Toxic Cosmetics: Know What's in Your Medicine Cabinet

Many cosmetics contain levels of harmful chemicals that are dangerous to your health – and unregulated by the EPA and FDA. Are you poisoning yourself with the soap, shampoo, lotion, toothpaste, and makeup you use? Take matters into your own hands and educate yourself about the toxic chemicals that are commonly found in personal care products.

In 2011, UC San Francisco researchers reported that out of 268 pregnant woman studied, 100% of them carried up to 163 chemicals that could be passed on to their fetuses. These included pesticides and flame-retardants with proven health risks, as well as other chemicals from everyday household products and cosmetics. It’s important to realize that while our bodies may be able to tolerate a single chemical in a small dose, over time we are each exposed to thousands of chemicals that our bodies can absorb and store. This is referred to as “body burden.” The rise of diseases such as breast cancer, autism, and Parkinson’s parallels the rise of synthetic chemicals in our daily lives.

Since government regulations may never catch up with the thousands of dangerous chemicals in our everyday products, there are a few key things you can do to protect yourself. You can research the products you currently use at EWG’s Cosmetics Safety Database or look up individual ingredients at Toxipedia.org. Examine labels closely.  Labels on cosmetic products that tout themselves as “all-natural,” “dermatologist-tested,” “hypoallergenic,” “fragrance-free,” and “non-comedogenic” are meaningless. Look for products with the USDA Organic seal, which means they contain at least 95% certified organic ingredients. They may still contain toxins, though it won’t be as likely. Also beware of products with the following toxic chemicals:

• Lead – We all know how dangerous lead paint is, but did you know that lead is still found in some lipsticks and hair coloring kits? This is a neurotoxicant (a toxin that can cause damage to the nervous system).
• Mercury – Another neurotoxicant, it’s sometimes listed as “thimerosol” and can be found in some cosmetics such as mascara, skin-lightening creams, and anti-aging products.
• Formaldehyde – A known carcinogen, formaldehyde is found in many nail polishes and bath products. The state of California recently discovered that some nail polish containing formaldehyde was falsely labeled as being toxin-free. Look for brands recommended by the Cosmetics Safety Database.
• Parabens – These are estrogen mimickers that can lead to cancer, and are found in shampoo.
• Triclosan – Found in antibacterial soaps and hand sanitizer, it contributes to antibiotic-resistant bacteria and has been linked to hormone disruption.
• Phthalates -- Another hormone disruptor, they are also linked to asthma, allergies, and liver and kidney lesions. They’re hidden in the fragrances of many products.
• Fragrance – Chemicals used to scent products can be listed as “fragrance” without any specifics to avoid revealing proprietary information. Stay away from products that use this designation.
• Nanoparticles – These are microscopic ingredients that can penetrate cell walls and have been largely untested. They’re found in lotions, makeup, and sunscreen. Check out the book Sunscreens: Biohazard for a detailed study on nanoparticles and their connection to obesity, diabetes, asthma, and ADHD.
• Petroleum -- Watch out for mineral oil, petrolatum, liquid paraffin, toluene, and xylene. These are often contaminated with the carcinogen 1,4 Dioxane.

The good news is that there are many cosmetics that have been verified to be nontoxic, such as Hemp Organics lipstick, Mineral Fusion makeup, Jane Iredale makeup, and Surya Liquid Henna Hair Color, which is available at Co-Op and Whole Foods. You can also browse through the Cosmetics Safety Database to find their best-rated products, or get really crafty and make your own.

Do you have a favorite nontoxic beauty product? If so, please share it here!

 

Vitamin Use and Longevity

A study published in the October 10 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine claims that multivitamin use is associated with an increased risk of mortality in women in their 60s. There is no cause for alarm: this study is flawed. It was poorly done, with a small population, and with wildly broad variables, including lifestyle factors and the person’s overall toxicity burden to begin with. Around 39,000 women were surveyed in 1986, 1997, and 2004. The results were based on questionnaires these women filled out. There was no control study group; the results were just measured against statistics from the general population. Essentially, 39,000 women were measured against another 39,000 women, but where did those other 39,000 women come from? What slice of the population were they in? A response by Thorne Research points out “it must be emphasized that… the study is a retrospective study of already collected data. It is not a prospective, controlled intervention study, i.e., it is not a ‘clinical trial,’ in which participants would be given a specific dietary supplement or a placebo and then followed closely over time to observe not only the specific outcomes but also the factors possibly contributing to those outcomes.”

We need to take into consideration who funds multimillion dollar studies such as the one published in Archives of Internal Medicine:  the pharmacological companies who want exclusive rights to patent these ingredients. They are not a source to be trusted.

Additionally, there is no mention of the quality of the brand of multivitamin used. Commonplace multivitamins like Centrum always show up as toxic when I test them on my patients. In this way, the findings of this study are accurate: they prove that taking a toxic supplement will shorten your life span.

The supplements I recommend for my patients are purity-certified with consistent third party testing to confirm that purity. They’re made under the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) seal, which means that they’re high quality, pure, and that their ingredients contain exactly what is listed on the label. Countless studies prove that quality micronutrients signal to your DNA to express health and promote efficient detoxification.

Avoiding toxic supplements is just as important as avoiding toxic household products and cosmetics. Check the Environmental Working Group’s Cosmetic Safety Database to find out what’s in the cosmetic products you are exposing your body to every day.  I am happy to test you on all supplements, medications, and cosmetics you use to ensure that you are not putting toxins into your body. Together we will put you on the path to well-being and longevity.

Meat Eaters Guide

The Environmental Working Group has done a great study on the different protein options we have and their impact on our health and on the environment. When eating beef or pork, it is important to eat grass-fed, organic meat free of hormones and antibiotics. Poultry, as long as it’s free-range and organic, is a better option for everyday consumption because it’s less expensive and has a smaller carbon footprint. For years I’ve been saying we need to eat beef less frequently and eat only premium-grade grass-fed beef. It’s nice to have the EWG back this up with all the facts!  

If you choose not to eat meat it's vital to get enough protein from beans, legumes, and/or clean protein powder.

Cell Phones and Brain Cancer

Three alarming studies conducted in the past two years show undeniable evidence that cell phone usage is linked to increased chances of developing brain cancer. Scientists in the Netherlands discovered that exposing certain deciduous trees to radio-frequency radiation (such as that emitted by cell phones and wireless internet) resulted in “various forms of tissue death” including bark fissures and leaf discoloration.

Oncology and neurology experts are now warning that using a cell phone for ten years or more raises your risk for brain tumors 10-30%, and President Obama’s Cancer Panel report stated in 2010 that increasing cell phone use is of “great concern,” and that more safety studies are “urgently needed.” Dr. Devra Davis, a senior advisor in the US Department of Health and Human Services, recently authored a book entitled Disconnect, which urges us to be more cautious about cell phone use. Some are predicting the book will do for cell phone use what Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring did for DDT. Dr. Davis also points to studies that show that sperm exposed to cell phone radiation dies four times faster: a good reason for men to avoid keeping their phones in their front pockets.

With five billion cell phones in use worldwide and telecom companies reluctant to admit their products are causing us any danger, it’s up to us as individuals to reduce our risk.  Here are steps you can take to protect yourself from radio-frequency radiation:

• Always use a hands-free headset or the speakerphone when talking on your cell phone.
• Keep the phone off of your body, meaning not in your pocket, and not in a holster on your belt.
• Text when you can, instead of talking, because holding the phone away from your head exposes you to less radiation.
• Turn your phone off or put it in “airplane mode” when not in use because when the phone is searching for or receiving a signal, it’s emitting radiation.
• At home, use phones with cords rather than cordless phones: cordless phones and their charging stations also emit radiation.
• Use a low-radiation cell phone. Go to the FCC's website to find out the specific absorbency rate (SAR) of your phone, or visit the Environmental Working Group’s database.
• Keep your wireless internet modem in a part of your house that has little traffic. The bedroom is not a good place for the wireless modem.
• Don’t let children play with cell phones. If they are using them to play a game, make sure the phone is set to “airplane mode.”
• Older children who have cell phones should be educated on the ways they can reduce radiation exposure.

----
REFERENCES

Davis, Devra. Disconnect. New York: Dutton, 2010.

Khurana, Vini G., Charles Teo, Michael Kundi, Lennart Hardell, and Michael Carlberg. “Cell Phones and Brain Tumors: A Review Including the Long-Term Epidemiologic Data.” Surgical Neurology, March 31, 2009

Myung, Seung-Kwon, Woong Ju, Diana D. McDonnell, Yeon Ji Lee, Gene Kazinets, Chih-Tao Cheng, and Joel M. Moskowitz. “Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Clinical Oncology, November 20, 2009

Rysavy, Tracy Fernandez. “Danger Calling?” Green American, January / February 2011

Shoemaker, Rene. “Wifi Makes Trees Sick, Study Says.” PC World, November 19, 2010