This will be of considerable interest I think . Judith. Subject: Fwd: Concerns over chemicals in cosmetics
This is a big concern, and whenever possible drinks should come from glass bottles. Concerns over chemicals in cosmetics . Are 'plasticizing' substances causing health woes? By Francesca Lyman SPECIAL TO MSNBC Oct. 4 - Beauty is only skin deep, but a new study suggests that some common cosmetic products leave traces of "plasticizing" chemicals in our bodies that could cause an array of health woes. Such research is adding momentum to a movement calling for better monitoring of environmental toxins and any harm they could be causing to our health. <http://www.msnbc.com/news/472235.asp?0nm#BODY <http://www.msnbc.com/news/YOURENVIRONMENTH_Front.aspFrancesca Lyman's Your Environment Archive <http://www.msnbc.com/bbs/health.aspPost your views on MSNBC's Health Bulletin Board <http://ads.msn.com/ads/redirect.dll/CID=00078aa12c5d33c200000000/AREA =NBCM HE?image=http://ads.msn.com/ads/NBCMHE/00292MF0023_ML.gif <mailto:[email protected] WHEN CERTAIN chemicals in a class known as phthalates, used to soften vinyl plastic, were found to leach out of baby rattles and teethers several years ago, it touched off a controversy that led to bans and voluntary recalls in the toy industry. Regulators started reassessing the safety of these chemicals, which some investigators suspect of causing cancer and birth defects. Now, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report in the October issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives that the average American may be exposed to other chemicals in the phthalate family - substances shown to cause cancer, birth defects and adverse hormonal effects in lab animals. The researchers detected surprisingly higher levels of these plasticizers than of toxins often tested for, such as lead or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) - and much higher than the other phthalates that had been most controversial - in random urine samples taken of the American population. They concluded that it was "critically important" to get further exposure data on these chemicals, used in cosmetics, and a wide variety of other consumer products, in order to assess health risks to people, especially "potentially susceptible populations." Phthalates, chemicals that off-gas from plastic (familiarly associated with "new car smell") are used in scores of consumer products - everything from perfumes and hair sprays to artificial leather and garden hoses, hair sprays and lotions to shower curtains and vinyl flooring. With up to 4 million tons of phthalates produced and widely used throughout the world each year, industry representatives downplay any adverse effects to human health. NEW RESEARCH The new study, done by CDC's [Centre for Disease Control] National Center for Environmental Health, represents the first time researchers have measured the presence of phthalates in humans. "It's an important study," says Mike Shelby, chief of the toxicology laboratory at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), "because it shows for the first time how much of these compounds people are really being exposed to." Find the phthalates . Di-ethyl phthalate: Toothbrushes, auto parts, tools, toys, food packaging, insecticides, mosquito repellents, aspirin and volatile components of cosmetics -- perfumes, nail polishes and hair sprays. . Di-n-butyl phthalate: Cellulose plastics, solvents for dyes, solvents for cosmetics (i.e., nail polish), food wrap, perfumes, skin emollients, hair spray, insect repellents. . Benzyl butyl phthalate: Plasticizers in adhesives, PVC flooring, wood finishes, biodegradable tampon ejectors Sources: ATSDR, CDC, Industry sources The results, he says, show both that people are being exposed on a wide scale and that "those with the highest levels are getting higher doses than we thought." While the highest doses are at levels "much lower than where you'd see toxic effects in rodents," says Shelby, "it's when those two start approaching one another that you start to worry." More research is already underway on a bigger sampling of the population, with more tests needed to better determine what health effects phthalates might cause in people or developing fetuses. Yet these preliminary findings add to concerns that "background" levels of many chemicals in the environment - long thought to be in small enough concentrations to have negligible effects on human health - could play a crucial role in human development as well as in causing cancer, neurological, immune system disorders and infertility, says Jim O'Hara, director of Health Track, a new nonprofit group funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts trying to build support for better "exposure" monitoring. "What this study points to," says O'Hara, "is that there's a significant gap in our knowledge of what levels people have of toxic substances." His views echo those of the Pew Environmental Health Commission, which has charged that the nation faces an "environmental health gap." In September the commission called on Congress to mount a new program to effectively track and monitor the chronic diseases that stem from environmental pollution - everything from asthma and chronic respiratory diseases to birth defects and developmental disorders to multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's. While "overt poisoning from environmental toxins has long been recognized, the environmental links to a broad array of chronic diseases of uncertain cause is unknown," the Commission wrote. CDC chemist John Brock, the lead researcher on the phthalate study, came upon his discovery by accident. While he was looking for known carcinogens such as PCBs in blood and urine, he discovered phthalates present at levels 1,000 times higher than PCBs. Metabolites of diethyl phthalate (DEP), used in volatile components of cosmetics like perfumes, nail polishes and hairsprays, were found at levels about 70 times higher than metabolites of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), one of the chemicals banned in soft plastic toys, for example. "Phthalates are everywhere in the lab, in the vials, the tubing, and the syringes," says NIEHS's Shelby. "So we routinely shrugged them off as contaminants." But Brock was compelled by the question: What if they weren't just contaminants, but rather residues of chemical exposures in the environment from the widespread use of phthalates from a variety of routes - through food and drink, skin absorption or inhalation, for example? "Everyone was looking for the needle in the haystack, when what they should have been looking at was the hay," says Brock. He went on to prove in ongoing studies over the past few years that the "troublingly" high levels of phthalates he detected in humans weren't coming from soft plastic tubing but from chemicals used in a wide range of products, ranging from nail polishes and perfumes, hand lotions and soaps, to wood finishes. By tracing the human metabolites of these chemicals - the breakdown products in the human body - "we've been able to get really accurate numbers on how average Americans are being exposed," Brock says. STUDY DETAILS In the study, researchers measured the levels of seven phthalate metabolites in urine samples taken from 289 people. The researchers are now following up on an additional 1,000 subjects to better ascertain the sources of the phthalates. At this point, says Brock, it's certainly not clear what health effects the phthalates may have on the subjects. However, his biggest concern was that "the highest levels of exposure were in women of child-bearing age." Healthy discussion Talk about the issues <http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-health/index.asp. <http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-health/index.aspHealth Bulletin Board Reproductive biologist Earl Gray of the Environmental Protection Agency, who studied the effects of phthalates on rodents, says that there's ample cause for concern as the chemicals are reproductive toxins, with two, DBP and BzBP, particularly anti-androgenic, tending to block male hormones. "The effects on rats were quite profound, creating malformed genitalia, vaginal pouches, absent or undescended testes, and infertility," says Gray. The industry-sponsored Phthalate Esters Panel, while praising the study for its use of the latest diagnostic chemical techniques, said the phthalate levels uncovered in the CDC study are of "negligible" concern. In a letter to CDC, the Panel's toxicologist Raymond M. David suggested using a formula that could take the new urine data and extrapolate "intake" levels of the phthalates based on data from human volunteers in Britain. With this formula, he found the "intake" exposures to be "at or below levels that the EPA has determined to be safe for daily exposures." PROTECTING OUR HEALTH Others, however, took the findings as a sign that the current regulatory regime is not protecting public health. "This study reveals that exposures are real, and that we've neglected the vital work of testing our own bodies for pollutants in the environment," says J. P. Myers, one of the co-authors of the book "Our Stolen Future," which proposed that hormone-disrupting chemicals in the environment might be producing cancers and other ill effects. "For a long time we've been depending on safety limits developed by engineers and based on assumptions that are probably wrong." -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
