"Beauty Secrets" Revealed...Just Read the Label!

******

From: www.pronature.com

DANGEROUS BEAUTY: Scientists Warn of Harmful Ingredients In Our Shampoos and Cosmetics
~ by David Lowell Kern

Sodium Laurel Sulfate and Eye Damage in Young Children
The greatest concern of many scientists is sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), a detergent found in about 90 percent of commercial shampoos. Also known as sodium dodecyl, sodium laureth sulfate (SLFS) this chemical has been shown to damage protein formation in eye tissue in young animals, raising serious concerns about the possibility of ocular tissue malformation, blindness in infants and young children. In animal studies, Sodium Laurel Sulfate penetration and uptake is much greater in neonatal and young animal eye tissue, compared to adult animals, showing "penetration into the eye, as well as systemic tissues (brain, heart, liver, etc.)" SLS also showed long-term retention in tissues, up to 5 days after a single drop.1

Researcher Keith Green, Ph.D., D. Sc., of the Medical College of Georgia, also reports that Sodium Laurel Sulfate extends the healing of corneal tissue by a factor of 5, from 2 days (normal) to more than 10 days. He also has concerns about cataract formation from Sodium Laurel Sulfate. Writing for Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., Dr. Green states in part: There is an immediate concern relating to the penetration of these chemicals into the eye and other tissues. This is especially important in infants...exposure to SLS results in accumulation in eye tissues, a process that could retard healing and possibly have long-term effects. Dr. Green concludes that exposure to Sodium Laurel Sulfate sulfate causes improper eye development in children and that since Sodium Laurel Sulfate is absorbed systemically through the skin, it doesn't have to enter the eye directly.

Our own research found that SLS is present as a main ingredient in most commercial shampoos for adults or children.

Sodium Laurel Sulfate Toxicity and Cancer - Another serious health concern with SLS is its tendency to react with other ingredients to form NDELA, a nitrosamine and potent carcinogen. According to a 1978 FDA report, shampooing the hair with a product contaminated with this nitrosamine can lead to its absorption into the body at levels much higher than eating nitrate- contaminated foods. (Researchers estimate the nitrate absorption from one shampoo is equal to eating a pound of bacon.) The FDA has recently warned shampoo manufacturers of unacceptable levels of dioxin formation in products containing SLFS (dioxins are also dangerous carcinogenic compounds). Only laboratory testing can determine if a shampoo is contaminated with these powerful carcinogenic compounds.

Damage To Your Skin - Researchers have known for years that Sodium Laurel Sulfate is a skin irritant.

Sodium Laurel Sulfate is implicated in premature hair loss in men and women, and may be one reason for wide-spread incidence of thinning hair.

Sodium Laurel Sulfate is also implicated in scalp irritation, eczema, dandruff, and other scalp conditions. Many shampoos designed to alleviate dandruff, itching, and other scalp disorders may actually be causing the toxicity of Sodium Laurel Sulfate-containing formulas to the skin and scalp. Avoiding contact with this cytotoxic (cell- killing) chemical is all that many people require to completely alleviate scalp disorders.

Natural Brands Offer No Protection - Ingredient reviews of shampoos sold in health food stores under natural brands and labels have turned up many formulas containing Sodium Laurel Sulfate. The cost, reputation, or market position of a shampoo apparently has little to do with its contents. Some of the most reputable and exclusive brands contain Sodium Laurel Sulfate. Don't be fooled by high prices or marketing hype. You must check the ingredients on each product if you want to avoid the harmful effects of Sodium Laurel Sulfate.

References:

1. Clayton et. al., Ed. Chem. Tox., 1985
2. Br J Dermatol 1992 Sep
3. Contact Dermatitis 1992 Jul
4. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1991
5. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 1992
6. The Lancet, Feb 3, 1990
7. Contact Dermatitis 1993 Sep
8. Contact Dermatitis 1993 Mar and 1993 Feb
9. Contact Dermatitis 1992 Sep
10. Journal of Toxicology, Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, 1992
11. Toxicology Letters, Vol 26, 1985
12. Toxicol Pathol 1992
13. Govt Reports Announcements & Index, 1993
14. Acta Derma Venereol (Stockh) 1992
15. Department of Dermatology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen

Here is list of ingredients to steer away from in our cosmetics and beauty products,and why. Unfortunately, due to the lax regulation in the U.S. the majority of these ingredients can be found in most of the products we use daily.

Alkylphenol Ethoxylates

Found to reduce sperm count

Benzene/Benzoic Acid/Benzyl Benzoate

Considered a carcinogen, is an endocrine disruptor, and is suspected to cause birth defects

Coal Tar

Known human carcinogen. Prohibited for us in cosmetics in the European Union. May contian harmful impurities or breakdown products. Found in dandruff shampoos, anti-itch creams and hair dyes.

Methyl, Propyl, Butyl and Ethyl Paraben

Used as inhibitors of microbial growth and to extend shelf life of products. Have caused many allergic reactions and skin rashes. Studies have shown that they are weakly estrogenic and can be absorbed by the body through the skin. Widely used even though they are known to be toxic.

Dibutyl Phthalate

Prohibited for us in cosmetics in the European Union. Possoble human reproductive or developmental toxin. Endocrine disruptor. Found in some nail polish, perfume and hair spray.

Diethanolamine (DEA), Triethanolamine (TEA)

Often used in cosmetics as emulsifiers and/or foaming agents. They can cause allergic reactions, eye irritation and dryness of hair and skin. DEA and TEA are "amines" (ammonia compounds) and can form cancer-causing nitrosamines when they come in contact with nitrates. Toxic if absorbed into the body over a long period of time. This chemical interferes with the body's ability to absorb choline which is needed for proper fetal brain development.

Diazolidinyl Urea, Imidazolidinyl Urea

These are widely used preservatives. The American Academy of Dermatology has found them to be a primary cause of contact dermatitis. Two trade names for these chemicals are Germall II and Germall 115. Neither of the Germall chemicals contains a good antifungal agent, and they must be combined with other preservatives. Both these chemicals release formaldehyde, which can be toxic.

Formaldehyde

This is an extreme irritant to the mucous membranes with often destructive effects. It is also considered to be a neurotoxin and carcinogen.

Fragrances

The label of "Fragrances" can mask a multitude of toxic, synthetic chemicals, many of which suppress the immune system, are endocrine disruptors, and cause cancer. When looking for scented products, make sure it's scented by essential oils -- which are expensive; therefore, companies usually list what essential oils are contained in the product without reverting to the generic term "Fragrances".

Isopropanol/Isopropyl Alcohol

This is a skin irritant that causes flushing, pulse rate fluctuations, dizziness, headaches, and nausea.

Lead Acetate

Known human reproductive and developmental toxin. Prohibited for use in cosmetics in the European Union. Found in some hair dyes and cleanser.

Mercury

Possible human carcinogen. Possible human reproductive or developmental toxin. Found in some eye drops and ointment.

Methylisothiazoline, or MIT

This can cause skin and eye irritation and is known to cause neurological damage.

Parabens (Isobutylparaben, Butylparaben, Methylparaben, Propylparaben)

Increases a person's risk of breast cancer. These class of chemicals are also endocrine disruptors and have been linked to fertility problems.

Petrolatum

Also known as petroleum jelly, this mineral oil derivative is used for its emollient properties in cosmetics. It has no nutrient value for the skin and can interfere with the body's own natural moisturizing mechanism, leading to dryness and chapping. It often creates the very conditions it claims to alleviate. Manufacturers use petrolatum because it is unbelievably cheap.

Petroleum Distillates

Possible human carcinogen. May contain harmful impurities or breakdown products. Prohibited for use in cosmetics in the European Union. Found in some mascara, perfume, foundation, lipstick and lip balm.

Phthalates

This has been linked to damage of the organs -- kidneys, lungs, and liver -- as well as the reproductive system.

Propylene Glycol

Ideally this is a vegetable glycerin mixed with grain alcohol, both of which are natural. Usually it is a synthetic petrochemical mix used as a humectant. It has been known to cause allergic reactions, hives and eczema. When you see PEG (polyethylene glycol) or PPG (polypropylene glycol) on labels, beware—these are related synthetics. Although exposure to high levels of Propylene Glycol is known to cause serious and potentially irreversible health conditions, the chemical industry tell us that "small" quantities or low level exposure of Propylene Glycol is "safe" to use on the skin and in food. According to the safety data sheets of industrial chemical manufacturers, chemicals such as Ethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol will cause serious health conditions, including liver and heart damage and damage to the central nervous system if sufficient is absorbed by the body.

PVP/VA Copolymer

A petroleum-derived chemical used in hairsprays, styling aids and other cosmetics. It can be considered toxic, since inhaled particles can damage the lungs of sensitive persons.

Sodium Lauryl/Laureth Sulfate

A cheap, harsh detergent used in shampoos for its cleansing and foam-building properties. Often derived from petroleum, it is frequently disguised in pseudo-natural cosmetics with the phrase "comes from coconuts." It causes eye irritation, scalp scurf similar to dandruff, skin rashes and other allergic reactions. (See detailed report, above.)

Stearalkonium Chloride

A quaternary ammonium compound used in hair conditioners and creams. Developed by the fabric industry as a fabric softener, it is a lot cheaper and easier to use in hair conditioning formulas than proteins or herbals, which are beneficial to the hair. Causes allergic reactions. Toxic.

Synthetic Colors

Used to make cosmetics "pretty," synthetic colors, along with synthetic hair dyes, should be avoided at all costs. They will be labeled as FD&C or D&C, followed by a color and a number. Example: FD&C Red No. 6 / D&C Green No. 6. Many synthetic colors can be carcinogenic. If a cosmetic contains them, don't use it.

Synthetic Fragrances

The synthetic fragrances used in cosmetics can have as many as 200 ingredients. There is no way to know what the chemicals are, since on the label it will simply read "fragrance." Some problems caused by these chemicals include headaches, dizziness, rash, hyperpigmentation, violent coughing, vomiting, skin irritation—the list goes on. Advice: Don't buy a cosmetic that has the word "fragrance" on the ingredients label.

Awareness Revisited

******

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and the Pink Ribbons are unfurling once again. A year ago today, I wrote and posted the following  blog. I reread it again...and found that regrettably not much has changed, save for my own personal circumstance. That is, my cancer has advanced. My awareness IQ has been broadened to understand that the proliferation rate of breast cancer is increasing. And, profoundly, despite Susan G. Komen - known as the "largest" funder of breast cancer research, spent a whopping[?] 23.5% of total revenue raised on research for the "cure" in 2007; and an impressive [?] 26.7% in 2008; and a staggering[?] 20.2% in 2009; despite Susan G. Komen's total revenues for 2010 reportedly at $311,855,544.00; and despite spending over $22M in salaries. . . 

The American Cancer Society's most recent estimates for breast cancer in the United States are for 2011:

• About 230,480 new cases of invasive breast cancer in women
• About 57,650 new cases of carcinoma in situ (CIS) will be found (CIS is non-invasive and is the earliest form of breast cancer).
• About 39,520 deaths from breast cancer (women)

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States, other than skin cancer. It is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, after lung cancer.

The chance of a woman having invasive breast cancer some time during her life is a little less than 1 in 8. The chance of dying from breast cancer is about 1 in 35. Breast cancer death rates have been going down. [REALLY? not if you look at 2007 figures from the CDC...see below] Right now there are more than 2½ million breast cancer survivors in the United States.

As compared to 2009, when 192,370 new cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed among women, as well as an estimated 62,280 additional cases of in situ breast cancer...
. . .

As compared to 2007

• 202,964 women in the United States were diagnosed with breast cancer.*†
• 40,598 women in the United States died from breast cancer.*†

*Incidence counts cover approximately 99% of the U.S. population. Death counts cover 100% of the U.S. population. Use caution in comparing incidence and death counts.

†Source: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2007 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; 2010. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/uscs.

Last Revised: 06/20/2011

So again, I continue to ask the question...what does AWARENESS...really mean? I have added a few updates for 2011.

Before I was diagnosed with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma, I was aware of the prevalence of breast cancer. I knew it was a disease that struck mostly post-menopausal women. I was aware that women who have family histories; who smoked; who took oral contraceptives for prolonged periods of time were more likely to be stricken with breast cancer. I was aware of mammograms and lumps and lumpectomies and mastectomies. I was aware of the existence of radiation and chemotherapy treatments.

I was aware of our local news station and its "Buddy Check 12" campaign. I was aware of the Pink Ribbon campaigns. I was aware that every October there was a hub-bub about the Susan B. Komen Race for the Cure. I was so aware that for the 15 years prior to my initial diagnosis in 2009 I ran the Race for the Cure; ironically shaving off up to 8 minutes in my pace time each year. (As it turns out, I guess I wasn't running fast enough!!!!)

But it wasn't until I was blind-sided with a diagnosis of breast cancer in the summer of 2009 that I became aware of the breadth of my ignorance. There was, and still is, so much that I did not know about the disease and its treatment. And, none of the information I received prior to my own personal diagnosis...acquired through my "pink" involvement ever even hinted at the depths of my naiveté.

For example . . .

I did not know there were myriad of causes of breast cancer - the majority being environmental

I did not know that women without genetic predispositions could get breast cancer

I did not know that the risk for women under 50 years of age in developing cancer was and is increasing each year

I did not know that breast cancer specialists have not figured out how to "write a new textbook" for the under 50 crowd

I did not know that women who did not live a high-risk lifestyle could develop breast cancer

I did not know that there were subsets to breast cancer (ductal, lobular, inflammatory and Paget's Disease)

I did not know that as a pre-menopausal woman in good health could develop breast cancer

Metastases in lymph

I did not know about sentinel node biopsies

I did not know about drainage tubes ("d-bombs")

I did not know about tram flaps

I did not know about the severity of long term effects of chemotherapy and radiation

I did not know about Adriamycin (aka "Red Devil")

I did not know about Tamoxifen (or that outside of the U.S. it is listed as a cancer-causing carcinogen)

Metastases in brain

I did not know about Herceptin and Aromatase

I did not know that the medical community treated pre-menopausal women differently than post-menopausal women

I did not know about Oncotype DX and Mamma Print tests for chemo efficacy

I did not know about how a cancer is "staged"

I did not know that mammograms are not a reliable or effective way to early-detect Invasive Lobular Carcinoma

I did not know that a Vitamin D deficiency can be a contributing cause in the development of breast cancer

I did not know how key Vitamin C is in preventing the occurrence and recurrence of breast cancer

I did not know that a buildup estrogen in the body is toxic

I did not know that there is tangible link between iodine deficiency and breast cancer

I did not know about E-cadherin and protein tests and saliva tests and hormonal balancing

Metastases in liver

I did not know that breast cancer research is focused on early stage breast cancer and not advanced stage & metastatic breast cancer

I did not know that women don't die of breast cancer, per se, if only the cancer stayed in the breast

I did not know that women die of breast cancer because because of the multitude of sites where it can metastasize

I did not know that a full radical mastectomy is not a guarantee against breast cancer metastasizing

I did not know about mouth thrushes, or lymphedema, or neuropathy

Metastases in bones

I did not know that an acidic imbalance in our body chemistry gives a fertile ground for cancer cells to proliferate

I did not know that when the CDC and other entities cite statistics on death by breast cancer it does not include those women who died from the complications and side effects of treatment (heart disease, heart failure, pulmonary disease, stroke, uterine cancer, stomach cancer, cervical cancer, etc.

and so it continues to go on, . . . and

I do know now what an insidious and pervasive industry breast cancer has generated in the U.S.

I do know now the difference between a "CURE" and a "PROTOCOL".

I do know now that the med pros are vociferous in the application of their established protocol; that the protocol has not changed much in 50 years; and that despite the protocol women are still dying - at times as a result of the protocol.

I do know now that even though 100s of millions are raised for research, awareness, marketing and merchandising that we are still no closer to a cure.

I do know now that some of the pharmaceutical companies that produce & distribute cancer treatment drugs consciously include cancer-causing carcinogens in the household products and foods they heavily market and consume as a society...check out all the variants of benzene products....they are in every commercial sunscreen and most store-brand and high-end cosmetics.

I do know now that even Susan G. Komen is heavily invested in contributing to the proliferation of breast cancer...check out their requisitioned perfume, PROMISE ME, that contains a well-known hormone disrupter and neurotoxicant.

I do know now that I have to continue to be my own "lay expert" in order to direct the discussion regarding my own health and treatment.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. And, I am a little more aware now than I was in October of 2009 -- and worlds beyond my breast cancer IQ when I too was a Pink Ribbon accomplice. I am also excruciatingly aware that my continued search to be enlightened, educated ... aware ... has nothing to do with the flying of little Pink Ribbons and all its accouterments.

Breaking Pink "Promises"

******

Carcinogens and Pinktoberfest...strange, yet profitalbe bedfellows.  ~TC

 

We’ll keep saying it: less talk, more action

Posted by caitlin on September 28, 2011 – 6:19 pm

By Karuna Jaggar, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Action

Two days after Breast Cancer Action publicly announced the findings of independent lab testing of Komen’s commissioned perfume Promise Me, we want to thank BCAction members and supporters who have sent almost 1,200 letters to Komen urging them to recall the product.

Instead of directly addressing consumer concerns about the ingredients in the perfume, Komen has responded to our action with more talk; but for all their explanations, they have yet to address any of our concerns.

Komen said they will not recall the product nor will they assure us that they will take the highest standards of precaution when it comes to women’s health. They did, however, talk:

• about the money the perfume will raise, noting a minimum of $1M to be donated by TPR Holdings;
• about the burden of responsibility for health safety resting with “intelligent consumers who make informed decisions about the use of products based on evidence;”
• about how much they care about research and prevention;
• about their intention to continue selling Promise Me.

Komen’s talk poses more questions than it answers:

• In highlighting the money raised by the perfume, is Komen suggesting that regardless of any health risks, the ends justify the means?
• How can consumers make informed decisions about Promise Me when Komen hasn’t publicly disclosed the list of ingredients on the product label?
• Is Komen really suggesting “buyer beware” by putting the burden on “intelligent consumers” to make “informed decisions”?
• How can Komen’s Medical and Scientific Affairs team conclude that it is okay to include Toluene in Promise Me when the International Fragrance Association bans its use?
• The FDA has notorious loopholes in its regulatory policies. In citing FDA guidelines as a resource on the safety of cosmetics and fragrance, is Komen unaware of the work by several national breast cancer organizations, many working in coalition with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, to close these gaping regulatory holes?
• If Komen is committed to funding research on causes and prevention of breast cancer, why do they allocate less than 4% of the $1.9 billion (yes, billion) they have raised to these areas?
• And finally, if Komen cares deeply about women’s health, about the prevention and cause of breast cancer, why won’t they commit to taking every precaution to ensure that the products they sell and endorse are safe by signing the Pledge to Prevent Pinkwashing?

Komen is asking women to trust their good intentions. In essence, Komen is asking us to look at what they say, not at what they do. To which we can only reply: Action speaks louder than pink. Komen talks a good line about “ending breast cancer” and ”funding research on prevention.” Komen has an opportunity to talk less and act more: recall Promise Me and sign the Pledge to Prevent Pinkwashing. It’s that simple.

"Promise Me"... PINK???!!!

******

The gross contradictions of Pinktoberfest is highlighted by the inundation and exploitation of PINK; BREAST CANCER; and the collective personal anguish that more and more women (at younger and younger ages) are being diagnosed with breast cancer everyday. All for the sake of PROFITEERING. The industrialization of breast cancer into a lucrative (and savvy) business model is an affront not only to our intellect, but our physical well-being. Susan G. Komen is a marketing success! It feeds the Pink Beast on the one hand, while Promising a path to "salvation" from the same Beast on the other. Below is another example how Susan G. Komen smartly keeps itself a profitable entity by appealing to society's visceral fear of CANCER, and our desire "TO DO SOMETHING" (but only in a purely superficial and noncommittal manner because we have the attention span of a doorknob)...all the while ensuring its continued existence and relevancy.    ~ TC

By Karuna Jaggar, BCAction Executive Director
Posted by caitlin on September 27, 2011 – 10:57 am

Pinkwashing has reached a new low this year.

In the past, we’ve worked to demand accountability from companies who pinkwash in the name of breast cancer. We’ve seen pink alcohol. Pink buckets of fried chicken. Pink hormone-laden yogurt.
But we’re genuinely shocked to see a breast cancer organization marketing a product containing multiple chemicals categorized as toxic or hazardous. Susan G. Komen for the Cure commissioned and is now selling a perfume called Promise Me. This perfume contains chemicals that are a) categorized as toxic and hazardous, b) have not been adequately evaluated for human safety, and c) have demonstrated negative health effects. Please join us in demanding that Komen take every precaution when it comes to our health. When in doubt, leave it out!

Raise A Stink! by sending a letter to Susan G. Komen for the Cure asking them to stop pinkwashing!

Chemicals in Promise Me of primary concern include:

• Galaxolide, a synthetic musk that works as a hormone disruptor and is detected in blood, breast milk, and even newborns.
• Toluene, a potent neurotoxicant known widely as one of the toxic trio, has demonstrated a variety of negative health effects and is banned by the International Fragrance Association (IFRA).

When women’s lives are at stake we must adopt the highest standards of accountability. Komen is taking initial steps to reformulate the perfume “to remove any doubt about the ingredients.” But we’re still deeply concerned that while Komen reformulates, a product that is potentially harmful to our health is still in stores and in our homes. We urge Komen to immediately recall Promise Me.

Send a letter to Komen asking them to take every precaution when it comes to our health. Ask Komen to immediately recall Promise Me and sign our Pledge to Prevent Pinkwashing.

Thank you so much for taking action. Together we will stop pinkwashing because ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN PINK!