home have also been linked to increasing the risk of children developing acute lymphoblastic leukemia. But, radon is easy to detect and relatively simple to remove from the home, but many people seem unaware of the risk. Seems like a great topic.

But then I thought I should talk about the link between common household pesticides and cancer. For example, did you know that use of conventional pesticides in the home and garden during pregnancy and the first year of a child’s life increases that child’s risk of developing leukemia by as much as a factor of 9? That’s pretty scary. And with so many non toxic alternatives for pest control, that seemed like an awesome topic.

Should I talk about carcinogens in our personal care products, like the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in every parent’s staple, Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Wash?

Should I talk about one of my soapbox subjects – the irony of beauty companies sponsoring breast cancer research when most of them use ingredients that are linked to an increased risk of cancer, and often increased risk of breast cancer? Pinkwashing at its finest.

It gets a little scary when you think about all the products we use every day that are linked to cancer, doesn’t it? All the ingredients and constituents that are carcinogens (cancer causing agents) become overwhelming.

And I think you become immune to it. It seems like there is a new scary product or ingredient every day. So if everything causes cancer, then why worry about it?

Why?

It is easier to do nothing. To think that our easy care, non stick, disposable lifestyles don’t really matter. That one person’s choices do not count or matter.

It really is easier to not think about.

But we can’t. We can’t let the overwhelming information paralyze us.

And while it is certainly true that what you eat, whether you exercise, whether you get enough sleep, your genetic makeup, if you drink, if you smoke, if you take recreational drugs all play a role in your risk of cancer and certain infectious agents (like HPV), environmental factors also play a role. A role that we do not yet fully understand.

Our efforts in the war in cancer seem focused on detecting, treating and curing cancer instead of considering that the world we live in affects whether we get cancer. The Secret History of the War on Cancer
says that the end result if 10 million preventable cancer deaths in the last 30 years. Which is why pinkwashing makes me so angry. It would be a much better investment for those companies to spend money reformulating their products to eliminate known or suspected carcinogens or hormone disruptors instead of trying to sell us even more CARP we don’t need just because it is pink.

Instead, I thought I would talk about two of the books that most moved me to do more, to do better, to live a less toxic life. The first is Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and the second is Sandra Steingraber’s incredibly powerful Living Downstream: An Ecologist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment (which is now being released in an updated version, my quotes are from the 1997 edition).

Why these two books? Because they point out something very, very telling about the link between the lives we live and the cancers we get. Rachel Carson focused on the rising death rates of cancer, and was disturbed by the evidence that childhood cancer had become the most common disease killer of US children. But Rachel Carson’s concerns have been dismissed, in part because childhood cancer mortality rates have been going down. She didn’t have access to incidence data, which shows while medical improvements have dramatically decreased how many kids die from cancer, how many kids get cancer continues to increase.

Sandra Steingraber writes:

Heroic measures may be saving more children from death, but every year more children are diagnosed with cancer than the year before. Increases are most apparent for leukemia and brain tumors. At present, eight thousand children are dianosed with cancer each year; one in four hundred Americans can expect to develop cancer before the age of 15.

Cancer among children provides a particularly intimate glimpse into the possible routes of exposure to contaminants in the general environment and the possible significance for rising cancer rates among adults. The lifestyle of toddlers has not changed much over the past half century. Young children do not smoke, drink alcohol, or hold stressful jobs. Children do, however, receive a greater dose of whatever chemicals are present in the air, food, and water because, pound for pound, they breathe, eat, and drink more than adults do.

That is it. Our children are getting more cancers despite the fact that the other factors people point out – smoking, drinking, etc. – haven’t changed for them.

Granted, obesity rates are sky rocketing in our kids and I would guess that is a contributor.

Nonetheless, the Environmental Working Group’s 10 Americans study clearly, unequivocally demonstrates that our children are born polluted. Polluted from chemicals we use now, and from chemicals we banned more than 30 years ago because they persist in our environment.

I hope that these books, and the Living Downstream trailer inspire you.

You can take simple steps to reduce chemical exposures. Start with one of the simplest, and it requires no money. Just take off your shoes to reduce tracking in DDT, PCBs, and lead into your home. Then, trying switching to non toxic cleaners and personal care products. Stop using conventional pesticides.

But more than that, I hope it inspires you to do more. To work on greening your school, your daycare, your work or your church. To advocate for change. To write your elected representatives to support legislative efforts. To vote with your pocketbook.

To run for office.

To walk upstream.

Go check out the other Green Moms who posted this month on the environment and cancer by starting with Nature Moms (post will be up 3/8).

And, for full disclosure, the text links to books in the post are part of my Amazon Affiliate account. If you click and buy, I’ll probably make about $0.00025 or something miniscule like that. Just so you know.

Polyetheylene plastic beads

I just don’t get the popularity of Beaute de Maman. Or why the line won an Editor’s Choice Award from Pregnancy Magazine in December of last year.

I really don’t get it.

The line is expensive.

But people like it because it is natural. I’ve found it in very upscale boutiques, with sales people touting its benefits.

But, the line is guilty of greenwashing.

 The product advertising states that

Beaute de Maman was conceived by Dr. Brown, an obstetrician whose ongoing mission is to provide safe and effective remedies for the common problems women face during pregnancy. Her fine line of skincare products has been extensively studied and evaluated, as well as allergy and obstetrician tested. The entire line contains only natural and herbal ingredients proven safe for the mother-to-be, the fetus and the breastfeeding baby. 

Those natural claims are repeated in the Connecticut Post and other press about Beaute De Maman.

And therein is my problem. The entire line is supposed to contain “only natural and herbal ingredients” but that isn’t true. Well, at least by my definition of natural.

Let’s take the first product – the facial scrub. The ingredients are:

Water (Purified), Glycerol Stearate, Ethylhexyl Palmitate, Butylene Glycol, Disodium Laureth Sulfocucinate, Sodium Cocoyl, Methyl Taurate, Polyethylene, PEG-100 stearate, Myristyl Myristate, Tridecyl Stearate, Neopentyl Glycol Dicaprylate/Dicaprate, Tridecyl Trimellitate, Phenoxyethanol, Acrylates/C10 30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer, DMDM Hydantoin, Caprylyl Glycol, Triethanolamine, Iodopropynyl Butycarbamate

Okay, now realize that polyethylene is a plastic derived from petroleum. That means that this allegedly all natural and herbal facial scrub has tiny microbeads of plastic that pollute our oceans.

Guess what? Lots of the other ingredients are very, very far from “natural.” Take butylene glycol. It is produced by the petrochemical industry by steam cracking. In other words, saturated petroleum hydrocarbons are broken down into small hydrocarbons. Or take triethanolamine. Triethanolamine is produced by reacting ethylene oxide with ammonia. In turn, ethylene oxide comes from ethylene and oxygen, and ethylene is produced by the petrochemical industry by steam cracking.

Okay, how are those natural? Or herbal?

Last year, I tried to speak with Beaute de Maman about its products. I was specifically interested in the natural claim and also contaminants being present in ceretain ingredients. And I got a fairly snotty response from Laureen Schroeder, VP of Marketing, that kept emphasizing how the company has access to research not available to the rest of us.

First, and most importantly, she said that “we do not claim to be 100% natural – as we could not be effective.” Huh? Isn’t that at odds with the advertising?

She also said:

Our products have been researched using databases and reproduction toxicity reports available only to physicians. . . . According to Reprotox, which are physician only databases  . . .”

Okay Ms. Schroeder, hate to tell you, but Reprotox is a subscription service available to physicians and consumers. So, yes, I use the same databases that you do.

So, many of the ingredients in the facial scrub peaked my interest. Ethylhexyl palmitate, for example, is an irritant, and the CIR panel warns against using in products for use around the eyes or on the skin above a certain concentration. Butylene glycol has the same problem. Several ingredients are ethoxylated and can have the carcinogen 1,4 dioxane as a contaminant, including disodium laureth sulfocucinate and PEG-100 stearate. Phenoxyethanol is phenol reacted with ethylene oxide, which again is petroleum derived.

Now, Ms. Schroeder states that the “facial scrub has no dioxane or carcinogenic compounds. All ingredients used are pure with no contaminants. Again, Intertek, or the FDA of England, did extensive testing of all products and determined that repeated exposure to the ingredients will not cause skin irritation, even with prolonged or repeated use. The ingredients used are well known and present at typical concenetrations where they will not cause irritation or allergy and are deemed safe. There is no formaldehyde or carcinogenic ingredients.”

Okay, so it seems that perhaps the ethoxylated ingredients are vacuum stripped to eliminate the 1,4 dioxane. But when I asked about the detection level used (and we know that is important after the SIGG debacle), I didn’t get a response.

Obviously, formaldehyde isn’t an ingredient. But her statement that there is no formaldehyde doesn’t address whether there are formaldehyde donors. The thing is about formaldehyde donors is that they work by releasing small quantities of formaldehyde to make the environment – the product – less favorable to microorganisms. So how can she claim that there is no formaldehyde produced? I get it that the levels may be very small, but still. Formaldehyde, by the way, is a carcinogen. It also causes contact dermantitis. DMDM Hydantoin, for example, is a formaldehyde donor. Setting asside the whole formaldehyde issue, DMDM Hydantoin is also an irritant, a known human immune system toxicant, and is a human skin toxicant. It is restricted for use in cosmetics in Japan. It gets a 7 to 9 (depending on use) in Skin Deep’s Cosmetic Safety Database.

I’m also completely unconvinced by the reliance upon Reprotox. Beaute de Maman banks on its claims that the products are safe for pregnant women. (I have some questions about the specific claims because, well, they seem to cross into the product being a drug, not a cosmetic, but that is for the FDA. And the FTC.) But the thing is, we know that there have not be adequate toxicology reviews of most of the chemicals we use. Looking at the Reprotox entry for DMDM Hydantoin, for example, there is no information in Reprotox other than the CIR’s assessment from 1988. Hello? There has been more information since the industry-funded panel looked at it – and the CIR only considers irritant/allergen type responses for the most part, not developmental toxicity.

And, by the way, Beaute de Maman claims that “these products, cosmeceuticals, have medicinal propertiers in their ingredients ensuring the safety of both mother-to-be and baby.” That certainly sounds like they are super special, right? Just so you know, the FDA does not recognize any such category as “cosmeceutical”, as Beaute de Maman asserts that the products are. A product is a drug, a cosmetic, or a combination of both, but the term “cosmeceutical” has no meaning under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Mold isn’t a toxic chemical, so to speak, but mold growth does concern most of us and can negatively impact indoor air quality.  Molds can cause health problems.  News reports have linked mold exposure to a range of adverse health effects, from minor allergic reactions to brain damage.  Infants are more susceptible to adverse health effects from mold exposure than healthy adults.

Molds are microscopic fungi. They are found everywhere. You cannot not and should not try to keep your home mold free. Molds can grow on virtually any organic substance, as long as food, moisture and oxygen are present.  They play an essential role in nature, breaking down dead organic matter, such as fallen leaves.  Molds are also useful to us.  Penicillin, for example, is obtained from a specific type of mold.

Molds reproduce by releasing tiny spores.  These spores are invisible to the naked eye.  The spores float through the air, both indoors and outdoors.  They can also be transported by water and insects.  If the spores land on a surface with the right conditions, they can start growing and forming mold colonies.  Mold will grow if it has moisture and nutrients.  Many building materials, including wood and sheetrock, provide enough food to support mold growth.  In fact, even the dust settling on building materials or furniture can be a sufficient food source for molds, if moisture is also present.

The presence of mold in your home’s air is normal, but mold growth should not be permitted.  Mold can cause adverse health effects, most typically allergic type responses.  It is generally accepted that a greater risk of health effects is associated with a higher concentration of mold spore counts over background levels. 

Mold growth is usually indicated by signs of water damage or water intrusion, discoloration, a musty or earthy smell, or visible mold growth.   If you have problems with dampness or moisture, or have had a water leak or water damage, you may have the necessary conditions to facilitate mold growth. It is estimated that almost 50% of U.S. homes have dampness or mold problems. Since mold can trigger respiratory problems and asthma type responses, molds and dampness conditions may well contribute to the rising incidence of asthma in the US. It is estimated that 21%, or 1 out of 5, of current asthma cases in the U.S. are attributable to dampness and mold exposure.

Mold and the damp environments are linked to several adverse health effects.  The Institute of Medicine’s comprehensive review of available studies found sufficient evidence of an association between the presence of mold or other agents in damp indoor environments and asthma symptoms in sensitized persons, cough, hypersensitivity pneumonitis in susceptible persons, upper respiratory (nasal and throat) tract symptoms and wheeze.  A review of available studies found a thirty percent (30%) to fifty percent (50%) increase in a variety of respiratory and asthma-related outcomes associated with building dampness and the presence of mold growth.

Infants and children may be affected more severely and sooner than others by exposure to elevated concentrations of mold. A study found significant increased risk between lower respiratory illnesses in the first year including croup, pneumonia, bronchitis and bronchiolitis and high indoor air levels of certain molds.  The study concluded that the risk of lower respiratory illnesses in infancy was increased by exposure to high fungal levels. The Institute of Medicine’s review found the evidence suggestive of a link between mold or other agents in damp environments and lower respiratory illness in otherwise healthy children.  Exposure to molds in infants may increase the risk of developing asthma.  In fact, one study found that exposure to mold and dampness in homes doubles the risk of asthma development in children.

Allergic reactions to mold are relatively common.  About ten percent (10%) of the population is allergic to mold.  Allergic reactions to mold include sneezing, runny nose, red eyes, runny eyes, throat irritation, coughing, and skin rash.  More severe allergic reactions include allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, allergic fungal sinusitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis.  Molds can also trigger asthma attacks in asthmatics with mold allergies. 

Molds can also evoke an irritant response.  Mold exposure can irritate the eyes, skin, nose, throat, and lungs in both people who are allergic to molds and in people who are not allergic to mold.  Most molds emit microbial volatile organic compounds (“mVOCs”).  These mVOCs are the cause of the musty or earthy odors encountered with some molds.  The mVOCs may cause irritant responses in some individuals.  Exposed persons have reported headaches, fatigue and nausea resulting from exposure to mVOCs.  Also, beta-1,3-glucan is a major structural component of almost all fungal cell wells.  Exposure to beta-1,3-glucan is associated with headaches, although researchers are investigating the contribution of beta-1,3-glucan to irritant responses to mold.

Molds can cause infection, especially in susceptible people, although this is an uncommon adverse health effect of mold exposure.  That being said, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that nine percent (9%) of hospital-acquired infections are caused by molds. It is important to keep immuno-compromised or otherwise sensitive individuals out of environments with elevated mold concentrations.    

 Some molds release small molecular toxins, called mycotoxins, under certain conditions. Mycotoxins may cause toxic effects in people.  In news stories, the molds that are capable of producing mycotoxins are often referred to as “toxic molds.”  Despite media hype, considerable debate exists in the scientific and medical communities about claimed toxic effects resulting from mold exposure by inhalation.  Both toxic effects resulting from ingesting mycotoxin-contaminated foods are well known.  But toxic effects resulting from inhalation of molds and mycotoxins is unresolved despite several high profile lawsuits and news reports.  Claimed toxic effects include wheezing, difficulty breathing, nasal and sinus congestion, light sensitivity, blurry vision, watery or runny eyes, sore thrown, cough, skin irritation, chronic fatigue, immune suppression, aches and pains, loss of memory, constant headaches, mood changes, diarrhea, and brain damage.  The health effects associated with long term exposure to mycotoxins are unknown.    

Molds only produce mycotoxins under specific environmental conditions.  So, just because you have a mold known to produce mycotoxins does not mean that the mold is in fact releasing mycotoxins.  Molds known to release mycotoxins under certain circumstances include Stachybotrys chartarum, Aspergillus versicolor and several toxigenic species of Penicillium.  When mycotoxins are present, they occur in both living and dead mold spores, and may be present in materials that have become contaminated with molds. The infamous “toxic black mold” discussed in news stores is Stachybotrys chartarum.  “Stachy” is a greenish-black mold that can grow on materials that contain cellulose, such as drywall or sheetrock, ceiling tiles and wood.  Not all greenish-black molds are Stachybotrys chartarum. It does not grow on glass or ceramic tiles or cement, so the mold in your shower is most likely not Stachy. 

So what can you do? It is important to limit mold growth by preventing the germination and growth of mold.  Key to mold growth is water.  Moisture makes mold happy.  Without water, mold growth cannot start.  Water damage, excessive humidity, water leaks, condensation, flooding, and water intrusion are all conditions that can lead to conditions that foster mold growth.  If you see signs of water damage or water intrusion, such as bubbling paint around a window sill, or staining at a ceiling corner, signal conditions that are likely to lead to mold growth and you should take action. Molds can colonize quickly.  Some molds germinate in four to twelve hours.  Left undisturbed, a mold colony can start forming within 24 to 48 hours after a water leak or water intrusion problem.  A quick response to water intrusion, including fixing the source of the water, can stop mold from growing. 

Common sources of water are:

• Water leaks into the structure, such as the roof, walls, or floors;
• Flooding from the outside sources, such as storm water, overflowing streams, storm surge, etc.;
• Flooding from the indoor sources, such as overflowing sinks, tubs or toilets; air conditioner drain pans; or sewer systems;
• Indoor plumbing leaks;
• Broken water pipes;
• Condensation caused by indoor humidity that is too high or surfaces that are too cold;
• Indoor plumbing leaks or broken water pipes;
• Outdoor sprinkler spray hitting the walls or improper landscaping drainage that allows collection of moisture against the building;
• Inadequate ventilation;
• Humidifier use;
• House plants, especially if overwatered; and
• Moisture from our bodies, including sweat, wet hair on pillows, and respiration.

You can keep an eye and nose out for mold. Mold growth is signaled by discoloration, musty odors and visible mold growth. For example, discoloration around baseboards or on walls may indicate mold growth. A musty or earthy smell may indicate hidden mold growth. If you have a noticeable musty, moldy or earthy odor, you should check around for signs of water intrusion or water damage, or discoloration.  You can also try using a moisture meter to check the moisture content of building materials.  For example, if you smell a noticeable musty odor in one corner of a room, but don’t see any signs of discoloration or water damage, you can use a moisture meter to test the moisture content of the sheetrock or other building material.  An elevated reading may signal a water problem behind the walls, and possibly a mold problem. 

Visible mold growth pretty clearly indicates mold.  Visible mold growth may look fuzzy, cottony, velvety, powdery, or sooty, and may be green, white, black, red, orange, yellow, blue, or brown.  If you have visible mold growth, it is important to properly address it.  However, most regulatory agencies do not recommend testing to determine what type of mold it is.  All molds should be treated in the same manner in terms of health risks and removal.  The old adage applies – be safe, not sorry.  Of course, there may be specific reasons to determine what type of mold you have.  If you can’t tell whether it is mold or not, place a small drop of household bleach onto the suspected spot.  (Borrow some from a neighbor if you are a green mama that doesn’t use bleach.)  If the stain loses its color or disappears, it may be mold.  If it doesn’t, it probably isn’t mold.  Of course, try this only if it is safe to do so and wear appropriate personal protective equipment.

You will never eliminate all mold and mold spores from your home.  But, you can control indoor mold growth. 

Fix water problems.  Molds cannot grow without moisture.  So, don’t make the mold happy.  If you fix plumbing leaks and other sources of water intrusion as soon as possible, then you will eliminate the environment that molds need in order to thrive.

Control humidity.  In your home, keep humidity levels below sixty percent (60%) or even below fifty percent (50%) if you can.

Use your eyes and nose.  Your eyes and nose can tell you a lot.  That musty odor?  A good indication that mold is present.  Signs of water damage?  A good sign of a water problem that might lead to mold.  If you see or smell mold, fix the moisture source and then remediate the mold.

Ventilate.  Make sure you have and maintain adequate ventilation in “wet” rooms, such as the bathroom, the kitchen, the laundry room, the basement, and the mud room.  Again, controlling moisture and humidity is the key to preventing mold growth.  And an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

Remediate mold.  The appropriate remediation of mold will depend on the area covered by mold growth and the material(s) involved.  Check the resources for information about mold cleanup.

Be safe, not sorry.  All molds should be treated in the same manner in terms of health risks and removal. 

Dry completely.  If you do have a water intrusion problem, then make sure you fix the problem, remediate the mold, and dry out completely.  After fixing the water problem and remediating the mold, make sure you dry out water damaged areas completely.  Porous and semi-porous materials may need to be disposed of if they get moldy or wet.

Change filters.  If you use an air condition or dehumidifier, make sure you change the filter regularly in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Discard moldy items.  Don’t be a packrat!  If you have moldy books, magazines, newspapers, clothing or other items, then appropriately discard them. 

Limit houseplants.  Houseplants, especially if overwatered, can contribute to dampness.  Mold can grow in the soil and on the bark and leaves. 

When cleaning up mold, you need to wear appropriate protective gear, which means a mask to prevent breathing in mold or mold spores (use an N-95 respirator), wear gloves and wear goggles. Whether you should cleanup mold yourself or hire a professional depends on the size of the area affected and whether the water is sewage or not. If the area is less than 10 square feet (less than about 3 feet by 3 feet), you can probably handle it yourself. But, if the area was contaminated with black or sewage water, contact a professional. If you are ill, hire a professional.

Before you clean up a moldy area, it is critical that you have eliminated the moisture source. If you haven’t, then mold will just come back. Once you have taken care of the moisture source and are ready to tackle the mold growth area, seal off the rest of the house. Cover heat registers or ventilation ducts/grills. Then bag and discard all moldy items. You must discard all porous materials – sheetrock, carpeting, etc. Then, use soap or detergent to clean with hot water and scrub the area affected by mold (for solid surfaces). After cleaning, rinse clean and dry, perhaps using a wet/dry vacuum. Before tackling a mold clean up project, I encourage you to read the EPA’s A Brief Guide to Mold, Moisture & Your Home.

Let me address one myth about mold. Please keep in mind that it is a MYTH you should routinely use bleach during mold cleanup. As stated by the EPA, “‘the use of a chemical or biocide that kills organisms such as mold (chlorine bleach, for example) is not recommended as a routine practice during mold cleanup.” And, just killing the mold is not enough, which is what bleach does. You must remove the mold. Dead mold can still cause allergic reactions in some people so mold must be removed.

For very minor mold spots in your shower, you can try 2 tablespoons tea tree oil with about 10 ounces of water in a spray bottle.

Ruby

I wanted to share with you a post I did for Los Angeles Moms Blog – Betrayed: A Sparkling Love Affair with Macy’s Is Over. (And I apologize for the typos if they haven’t been corrected yet.) I don’t know if you have seen the news reports, but the venerable Macy’s is charged with selling rubies that have lead filled glass added to them. And cubic zirconia as diamond. And other such misdeeds. The post has links to the various complaints if you are interested.

It really is disturbing to me that Macy’s would sell composite, glass filled stones as the real thing. I think you will find it just as disturbing.

I mean I understand that you can sell whatever you want for the highest price that you can get. But Macy’s did not disclose what is was selling. I know from every one of my shopping experiences at Macy’s that I have never, ever, ever been told that the stones could be composite, or could have glass filled fractures, or anything like that.

I find it even more disturbing that weeks after the story first broke on Good Morning America, Macy’s is caught doing it yet again at 3 stores by CBS 5. One of the stones that CBS 5’s undercover reporter purchases after being assured that it is real is 50% leaded glass. You would think after having gotten caught, Macy’s would have cleaned up it acts.

And then for Macy’s to admit in its statement responding to CBS 5 that it does indeed sell glass fracture filled gemstones makes me incredibly angry. I have several pieces of fine jewelry (as opposed to costume jewelry) from Macy’s. I now question whether every piece is “real” or full of glass. And god forbid it is leaded glass.

Macy’s – if any of my pieces are fracture fill glass, you better take back every single piece of jewelry. I swear that this breakup will be expensive for you.

(BTW, the law firm that filed the class action has an informational page. I have no affiliation with the law firm whatsoever, although I have talked to the attorney handling the matter about the lawsuit.)

Now, some people switch to natural deodorants because they want to avoid aluminium. Aluminium is present in many conventional anti-perspirants, although it isn’t typically found in conventional deodorants. An increased amount of aluminium is found in the brains of many Alzheimer’s patients. Aluminium is a neurotoxin at high doses. However, aluminium in anti-perspirants has not been shown to cause Alzheimer’s, and the absorption of aluminium from anti-perspirants may be low although it does occur. While some animal studies have shown that high doses of the same aluminium salts used in anti-perspirants have detrimental impacts, The Alzheimer’s Society concludes that the evidence does not demonstrate a causal relationship between aluminium and Alzheimer’s.

So, even though the science does not confirm a link to Alzheimer’s, some people prefer products without aluminium. So they switch to natural deodorants. Other people want to avoid other ingredients commonly found in conventional anti-perspirants and deodorants, such as parabens, phthalates, and more. So they switch to natural deodorants. And some people just want to avoid the disposable plastic that comes with most conventional anti-perspirants and deodorants. So they switch to natural deodorants with less packaging.

All of those are valid reasons. But, if you are switching to a “natural” deodorant to avoid aluminium, then the natural deodorant better not have aluminium, right?

The thing is – those crystal deodorants contain aluminium.  Just check out the ingredients here, including the original Rock with ammonium alum. Ammonium alum is ammonium aluminium sulfate. Potassium alum, or hydrated aluminium potassium sulfate, may also be used. Now, it is true that the aluminium compounds are different in the rock crystal deodorants than in most conventional deodorants, and may be absorbed differently, but they still contain aluminium. And it is aluminium which is considered a neurotoxin that penetrates the blood-brain barrier. It is a bit misleading for The Original Crystal Rock to suggest that it is only aluminium chlorohydrate that is a neurotoxin.

In any event, it just seems to me that if you want to avoid aluminium, then you shouldn’t use the crystal deodorants. And keep in mind that those cystal rocks aren’t just mined naturally. They are as close to the aluminium compounds mined as sodium laureth sulfate is to coconuts. In other words, not much.

In any event, I find baking powder is the easiest and cheapest. Just put some in a small dish – I use a dish that used to have some fancy dusting powder and a pouf to put on the baking soda. It works wonders. Some people like a lit bit more to their deodorant, so you can make  your own. The best recipe is 1/4 cup baking soda, 1/4 cup corn startch and 1/4 cup coconut oil. Heat over low heat, until the coconut oil melts and the ingredients are combined. Pour liquid into container of your choice (re-use an old stick deodorant container). Let it cool. You can add some essential oil to the mixture if you want some more scent. Enviromom posts about her efforts with a slightly different recipe that doesn’t involve cooking.

If you don’t believe me and want a product, try Weleda. I like Weleda Citrus Deodorant. Now, the ingredients include the dreaded “fragrance” but the fragrance is from natural essential oils. And all those potentially yucky sounding chemicals – limonene, linalool, geraniol, citral, and farnesol – are the componds that make essential oils smell. Linalool is the top note in lavender essential oil. The information is included because the European Union’s rule requiring identification of certain potential allergens. And essential oils contain compounds which can cause allergic reactions in some people.

What does that mean? It is left to us to figure out what we want to use and whether we believe the products are safe for our kids. You may use the EWG’s Cosmetic Safety Database Skin Deep to check out ingredients. Or you may rely on recommendations from other moms. But recommendations may not be the best gauge of a product’s safety - what you think is okay may not be okay to the next mom and vice versa.

I think that issue – what is okay with one is not okay with another mom – came up during a Twitter last week, the #washthemgrow Twitter party. During the party, questions were raised regarding one ingredient – methylisothiazolinone. Jessica Gottlieb tweeted that is was banned in Canada, yet Suave Kids products included it. Methylisothiazolinone is an antimicrobial agent used in shampoos and other bath products in the US. Animal studies have linked exposure to methylisothiazolinone (“MIT”) to stunted development. In other words, chronic exposure to MIT may negatively impact neurodevelopment. Its use is restricted in cosmetics in Canada, although not completely banned. So some moms try to avoid it, while other moms may think it is okay.

The party hosts didn’t seem prepared to respond to questions on ingredients. (And I think that is a lesson learned for all Twitter parties – you must know your subject well. And be prepared for all issues. Can anybody say Nestle fiasco??) With respect to the concerns expressed over the ingredient methylisothiazolinone, Maria Bailey posted Suave’s response on her blog after the party had concluded.

But to be honest, MIT is only one problemmatic ingredient in the Suave Kids products. The Suave Kids Body Wash (the focus of the Suave Kids Wash Them Grow campaign) is supposed to make “bath time a more fun experience with [Suave's] gentle and tear-free formulas . . . ” But the body wash is far from gentle. And I have to say I get a little annoyed at the sheer number of primarily mom blogs simply repeating the Suave media kit information. The blog posts almost universally say that the Suave Kids products are safe, gentle and non irritating. But none of them talk about WHAT IS IN THE BLOODY STUFF, including all the ingredients that are known irritants and/or allergens. Or that many of the products have high scores in the Skin Deep database.

Okay, I get it – people want to win the prizes being offered in the Wash Them Grow Campaign. They are great prizes. Plus, the campaign encourages bloggers to post about the product because the one that drives to most traffic to the sweepstakes will win a year’s supply of the product plus a $100 gift certificate to Build-a-Bear and can give the same prize to 10 of her readers.

But you would think that it would be responsible to at least vet the company claims before repeating them. Or at least read the ingredients. For example, this post suggests that the Free and Gentle body wash is free of perfumes and dyes. Yeah, right. The Free and Gentle body wash contains fragrance. Just look at the last ingredient.

And I fully understand that my issues on what is in the products we use may not concern other people. And I fully understand that there are a lot of more significant issues in the world. Just in the field of children’s environmental health, radon and lead in paint are much more significant issues.

Nevertheless, let’s look at what is in the Suave Kids Free and Gentle Body Wash. The claim: “clinically proven to be mild. The lightly fragranced formula is hypoallergenic so you don’t have to worry about irritating your child’s skin.”

The ingredients:

Water, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine, Propylene Glycol, Glycerin, Sodium Chloride, Polyquaternium-10, PEG-150 Distearate, Citric Acid, Tetrasodium EDTA, Etidronic Acid, DMDM Hydantoin, Methylisothiazolinone, Fragrance

So, the second ingredient, sodium laureth sulfate, is an ethoxylated compound. What that means is basically ethylene oxide is added to sodium lauryl sulfate to make it sodium laureth sulfate (“SLES”). The carcinogen 1,4 dioxane is a by-product of the ethoxylation process, and ends up in the body wash as a contaminant, so it doesn’t appear on the ingredient list. If you want to learn more about carinogens in kid shampoos and body washes, read my post on the Toxic Tub report. SLES can also cause eye and skin irritation, which makes the claim that this product is mild odd, and it is inconsistent with the “hypoallergenic” claim as well.

The third ingredient, cocamidopropyl betaine can cause allergic reactions. Cocamidopropyl betaine can also be contaminated with nitrosamines. The fourth ingredient, cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine, may cause immune system toxicity. 

Other ingredients are also of concern. Polyquaternium-10 is a formaldehyde donor, and may result in the release of the carcinogen formaldehyde. PEG-150 Distearate is ethoxylated, meaning that the carcinogen 1,4 dioxane may be present. Tetrasodium EDTA is a salt of EDTA. EDTA is synethesized from ehtylenediamine, formaldehyde and sodium cyanide. EDTA is a peristent organic pollutant. Tetrasodium EDTA is linked to cancer and organ system toxicity. Of concern in cosmetic formulations is that Tetrasodium EDTA enhances the penetration of other ingredients.

DMDM Hydantoin is a human skin toxicant according to a CIR assessment. Also, it is an irritant. Finally, it also is a formaldehyde donor.

Finally, the all inclusive ingredient fragrance. The one that manufacturers don’t have to provide the actual ingredients in the fragrance because of trade secrets. So, we really can’t tell what synthetic chemicals make up the fragrance for this product. But what we can make an educated guess is that the fragrance contains numerous volatile organic compounds and also hormone disrupting phthalates. Phthalates are used to sustain fragrance in beauty products.

Okay so would you recommend this product? I don’t think I would – there are so many better options on the market. However, in the scheme of things, I think wash off products are less of a concern than leave on products such as lotions and diaper cream. So, switch your lotions, diaper cream and any other leave on products first, and then tackle body washes and shampoos. However, if your child takes a bath every night and hangs out in the bath, then you may be more concerned, especially since heat increases volatilization of the volatile ingredients.

Now, before I tell you the results, let me catch up any readers unfamiliar with the CPSIA. The CPSIA sets lead content limits for all children’s products. The current limit is 300 parts per million (ppm). With very  limited exceptions, this lead content limit applies to all children’s products within the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not there is a risk of exposure. That particular point is a subject of much debate, which we will leave for another post. For more information on the CPSIA, you might want to start with my post about what is covered by the law.

Now, most crystals used to give cosnumer products “bling” contain lead – lead is added to glass to make crystal. So, for example, most Swarovski crystals test at around 230,000 ppm total lead. And therefore, such crystals, as well as lead containing rhinestones and glass beads, are banned from children’s clothing. A request from the Fashion Jewelry Trade Association for an exclusion from the lead content limits for crystal and glass bead products was denied by the CPSC. Basically, even thought the CPSC staff and commissioners found the risk of exposure was very low, the CPSIA doesn’t allow for such concerns. Walter Olsen over at Overlawyered discusses this problem as it relates to bling with great insight.

I’ve tested and spoken with many manufacturers/companies, many of whom destroyed inventory and abandoned bling items because of the CPSIA. The vast majority of these were small companies, and they suffered tremendously by the loss of inventory. So it makes me a little, okay a lot, angry when larger companies seem to ignore or even flaunt the CPSIA.

So back to these Disney Princess pants. The tag inside just says “Disney Princess” and the RN number indicates the manufacturer is Wear Me Apparel, LLC (RN 46795).  The style number is 18427034 with a UPC of 795050388023. The pants are size 5 girl, so clearly they are a children’s product, subject to the CPSIA lead content limit.

The results? Using the Niton XRF analyzer, I tested the belt buckle at 130,000 ppm lead. Now, it is hard to test a belt buckle in place, without disassembling the belt from the buckle. So the results may not be completely accurate. And, as always, I would recommend further wet testing for a more accurate result.

I would say that this has the potential to be a CPSIA violation.

Moreover, the belt itself seems to have cadmium in it, albeit at a low level. The belt is three layers – a pink vinyl layer, a foam layer, and then a white layer, apparently vinyl. When I test all three layers together, I get a reading of cadmium at 130 ppm and a lead reading of 14 ppm. Now, to test these layers properly, the belt should be disassambled, and the layers screened with the XRF with sufficient thickness. However, since I plan to return these pants, I did not do that.

In any event, I’ve reported my findings to the CPSC because I think all companies should comply with the CPSIA.

After my segments on Fox & Friends and Fox & Friends After Show Show, I got quite a few comments that it doesn’t matter if there is lead in the purse if the purse isn’t sucked on. There was also an extensive discussion on an eBay board about it.

I understand that there are a lot of risks in the world. The media bombards us daily with the latest health scare. It is hard to sort out what to worry about and what to ignore. And I get that there are more pressing concerns than lead in vinyl or lead in paint.

And we’ve also come a long way when it comes to lead. We’ve phased it out of paints used in the home. We’ve eliminated it as a fuel additive. At the same time, however, we are finding that levels once believed to be safe aren’t. About 290,000 children in the US have ADHD because of exposure to trace amounts of lead. And, as Dr. Greene explains, a number of recent studies have linked childhood exposure to lead to the surge in Alzheimer’s disease that we are seeing today (my rebuttal to those that say that they got exposed to lead when they were young and are just fine, thank you).

Lead is a potent neurotoxin, and kids are more at risk. Part of the reason kids are more at risk is because of the type of behavior they engage in. Part of it is that they absorb 50% of the lead that they ingest, whereas adults only absorb about 11% of the lead that they ingest.

So, tell me you don’t care about lead in vinyl because you’ve got a lot of other stuff to worry about or you don’t think the risk is that big. That’s fine. But don’t tell me you don’t care because you don’t suck on it. That just tells me you don’t understand the issue.

When it comes to lead in vinyl, lead migrates to the surface. Lead doesn’t like being in the plastic matrix so it moves out of it and comes to the surface. That process occurs more rapidly with exposure to friction and light/heat. Also as the product ages. Once the lead moves to the surface, it is transferred to hands upon handling, and from there can be ingested. Take, for example, lead in vinyl purses. If you handle your purse and your purse has lead, then the lead will be on your hands. If you touch your mouth, then you may well ingest some. Say you get in your car and grab some fries. You probably handled your purse before you got in the car, and as you were getting your money out. Don’t tell me you are going to wash your hands before you eat those fries. And the lead dust that transfers.

Or you handle your purse and then hold your child’s hand. And your child sticks her hands in her mouth. Or eats an apple without washing her hands. Or you handle your vinyl diaper bag and then offer your baby a bottle. All of those situations can result in lead transfer.

Don’t believe that lead comes out of vinyl? Well, the Center for Environmental Health did wipe tests of the purses it found lead in, and found enough coming off with the wipe tests to be of concern. And, the Consumer Product Safety Commission acted years ago to take vinyl blinds off the market because of the high levels of lead dust generated and collecting around the blinds.

When it comes to lead in paint, you do not have to lick the walls. Microscopic lead dust is generated around the home, particularly at friction surfaces, or where painted surfaces rub together. Your door jambs, your windows, your built in cabinets. Plus, we get lead dust blown into our homes from weathering of other buildings and we track in lead contaminated dust.

And the thing is, lead exposure is additive. We already get some in our diets. We also get some in our water from the pipes and fittings. We may get some at home – more if our home was built before 1978. Add in the exposure to lead in vinyl products, and your child’s exposure may be enough to shave off IQ points. Is it really worth that vinyl purse?

I was flipping through the February 2010 issue of Lucky Magazine, and it seems that Lucky’s beauty editor Jean Godfrey-June may be buying a product that isn’t as natural as she thinks.

There can be no doubt that the beauty industry has been embracing the green movement. Or at least pretending to do so. Beauty products tout the benefits of “natural” ingredients – seaweed, tea tree oil, rose, coconut, Shea nut, and more. Some 70% of us believe natural products will improve our health.

Think about it. Who wants to buy a body scrub marketed as containing potentially carcinogenic ingredients derived from ancient fossilized organic materials? Instead, we would prefer to buy a body scrub touted as containing seaweed and featuring a sleek woman playing in gently lapping waves, despite the fact that the product may contain polyethylene plastic beads that contaminate our ocean. We will spend money on products claiming to be “natural”, “all natural”, “naturally derived” or “nature inspired” to name just a few, despite the fact that all of those claims have no meaning.

Most of us expect beauty products claiming to be natural to be composed of plant based ingredients, not petroleum-based synthetic ingredients. But we would be wrong. The natural seeming names or pictures fool us, and it easier to believe the marketing than to decipher the complicated chemical ingredient names.

So back to Jean Godfrey-June. She claims she is “one of those lunatics” that uses only “natural deodorant” so she uses Kiss My Face Liquid Rock in Summer Scent. Now, she does state that this product isn’t for you if you are after perfection, but she seems to be referring to how well it works as opposed to requiring a strict definition of natural. Which leads me to believe that she thinks it is really natural.

While I agree that it is better than many conventional deodorants full of synthetic fragrances, phthalates and other not so natural ingredients, it isn’t strictly natural.

The ingredients are:

Water, Potassium Alum, Polysorbate 20, Hydroxyethylcellulose, Patchouli Essential Oil, Salix Alba (Willow) Bark Extract, Usnea Barbata (Lichen) Extract, Trisodium EDTA, Phenoxyethanol, Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Benzoate

Potassium alum is naturally occuring. It is the potassium double sulfate of aluminum. So that is natural, although I know some people try to avoid aluminum in their skin care produccts.

But polysorbate 20 isn’t as natural as you might think. Derived from coconuts yes, but to get polysorbate 20, you have a lot of petrochemistry, including ethoxylation, which can result in the contaminant 1,4 dioxane, a known carcinogen, being present (although never identified as an ingredient because it is a contaminant). If you wanted to know, polysorbate 20 is a mixture of laurate esters of sorbitol and sorbitol anhydrides, consisting predominantly of the monoester, condensed with approximately 20 moles of ethylene oxide. And now you remember why you hated chemistry.

Hydroxyethylcellulose is derived from cellulose – I’ll give that as a natural.

Trisodium EDTA, however, is far from natural. EDTA is mainly synthesized from ethylenediamine (1,2-diaminoethane), formaldehyde and sodium cyanide. Sounds yucky, right?

Phenoxyethanol is probably the ingredient of most concern in terms of toxicity according to Skin Deep’s cosmetic safety database. It gets a 4. The other ingredients have lower ratings (although the low rating may be due more to a lack of information). Phenoxyethanol was one of the ingredients that resulted in the Food and Drug Administration issuing a warning against the use of Mommy’s Bliss nipple cream for depressing the central nervous system (upon ingestion). But, in terms of whether phenoxyethanol is natural, the answer is it isn’t. Phenoxyethanol, otherwise known as ethylene glycol monophenyl ether, is a synthetic preservative. Typically, to make the ingredient, one starts with a phenol, a white crystalline powder created from benzene (a known carcinogen) and then is treated with ethylene oxide (also a known carcinogen) and an alkalai. That process can result in phenoxyethanol being contaminated with 1,4 dioxane, a known carcinogen.

Okay, so what do you think? Do you still consider this natural? Is it natural enough?

Now, when any product contains to be antibacterial, it grabs my interest. You see, the EPA’s pesticide regulations govern claims regarding consumer products treated with pesticides.  Generally, antibacterial claims mean that the product is treated with triclosan. And triclosan has some potentially significant problems. Triclosan has been linked to liver and inhalation toxicity, and low levels of triclosan may disrupt thyroid function. Triclosan also ends up in our aquatic environments because wastewater treatment plants can’t fully address the triclsoan load. And in the environment, triclosan is disruptive .

The GoodGuide gives Q-tips Cotton Swabs, Antimicrobial a “10″ in Health. The Health portion of the score relates to the potential health effects of the product’s ingredients. The ingredients identified by GoodGuide  (from the product’s label) consist solely of 100% cotton. Yet, cotton doesn’t have any antimicrobial properties, so I sent off an email to inquire what made the  Q-tips antibacterial.

And, yes, I was right. The cotton swabs are treated with triclosan.

In fact, here is the response I received from my “friends at Q-Tips”:

Thank you for writing us regarding Q-Tips.

Swab made with 100% high quality bleached cotton specially carded to provide softness and 50% more cotton at the tip (Package carries “Seal of Cotton” logo).

The cotton tip is treated with an “antimicrobial” ingredient and is secured to the applicator with adhesive. The antimicrobial system is incorporated during the cotton swabs forming process.

Antimicrobial system/Processing aid consists of:

- Triclosan is the Antimicrobial

- Methocel is the binder

The incorporation of an antibacterial agent will help prevent the introduction of bacteria, mold and fungi during use and when exposed to potential contamination and environmental conditions (i.e. high humidity and termperature) conducive to bacterial growth and proliferation in storage or use.

So, I disagree with the GoodGuide giving this product top billing as a safe baby product. Any product with triclosan show receive a lower rating because of triclosan’s impact to the environment. In this case, the triclosan content may be low, and there may not be much exposure given how Q-tips are used, but there is still triclosan present, and parents may not expect it. And while the triclosan may be added to prevent contamination of the swab (and thereby exempting Unilever from the requirements of registering the triclosan as a pesticide), the packaging claim of antibacterial probably gives parents and caregivers the impression that using these Q-tips will prevent the transmission of disease. I don’t think that parents or caregivers should be encouraged to use these triclosan-containing Q-tips over conventional Q-tips (and if you are going to use conventional Q-tips, why not go for a green solution . . . )

So, to the GoodGuide, I encourage you to examine the products you are recommending and don’t just rely on the numbers. Put some thought into it.